The most common-sense theories of calories and weight loss were from books I learned about right here on 3fatchicks, Fat 2 Fit and Calorie Queens. I learned about eucalorics, eating my maintenance calories while I'm losing and that is what I'm doing.

I'm 59, been on 1200 calorie low calorie diets on and off for years, and now I'm the fattest I've ever been. I made up my mind I will eat a sensible number of calories and not ever feel starved or deprived again, which is what 1200 calories did for me. So that's what I'm doing. Eating my maintenance calories. Now.

If I lose a pound a month...oh well...at least I'll die slimmer many years from now...without the deprivation traditional calorie counting plans always gave me.

Oh, and if you really want to get past the weight loss myths, another fantastic book (I learned about here!!)...Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics by Professor Marion Nestle. Total myth-busting and absolutely awesome.

Well, if you're not taking in enough calories to meet your body's energy needs, it has no choice but to "let go of" reserved fat. The energy has to come from somewhere.

F.

Interesting. Your experience seems to go against this info from the Weight Watchers article referenced in the original post in this thread:

<<The good news is that after the weight-loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilized, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss, discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss. >>

My own experience aligns perfectly with the above. My metabolism clearly drops while I'm in weight loss mode (as evidenced by my being cold all the time), and returns to normal within weeks of moving into maintenance. I've been through this down-up sequence at least 7 or 8 times in my life.

Freelance

p.s. I'm not trying to refute your reality, though I admit I have trouble understanding why metabolism would return to normal in one person and stay depressed in another.

I'm sorry, I'm just so so so frustrated by this. Misinformation like this spread for shock value and readership confusing people who only want to get healthy.

Don't embrace something just because its convenient to you. Everyone has a basal metabolic rate (BMR) which is how many calories your body would burn if you were in a coma or something. That is the level of calories you body needs to maintain basic functions: breathing, digesting, muscle maintenance, everything. When you eat below BMR you are denying your body what it minimally needs to be healthy.

You can burn more calories through exercise or muscle gain. You can reduce daily calories to a healthy level and allow MORE TIME to lose weight healthfully. But if you insist on dipping below BMR levels, your body starts to break down. You loose masses of muscle because you body isn't rebuilding it, and thus your daily average caloric burn drops. Essentially when you starve your body of the fuel it needs, your are destroying your metabolism because of the muscle loss that occurs. You end up being able to eat fewer and fewer calories as you lose muscle.

This is what people refer to as starvation mode, when you engage in this behavior and your body gets to a plateau or weight loss stall because you have DESTROYED your bodies natural ability to burn calories (metabolism) by losing all your muscle.

Yes, it is true that your body doesn't "think" its starving and not allow you to lose weight. Rather, your body IS starving. Sometimes, when I see people eating 600-1200 calories a day on here, I want to cry. It would take years and years and years to build back the muscle you lose on a starvation level diet. Thus when you reach goal, you'll have to keep eating ridiculously small levels of calories to maintain.

If anyone wants to learn more, I suggest trying an online BMR calculator to make sure you eat enough for you body, absolutely seek out your doctor or a dietitian, and above all else make sure you are treating your body well. You only get one.

I really suggest taking a listen to the free podcast fat 2 fit radio (fat2fitradio.com) where they suggest an amazing approach: eat every day the number of calories you will need to maintain your goal weight. The weight will come off healthfully, minimal muscle loss will occur, and when you reach your goal you already know how to eat at your maintenance level.

At any rate, don't hurt your body trying to get healthy.

I'm aware of the studies that have found no long-lasting effects to metabolism, but there are as many studies that have. If I can remember enough to find the citations, I'll list them.

While I'm not sure which factors account for why metabolism would return to normal in one person, and stay depressed in another, I have some suspicions.

Much of the university research is done with university students (who tend to be younger, and healthier than say subjects done in teaching hospitals), which makes me wonder/suspect that age and other health issues may be important factors.

Also, many of the studies that have found "no lasting effects" started out with subjects with a very limited or no dieting history. Their metabolism went back to normal after their first dieting attempt. I would say that was as true for me. My second weight loss attempt didn't crash my metabolism, or even my third and probably not even my fourth. It was years and years and years of dieting (especially crash dieting).

