I only lose weight if I starve myself!!

[Nowanextraone]

Hi everyone, I am 40 years old and have been working hard to lose weight.
I started off on Ozempic but now can't can't hold of it.

Anyway, during the first 6 weeks of ozempic I hardly ate and lost over 1 stone very quickly.

Now I can't get hold of it, I have been using my fitness pal and 100% stuck to my calories and I just don't lose weight. If I go for the odd meal out, I put on 3lbs and then it takes me a week to get it off again, and I just don't ever lose.

I guess its better than gaining it, but seriously, I'm so miserable.

I am 13 stone 13 so still have alot of weight to lose (I'm 5 foot 5). I stick religiously to 1500 calories a day and don't add any extra on for exercise.

I am going away in 6 weeks and really thought I'd be down another stone.

Is it my age?! When I only eat 800/900 calories a day, it falls off me. But that's not sustainable. Mind you, I'd be willing to do it if I have to

You just likened it to a car which doesn't make the point you think it does. Not all cars have the same MPG and not everybody has the same TDEE. Michael Phelps burnt 7000 calories a day training for the Olympics if you or I did that we'd be whales in a few months.

This is an interesting n=1 study on calorie intake from different foods. The subject overate (5,800 calories daily) over a 21-day period. He did this three times with three different diets (low-carb, low-fat and very-low-fat vegan), each time from the same bodyweight starting point. The weight gain outcomes were very different. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34352821/

Why then on controlled diets where calories and protein are equated in high carb Vs low carb diets is the fat loss exactly the same? How does the insulin model fit here?

@ZellyFitzgerald I'v listened to Jason fung on audible and what I like about him is that he factors in what patients find easy or hard in terms of hunger, expense, preparation, time..... The literal opposite of a quack, not selling anything.

It's been explained already by people who understand. One will ruin yr ability to lose weight over time, the other won't.

Apart from his books and formulated fasting teas. Yeah he's selling nothing.

How? By what mechanism? Explain it because no one else has.

As far as I understand the data insulin resistant folk lose the same amount of weight as non insulin resistant people in a calorie controlled diet. Now I'm not saying it won't be harder for them as they don't always have great satiety signals but this is the only difference it's not a metabolic difference.

They're not unicorns who need a special diet.

I wouldn't lose weight on 1500 calories either. Try cutting back to 1200. I lose weight doing that.

It has been explained. One poster said that while a bag of haribo and a chicken breast might have equal calories, eaten regularly, the haribo could give you insulinaemia. To a lesser extent, the same goes for cake and biscuits versus healthier choices. You dismissed me earlier for saying that "glucagon on, insulin down" is advice that will help maintain a healthy weight long term, you are demanding explanations, it is not a secret what these hormones do. Google glucagon. If you believe that hunger is nothing to do with maintaining a healthy weight long term then you are on your own these days. Over and out.

I think @ZellyFitzgerald and @LMNT should start their own threads for people like myself who are interested in the science and the research and don't want to derail the information we now have, having to explain why a bag of haribo is not the same as real food.

Vegetus

High levels of insulin cause weight gain. People with insulinomas (a tumour in the pancreas) gain extraordinary amounts of weight despite being put on severely restricted calorie diets. Once the tumour secreting tumour is removed they are able to lose weight as long as they haven't become insulin resistant in the process.

N0ëlle

I am starting to realise that discussing facts and science with someone like Vegetus who understands neither is an utter waste of time.

The point of distinction though that I think some posters are deliberately blurring, is that the mechanism for long term consumption of some good groups to reduce weight loss/cause weight gain, is less to do with the actual calories contained (ie CICO is still very relevant) and much more to do with the effects of increasing appetite and desire due to interaction of hormone systems in the body.
I don’t understand why posters aren’t willing to accept this point.

I’m not losing weight on the Zoe diet because the calories are somehow utilised/evaporated instead of being turned into fat, but because the diet (lower carb, low upf, low red meat, high veg/pulse/seeds) results in increased satiety so I am consuming less calories overall and much much less likely to binge on unwanted “treat” or fast snack items.

*insulin secreting tumour

I have just started on Zoe and I'm losing weight on more calories than I ate before without losing. Some very small tweaks seem to have made a big difference.

I totally agree, @HairyKitty .

Also, people who rely on reducing calories while continuing to consume high sugar, high carb, low nutrition food will nearly always put the weight back on, once their willpower runs out of steam and the daily adjustments required become too much.

Whereas a high fibre, plant based way of eating, with moderate amounts of lean protein and some healthy fats and complex/unrefined carbs, is likely to lead to satiety and a long term healthy way of living.

Especially in conjunction with regular exercise and an overall active rather than sedentary lifestyle.

I definitely think there’s something in this. They did animal experiments where they fed the same amount of calories to animals (maybe rats) but fed half the group the calories in healthy food and the other half their calories in processed high sugar food and the high sugar group gained weight even though the calories were the same.

I do think weight loss is actually more complicated than we currently understand and a bit more complex than calories In calories out. Even though that’s the crux of it

plus if you eat 1500 calories or 1200 calories of whole food, high protein food you will feel fuller than eating the same calories in more processed foods which will cause blood sugar spikes and crashes and affect cravings.

I'm sure @LMNT will have a problem with a plant based way of eating due to her work with "protein deficient vegans"

I agree with everything you and @HairyKitty have said in your last few posts. Satiety is the key, eat as many low calorie dense fibrous whole foods as you can and leave a little room for fun stuff so you're not bored to tears.

There is a lot of conflicting advice around nutrition on the thread and I am not qualified to give my opinion on that. What I will say is that you are probably underestimating calories massively.

Like a PP I used to log 100ml a day for coffees, I was using more than 100ML per cup!

Track everything, weigh it, measure it, cooking oil, drinks, weigh butter for toast, everything, you are probably eating a lot more than you think. Don't just count Banana Medium 86 cals, weigh it.

When you know for certain how many calories you are eating you can then can work towards a deficit.

🤦‍♀️

Initially, you could shed a few pounds, but after that, the weight loss will halt. Then, while feeling very miserable, you’ll be motivated to lose.

That's almost as good an input as your little car analogy. Well done.

100% stuck to my calories and I just don't lose weight. If I go for the odd meal out

If you are going for the "odd meal out", you are not dieting.

I personally like a low carb diet. But you have to be honest with yourself, and measure stuff.

I think some of us have given up trying to explain it!