Losing weight

[Annoying Twit]

You've been eating too much. Sounds blunt but that's the physics of the situation.

Oh and good luck btw. I've lost 11kg this year with 11kg to go to my goal.

Except it isn't Physics it's Biology and it's a lot more complicated than calories in and calories out

2000 calories in one sitting is different than 2000 calories in 10 sittings

2000 calories of sugar is different than 2000 calories of protein, complex carbs, alcohol or fat

2000 calories to an adolescent teen is different to 2000 calories to a 50 year old man

2000 calories to a muscular body builder is different to 2000 calories to someone who is overweight

Stress, sleep, hormones, heat, cold, age, health, gender all play a part

And all these things and more interact with one another to make a very complicated picture

The picture is complicated, but the solution is reasonably simple. Estimate an initial target of how much to eat. If you find you don't lose weight or don't lose enough, then eat less. If you lose too much weight too fast, eat more. After a bit of trial and error, it's possible to find a calorie intake that results in reasonable weight loss. Other problems such as your calorie requirements getting less as you get lighter will be handled by continuing regular weighings and trial and error.

[Vorpal]

The picture is complicated, but the solution is reasonably simple. Estimate an initial target of how much to eat. If you find you don't lose weight or don't lose enough, then eat less. If you lose too much weight too fast, eat more. After a bit of trial and error, it's possible to find a calorie intake that results in reasonable weight loss. Other problems such as your calorie requirements getting less as you get lighter will be handled by continuing regular weighings and trial and error.

But this doesn't work for everyone. Really. For one thing, everyone is unique, and for another thing people's metabolisms vary, and various medications and medical conditions can affect this, as well.

I have a friend in the USA who was literally starving herself (i.e. not eating enough to stay healthy) without losing any body fat.

Also read what I linked above. Our bodies compensate for dieting. Our metabolisms slow in response to reduced food intake. This response can take a while, which is one reason why the first few weeks of dieting are often successful, but people usually regain what they lose.

Don't eat less than about 1200 calories per day (1500 if exercising more than 1 hour per day) without medical consultation.

[53x13]

If you're finding it difficult on your own, a 'weight loss buddy' is excellent for motivation.

Also Slimming World gets very positive results and it's quite cheap compared to the other brands of weight loss 'clubs'.

[meic]

The picture is complicated, but the solution is reasonably simple. Estimate an initial target of how much to eat. If you find you don't lose weight or don't lose enough, then eat less. If you lose too much weight too fast, eat more. After a bit of trial and error, it's possible to find a calorie intake that results in reasonable weight loss. Other problems such as your calorie requirements getting less as you get lighter will be handled by continuing regular weighings and trial and error.

But this doesn't work for everyone. Really. For one thing, everyone is unique, and for another thing people's metabolisms vary, and various medications and medical conditions can affect this, as well.

I have a friend in the USA who was literally starving herself (i.e. not eating enough to stay healthy) without losing any body fat.

Also read what I linked above. Our bodies compensate for dieting. Our metabolisms slow in response to reduced food intake. This response can take a while, which is one reason why the first few weeks of dieting are often successful, but people usually regain what they lose.

Don't eat less than about 1200 calories per day (1500 if exercising more than 1 hour per day) without medical consultation.

The method that he suggests is based around the fact that we are unique and is designed to factor in our different metabolisms. As for people who's body would bring about its own demise, rather than raid its "piggy bank" of body fat, what fraction of the population would that be? 1 in 1,000, 1 in a million?

[Vorpal]

The method that he suggests is based around the fact that we are unique and is designed to factor in our different metabolisms. As for people who's body would bring about its own demise, rather than raid its "piggy bank" of body fat, what fraction of the population would that be? 1 in 1,000, 1 in a million?

I don't know. I'm sure that it doesn't apply to very many people. And I'm certain that the recommended method will work for most people.

I mainly intended to qualifiy it with

Don't eat less than about 1200 calories per day (1500 if exercising more than 1 hour per day) without medical consultation.

[Lucyhan]

You've been eating too much. Sounds blunt but that's the physics of the situation.

Oh and good luck btw. I've lost 11kg this year with 11kg to go to my goal.

Thanks that was good advice, I think sometimes we kid ourselves that we have been eating less than we have been. I had put on a few pounds over the last couple of weeks, but now I recall that I have been eating a bit more than usual.

