Eat less, and move more.

2 PAGES
1 | 2
previous topic · next topic
Seamlus

Joined: Aug 12
Posts: 6

      quote  
Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 10:54
That's it. I've been reading through these posts and all that is being discussed (mostly) is weight loss plans, strategies, techniques, etc. It is simple, eat less, and move more. Only quadriplegics have an excuse not to do this.

If it takes a gimmick to get healthy, then fine. Suit yourself. But all they do is give you a plan to eat less, move more, and charge you money.

For those with health issues, your doctor should be able to inform you of a healthy diet (not a gimmick).

I will now step down from my soapbox.
erika2633

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 805

      quote  
Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 12:53
Smile I'm with you on this, but there have been SO many threads about calories in/calories out vs. quality of calories vs. whatever... and no matter what, everyone still seems to disagree.


Someone who is busier than you is working out right now.
There will come a day when you can no longer do this. Today is not that day.
stmueller

Joined: May 08
Posts: 69

      quote  
Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 14:44
Yes, but with a codicil. I think it needs to be changed to "eat BETTER, move more." Some people are in this condition because they aren't eating enough, and when they do it's all the wrong things.
The first and the best victory is to conquer self. - Plato
umdterpsgirl

Joined: Aug 10
Posts: 234

      quote  
Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 15:20
Put crap in your body=crappy feeling body
Put good, healthy things in your body=good, healthy feeling body
FullaBella

Joined: Oct 12
Posts: 1,080

      quote  
Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 15:56
I'd read several 'plateau / seem to have hit the wall' journals today and it got me thinking about my past 'lose & regain' history versus the cal & activity logic.

Four experiences before now all the same. Once I regained the weight I'd lost I would consistently stay between 280lb to 285lbs - and this was at different four stages (decades) of my life.

Of course, I have no recording of intake but it was always high portion, high fat, high cal, high carb, high sugar, etc. Movement was the minimal and definitely decreased the past three years to the point that I barely moved at all. I know the weight stayed w/in the same 5lb range based on doc visit recordings.

So with the continued consumption and ever decreasing activity why didn't I, other than the grace of god, gain more? Why not 300, 325, 350lbs and beyond?? Where's the logic there?

I tried to think 'ok, you ate poorly, lost muscle and gained fat' but theories of 'cutting cal w/o activity loses muscle' anyway.

I tried to think maybe more fat anyway as I got older but my clothing size always hit '26-28' and stayed there too. I even tried to think 'well, vanity sizing with the trending toward obesity?'.

What have I missed or forgotten to consider? (other than we're all different with different body types,etc).

Please understand, I am not posting this to argue, I'm really curious, if cal vs activity is just that simple, what kept me at the same 'peak' weight? I just want to understand because of the people who seem to have hit a wall 'losing' weight, how did I hit a wall 'gaining?'

And I'm trying to understand for when or if *I* hit a very long plateau before I reach my intended goal, if it's just 'me' or there's something else to consider beyond increasing protein, decreasing carb, etc., being my own lab rat as I have been.



I'm not losing WEIGHT. I'm converting FAT to MUSCLE to be healthier.
Nimm

Joined: Dec 10
Posts: 669

      quote  
Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 17:35
FullaBella wrote:
Please understand, I am not posting this to argue, I'm really curious, if cal vs activity is just that simple, what kept me at the same 'peak' weight? I just want to understand because of the people who seem to have hit a wall 'losing' weight, how did I hit a wall 'gaining?'


Energy balance isn't about calories in vs activity, it's about calories in vs total energy expended - and activity is just one part of total energy expenditure (TEE). For most people, in fact, activity is a relatively small proportion of TEE.

Most of the energy that we expend during the day is simply for existing. Living tissue takes energy to maintain, and our organs require energy to function. The brain in particular uses a great deal of energy. Even fat cells are not metabolically inert, and require energy to maintain. For this reason, larger bodies generally require more energy to maintain than smaller ones. Moreover, it takes more energy to move a larger body than a smaller one.

As an example, consider two different 40 year old men (assuming no unusual diseases/metabolic disorders):

Person A weighs 300 pounds, with 45% body fat.
Person B weighs 175 pounds, and has 20% body fat.

There is a good chance that Person A would burn somewhere around 2500 to 2600 calories per day just lying in bed, not moving or eating. This is his "resting metabolic rate." Any activity in addition to this would increase his TEE.

Person B would likely burn around 1750 calories at rest for a day.

