Journey, Not A Destination
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
bikinibound
New member
This is my two cents, and tell me if you think I'm wrong. Tammy eats between 1100-1300 calories a day when she's on the wagon. I think this is setting her up for binges. You can only maintain that low calorie level for so long before hunger kicks in and makes you want to eat everything in sight. I think she would find it much easier to consistantly eat 1400-1700 calories. It would probably help her metabolism as well.
bikinibound
New member
Oh, and howdy Steve! Sorry about the Eagles. I know how it feels to have your team suck ass. This is the first year in ages that the Lions haven't sucked ass.
Have a great TLD.
Have a great TLD.
The leptin levels drop when Tammy eats low in calories for a bit and when the leptin drops the uncontrollable cravings and hunger kick in to get her to eat more again. Steve that is what I meant by the "primal urges" of hunger and cravings. Some believe we simply do not have the self control to match the will of the subconscious part of the brain that operates on leptin and other hormonal signals.
Apparently leptin levels also regulate the metabolism and make it slow down to conserve energy when the leptin is low. Eating more causes the leptin levels to increase again and consequently the leptin signals your brain that its no longer hungry or starving. Is that your understanding/belief of how leptin works Steve?
Anyway, maybe Tammy should be doing planned refeeds every 4 days or so, where she eats at least 20% above maintenance for a day to increase the leptin levels and get the metabolism going again. I saw that advice on that ironmag forum and it made sense to me, curious to get Steve's opinion on this refeed model.
niapage
New member
Good point Steve maybe 1,200 calories leads up to over eating but I don't feel deprived because they have basically a low cal low fat anything these days so I am ok at that point but when I do go and say have pizza from my fave pizza place I TRY TRY TRY to have no more than 2 slices but it winds up leading to 4 and in my opinion I am 74 lbs and I can still eat as much as I did at 255 grrrrrrr don't understand that.
Also at times I will eat my meals and then at night sit down and figure out my cals and sometimes I come up with 1,100ish and on a good day 1,200 I feel like I eat enough,I dunno gets complicated all's I know is I wanna lose weight and in a healthy way I want to be around fro my kiddies and be able to get out and do more things.TY for all your helpful information,Tammy
Also at times I will eat my meals and then at night sit down and figure out my cals and sometimes I come up with 1,100ish and on a good day 1,200 I feel like I eat enough,I dunno gets complicated all's I know is I wanna lose weight and in a healthy way I want to be around fro my kiddies and be able to get out and do more things.TY for all your helpful information,Tammy
Hey buddy
Have you ever been on that ironmagazineforums site? I noticed they have the same format.
Have a great evening sweetie
Anyone who has studied the body knows that hormones are the regulatory unit of the body.
That said, you've got a lot of companies and trainers out there who are only out for money and do very little to educate themselves.
So it all depends on who you, as the consumer, choose to listen to.
I've been talking bout leptin, gherlin, peptide YY, etc since I came here.
I think I've been on Ironmagazineforums, but I'm not a member. What do you mean it has the same format?
Haha, my cowboys kicked your eagle's ass!
*pretending I didn't hear what you said*
Where ya been buddy?
If I had to take a stab, I'd imagine this to be a major factor.
Plus, when you are restricting calories to such an extent, you have to REALLY watch what enters your mouth. Junk adds up quick. Very low calories and deprivation of foods that you desire over long enough periods of time will certainly lead to trips and falls.
Sometimes this is the case.
However, bodyfat is always the baseline factor in the equation. If levels are high, leptin is not going to drop to an extent that creates such drastic hunger pangs and metabolic shifts.
Hardly anyone here falls into the 'lean enough' category actually, which certainly is variable from individual to individual....
And certainly these hormones are responsive to feeding.... but again, body fatness is the primary driver. Let's not forget that leptin resides in our fat stores.
In a very general sort of way, yes.
But again, body fat levels rule all. You can't make blanket statements like "leptin falls when you under-eat by too much or too long for everyone."
