Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I knew someone who was literally starving to death due to his inability to eat solid food due to a medical problem, yet absolutely refused Ensure -- again, four a day provide complete nutrition - because he didn't like the taste. Good grief, it's a tiny little bottle! Hold your nose and swallow it.
Don't have time right now to read through all the replies, but you want to make sure to get your thyroid tested if it hasn't been already. Hypothyroidism will make it hard to lose weight.
We all wish we could blame it on hypothyroidism; we almost never can.
I knew someone who was literally starving to death due to his inability to eat solid food due to a medical problem, yet absolutely refused Ensure -- again, four a day provide complete nutrition - because he didn't like the taste. Good grief, it's a tiny little bottle! Hold your nose and swallow it.
But there are other options. In my case, I can eat solid food.
Can someone comment on how thyroid, medication, and the rest prevent weight loss?
Let's say a person reduces calorie intake - pick a number - 1500 per day? But in three months, they lose zero weight. How does the mechanism work? What's happening here that prevents weightloss?
I was taught it's simple physics - consume fewer calories than you burn, and you WILL lose weight. True or not? For instance, is it possible that no matter how few calories to adjust down to - your body just adjusts your metabolism accordingly, and now you only need 1500 calories a day to maintain the same weight?
Re: muscles - I get what people are saying, one is more dense than the other - but what we really mean is - if I diet, but also lift weights, is it possible that my new biceps "outweigh" my lost belly fat? In this logic, muscle "weighs" more than fat, and it will appear (on the scale) that the diet is not working. No one (I hope) thinks muscles actually weigh more than fat. But a small muscle increase can offset the weight loss of a larger fat decrease. That's the point here.
If your metabolism is too low or hormonal issues interfere with fat burning, you would have to consume VERY few calories in order to maintain or lose weight; basically starve. As has been stated, I for one am not willing to do this, so the alternative is to eat normally and be somewhat overweight. This is what naturally happens to many women in menopause, alas.
Re: muscles - I get what people are saying, one is more dense than the other - but what we really mean is - if I diet, but also lift weights, is it possible that my new biceps "outweigh" my lost belly fat? In this logic, muscle "weighs" more than fat, and it will appear (on the scale) that the diet is not working. No one (I hope) thinks muscles actually weigh more than fat. But a small muscle increase can offset the weight loss of a larger fat decrease. That's the point here.
It’s possible that what you suggest could happen, but in that case you will not only look and feel better, but can eat more to maintain the same weight, since muscle is more metabolically active than fat. It’s really not so much about what the scale says, as about how healthy and fit you are.
If people who complain that they keep gaining weight despite not eating more than in the past would make an effort to gain more muscle, that would go a long way to solve the problem. And it is not true that older people can’t gain muscle mass; they certainly can.
The idea of all you have to do to lose weight is cut calories has shamed those who have cut theirs to almost concentration camp levels and still unable to lose. Their metabolism is messed up, most likely from decades of dieting. I wish it were that easy. The market for weight loss gimmicks wouldn’t be so big.
There's usually a little dial on the scale to change the setting. Just dial it down a pound or two per day. Bingo! In Like Flynn.
You can thank me later.
The idea of all you have to do to lose weight is cut calories has shamed those who have cut theirs to almost concentration camp levels and still unable to lose. Their metabolism is messed up, most likely from decades of dieting.
And is it possible these new WL drugs somehow reset that or make us better able to metabolize, or is it simply a matter of reducing appetite to the point where they lose even with that messed-up metabolism because they're eating so very little? If so, that doesn't sound healthy...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
