Calorie counters confirm metabolic adaptation? is it real or not?

As someone who was focused on losing weight, lost 60 pounds and gained them all back in the span of 3 years later.

I've decided to look more into how to sustain a new weight rather than how to lose weight.

Most people tend to focus on their weight loss, not realizing that is just a small battle in a never ending bigger war- which is keeping the weight off.

Most of you hear about success stories of people who just freshly reached their goal weight.

But how many of you hear of success stories of people keeping there new weight several years later? I think not that many.

studies show that 95% of people who lost a significant amount of weight gain it all back several years later + extra new weight.

Why is that happening? I suspect the culprit is metabolic adaptation.

I've researched about metabolic adaptation when dieting on the internet, and so far found mixed opinions, some say it's a real thing that happens and some say it isn't, including studies that support both sides.

but then I checked out one of the most accurate caloric calculators out there (mifflin st jeor calculator), but pretty much you can use any, and just by looking at the results of one's current stats and their goal stats, it 100% confirms there is always metabolic adaptation

let me explain: if I fill in my current stats which are male, age 27, weight is 125 kg ( 275 lbs) and height is 187 cm (about 6'2), the results are BMR 2288 calories to maintain the weight and TDEE 2500 calories to maintain with like no activity level (set to even below sedentary.)

now if I change my current weight to my goal weight, which is about 85kg (187 lbs), then the BMR goes down to 1800 to maintain, and 2077 to maintain with less than sedentary activity.

So what do we see here? we see a mere 500 calories difference to maintain 125 kg and 85kg. that's about 90 lbs.

So on paper, according to all those calculators, all I should be is in -500 caloric deficit and I'm gonna lose a total of 90 lbs all the way down to 85kg.

that obviously never happens to anyone, when people are dieting the minimum they cut is 500 calories, usually up to 1000 calories less, and they lose several tens of pounds and then ALWAYS hit several plateaus and are forced to cut even more.

It is true that if you weight less than you need less energy, but what metabolic adaptation does is that it makes you need EVEN less energy for your current weight compared to the average person with the same weight as yours who never dieted before.

to simply put, if you take person A who weights 176 lbs and person B who also weights 176 lbs, but person B weights 176 lbs after losing 100 lbs, and then you feed them the same diet, same foods, same quantity based on how their BMR should be, person A will maintain their weight at 176bs, while person B will start gaining weight.

Person B will be forced to eat even less just to maintain those 176 lbs.

the more weight you lose the more plateaus (which is the metabolic adaptation) you'll have to go through, which ultimately - once you reach your goal weight- force you to eat much less than majority of people at the same weight as yours.

a person who was obese and wants to be lean or very lean, will most likely have to eat so little that it's really just unsustainable for long, and will eventually break- not because they have weak will, but because it's physically and mentally unsustainable in the long run.

This also supports the studies that show that the people who gain their weight back also gains extra- if people really just quit their diets and go back to their old eating habits, theoretically they should go back to their original weight before the diet, but they gain even new extra weight, that's because their slowed metabolism does not heal even if they gain their weight back, so they reach their original weight, but with a slower metabolism, which makes them even surpass that weight.

​

What do you guys think of this? have you experienced it first hand after reaching your goal weight?

submitted by /u/Trafago
[link] [comments]

from loseit - Lose the Fat https://ift.tt/2FfPkZY

Considering a maintenance break for the first time in my journey

I’ve been losing hardcore for about ten months now, and thinking about and researching it for about a year before that. I’ve figured out how to make do on 1200-1400 calories per day, I’ve figured out how to deal with social events, and I’ve transformed my relationship with my body, with food, and with how I present myself to the world. I’ve gotten really good at meal prep and made changes that I genuinely want to maintain for the rest of my life.

But right now, I’m exhausted and frustrated. I’m burnt out, both with weight loss and in several other areas of my life. I’m working nearly constant 14-18 hour days and not getting nearly enough sleep, and there’s not a break in the horizon until May. I’ve been struggling with my deficit for the past two weeks, and I’m starting to think that maybe it won’t just pass this time. So I’m considering consciously eating at maintenance for about a month.

I’ve been reading through posts here from people, and most people say that a maintenance break helped reset them and their motivation. I’m fighting the voice in my head that’s telling me that stopping my deficit is a failure, as if the 75 lbs I’ve lost in the past ten months isn’t a victory in and of itself. I fully intend to keep logging, keep weighing in, and to stay connected here and in other places I’ve found motivation - I just think that this season of my life might not be conducive to weight loss, and I think that’s going to have to be okay.

So tell me about your tips and tricks for taking a maintenance break, and what surprised you about it. Hell, tell me if you think this is a huge mistake that I’m making.

