6 pounds in 6 days

[LiamPT]

Great... your website, that you made, spouting how GREAT you are. That isn't advertising if I ever saw it. And you can't put CASE STUDY next to someone's testimonial. That doesn't make it scientific sir.

I am here to educate myself and to prevent mis education of others. Which you have done in this thread... you're taking it too personal.

Show me where I've given POOR information. You're avoiding the fact that your information is incorrect and trying to disprove me. All I said was, your equation is too simple and doesn't deal with other biochemical processes of the body... MAJOR biochemical processes, not just little arbitrary things either.

As I thought. A lay person.

I was hoping you were going to say you had a medical or exercise physiology background. Perhaps then I would engage in a debate with you. On the basis that you have no qualifications or experience I'd rather not waste my time.

For the people who run this forum I'd like to say that it's very sad that the loudest voice on a weight loss forum is a layperson. No wonder people are confused by weight loss when people with no authority are spouting the words 'major biochemical processes'. That's not what people need to hear.

 

[Darth Pooh]

As I thought. A lay person.

I was hoping you were going to say you had a medical or exercise physiology background. Perhaps then I would engage in a debate with you. On the basis that you have no qualifications or experience I'd rather not waste my time.

For the people who run this forum I'd like to say that it's very sad that the loudest voice on a weight loss forum is a layperson. No wonder people are confused by weight loss when people with no authority are spouting the words 'major biochemical processes'. That's not what people need to hear.

Point proven you can't back up what you are saying. Avoided the point again... most "lay person"s can see you know you have nothing. Having a degree doesn't make one an expert. You're not wasting your time because you don't know what you are talking about. IF anyone is confused here its because they think they can eat 3500 less calories a week and LOSE a pound without factoring other things. Yeah, BIOCHEMICAL... so difficult to understand that word. SO you just called the entire forum idiots... good on you.


Good day sir.

 

[LiamPT]

Point proven you can't back up what you are saying. Avoided the point again... most "lay person"s can see you know you have nothing. Having a degree doesn't make one an expert. You're not wasting your time because you don't know what you are talking about. IF anyone is confused here its because they think they can eat 3500 less calories a week and LOSE a pound without factoring other things. Yeah, BIOCHEMICAL... so difficult to understand that word. SO you just called the entire forum idiots... good on you.


Good day sir.

Darth I'm not going to engage in an argument with you...

On the bright side, you've made me belly laugh quite a lot this afternoon so thank you! Have you ever considered a career in comedy?!

Good day to you too

 

[Darth Pooh]

Darth I'm not going to engage in an argument with you...

On the bright side, you've made me belly laugh quite a lot this afternoon so thank you! Have you ever considered a career in comedy?!

Good day to you too

Yeah, play it off like you aren't angry. You just made a plea to the forum administrators that they have a horrible forum because any "lay person" could come in and contradict you. Someone who is here (in my SOLE OPINION) to drum up business for their website.

You don't have to argue with me... I didn't ask for you to argue. I asked how can you gloss over some very important information and simplify PROVEN research like Leptin levels. You took it as a personal attack and for some odd reason think you are better than me when it comes to this information.

Again, trying to play it off like you are amused is cute. If anything, if you REALLY wanted business you would have handled my question with grace and a solid explanation; you could have said that when you have a routine set up for someone you address the basics like: sleep, stress, constantly modifying BMR levels, what dieting does to the bodies, the needs for refeeds, etc, etc, etc. Instead, I am obviously beneath you and wouldn't even bother to state good information. Either you think you are better than me and the rest of the forum and we wouldn't understand that information... or you didn't know it. Maybe I am missing a third possibility... but so far your character hasn't proven differently.

 

[LiamPT]

Yeah, play it off like you aren't angry. You just made a plea to the forum administrators that they have a horrible forum because any "lay person" could come in and contradict you. Someone who is here (in my SOLE OPINION) to drum up business for their website.

You don't have to argue with me... I didn't ask for you to argue. I asked how can you gloss over some very important information and simplify PROVEN research like Leptin levels. You took it as a personal attack and for some odd reason think you are better than me when it comes to this information.