It's basically a hormone that is released by your fat cells that lets your brain (hypothalamus) "know" if you are fat or lean or that you are either fed or starving. Claudia, I'm sure you've heard of the 'starvation mode' that tons of people throw around with little to no understanding of what this 'mode' actually is. I think most idiots think the starvation mode is caused by losses in muscle which directly slows down metabolic rate; WRONG. Leptin is one of the primary players if not The Primary Player, in this mode. Leptin is kind of like the way your fat cells communicate with your brain, and your brain is very much in charge of your metabolism and hormones that control fat burning or fat storing.
This said, when there is plenty of fat on the body, your brain knows that you aren't starving.
And something else to consider.... even when you are lean, trying to get leaner, Leptin and all the other constituents that play a role in metabolism never slow your metabolic rate down to a point where fat loss stops. It may slow it to a point where you don't see the scale move for weeks, but that doesn't mean fat loss stalled. It simply means that your deficit has been reduced and therefore, your fat loss is much slower than you are accustomed to.... throw water/glycogen flux into the mix and many people would become frustrated and cheat on their diet before they took the time to understand what's actually going on.
There has never been a reported case, even in severe starvation experiments where metabolism has dropped below the deficit. In other-words, a deficit has never become a surplus.
When Leptin levels drop, appetite DOES go up, so you tend to eat more, which might very easily bring you up to your new maintenance level, which creates a plateau too.
And for leaner folks.... this is why cyclical diets fit the bill. Or refeeds.
This is also why, in extreme cases where you find lean women who have been eating 1000 calories per day and running hours of cardio each day usually need a systematic step-up plan in calories until they reach their intended maintenance, in order to let things reset or readjust.
I'm not sure what all you've researched Claudia, but if there's one thing I want you to remember, it's that it's an entirely different ballpark when looking at relatively lean people trying to get leaner compared to fat people trying to lose fat.
Body fat is high = Leptin is high.
People walking around with a lot of excess fat don't need to worry about the 'starvation effects' associated with hormonal fluctuations. They don't need to worry about cyclical types of dieting.... at least not for the same reasons.
In fact, big people are actually dealing with a much different situation known as Leptin resistance.
If someone thinks their metabolism is depressed they can always start with taking their temperature. . They've looked at it and waking temps of 97.8-98.2 correlate with relatively 'normal' metabolic rate. That is, folks in that temp range have metabolic rates that are ~100% normal based on bodyweight predictions. For every degree below that, subtract about 10-12% from your maintenance calories.
This is a very complex topic.... this isn't even getting into the nuts and bolts. This was simply the answer to your question.
It's also important to keep in mind that there is a lot of hormonal, psychological, etc individuality here. In MOST cases, regardless of weight, eating more meals per day is going to help with satiety, no matter what the hunger pangs are caused by, have the cause be hormonal fluctuations, psychological dependency, or whatever.
In your case, you say 3 meals has done the trick. Why? Who the heck knows and who the heck cares. It's not the norm, but the important thing is that it works for you.
This may help her control her binges.
However, her leptin levels aren't down with her current weight.... she'd have to be much leaner.
I thought I've talked to you before about refeeds?
Last edited:
I'll say, where ya been?
Whatcha been reading?
Interesting.... so how has this changed what you want to do later in life, if at all?
Miss Ladybug
New member
Morning Steve O, stud puppy!! 
I thought the information you posted was VERY informative, thanks so much for the complete break down, very fascinating in deed!! hope your day is a good one, it's colder than you know what here. Brrrrrrrrrrrrr, oh and I think I might be down 2 pds already this week, WOOOO-HOOOOO
Later gator
Kim
I thought the information you posted was VERY informative, thanks so much for the complete break down, very fascinating in deed!! hope your day is a good one, it's colder than you know what here. Brrrrrrrrrrrrr, oh and I think I might be down 2 pds already this week, WOOOO-HOOOOOLater gator
Kim
bikinibound
New member
I think it's very hard to get all the vitamins and nutrients our bodies need on 1100 calories a day. I believe I read somewhere that 1400 cals is pretty much the minimum required--and even then, you'd have to eat pretty much all healthy stuff--no junk at all in order to get that in. I guess if one is eating below 1400 cals a day, they should certainly be taking a multi-vitamin.
