Need some info from the weight loss experts, having a debate and need your thoughts
On a diet forum, there are a handful of gals (all women, strangely) who are insisting that there is a significant number of individuals who, even if significantly overweight, can adhere very strictly to a proper eating and exercise regime and still NOT lose weight.
I have been arguing that it is simply a matter of the reasons for non-compliance that are the relevant issues, that just about ANYBODY can lose weight if they are, say, 95% compliant to a clean eating and solid exercise regime.
They have not been able to come up with any studies which show completely compliant people NOT losing weight over an extended period (say, six months), but insist that it is true. They point to the "fat gene", and similar concepts to argue that for some people (all of them, I am sure), weight loss is simply not possible by mere adherence to good program.
I think this must be bunk. I can accept that there will definitely be a wide variety of degrees of success, but to think of an overweight person on a good program, working their butt off and eating clean and healthy for six months and still be the same weight is just bizarre.
Am I right on this one or is this a true phenomenon. I am not talking about a rare person with some particular medical issue, but a significant portion of the population.
Well there are many different medical conditions that can slow or even prevent ones ability to loose fat. There is also the "set point theory" which has to do with number of fat cells we created in our growing years.
There are many reasons why one could not loose weight. Although a perfectly healthy individual should always be able to loose weight with proper diet and exercise.
"Focus on making the 5 lifts stronger and getting enough food. There will be plenty of time to worry about glycemic indexes, PERs, and Bulgarian Split squats later. Much later."-Mark Rippetoe
First off I know these arguments and they are quite frustrating. People hear what they want to hear and are quick to put themselves in the 1% category.
Here is the drill, here is how it breaks down...
A healthy, non-smoker, non-diabetic, non-underactive thyroid problematic individual will lose fat in a caloric deficit.
Having said that here is usually what happens, here is usually why all these people especially women get on a bandwagon.
Let's say that in a day you burn 2000 calories.
Let's say you decide you want to lose fat and start eating 1100-1200 calories, which most women start doing.
Let's say you up the anty even more by doing 45-60 mins of aerobic activity, which most women start doing.
This puts you in a caloric range of 800-1000 calories a day for energy.
You will drop some initial fat, then mostly weight (muscle, water, etc.)
Some will be fine and reach their goal based upon their given genetics.
Some will stall. Some will most likely stop losing fat or weight. WHY?
BECAUSE YOU ARE NO LONGER HEALTHY, you are no longer in the normal category because you have just triggered a negative hormone reaction in the body. Leptin, is now your friend. T3 and T4 process, all messed up. Your body is begging for nutrients and substance, not getting it and efficiency is a thing of the past. Your body will force you at some point to binge out and re-feed itself. When this happens if you have been in a caloric deficit to long your BMR has lowered. Let's say before it was 1450 and now it is 1200. At most with a days activity expenditure because your system is really reserved with energy you are expending 1500 max for energy with added activity. Now just 2000 calories in a day is a surplus and you will gain in excess fat until your metabolism and hormones catch back up.
What happens if you keep bouncing back and forth? It is what I deem the "Fat Anorexic". It is real, it is a focus of my studies right now in the area of metabolic repair. This is a very involved process for me and my line of work. The study is still early but I can say that with what I have found out already there is one simple answer that seems to lie in all these problems and "1%" women. The answer is to eat more, exercise right and use some common sense about their body. Hmm, funny that isn't groundbreaking, but hopefully this study will help bring forth a little more light in both these women who are pointing the finger and stubborn calorie in/ calorie out chanters. What my soon be my trademark in fitness...Not everything is black and white.
If so desire for your argument you can quote me on all this.
Besides everything that Leigh said, which is awesome by the way, ask them how many of these people will then lose weight from things like gastric bypass sugury. I love when people say that they can't lose weight even though they are eating in a deficit and then have a surgury that limits the amount of food (built in willpower) and BAM they lose weight.
Danny
__________________
Limitations are for people who have them.
Leigh, that is very good information. While this diet group is part of a program that teaches those basics (CalorieKing), a lot of them still don't "eat back their exercise calories" the way they are supposed to, thinking the greater deficit the better.
Danny, that is a huge point, and I think I will use it!
Besides everything that Leigh said, which is awesome by the way, ask them how many of these people will then lose weight from things like gastric bypass sugury. I love when people say that they can't lose weight even though they are eating in a deficit and then have a surgury that limits the amount of food (built in willpower) and BAM they lose weight.
