A lb of fat is 3500 kcal, you need to have a deficit of that to lose a pound. I call total bs on that. I can eat several months of under a thousand calories and barely lose a pound a week. If I eat 800 cals of crap, I gain. 800 cals of disgusting protein, well there is the winner. I see the same stories all over this website. It's what you eat, not the calorie content of it

I'm finding something different, and odd. Now that I'm below goal and solidly in the "normal" BMI, my weight loss should slow down or stop if I eat more calories, right? But because I still avoid the slippery slope of starches, my weight continues to decrease, ever so slowly. I exercise moderately and still eat mostly Protein, but I've added a whole lot more nuts and cheese to my diet. In fact, after dinner the other night, I was making microwaved cheese chips, and just kept making them until the block of cheese was done. When I checked the label, I discovered that I'd just consumed 800 calories as an evening snack! But it had no effect whatsoever on my weight. Sometimes I'll have 3-4 handfuls of nuts during the evening. Again, that's probably 500-100 calories. And still, my weight continues to creep downwards. I'll confess that, at least for now, I'm thrilled with that. But like some others on this thread, I don't understand how that can happen in a "3500 calories = 1 pound" world. My only guess is that remaining in a constant state of ketosis may change the math. Anyone know if that's possible? Thanks!

If you read some of the better low carb books out there, such as Gary Taubes' books and Phinney & Volek's books, you'll find that is true. Metabolism is NOT as simple as calories in/calories out. For example, you can "burn" more calories doing cardio than weight lifting, but weight lifting is far better at causing weight loss than lots of cardio. Cardio is good for your heart, yes, but it's not a magic fat burner. And eating 800 calories of starches is worse for you than eating 1200 calories of protein and fat. Sugar (carbs) is preferentially stored as fat.

Ketosis has a lot to do with it. I always did very well losing weight on a strict low carb (<25 g carb per day) diet but I had a hard time staying on it long term b/c each little cheat would set you back a week of being out of ketosis again. So I am hoping that bypass will help me stick with low carb due to not tolerating those "cheats" anymore. But I will still need to eat low carb to get down as low as I'd like.

If you read some of the better low carb books out there, such as Gary Taubes' books and Phinney & Volek's books, you'll find that is true. Metabolism is NOT as simple as calories in/calories out. For example, you can "burn" more calories doing cardio than weight lifting, but weight lifting is far better at causing weight loss than lots of cardio. Cardio is good for your heart, yes, but it's not a magic fat burner. And eating 800 calories of starches is worse for you than eating 1200 calories of Protein and fat. Sugar (carbs) is preferentially stored as fat.

Ketosis has a lot to do with it. I always did very well losing weight on a strict low carb (<25 g carb per day) diet but I had a hard time staying on it long term b/c each little cheat would set you back a week of being out of ketosis again. So I am hoping that bypass will help me stick with low carb due to not tolerating those "cheats" anymore. But I will still need to eat low carb to get down as low as I'd like.

But you're still talking about metabolism here. The reason strength training is better at fat-burning long term than cardio is that muscle increases metabolism. I've heard estimates that every extra pound of muscle burns an extra 50 calories a day. Put on 10 pounds of muscle and you're burning 500 calories more per day than you were before. With cardio, you burn a lot of calories in the moment, but you don't increase your basal metabolic rate. With strength training, you burn fewer calories in the moment, but increase the amount of calories you burn throughout the day to sustain that muscle.

Here's a question I've been pondering as I'm going through yet another one of my countless stalls while eating 1000-1200 calories a day and running 2 miles day on the treadmill along with weights.

Can WLS destroy our metabolism? Can eating SO low calorie for so long actually counteract it and now we can only lose on a very low calorie diet? Is that why we see WLS patients gain weight so easily once they slack off just a little?

What are your guys' thoughts?

I think it can. This is why I refuse to subsist on 800 calories a day of all Protein, no fat.

Bring on the butter! Bring on the full fat sour cream and the good cheese. I am not afraid of calories, I am not afraid of fat, I am afraid of carbs. Not the complex kind, the sugary sweet refined kind.

I did not want to maintain on 800 calories so I worked hard to get to 1200-1500 calories a day. That seems to be my maintenance point -- a point I can live with.

@@onmywaytobeingfound

Here's an example. My sister, who is older than me and has been doing Weight Watchers for the last 3 months and is now the same weight as I am, has lost more weight than I have (I figure about 12 lbs more) in the same amount of time. She does strictly cardio (elliptical), and has consistently lost 1-3lbs per week with no stalls.

I'm honestly not whining. Just perplexed.

I lost like a demon my first three months on WWs every time. Losing was never the issue. I couldn't MAINTAIN it.

Here's a question I've been pondering as I'm going through yet another one of my countless stalls while eating 1000-1200 calories a day and running 2 miles day on the treadmill along with weights.

Can WLS destroy our metabolism? Can eating SO low calorie for so long actually counteract it and now we can only lose on a very low calorie diet? Is that why we see WLS patients gain weight so easily once they slack off just a little?

What are your guys' thoughts?

I think it can. This is why I refuse to subsist on 800 calories a day of all Protein, no fat.

Bring on the butter! Bring on the full fat sour cream and the good cheese. I am not afraid of calories, I am not afraid of fat, I am afraid of carbs. Not the complex kind, the sugary sweet refined kind.

I did not want to maintain on 800 calories so I worked hard to get to 1200-1500 calories a day. That seems to be my maintenance point -- a point I can live with.

