burning fat

Macy0161

The evidence is there that most people can only maintain a 10% weight loss, which is why I continue to track tbh. I know they are researching this, so I hope they are researching the methods used to lose weight as well as, and as part of, the reason it goes back on. I think it is to do with the whole approach and following a diet, which is then stopped.

I'd consider Operation Transformation/ Biggest Loser diets and approach as unsustainable. Too big a lifestyle change, too extreme a diet, too quick weight loss. I would be less convinced that would stand up as much to a more gradual approach i.e. a gradual change of lifestyle and a gradual change of diet (rather than following "a" diet).

plodder

JMcL wrote: »

magicbastarder linked to a study of exactly that here a few weeks ago (see post #138). TLDR; Contestants on Americas equivalent of Operation Transformation regained some/all of the weight lost in the following years despite eating at/below the calorie level required to maintain weigh. Their metabolisms were found to have slowed dramatically as their bodies thought they'd gone into a period of starvation (which relatively speaking, they had)

In my own case a few years back I was diagnosed with underactive thyroid. One of the symptoms is weight gain due to the metabolism not firing as a result of low levels of the thyroid horomones. At the time I was pushing 110kg and couldn't shift it despite diet and ramping up in excercise (I'd been back seriously on the bike about 2 years at this stage). Having diagnosed and treated it I shed about 20kg in the next year or so keeping all else more or less equal (I was curious to see what the effect would be and was eating an ok diet at the time anyway so made no change there).

Can't say I'm impressed with that Monbiot article. It really muddies the waters imo. It's fine to say we shouldn't be "fat shaming" but he seems to be selectively picking out data which casts doubt on the basic energy in energy out equation.

Monbiot wrote:

It’s not that we’re eating more, that we exercise less, or that we lack willpower.

Kind of misleading. We are eating more calories. As he admits himself, we drink less milk, and eat more (sugar laden) yoghurts. He says children are exercising as much as they did in the past. But, it's the middle-aged who are probably exercising less than they used to.

Can't comment on medical conditions like underactive thyroid. Most people who are over weight just eat too much sugar and carbohydrates, and don't exercise enough imho.

ford2600

The reason @dooziere or me can eat 1000 calories a day extra and not gain mass is easily explained by lot and lots of studies.


Overfeeding studies where all participants are over fed by the same amount, say 1000cals a day, don't gain the same amount of weight. Lean people like @dooziere will resist weight gain, typically by an increase in NEAT. This is primarily subconscious, fidgeting, walking around, standing more. It doesn't seem much but NEAT is important because unlike exercise, it takes up a huge amount of day; 24hrs - sleep -exercise. Even 50 cals an hour extra is going to add 700 cals extra expenditure.


People who struggle with weight, will gain weight easy on such studies as their NEAT doesn't go up by much at all.


Also when studies end, the little weight lean person has gained he/she loses quickly without conscious dieting while the heavy person will of course be heavier and struggle to lose it.

Humans and most animals share the same biochemistry for regulating body fat(i.e. it is really old), an overweight person will defend 25% bf in the same way I'll defend 12% bf. You can count all the calories you want, but most of the decisions that matter over a 24hr day are subconscious.


I find this concept easy to understand, maybe it because I grew up on a dairy and beef farm. Holstein Friesians have been selectively bred to be really efficient at producing milk and as such a huge amount of the grass they eat is converted to milk. This makes them also poor at gaining mass, which makes the males a really poor choice for a beef animal. Put 20 Friesian bullocks and 20 continental cattle in same field with same unlimited grass supply and see what you have in 12 months. There's a reason friesians bull calves are killed at birth in New Zeeland

plodder

I can accept the basic science behind NEAT. After all, for a moderate exerciser like me, who runs or cycles most days, the majority of consumed calories are still expended in NEAT. And when I used to run a bit more, it was only at levels above 40 miles per week, where I found it quite easy to lose weight, without being particularly careful with diet.

I can also accept that the calculus is different for different people. But, I still find it hard to accept across a broad population, that people can increase or decrease their daily calorie input by say 1000kcal and not see some change in weight, assuming exercise levels stay the same; which btw isn't the same as saying that it's impossible for an individual who appears to have a 1000kcal surfeit to not put on weight.