Well yes, you're the one who turned me on to the very obvious. I just find it surprising that these strong hormones are not more well known to the average person (like me). Even the so called experts on our very own site seem to know very little about how these hormones work with regard to weight loss.
By format I meant forum platform or whatever. In other words, if you sign on it looks just like WLF.
Forgive the layout and content of this post; I'm rushing at work so hope this makes sense.
Can you clarify this? I mean, if low leptin levels slow down energy expenditure, how can you not then have a slower metabolism that refuses to burn off fat unless really taxed at ultra low calorie levels? This is the crux of what I find so confusing.
But if they're dealing with leptin resistance, then why shouldn't they be worrying about suffering from the starvation effects of the hormonal fluctuations?
It sounds counter-intuitive but I feel markedly better so I'm surprised this is just individual to me.
Maybe I rushed my post but I meant in the context of increasing leptin. You have already noted that you dont believe a refeed is necessary if one is largely overweight because you believe they have excess leptin and therefore there metabolism will not get the "starvation" signals to slow down energy expenditure and eat more.
Many more than just the author I read a book about have talked about LEPTIN RESISTANCE. For the others, this is a situation where the fat is throwing off plenty of leptin but the leptin signal is not passing to the brain so the brain gets the wrong signal that leptin is lacking when its really in excess. The body then thinks its starving, when its really got plenty of fuel in the form of fat stores. Consequently the metabolism slows down significantly in an effort to conserve energy and the person feels very hungry and has lots of cravings, all in an unconscious effort for the body to get you to eat. I bet there are plenty of "fat" people who dont eat thousands upon thousands of calories everyday as the average person will think yet they will still not lose weight in what should easily be a deficit.
There is also the issue with me personally. I guarantee I am eating and exercising no more than I used to at a weight that was 10 lbs lower, yet I'm maintaining a higher weight on that same amount of calories. If I have 10 lbs more fat then my leptin levels should theoretically be higher than when I was 128. I should be less hungry and my metabolism should be moving faster until it balances out at a the lower healthy weight. But its not. WAH!
I feel strongly, from what I've read and from my own experience, that leptin signals (or the lack thereof) really can slow the metabolism down to a point where the body is conserving energy and holding onto the excess fat. It would take practically starving to get it down, and I'm not sure I personally can starve myself. I'm hungry when I go to bed, but I'm not sure I can function being hungry all damn day! Yet I still keep hoping somehow I will get this weight off.
What's your view on age or weight loss following a big bodily change such as pregnancy? I can promise you one thing, I have NEVER had such a problem getting weight off. I used to ease up on eating for a few weeks and take it all off. What has happened to me?!
I'm still trying to figure it all out...
Can you clarify this? I mean, if low leptin levels slow down energy expenditure, how can you not then have a slower metabolism that refuses to burn off fat unless really taxed at ultra low calorie levels? This is the crux of what I find so confusing.
But if they're dealing with leptin resistance, then why shouldn't they be worrying about suffering from the starvation effects of the hormonal fluctuations?
It sounds counter-intuitive but I feel markedly better so I'm surprised this is just individual to me.
Maybe I rushed my post but I meant in the context of increasing leptin. You have already noted that you dont believe a refeed is necessary if one is largely overweight because you believe they have excess leptin and therefore there metabolism will not get the "starvation" signals to slow down energy expenditure and eat more.
