Why not losing weight if eating much less than what

amother

Pewter

Wed, Aug 04 2021, 6:59 am

Sometimes if someone is sugar resistant they would have to cut out specific foods completely- best to go to a nutritionist who works off your recent bloodwork.
Hatzlocha

notna

Wed, Aug 04 2021, 10:31 am

Can you explain the bolded in more detail?

andrea levy wrote:

Basically what happened to me was that in the long term I have periodized my nutrition and there’s an overall downward trend. I go up, I go down, I go up I go further down. I keep my body guessing. It knows that when food comes, it comes generously.

I’ve done a huge amount of damage to myself over time metabolic wise after 45 years of eating disorder. But here I am still losing weight and feeling great after four plus years.

The only way this can be happening is what I’ve said above.

I use a scale as ONE point of information. ONE. Other metrics: how happy am I? How amazing do I feel? How great was that insane trail hike that was SO MUCH FUN? I’m planning to go waterdkiiing and zip Lining and skidooing and canoeing And kayaking next week. Not because calories. Because I feel great and it’s FUN! I’m well nourished and I have energy in spades!

THAT is sustainability.

I’ve been you before. I’ve done the math. Heck, I did optifast for three months. Ya know how long that loss lasted after I started eating again? Five minutes.

And I’m here four years later to tell you not to do yourself more damage. It’s clearly evident in the science .

You don’t have to listen to me. I kniw, I know. Im abig mouth. But I’m also DOING THIS SUCCESSFULLY and also STUDIED IT.

Take my comments or leave them but know you’re talking to someone who has tried it all and now is winning.

I’ll leave you with this. On the show ‘the biggest loser’ there’ll never be a reunion. Why? They ALL gain it back. And someone did a peer reviewed study on them and found that their metabolisms were STILL (6 years later) 25% less than was Expected for their weight and BMI. Six years later.

Take what you like and leave the rest but I cannot let this go by without explanation. It’s Way too dangerous to stay quiet.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co.....21538

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co.....20900

Chana Miriam S

Wed, Aug 04 2021, 11:10 am

notna wrote:

Periodization of nutrition is something used in athletics for the purpose of body composition around competition. They also use it for training but that’s not really applicable here.

Last fall, when I took my course, we read a LOT of research. Like a LOT. And we We’re taught to think critically about that research, look for limitations and strengths and only prescribe what we felt could be backed up by research.

One day, we started studying Periodization and I was clueless so I for to work reading the starting paper over and over again. I realized that athletes with weight categories or even athletes that had ‘walking around weights’ and ‘competition weights’ were essentially yo-yo dieting. During and Post competition, many elite athletes get sick and die young and something like 90% of them have eating disorders ( varies from sport to sport.)

One line kept jumping out at me that in female athletes, when changing body composition, could mitigate the damage done to their bodies and Performances if the caloric deficit was mild and the body composition was done over a period of time.

One athlete in particular, and this was a case study, not a randomized controlled trial) was the marathoner wife of a nutrition researcher. Every year for nine years, they recorded everything ( except the year she had a baby) and what happened over time was that her ‘non competition’ weight came down over time.

Let’s pick a number out of air. 300 calories. Those three hundred calories mean something different to everyone because everyone’s body, genetics and life experience is different for example whatever your genetics are, environment can affect them- for example, genetically I should not be any more likely to have type two diabetes but because I ate like a maniac for forty five years, I was right on the borderline at age 49.

Anyways, a hundred calories isn’t enough so let’s say 300, but understand that this is not a magic number. 300 calories is apparently enough calories to change body composition but not trigger weight loss adaptations in athletes. Obviously for people living with obesity, this is not a short term proposition so over time the mild deficit would have to continue lowering due to lower body weight and age, but here’s the thing, the caloric deficit does not have to be day by day to work. Also, the caloric deficit needs to stay relative to actual weight. So let’s say if you kept 100 calories off for a day for a year that would come out to about ten pounds a year mathematically except in real life, that would not happen. The 100 would eventually not be a deficit. It would prevent weight gain but not let a person lose ten pounds. The deficit would always have to come off the current top number. James O. Hill, a prolific researcher of the national weightloss registry posits that because of the adaptations that happen in weightloss, weightloss is not benign. Yup, not benign =harmful. He suggests it’s better to prevent weight gain and easier behaviourally and hormonally too. Not that this can’t be done but that it’s behaviourally harder to do because of the constant adjusting. This doesn’t even take into account the energy gap that happens when what your body wants to eat is different than the amount you need to eat. This is why behaviour changes is AS important as what and how much and when you eat.