Part of what I’ve learned through this experience is how important it is to listen to my body, and I feel like this is what it’s telling me I need to do.

submitted by /u/Monstersofusall
[link] [comments]

from loseit - Lose the Fat https://ift.tt/2ucx7q2

(NSV) My old bridesmaid dress fell off of me.

I had gotten a bridesmaid dress in 2014 for my stepmother's wedding. It was a size 22 that had to be taken out...a lot.

I could've sworn that previous to this, I haven't lost any sizes. I put the dress on and it literally slid off of me. The dress was a huge source of stress for me. My stepmother literally screamed at me in David's Bridal about me sabotaging her wedding because I wasn't losing weight for it. I cried in the dressing room. Every time I EVER went shopping with her, I ended up crying in the dressing room. I hated every minute of the wedding prep. There ended up being only three pictures of me at the wedding because of how unhappy my parents were with my weight. My stepmother made sure they didn't take pictures of me.

It feels good to know such a dark time in my life is behind me. I wanted to cry when I put the dress on again...but for a totally different reason. When I took it out of my closet I thought, "I bet it's not that loose, I could probably get it taken in a little." Despite my near 100 pounds of weight loss since it was on me last...There is no way the dress is salvageable. The funny part? It's an ugly dress.

I tried on some other "nice" dresses I have in my closet and none of them fit. I can't wait to pack them up and donate them. Goodbye, size 22 dresses. Lets never meet again.

submitted by /u/BabyGirlR
[link] [comments]

from loseit - Lose the Fat https://ift.tt/2TI90P9

Here's when calories really matter

The divide continues to grow between those who swear by the “calories in vs. calories out” method and those who tout that body composition changes will come by following a nutrient-dense whole-food diet. When counseling clients, starting out many of them have these types of pre-conceived beliefs on how they should be losing weight or making changes to their body composition overall. Acknowledging calories continue to be a hot topic of conversation, we’ll dive into the science of calories, the complexity of them and when they really matter.

 

What is a calorie?

A calorie, as we often see it on a nutrition label, is actually a kilocalorie. To make it simple for consumers, it became a Calorie with a capital C, and since then has been used so often without the capital C that we just use calorie. The true Calorie, or kilocalorie, is a measure of the energy required to raise one kilogram of water one degree Celsius. Originally, the calorie value of a food was determined by burning it, but today an assumption is made based on the protein, carbohydrate, fat and alcohol content of a food. These values are rounded according to the following table:

 

Again, these numbers are not exact. One of the reasons they’re not precise is because a certain amount of energy is required to break down and absorb these macronutrients. After accounting for the energy expended, a gram of protein provides about 3.2 calories, a gram of fat 8.7 calories and a gram of carbohydrate, 3.8 calories. These numbers are not exact either, because different forms of each of these macronutrients require varying levels of energy for digestion. 

The 3500 Calorie “Rule”

You’ve likely heard that “in order to lose a pound of fat, you have to burn 3500 calories more than you consume. One pound of fat is 16 ounces, or 454 grams. According to the table above, 448 grams of fat equals 4086 calories. How do we get 3500 instead of 4086? In the body, fat, or adipose tissue, is not 100% fat the way you’d expect a bottle of olive oil to be 100% fat. It is about 87% fat (another estimate), so 87% of 4086 is 3554.86. Rounding to a simpler number, 54.86 calories are dropped from the “3500 Calorie Rule” to land at 3500 calories.

If you did not see all the estimates in the past few paragraphs, read them over again. Even if the "calories in, calories out" concept worked, the math wouldn’t work because there are so many variables involved.

Counting Calories In

Let’s say the 3500-calorie rule was in fact accurate. The next step would be to accurately track what one consumed and what one burned for energy. We already mentioned the calculations for fat, carbohydrates and protein are estimates, not precise measurements. 

 

This becomes even more complicated when you consider the variability of the foods we eat. A piece of grass-fed beef usually has less fat by weight than the same cut from a conventionally raised cow. If it has less fat by weight, it will have more protein. For the same 8-ounce piece of meat, it would have less fat and more protein, and fewer total calories. How much less? You can’t be sure, unless you actually test the meat. But then you wouldn’t be able to eat it, so you’d need to get another cut of beef that wouldn’t be exactly the same, so you wouldn’t know the calorie value of that piece of meat either.

Let’s pause here for a moment. If you were truly going to gain an extra pound of fat by eating 3500 calories more than you burn, you’d only need to eat 116.66 calories per day more than you burn in a 30-day month to gain a pound of fat. That’s 38.88 calories per meal if you eat three meals per day. Even if you weighed and measured every bite of food you put in your mouth, you’d still never be able to manage your calorie intake accurately enough because the whole idea of the 3500 calories and the calorie value of the macronutrients are based on so many assumptions and rounding of numbers!

