Confused and perplexed?????

[chichigirl 1]

I have been following fitness magazines, shows, books, you name it, if it had the word fitness somewhere in it, I devoured it to see if I could find what it was that I was missing. I was convinced that there was this secret that thin people knew about and I didn't. I was sure that if I could figure out their riddles, then I too would be able to finally be thin.

There's no big secret that there is a lot of conflicting and contradiction in many of the articles put out there or discussed. It seems you get different answers from different people. Okay, so I tried to sort through all of this confusion and make an intelligent choice as to who was right about the things they were telling us. After all I am a fairly intelligent person, decent education and logical and reasonable, yet flexable and open-minded.

So can anyone tell me why we keep saying that if someone is not losing weight, like during a plateu, or if they are not losing fast enough, we tell them to increase their calories. That by increasing your calories you rev up your metabolism, thereby burning more calories. Exercising is encouraged, but not a part of my confusion, the exercising part I get. My confusion comes in when I find out that people who have RNY surgery take in very few calories a day, and yet it's a well known fact that they drop weight at such a rapid pace their skin cannot keep up with them. Then you have the anorexics and bullimics. Anorexics consume as few calories as possible, with their ideal caloric intake average being between 200 to 300 calories a day. Bullimics may gorge themselves with very high calorie meals, but then purge it all back out. They know how to time it just right so that their bodies can only gain nutrients from as little as possible. There motto is, if you have waited an hour to purge, forget, you've lost the window of opportunity to eliminate all that you had taken in. Again, they have a general caloric intake of between 500 to 600 calories a day. Higher than the anorexic, which explains the difference in their appearances.

I am soooo convinced that all eating orders are somehow interconnected with each other, which is part of the reason I have researched the information on anorexics and bullimics, as well as binge and compulsive eaters.

My conclusion is that everything points to the lower the calories, the smaller the body, period. I am most certainly not advocating for anorexia or bullimia, please don't misunderstand, I recognize them as potentially fatal diseases. It's just that I question the validity of those telling us that our bodies go into starvation mode, lowering our metabolism, and stop us from losing weight if we do not consume 'enough' yet they don't usually tell us what enough should be. We often have to play around to figure that out and that is hit or miss at best.

Maybe I'm just a crazy lady who's been battling her weight most of her life and I am frustrated. Do any of you ever question these things? Or is it just me? Does anyone really have the answer. I know we are all different, so the answers must be different, but to be at polar opposites doesn't make sense to me.

Cindy

[ReneBean 3]

Well, the difference between 600 calorie a day skinny and 1200 calorie a day skinny is your health... Yes - if you take in the low calories you will waste away - literally, your muscles, bone and everything else will get burned up because your body is not getting enough of anything it needs.

1200 calorie a day skinny allows for your body to retain muscle mass and burn MOSTLY the fat. Since it gets the nutrients it needs, it does not attack it's own systems to keep functioning - it just breaks down the excess fat.

Make sense? Keep in mind - if you ARE exercising - you will need the higher calories to keep functioning. And exercise is what helps you retain muscle mass and burn fat. Remember, the RNY has severe health risks, malnutrition being one of them. People die from that procedure - not just under the anesthetic, but afterwards from the complications and side effects.

PLEASE try to be patient with yourself and your body. Low calories can be used to shock the body - switch back and forth between high and low to freak it out - but please do not try to live for extended periods of time on the very low calorie diet.

:]

[Jachut 487]

One of the reasons I would never ever consider a gastric bypass is that you're losing weight at the expense of your health. It is worth it if you're about to die from complications of obesity but that's about the only thing that would make me consider it. I'd rather not have baggy saggy skin, have my bones breaking everytime I sneezed and suffer a million other complications of malnutrition thanks. I dont want to look good that badly.

Also, somebody who has lost weight that way has severely damaged their metabolism. If they ever so much as looked at 1500 calories a day again they'd put weight right back on.

Cutting down on calories too severely slows your metabolism, the idea is to keep your intake as high as possible to still produce a good weight loss, part of that equation is both lots of cardiovascular exercise to burn calories and also lots of weight resistance exercise to build and maintain muscle.

