Training harder, sleeping better, eatting beyond clean but not losing weight

calfmuscle · 28-07-2020 11:46pm

Mellor wrote: »

Her body would have been used more than 600cals. Just for basic functions, even when bedridden. That energy had to come from somewhere, or else it defies laws of physics.

Not losing weight isn’t the same as not burning fat. Especially at 300kg, there could be water retention affecting the appearance on the scales for example.

I dont understand why you're arguing with me. Please look into this phenomenon, its not understood in the medical community but it is acknowledged as occurring. Calorie deficit is not a law of physics its biology and we do not fully understand everything in this field.

As per my original post, sometimes the body just stops dropping weight even when doing everything right, it doesn't last forever but it can happen for a short period of time. Life is not all black and white or calories in versus calories out.

Mellor · 29-07-2020 12:26am

calfmuscle wrote: »

I dont understand why you're arguing with me. Please look into this phenomenon, its not understood in the medical community but it is acknowledged as occurring. Calorie deficit is not a law of physics its biology and we do not fully understand everything in this field.

I'm not arguing with you, I've no doubt that this person didn't lose weight on the scales. I' as you describe. I'm just pointing out that weight loss and fat loss are not the same. That's fairly widely acknowledged.
Assuming that no weight loss means no fat/tissue was used for energy is a bad conclusion.

Calories are simply a unit of energy. Kilojoules are another unit.
Conservation of energy is a basic law of physics. It applies universally, whether we fully understand our biology or not.
If you have any links describing phenomenon I'd love to see them. I'd be very surprised if the conclusion was that the person functioned without energy from somewhere.

scilover · 29-07-2020 5:36am

theballz wrote: »

Hi All

I am a 31 year old male, my weight since my late twenties has been an issue but I love training and have gone up and down in weight over the years.

Cliffs: when I train I see results

This time round however is different.
I train 5 days a week (2 upper body workouts, 2 lower body, 1 full body,) burning around 500-600 kcals per session with avg heart rate between 120-130bpm

I eat clean, salad for lunch and salad for dinner. Protein in both servings with a small portion of carbs. I train early in the morning before work and have 2 scoops of whey protein. I don’t have any breakfast outside of that

I sleep well 5-6 hours an night and my stress levels are average (covid has been a challenge,) my wellness and mental health in general is good. I take some time to excerise my mind daily by reading and I meditate for about 20-30 mins a day.

Overall, I feel better than ever before. I am lifting heavier than ever before, I am enjoying training more than I ever have and my body shape is changing (muscle growth.)

However, with all of this in my mind. I cannot seem
to shift the fat. I think my issue is I eat late at night, snack until 10pm (chicken fillets, chicken wrap.)

Any ideas?

there are no issues as long as you love what you're doing. If you love what you're doing now. That is good for you.

rubadub · 30-07-2020 5:27pm

Mellor wrote: »

Calories are simply a unit of energy. Kilojoules are another unit.
Conservation of energy is a basic law of physics. It applies universally, whether we fully understand our biology or not.

calorie energy balance is an exact science when talking about physics. In biology, they way people use it for calorie counting, it's only an estimate. A very simple example is eating sweetcorn or peanuts, eat them whole with no chewing and they pass through the system, liquidise them into a soup or peanut butter and you get more energy from them. Same calories if physically burned but not the same energy available to a typical human.

Alcohol is high in calories, a car engine makes good use of it. Humans do not get the same energy from it, and people differ, studies showed heavy drinkers do not get as much energy from it. As a heavy drinker I know this to be true and ignore the calories from it if I am counting, (I would factor in added or unfermented sugars).

If Shane MacGowan or some of these "2 bottles of jack daniels a day" rockstars totted up their calorie intake then they should be massively obese if the "3500kcal ingested will lead to 1lb of fat gain" was always true.

Mellor wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if the conclusion was that the person functioned without energy from somewhere.

+1, she was in a bed, not a padded cell, food could be sneaked in. I remember some program where a morbidly obese guy was in his room but still putting on weight. Turned out he had a secret bucket on a rope and would ring the local takeaway, lower the bucket with money in it and haul up the food!

Anorexics may put secret weights on their body/clothes to trick doctors into thinking they put on weight.