Again, trying to play it off like you are amused is cute. If anything, if you REALLY wanted business you would have handled my question with grace and a solid explanation; you could have said that when you have a routine set up for someone you address the basics like: sleep, stress, constantly modifying BMR levels, what dieting does to the bodies, the needs for refeeds, etc, etc, etc. Instead, I am obviously beneath you and wouldn't even bother to state good information. Either you think you are better than me and the rest of the forum and we wouldn't understand that information... or you didn't know it. Maybe I am missing a third possibility... but so far your character hasn't proven differently.

Darth I'm not here to drum up business for my website. I run a mobile personal training and weight loss coaching business in the UK. Travelling to the US is a little out of our way! I've got nothing to gain from posting here.

I thought I'd join this forum to give people some sound weight loss advice. Simple advice that is much needed when people like you are doing a great job of confusing people trying to lose weight. As I said before, you are clearly here to pick fights, and I'm not the first person you've picked a fight with.

You are eirther a child or very young, your name and attidute is a pretty good indicator of that...

 

[Darth Pooh]

Darth I'm not here to drum up business for my website. I run a mobile personal training and weight loss coaching business in the UK. Travelling to the US is a little out of our way! I've got nothing to gain from posting here.

Yeah, because this site has NO visitors from the UK. Nice try.

I thought I'd join this forum to give people some sound weight loss advice. Simple advice that is much needed when people like you are doing a great job of confusing people trying to lose weight. As I said before, you are clearly here to pick fights, and I'm not the first person you've picked a fight with.

When people get down to ideal weights (not the obese), it isn't a simple formula anymore. How is drawing people's attention to other factors confusing? How stupid do you think people are around here?! Pick fights? This is a forum, where people are supposed to have discussions. You obviously can't handle being questioned or challenged. That's a shame how close minded you are... must make for a stressful life.

You are eirther a child or very young, your name and attidute is a pretty good indicator of that...

I guess. I mean, sorry it isn't as sophisticated as LiamPT. Would you rather mine be KeithMAEd,MSSEd... Sounds a little lame. I don't think the name has anything to do with it... maybe if you think I am too abrasive for asking you questions on your advice, that is one thing. Thinking that is someone who is too young is just silly. Again, your insulting the forums again.

 

[LiamPT]

When people get down to ideal weights (not the obese), it isn't a simple formula anymore.

So it is a simple formula if you are obese then. Forgive me, but I assumed that a large number of people on this forum weren't at their ideal weight, hence their being here, and hence the simple forumla applying to them.

Why on earth are you advising people on methods to get below their ideal weight? Are you trying to encourage eating disorders and body dysmorphia?


So tell me, in your expert opinion, why it is no longer a simple formula when people get to their ideal weight?

What does leptin have to do with people at ideal weight anyway?

What biochemical processes are involved?

What are your thoughts on set point theory?


I'm very interested to hear what you have to say.

 

[Bigguy]

As I thought. A lay person.

I was hoping you were going to say you had a medical or exercise physiology background. Perhaps then I would engage in a debate with you. On the basis that you have no qualifications or experience I'd rather not waste my time.

I just want to interject here that Keith has lost 110 lbs. You cannot lose that amount of weight- and do it correctly- without becoming well versed in the entire process. You are being naive in assuming that just because he does not have a piece of paper that he is not qualified to give adivse.
110 lbs lost qualifies him in my eyes. I have received some very good suggestions from him that I have incorporated.

For the people who run this forum I'd like to say that it's very sad that the loudest voice on a weight loss forum is a layperson. No wonder people are confused by weight loss when people with no authority are spouting the words 'major biochemical processes'. That's not what people need to hear.

He is nowhere near the loudest voce in the forum.
He has however received a lot of good, sound advise from the people who are.
Give up the mindset that the only people who can talk and are right have a piece of paper.
People should never follow advise without looking into it first- regardless of the source. There is a lot of crap that comes through this site- trust me, Keith is not a part of that.

 

[Darth Pooh]

I'm assuming from what you said that it is a simple formula, but only if you are obese. Forgive me, but I assumed that a large number of people on this forum weren't at their ideal weight, hence their being here.

I am trying to say that people who have gone from ZERO physical activity and a poor nutritional diet are more likely to be successful with a calories in vs. calories out approach. You are shaking up the pot. With that alone, the results are dramatic and the body is more willing to give up that weight without having to worry about leptin levels (after all it can spare that loose change).

So tell me, in your expert opinion, why it is no longer a simple formula when people get to their ideal weight?

