Personally I think Fitday's lifestyle calorie usage estimations are *way, way* high. I think their basal metabolism estimations are reasonably accurate (for most people), but their lifestyle estimations are way off. How can they judge all people's lifestyle energy needs with only 4 or 3 catagories? It's ridiculous if you think about it. Not only is the system inadequate and limited, but each lifestyle catagory is extremely high. IMO, a typical day for each lifestyle is that person at their optimal energy usage, not average.

Here is a good example. According to fitday, a bedridden person of my height weight and gender expends 300 calories through activites. Now how is that possible? Walking for an hour briskly will burn about 100-150 calories, so how is it possible that someone who barely moves at all is doing the equivilant of 2 to 3 hours worth of brisk walking a day through activites? They talked a little bit, laughed, flipped channels on the tv, moved their arms and hands. There is no way that amounts to the energy usage that goes into 2 to 3 hours of brisk walking.

My lifestyle I would say falls into the "seated work" catagory, since most of the day I am seated working at my computer. According to fit day, my lifestyle burns 1/2 of my metabolism, about 700 calories. There is no way thats true. No way. In reality, I am closer to their estimations for "bedridden", and my losses seem to agree.

If you lost 10 pounds in 10 weeks, that means you are creating a caloric deficit somewhere around 500 calories per day. If your total caloric intake is somewhere around 1300 calories per day (give or take 50-100 to count for hidden calories from somewhat inaccurate portion sizes, spices, etc) that would put your total energy expendature at 1700-1900. I don't know how active you are, but 1700-1900 cals for an older woman who is only moderately overweight sounds about right to me. The average woman with an average lifestyle of average weight (and average is a size 12) only needs 1550-1650 to sustain her weight; maybe you are a bit more active, and a bit heavier, but 1800 sounds just right to me. Plus you are a little shorter than average, and studies show shorter people tend to burn less calories than taller ones (so if you were the same amount of overweight, but taller, you would have a higher metabolism and burn more calories).
Using the calorie principle, If you ate 100 calories less and walked an aditional hour a day, you would increase the rate of loss to an extra pound every two weeks.

I am sorry but all weight loss that happens eventually goes back to the laws of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. Food is energy, each calorie is a thermogenic unit. If you consume a certain amount of energy, that energy must either be transformed (through living and moving) or stored as fat. Energy cannot just disappear or reappear out of thin air. Weight gain or failure to lose weight is always the result of too many calories being consumed. This is a nice pat, blanket statement but it is much more complex than that. The problem is a lot of people don't realize the term "too many calories" is very relative. If you have a thyroid issue, too many calories is in reality very low. If you are near starvation levels of body fat and have a self-induced thyroid issue, too many calories is, again, very low. Just because the government or some chart says "this is how many calories you need" doesn't mean it's so. We are not all the same, and neither are our caloric needs. The only way to find out how many calories your unique individual body needs, is through experimentation. And, if you have a physical issue which causes your body use less energy, you should get that addressed or get used to eating very little to lose weight.

People often look to low carb diets as "proof" that calories don't matter. "I eat tons of calories on atkins, am never hungry, and lose just as well as when I was starving myself!" they'll say. No doubt this is true, but the reason it works has everything to do with the calorie principle... the only thing it invalidates is exclusively using the calorie principle to lose weight. Doing an exclusive calorie counting diet, irregardless of food make up, has long been shown to be ineffective, since all types of food are not equal to the body (for many, many reasons which are too complex to go into detail in this sentence). The reason atkins dieters can lose more weight on slightly more calories is because to transform fat and protein into usable fuel, it requires slightly more energy (you know, the whole "metabolic advantage" thing). The atkins diet also tends to be nutrient-rich; having adequate protein, minerals, anti-oxidents, and fats are crucial to maintaining optimum metabolic integrity, whereas low-fat diets are very anemic nutrient wise and encourage physical decay (loss of metabolic integrity). Also, the atkins diet is self-limiting in calories -- we aren't hungry all the time and eat less naturally. The reason we aren't hungry is because our blood sugars are stable, we seemlessly use bodyfat for fuel without our blood sugar crashing first, and we don't have ready access to convenience foods which cuts down on mindless snacking. Finally, on atkins insulin production goes down, and there is evidence that insulin production has a suppressive effect on metabolic (energy-transforming) processes. Decrease in insulin increases metabolic fat burning activity, which further increases rate of loss. The magic behind atkins is really not much more complex than this. The atkins diet doesn't defy science; it works within it to give people the most efficient weight loss and maintenence plan there is. Atkins promotes optimal metabolic activity, which gives us the benefit of being able to consume more energy and lose similar amounts of weight to low fat - exclusively low calorie dieters.