Because person A has substantially more mass than person B, walking for one mile would likely require much more energy for person A. Over the course of the day, this adds up to a much greater TEE for person A, unless person B is much more active (this is also why losing weight can be more difficult as you get smaller - the smaller you get, the lower your TEE tends to be).

So, let's say that both people are relatively sedentary.
Person A might expend 3200 calories of energy per day, while person B might expend 2300.
If they have identical diets with 3200 calories of energy per day, person A will neither gain nor lose body mass (again assuming no disorders of metabolism/digestion). Person B, however, will start getting larger.

Over time, if person B continues with a 3200 calorie/day diet, he will require more energy to maintain his mass as he gets larger. Eventually he will be large enough that he requires 3200 calories of energy per day to maintain his mass. At that point - he will plateau and stop gaining mass.

This is why, if you hold diet and activity level even roughly constant, plateaus are inevitable. Your mass will increase or decrease until it matches the food energy you consume (and absorb).

Bear in mind that in the real world, it is difficult to know these numbers with certainty, and they're often changing - diets and activity level are rarely perfectly constant. There are also individual differences in metabolism, health, body composition, etc. Many, many factors can and will complicate and confound a lot of this abstract theory.
erika2633

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 805

      quote  
Posted: 18 Jan 2013, 18:55
Yeah. What he said. ^


Someone who is busier than you is working out right now.
There will come a day when you can no longer do this. Today is not that day.
mikefarinha

Joined: Jun 11
Posts: 443

      quote  
Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 10:01
Nimm,

I don't think you understand what FullaBella was asking. She is asking about what is often referred to as ones body fat set point. Why does it exist and why is it different for each person? Explaining how calories work doesn't explain this phenomenon.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/body-fat-setpoint.html

-Mike
"Eat as if your life depends on it!"
FullaBella

Joined: Oct 12
Posts: 1,080

      quote  
Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 11:22
I was intrigued by both answers and hope more helpful ideas continue to post. Of all of the things were presented in Nimms post the one thing that rang the loudest (to ME - because, human that I am, I like to read things that I suspect to be so) was There are also individual differences ... and will complicate and confound a lot of this abstract theory. I liked that because so many people tend to go back to the easy answer 'cal in/ cal out' and leaves so many of us 'confounded' folks out in the cold.

Mike, I read the setpoint blog post but not beyond so my apologies if what I'm about to ask has already been tested and published and I just stopped reading too soon.

In my continued puzzle of 'why didn't I go beyond 285lb when others did' have studies been done not simply trying to understand obesity as something to cure but set points in general beyond this test. To me, 6 weeks seemed a small window in the course of a person's life.

While I know 285lb isn't an ideal weight, I'd like to have HOPE that WHEN I reach my goal weight, I'll be able to maintain IT consistently within a pound or two for 5,10, ideally 20 years as I did at 285.

Isn't that we (here) all want (maintaining a healthy weight)?

I wish I'd known about FS or even thought about food recording before I began eating healthy (again) instead of two months after.

Had I a time machine I'd travel back and record three months prior to changing my eating to know if I was actually eating 3500 or 4500 or 5500 cal a day and in what ratios (fat, protein, carb, processed, sugar) to have never gained (more) weight.

I wonder if it's even possible for a physician or scientist to instruct an already, 'setpoint' obese person to 'not change a thing, eat exactly as you are now' for 90 days advising them to merely record their intake. Would they record accurately and not be tempted to change once they started recording it and seeing the numbers?

Would it have to be a blind study - just eat & let someone else do the record keeping?

I can imagine the goal behind such a study would seem sick, wrong, or evil but what if THAT actually unlocked some of the mystery of why beyond being blessed with the perfect metabolism. If THAT result, secret, hormone, etc could be discovered, maybe it could help so many people who are healthy weight NOW to not gain, regain, etc.



I'm not losing WEIGHT. I'm converting FAT to MUSCLE to be healthier.
erika2633

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 805

      quote  
Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 11:23
mikefarinha wrote:
She is asking about what is often referred to as ones body fat set point. Why does it exist and why is it different for each person? Explaining how calories work doesn't explain this phenomenon.


You can't possibly tell me that Bella regained that weight because her body "wanted" to be 285 pounds. She said herself (sorry, Bella, not trying to rip on you, just trying to explain) that she was eating a diet very high in calories and moving very little. Of course that's going to make her gain weight until she reaches the point that Nimm described:

Nimm wrote:
Over time, if person B continues with a 3200 calorie/day diet, he will require more energy to maintain his mass as he gets larger. Eventually he will be large enough that he requires 3200 calories of energy per day to maintain his mass. At that point - he will plateau and stop gaining mass.