[Annoying Twit]

The picture is complicated, but the solution is reasonably simple. Estimate an initial target of how much to eat. If you find you don't lose weight or don't lose enough, then eat less. If you lose too much weight too fast, eat more. After a bit of trial and error, it's possible to find a calorie intake that results in reasonable weight loss. Other problems such as your calorie requirements getting less as you get lighter will be handled by continuing regular weighings and trial and error.

But this doesn't work for everyone. Really. For one thing, everyone is unique, and for another thing people's metabolisms vary, and various medications and medical conditions can affect this, as well.

I have a friend in the USA who was literally starving herself (i.e. not eating enough to stay healthy) without losing any body fat.

Also read what I linked above. Our bodies compensate for dieting. Our metabolisms slow in response to reduced food intake. This response can take a while, which is one reason why the first few weeks of dieting are often successful, but people usually regain what they lose.

Don't eat less than about 1200 calories per day (1500 if exercising more than 1 hour per day) without medical consultation.

Calorie control doesn't work for everyone, but your reasons for why it doesn't work are wrong.

When you say that our bodies compensate for dieting, the effect is very small to the point where it is argued whether or not adaptive thermogenesis (lower basal metabolic rates) exists or not. See e.g. this paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 011.7/full

An important quote from that paper:

4. Misleading expectations about the importance of “adaptive thermogenesis”

Adaptive thermogenesis describes changes in resting energy expenditure which serve, or have the effect of diminishing weight gains or weight losses during periods of overconsumption or starvation, relative to the weight changes which would be expected if changes in resting energy expenditure were solely due to changes in body size and in the thermic effect of food (8). This phenomenon has thus been considered to reflect a kind of “metabolic adaptation.” While adaptive thermogenesis has been found to be substantial in some animal models, they are modest in humans, to the point that it has been difficult to establish them unambiguously. The fact that differences in resting energy expenditure have no statistically recognizable impact on adiposity (see Figure 1) argues strongly against the view that differences in adaptive thermogenesis, which occur only occasionally, play a significant role in preventing or promoting the preponderance of obesity.

Note, importantly, '... solely due to changes in body size and in the thermic effect of food.' As people get smaller, their energy intake decreases as smaller people need less energy. This is sometimes confused for the basal metabolic rate changing due to some change in body chemistry or something. It's also one of the reasons why weight loss needs to be tracked and calorie limits modified.

Many people report eating very few calories, but being unable to lose weight. Unfortunately it appears that this is due to their reported low calorie diets being misreported. See, e.g. this paper specifically for obese subjects: http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJM199212313272701 More recent research that references that 1992 paper confirms under-reporting, e.g.: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v68/ ... 3242a.html

The 'problem' with calorie counting isn't that it can't work. It can easily work, and a bit of trial and error solves the problem of estimating the correct calorie intake for any one person. The problem is that many people can't limit their calories, and this is a separate problem. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3.223/full This paper discusses the difficulties of weight loss and maintenance from that point of view. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 3.223/full Clearly if someone can't stick to a calorie limit, then calorie counting will be useless for them, and they should look at other methods such as bariatric surgery. http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/weight-los ... ction.aspx

However, for those people who are able to limit calorie intake, such as myself when I was dieting, calorie counting can work very well. Over about six months I lost my target 1lb a week regular as clockwork. In hindsight I realise this was for two reasons. Some trial and error for my calorie intake, 2000kcal/day to 1800kcal a day to 1700kcal a day, then back up to 1800kcal a day. But mostly because I did actually count every calorie and on the vast majority of days stopped when I got there. According to some people, this makes me some sort of freak of nature, but it didn't seem at all unreasonable to me when I was doing it.

BTW: Weight maintenance is a different topic. This post only refers to weight loss/dieting. Dieting without long term maintenance plans is useless (or worse than), but I don't want to go off topic here.

[Vorpal]

I'm not arguing that the approach is wrong. I never have. Only that it may not be right for everyone. I accept that this approach will work for many people, maybe even most people (I've said this a couple of times), but we are individuals, and it may not be suitable for everyone. I also wanted to caution anyone reading this thread against cutting too many calories out without medical supervision.

[Annoying Twit]

I'm not arguing that the approach is wrong. I never have. Only that it may not be right for everyone. I accept that this approach will work for many people, maybe even most people (I've said this a couple of times), but we are individuals, and it may not be suitable for everyone. I also wanted to caution anyone reading this thread against cutting too many calories out without medical supervision.