The bottom line is, if you are truly burning x amount of calories, and eating y amount of calories, z amount of weight loss/gain will occur. Always.
It is because people often over estimate how much energy they burn, and underestimate how much they eat, that most stalls happen. For example, if x is 1000, but you think x is 1500 because "all the basal metabolism charts said x should be 1500", you will think you are burning 500 extra calories than you actually are. You will plan your food intake around this, and you will wind up eating too much to see appreciable losses every week. Since the dieter is losing very slowly, they will come to the false the conclusion that "calories don't matter because your body isn't losing weight even though you are making a 500 calorie deficit."
In reality, it's not that calories don't mean much, it's more that people tend to over estimate energy usage and under estimate calorie consumption, or foolishly think calories don't matter at all. Yes we have an advantage on a low carb diet, and 1500 calories of LC food might make you lose more weight than 1500 calories of HC food, *however* 1400 calories of LC food will create a larger deficit than 1500 calories of LC food. Just make sure you don't go *too low* to the point of malnurishment, because then the body will slow down metabolic processes, decreasing metabolism to low levels.



I do agree with this in a sense. If there are other issues going on with you medically that are causing your metabolism to be very slow, you would be better served by addressing these issues instead of trying to cut calories and increase exercise more. If you are starving yourself into hypothyroidism, stop starving yourself and eat more... the increase intake of calories will be outweighed by the increase of metabolic activity. If you have hypothyroidism for whatever reason, get that treated with meds. If you have any number of medical conditions which cause your body to be energy-sparing, by all means try to address them first before you consider changing your lifestyle.

BUT, if there is nothing wrong with you that you can change, the only solution if you want to lose more weight is to increase activities and decrease food consumption. That, or accept yourself at your weight.

Exactly true, you are very correct. We all have to find what balance of nutrients and calories is optimal for us individual. You may have a very different metabolism than the typical person of your gender age and weight. However, this doesn't mean calories don't apply to you, it simply means you require less calories than the average person. If you have less lean muscle, if you are shorter, if don't weigh that much, you have hyperinsulinemia, if you are female, if you are eating a lot of carbs and little fat, all these will result in a decrease metabolic activity thus lowering the amount of calories you need. Yet if you are eating the standard calorie amounts that someone who doesn't have all those metabolic disadvantages, you will not lose weight as fast as they do. It doesn't mean calories "don't work" for you, it means you are creating a smaller deficit than they are. They are using more body fat for energy-transforming purposes.

Energy cannot be created or destroyed; you cannot create or throw away energy like that. The faster losers are creating larger deficits. They either have metabolic advantages you do not, or they are working harder. It's really that simple and that true. Unfortunately, this is true. I wish there was some "magic bullet" which allowed us to eat whatever we want and lose, but it doesn't exist. You can optimize metabolic activity by chosing nutrient dense food, and choosing fat/protein over carbs, but nothing will change the fact that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, it can only change form. The only way to get rid of all that extra energy is to transform it via caloric restrictions and exercise.

I agree, it's not that simple. Calorie counting [in of itself] is not the optimal way to lose weight, for the simple reason that not all calories are the same. Some calories require more energy to be transformed into fuel (fat, protein). Some calories create a hyperinsulimic environment; and we all know hyperinsulimia slows metabolic activity (carbs). Some food sources offer superior nutrients; nutrients are needed to repair the body. THe repair process is very metabolic. A recent study shows taking in extra calcium results in weight loss. Why? Simple, the process of reparing calcium/skeletal structures is metabolic. This is why low-fat junk convenience food diets are inefficient... they are anemic nutrient-wise, and the body falls apart while on them. On LC, we are lean and healthy and burning lots of calories.

HOWEVER, once you have optimized where your calories are comming from, calorie counting is very, very efficient. 1400 calories of LC food, assuming it is nutrient-rich and reasonable for your metabolic needs, will always result in more weight loss than 1500 calories of that same LC food. 1500 calories of LC food is not comparable to 1400 calories of snackwells, however, and most people would find the LC food to reesult in more weight loss despite the fact the LC food contains more energy.

Simple. They either have biologically determined, or environmentally induced metabolic advantages that you or I do not.

-Hyperinsulemic people use less energy
-Shorter people use less energy
-Women use less energy
-Less muscular people use less energy
-Hypothyroidic people use less energy
-Older people use less energy
-Less active people use less energy
etc, etc etc.