Many more than just the author I read a book about have talked about LEPTIN RESISTANCE. For the others, this is a situation where the fat is throwing off plenty of leptin but the leptin signal is not passing to the brain so the brain gets the wrong signal that leptin is lacking when its really in excess. The body then thinks its starving, when its really got plenty of fuel in the form of fat stores. Consequently the metabolism slows down significantly in an effort to conserve energy and the person feels very hungry and has lots of cravings, all in an unconscious effort for the body to get you to eat. I bet there are plenty of "fat" people who dont eat thousands upon thousands of calories everyday as the average person will think yet they will still not lose weight in what should easily be a deficit.
There is also the issue with me personally. I guarantee I am eating and exercising no more than I used to at a weight that was 10 lbs lower, yet I'm maintaining a higher weight on that same amount of calories. If I have 10 lbs more fat then my leptin levels should theoretically be higher than when I was 128. I should be less hungry and my metabolism should be moving faster until it balances out at a the lower healthy weight. But its not. WAH!
I feel strongly, from what I've read and from my own experience, that leptin signals (or the lack thereof) really can slow the metabolism down to a point where the body is conserving energy and holding onto the excess fat. It would take practically starving to get it down, and I'm not sure I personally can starve myself. I'm hungry when I go to bed, but I'm not sure I can function being hungry all damn day! Yet I still keep hoping somehow I will get this weight off.
What's your view on age or weight loss following a big bodily change such as pregnancy? I can promise you one thing, I have NEVER had such a problem getting weight off. I used to ease up on eating for a few weeks and take it all off. What has happened to me?!
I'm still trying to figure it all out...
Last edited by a moderator:
Who are the experts here?
Oh yea, vbulletin is a popular platform to run these forums on. I actually can't stand forums that don't use vbulletin.... at least ones I've seen.
Part I
I semi-fixed it for you.
Hmmmm, read what I said again. It’s really not confusing…. to me it seems like you are thinking to deeply into it.
I said metabolism slows, but not below you're deficit, in so that your deficit becomes a surplus.
This means that if you're maintenance intake is 2500 calories and you've been consuming 1500, your metabolism is certainly going to downregulate due to various mechanisms. But your maintenance intake is not going to fall below 1500 without a change in body mass.
The largest drop in metabolic rate ever reported was between 30-40%, and this was after weeks and weeks of extreme starvation under strict research settings and massive amounts of fat loss in short periods of time in lean men, relatively speaking.
Can I clarify this?
Look at all the research. If you think this isn't true or you've found something suggesting otherwise, I'd love to see it as it has slipped by some people who research this sort of thing for a living.
Now you’re talking about an entirely different scenario, Leptin resistance. And it’s not really about hormonal fluctuations. The previous scenario was. With Leptin Resistance though, you simply have an over-saturation of Leptin; too much.
In this situation what's the cure Claudia? It's not in some magic meal frequency or diet plan and that's what I'm trying to stress.
The cure, only one we know of today, is losing the fat.
Lose fat ---> Lower Leptin ---> Increase Leptin sensitivity
Losing the fat is a function of being in a caloric deficit, plain and simply.
Leptin resistance in fat people may cause bumps in the road such as hunger pangs and the like. But the bottom line is, if they are in a deficit, the fat will come off. So the trick becomes finding ways to ward off the starvation characteristics such as hungers and maintain the caloric deficit.
Your author suggests 3 meals with no snacks, if I'm not mistaken. And it's working for you.... I'm sincerely happy Claudia!!!
I think it's great.
But the fact of the matter is on paper, fat loss is devastatingly simple. The difficulty comes in with the implementation: it's a matter of willpower and finding what works for different people.
Marketing, on the other hand, makes money by confusing people. Simple doesn't sell; and this is why I don't pull my information from the bookshelves of Borders or the like, as I've said to you before.
Fat loss is devastatingly simple b/c all it takes is said caloric deficit. But the *plans* that maintain said deficit over an appreciable period of time directly leading to fat loss are numerous!
