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.
My diet problem is that my metabolism is too low to be on a diet long enough to lose all the weight. So typically I am on a diet for 5 to 6 months, lose about 70% of what is needed and then get horribly stuck. And, then, if I eat more... I will gain FAST. Like 10 lbs in 1 week.
Basically this study had 60 men put into two groups. One did 16 weeks of dieting straight. The other did 2 weeks off and 2 weeks on for how ever long it took to get to 16 weeks of dieting. The later group lost almost double ( 31 lbs vrs 22 lbs) the weight and did not put that much back on once they stopped dieting totally. It is thought to prevent your body from reducing its TEE. The only draw back is that it does take time.
Quote:
The group that dieted continuously regained 15 pounds, which meant they were only 7 pounds lighter than when they started the diet. The group that took diet breaks only regained 9 pounds, which meant they had kept off 22 pounds of weight loss when it was all said and done.
I had already come to a conclusion like this (I have heard it called the reverse diet or the step down diet) but was doing a 13 week diet followed by 6 week eating normally. But this study (MATADOR study) discovered your body starts reducing TEE around 3 weeks into continued calorie restriction. Thus only restricting calories for two weeks. Though that was shocking and surprising to me, it kind of did make sense because I have noticed a real "calming" of hunger on any diet around 3 weeks in.
This might also work as a hybrid. If say I was able to lose 50% of what I needed to lose in a way that did not substantially reduce my TEE.. at that point I could do a normal diet because I could make the goal before my body got stuck.
Last edited by Arya Stark; 01-06-2019 at 09:30 AM..
If you're actually gaining 10 pounds in a week and it's not just water, you really need to change your relationship with food. Fat doesn't teleport itself into the body. It gets deposited by overeating. Even if you hypothetically could stop your metabolism and not die, ten pounds of fat would only be possible in a week by eating 5,000 calories a day. Of course, you cannot stop your metabolism entirely but falling off the wagon and eating even 5,000 calories a day reflects a very unhealthy relationship with food. Deprivation for 13 weeks followed by hedonism isn't a healthy relationship with food.
If you're actually gaining 10 pounds in a week and it's not just water, you really need to change your relationship with food. Fat doesn't teleport itself into the body.
Yes. some of it is water and weight of food but the studies now show that when some people are on a diet for long enough their metabolism reduces greatly. If then you go back to eating "normally" or just maintenance calories... your can gain large amounts of weight. It has never made sense that people have the discipline to lose the weight and then all routinely put it right back on. If your normal calories were 1700 per day and now your metabolism is at 900 or less your going to gain real weight - fat -- quickly. I gain about 10 lbs after a longer than 6 month diet and I absolutely eat normally or even try not to eat too much. I don't know why. And it is impossible to lose any of it.
Calories in, calories out it proving to be false. It never made any sense that people who had the discipline to lose the weight would lose it and then gain it all back.
Quote:
Super Accumulation of Fat
Talk about side effects. Eating less was worse than doing nothing.
Why?
After our metabolism is starved, its number one priority is restoring all the body fat it lost and then protecting us from starving in the future. Guess how it does that? By storing additional body fat. Researchers call this “fat super accumulation.” From researcher E.A. Young at the University of Texas: “These and other studies…strongly suggest that fat super accumulation…after energy restriction is a major factor contributing to relapsing obesity, so often observed in humans.”
The University of Geneva researchers discovered that the Eat Less Group’s metabolisms were burning body fat over 500% less efficiently and had slowed down by 15% by the end of the study. They remarked: “These investigations provide direct evidence for the existence of a specific metabolic component that contributes to an elevated efficiency of energy utilization during refeeding after low food consumption,” or once eating less stops.
Yes. some of it is water and weight of food but the studies now show that when some people are on a diet for long enough their metabolism reduces greatly. If then you go back to eating "normally" or just maintenance calories... your can gain large amounts of weight. It has never made sense that people have the discipline to lose the weight and then all routinely put it right back on. If your normal calories were 1700 per day and now your metabolism is at 900 or less your going to gain real weight - fat -- quickly. I gain about 10 lbs after a longer than 6 month diet and I absolutely eat normally or even try not to eat too much. I don't know why. And it is impossible to lose any of it.
Calories in, calories out it proving to be false. It never made any sense that people who had the discipline to lose the weight would lose it and then gain it all back.
Sure, but 1,700 to 900 doesn't happen. The study you said showed a 15% reduction in metabolism, 1,700 to to 1,445. That's certainly possible following a long diet. The other factor that does happen is with a lot of weight loss, you just need less calories. That's not because the metabolism has slowed down but just because it takes calories to support and move around the extra weight you're not carrying. The 50-year-old women at 180 might need 1,900 calories if they're moderately active. The same 50-year-old person with the same activity level would only need around 1,600 calories at 130. That's absent any change in metabolic rate. It's just because supporting the 50 pounds of fat and carrying it around during daily activities required some energy. The weight isn't there anymore so neither is that energy demand.
So if you take someone who at one point needed 1,700 calories to maintain weight, metabolism slowed down 15%, to 1,450 calories, and then they lost significant weight accounting for another reduction of 200 calories, they need to eat 1,250. If they eat 1,700 instead they'll gain weight pretty quickly, about a pound a week. But then they also got fat for a reason. It'll probably be slightly faster than that because, well, they gained the weight by overeating. When they go back to the old normal that lead them to be overweight while needing less calories because they weigh less and because of the slowed down metabolism, it makes perfect sense why they regain the weight pretty quickly. It never made sense to me why they go back to the old normal. After losing weight and I figured out roughly how much I could eat without regaining a bunch of weight and made that my new normal. I'm not entirely successful and do a bit of yo-yoing but if I went back to my old normal of eating 3,500 - 4,000 calories a day (which worked when I was much more physically active and caused me to quickly become fat when my activity level dropped), oh yeah, I'd pack those pounds on real quick.
Last edited by Malloric; 01-08-2019 at 01:57 PM..
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.