Remember, the calorie balance equation assumes that you must maintain a precise balance between the number of calories you consume and the number you burn. If the calorie balance equation were true, and you eat 38.88 calories per meal too many, you’ll gain twelve pounds of fat per year. How can you get to precision of 38.88 calories when everything above is based on so many assumptions and rounding of numbers?

Counting Calories Out

Accurately counting calories in is nearly impossible, but what about calories out? The energy one burns (or Total Energy Expenditure) comes through resting metabolic rate, daily activity, exercise and the production of heat.

Resting metabolic rate is the energy the body requires just to maintain normal function, tissue repair and keep you breathing while at rest. Resting metabolic rate makes up the majority of energy the body burns during the day and can be easily tested through a resting metabolic assessment. When one’s metabolic rate is higher or lower than normal, it can be an indicator of metabolic dysfunction. The body also tends to increase its metabolic rate when it gets enough calories and nutrients, when under acute stress or if recovering from trauma like an injury or an intense workout. It lowers metabolic rate when energy is restricted, such as a typical low-calorie diet, or when under chronic stress.

You also have the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) which is the percentage of a food’s calories burned in the process of digestion. Our bodies burn a certain amount of calories just breaking down our foods and rearranging them in a way we can use for growth, repair and energy. The TEF for protein is 20 to 35 percent, meaning that up to 35 percent of the calorie value of protein will be burned just to digest that protein. Compare that with the TEF of carbohydrate at 5 to 15 percent and with fat being the same or less than carbohydrate. Increasing the amount of protein in the diet, while keeping the total calorie value the same, means fewer calories will be available for energy or weight gain. 

Exercise is another way calories are expended during the day. Workouts are a very minor part of the total calorie expenditure for the average person. Professional athletes train for hours every day, but for most of us, our exercise sessions last about an hour, three to six times per week. The number of calories one burns in an exercise session is not important. What’s interesting is that research has shown, those who burn the most calories during an exercise session also have the strongest appetite later in the day, or they feel the most worn out. The body knows it should save some energy later in the day, or eat more, to compensate for the demanding training session. I've also seen this from personal experience in working with people.

Exercise, or training sessions, should be designed in a way that improves range of motion, increases coordination, stimulates the growth of muscle tissue, or helps your body become more efficient at using fat for fuel. Each of those four goals improves one’s health, metabolism, performance or endurance. If the goal is simply to burn as many calories as possible, it can lead to workouts that increase cortisol, the body’s main stress hormone. These high-intensity exercise sessions also drive cravings for sugary foods or decreases activity the rest of the day. The increased appetite or fatigue are ways for the body to help maintain glucose levels. Interestingly, when people train at an intensity level that allows them to use more fat for fuel, rather than carbohydrates, cravings are not nearly as significant and they are less likely to feel so fatigued afterwards.

If the “calories in” side of the equation could be accurately measured (we already said it can’t), what is the likelihood we could precisely account for the energy we expend each day? It would also be nearly impossible. 

Starving While Being Overweight

The body is designed to conserve energy when it senses a shortage of incoming available energy. This is a really important point to understand because it is often misinterpreted. For the most part, the body is able to use two fuel sources – fat and carbohydrate. When they’re actually being burned, they’re burned as fatty acids and glucose.

 

Most of the research showing how metabolic rate slows down has been done with individuals following a mixed diet, higher in carbohydrates, lower in fat and low to moderate in protein.  The hormonal effects of a diet dominated by carbohydrate consumption are quite different than a diet with lower levels of carbohydrate.

Carbohydrate is often called “quick energy,” but it’s not because you actually feel energetic after consuming it (though many sports drinks would like you to believe that). The reason it’s called quick energy is that it’s available as a fuel shortly after consuming it. When sugars hit the blood stream, the body quickly shifts from burning fat to burning sugar. If it’s burning sugar, it can’t burn fat. The one exception to this rule would be fructose, which is sent directly to the liver and most of it is converted to glycerol, which helps to create triglycerides.[i]

Whether the body perceives a shortage of available energy is determined by the type of diet an individual follows more than the amount of calories in the diet. As you will see below, an overweight individual may have a metabolism that thinks it’s starving, simply because it cannot access the tens of thousands of calories worth of energy stored in its fat cells.