In other words, they have greater energy demands than you or I. They burn more calories than we do.

Also, people have a way of overestimating how much others eat vs themselves. I know this is not always true and some people exist who happen to have every single metabolic advantage there is and therefore can afford to eat more, but be aware that just because it seems like they can eat more doesn't mean they actually do and are.

On a more light note:
The natural metabolic advantage men have is often bemoaned in weight loss circles; but look at it this way. Men may be able to eat a little more, but they die faster because of it . Energy transforming activity also tends to shorten lifespan since you are "wearing things out" faster, so to speak. If you are one of those turtle people without many metabolic advantages, look on the bright side. Odds are you will live longer than your friends with cheeta metabolisms (assuming you are mindful of your health of course).

I still disagree and I'll give you another example to illustrate why. When I was 17, I went to an internest to get a complete checkup, including bloodwork, to rule out a thyroid problem as the cause of my weight gain (no thyroid problem detected). I was put on a strict 1,250 calorie diet of the low fat variety. At that time, I was also very active in sports; tennis team in the fall (indoors in the winter), intramural volleyball and swimming team in the winter and softball team in the spring. Guess what? I gained weight (5 pounds to be exact) strictly following this diet (unless I was eating in my sleep...anything's possible) even with my younger age and a higher level of activity than I have now and was accused of cheating by the doctor, his words being, "NOBODY gains weight at that level of calories!". I weighed exactly 20 pounds less then than I do now. 1,250 calories was really too much for a 17 year old, athletically active female?
It's hard for me to believe that here 25 years later, having PCOS, diabetes and being perimenopausal, my metabolism has miraculously increased and I'm able to lose weight at a higher calorie level than I previously gained on. The difference between now and then is the composition of my diet, not the calorie level.
It's quite possible that Fitday's assesment of my calories expended through basal + lifestyle may be off, but I do also excercise and would expect given the calorie deficit theory to be losing faster than I have.
I should also add that I've just come off a nearly 11 month stall following having surgery. During that 11 months, I did pretty much the same thing I'm doing now, but it seems that my body has finally decided that no further trauma is heading its way and it's now safe to start shedding the fat again. Don't underestimate the body's ability to turn down metabolic rate in response to what it perceives as a threat to its survival.

It seems like you are a first class example of someone with few metabolic advantages. A carbohydrate metabolism is absolutely toxic to you, and judging from your list of ailments it sounds the reason this is, is because you (as well as me) have severe hyperinsulemia (a condition you control by doing a low carb diet).

It's not that calories don't matter, it's more an issue that you have a low biologically determined metabolic plasticity. You can't lose on a high carb diet; all your metabolic processes shut down.
Because of this, 1250 calories from carbs, to you, is way way more than it is to a person without the insulin issues you have.

So, I do *definitely* agree that dietary composition is at least as important, if not more important in some people than your total calories (I tried to make myself clear I believed this, I appologize it is hard to communicate on the internet). Trust me, I believe it. I am a perfect example of someone with insulin issues; a high carb diet wrecks me in every way.

But, I also understand the reason it wrecks me, is based firmly in the calorie principle; it is because it suppresses my metabolism *and* simultaneously encourages me to over eat. It is how I became 280 pounds in the first place.


Oh I definitely agree; the body can and will turn down metabolic activity in times of stress. No disagreement here. But this principle exists along side the calorie theory, it does not disprove it.

Biological mechanisms by which energy is transformed are not as easily quantified as a calorie unit. The thin people who tell us to just "eat less and exercise more" don't realize this; they don't realize some people have more metabolic advantages and don't need to work as hard to create large calorie deficits. These are the people who lose weight easily. The human body has evolved to be highly adaptable; we didn't survive famines by being liberal with energy usage in times of chrisis. The body is capable of increasing or decreasing metabolic activity when it senses threats (such as they self-induced hypothyroidism from starvation example I gave). Studies have shown even under mental stress, metabolism will decrease.

Physical (and mental) stress definitely decrease metabolism.

Hi all, I don't know all the chemicals and formulas or whys, or hows but I do know what seems to work for me, I think that this is the most important thing to this way of life or any other for that matter, we all have our little quirks about calories, carbs, exercise, and just plain good old prayers for weight loss, we do what is best for ourselves and in the end we are happy about it or try to change it. There is no holy grail to loosing weight you have to go with what works at the time, and that may not work the next time round who knows? It's one of those hit and run things. Well enough preaching from me
this is my second time round on this ride and hopefully the last but who can guarantee right? I generally don't count cals. basically eat till i'm satisfied, but when I do hit a stall that lasts more than a couple of weeks the only thing that seems to make the whoosh happen is to keep a close eye on my portions size and until the weight starts to drop again I keep a eye on the cals as well, once the weight starts to go down I go right back to normal low carbing until I hit the next plateau. I usually only have to keep an eye on things for about a week to a week and a half, hope my two cents helps.