Mellor · 31-07-2020 2:07pm

rubadub wrote: »

calorie energy balance is an exact science when talking about physics. In biology, they way people use it for calorie counting, it's only an estimate

Energy balance is always an exact science though.
Any variation in biology is due to inaccurate counting, not inexactness of energy balance.

A very simple example is eating sweetcorn or peanuts, eat them whole with no chewing and they pass through the system, liquidise them into a soup or peanut butter and you get more energy from them. Same calories if physically burned but not the same energy available to a typical human.

Energy balance is zero in both examples. In one we just need to account for “waste energy”

.
It can never go in the other direction however. You can’t ever get more energy out of food that a calorimeter. So you can only ever lose more weight than you should.

Alcohol is high in calories, a car engine makes good use of it. Humans do not get the same energy from it, and people differ, studies showed heavy drinkers do not get as much energy from it.

The problem with this studies is that they are aligning sober BMR with alcohol intake and drawing a bad conclusion.

FWIW I usually use petrol to make calorimeter point.

If Shane MacGowan or some of these "2 bottles of jack daniels a day" rockstars totted up their calorie intake then they should be massively obese if the "3500kcal ingested will lead to 1lb of fat gain" was always true.
They aren’t massively obese because alcohol has a metabolic effect. 2 bottles a day and they are probably running a few degrees hot in body temp constantly. (That’s how some diet pills worked) Plus the liver is in over drive. BMR is through the roof compared to somebody just eating 2400 calls of clean food. Rockstar is probably missing meals.

I bet when you balance it all energy is accounted for, and balance is zero.

+1, she was in a bed, not a padded cell, food could be sneaked in. I remember some program where a morbidly obese guy was in his room but still putting on weight. Turned out he had a secret bucket on a rope and would ring the local takeaway, lower the bucket with money in it and haul up the food!

Anorexics may put secret weights on their body/clothes to trick doctors into thinking they put on weight.

The less closing people are monitored the more I expected results and variation pops up.

theballz · 01-08-2020 4:40pm

-Update-

Thanks to all for the advise.
I made some adjustments to my diet 7 days ago and I have lost 4.2kg.

In short, I have keep the diet the same, excerise the same but began intermittent fasting. 16 hour fast daily - working wonders and delighted with the early results

Alf Veedersane · 01-08-2020 5:48pm

theballz wrote: »

-Update-

Thanks to all for the advise.
I made some adjustments to my diet 7 days ago and I have lost 4.2kg.

In short, I have keep the diet the same, excerise the same but began intermittent fasting. 16 hour fast daily - working wonders and delighted with the early results

No late night snacking, I'm guessing?

theballz · 01-08-2020 6:39pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

No late night snacking, I'm guessing?

Not eatting a single thing after 8pm.

Alf Veedersane · 01-08-2020 8:10pm

theballz wrote: »

Not eatting a single thing after 8pm.

That's the win right there...removing the mindless snacking.

theballz · 05-08-2020 6:49am

theballz wrote: »

-Update-

Thanks to all for the advise.
I made some adjustments to my diet 7 days ago and I have lost 4.2kg.

In short, I have keep the diet the same, excerise the same but began intermittent fasting. 16 hour fast daily - working wonders and delighted with the early results

Down a further 2kg in 4 days since this post,

No doubt I will plateau shortly but super happy with the results from very slight adustments.

Thanks to all for the help

theballz · 15-08-2020 8:09am

Further update:

Changes I made:
- cut out snacking entirely
- intermittent fasting 16:8
- training days a week (5 gym, 1 Pilates)

Result:
- down 7.6kg in three weeks
- resting heart rate has decreased from 65 bpm to 52 bpm

theballz · 15-08-2020 8:15am

Cill94 wrote: »

It doesn't.

It definitely does.

Sos88sos88 · 15-08-2020 8:26am

theballz wrote:

Changes I made: - cut out snacking entirely - intermittent fasting 16:8 - training days a week (5 gym, 1 Pilates)

theballz wrote:

Result: - down 7.6kg in three weeks - resting heart rate has decreased from 65 bpm to 52 bpm

Can I ask what your initial weight was as thats a fantastic weight loss well done.
Also how many calories a day are you going through now?

Alf Veedersane · 15-08-2020 9:06am

theballz wrote: »

It definitely does.

To be fair, he was commenting that it's the reduction in calories is what burns it. Not the fact its within a window. You've already cut the mindless night time snacking so you've reduced caloric intake and lost weight.