Very few people go to the trouble of actually counting the calories (in and out) in absolute terms. What they attempt to do, and should be encouraged at, is reducing calorie intake, increasing energy output, and that should result in weight loss for as long as it's sustained. The NEAT thing is interesting, as there are obviously things you can do to increase that, like standing more during the day. But some of the things you hear from people "Oh, I'm middle aged now, I just have a slower metabolism" or "no point in exercising more, as it just increases your appetite" are quite misleading and just excuses really imo.

silverharp

I find the unconscious burning of calories interesting though I never tracked it against what I was eating, so I can certainly remember being cold and having cold hands and feet at work and other times noticing that I had been tapping my feet under the desk for the previous hour so clearly in the second case more heat was being generated "calories out". There are so many factors, the first obvious one is hormonal, in particular Insulin and cortisol and other hormonal/glandular issues like Thyroid mentioned above. Also the type of food , sugary food increases Insulin whereas a carb free food like meat doesn't, plus a food like meat takes more energy to break up than if you had the equivalent calories from a sugary processed food.
The healthier and younger a person is, the better a simple "eat less move more" model will work but for a subset of people the rinse and repeat of eat even less and move even more wont work or be sustainable, they need different advice.

doozerie

Paul_Mc1988 wrote: »

One question of of curiosity! Why spend so much time counting weighing etc? If not trying to lose weight

I use it as a means of tracking my carb intake, I mostly ignore the calorie figures. Also, 'cos I'm a nerd so figures/data are like crack for me!

doozerie

Macy0161 wrote: »

But again, I'd point out you're using the target that myfitnesspal is giving you. How accurate is that? All of the calculations of daily calorie requirements are just estimates. To do it accurately is a labatory job. We know their estimates on exercise are way out (my experience has been they've got further out the fitter I've become).

I agree that some people are probably very inaccurate in what they record, and it's certainly not easy to get it "right" even if you are determined. But I think that's just one area where accuracy in this area is questionable.

Most of us focus a lot on what we put into our mouths, but not so much on what happens to it afterwards. If I put 2,500 calories down my throat how much of that is actually absorbed by my system and how much of it is expelled? I've no idea for me (though I'm sure less unabsorbed stuff is expelled since I've been on a low carb diet), so it could be a tiny proportion or it could be a significant portion.

That's just one relatively simple variable in an area of many not so simple variables. Being the human that I am I'm as big a fan of simple equations/solutions as anyone else, but for me the "carbs in > carbs expelled = weight gain" equation is a simplification too far.

At the end of the day, we all choose our own approach to anything, and diet is no different. I fixate on macro figures, others fixate on calorie figures, to anyone that fixates on neither we are all wrong.

silverharp

doozerie wrote: »

I use it as a means of tracking my carb intake, I mostly ignore the calorie figures. Also, 'cos I'm a nerd so figures/data are like crack for me!

ive started to become a bit of a data nut but im more interested in outputs. Ive taken to measuring blood glucose and I am using it to tweek my diet. Ive seen my fasting number drop from a high normal of 5.9 down to 5.4 (normal) which essentially revolved around dropping carb intake

If the price came down I’d love to get one of continuous glucose monitors but they cost a fortune at the moment

CramCycle

silverharp wrote: »

ive started to become a bit of a data nut but im more interested in outputs. Ive taken to measuring blood glucose and I am using it to tweek my diet. Ive seen my fasting number drop from a high normal of 5.9 down to 5.4 (normal) which essentially revolved around dropping carb intake

If the price came down I’d love to get one of continuous glucose monitors but they cost a fortune at the moment

I have some bad news for you there, most glucose monitors are pretty inaccurate across a narrow range like that. 5.9mmol/L vvs 5.4mmol/L with most machines is pretty much the same. Try testing your BG levels with both hands at the same time, typically you will see what I mean.

Macy0161

doozerie wrote: »

That's just one relatively simple variable in an area of many not so simple variables. Being the human that I am I'm as big a fan of simple equations/solutions as anyone else, but for me the "carbs in > carbs expelled = weight gain" equation is a simplification too far.

Calories in > Calories out = weight gain is what I would say, and what science supports. I'm sure it can become more nuanced than that, but as a basis for most people, particularly obese people, I'd still stand over it being that simple.

A bit like the BMI discussion, I would suggest the majority of those that are overweight and use this view point as a reasoning as to why they aren't losing on a sustainable calorie controlled diet are over and under estimating various inputs and outputs rather than having a slow metabolism, or the diet causing that slow down. To be blunt, I know they do, because for the majority of my life I relied on bs excuses as to why I couldn't lose weight, so I know all the things I used to say to make myself feel better about being fat!

silverharp

CramCycle wrote: »

I have some bad news for you there, most glucose monitors are pretty inaccurate across a narrow range like that. 5.9mmol/L vvs 5.4mmol/L with most machines is pretty much the same. Try testing your BG levels with both hands at the same time, typically you will see what I mean.