Danny
EXACTLY. Take compliance out of their hands and WHAM-O! It's a freaking miracle.
The fat gene is only like 1% of the population, like alwyn said, you don't have stubborn BF, you're just fat...i'm gonna quote Dan John here when he said, look at your goals, does your behavior really comply woth these goals 100%..half the people that i've talked to that said they are willing to try anything fall of the wagon in a month or so
Great article, PA. I think when I eat Cheerios, my microbes somehow extract 110% of the calories!
__________________ “I have always done my duty. I am ready to die. My only regret is for the friends I leave behind me.”
-- Zachary Taylor, 12th U.S. President, 1849-1850
I wonder if anyone's published any statistics on weight loss successes after the different types of surgery. With the bypass surgery, one could argue that the surgery worked because it's not just forced willpower. That's a big part of it, but a large part of your intestine is also being bypassed, reducing nutrient absorption.
Lap Band surgery, on the other hand, ONLY reduces the amount of food your stomach holds. That one is forced willpower, certainly. If one was to have Lap Band surgery and then lose weight, you'd have the perfect arguement. They'd have a good one if some people still didn't lose.
LD -- I think your observation regarding bariatric surgery is dead on. I don't think there are a huge number of people genetically predestined to be fat despite healthy eating and exercise.
I know several people who have had bariatric surgery and ended up regaining about 50% of the weight they lost. What really bothers me is how most of them don't make much of a change -- just their stomach gets smaller. They still eat poorly and continue with the sedentary lifestyle. I really wish there was more post-surgery follow-up and counseling for these patients.
__________________ The trick is in what one emphasizes. We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same. -- Carlos Castaneda
Please direct all further praise to praiseme@leigh.com for my new coffee table book on how awesome I am.
Quote:
I know several people who have had bariatric surgery and ended up regaining about 50% of the weight they lost. What really bothers me is how most of them don't make much of a change -- just their stomach gets smaller. They still eat poorly and continue with the sedentary lifestyle. I really wish there was more post-surgery follow-up and counseling for these patients.
I too know many who have put the weight back on. These procedures do no good if the patients don't understand what got them there in the first place. What really just floors me is the doctors that encourage their patients to get higher in body fat so that they can be a candidate for the surgery. Are you kidding me?
I too know many who have put the weight back on. These procedures do no good if the patients don't understand what got them there in the first place. What really just floors me is the doctors that encourage their patients to get higher in body fat so that they can be a candidate for the surgery. Are you kidding me?
Isn't that considered malpractice?! That's outrageous!
__________________ The trick is in what one emphasizes. We either make ourselves miserable, or we make ourselves happy. The amount of work is the same. -- Carlos Castaneda
In my experience (a few hundred people over a decade), I've never had one person who didn't lose weight (fat) who did what I asked them to. With that being said, it is very hard for some people to lose weight. And sure, it's genetics. However, my dad has been over 400 lbs (and the majority of my family is overweight, and I was a chubby kid), yet I maintain single digit bf %. How is that? One word: willpower. I choose not to be fat.
I tell clients that genetics doesn't dictate whether or not you can get lean, but it does determine how hard or easy it will be.
Through experience I've found what Leigh said to be right on. Here's an example (a true story). I had a lady come in who ate very "healthily", but weighed over 200 lbs. She typically ate twice per day averaging 800-900 calories. I put her on an eating plan that totaled about 1,100 calories per day divided across five meals. She literally argued with me when she saw the plan and said that it wouldn't work, yada, yada, yada... Fast forward two weeks. She came back for her follow-up and had lost four pounds! To be honest, I would've been happy if she'd broken even, because she was eating more - meaning her metabolism had sped up.
I never cease to be amazed at how slow some peoples metabolism gets when they don't eat often enough. Yet others (genetically giften in terms of fat loss) can eat junk once a day and stay lean.
To summarize: if someone is willing to eat properly (a whole other topic) AND exercise; I think we'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who couldn't lose tons of weight (fat).
And how did my dad lose over 200 lbs? Gastric bypass (I call it built-in willpower.) Think about this, how many cases of gastric bypass fails cause the individual to lose weight? Not many (if any). How do these patients eat post-surgery? Small frequent meals. Hmmm... are we on to something here?
People love to rationalize their failures because it takes the blame off of them. I call this the victim mentality.