That's about as scientific as you really need to get. You can get all into high Protein, low carb etc etc but I dont think even the experts really know the truth there. I think there's definitely something to be said for cutting out all the processed carbohydrate rubbish that most people eat and eating more good quality Protein foods but I think things like Atkins are pretty much fad diets, just my opinion though. If calories in is less than calories out you will lose weight, whatever you eat.

[chichigirl 1]

Please don't misunderstand me, like I said, I do not advocate low calorie diets, I don't believe those are healthy and I have no intention of following them. Seriously, I'm was just questioning as to why it is we stop losing weight and say that we are not getting enough calories, that by adding calories you increase your metabolism and therefore will start dropping weight faster. You know what I mean?

Jachut - Your comment about the idea is to eat as many calories as possible and still lose weight is the perfect combination, makes more sense to me than anything else I have heard or read. Thank you for helping me to understand, I really mean that, because before you said that, I wasn't getting that, but it does make a lot of sense.

I appreciate you both answering my questions and your concern over my possibly doing something unhealthy is very much appreciated. But really, that's not what I was trying to say at all. And again Jachut, thanks again for that explanation, it's amazing how putting things into different phrasing can suddenly trip our switches of understanding on in our brains.

Rene - I also wanted to let you know that I think you are absolutely wonderful and are one of the most positive and supportive people I have seen posting here. Thanks for being there.

Cindy

[ReneBean 3]

Thanks, Cindy!

You're not so bad yourself! I am glad to hear that you aren't planning on starving yourself. I understand about conflicting and confusing info...

After reading about a hundred scientific abstracts, I realized that it doesn't really matter what the studies say, as much as it matters what you know will work for you.

Take Care!

:]

[Alexandra 55]

Cindy, it does seem to be conflicting but I think there's room in the real world for both phenomena. The short-term physical response to a shortage of calories is what we refer to as "starvation mode," wherein the body starts conserving calories as a result of too few being taken in. I think this is not a myth, but it is temporary.

In the longer-term, a very low calorie diet will always result in significant weight loss. How long it takes to get past the "starvation" mode will vary from person to person, of course, but it's always true that a sustained very-low-calorie diet is not a healthy way to lose weight.

[rorysmom 0]

and by diet, i mean in the "healthy lifestyle" kind of way.

exercise is extremely good for what ails us.

but limiting calories and eating the right sorts of foods is much more important for weight loss. in my experience, and the experiences of most folks on my fitness boards, calorie restriction accounts for as much as 85% of weight loss success.

we can simply eat far too many calories, from good and bad foods, than we realize. and actual aerobic activity (accounting for "afterburn too) burns a few hundred calories at most.

[Anwyn 0]

Not to be argumentative with you rorysmom (but I haven't had my coffee yet)...

I completely disagree that food is 85 % of the food/exercise balance that helps us lose weight. I think (for me at least) it's more like 50/50. Yes, when you burn calories exercising you only burn a couple hundred calories. But, studies have shown that your metabolism is boosted for up to 24 hours after exercising so your total calories burned due to the exercise are much higher than that.

Also, when you exercise you build muscle, and the more muscle you have the higher your resting metabolic rate. So, exercising gives you both a short-term and a long-term boost.

Dang, I gotta get my butt on the treadmill today...

Sorry Chichi - I'm not trying to hijack your thread. Must find coffee...

[rorysmom 0]

anwyn, not argumentative at all.

yes, there is afterburn. but it doesn't burn enough calories to offset much more than a candy bar.

i'm not dissing exercise at all. and added muscle; you're right, it does help to burn more calories. however, all of the extra burn from muscle building and from aerobic activity cannot make up for, let's say, two high calorie meals in one week.

for example: say you burned 700 calories per day, every day, for one week, from exercise, that's 4900 calories. (that's also a lot of commas :straight ) that can be undone, or severly diminshed, by eating too many calories. and since 3500 is the magic number to lose a pound, there's not much wiggle room there.

and burning 700 calories from exercise is quite a bit.

now it's true, the more weight you have to lose, the less calorie restriction is needed. but when you get down to as much as 40 pounds to lose, it becomes a real math game. and don't even get me started on the ten-pounds-or-less range. that is truly an exercise in exasperation.

if you're interested in fitness talk, check out www.videofitness.com. as the name suggests, the message board is mostly about fitness videos, but they also talk about the scientific aspects of weight loss.