Low-fat, low-calorie diets

Let’s think about this in a more typical, real-life situation. We’ll use a fictitious woman named Julie. Julie needs to lose 100 pounds of extra body fat. She can attack this goal a couple different ways. One would be what’s still most common today. She could go on a 1200-1400 low-calorie diet often recommended to overweight women (men are often told to eat 1600-1800 in cases like this).

 

Her focus is on getting the most enjoyment out of the limited number of calories she can eat each day, so she resorts to a variety of pre-packaged, low-fat foods like cereal, low-calorie juice, snack packs, some fruit, and other whole grain foods. If she’s a little more in tune with what her body needs, she’ll also sneak in some low-fat or fat-free protein like chicken breasts, non-fat yogurt or fat-free cheese.

Because the majority of the foods in her diet come from carbohydrates, her insulin levels remain elevated throughout the day. When insulin is high, fat cells cannot release their stored fatty acids for energy. Instead, the body uses whatever glucose it can from the blood stream or what’s stored in the liver as glycogen. When the glucose levels get used up, hunger strikes and Julie will be looking for another high-carb, low-fat snack to curb her appetite.

In this scenario, even though Julie’s calorie levels are low, and she should be burning more calories than she eats, she still can’t access her extra fat. Without access to the stored fat for energy, the body responds by stimulating hunger and lowering metabolic rate. If it doesn’t have access to energy, it will respond by burning less energy. Though her body is a “rich” source of energy from all the fat it has stored up, it’s almost useless since Julie spends most of her day eating foods that limit the ability of her fat cells to release the stored fat.

If you were to put numbers to it, Julie probably burns 2500 calories per day. If she’s eating 1400 calories per day it leaves her in an 1100 calorie deficit. In six months’ time, she should lose about 53 pounds. In reality, she’ll probably lose about 20 and then get stuck. Unless she does something different with her nutrition, or exercises even more, weight loss will slow down because her metabolic rate will adjust to the fact that it doesn’t have available fat to burn.

With a reduced metabolic rate and constant hunger, it’s little wonder why people who follow this common approach have little success long-term.

Reduced-carbohydrate diets

A second approach is to follow a nutrition plan that doesn’t focus on managing a calorie level, but instead focuses on optimizing the body’s ability to burn fat. The body is able to burn fat when insulin levels are low. Eating fat has no effect on insulin, and protein has a very small effect. That’s why we encourage people to base their diet on non-starchy vegetables, high-quality protein sources and healthy fats. That’s also why reduced-carbohydrate diets have been shown to be more effective for fat loss than low-fat diets. In fact, they’ve been shown to be more effective for fat loss even when the low-fat groups are on a set calorie intake and the low-carb dieters are allowed to eat as much as they want to.

The average person has tens of thousands of stored fat calories. When the body is able to access them, metabolic rate is less likely to fall, even if they’re eating a lesser number of calories. When they eat an excessive number of calories, but still don’t eat enough carbohydrates to raise insulin, they may not lose weight, but they’ll have a more difficult time gaining weight. Without insulin, the body doesn’t get a signal to “store” calories. Instead, the body may respond to extra calorie intake by raising metabolic rate further, or by wasting the extra calories through heat.

 

To answer the question that started this section, weight is lost when the body is able to release fat from the fat cells, and when there is a need to burn it as fuel. If the fat is trapped in the fat cells because of the diet one follows, weight may be lost, but it won’t necessarily be fat. Instead, muscle will be broken down to supply glucose. On the other hand, by focusing the diet on non-starchy (low-carbohydrate) vegetables, protein and fat, and basing carbohydrate consumption on activity levels, fat is free to leave the cell and can be burned to supply energy needs.

In this case, if someone chose to reduce total calorie intake while also keeping insulin levels low through nutrition choices, weight loss could occur at an increased rate. The issue is, too many people focus first on calorie reduction rather than the quality of the foods they eat. Simply lowering calories while still eating a significant amount of carbohydrates is a recipe for lowering metabolic rate, losing lean body mass, constant hunger and eventual failure on the plan.

Changing your perspective on food choices

There was a time when food was just food. Humans lived off the land, eating some plants, the animals in the area and fruit, seeds and nuts when they were available. Today, the vast majority of “food” found in the grocery store are highly processed products created through modifying starch, or carbohydrate, in ways we’ve not seen in most of the history of the human race. Because these foods are the dominant foods in the places we buy our groceries, it takes a little thought before selecting an item. If meats, fish, poultry, produce, dairy, nuts and seeds were all the store sold, it would be easy to make your choices.

 

That is not the case, so you must think for a moment before you put something in your cart. The easiest question to ask is, “If I eat this, how will it affect my body’s hormones?” It isn’t about eating a few extra calories of food, it’s about whether or not you trigger the release of insulin or add extra stress to your liver. If you avoid stressing your liver and stimulating insulin, there’s a good chance you’ll also avoid weight gain or achieve the weight loss you’ve been looking for.

