fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2986 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2986 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

__________________________________________________

11.

__________________________________________________

12.

__________________________________________________

13.

__________________________________________________

14.

__________________________________________________

15.

__________________________________________________

16.

__________________________________________________

17.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 088 secrets from Secret Submission Post #427.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 1 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Wait, how does wha you're sayign disprove what AYRT said?

Of course that you gain weight from higher caloric intake and lose weight after lowering the caloric intake. Of course that in order to maintain weight loss a PERMANENT lifestyle change is necessary.

They're disproving it with MATH, muthalover.

Basically the AYRT says 100 + -100 = 0, 100 + -101 = -1, 100 = -99 = 1

Except it doesn't work that way.

If a body is 'set' at 200lbs then to get to 195 you have to go 100 + -101 = 0
And then to get to 190 you go 100 + -102 = 0
Then just to reach 0 you go 100 + -103, -104, and eventually you just reach the tipping point you can't take in enough nutrients and calories to run the important systems and you start getting sick and unhealthy and you gain the weight back because it's better to be fat and healthy than thin and malnourished.

It goes the other way too, people trying to gain weight past the set point can eat 100 + -90 = -5 and still lose weight. AKA those people who 'can eat everything and never gain an oz'

In short, if weight loss and gain was as simple as calorie balance there wouldn't be any continuing scientific debate.

That's a stupid math.

2000 calories = 0 fat body
3000 calories = 0+100 fat body ( you are overweight if you eat this much)
3000 - 1000 calories = 100-100 = 0 fat body (you are thin if you reduce your calories intake)

That's the way it works.

I am a person with slow metabolism and my best friend is one of those "can eat anything and never gain weight" people. It does not mean that's I'm "naturally fat" and there's nothing I can do to lose weight. All it means that our needs are different: my body needs less calories in a day than hers does. Which is why I eat less than she does in order to maintain the same body figure that she has.

Other anon answered you pretty well, but to use the same numbers I was giving:

Say your 'set point' is 200 lbs.

2000 c - 2000 c = 0, no weight change.
3000 c - 2000 c = 1000 extra calories, weight gain
2000 c - 2000 c = 0, but still results in weight loss, because the body is trying to return to the set point.

Likewise,
2000 c - 2000 c = 0, no weight change.
1000 c - 2000 c = 1000 calorie deficit, weight loss
2000 c - 2000 c = 0, but still results in weight gain

In order to keep any significant gain or loss from your personal metabolic set point, you have to keep the overage/deficit in perpetuity. Meaning that in order to maintain weight loss, you can't just have equal calories in, calories out like the "simple physics" crowd likes to yell; you have to burn extra calories every day just to hold steady.

There are indications that there are ways to 'reset' your metabolic point, but none of them are as simple as 'calories in, calories out'

SA
Oh, and that's not even getting into the very real 'famine mode'. Bodies tend to panic and send 'store everything' signals when they realize that they're expending lots of energy and not getting enough to replace it over a long stretch of time. So after a period of eating 1000 calories and burning 2000 (and not losing weight), the body will being storing fat anyway, because what if it gets worse?

Again: how does that disprove what anon said? You will still lose wiehgt and remain fit if you control your calorie intake. All your math proves is that different people need a different amount of calories to keep fit, instead of relying on that magical number of 2000 calories that's supposed to fit everybody in the world.

ANd there's no need to starve yourself. You can gradually lower the amount of food you eat on a daily basis, going at a pace that's comfortable to you.

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<o [...] b.>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

You're not getting it.

It's not about any particular number. It's about the change.

The anon you're defending is making the following argument:
A. If Input = Output, Weight Change = 0
B. If Input > Output, Weight Change = +
C. If Input < Output, Weight Change = -

What studies show is that while that may be true on an initial period, it is NOT true if you are not at your set point. It actually looks more like this:

A. If Weight = Set Point, then I=O = WC 0; I>O = WC+; I<O = WC-
B. If Weight > Set Point, I=O = WC-; I>O = WC 0, I<O = WC- (at faster rate)
C. If Weight < Set Point, I=O = WC+; I>O = WC+ (at faster rate), I<O = WC 0

In order to lose, you need to take in less than you expend, ok, true at the beginning. BUT, you can NEVER go back to EQUAL intake/expenditure if you want to keep it off. for every 100 calories you eat you will ALWAYS have to burn more than 100, <b>just to keep the same weight</b>.

That's the issue. In=Out is not true <b>over the long term</b>, because body systems tend to a certain stable point and will try to return to it.

SA Ugh, I forgot about markup issues. *facepalm* Sorry.

There's also a lot of new evidence that gut flora can cause weight gain or loss. Like how they fed artificial sweetner to mice and kept them on the same calorie amounts, and they still gained weight. Took them off the sweetner and they stayed obese. Gave them a fecal transplant from mice that had never been fed the artificial sweetner and they slimmed back down.

But hey, artificial sweetners have no calories so they can't have any physics reaction on body metabolism, right?

[ SECRET POST #2986 ]

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA

Re: DA