You are glossing over ideas that the body is willing to give up weight as easy as when people are obese. That is a MAJOR misconception. The body is very adaptive in nature, and it will reduce its metabolism to match the amount of calories it is getting over time. This is why refeeds work very well for body builders... however, most dieters regulate these levels via cheat meals once a week.

What does leptin have to do with people at ideal weight anyway?

I am not sure I said anything about people at ideal weight... close to ideal weight is a different story.

What biochemical processes are involved?

The production of leptin. I mean, now you are getting technical and I thought you'd like to keep this as simple as possible. I could give you several credible sources (most of which come from textbooks) on leptin production and its research, however, I don't think this was your point... unless you are trying to make me look stupid by putting that in bold.

What are your thoughts on set point theory?

Fancy way of saying genetics. I do believe in genetics having a part to do with biochemistry within the body. That being said, endomorphs, ectomorphs and mesomorphs can be interchangeable with exercise (the main mechanism that set point theory says can change the set point level). Oddly enough, set point theory has actually validated a mechanism (e.g. leptin levels) that says long term caloric deprivation will lead to a reduced metabolism.

I'm very interested to hear what you have to say.

Oh thanks for realizing I might have something interesting to say. Being condescending isn't becoming of you.

 

[Steve]

I'll just chime in for a sec...

1) Liam, this is a place for discussion. One certainly doesn't have to be in a 'position of authority' to present information and/or question another. This is the way a healthy forum works as it sort of acts as a 'check and balance' to maintain the integrity of information. Without this a forum falls to its demise due to the simple fact that you get one or two 'authorities' who rule the kingdom and a bunch of sycophants who refuse to question anything.

2) Being a personal trainer with experience does not make you an authority. I'm sure you know your stuff. I've seen some of your posts and they're fine by me, which you can take for what it's worth. But you know, as well as I, that there are plenty of trainers running around with years of experience who can't speak 'the industry' to save their asses. Just as a degree doesn't make a trainer a trainer, nor does a certificate.

3) With #2 in mind, self-proclaiming yourself as an authority is fine. But expecting not to be questioned on your advice simply on the merit that you are a 'personal trainer with experience' is rather silly. Don't you think? If you want to be taken seriously, why attack an individual asking a question about your advice simply b/c they're not in the same field as you? Shit, I'd be out of a job and dead if I did that each time a client asked to be educated or asked for further clarification on some of my recommendations.

4) I don't believe Darth ever said he is a professional. He just wanted clarification.

Hopefully you don't take this as an attack. It's not. Nor am I interested in joining the 'debate.' I simply felt the need to chime in since you called out the 'people who run the forum.'

 

[Steve]

That's great that you've been successful in the field. Real great. I simply interjected b/c a true professional should conduct himself as such. Believe me, I've went off on tangents before but I NEVER like to make a debate something it's not; PERSONAL.

It simply degrades any positive image established through good advice and sound information.

I've worked with a good number of obese individuals as well and I've found similar results as you... the caloric equation works like clock work a majority of the time. I think Keith was interjecting b/c that doesn't seem to be the case as often when working with clients at more 'sane' weights. There's a few around here who can vouch for that, and I'm sure you're aware of this having the 'credentials' you have.

A mother with 10 lbs to lose can be an absolute nightmare.

But again, I didn't want to get into the debate insomuch as I simply wanted to steer the convo in a better direction.

Nice to have you here.

 

[Darth Pooh]

Liam,

No apologies neccessary. Anyone who knows me well enough knows I really never got offended at any of this. Keeps me busy while not teaching kids... At any rate, I obviously believe in calories in vs. calories out, my past posting history will show that. What I am saying is the energy balance equation does not account for plateaus that occur. There are people who follow the cals in vs. cals out routine for months (and even adjust BMR accordingly for weight loss) and then suddenly stop losing weight, stop losing measurements and don't see changes in the mirror. Now, granted those results are objective... but what they don't realize is that their metabolism has taken a hit and I just wanted to acknowledge that it is a factor. That is all I meant from my original post responding to your article... you took it as a direct attack.

I personally had to deal with plateaus a few times... some real (the scale used to mean a lot to me), some not (no change in measurements or BF). So I had to account for other factors... refeed has been my friend many times, not just physically but mentally.

