Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sure, for many dieters weight loss is temporary. That's what happens if all you did was "diet". If your weight loss didn't involve a mentality/mindset change then yeah, weight loss may not last. Truly successful dieters not only change physically, they change mentally. These are the people who keep the weight off permanently. I disagree that maintenance is harder than loss. Mention that to the person undergoing the pains of a weeks, months long weight loss plateau. both are equally hard. Weight loss AND maintenance are not a walk in the park and both can be tough. However, that doesn't mean that one needs to take a defeatist attitude.
you see, i have no plans on regaining the 70 lbs. Ever. In fact, I don't plan on regaining a fraction of that. I fought too hard of a fight and I have health issues. The health issues alone are a powerful motivator to not even entertain the thought of regaining. Not only did I lose weight but my mindset has changed. If I see my weight creeping up, I'll adjust my diet accordingly. Barring injury, I will never return to a sedentary lifestyle and if my lifestyle is not sedentary, then I'll be burning calories. It's hard to regain if I am burning what I consume. I think that's the real difference now, physical activity is very important to me..more important than its ever been. In my 40s, I need to work out more than ever..no more "free rides". So again, short of me being injured or medically prohibited, physical activity is going to be in my life and will make maintenance a bit easier. In addition, I just don't have that urge to overeat day in and day out anymore. My body physically can't stand it. For a straight week on vacation I gorged and didn't work out a lick. My digestive system was all sorts of messed up because five, six days straight of overeating was just too much for me. When I returned, I "gained" probably 13-14 lbs. (I put gained in quotes because some of the gain was obviously retained water).
Instead of being disheartened ("Oh no, I gained 14 lbs...what am I gonna do"), I returned to the gym and killed it. Returned to eating right. I've even foregone a "cheat day" and dedicated the next two weeks to eating healthy 100% of the time. The results? The vacation weight has disappeared and I'm pretty much back to my "fighting weight". My fitness level is just about where it was before I left too. I'm mentioning all of this to show you that the transformation has to come from within as well as outside and that if it does come from within, then that gremlin on your back that reminds you that studies say that you will likely regain will be thrown off.
It's important to also have realistic expectations about yourself and your loss. And to keep things positive even when faced with all of these odds. I know all too well about the cards stacked against me. Every day you're facing odds. Yet you keep on going anyway. There's no reason why you can't take that position with weight loss.
I do agree ChristineVA that maintenance is tricky for me. I have weight loss goals, and when I hit those goals, then I set new ones even though I technically no longer need to lose. For example, I could have stopped at 160 lbs. I looked great then and already down 61+ lbs. My BMI was well within the healthy range too. but instead I set another loss goal of 155. I hit that, then I set another one, 149. I really don't need to be 149. That's just how I'm wired, I like to set goals and achieve them. So, that's my personal "issue" right now, trying to get out of the "loser's" mindset and maintain. Given my activity level, it seems that I will need to increase my daily calorie intake even with the "cheat day" and frankly that scares me. It's like I'm scared I will gain weight even we're only talking 100-200 cals per day (which will be healthy foods not candy bars). I need to eat more to fuel my workouts and build muscle mass but I can't bring myself to do it. it IS hard to shift gears. We all have our private battles. Though I don't track calories any longer, I kind of innately know what I'm eating give or take. So I've loosened up some now that I am not actively losing. If i see an uptick in weight, then I'll just have to adjust.
1200 calories is FAR TOO LOW. For me, that would trigger binge eating and would be counterproductive if you exercise. you definitely would be losing muscle. that is why one needs to take a balanced approach of caloric consumption and caloric expenditure. I'd rather eat a little more and burn what I eat. dieting alone..you'll hit a brick wall at some point. if you don't hit the wall then you'll be dizzy from hunger. another good way of sparing muscle when dieting is to strength train (lift progressively heavier weight). You won't turn into a man/Arnold S. However, you will get toned and not look like skeletor.
A colleague of mine talks about how he has a weight window, if his weight climbs to where it falls outside of that window, he does what's necessary to pull it back in.
My plan is to stay sub-200 forever. But if my official weekly weigh-in reveals that I've climbed back over, it's simply a matter of lowering my consumption for a week or two to get it back in line; it won't require another body transformation event. From my own personal history I know I can maintain a weight for long periods of time. It's when major life events blow everything up that cause bad habits to return. You can't worry about diet and exercise while dealing with a major health issue, for example.
It's especially hard to take seriously anyone who refers to the 3rd law of thermodynamics, cause it shows a clear lack of understanding of how to apply the law.