I refuse to believe that Bella's body was making her eat that many calories and move that little. The reason the weight re-gain happens is because maintenance is hard for people that have been obese and lost the weight. Food is convenient and tasty and ends up getting eaten for the wrong reasons (boredeom, habit, happiness, sadness, etc) and overeating happens. Some people have to work harder than others to keep that in check because of habits and relationships with food that have been established since birth.


Someone who is busier than you is working out right now.
There will come a day when you can no longer do this. Today is not that day.
FullaBella

Joined: Oct 12
Posts: 1,080

      quote  
Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 11:43
Erika - you posted while I was still editing LOL. No worries, I take complete responsibility for my own weight and know what led to it. I'm not asking 'why did I get fat' - I'm asking 'why didn't I get fatter?' My quest, as academic as it may likely be, is maybe if we understood the 'how did I stop gaining compared to others who don't' it may help someone stop at 130, etc.


I'm not losing WEIGHT. I'm converting FAT to MUSCLE to be healthier.
erika2633

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 805

      quote  
Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 12:06
Haha, I noticed that we posted at the same time! Smile
I know what you were asking (and it was definitely a legitimate question, one that a lot of people probably have!) and I think Nimm did a great job of explaining it. I wish more people could read his post.


Someone who is busier than you is working out right now.
There will come a day when you can no longer do this. Today is not that day.
eKatherine

Joined: Aug 12
Posts: 1,286

      quote  
Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 12:11
It's a fact that it is not necessary to exercise to lose weight. People who are restricted to wheelchairs have lost weight and achieved their goals by portion control alone, while many people have switched from unhealthy food to healthy food and taken up exercise without losing an ounce.
erika2633

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 805

      quote  
Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 12:22
eKatherine wrote:
It's a fact that it is not necessary to exercise to lose weight.


"Move more" does not have to mean "exercise."

It means instead of sitting all day long (sit in the car, sit at your desk, sit on the couch, sit at the computer, sit in a motorized cart at Walmart), just get up and move more!
This article at prevention.com gives 100 little tricks to move more: Prevention.com

If eating less and moving more is the way, then by NOT moving more, that means you have to eat even less... So yes, it can be done, but for those of us that like to eat a little more, then movement/exercise is the way.


Someone who is busier than you is working out right now.
There will come a day when you can no longer do this. Today is not that day.
eKatherine

Joined: Aug 12
Posts: 1,286

      quote  
Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 12:48
What I have said is simply true. It is not necessary to exercise or "move more" to lose weight. It is necessary to control your intake regardless of whether you exercise or not.

If your exercise goal was to increase your ability to eat more, fine. It sounds like you have achieved your goal.
erika2633

Joined: Nov 11
Posts: 805

      quote  
Posted: 19 Jan 2013, 12:55
eKatherine wrote:
It is necessary to control your intake regardless of whether you exercise or not.


Agreed, 100%. This is where a lot of people find trouble - when they workout and then assume they can eat however much they want.




Someone who is busier than you is working out right now.
There will come a day when you can no longer do this. Today is not that day.
Nimm

Joined: Dec 10
Posts: 669

      quote  
Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 08:28
mikefarinha wrote:
Nimm,

I don't think you understand what FullaBella was asking. She is asking about what is often referred to as ones body fat set point. Why does it exist and why is it different for each person? Explaining how calories work doesn't explain this phenomenon.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/body-fat-setpoint.html


I didn't read the question that way. She explained that she was eating a high-calorie diet, but was increasingly sedentary, and asked why, in light of "calories vs activity," did she not continue gaining weight indefinitely. That suggests a misunderstanding of how we use energy - especially if energy consumed is being compared to "activity" rather than all energy expended.

And the short, simple answer is that regardless of activity level, energy needs will increase along with body mass, so that an energy surplus on day 1 might not be an energy surplus on day 1000 with the same diet, even if activity level decreases.

