Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 And why would one expect the rate of weight loss to be " smooth " ??? All throughout life we gain and lose weight " unsmoothly " , so why would now be any different? on 3/3/2005 4:31 PM, cologr8tguy at cologr8tguy@... wrote: If > there are changes to metabolism as the body adapts to lower calorie > input one would expect the rate of weight loss to change in a smooth > way, given the same calorie input. > Any thoughts or studies? > BTW. My thanks and appreciation to all of the well informed posters > here. It helps me stay motivated and get smarter, particularily > about the ON part. > > Thanks > Jerry > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2005 Report Share Posted March 3, 2005 Plateaus happen when the fat reserves decrease to a certain level and the metabolism becomes more efficient. The logical thing would be that the body weight would decrease asymptotically to the weight that can be supported by the level of nutrition. This is not what happens. Initially, as you start CR, the reserve fat is burned off without much loss of lean body mass. If the level of nutrients stays below the maintenance level, the body becomes more efficient. At this point you do not lose weight. You are calorically restricted, but you do not lose weight. This should be a desirable goal, because if you are overly restricted, you can continue to lose lean body tissue, bone mass, etc. We discussed several months ago (Message 15864) an equation that predicts that once your body fat is 15% of your total weight, any weight loss is mostly lean body mass. In my opinion, one should select target a BMI in the lower half of the healthy range(18.5 to 21.5) and eat enough to maintain the corresponding weight. It seems to me that the reduced number of calories required to maintain a lower weight would be an effective CR strategy. This opinion has been dismissed as " wrong " by people who have studied and interpreted a lot of relevant literature. They have repeated the " calories, calories " mantra and expressed strongly that it is the ABSOLUTE number of calories, not the relative number of calories that is significant for longevity. We will know in 50 years, or so. Tony === From: " cologr8tguy " <cologr8tguy@y...> Date: Thu Mar 3, 2005 4:31 pm Subject: Why do plateaus happen? I'm rather impatiently waiting my way through a plateau, which is probably at my set point weight. I realize from reading the archives that this is normal and to be expected. That's all fine. I am curious however if anyone knows what's happening physiologically during a plateau? A pause in weight loss seems counter intuitive to the " calories, calories, calories " mantra. If there are changes to metabolism as the body adapts to lower calorie input one would expect the rate of weight loss to change in a smooth way, given the same calorie input. Any thoughts or studies? BTW. My thanks and appreciation to all of the well informed posters here. It helps me stay motivated and get smarter, particularily about the ON part. Thanks Jerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Hi Jerry: Well since you ask, lol. You may find there are more opinions on this than there are posters here ; ^ ))) Here is mine. If you are eating the same number of calories as you are burning off then obviously you would expect to be in a plateau. So I assume you believe that you are in a continuing negative energy balance, and think you are in a plateau. In my opinion for anyone in a negative energy balance 'plateaus' are in their imagination. But it is easy to THINK you are in a plateau when you aren't. The problem resides in the fact that it takes a considerable time to lose a material amount of weight, while DAY TO DAY AND WEEK TO WEEK FLUCTUATIONS IN WEIGHT ARE NOT INFREQUENTLY HUGE. Those in a negative energy balance who think they are in a plateau are failing, imo, to distinguish the large short term fluctuations from the slow longer term down trend. I will use my own data to demonstrate this. First fact: In the past year I have averaged a daily caloric deficit of 150 calories. Second fact: *quite often*, depending largely on what I have eaten lately, my weight will fluctuate as much as six pounds. The most significant factor in this fluctuation is the water-retention characteristics of what I eat. Diuretics like tea, or a long hot bath, will cause substantial weight loss (water only). But eating salty food or wine will cause substantial weight gain (water only) because of water retention. In addition, fluctuations in the food content of the intestine from day to day will cause additional fluctuations. And six pound fluctuations are by no means the largest I experience. In the past year, as I can see from my weight chart, charted daily at Fitday.com (which is excellent for this purpose, incidentally) I have had two fluctuations of 9.5 pounds. The largest 24-hour fluctuation I have ever recorded, from 8 am one day to 8 am the next, was eleven pounds. IT TAKES 140 DAYS AT MY RATE OF WEIGHT LOSS TO DROP AN AMOUNT EQUIVALENT TO THE SIX POUNDS 'STANDARD PROCEDURE' DAILY/WEEKLY FLUCTUATION IN MY WEIGHT. So the question is how does one distinguish the slowly declining trend (0.3 pounds per week) from the highly erratic daily/weekly data (six to ten pounds over a day or two)? The answer is to weigh yourself at the same time each day, every day, AND PLOT THE DATA ON A CHART. Then look at the chart to find the trend that surely is there if you are indeed in a caloric deficit. On my Fitday chart I can plainly see, now in perspective after a full year, the declining trend. Yet the weight I first reached in early March last year (an aberration on the low side: drank lots of tea, had a long hot bath and had just gone to the bath room) was exceeded by 4.5 pounds three months later (an aberration on the high side, salty meal at friend's house with wine). It would have been easy to think I was in a plateau had I fixated on the low March number which was unrealistic, and been depressed about the high number in June which was equally unrealistic in the opposite direction. I have seen seven six-pound fluctuations in my weight in the past twelve months. I have hit three obviously aberrant lows and three obviously aberrant highs. I had one brief period when I saw a fourteen pound ***rise*** in my weight during the seventeen pound trend weight loss - simply because I went from a huge aberration on the low side to a large aberration on the high side. Had I not recognized these data as the aberrations they were it would have been easy to THINK I was in a plateau. But, notwithstanding all the above the downward trend is clear. It is necessary to recognize the aberrations - especially the downward ones - for what they are: ABERRATIONS, and not get excited