Take care all
Treese

Okay...now, we've established that it's not quite as simple as "calories in/calories out" and that a whole host of metabolic snafus can cause problems that you may be aware or unaware of. The next question becomes, how does one determine which one (or combination of) problem is interfering with their weight loss and in light of the above is it really fair or helpful to advise someone who is not losing to eat less/excercise more? Unless you have access to a very skilled doctor who knows exactly which tests to perform, often you are left guessing and trying various tactics to figure out the problem and in the end, if/when weight loss resumes again, you still may not know which of the things you tried resulted in the weight loss resuming or even IF it was one of those things and not just your body deciding that it was time to empty out some more fat cells. Believe me, I tried everything I could think of last year to get that scale moving downward again and my body absolutely refused to cooperate. I stuck with it because the health benefits I am reaping from this WOL far outweighed the problems I was having with losing weight; my blood sugars are picture-perfect and aside from a minor head cold, I haven't been sick once in the past year. For me, going off low carb is simply not an option. As you so correctly pointed out above, a high carb diet is absolutely toxic to me (good choice of words!). Wish I had figured that out sooner in life.
I still have yet to pick this book up, but plan to soon; The Schwarzbein Principle 2. I've heard from several people that Dr. Schwarzbein addresses metabolic issues and what to do about them (such as stressed adrenals) as well as how to determine if that is your particular problem and some may find that information very helpful even if they are not following that particular plan.
At the end of it all, I still believe that sometimes a pleateau is normal and not indicative of a problem. It's just your body's way of pausing and taking stock of the situation to make sure that all is still well. In that same light, sometimes slow weight loss doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong with you; it's just the rate at which your body is comfortable shedding the fat at the moment. I think there are times when people cause themselves more problems and grief trying to force their bodies to lose weight at a faster rate than they currently are than if they had simply stuck with it and gone along for the [much slower] ride.

This continues to be a very interesting discussion.

ItsTheWoo, based upon what you wrote in your last two posts (which I agree with almost 100 percent), isn't it reasonable to infer that something may happen to our metabolisms after we lose a certain amount of weight, or after we hit a particular weight, that suddenly causes them to slow down? In other words, when we start low carbing our metabolisms are chugging along at level "X," and continue at that level -- or close to that level -- for quite a while and then for some of us suddenly drop to level "Y," rather than gradually slowing down (a step function, for anyone familiar with mathematical terminology). This would imply that what is happening is not as simple as saying that we now weigh less and therefore we need to eat less and exercise more. And, if this is what is happening, perhaps our intuition that the solution lays in somehow addressing the metabolic issues, rather than cutting calories down to the level where we are constantly hungry, or increasing exercise to the level where we are exhausted, is correct.

Maybe (I don't know, this is just speculation), the cumulative loss of a particular number of pounds, which undoubtedly differs with each of us, sends a message to our bodies that we are under stress and tells our metabolisms to slow down for a while. If this is the case, continuing to cut calories may stress our bodies even more, leading to a vicious cycle in which our metabolisms continue to slow down.

My intuition tells me that something like this is going on with my body. I hang on to weight for a couple of months and then suddenly drop five to ten pounds. It's as though my body is giving my metabolism permission to speed up again. Then, I go through the same cycle all over again. I have tried seriously cutting back on calories and seriously increasing exercise, but it hasn't worked. When I cut calories, my impression is that my metabolism just slows down more to compensate. It could be that my middle-aged, menopausal body is telling me that enough is enough for now and it will lose more weight when it feels it is safe to do so.

I think that Lisa and I were posting simultaneously!

You may be on to something here, Liz....Leptin levels. As our body fat percentage decreases, so do your leptin levels. When leptin levels are low, fat burning also decreases along with metabolic rate. Appetite also increases and you may feel tired or lethargic.
Some people address this problem with a periodic "refeed" day or two, but I've also seen that principle severely abused with the refeed day being a free for all and not a controlled refeed defined as one that is high carb/low fat/adequate protein. I've also seen that refeed day send people off on a binge that lasted a lot longer than just a day, so some caution is definitely required.
I'm also wondering, from what I've read, if that refeed day has to be high in carbs or if simply increasing your caloric intake with fats and proteins for a few days would work. A high carb day or two are out of the question for me since it would mess up my blood sugar readings for a week or more (voice of experience here!). I may experiment with this a bit to see how it works out.