Set point theory, adaptive thermogenesis, NEAT responses to over- and under-feeding - all of these are relevant (and overlap), but aren't really worth getting into if we're not all on the same page with some of the basic mechanics. You may very well be right in what she meant, but there have been enough posts over the years where people have assumed that human energy needs are limited to acivity or exercise, that it seems to be a very common belief. In any event, both bases have now been covered!
FullaBella

Joined: Oct 12
Posts: 1,080

      quote  
Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 15:00
I definitely get the 'activity' isn't 'energy' better esp as I use the FS exercise calendar in my odd way; I usually record my 24 hour as sleeping and with each weight loss that number decreases as well. So 'if' I truly slept 24hr a day my body theoretically uses less energy than it did 70lbs ago. And I appreciate that answer, thank you.

I have another question, please, because of this continued endeavor to understand it all better. I've heard things like 'the body needs energy to process food - and certain foods cause it to expend more energy processing than others.' An apple is usually listed as the example.

Is that a myth or valid? If valid, is there anywhere that would calculate it? I was testing it one day with the same 24hr sleeping (here on the FS site) and noticed if I added food, the exercise cal didn't change so apparently that's not built in here. So is that because it isn't valid, or can't be done?


I'm not losing WEIGHT. I'm converting FAT to MUSCLE to be healthier.
Nimm

Joined: Dec 10
Posts: 669

      quote  
Posted: 20 Jan 2013, 17:50
FullaBella wrote:
I definitely get the 'activity' isn't 'energy' better esp as I use the FS exercise calendar in my odd way; I usually record my 24 hour as sleeping and with each weight loss that number decreases as well. So 'if' I truly slept 24hr a day my body theoretically uses less energy than it did 70lbs ago.


Yes, that's right - although how much less energy is used will depend on many factors - your body composition, genetics, health, etc. But you've got the principle right.

Quote:
I have another question, please, because of this continued endeavor to understand it all better. I've heard things like 'the body needs energy to process food - and certain foods cause it to expend more energy processing than others.' An apple is usually listed as the example.

Is that a myth or valid? If valid, is there anywhere that would calculate it? I was testing it one day with the same 24hr sleeping (here on the FS site) and noticed if I added food, the exercise cal didn't change so apparently that's not built in here. So is that because it isn't valid, or can't be done?


Energy is indeed required for food to be processed and/or stored - this is called the Thermic Effect of Food. And the thermic effect does vary by the composition of the food. Protein requires the most energy to process - much more than either carbohydrate or fat. Fat has the lowest TEF, but carbohydrate is not much higher (the type of carb matters too).

As a practical matter, TEF is hard to measure, since the specific type of food matters a lot. But more importantly, not a lot of calories are involved. A rough rule of thumb for a diet with a reasonable amount of protein is that the TEF is about 10% of the energy in the food itself. So if you consume 1500 calories, you may have to spend 100 to 150 calories simply processing it. In this way (and many others), the "calories in" and "calories out" sides of the energy balance equation are dependent upon each other.
Lisa Bailey

Joined: Jan 13
Posts: 3

      quote  
Posted: 21 Jan 2013, 01:33
AGREED 110%!!!

I will admit - i myself have googled and spent loads of time on net searching on different "quick tricks/tips". i even wondered if it was hormones or a thyroid issue... even went so far as to check those nasty pro-anorexic sites. We want there to be some amazing secret - like some magical pill to lose weight. We dont want to be responsible for how we look. Its hard to admit that its not the food making you fat, its not the exercise thats too hard - its US that make US fat. We decide what goes down our throats and we decide how hard we work at exercise. We control how our bodies look. Denial is lifes most underated skill!



Forum Search
Advanced forum search



Latest Posts

Why can't I loose weight faster
The above answers are quite right. However, for me, the answer is that it is just damn hard to lose weight. The answer lies in large quantities of Time, Patience, and Honesty. I bet you have them, good ...
by Glaun on 22 Nov 14 09:31 AM
Heart Rate Monitor Watches for Men
I have a polar RCX5. Very expensive but works great. Espcially for helping you train in fat burning mode and for estimating calories burnt. You need a chest strap though. Great gift idea.
by Bunty145 on 22 Nov 14 02:19 AM
Starting new diet
Going low carb this time. Makes a lot of sense. Hope to get a lot of tips
by Mat780 on 21 Nov 14 10:20 PM
pork rib calories
Does anyone know if the calories they post, say for pork ribs...does this include the bone or without. Example.. 4 oz hormel baby backs ribs says 250 calories. So is that 4 oz with bone or 4 oz of meat ...
by macnut53 on 21 Nov 14 08:51 PM
Loss is Good
The only place were being a loser is a good thing.
by unamoyer on 21 Nov 14 08:32 PM