Bingo, @@LipstickLady! That's how I'm approaching the maintenance phase (if you can call it that). I'm not worrying about fat and calories, just starches/sugars. The question is, with the new dietary guidelines coming out in 2015, what do we do about cheese and butter? They're the wrong kind of fat, but they don't seem to affect our weight loss much, as long as we're not also consuming the bad carbs. Guess we monitor our cholesterol once or twice a year and take it from there.

@@onmywaytobeingfound

Here's an example. My sister, who is older than me and has been doing Weight Watchers for the last 3 months and is now the same weight as I am, has lost more weight than I have (I figure about 12 lbs more) in the same amount of time. She does strictly cardio (elliptical), and has consistently lost 1-3lbs per week with no stalls.

I'm honestly not whining. Just perplexed.

I lost like a demon my first three months on WWs every time. Losing was never the issue. I couldn't MAINTAIN it.

You are so right. I will be curious to see her maintenance as a opposed to my maintenance. It will be a good litmus test on maintenance percentages of WLS patients VS non WLS peeps.

When we were talking about getting to goal and maintenance a while back, she had said "Well, we are both really good at maintaining our weight..."

After being utterly speechless for a second or two, I said "If we were really good at maintaining our weight, I wouldn't have had WLS and you wouldn't have to be joining WW's for the umpteenth time"

She laughed and agreed.

I believe that the more you have abused your body with a million different diets the more your metabolism is damaged. Last year I ate super healthy and was doing a lot of crossfit. Didn't lose any weight...because my metabolism was so damaged with fifteen years of diets and previous wls.

This is why you get the syndrome of the person who is overweight and never really been on a diet joining weight watchers and losing twice as much weight as their friend who has done every diet under the sun.

Having wls surgery especially sleeve/bypass helps to reset the metabolism. That is why this time around I am less concerned with starving myself thin like I did with my band. I have a second chance at eating well and at a good calorie level and I am going to take it. I don't want my body to think that I can only eat 800 calories a day for the rest of its life to maintain. I have found the Dr Weiner videos really helpfull with this.

Everyone is different and this is only my opinion and approach!

Here's a question I've been pondering as I'm going through yet another one of my countless stalls while eating 1000-1200 calories a day and running 2 miles day on the treadmill along with weights.

Can WLS destroy our metabolism? Can eating SO low calorie for so long actually counteract it and now we can only lose on a very low calorie diet? Is that why we see WLS patients gain weight so easily once they slack off just a little?

What are your guys' thoughts?

I think it can. This is why I refuse to subsist on 800 calories a day of all Protein, no fat.

Bring on the butter! Bring on the full fat sour cream and the good cheese. I am not afraid of calories, I am not afraid of fat, I am afraid of carbs. Not the complex kind, the sugary sweet refined kind. I did not want to maintain on 800 calories so I worked hard to get to 1200-1500 calories a day. That seems to be my maintenance point -- a point I can live with.

Bingo, @@LipstickLady! That's how I'm approaching the maintenance phase (if you can call it that). I'm not worrying about fat and calories, just starches/sugars. The question is, with the new dietary guidelines coming out in 2015, what do we do about cheese and butter? They're the wrong kind of fat, but they don't seem to affect our weight loss much, as long as we're not also consuming the bad carbs. Guess we monitor our cholesterol once or twice a year and take it from there.

I rank the government's dietary guidelines right up there with the BMI chart.

But HOW does WLS "reset" the metabolism?

I'd love to hear the science behind that.

I rank the government's dietary guidelines right up there with the BMI chart.

Truer words have never been spoken.

I'm convinced the United States started getting fatter when that damn pyramid came out (like the mid 70's?) with grains as the base on the bottom. I don't think that is coincidence.

No idea how the science works.

https://asmbs.org/patients/benefits-of-bariatric-surgery this is a very simple explanation on hormones etc.

The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz is a really interesting analysis of fat and how the US came to view it as evil. My dr's office is touting low fat (and low carb) but I personally have had more success with plenty of healthy fat and low carb. Though it did feel a little scary and plenty naughty at first.

@

When you get a chance you should research starvation mode. It is very interesting actually. Our bodies were designed to hold on to as much fat as possible when it feels as though you are going through a famine. It will eventually lose the battle but at a cost. It is imperitive that were are getting enough Protein in our diet daily or it will start converting your muscle to glucose in order for proper brain function. We are amazing mechanisms. I feel your pain though.

My own experience tells me that calories and carbs are the biggest contributors to weight gain or loss. I enter everything into My fitness Pal. I keep a scale on the counter to weigh everything that I eat. I have exceeded my goal and to keep from losing any more weight I have to eat about 2300-2500 calories a day. No Pasta, bread, or rice. No candy, cake, ice cream. NO CHEATING. I see postings where people cannot give up this or that. DISASTER. WLS is not a magic bullet to allow you to continue to eat as before. It is a tool to help but you ultimately are the one who has to make the intelligent choices.

Well of course metabolism is a huge factor, but it doesn't add up. You look at that show my 600 lbd life, penny for example, hasn't lost squat, has a tiny stomach and can sustain her current weight of 600 lbs, according to food science, she had to eat 150000 cals just to maintain. It would be physically impossible to eat that much with her stomach. I doubt her metabolism slowed down after surgery, she had always been in bed. She is an extreme example, but it applies to a lot of us. Science should study all of us.