And while I might have lost a decent amount of weight, there are many others here that have done the same feat and I owe them my gratitude for inspiration. Losing this weight still doesn't make me an expert either. Just another guy with some ideas that he'd like to share. Besides, I like learning everything I can, my second thesis paper is based on metabolic advantage with macro nutrients. It's VERY interesting since it's fairly cutting edge stuff. Lots of ego stomping and chest puffing in the scientific community over it all. Quite amusing if you read between the lines in case studies...

 

[Darth Pooh]

BTW... in case anyone reads this thread down the line... just remember I <3 the ENERGY BALANCE EQUATION! It saved my life! Yano... just in case someone got the wrong idea and all.

 

[LiamPT]

What I am saying is the energy balance equation does not account for plateaus that occur.

Well now that we're all friends again let the debate go on!...

I would have to disagree Keith. The energy balance equation completely accounts for weight loss plateaus. Allow me to qualify this statement -

A weight loss plateau occurs when someone's energy balance equation comes into balance. In other words they are eating the same amount of calories as they are burning off and weight remains on a level. Whether they are eating 1000 calories and burning 1000 calories, or eating 5000 calories and burning 5000 calories makes no difference - weight remains on a level when calories in = calories out.

calories in < calories out (caloric deficit) weight goes down.
calories in = calories out (caloric balance) weight remains the same.
calories in > calories out (caloric surplus) weight goes up.

A weight loss plateau by definition is when a caloric deficit is followed by caloric balance (weight going down followed by weight remaining the same). When it comes to a weight loss plateau the energy balance equation is not in question. What is in questions is "why has the person's energy balance come into equilibrium?".

There are two kinds of weight loss plateau - motivational and physiological.

A motivational plateau occurs above set point (ideal weight) and is the result of the person losing the motivation to either reduce calories in or increase calories out. For example, when someone is on a diet and exercise plan for a number of weeks (reducing calories in and increasing calories out) and then gives up the diet and exercise plan (increasing calories in and reducing calories out), bringing their energy balance equation back into equilibrium. Here the person needs to look at lifestyle, emotional and environmental factors that are affecting their energy balance, and try to find a sustainable exercise and nutrition plan to bring them down to set point.

A physiological plateau occurs at set point (ideal weight) and is the result of the person's physiology trying to bring their energy balance into equilibrium. This, dare I say it Keith, is where your biochemical processes come into play. For example, increased ghrelin levels and reduced leptin levels, making the person feel more hungry and therefore increase calories in, once again bringing the energy balance equation into equilibrium. And on the other side of the equation, another biochemical process involved in weight loss plateaus is muscle atrophy. The body burns off muscle tissue in order to reduce BMR and again bring the energy balance equation into equilibrium causing weight to plateau.

Why does the body do this? It's very simple. Our body has a weight that it naturally settles at - "set point" - and perceives going below this weight as a threat to survival. If you want to get below this weight it will resist by triggering physiological mechanisms that increase appetite (increasing calories in) or decrease metabolism (reducing calories out). So all of the the biochemical processes you've been referring to are simply the body's way of adjusting the energy balance equation to maintain the body at set point weight. If you are going to mention leptin then you must understand it's place within the energy balance equation - it is one of the body's main tools for regulating energy intake (the left side of the energy balance equation).

There are people who follow the cals in vs. cals out routine for months (and even adjust BMR accordingly for weight loss) and then suddenly stop losing weight, stop losing measurements and don't see changes in the mirror.

The problem isn't the energy balance equation Keith. It is the somewhat suspect methods of calculating BMR. For example, many of the forumlas available on the web (Harris Benedict etc) are very misleading. There's only one way to accurately find out your BMR, and that's in a lab. Some people, particularly long term dieters, have a BMR well below what these forumlas suggest. I have taken part in research that proves how many long-term dieters, particularly those who have followed VLCDs, have a BMR well below what it should be. If they were to eat the calories suggested by these formulas, many of them would gain weight, let alone plateau.

As I mentioned before, the physiological plateau only occurs at set point weight. All people, without exception, will find that their set point weight occurs in the healthy range of bodyfat levels (although not neccesarily BMI), so the truth is that there is no need to lose weight beyond this point. So now what needs to asked is "if people are healthy at their set point weight, why are they trying to get below it?" The answer? Body image. This is where Keith's tape measures and mirrors come in.