with the idea they are huge permanent weight loss. They aren't. SO THE ANSWER IS: Plot your weight data on a chart EVERY day, and recognize large drops as temporary aberrations. Then you will not be disappointed a couple of months later after someone has served you a japanese meal with miso soup and wine, thinking you are in a 'plateau', but aren't. [Of course an alternative way to answer this would have been to say that the plateaus are caused by the aberrations I have described above. But I believe what I said above is a more informative description.] Rodney. Sorry if this is a bit repetitive, but endless editing of stuff is difficult these days. > > > I'm rather impatiently waiting my way through a plateau, which is > probably at my set point weight. I realize from reading the archives > that this is normal and to be expected. That's all fine. > I am curious however if anyone knows what's happening > physiologically during a plateau? A pause in weight loss seems > counter intuitive to the " calories, calories, calories " mantra. If > there are changes to metabolism as the body adapts to lower calorie > input one would expect the rate of weight loss to change in a smooth > way, given the same calorie input. > Any thoughts or studies? > BTW. My thanks and appreciation to all of the well informed posters > here. It helps me stay motivated and get smarter, particularily > about the ON part. > > Thanks > Jerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Not to disagree. The "wrong" is only from the standpoint of expectations, IMO. I can reduce to whatever weight I think I need to be at, but I have really no idea what the best and lowest risk is, especially having gone up to 234#. The biggest question is not what the ideal weight is but HOW should a body be reduced to an ideal of say BMI 20? How long should one take? With respect to the highest weight of 234#, what should the new ideal BMI be? These factors have never been determined scientifically. I think it's safe to say that a guy who gets to 600#, eg, is never going to get to some insurance table weight of 155# and live. Perhaps a 50% reduction is all that can be achieved without surgery. I struggle at 175 - 180# having dropped from 234#. That's an easy(?) 25 %. I'm not sure I want to be the skinny kid on the block. I think Tony indicated that first fat is lost then more muscle. At some point there should be some bone weight reduction if this could be done to get back to one's ideal configuration. I think one in a higher BMI has to concentrate on what he needs to do for better health, rather than a specific target for BMI, body fat as a "CRed" requirement. That's the aspect we struggle with. I think one who can exist at 180# on 1800 kcals rather than 3000 kcals is CRed even though he doesn't lose weight. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Novick Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:50 AM Subject: RE: [ ] Why do plateaus happen? >>In my opinion, one should select target a BMI in the lower half of the healthy range(18.5 to 21.5) and eat enough to maintain thecorresponding weight. It seems to me that the reduced number of calories required to maintain a lower weight would be an effective CRstrategy. This opinion has been dismissed as "wrong" by people who have studied and interpreted a lot of relevant literature. To me, with all the mystique surrounding concepts like "setpoint", "usual calories", "normal weight", which are often used in trying to determine "CR", your mentioned approach, which I agree with completely, seems like the most logical, simple, sane, rational and intelligent approach to defining true "CR" in our worlds. I would be interested in what literature defines this as "wrong", especially in humans. As most all the data i see in humans, agrees with this. RegardsJeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2005 Report Share Posted March 4, 2005 Hi JW: And given the much discussed shortcomings of BMI for those of high or low bone and/or muscle mass, a 'happy' combination of BMI, BF% and WC/H might be better than BMI alone, IMO. If one had to select only one, I would choose BF% (DEXA or immersion) fwiw. And are there any other units of measurement that can usefully be added to those three? Rodney. --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > Not to disagree. > The " wrong " is only from the standpoint of expectations, IMO. I can reduce to whatever weight I think I need to be at, but I have really no idea what the best and lowest risk is, especially having gone up to 234#. The biggest question is not what the ideal weight is but HOW should a body be reduced to an ideal of say BMI 20? How long should one take? With respect to the highest weight of 234#, what should the new ideal BMI be? > These factors have never been determined scientifically. > I think it's safe to say that a guy who gets to 600#, eg, is never going to get to some insurance table weight of 155# and live. Perhaps a 50% reduction is all that can be achieved without surgery. > I struggle at 175 - 180# having dropped from 234#. That's an easy (?) 25 %. I'm not sure I want to be the skinny kid on the block. > I think Tony indicated that first fat is lost then more muscle. At some point there should be some bone weight reduction if this could be done to get back to one's ideal configuration. > I think one in a higher BMI has to concentrate on what he needs to do for better health, rather than a specific target for BMI, body fat as a " CRed " requirement. That's the aspect we struggle with. > I think one who can exist at 180# on 1800 kcals rather than 3000 kcals is CRed even though he doesn't lose weight. > > Regards. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jeff Novick > > Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 7:50 AM > Subject: RE: [ ] Why do plateaus happen? > > > >>In my opinion, one should select target a BMI in the lower half of the healthy range(18.5 to 21.5) and eat enough to maintain the > corresponding weight. It seems to me that the reduced number of calories required to maintain a lower weight would be an effective CR > strategy. This opinion has been dismissed as " wrong " by people who have studied and interpreted a lot of relevant literature. > > To me, with all the mystique surrounding concepts like " setpoint " , " usual calories " , " normal weight " , which are often used in trying to determine " CR " , your mentioned approach, which I agree with completely, seems like the most logical, simple, sane, rational and intelligent approach to defining true " CR " in our worlds. > > I would be interested in what literature defines this as " wrong " , especially in humans. As most all the data i see in humans, agrees with this. > > Regards > Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.