Says the guy who can't even get the correct law of thermodynamics (it's the 1st and to a lesser extent the 2nd, not the 3rd) but nice try, Denny-boy.
Quote:
I would challenge anyone who boils weight loss down to calories to actually explain how the body burns fat. Can you show us at an even basic level how the body decides to store fat or to burn it? If you can't, then you have no credibility on this subject.
explains why the theory is an oversimplification of the real world. It has citations within the article to the scientific studies. If you don't want to read the whole thing the summary is "It is a drastic oversimplification that doesn’t account for the complex metabolic pathways that different foods go through, or the effects that foods have on our brain and hormones."
Of course how much you eat affects your weight. However, what you eat also affects your weight. I have always believed in the CICO theory.
That article is written so poorly it makes my head hurt. Literally the very first sentence;
Quote:
I think the notion of “calories in vs. calories out” is ridiculous.
Then later, in the same article;
Quote:
If we take in more energy (calories) than we expend, we gain weight. If we expend more energy than we take in, we lose weight. This is an unbreakable law of physics and isn’t even debatable.
That article is written so poorly it makes my head hurt. Literally the very first sentence;
Then later, in the same article;
The author should really make up their mind.
The article is poorly written but it includes citiations to studies that back up the theory that it isn't as simply as CICO. That was the point of posting the article.
My own way of thinking about it is that the calories you take in does not equal the amount of energy your body gets from a food.
The simple calories view of food does not take into account how a food is metabolized. After all your body does not burn food up, it breaks it down to its constituent parts so that your cells can use those parts. That is a completely different process and it does not follow that your body absorbs the number of calories contained in a food when it is burned in a calorimeter.
That does not mean that over eating cannot cause obesity but it does mean that the amount of food you think you are eating (in terms of energy values) may not be what is actually received in your body.
I can gain weight very quickly if I eat more carbs than I usually eat even if total calories are not that high. If I go on vacation and indulge in desserts I can gain 5 lb easily even if I don't eat all that much overall. If you figure each dessert is 500 calories and I consume 1 a day I shouldn't gain more than a pound in a week since I typically maintain my regular exercise routine when I go away (and I am usually active on vacations). Yet I come back weighing 5 lb more every time. The weight goes away easily when I return to my normal eating habits. My body really likes being at its current weight (which is 40 lb too heavy) and returns to it easily but doesn't like to go below.
I have been able to add around 300 calories per day to my daily calorie intake without gaining weight. I did this because my doctor, my trainer, and a nutritionist told me I didn't eat enough. I added some nuts and a small amount of fruit (blueberries, strawberries, and blackberries) not two slices of bread. Clearly, if it was all about calories and I was maintaining on my old amount I should be gaining when I add calories. I have not gained in 3 months of eating a bit more.
I do think that how much people eat matters with respect to weight. I also think that what people eat matters as well.
The article is poorly written but it includes citiations to studies that back up the theory that it isn't as simply as CICO. That was the point of posting the article.
My own way of thinking about it is that the calories you take in does not equal the amount of energy your body gets from a food.
The simple calories view of food does not take into account how a food is metabolized. After all your body does not burn food up, it breaks it down to its constituent parts so that your cells can use those parts. That is a completely different process and it does not follow that your body absorbs the number of calories contained in a food when it is burned in a calorimeter.
That does not mean that over eating cannot cause obesity but it does mean that the amount of food you think you are eating (in terms of energy values) may not be what is actually received in your body.
I can gain weight very quickly if I eat more carbs than I usually eat even if total calories are not that high. If I go on vacation and indulge in desserts I can gain 5 lb easily even if I don't eat all that much overall. If you figure each dessert is 500 calories and I consume 1 a day I shouldn't gain more than a pound in a week since I typically maintain my regular exercise routine when I go away (and I am usually active on vacations). Yet I come back weighing 5 lb more every time. The weight goes away easily when I return to my normal eating habits. My body really likes being at its current weight (which is 40 lb too heavy) and returns to it easily but doesn't like to go below.
I have been able to add around 300 calories per day to my daily calorie intake without gaining weight. I did this because my doctor, my trainer, and a nutritionist told me I didn't eat enough. I added some nuts and a small amount of fruit (blueberries, strawberries, and blackberries) not two slices of bread. Clearly, if it was all about calories and I was maintaining on my old amount I should be gaining when I add calories. I have not gained in 3 months of eating a bit more.
I do think that how much people eat matters with respect to weight. I also think that what people eat matters as well.