Let’s look at my last week. I’ve been public about skin problems I have in intimate areas that were caused by my obesity and not resolved by weightloss. My doctor took a swab and I went on anti biotics that made me really sick this wee in an effort to get rid of the bacteria causing this.

I’ve been eating more, plus there’s the effect of the pills on my gut themselves and I’m not weighing myself like crazy but I’m pretty sure I put on a number of pounds from eating enough to keep me from being sick. I’d recently hit a lower weight and now that’s probably gone for a while, but basically it’s not a bad thing that this week I ate plenty.

Why? Well, I kept to eating the things I normally eat. I didn’t binge, I just ate enough to buffer the pills which were 4x a day but which was also more than I’d normally need to eat. So this week, my body is reassured that there’s no starvation happening and instead of slowing down, it keeps running with the expectation of plenty of energy. When I finish the pills, I’ll go back to my variance from day to fat but my body will have been reassured that there’s no famine. The pounds put on will resolve. Of that I’m confident. Abd I also know this from experience.

This is the concept behind intermittent fasting and the idea of feasting and fasting. Don’t trigger the adaptations caused by dramatic weightloss and eat a caloric deficit that allows weightloss ( and in the case of insulin resistance slows that to reverse bc low carb.)

Over time, the amount I eat is unpredictable but overall I’m losing weight. Not fast, not even steadily but I’m stable and maintaining the loss I’ve had long term. Sometimes I eat more, sometimes less but it all averages out over time. I am consistently sticking to it even with the variations in caloric intake and I’m
Very careful not to eat the things that cause me to explode into crazy eating, and continue working hard to utilize my new behaviours all the time rather than sliding back into obesegenic ones.

This concept is not widely applied to obesity in science but when I discussed with my professor, he agreed that it was a good concept and that if I ever got to my PhD, I could study it as a thesis. That might never happen but for now, this is why I think Periodization can be successful from a caloric perspective and over a long period of time. Also not starving is sustainable from a quality of life perspective.

dena613

Wed, Aug 04 2021, 11:31 am

Op, something is very odd and off with your calculations.

Get the myfitnesspal app. You input your height and weight and how many pounds you would like to lose per week. (Up to 2)
It will calculate how many calories you can eat per day, as it's very easy to input the foods you eat, which it will then deduct from your total, etc.

I cab imagine you only eat 1200 calories only on shabbos...
I doubt think mfp will let you go less than around that amount!!!

Writer you aren't calculating your foods correctly, or you are starving yourself.

amother

Thu, Aug 05 2021, 11:18 pm

dinglehopper wrote:

You need to write everything down. Use the application MyFitnessPal. 1200/day is not enough calories unless you are maybe 120lbs.

I aim for 1400/day and I consistently lose 3/4-1lb pee week. I can eat whatever I want as long as I write it down. I don't feel restricted. I mean, I can't eat an entire bag of chips but we all know that no one should.

I also exercise but that's more for my own health rather than for weight loss.

I use myfitness pal and record everything and eat much less than that and barely losing. I even gained this week.

amother

Thu, Aug 05 2021, 11:20 pm

amother [ Thistle ] wrote:

To increase metabolism you need to increase water intake, increase exercise that makes you sweat and out of breath, and finish eating earlier in the day.

I drink 1/2 oz or more of water per pound. I exercise but not till I'm out of breath and I go to sleep late so I end up eating dinner late.

amother

Thu, Aug 05 2021, 11:24 pm

amother [ Pewter ] wrote:

Sometimes if someone is sugar resistant they would have to cut out specific foods completely- best to go to a nutritionist who works off your recent bloodwork.
Hatzlocha

How does this work? wouldn't you have to eat something take the blood sugar level and then eat something different a different day to check the sugar again for every food?

amother

Thu, Aug 05 2021, 11:28 pm

dena613 wrote:

That's the app I've been using. Until now I was eating a lot less than 1200. the lowest on mfp is 1000 calories a day, many days I ate less than that. Since I gained this week, I decided to change things and eat a little more but still under 1200 calories, just to see if that would do anything, maybe metabolism got to slow from not eating enough? It doesn't make sense, but I'll see by the weigh in next week. I think my body is different than others? I'm also eating healthy so it's not like the calories are coming from chips and cake.

Chana Miriam S

Fri, Aug 06 2021, 12:46 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

How does this work? wouldn't you have to eat something take the blood sugar level and then eat something different a different day to check the sugar again for every food?

Not how blood sugar and insulin work. Very low carb keeps blood sugar low and stable. Insulin is not needed y to o the same extent.

dinglehopper

Fri, Aug 06 2021, 7:28 am

OP if you are eating less than 1200 calories/day your body probably thinks it is starving and it is conserving. You can't lose weight by eating such a small amount.