Just generically, it's not at all unusual for individuals to have very different reactions to an experimental variable than others. Antidepressants are a classic example, as virtually all antidepressants and other neurotransmitter-mediating drugs can have oppositional effects. Causing weight gain in one person, and weight loss in another; sexual dysfunction and libido drop in one person, and increases to sexual interest and performance in another... it's also one of the reasons antidepressants have the potential side effect of suicidal thoughts and an increased potential for suicide.

Metabolism is one of the most complex systems in the body, so it doesn't surprise me at all that one person can have a very different experience than another.

I also don't know that my metabolism won't rebound, just that it hasn't shown much signs of doing so, thus far. One of the known reasons for metabolic erosion is muscle loss. Most crash diets, and even many sensible diets can cause musle loss as well as fat loss. If this muscle is not regained, metabolism will be slightly impaired. As my other health issues increases, my activity level (and my ability to engage in strenuous activity) declined along with the metabolism.

It's quite likely that some of my health issues were caused or exacerbated by the years of dieting (and possible malnutrition that may have resulted). As I get healthier, I'm able to move and do more, so some of that muscle will be regained (and I'm assuming the metabolism boost that comes with a higher proportion of muscle-mass).

Only time will tell, if and to what degree my metabolism will rebound. I remain hopeful, but committed to dealing with the metabolism I have right now, not the metabolism (higher or lower) that I might have at some point in the future.

I've actually been wondering about this lately, how do religious people fast for a period of time (actually more wondering how their blood sugar doesn't drop) but they also don't gain a bunch of weight later. and there's regular people who juice fast (fat, sick nearly dead documentary comes to mind) and celebrities, models, actresses who claim to do cleansing/detox fasts and they all remain thin. the losing muscle theory might be true and maybe these people are active or exercise enough to minimize muscle loss or to regain back whatever they lost.

also maybe keeping calories low for a few days to a month at a time doesn't cause enough damage? there are some days my calorie count is pretty low (although even on those days I try to make it to 800-100 calories of healthy food vs. 1500 calories of unhealthy foods), so I have to think a few low calorie days here and there isn't going to ruin my weight loss forever, otherwise it would get depressing. so I consider them days where I'm letting my body relax of digesting food and time to digest and clean out any old food, like a light fast or maybe similar to intermittent fasting.

I figure as long as I don't go off binging on junk food and handle the hunger calmly I won't regain anything. like it's been said not to think of hunger as an emergency - so I learn that it's ok to be hungry for awhile and I'm not going to die and I shouldn't binge or overeat at the first sign of being hungry. before I would get worried and think "oh no, I'm hungry, my metabolism is slowing down!" but that really isn't the case since I still have some fat to live off of and I am eating something - not nothing.

That certainly seems to be my experience. I realise that long-term, there absolutely is evidence to suggest that metabolisms can get damaged over time, and there have been some very eloquent posts on here saying just that. I just think it's irresponsible to suggest that a) everyone has the same magic number and b) this can happen because of a single day at 1100 or whatever. It's to do with your own BMR and everyone's mileage will vary.

It's a very emotive subject, for sure. It's just I've been a bit shocked by the attitude people get on some forums if they dare to suggest they've had a day under 1200, even if the rest of the time they eat at a good level like 1600-2000. I'm sure it is well-meaning but I think it's unscientific and because it's so easily refuted, it can be counter-productive.

I really welcome open discussion of it here, it's so refreshing! :)

Magical thinking is common to weight loss, and even other-wise intelligent, logical people fall into the trap, over and over again. You see it here in many guises, but it boils down to the strongly held (and culturally-reinforced) belief that "one false move" and "poof' weight loss fails.

The weight-loss industry reinforces these beliefs (use our product or service exactly as described and you will succeed, but you must follow it EXACTLY as we say, or you will fail at weight loss, and/or experience some other disastrous consequence).