So to conclude. There is a great deal of confusion between two very different weight loss approaches 1) the overweight person trying to get to set point, and 2) the healthy weight person trying to get below set point. Getting to set point requires a simple application of the energy balance equation. Getting below set point, which I'm guessing is what Keith is interested in, requires a more vigorous application of the energy balance equation. I can talk from personal experience on both approaches, having been 30% bodyfat in the past, well above my set point of 18%, and now sitting somewhat hungrily but sveltly at 10%. So it seems that I'm ruled by the mirror too Keith!

I assumed this was a forum for overweight people looking to get to set point, but if anyone here would like guidance on how to calculate where their set point lies, and advice on how to get below it, I'd be happy to help out.

 

[Darth Pooh]

Ah LIAM, LIAM, LIAM!

You proved my point exactly. Do you understand now why I initially said the article made things too simple?! What you just wrote IS not simple and include BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES that aren't accounted for when you say cut out 3500 calories constantly and you will lose a lb... Also, there is a threshold people need to be aware of. You can't just cut 10,500 calories (good luck) and expect to lose 3 lbs a week. But that's another debate...

I wanted you to understand that while I agree with the BASIC fundamental theory of thermodynaics and the energy equation... your first explaination needed to include the ideas of other things going on.

I too have gone from about 35% to 12% BF... I wish I could afford to get my BMR tested in the lab. I also think you can say that all of the biological processes are connected because you have a VERY controlled enviroment in testing your clients (I agree that they are connected to the energy equation), but since most of us DO NOT have the ability to test BMR accurately, it seems like the plateaus are disjointed from the energy equation. Does this make sense?

 

[LiamPT]

Ah LIAM, LIAM, LIAM!

You proved my point exactly. Do you understand now why I initially said the article made things too simple?! What you just wrote IS not simple and include BIOCHEMICAL PROCESSES that aren't accounted for when you say cut out 3500 calories constantly and you will lose a lb...

The energy balance equation is simple. If a person burns off 3500 calories they will lose 1lb of fat, regardless of their weight.

It only becomes more complex when people have reached set point weight and those biochemical processes you love so much kick in - appetite (calories in) increasing and/or metabolism (calories out) slowing down. Once again, the 3500 rule remains, even at set point. It is just much harder to achieve a 3500 calorie deficit at set point because your body is trying to force your energy balance into equilibrium. This doesn't mean the energy balance equation suddenly stops applying Keith! It means the person needs some expert nutritional and exercise guidance to trick the body out of maintaining energy balance and back into caloric defecit.

However, as a said before, I assumed this was a forum for overweight people trying to get to set point. For that reason I didn't feel it was necessary, or beneficial, to go into the complexities of getting below set point.

I wanted you to understand that while I agree with the BASIC fundamental theory of thermodynaics and the energy equation... your first explaination needed to include the ideas of other things going on.

I don't think I needed to go into a detailed explanation of thermodynamics at all. As I said before, it would just complicate the issue. How many other members of this forum are participating in this debate? None. Because people don't want to be bombarded with all this science. They just want to know what they need to do to lose weight...

When I take my car to the gas station I don't want the guy filling it up to give me the chemical equation for petrol or tell about the intricacies of engine mechanics. I want him to fill my car up so I can get on with life!

I wish I could afford to get my BMR tested in the lab. I also think you can say that all of the biological processes are connected because you have a VERY controlled enviroment in testing your clients (I agree that they are connected to the energy equation), but since most of us DO NOT have the ability to test BMR accurately, it seems like the plateaus are disjointed from the energy equation. Does this make sense?

The point of the research we've carried out is to prove that you don't need a lab to calculate BMR. In fact, you don't really need to know BMR at all. If you track your fat weight over time (longer than 4 weeks) it will tell you exactly what is going on inside your body.

If fat weight goes down, you are in caloric defecit.
If fat weight remains constant, you are in caloric balance.
If fat weight goes up, you are in caloric surplus.

In this way, you don't need to spend hours counting calories or make regular visits to a lab for BMR testing. Your fat weight changes tell you the exact difference between calories in vs calories out. If your fat weight is plateauing you simply need to undertake more strategies to either reduce calories in, increase calories out, or both.

People get too caught up in all this science Keith. It's not necessary. Lets take steve's example of the mother with 10lbs to lose. She doesn't need to have her BMR tested or be lectured on thermodynamics. She needs to find strategies to improve her nutrition (to reduce calories in) and increase her activity levels (to increase calories out). This means looking at her lifestyle, motivational state and hundreds of other factors that are far more important than her BMR.