A final thought on this topic is that even though the food you select will have the most significant role in whether you achieve the weight loss you’re looking for, it is not the only issue. When we help people with their weight management programs, nutrition is a big part of the discussion, but we also look at movement, metabolic health, exercise, stress and sleep, and your mindset. Each of these plays a role as well. That said, we also encourage people to tackle one thing at a time, and if you want to get the most “bang for your buck,” stop counting calories and start focusing on eating quality food.

– Written by Life Time Weight Loss Team 

 

This article is not intended for the treatment or prevention of disease, nor as a substitute for medical treatment, nor as an alternative to medical advice. Use of recommendations in this and other articles is at the choice and risk of the reader.

[i] Zoë Harcombe. The Obesity Epidemic: What caused it? How can we stop it? Columbus Digital Services Ltd. 2010

from Life Time Weight Loss Blog https://ift.tt/2W0DGaT

Successful diet changes can be helped by saying "I don't" instead of "I can't"

I just read this article and I think it makes a great point, and one that might help others on their weight loss journey :)

https://betterhumans.coach.me/cant-kick-a-bad-habit-you-re-probably-doing-it-wrong-95ef1e0c2851

​

Here's the TLDR from the author:

• The process for stopping bad habits is fundamentally different from forming new ones.
• Existing behaviors etch a neural circuitry that makes unlearning an association between an action and a reward extremely difficult.
• Whereas learning new habits follows a slow progression, stopping old behavioral tendencies requires a different approach.
• A process I call “progressive extremism” utilizes what we know about the psychology of identity to help stop behaviors we don’t want.
• By classifying specific behaviors as things you will never do again, you put certain actions into the realm of “I don’t” versus “I can’t.”

And an important quote: Identity helps us make otherwise difficult choices by offloading willpower.

​

In my own life: I was able to successfully lose weight when I stopped eating wheat and dairy, which had always upset my stomach but after I started taking a medication made me very ill to my stomach.

I decided to cut both from my diet. I lost 80lbs and have kept it off for over 2 years, I still just "don't" eat dairy and wheat.

Being "intolerant" to these types of foods is just part of who I am now, I've learned all kinds of recipes and what to order when I go out to eat so I can stick to this and keep feeling healthy and happy. The weight loss is more like a biproduct of this lifestyle and even identity change.

​

Anyway, hope this can help someone else too!

​

submitted by /u/pandastormy
[link] [comments]

from loseit - Lose the Fat https://ift.tt/2TWUq5L

Want to lose 100lbs

I weigh 320 lbs, probably not the worst on this subreddit but still way overweight. I recently began going to the gym and doing eliptical's (my father told my last night this was actually second best to rowing). But my eating is still out of control, I have a bag of kettle popcorn a day and eat up until around 10 off and on after dinner. Whenever I got to Target I have an icee, bag of popcorn, and a cookie (maybe pasta if they have it) And I overeat at college too, poptarts and tornado's namely. I need someway to hold myself responsible, to keep myself off the bad food, and the best gym excercises for weight loss you can reccomend.

I want to go from 320 to my old high school weight of 220, please help.

submitted by /u/Smellbringer
[link] [comments]

from loseit - Lose the Fat https://ift.tt/2THB84G

Does order matter for starting diet/exercise?

Question: does starting a regular exercise routine before you start a diet affect weight loss? And if so, how?

I recently started working out nearly every day, initially to fight the winter blues. I instantly felt emotionally better, and loved that my body was starting to feel strong again (I used to work out regularly, but it fell off in the last year or two). After about a month of this, though, I got on a friend's bathroom scale and was pretty shocked at how much I weighed. I had a dexa scan and confirmed that it wasn't just gaining muscle--my body fat was ~35%.

So I decided to start watching my calories too, and it seems to be going fine-- I'm down about 3 lbs in 2 weeks (wish I would have measured more carefully at the start!) But reading through this subreddit, it seems like most people start dieting then add strength training. I'm not sure if there's a good fitness reason for that, or if that's just the easier place to start. Should I expect my progress to be impacted by the fact that I started strength training + cardio a month before starting to restrict calories? Does this mean the 3 lbs I lost are probably water weight? Or am I overthinking this?

For reference, I'm a 30F, 5'4", currently around 145 lbs and trying to get back closer to 135 (sustainably--I won't do crazy calorie restrictions).

Any info is much appreciated!

submitted by /u/whatsit111
[link] [comments]

from loseit - Lose the Fat https://ift.tt/2TLb74Q