Leptin is an interesting idea. I've seen it discussed on the forum, but I don't know much about it. I will try to do some research on it. It fits in with my instinct that there is something hormonal going on.

I don't want to do a refeed. As I've said before, my primary concern is that I not gain back what I have already lost. While I want to lose more, that is secondary to maintaining the progress I have already made. I think a refeed is too big of a gamble for me to take. I don't want to get into a vicious cycle where my blood sugar goes haywire and I eat more and more carbs to try to keep it from dropping too low. However, I think I could handle upping my calories a little and adding in a few more non-refined carbs -- perhaps some bean soup or something like wheatberry salad. The weather is perfect for a big pot of split pea soup or black bean soup! I'm going to do some research on this.

Liz, here's a good link about leptin. I was reading this yesterday. Since leptin is produced from the fat cells, it would decrease as we lose the excess fat cells. However, I would still think that it would cause a linear loss, rather than a stall.

Wow, this has been a fascinating read!

And I have to say I'm thrilled to have found a board where different viewpoints can be discussed in a calm rational manner without flaming and name-calling. I've found that so rare on the Internet.

I know that the laws of thermodynamics are just that - laws. So, I know that if I'm not losing weight, it is because my calories in are not lower than my calories out. But... while I can determine exactly what my calories in are based on nutritional values, I don't think the calories out can be measured as easily or that they are as cut and dried as we'd like to think.

I just don't buy the Basal Metabolic Rate idea that every body burns the same amount of calories per pound of muscle or fat. And I think that's the conclusion this thread was reaching too. Any number of factors can mean that your metabolism has slowed to the point that a calorie deficit is just so small or not even possible if you are eating a healthy number of calories.

I think after being on low-carb (or any diet) for a while, our bodies become more efficient at metabolizing the food we eat, more used to being without carbs, maybe our insulin responses also adjust to the new way of eating so that the insulin becomes even more efficient at storing fat or whatever.

I don't think the answer (for me anyway) is to eat less, I think we need to find out how to get the metabolism moving again, whether it is exercise, re-feeds, controlling insulin release with more frequent meals, whatever. The question is, how!

Valerie

The leptin link that Diemde provided two posts back is very interesting, and it left me wanting to know more! It used a term I haven't heard before--leptin resistence, suggesting that for some people leptin in their body doesn't work the way it is supposed to, regulating appetite. Exericse also apparently helps control leptin in some people, []ibut not in others[/i]. I was disappointed that the article didn't suggest what to do if you think you have this problem. It ends with a rather bland suggestion about "hard work."

Like Liz above, and to some extent LisaN, I am am afraid of a refeed. I'm sure I don't have the temperament for an ongoing pattern of refeed and drop back to low carb, which for some people produces a pattern of quick gain followed by a loss down to a new low. But I might be bravve enough to try it as an experiment--I am open to the idea of experimentation.

To go along with the difference in metabolic rates, there was a study ( I don't have the link, sorry) that compared obese women with "normal" weight women. Each group gained 10 lbs by overfeeding for the study. Neither group exercised and when the calories were cut to lose weight, the "normal" women burned calories faster than the obese women. It was very interesting since it inferred that obese woman burn less calories when their calories are cut (which we knew), but even less than "normal" weight women. So when our thin friends gain some weight, their metabolism doesn't try as hard as ours to keep the weight. Interesting, huh?

ValerieL I just wanted to say I agree 100% with the essence of your post. It's not that calories don't matter, its more that some people in some conditions have bodies which are efficient at slowing down metabolic processes. I do think prolonged dieting could do this, and could be why some people stall after a lot of weight loss

I guess the only answer would be to do what your body wants, and take a break once in a while from "starvation". Either try a refeed, take a week or two "off" and just do maintenence (or a little above maintenence), raise carbs a little (more carbs = more insulin = less fat burning = body not as stressed).

Personally I notice in myself, after a big loss my body gets really really hungry (check my fitday, look at my calorie totals the past week... they are over 1400 which is very unusual for me). I do think the reason this is, is because the loss of fat lowers leptin, which tells my body to slow down fat burning and increases hunger. Other people have noticed that increased hunger usually follows a loss, too. Maybe the reason I have never ran into a big stall is because when this hunger comes on, I don't stress too much and just go with it and feed my body more?