Human motivation and will power are truly mysterious. After bariatric surgery the successful people learn/get will power. The sorts of diets on this forum require far less will power and attention than what the surgery people are suppose to do after surgery. Eating is still fun and satisfying, yet for others the surgery has been the only thing that works. Go figure.
Leigh, that's a great answer. It's also a note-for-note summation of the book I wrote with Alwyn and Cassandra. (Due out January 2008.)
Since I'd only written for men before this project, I didn't realize the hormonal implications of undernutrition for women. It's scary what happens when a woman eats less than her body needs.
Leigh mentioned leptin and thyroid hormones, but what really got my attention is the effect on estrogen. Missing periods and becoming infertile (however temporarily) is about as definitive a sign of a poor health outcome as you can find.
Then there are the more mundane, gender-neutral hormonal reactions to starvation, like higher cortisol, which of course is nature's way of saying "you're screwed!" When the consequence of extreme undernutrition is higher levels of a hormone that breaks down muscle tissue and encourages fat storage, you know nature doesn't want you to go hungry.
but what really got my attention is the effect on estrogen. Missing periods and becoming infertile (however temporarily) is about as definitive a sign of a poor health outcome as you can find.
Couldn't be more correct Lou.
In most of the cases of women I work with who are stuck in a plateau the first question I ask them is "when is the last time you got your period?" So far in 60% of my cases they have not had their period for months or are on medication to allow them to have their period regularly again. They also have acne flair ups, fatigue, insomina, depression, and abnormal hair thinning.
The problem comes in the fact that these women usually have such a fear of weight regain that they do not want to follow the steps to rebuilding their hormonal function back. The process to doing so doesn't have to be that long an drawn out and is relativly easy to overturn if caught soon enough. The fact still remains though they don't want to do it. Basically they don't want to eat, they don't want the chub back on.
What is the solution?
Thus far proper rest periods meet with scheduled re-feeds and the right amount of exercise and balance of aerobic and weight training. The weight training is delicate during this time period though and I have found that a higher rep program meets with a lot less body resistance while the hormones are regulating in women. Again still early yet with my personal research, but it is showing great results.
I am confident that the right programing met with proper trust of the individual can bring fat loss and regular hormone function back to a chronic under eater. I feel like this particular field of women is of a larger percentage than some think them to be.
If proper program design and diet guidelines are followed from the beginning then obviously we don't run into a problem. However, if the wrong road is taken, we have to work within the boundaries of realism AND science to find a way to get back on track with these cases.
I understand that may come across as harsh, but the reason this needs to be even thought of in program design is because these women are afraid of re-feeding themselves. It is naive to think that you tell a woman that if she eats more it will be better for her in the long run but "oh by the way in the short run you will more than likely regain weight" as your metabolism and hormones are balancing out. They don't want to do it, trust me I deal with it all the time. So many of the women I train are recovering from eating disorders OR went about training the wrong way and are scarred of putting the weight back that they have lost.
So as I said you have to have a realistic and scientific back up plan for how to deal with this in the event that you as a trainer have to lead them back up to healthy calories with minimal to no fat gain and even in most case fat loss.
Added: It was in no way meant as a cut or criticism to women who are dealing with these problems. It is not a passing of judgment, it is merely a understanding of the situation.
I think the major problem is that anyyone wanting to lose weight expects immediate gratification. As mentioned before, with women especially, it ends up with hormones fighting the effects that they are ultimately looking for. Cutting calories, no matter how it's done, signals the body to fight the loss of bodyweight.
The problem, in my experience, is that people really don't want the knowledge of proper nutrition or the drive to actually follow any advice when it's given. They want/expect that immediate drop of 20 lbs. It's not about being a healthier 120lbs, its just about weighing 120lbs.
__________________
There's no love in fear. Staring down the hole again. Hands upon my back again. Survival is my only friend. Terrified of what may come. Just remember I will always love you, even as I tear your fucking throat away. But it will end no other way.
I understand that may come across as harsh, but the reason this needs to be even thought of in program design is because ...
um, I wasn't arguing with your point - just questioning the term "women of delicate emotional standing" - what the heck is meant by "delicate emotional standing"? it isn't a very precise characterization -
if you had said "women in this situation" or "women with this sort of history" -- anything like that it would have made sense - but making up the term "delicate emotional standing" - very unclear and possibly insulting - at least it reads that way -
Well my sincere apologies if it offended, I edited the wording to better suit the point. In no way did I mean to apply any negative undertone or passing of judgment.
Need some info from the weight loss experts, having a debate and need your thoughts
Linear Mode
