daybehavior Member

Second go round. Lost a 100, gained most back within 3 years. Looking for active friends to help make this the final round.

LOL @ buffet bear... I couldn't turn into a bear to save my life but I sure as hell aint giving up my buffets. (Just gotta make em fit into my day!) Yeah its sad that there's so many factions in an already marginalized community. I too learned long ago you cant force people to like who you are so its just best to focus on…

First of all, you're misconceiving the misconception. Muscle is more dense than fat (a misconception of muscle weighing more than fat), which is true so I don't see how that is a "crap answer" Second, you're seeing yourself more "ripped" because your you lost fat and your muscles became more visible. You didn't GAIN more…

But how....I wonder??? o:)

^well said. There are tons of other non-fitness related groups on this site. Not sure what the problem is here.

nicely done

How did you determine you lost 30 pounds of muscle? That seems extremely exorbitant.

Ha! Funny because a lot of WLS proponents like point out that they still have to learn to eat correctly and the surgery is just a tool, etc. Didn't know the relapse rate was so dismal. yikes. Yeah I'd think it'd be painful too but apparently its not enough to discourage people from relapse.

This is something I've been curious about. If they are physically unable to overeat because of the surgery, how do they regain? I mean obviously they start consuming more calories than they expend, but shouldn't there still be a stopgap because of the surgery? Does the "stop you're full" sensation go away?

best backfire I've seen in a while.

Still waiting to hear the explanation on this... Do you even sentence? A calorie is a calorie just as a gallon is a gallon. The dead horse you're attempting to beat is: a macro is not a macro.

As established by the preceding 30 of so posts, which you obviously didn't read, this is BS. Your metabolism doesn't even begin to slow down until after 72 hours of fasting even then it doesn't slow down to a significant degree. True starvation mode doesn't occur until you're left with somewhere around <5% bodyfat. It is…

well you should be losing but since your diary isn't open we can't give you any more specific feedback. Are you tracking your calories daily, accurately, measuring/weighing correctly, etc?

what have your calories been like? I agree you might need to reevaluate your calorie goals.

Can we make it a triple? Let me try to explain in simple terms, since you don't seem to understand the point herrspoons is making: Just because one study in and of itself doesn't definitively prove anything doesn't mean it should be automatically discounted (*This* is throwing the baby out with the bathwater)*, especially…

LMAO. Best part of this thread....

This. You might want to consider moving up your meal times. Meal timing has no effect on weight loss. Personally I prefer to eat later in the day for the very reason you mention. Eating earlier does nothing to stave my appetite later in the day. I'd rather backload the calories for later.

I love how someone can now drop the F-bomb without being censored in these new forums yet I can't say Dick's Sporting Goods. Oh wait I can :/

It's also been established that except under extreme circumstances, TEF is negligible. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/metabolic-rate-overview/ Example:

Yet you don't understand basic high school thermodynamics or experiment design.

And this is what we call "selective listening"

It doesn't really matter how fast / slow you lose, moisturizing, how much water you drink, etc. It's mainly genetics and luck. Your age will help to an extent. However, as mentioned above, retaining muscles /building helps a lot because it fills in the empty space where your loose skin would have been. I've lost over 100…

(>‿◠)✌ In spite of WalkingAlong's point, I will post the study I mentioned and hopefully someone more...open-minded will gain new perspective. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780395/ TL;DR "There were three key findings with regards to weight outcomes. First, women who lost weight at a FAST rate during the…

Well too bad because it actually happened in the study. I would link it but im not at my PC right now. In the meanwhile feel free to show me something done under a clinical setting that suggests the opposite.

This is just an urban legend/old wives tale/broscience. Research shows it really doesn't matter. In fact there was a clinical study done where people who lost weight at a faster pace not only lost more but kept it off longer and were not more likely to regain weight than those who lost it slowly. If you have any clinical…

Reminds me of... Just wow

*crickets chirp* :disappointed:

It seems you are synthesizing those sources to imply a conclusion that is not clearly stated by the sources themselves. Most of them simply are stating eat "more protein rather" than "eat less carbs lose more weight".

.