Use an artificial sweetener, drink less than 8 glasses of pure-nothing-added water, use caffeinated products, eat any added salt, ever go out to eatnor eat a frozen dinner, use meal-replacement shakes, don't use meal-replacement shakes, deviate even an iota from a specific plan, eat a bite off plan, deviate from your exercise routine, fail to journal every bite, every day.....


they all result in (or at least predict) ultimate failure (to hear many people talk).


Magical thinking isn't just a natural part of weight loss, it's become almost a mandatory socially-required ritual. If you don't believe in at least a few of the magical-thinking myths, you're "just not doing this right." You don't have the faith, commitment, or dedication to succeed.

Weight loss almost has pseudo-religious overtones, if you (too strongly) object to your groups' doctrines, you'll find yourself (metaphorically) burned as a heretic. I'm afraid I can't even use examples, because it would result in a flame war (especially if said in certain threads).

Generically, the beliefs about starvation-mode, water-requirements, artificial sweeteners, water retention, weight fluctuations, and the use of the scale are good examples (without going into enough detail to upset anyone's ideology, magically based or otherwise).

Weight loss is filled with exageration and hyperbole that only reinforce the magical thinking. Intense arguments occur over what should be recognized as individual preference, but instead are seen as the "keys to success for all people."


Even when you recognize the "magical thinking" traps, it's still hard to avoid them, because we've learned to think of weight loss this way. We're socially encouraged and rewarded for superstition and magical thinking.

Sarashrinking! I totally agree with you! I found out about the Fat 2 Fit podcast and book from lurking on 3fatchicks. Calorie Queens is another book that has similar thinking. The Fat 2 Thin book is amazing. Totally turned around my thoughts about weight loss. Now I can lose weight without ever being hungry again...uh did I say hungry? I meant starving on those 1200 calorie diets.

Alas, the Fat-To-Fit concept will never be well accepted. It's a slow weight loss method, and in this instant gratification world folks want to lose 10 lbs. a week.

It's not about simply calories. It is about nutrition. The body will release fat to use for energy, but that fat is used for energy, not nutrition. If you don't take in enough nutrition - real food, not packaged stuff and not 'fad of the month', your body will hold on to its fat stores because it thinks it will need them later on because it's not getting in enough food. At the same time, the body doesn't get in enough nutrition, and we don't have enough energy for day to day activities, our hair, nails, muscles suffer, and we feel bad.

Check out the podcast below. It makes sense. We really have to eat real food, stay away from the low quality carbs that are in baked goods, pasta, potatoes, etc., and get reasonable, healthy amounts of exercise. A lot of this calorie counting focuses too much on calories and not on the nutrition contained in those calories.

Check this out : :)
http://cutthefatpodcast.com/1641/fat...cience-of-slim

Well said. Agree 100%.

F.

This is a very thought provoking thread.

I am an amateur political junkie. Another pseudo-religion. I try to get my friends who are of a different persuasion from me to read original sources and do some research on their positions before going to vote. However, in my heart I know that no one who doesn't spend his/her entire life studying politics has a chance at discovering the whole truth, and even then different folks discover different truths. It's just like Kaplods said about wading through the morass of dieting information. It's tough even if you have some tools at your disposal.

It seems that some people don't want to know the truth about weight control or politics. Others get swept up in the latest movement, sit-in [do I date myself?] or what have you. Some folks are well intentioned, but wrong. Others are motivated by money - they sell diets and ideology with the idea filling their own coffers.

My point is that the 1200 calorie debate is a template for lots of other debates. A microcosm for life, just to be a little dramatic. We all have an opinion and we like ours the best.

It sure is nice to hear a civilized discussion on the subject. For me, it takes some mental energy to be reasonable when I hear things that challenge my thinking. This is a good thing...

You mean I'm not doomed to enter the inner circle of the bad place if I have a bowl of ice cream? Yowza!

that's what I'm starting to believe also. Is it better to give my body 1000-1200 calories of fruits, vegetables, protein and good carbs and fat or give it 1500 on pasta and sugary carbs with little nutrition and just pop a multi vitamin? I know I would feel like I was starving eating just junk food but wouldn't feel like I was starving with some protein, good fats and fiber.

re:
 

Yep, also 100% agree.