You'll find some fat people that are able to create a deficit and ride that deficit all the way to their desired weight, of course adjusting for body size. And this deficit can come in a multitude of packages…. some eating 3 meals per day, some eating 8. Whatever works FOR THEM in minimizing the hunger. Food selection is equally important in my experience.
You'll find others who can't remain consistent to save their lives. You, your author, and any researcher at the moment can’t put their fingers on the exact Why. The reason for this, most likely, is that there are multiple Whys. There is much debate as to how much of poor diet-maintenance is physiological (such as hormones) and how much is behavioral.
But back to that black/white thinking…. there’s really no way that you can differentiate the two.
Your author likes to claim it's 3 meals per day with no snacks that will solve this. It has for you, right…. Even though by looks of you I wouldn't say Leptin resistance is your problem.
There's a lot of research that suggests otherwise showing that more frequent eating helps control appetite, among other benefits, fat or skinny.
I'm not bashing, I simply think it's ironic.
Add to this the relatively large amount of overweight/obese people I've helped in my time leads me to believe that more often than not, frequent feedings are best in terms of controlling satiety.
Does that mean I'm right and you are wrong, or vice versa. Of course not.
Remember that while there may be more than one road to a goal, most would prefer to take the one that has the least bumps and travels the shortest distance. And the road that does this isn't going to be the same for each person.
Many get caught up in black/white thinking once they start delving into these topics. "Leptin resistance is bad and it can make your weight loss stop." Or, "You must eat like This if you are going to control your Leptin!" I'm not saying you are suggesting this.... but many do after reading a blurb about it or some non-scientific piece.
It's not so cut and dry at all.
We know the primary way to reduce Leptin is to lose fat.
We know to lose fat we need a caloric deficit.
So basically, any way that you can think of to help someone consistently eat less energy will work. And again, this will be unique from person to person.
I semi-fixed it for you.
Hmmmm, read what I said again. It’s really not confusing…. to me it seems like you are thinking to deeply into it.
I said metabolism slows, but not below you're deficit, in so that your deficit becomes a surplus.
This means that if you're maintenance intake is 2500 calories and you've been consuming 1500, your metabolism is certainly going to downregulate due to various mechanisms. But your maintenance intake is not going to fall below 1500 without a change in body mass.
The largest drop in metabolic rate ever reported was between 30-40%, and this was after weeks and weeks of extreme starvation under strict research settings and massive amounts of fat loss in short periods of time in lean men, relatively speaking.
Can I clarify this?
Look at all the research. If you think this isn't true or you've found something suggesting otherwise, I'd love to see it as it has slipped by some people who research this sort of thing for a living.
Now you’re talking about an entirely different scenario, Leptin resistance. And it’s not really about hormonal fluctuations. The previous scenario was. With Leptin Resistance though, you simply have an over-saturation of Leptin; too much.
In this situation what's the cure Claudia? It's not in some magic meal frequency or diet plan and that's what I'm trying to stress.
The cure, only one we know of today, is losing the fat.
Lose fat ---> Lower Leptin ---> Increase Leptin sensitivity
Losing the fat is a function of being in a caloric deficit, plain and simply.
Leptin resistance in fat people may cause bumps in the road such as hunger pangs and the like. But the bottom line is, if they are in a deficit, the fat will come off. So the trick becomes finding ways to ward off the starvation characteristics such as hungers and maintain the caloric deficit.
Your author suggests 3 meals with no snacks, if I'm not mistaken. And it's working for you.... I'm sincerely happy Claudia!!!
I think it's great.
But the fact of the matter is on paper, fat loss is devastatingly simple. The difficulty comes in with the implementation: it's a matter of willpower and finding what works for different people.
Marketing, on the other hand, makes money by confusing people. Simple doesn't sell; and this is why I don't pull my information from the bookshelves of Borders or the like, as I've said to you before.
Fat loss is devastatingly simple b/c all it takes is said caloric deficit. But the *plans* that maintain said deficit over an appreciable period of time directly leading to fat loss are numerous!