[tztmama 0]

As most of us, I have been dieting for over 35 years. For me, the bottom line is this. I can not have more that 1000 (maximum but usually 800) per day or I will not lose weight. I don;t care what all the books say, I don't care what Jenny Craig, NutriSystem, Weight watchers, or any of them say. For Me personally, this is just how it is. I actually was asked to not claim to be a weight watchers person because I kept telling them I could not eat all the points and lose. I have to have my 800 (maybe 4 days a week) and 1000 cal days AND get some form of exercise a few times a week or I dont lose. period. Therefore, the calories I have must contiain nutrients. This is why I usually have 2 shakes and let the other third of my daily needed nutrition come from the food i eat.

[Anwyn 0]

Well, it is true that I have always had WAY over 40 lbs to lose, so I've never had to experience the frustration of trying to lose those last few pounds (but I hope to someday!).

I just think it's more balanced than 85/15... I'll come up to 60/40...

On the other hand, pre-band I could easily pack 2000 calories into one huge meal, so your argument stands that I wouldn't lose weight if I did that several times a week (which I often did), even if I exercised... Thank God for my band...

Of course, like so many other things, metabolism varies greatly from person to person.

I have to get my daughter to a doctor's appointment so I'll stop rambling now. Have a good day!

[rorysmom 0]

i'll meet you at 70/30!

tztmama, i think that you could change your metabolism, over time, through diet and exercise so that you could eat more than 800 - 1000 cals/day and either lose weight or maintain. if you're interested, pm me.

[KDuckster 0]

Hi Cindy,

Looks like you got lots of sound explanations from a number of people. I have done a ton of research over the years on weight loss methods, nutrition, exercise, and yes...weight loss surgery.

I agree completely with Alexandra about the concept of "starvation mode". If you are eating enough to sustain your weight, then drop your caloric intake enough, your body thinks it needs to conserve calories. Thus the reason why increasing your calories (slightly, not like adding 1000 calories!) will restart your metabolism. The reason that anorexics and bulemics continue to lose weight when restricting calories is that the amount of calories they take in is ridiculously low, so even if the body is in starvation mode, you will still lose weight on 200-300 calories a day.

But I really wanted to address your question on why gastric bypass patients lose so dramatically. The reason is because of malabsorption. When the surgeon reroutes a portion of your intestine to a new, smaller stomach, the body can no longer absorb food and nutrients like a person without a bypass. The new plumbing causes the body to pass food through faster, hence less calories, but also less Vitamins, minerals, etc. can be used by the body. Yes, a new bypass patient is told not to eat more than a couple tablespoons of food at a sitting, but even if their body is in starvation mode, their body still doesn't absorb it like before, so - voila - fast weight loss.

I am SOOO happy I never went that route. I know that weight loss with the band will be frustrating at 1-2 pounds a week, but it's so much more health, and I won't look like a Shar-Pei dog when I'm at my goal weight. I also won't have to be giving myself B-12 shots in the thigh because I will most likely be able to give my body all the nutrients I need from regular food.

Hope this helps!

[chichigirl 1]

All of you are really great. I appreciate all of the information and sharing of your own personal experiences. I too believe in losing weight in a healthy manner and that includes exercise, as much as I hate it, I know that it works.

I am a diabetic and am insulin resistant, this means that it is very, very hard for me to lose weight. By exercising, I am physiologically changing my body and the chemistry within it, thereby, increasing the body's acceptance of insulin and lowering my blood sugars. There is no way I could tolerate a diet really low in calories, nor would I even try, it's just not worth it. I got the band to lose weight for health concerns, multiple co-morbidities, all weight related. So I would not damage my body further by losing weight in an unhealthy manner.

You all have been so very helpful. I honestly feel that obese people have more knowledge of fitness and nuitrion than the average person. I know we are constantly searching for what will work without killing us at the same time.

Thanks again to everyone.

Cindy

[Parvathi 2]

I don't really have anything substantial to add lol, but just wanted to say this thread has been a great read with lots of helpful advice and things to think about.