And this is why I spend a lot of my time working with psychotherapists. Why does that mother want to lose 10lbs in the first place? Health? I doubt it. Low self-esteem, a lack of confidence, a loss of control in her life since giving birth? More likely. Like many people who want to get below set point (you and I are included in this) she wants to lose that 10lbs as a display of control in her life.

These are the things that really need talking about on weight loss forums.

 

[Darth Pooh]

The energy balance equation is simple. If a person burns off 3500 calories they will lose 1lb of fat, regardless of their weight.

Yes, I believe in this too... however, with recent studies emerging, there has been talks of metabolic advantage (I am not totally sold on it and not sure I ever will be either). Like I said earlier, fairly cutting edge stuff. I have noticed that as I got my macros in check, weight became easier to control. That has to speak something for the whole metabolic advantage argument. I am interested in what you think about metabolic advantage and if it truly exists.

However, as a said before, I assumed this was a forum for overweight people trying to get to set point. For that reason I didn't feel it was necessary, or beneficial, to go into the complexities of getting below set point.

You can go into those complexities. People here are VERY intelligent and can handle this type of information. It's actually GOOD to throw those things out there because it forces people to research it. Just because people aren't posting doesn't mean they aren't reading... look how many damn hits this thread got! (Possible due to the fact that people love a good fight too lol).

I don't think I needed to go into a detailed explanation of thermodynamics at all. As I said before, it would just complicate the issue. How many other members of this forum are participating in this debate? None. Because people don't want to be bombarded with all this science. They just want to know what they need to do to lose weight...

When I take my car to the gas station I don't want the guy filling it up to give me the chemical equation for petrol or tell about the intricacies of engine mechanics. I want him to fill my car up so I can get on with life!

I don't touch thermodynamics either (especially when I calculate my energy balance equations for the day). I figure it can be negligible but I must respect it is a part of the equation... I pretty much don't calculate my supplements (like fish oils and CLAs, and chalk those up to be a wash with thermodynamics... about 8% of daily caloric intake for thermodynamics and I take in 1900 ~150, fish oil and cla intake is ~100). So, you're right, I think most people underestimate calories in the long run and it creates a "wash".

The point of the research we've carried out is to prove that you don't need a lab to calculate BMR. In fact, you don't really need to know BMR at all. If you track your fat weight over time (longer than 4 weeks) it will tell you exactly what is going on inside your body.

If fat weight goes down, you are in caloric defecit.
If fat weight remains constant, you are in caloric balance.
If fat weight goes up, you are in caloric surplus.

You are right again, but for ME I don't need to calculate it anymore. But someone just starting out, without a point to go from, how do they determine there BMR? So they use the H-B equation and get a rough number. Most people losing weight want a concrete number and if they have to wait 4 weeks to know it is working, the chances are they will stop long before than. I just thought getting an accurate number would be both helpful for DO IT AT HOME types and maybe even me to make sure I am doing things right.

People get too caught up in all this science Keith. It's not necessary. Lets take steve's example of the mother with 10lbs to lose. She doesn't need to have her BMR tested or be lectured on thermodynamics. She needs to find strategies to improve her nutrition (to reduce calories in) and increase her activity levels (to increase calories out). This means looking at her lifestyle, motivational state and hundreds of other factors that are far more important than her BMR.

GREAT point man. Yeah, I helped one of my friends who recently had a baby lose about 15 lbs... she was still a size 2! She wanted to get back into her 0 clothes... I mean, she asked how I did it and we actually still created a plan for her. I mean, her nutrition sucked and we got it in check... she didn't even start exercising. She is naturally an ectomorph, and the baby fat was just STICKING hard to her. But again, the energy balance equation really worked for her.

And this is why I spend a lot of my time working with psychotherapists. Why does that mother want to lose 10lbs in the first place? Health? I doubt it. Low self-esteem, a lack of confidence, a loss of control in her life since giving birth? More likely. Like many people who want to get below set point (you and I are included in this) she wants to lose that 10lbs as a display of control in her life.