You would have to consume way more than a few extra desserts or portions to literally add five pounds of fat in a week. I do believe that your body weight could shift by five pounds, particularly if you're indulging in eating/drinking more and exercising less for 5-7 days, but most of that is waste/water and is easily discharged from the body.
And the types of calories we consume ultimately does impact the way our body makes use of it. I have always believed that complex carbs and processed foods cause more damage than naturally produced food; I don't know that our bodies have evolved enough to develop a digestive plan for Twinkies.
But I will still defend the position that weight loss/management remains a straight-out numbers game; consume fewer calories than you burn and you won't gain weight. Create a consistent calorie deficit and you'll lose weight. It isn't much more complicated than that.
You would have to consume way more than a few extra desserts or portions to literally add five pounds of fat in a week. I do believe that your body weight could shift by five pounds, particularly if you're indulging in eating/drinking more and exercising less for 5-7 days, but most of that is waste/water and is easily discharged from the body.
Only if you believe the simplistic CICO theory. If you recognize that sugar and flour affect the body differently than meat, eggs and vegetables you recognize that it is quite possible to put on 5 lb in a week from eating dessert each night. I usually maintain my exercise schedule when I go away so the difference in weight is only food. Some of the weight is water, but doesn't that make you think that consuming sugar and flour affects the body in ways that go beyond simply calories? If I eat a bit more steak or a bit more chicken I don't gain water weight. But add some bread or sugar and my rings are super tight. There is more to body weight than simply calories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYC2RDU
But I will still defend the position that weight loss/management remains a straight-out numbers game; consume fewer calories than you burn and you won't gain weight. Create a consistent calorie deficit and you'll lose weight. It isn't much more complicated than that.
What makes you think that the amount of heat created when a food burns is directly equal to the amount of energy your body absorbs from that food?
Undoubtedly consuming too much food can cause weight gain. However, I do not think it is a straight numbers game based on the calorie count listed on foods. I guarantee you that 1500 calories a day of sugar (and nothing else) will cause me to gain weight while 1500 calories of protein/fat will not. That is a matter of biochemistry, not physics.
You talk of sub 200 as a healthy weight for you so I assume you are a man. My current weight in the low 180s is much too high for me. No matter how little I eat (I exercise 4-5 days a week) My weight stays around the same. If I go on vacation it goes up a bit and right back down when I return to eating my normal, low-carb diet. I have added around 300 calories per day without gain. or loss (at the request of medical professionals).
If it is all a numbers game how do you explain my experience? Clearly, something else is happening. I do not take any medications that would affect my metabolism. I am not diabetic. I do not have high blood pressure. My thyroid is fine. I'm just fat. If it was simply a numbers game I would have reached my goal of 150 lbs years ago.
Only if you believe the simplistic CICO theory. If you recognize that sugar and flour affect the body differently than meat, eggs and vegetables you recognize that it is quite possible to put on 5 lb in a week from eating dessert each night. I usually maintain my exercise schedule when I go away so the difference in weight is only food. Some of the weight is water, but doesn't that make you think that consuming sugar and flour affects the body in ways that go beyond simply calories? If I eat a bit more steak or a bit more chicken I don't gain water weight. But add some bread or sugar and my rings are super tight. There is more to body weight than simply calories.
What makes you think that the amount of heat created when a food burns is directly equal to the amount of energy your body absorbs from that food?
Undoubtedly consuming too much food can cause weight gain. However, I do not think it is a straight numbers game based on the calorie count listed on foods. I guarantee you that 1500 calories a day of sugar (and nothing else) will cause me to gain weight while 1500 calories of protein/fat will not. That is a matter of biochemistry, not physics.
You talk of sub 200 as a healthy weight for you so I assume you are a man. My current weight in the low 180s is much too high for me. No matter how little I eat (I exercise 4-5 days a week) My weight stays around the same. If I go on vacation it goes up a bit and right back down when I return to eating my normal, low-carb diet. I have added around 300 calories per day without gain. or loss (at the request of medical professionals).
If it is all a numbers game how do you explain my experience? Clearly, something else is happening. I do not take any medications that would affect my metabolism. I am not diabetic. I do not have high blood pressure. My thyroid is fine. I'm just fat. If it was simply a numbers game I would have reached my goal of 150 lbs years ago.