The reduced calories is primarily why you've lost the weight.

Nonetheless, the salient point is that its working for you so hopefully it continues to work for you

Mellor · 15-08-2020 2:11pm

theballz wrote: »

It definitely does.

You are eating less overall. Which is the main driver, not the magic window.

theballz · 15-08-2020 5:22pm

Sos88sos88 wrote: »

Can I ask what your initial weight was as thats a fantastic weight loss well done.
Also how many calories a day are you going through now?

I was 110kg, as if this morning I was 102.1kg.

For the month of August I am taking in 1.8k calories. September will be 1.6k, October 1.4k etc etc

The ultimate goal is to get down to 90kg.

theballz · 15-08-2020 5:23pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

To be fair, he was commenting that it's the reduction in calories is what burns it. Not the fact its within a window. You've already cut the mindless night time snacking so you've reduced caloric intake and lost weight.

The reduced calories is primarily why you've lost the weight.

Nonetheless, the salient point is that its working for you so hopefully it continues to work for you

Thanks mate but tbh, I actually don’t think I have reduced calories massively (it at all.) I eat the same just at different times (within 12-8pm.)

ittakestwo · 15-08-2020 5:36pm

Some people get very offended when suggested that eating in a smaller window of 8 hours is more efficient for the body rather than let say 12 hours.

But look at tribes around the world that have have no western influence and they all eat in windows of 8 hours are less and humans evolved on this. It is in more modern times aided with the invention of electricity that windows have become longer and so has obesity. Humans are at their most efficient when eating in windows of around 8 hours.

Alf Veedersane · 15-08-2020 5:42pm

ittakestwo wrote: »

Some people get very offended when suggested that eating in a smaller window of 8 hours is more efficient for the body rather than let say 12 hours.

But look at tribes around the world that have have no western influence and they all eat in windows of 8 hours are less and humans evolved on this. It is in more modern times aided with the invention of electricity that windows have become longer and so has obesity. Humans are at their most efficient when eating in windows of around 8 hours.

Those tribes also have less ****ty food at hand and are typically more active, which are far bigger factors.

Not sure if the being offended bit was aimed at me but I'm not offended. I have absolutely nothing against time-restricted eating and some people have great success with it. But for the general population, that's largely because it helps them manage caloric intake better.

Alf Veedersane · 15-08-2020 5:45pm

theballz wrote: »

Thanks mate but tbh, I actually don’t think I have reduced calories massively (it at all.) I eat the same just at different times (within 12-8pm.)

So back to the OP:

theballz wrote: »

I think my issue is I eat late at night, snack until 10pm (chicken fillets, chicken wrap.)

Do you still eat those snacks but just earlier in the day now?

theballz · 15-08-2020 5:47pm

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Do you still eat those snacks but just earlier in the day now?

Yes I do. When I was snacking it was a protein bar or maybe some left over dinner. It’s certainly all relevant but it was never really unhealthy snacking

Alf Veedersane · 15-08-2020 5:54pm

theballz wrote: »

Yes I do. When I was snacking it was a protein bar or maybe some left over dinner. It’s certainly all relevant but it was never really unhealthy snacking

Not chicken fillets or chicken wrap then? Fair enough.

Sos88sos88 · 15-08-2020 6:27pm

theballz wrote:

I was 110kg, as if this morning I was 102.1kg.

theballz wrote:

For the month of August I am taking in 1.8k calories. September will be 1.6k, October 1.4k etc etc

theballz wrote:

The ultimate goal is to get down to 90kg.

Well done!

Cill94 · 15-08-2020 7:41pm

ittakestwo wrote: »

Some people get very offended when suggested that eating in a smaller window of 8 hours is more efficient for the body rather than let say 12 hours.

But look at tribes around the world that have have no western influence and they all eat in windows of 8 hours are less and humans evolved on this. It is in more modern times aided with the invention of electricity that windows have become longer and so has obesity. Humans are at their most efficient when eating in windows of around 8 hours.

Stating a scientific fact in order to educate people isn't the same as being offended. Restricting eating to certain windows may certainly work, but pretending that it's for a reason other than calorie reduction is not helping anyone.

Also to your example, correlation does not equal causation. You're ignoring a swathe of other differences between us and those tribes. You're just cherry picking to suit your bias.