She did it merely to get back into her old clothes and not spend a fortune on a new wardrobe. But I am doing it to be happy... I have never had ABS, and now you can sort of see mine. I know cutting down to low body fat ISN'T normal... but it's still weight loss and this is still the place to discuss it. All different type of people here and I think you were under the assumption that it was all people in the obese and overweight category here. No harm no foul... and like I said, I think all of your posts are SPOT ON if you are talking to that population of people. No doubt in my mind really... just wanted to clarify it. I also wanted to add that my wanting to get past my set point (break past my genetic make up) comes mostly from my self image being so warped. I still see a fat guy in the mirror... partly to do with the loose skin / fat still trapped in the abdominal region. Working that off so far has been harder to do than lose a 100 lbs. A tummy tuck might be in order for me... sigh.

These are the things that really need talking about on weight loss forums.

Again, I wanna disagree with this statement. All types of things can be discussed here. The OP said he was 200 lbs. Nothing awfully overweight actually... but obviously it seems like he is trying to change his set point like us. So, while the energy balance equation will work for him, I think he'll find that he'll have a tougher time than someone who has to lose 50 lbs.

I just wanted to add, I like how this thread has turned around and a LOT of good information and discussion is taking place. So, thanks for that.

 

[allyphoe]

How many other members of this forum are participating in this debate? None. Because people don't want to be bombarded with all this science.

Just because people aren't participating in the debate, doesn't mean they don't want to understand the underlying science. I'm certainly capable of (and in this case, interested in) following a discussion I wouldn't consider myself qualified to lead.

Just out of curiosity, how would you suggest someone calculate their set point weight? (I personally suspect I'm not quite there yet, because my weight is very very slowly drifting downward, but I'm close - when I was actively losing, it was getting harder and harder to keep a smaller and smaller deficit.)

 

[Darth Pooh]

Just because people aren't participating in the debate, doesn't mean they don't want to understand the underlying science. I'm certainly capable of (and in this case, interested in) following a discussion I wouldn't consider myself qualified to lead.

Just out of curiosity, how would you suggest someone calculate their set point weight? (I personally suspect I'm not quite there yet, because my weight is very very slowly drifting downward, but I'm close - when I was actively losing, it was getting harder and harder to keep a smaller and smaller deficit.)

Oh good question! I mean, IMHO you would think that if you have to take in anything below 1200 calories to LOSE weight is probably past your set point (which is just a theory and not set in stone, which I do believe in). So, for instance, if a girl wanted to lose weight and needed to create a caloric deficiency below 1200 calories per day... that is pretty low and probably killing past their set point. I also suppose you could eat at the 1200 and create all deficit by exercise... this is a great question tho. How would something be considered too low if you can always create a deficit via exercise. There would be a set point the body couldn't do all that working out either from the amount of food you got.

 

[allyphoe]

IMHO you would think that if you have to take in anything below 1200 calories to LOSE weight is probably past your set point

IMHO, there's no magic about 1200 calories. A short older woman with a mostly sedentary lifestyle could need 1200 calories to maintain at an overweight weight.

My issue was that, as I got lighter, I found it harder and harder to maintain a given deficit.

I've got daily food logs going back to September, and I was averaging 1,210 calories a day at that point, with an 800-900 calories per day deficit. (Normal caveat applies about the utter inaccuracy of calorie count; I don't weigh anything and rarely measure. But the deficit is accurate, and I sustained that average rate of loss from May 2007 to March 2008) And I was happy there - wasn't hungry, didn't feel deprived, had no problems staying in my target calorie range, had lots of energy. It wasn't work, if that makes sense.

It's not that my metabolism has slowed down as I've lost weight - maintenance for me was about 2100 calories with a higher weight and minimal exercise, and is about 2050 with a lower weight and regular exercise. I never hit a plateau when I was losing; I never had to adjust my calories downward to maintain a steady rate of loss (although I did add more exercise gradually). But once I hit 145 (which put me in the range of normal BMI), I really perceived losing as becoming more and more difficult. I was hungrier, more miserable, felt more deprived, wanted to give up and call it good enough.

And now I'm maintaining (or close to it) with an average of 2,000 calories a day, and I'm happy there. But if I do a little extra exercise, or miss a snack, or have a lighter-than-normal breakfast, I find myself absolutely ravenous and inclined to lie around doing nothing. Eating enough calories to maintain isn't work, but cutting back even a little is hugely difficult. And that's why I think I'm probably close to as low as I could go without a really compelling reason to get there.

So I wouldn't define set point as "your metabolism has slowed to the point where you can't lose any more on some arbitrary calorie level," but rather as "the misery of losing more weight outweighs the misery of maintaining." At least for me.