I must try that, in fairness I seemed to get fairly consistent readings and the readings reacted to diet changes. Also a few times I tested fasted before and after say a 2 hour walk and I got a good directional response.

dahat

I've been tracking calories as a means to lose some weight for 8 days now via MFP. My daily target was 2100 with a little extra on exercise days especially after a Sundayspin as it's normally a 2k plus kcal burn.

The 2100 target has been tricky on some days as some choices I made were poor eg 2 x sausages, 400kcal approx, shocking stuff. Prior to tracking through MFP I had ruled out takeaways off all sorts till Xmas hols. This may sou d extreme but I've alot of bulk to move.

I feel a difference but hesitant to subject myself to scales just yet, maybe once monthly would be enough?

Paul_Mc1988

dahat wrote:

I feel a difference but hesitant to subject myself to scales just yet, maybe once monthly would be enough?

Once monthly would definatly not work as you wont be able to track it accurately. If you have a good 2 weeks and a bad 2 weeks when you jump on the scales it might de-motivate you if the loss is little. Say you do by the week like as follows

Week one you lose 3 pounds
Week two you lose 4 pounds
Week three is a bad week and you gain due to a family meal/ occasion.

You know now that you lost track and you have to get back on track. So you push hard for a good number on week 4.

I do 6 days of clean eating and Sunday is a cheat day. Make sure to weigh in the morning post morning toilet business and in the buff for the most accurate result, sounds wierd but it adds up

dahat

It's makes sense when you read your post about too long between weigh ins. Off to Boots I go sat for a boost hopefully. The scales in the house tends to give different readings depending on position on the tiles so I've been using Boots on a saturday morning when I do weigh in.

As regards weighing food I've tried to be as honest as I can without weighing food so hopefully my figures are reasonably ok. I'm hesitant to start weighing grub due to the fact I have an 11 Yr old daughter for various reasons.

Paul_Mc1988

dahat wrote:

It's makes sense when you read your post about too long between weigh ins. Off to Boots I go sat for a boost hopefully. The scales in the house tends to give different readings depending on position on the tiles so I've been using Boots on a saturday morning when I do weigh in.

I've one of them dial scales in the house and it keeps moving so its hard to get an accurate reading so i use a digital one in the job.

dahat wrote:

As regards weighing food I've tried to be as honest as I can without weighing food so hopefully my figures are reasonably ok. I'm hesitant to start weighing grub due to the fact I have an 11 Yr old daughter for various reasons.

Kids are quick to pick up on anything adults do so not weighting food in front of them is a great idea. Little and often is great. Five little meals keeps the hunger off and filling the plate with veg keeps you full with very little calories. Most greens are about 400 grams = 100 cals. Also having a bottle of water on hand is good too for the hunger.

Macy0161

Paul_Mc1988 wrote:

Kids are quick to pick up on anything adults do so not weighting food in front of them is a great idea.

I do weigh in front of my girls. But my message is clear, "everything in moderation". They see me eat all food groups, eat sweets and cakes, crisps and beer.

We often discuss food and nutrition which I'm not sure we would if I wasn't tracking to be honest. I guess we'll see if it has any negative impact.

CramCycle

Sub 82kg now and I am not dieting at all anymore.

Meals are smaller and I am definitely fuller with less. I don't eat breakfast anyway, different lunches/snacks during the day, but typically 600 cal between 0900 and 1800hours. After this, various dinners, but typically low carb with the odd exception (this weekend i went bananas at a wedding although still ate far less than I would have had a year ago). Probably, about 600 to 800 calories, and on occasion something small before bed but no more than 300 cal. I have noticed that if I stay up past a certain time, cravings kick in, so I am actually sleeping better as I am going to bed at what I consider a normal time.

The one thing I noticed at the weekend, at the dinner and the little bits they send round, i wasn't stuffing my face. I only took a spoon of each veg plate at the mins dinner. I stayed awake till the death and danced like a monkey who was popping uppers. I got up the next morning and felt good and still had energy. A year ago I would have been falling asleep after midnight, and cranky the next day. This year, I felt good and ready for action all over again.