Mellor · 16-08-2020 4:05am

theballz wrote: »

Thanks mate but tbh, I actually don’t think I have reduced calories massively (it at all.) I eat the same just at different times (within 12-8pm.)

You just said you were eating 1.8k calories? That has to be a reduction.

ittakestwo wrote: »

Some people get very offended when suggested that eating in a smaller window of 8 hours is more efficient for the body rather than let say 12 hours.

But look at tribes around the world that have have no western influence and they all eat in windows of 8 hours are less and humans evolved on this. It is in more modern times aided with the invention of electricity that windows have become longer and so has obesity. Humans are at their most efficient when eating in windows of around 8 hours.

The tribes survive on less food as well as shorter windows. Attributing lack of obesity to the window and not a lack of excess food is very odd.

What do you think I “more efficient” means?
As if there was a more efficient way of eating that would result is bigger net energy gain. Which would mean less weight loss not more.

ittakestwo · 16-08-2020 6:51am

Mellor wrote: »

You just said you were eating 1.8k calories? That has to be a reduction.

The tribes survive on less food as well as shorter windows. Attributing lack of obesity to the window and not a lack of excess food is very odd.

What do you think I “more efficient” means?
As if there was a more efficient way of eating that would result is bigger net energy gain. Which would mean less weight loss not more.

Your body gets more efficient at taking energy from fat when it goes longer periods without food. The body loves repetition and if you doing something regularly it gets more efficient at it. In this case longer periods without food will make your body more efficient at taking energy from fat as it is doing it more often. Which will help people trying to lose weight burn off fat. Your body's preference is to take its energy from its recent carb store but the longer you go out without eating will force your body to take energy from fat aswell.

Mellor · 16-08-2020 7:13am

ittakestwo wrote: »

Your body gets more efficient at taking energy from fat when it goes longer periods without food. The body loves repetition and if you doing something regularly it gets more efficient at it. In this case longer periods without food will make your body more efficient at taking energy from fat as it is doing it more often. Which will help people trying to lose weight burn off fat. Your body's preference is to take its energy from its recent carb store but the longer you go out without eating will force your body to take energy from fat aswell.

If a body gets more efficient at taking energy from fat (or from food) that means that it loses less energy in the process. Therefore it needs to burn less fat. I don’t think efficient is the word you mean. As increased efficiency would hinder weight loss.

So, let’s say you train your body to get increased energy from body fat. What do you propose happens to energy from food? Where does it go instead.

You are just throwing out buzz-words. None of the things you are describing would lead to increased weight loss without an accompanying decrease in energy intake. It still comes back to energy balance, always.

Cill94 · 16-08-2020 11:36am

ittakestwo wrote: »

Your body gets more efficient at taking energy from fat when it goes longer periods without food.

The irony here is that this is a mechanism used by our bodies to avoid losing body fat, like in a starvation scenario. Also happens when people drop their calories drastically.

As mellor has pointed out, efficient calorie usage from our body's perspective = less calories burned, as it ensures survival. Having visible abs is not something our metabolisms care about.

ittakestwo · 16-08-2020 2:04pm

No it gets more efficient as it is able to do it better.

I got this tip when training for marathons. I use to "hit the wall" this is basically when your body has depleted its carb store and cant get take energy from its fat store quick enough to keep you going.

However a tip I got was to run every second long run on an empty stomach. Get up in morning and have no breakfast and go for a run. At first this made no sense. And I felt like **** and would do a terrible time on these runs but it trains your body to take energy from fat. As you do this more often your body gets more efficient at this and gives you energy quicker in situations than if you're not trained. I run sub 3 hour marathons now and dont hit the wall. Could run a marathon without even taking food on now. Body has got more efficient at taking its energy from fat. If you have not trained to this when your body runs out of its carb you're gone.. Body loves repetition. Doing something regularly and it will start recognises what your doing and it adapts to it. Long windows without food will help body to take energy from fat. It will take energy from fat quicker than if you're not trained.

Alf Veedersane · 16-08-2020 2:52pm

Conflating different things there. Plenty of studies that show that while fasted cardio may burn fat to fuel the exercise, it doesn't necessarily mean changes in body composition (comparing with someone on same calories eating before cardio) because the full day picture shows changes in fat oxidation across the day.

Training harder, sleeping better, eatting beyond clean but not losing weight

Comments