YMMV, and I feel your pain. You've hit a plateau. However, I eat carbs, including sugar and I don't gain weight. In fact, I've lost weight. I eat moderate amounts. High amounts of anything isn't a good thing, carbs included. It's no secret that excessive consumption can cause water retention. But I truly doubt that you gained 5 lbs of fat in a week from a daily piece of pie. I gained a bit of weight during this last vacation and it's largely gone because I returned to eating in moderation. My body excreted the water and all of the excess crap.
I'm curious. How many calories did you consume while you were actively losing? If it is in the 1500-1800 range, then yes, you lost weight due to CICO. It just so happens that low carb worked for you but ultimately people who don't do low carb can also lose weight eating 1500-1800 calories, depending on height and starting weight. I lost weight because of a caloric deficit. Between the exercise and the lowering of food intake, my body was forced to burn its stores, causing weight loss. I hit a plateau at the 40 lbs mark and ultimately what made me get over that hump was a bump in physical activity (not really intentional, I was helping my mom move).
you would have to consume way more than a few extra desserts or portions to literally add five pounds of fat in a week. I do believe that your body weight could shift by five pounds, particularly if you're indulging in eating/drinking more and exercising less for 5-7 days, but most of that is waste/water and is easily discharged from the body.
And the types of calories we consume ultimately does impact the way our body makes use of it. I have always believed that complex carbs and processed foods cause more damage than naturally produced food; i don't know that our bodies have evolved enough to develop a digestive plan for twinkies.
But i will still defend the position that weight loss/management remains a straight-out numbers game; consume fewer calories than you burn and you won't gain weight. Create a consistent calorie deficit and you'll lose weight. It isn't much more complicated than that.
Only if you believe the simplistic CICO theory. If you recognize that sugar and flour affect the body differently than meat, eggs and vegetables you recognize that it is quite possible to put on 5 lb in a week from eating dessert each night. I usually maintain my exercise schedule when I go away so the difference in weight is only food. Some of the weight is water, but doesn't that make you think that consuming sugar and flour affects the body in ways that go beyond simply calories? If I eat a bit more steak or a bit more chicken I don't gain water weight. But add some bread or sugar and my rings are super tight. There is more to body weight than simply calories.
What makes you think that the amount of heat created when a food burns is directly equal to the amount of energy your body absorbs from that food?
Undoubtedly consuming too much food can cause weight gain. However, I do not think it is a straight numbers game based on the calorie count listed on foods. I guarantee you that 1500 calories a day of sugar (and nothing else) will cause me to gain weight while 1500 calories of protein/fat will not. That is a matter of biochemistry, not physics.
You talk of sub 200 as a healthy weight for you so I assume you are a man. My current weight in the low 180s is much too high for me. No matter how little I eat (I exercise 4-5 days a week) My weight stays around the same. If I go on vacation it goes up a bit and right back down when I return to eating my normal, low-carb diet. I have added around 300 calories per day without gain. or loss (at the request of medical professionals).
If it is all a numbers game how do you explain my experience? Clearly, something else is happening. I do not take any medications that would affect my metabolism. I am not diabetic. I do not have high blood pressure. My thyroid is fine. I'm just fat. If it was simply a numbers game I would have reached my goal of 150 lbs years ago.
I am aware that there are outliers in every situation in life, including nutrition and weight loss. You might be just such a person.
However, you sound like my wife who has insisted that calorie counting would/could never work for her. She's on too many prescription meds which mess with her metabolism, bread is the only category of food that settles her stomach, dieting doesn't work for her. Until it did.
With my gentle encouragement, she modified her diet moderately to eliminate enough calories so that her body didn't have enough to sustain the extra weight she had put on. She's probably near break-even calorie-wise, but her body adjusted by dropping what's now close to ten pounds. She still eats bread when she needs to, she still enjoys her daily Starbucks drink and actually has a Klondike bar after dinner. But overall, she's eliminated about 400-500 calories per day and is routinely sub-2,000. Her excuses didn't hold up under simple scrutiny.
Oh, and one more thought for your consideration. Since reaching my weight loss goal in June I decided to start indulging a bit more. I remain committed to a 1,800 -2,000 per day calorie budget but am no longer militant about adhering to it. One of my favorite treats are jelly beans and so now I will often consume up to a third of my calories via that horribly sugary delight; I lost another seven pounds since. So at least for me, consuming more calories via pure sugar versus protein didn't have much of an impact provided I stayed on/under budget. Perhaps I'm an outlier as well and am one of the very few who can use straight calorie counting effectively, but I doubt that.
And again, I realize it's obnoxious to restate it, but you didn't actually gain five permanent pounds in a single week, you just think you did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
