Losing and gaining

lachin

I see a lot of threads here that people generally seem to be constantly losing weight and then regaining. Obviously not all people but it seems to happen to a lot.

It puzzles me. People join slimming groups, lose weight and then regain some, a lot or more. My weight yoyos too by 5/6 pounds.

My question is why? Why can't we maintain weight loss? Why are people up and down with weight so much? Is part of the problem the fact that we are bombarded with so many unsustainable fad diets and information overload and we don't know how to eat 'normally' anymore?

I know I'm rambling a bit but it's on my mind a lot lately!

Theresalwaysone

You could write all day on the subject but essentially its because we aren't robots.

generic2012

It's going to be different for everyone but I think the reason for a lot of people is the 'diets' they implement. Most often people are told stop eating something (low carb, low fat, no, pasta/rice/bread, no sweets, nothing after 6pm, no dairy etc.), if cutting out something like that causes weight loss then whatever they cut out obviously constituted a large part of their diet, if it constituted a large part of their diet they obviously enjoyed eating it, and obviously if you enjoy something you will want to do it.

I think if it was known by more people that it's your calorie surplus/deficit that controls your weight and how to optimise your diet so that you can eat the foods you like and still lose weight. For example, if you are a average weight/average height male who does a full body resistance workout three times a week (a total of 3/4 hours gym time) you may need 2750/3000 calories to maintain weight. So how do you lose fat, build muscle, and most importantly stick at it? I think there are 860 calories in a tin of pringles. Two tins will give some one 1720 calories, 6p 84c 54f, then if you have one meal of 300g of chicken breast (516 calories/62g protein), a tin of kidney beans (307 calories/20g protein), 250g of green beans, or a similar, green leafy vegetable, (90 calories) with your own sauce made from whatever, tomato puree, water, garlic, onions and red wine vinegar or whatever your looking at a total of 2633 calories (not including the sauce, which will be very low too), and that final meals is a bigun, which will result in slow and steady weight loss. While I would never suggest someone take up a diet like that you can be very sure it is healthier than what most people are eating. The main health effects associated with being obese seem to be related to the excess calories, not directly with the fat gained, but fat is an indicator of excess calories hence the association.

Exercise is poorly understood by most too. If someone does a full body resistance exercise session three times a week, their body will be practically continuously building muscle (muscle protein synthesis remains elevated for 36-48 hours after a session), which is very costly in terms of calories, combine these calories with the calories burned doing the work and the modest increases in metabolism that go with extra muscle and you're going places. This type of exercise is important because it makes the body look better which encourages keeping up the work. If you are running constantly, having to do more and more work to get the same results, losing muscle and looking smaller but flabbier, how long are you going to keep it up? (I'm in no way saying running leads to muscle loss, but it easily can if the diets not in check). I can only speak for myself and some of my friends but it would mean a lot more to me to get another 10kg on my squat than 5 minutes off a 25k run.

When it comes to fitness people have a habit of chasing fatigue, not performance, which is counter productive.

When you combine this performance not fatigue mantra with the sample diet above, as the person starts enjoying and relishing exercise and the diet will fall into place. They will want to replace that 2nd tin of pringles with spuds and steak to increase their performance and show off their progress with a good body, as they deserve.

People put too much emphasis on weight loss as a number, not fat loss. You can gain weight and lose fat and increase metabolism but many people would choose a lower weight simply because of some arbitrary number on a scale. This leads to lower metabolism and cravings that the person mentioned above could succumb to with little or no ill effect because their higher metabolism is a sort of caloric buffer, where as the dieter may very well cave in, fall off the wagon and rapidly gain weight.

All that without even mentioning the 'weight loss industry' and its hateful marketers!

If I had to sum it up it would be - people fighting against their body rather than with it, for it.

lachin

Great answer @ generic2012.

I agree that the whole dieting industry has a lot to blame for. I personally believe that cutting out any group of foods leads to over-eating and binging.

As regards using the example of running versus weights I understand your point but not all those trying to lose weight will exercise and if they do seem to choose cardio. Different strokes I suppose

generic2012

lachin wrote: »

Great answer @ generic2012.

I agree that the whole dieting industry has a lot to blame for. I personally believe that cutting out any group of foods leads to over-eating and binging.

As regards using the example of running versus weights I understand your point but not all those trying to lose weight will exercise and if they do seem to choose cardio. Different strokes I suppose

Thanks. I only suggest resistance exercise because I find it more rewarding and enjoyable but if you don't enjoy exercise don't do it. At the end people will only want to do what they enjoy. If you don enjoy exercise, or you enjoy pringles so much that you need a little exercise to offset them, I would always suggest resistance over cardio (if you can't/wont do both) because of the long term beneficial effects on your metabolism.


But as you say different strokes, which ever stroke any folk prefers is the one to go for, be it 3 hours a day or none.

Alf Veedersane

It's easy to blame the marketing of the weight-loss industry but too many people want to be spoonfed, pun intended, whether that's information or when it comes to a solution.

That's why these nonsense meal substitution things make money. People want the easy option rather than doing a bit of looking into what they should shouldn't eat.

lachin

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

It's easy to blame the marketing of the weight-loss industry but too many people want to be spoonfed, pun intended, whether that's information or when it comes to a solution.

That's why these nonsense meal substitution things make money. People want the easy option rather than doing a bit of looking into what they should shouldn't eat.

Yes, agree also. But most people I know, myself included know what we should be eating but at times choose what we think we' 'shouldn't ' be eating. Important thing there though is 'at times'.

However then there are people who constantly sabotage any weight loss/healthy eating habits they have achieved by going on 2 or 3 week long binges, for want of a better word, where they eat whatever they want and what they deem 'wrong foods' .

Have we established in our own minds a reward system with regards to food? Again
I'm trying to figure it out. I work in a mainly female dominated environment and weight/dieting is a constant topic of conversation. A lot of my colleagues and friends also, seem to be trying to lose the same ten pounds or stone since I know them nearly!