Quote:
Originally Posted by MariaMaria
This doesn't make sense. Calorieking.com shows 105 calories in a medium banana. Times 10=1050 calories per day. Times 7=7350. So assuming these bananas are ADDED to the rest of what this person is eating and do nothing whatsoever for her feelings of satiety or being full (which is not reality), that's two pounds.
|
That would be assuming that her metabolism is not effected by the extra carbs. It also not taking into account the weight of the undigested food in her gut and water retention. It's also assuming that eating those extra carbs did not increase her hunger - thereby increasing her consumption of other foods (even assuming staying within her WW points budget).
The factors again
METABOLISM
I lose more consistently and have less hunger on 1800 calories of low-carb than on 1800 calories of high carb (even when the carbs are "good carbs"). I'm not sure this was always true. When I was much younger, it seemed to me at least that I did lose about the same, regardless of where my calories came from.
This is a phenomenon that is frequently reported, especially in middle aged and older women, especially when endocrine and metabolic issues are involved such as insulin resistance, diabetes and other blood sugar issues, as well as thyroid and autoimmune diseases.
WEIGHT of undigested food & water
It can take up to three days for food to clear the body. So while it's unlikely that she gained five pounds of fat - the weight gain on the scale is perfectly logical. A person carry up to 25 lbs of digesting food in the gut (even more in some freakish cases). The weight of the food of course, will appear on the scale as a gain.
A one pound cabbage doesn't have 3500 calories - so you can't gain one pound of fat from eating one -but if you step on a scale before the cabbage is digested and passed, you will have gained a pound on the scale.
It's important to remember that our bodies don't work on a "daily" schedule or even necessarily a weekly one. The weight of your food and liquids you take in, will appear on the scale until they're fully digested and passed. Liquids ordinarily pass fairly quickly (but not always - there are many reasons the body will hold onto water).
One of which is that the body needs more water to digest carbohydrates - so increasing carbohydrate intake, increases water needs. Meaning the body is going to hold on to more of the water, resulting in a gain on the scale.
HUNGER
It's also very possible to eat large quantities of fruit on top of a normal diet, and have it not contribute to satiety. Because I'm one of those people for which that happens.
Carbohydrates even "good carbohydrates" increase my hunger. My hunger and satiety cues don't work right. On super low-carb, I'm often not hungry, even when I should be (irritability is my first symptom - so hubby recognizes that I need to eat before I do). On a higher carb intake - I'm hungrier. In fact, the more high-carb foods I eat, the hungrier I get. So eating 6 bananas in a day, actually would make me hungrier than eating 1, especially if I was careless enough to eat the banana or other high-carb foods without fat or protein.
I can eat fruit until I'm sick, and not feel satisfied. Every July, I do. I love Ranier cherries, and I will binge on those buggers and still feel starved. I have to count every calorie, because the fruit doesn't fill me up, it makes me hungrier.
I call high-carb food triggered hunger "rabid hunger," because it's absolutely horrific, and I can eat until my stomach is hurting and I still feel as though I'm starving.
Most people do not have this response to carbs, or at least to fruits - but it is well within the realm of possibility, because I've met others like myself here on 3FC, and in my TOPS group and other weight loss support groups, which is why it annoys me when people say "No one ever got fat, eating...." because it's inevitably a lie. There are a lot of people who got fat eating foods that most people believe "no one ever got fat on."
When I was put on my first diet in kindergarten, fruits were one of the few foods my parents didn't strictly control because until I proved them wrong, they did believe that "no one ever got fat on fruit."
It wasn't fruit alone, but fruit alone diets have their own side effects (for me, diarrhea).
Two apparently identical people can eat and exercise identically, and still have different results. Metabolism is not a constant, and that's why "a calorie is a calorie" doesn't always work out that way. What we eat can affect what we burn, and not everyone burns food the same way.
Insulin resistance is getting better understood, so it may eventually be possible to identify carb-sensitive folks before recommending a diet. But as it is, trial-and-error is unavoidable.
And that's one strength of WW - it's flexibility. You may have to "tweak" a bit (ideally with the leader's input) - but WW always has acknowledged the need for that. I'm not currently a member, but except for the newest system, I've been in every WW program since 1972 (when I was 8 years old, and WW was an exchange plan). While the guidelines were always written with "everyone" in mind - there were always members who had to tweak the program (and not just on their own). I remember women (usually middle-aged and older women - probably with metabolic issues like I'm now facing) who weren't getting results from the standard plan, and the leader would recommend that they drop down to a plan meant for someone smaller.
I've heard from current WW members that the same is still true. If someone isn't losing on unlimited fruit, and fruit seems to be a problem, they're encouraged to limit "free" fruit. It's entirely appropriate to customize the plan to your specific situation. If you don't have to limit fruit, then that's super. But some folks will have to.