You'll find some fat people that are able to create a deficit and ride that deficit all the way to their desired weight, of course adjusting for body size. And this deficit can come in a multitude of packages…. some eating 3 meals per day, some eating 8. Whatever works FOR THEM in minimizing the hunger. Food selection is equally important in my experience.
You'll find others who can't remain consistent to save their lives. You, your author, and any researcher at the moment can’t put their fingers on the exact Why. The reason for this, most likely, is that there are multiple Whys. There is much debate as to how much of poor diet-maintenance is physiological (such as hormones) and how much is behavioral.
But back to that black/white thinking…. there’s really no way that you can differentiate the two.
Your author likes to claim it's 3 meals per day with no snacks that will solve this. It has for you, right…. Even though by looks of you I wouldn't say Leptin resistance is your problem.
There's a lot of research that suggests otherwise showing that more frequent eating helps control appetite, among other benefits, fat or skinny.
I'm not bashing, I simply think it's ironic.
Add to this the relatively large amount of overweight/obese people I've helped in my time leads me to believe that more often than not, frequent feedings are best in terms of controlling satiety.
Does that mean I'm right and you are wrong, or vice versa. Of course not.
Remember that while there may be more than one road to a goal, most would prefer to take the one that has the least bumps and travels the shortest distance. And the road that does this isn't going to be the same for each person.
Many get caught up in black/white thinking once they start delving into these topics. "Leptin resistance is bad and it can make your weight loss stop." Or, "You must eat like This if you are going to control your Leptin!" I'm not saying you are suggesting this.... but many do after reading a blurb about it or some non-scientific piece.
It's not so cut and dry at all.
We know the primary way to reduce Leptin is to lose fat.
We know to lose fat we need a caloric deficit.
So basically, any way that you can think of to help someone consistently eat less energy will work. And again, this will be unique from person to person.
Part II
I'm not saying it's an individual thing.
See above.
So let me ask you this Claudia.
You suggest a refeed to an overweight individual. I think we've concluded that Leptin resistance is most likely common in most people battling weight problems. Leptin resistance if a function of 'too much leptin.' So why should an overweight individual do a refeed in hopes of increasing Leptin? They’ve already got too much of it!
I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but it seems like you're confusing normal leptin flux associated with dieting in lean individuals with leptin resistance found in overweight/obese individuals.
Right, so if this is the case, my above question stands. Why recommend a refeed to someone who still has a good amount of fat to lose?
And it's not that the Leptin signal isn't passing to the brain. It's that the Blood Brain Barrier is saturated; at least this is what evidence is leaning towards. There are no definites here…. It is such a new area of study that NOBODY knows the absolute truths…. ESPECIALLY authors who write about what the researchers find.
Define what you consider significant.
As I said before, in relation to what you just said about increased hunger and cravings, this is an EXTREMELY complex topic Leptin isn't the direct cause of increased hunger and cravings, although that seems to be the only thing you’re focusing on. This is more directly rooted with things such as gherlin, PPY, CCK, etc. You must consider things such as the various interleukins, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, adiponectin and other compounds released from fat cells, genetics and sex, etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on.
And I'd bet you were wrong.
There's never been a case where, once placed in a clinically controlled setting, an obese individual hasn't lost weight.
If you are in a deficit, you must lose. It's that simple. Like I said once or twice above..... a deficit does not become a surplus. There are EXTREMELY rare cases where people gain fat uncontrollably. These cases include things such as 100% Leptin resistance, no production of Leptin at all, the melanocortin4 receptor defect, etc. But again, these are rare and it really doesn’t have much to do about calories.
Slowdowns are guaranteed in your normal, dieting individual.
Reversals, not so much.
And are you suggesting that there is a wide spectrum of metabolic rates across populations and that some big people are suffering from a low metabolism?
Once adjusted for body size, metabolism isn't very different from person to person. If someone is fat, they are fat b/c they overate…. too many calories, unless there's that rare occurrence of thyroid issues or the like.