I was mainly addressing the parts of your post that I believe are wrong. E.g. claims that there can be a significant reduction of metabolic rate upon dieting. A lot of these differences are exaggerated far beyond what science supports. Calorie counting doesn't work for everyone, but as in the references I gave, that's due to people not counting calories and/or not sticking to a limit. The basic thermodynamics of energy in needing to be a bit less (e.g. 500kcal/day) than energy out is pretty universal. And any small variations in either intake or outgoings can be ironed out by a bit of trial and error.

It's not just a matter of whether it works for everyone or not, it's a matter of why. Calorie counting not working is primarily down to psychology, not biochemistry. This isn't to say that people who can't apply it are to be blamed. As some of the references I listed above show, in our modern world with super-availability of extremely tempting foods, it is hard for humans to restrain themselves.

If calorie counting (including minor variations such as trial and error to set the target calorie consumption level) is inaccurately described (or rejected out of hand) this could lead to people who may be able to make it work extremely well not even trying it.

[Vorpal]

The link I included suggested that some people (there were only a few people in the study, but it was long term) can experience significant reductions in metabolic rate.

I haven't read the actual study. Only what the media have published about it.

[Mark1978]

Lost two stone in the last four months so I'm going to try to maintain for a month or two. May be unrelated but my backside feels sore! Maybe I've lost fat or muscle from there so sitting in my car seat is rather uncomfortable.

[Annoying Twit]

The link I included suggested that some people (there were only a few people in the study, but it was long term) can experience significant reductions in metabolic rate.

I haven't read the actual study. Only what the media have published about it.

I've read the study. It's here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 21538/full

It does suggest that there are metabolic adaptations, but there were only 14 people in the study. However, more importantly I believe, they use their own method to predict the RMR that the subjects should have later on. They don't give a good argument for why this prediction method is accurate, and this prediction method was only developed using the 16 contestants at the beginning of their weight loss. Without a reliable estimate of what their RMR should be, there is no actual evidence of metabolic adaptation.

Other research typically suggests that there is no or very little metabolic adaptation. Hence, given that this paper uses a self-defined linear regression fitted to 16 poeple, and then uses that to predict the expected RMR of 14 of those same 16 people, and describes a gap between predicted and actual RMR as a metabolic adaptation, I don't think this is enough to overturn other research. The 14 people could be enough to do the experiment if there was a generally accepted and demonstrated accurate method of predicting RMR based on body type. But to use 16 people to develop that linear regression before exercise and then use that same linear regression to predict their RMR after significant changes does not look reliable to me. IMHO Occam's razor suggests that the simplest explanation is that their linear regression does not accurately predict RMR, and hence the metabolic gap suggested is a chimera.

[horizon]

I'm about 76 kg and 5' 10". That makes me a little heavy (BMI 24) but not overweight and a lot of my weight I assume is leg muscle. I'm basically OK for my age/height etc. I've a 32" waist that I've had since I knew what size I was.

But, and here's the but. I have never dieted. I eat what I like when I like as much as I like. I eat until I'm full or happy or whatever. My weight goes up slightly, down slightly. The idea of diets and dieting has never touched me.

That's why I think there's more to it than calories in and out and why I think dieting is a waste of time. There must be something else going on.

Whether this helps or not I don't know but:

I cycle
I don't drink much (alcohol) but don't desist - I dislike beer for instance
I really like vegetables
I do eat sweet things but not sweets
I never eat or drink at my desk - a snack break is a break
I mostly eat wholefoods
Never use antibiotics and have never eaten Kentucky Fried Chicken which is probably full of them
I never go in supermarkets
I'm mostly but not completely vegetarian
When Mrs H and I buy Fish and Chips, we share a portion and that's easily enough

[meic]

It could just simply be that you're happy eating the right amount of food.
I am happy eating too much food, so I have to fight my instincts and "diet" just to reach the state that you naturally have gravitated to.

Or you could just be less efficient than me and waste a lot of the fuel that you eat, like I did when I was younger.
Or you could be burning it up in a load of unrecorded ways, just being more lively generally.

It still boils down to calories in and out, even if we are not bright (or honest) enough to be able to count both of them.

[horizon]

It still boils down to calories in and out,

This is true. So maybe what other people call dieting and exercise is what some people do anyway but just like it.