I understand you're excited that you're learning some stuff about Leptin. However, it's not this simple. A lot more goes into hunger/satiety than just Leptin.
Your particular case can't be discussed in terms of such absolutes. If your calories were more controlled…. maybe. If your food selection was more controlled…. maybe. But from what I've seen, your calories were up down and in between. And you weren’t always eating the ‘the right’ foods.
Plus, more Leptin doesn't automatically mean less hunger.
That's good, b/c it's true.
Your metabolism can slowdown from dieting for numerous reasons…. not just Leptin. And it will.
Will it slowdown to a point where your deficit becomes a surplus?
No… and I can't tell if that is what you're trying to say.
I thought this *new* strategy was working for you?
I'm not saying it's an individual thing.
See above.
So let me ask you this Claudia.
You suggest a refeed to an overweight individual. I think we've concluded that Leptin resistance is most likely common in most people battling weight problems. Leptin resistance if a function of 'too much leptin.' So why should an overweight individual do a refeed in hopes of increasing Leptin? They’ve already got too much of it!
I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but it seems like you're confusing normal leptin flux associated with dieting in lean individuals with leptin resistance found in overweight/obese individuals.
Right, so if this is the case, my above question stands. Why recommend a refeed to someone who still has a good amount of fat to lose?
And it's not that the Leptin signal isn't passing to the brain. It's that the Blood Brain Barrier is saturated; at least this is what evidence is leaning towards. There are no definites here…. It is such a new area of study that NOBODY knows the absolute truths…. ESPECIALLY authors who write about what the researchers find.
Define what you consider significant.
As I said before, in relation to what you just said about increased hunger and cravings, this is an EXTREMELY complex topic Leptin isn't the direct cause of increased hunger and cravings, although that seems to be the only thing you’re focusing on. This is more directly rooted with things such as gherlin, PPY, CCK, etc. You must consider things such as the various interleukins, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, adiponectin and other compounds released from fat cells, genetics and sex, etc, etc, etc. I could go on and on.
And I'd bet you were wrong.
There's never been a case where, once placed in a clinically controlled setting, an obese individual hasn't lost weight.
If you are in a deficit, you must lose. It's that simple. Like I said once or twice above..... a deficit does not become a surplus. There are EXTREMELY rare cases where people gain fat uncontrollably. These cases include things such as 100% Leptin resistance, no production of Leptin at all, the melanocortin4 receptor defect, etc. But again, these are rare and it really doesn’t have much to do about calories.
Slowdowns are guaranteed in your normal, dieting individual.
Reversals, not so much.
And are you suggesting that there is a wide spectrum of metabolic rates across populations and that some big people are suffering from a low metabolism?
Once adjusted for body size, metabolism isn't very different from person to person. If someone is fat, they are fat b/c they overate…. too many calories, unless there's that rare occurrence of thyroid issues or the like.
I understand you're excited that you're learning some stuff about Leptin. However, it's not this simple. A lot more goes into hunger/satiety than just Leptin.
Your particular case can't be discussed in terms of such absolutes. If your calories were more controlled…. maybe. If your food selection was more controlled…. maybe. But from what I've seen, your calories were up down and in between. And you weren’t always eating the ‘the right’ foods.
Plus, more Leptin doesn't automatically mean less hunger.
That's good, b/c it's true.
Your metabolism can slowdown from dieting for numerous reasons…. not just Leptin. And it will.
Will it slowdown to a point where your deficit becomes a surplus?
No… and I can't tell if that is what you're trying to say.
I thought this *new* strategy was working for you?
Nothing in particular, haven't had the cash recently to go down and buy many books. Just various readings mainly throughout the web.
Haha - I wish. I'm still lost on the subject.
No where, just been really busy and haven't had much time to post on here. I've been working on my "time management", which has never been good, and staying off the computer was part of my effort to improve that. - lol