What if I do NOT stop the diet?

I have something on my mind & I know ya'll will have some great answers...
I haven't started a diet, I've changed how I eat and how I think about food. I'll still slip around and have something sinful from time to time but for the most part, I'm really happy eating this new healthier way. And obviously it is working because I've lost almost all I set out to lose.
Now that I'm really close, I wonder what happens if I do NOT stop eating this way?
Will I eventually find my "natural" weight? In other words, will I continue to lose for a while and then just stop suddenly?
I'm eating clean, whole, healthy foods - I'm nourishing my body. What happens if I just continue on this way?
I'm curious and interested in your comments!

You lost weight because of the caloric deficit you created. Whenever you provide either a deficit or surplus of calories, your metabolism adjusts to that amount. Eventually, your metabolism will adjust, and you won't lose any more weight with that amount.

This is why people that have to lose a lot of weight should NOT start eating like a skinny person. There is a constant need to gradually decrease intake or increase your activity level(in other words, up the diet intensity) in order to keep losing weight. The different macronutrients you eat and your activity level/type will determine whether or not the weight decreases or increases are coming from fat, muscle, or water.

Don't worry, you won't just get down to 0 lbs and disappear!

mamaweazel, you got it right. You didn't start a diet, you changed the way you eat and think about food.

"Diets" just don't work simply because most of us think that when we get to our ideal or healthy weight we will start eating the way we did before... again and again... and again! Sad but true.

You changed the way you eat and that's forever. You will eventually reach your target and naturally stop at your healthy weight If you don't (that happened to me when I was younger) just add more veggies or healthy & "whole" food!

Great job!!!

Good point, it can't possible go on forever. I do not strictly subscribe to the common thought that calories in being less than calories out (excerise+basal metabolic rate) automatically= weight loss; hormone, genetics, and metobolism all play roles as well. There's a lot going on in your body that you do not see. Eventually your weight will roughly equal what you are doing and you will remain at approximately the same weight so long as you continue at the same diet and with the same amount of exercise.

This isn't a crazy or absurd idea in fact it is what more people ought to do. Temporary diets tend to lead to temporary results. How many people have you heard who lost a ton of weight only to gain it back months or years later when they started to return to their old eating habits and sedimentary ways. You have to find something that works for you and that you can stick to.

I think there must be some variation in this theory based on metabolism and lifestyle. For example, about a month ago, I started to feel hungry for the first time since I've been on this plan. I mean -- getting really hungry between meals. So I upped my calorie intake by 100-200 calories per day. I'm still losing weight at the same, slow, but steady rate, but I am definitely eating more.

I've always assumed that once I hit my goal I would continue to eat in the same way -- that is, the same food choices and careful monitoring of portions -- but that I would need to reduce the deficit by upping total calories. I had thought that what would be required would be to increase calorie intake very gradually until I stopped losing and held my weight steady.

Am I correct in understanding this discussion that my plan is NOT correct -- that I should expect to continue to eat 1350-1500 calories per day, and ultimately my metabolism will adjust to use these calories more efficiently so that I do not continue to lose?

I think it depends on your diet. Just glancing at your calendar, I notice that you often have periods where you're below 1,000 calories/day (sometimes by quite a bit). That seems a little low to me, and while you do balance it out on the net with days where your intake is significantly higher, if you were to try to maintain this sub-1,000 calorie diet indefinitely, it's possible it may lead to health problems I suppose. I wouldn't encourage you to try to maintain such a low caloric intake for extended periods.

That being said, I think if you continued with the tenets of your diet (your emphasis on healthy, whole foods), but maintained a healthier calorie intake and leveled out those peaks and valleys a bit, you would reach the point where your basal metabolism at whatever weight would match your regular caloric intake.

HKaruga also makes a good point. The relationship between calories and weight is not as clear as once thought, and there are certainly a great many factors that affect such things. I'm basically of the opinion that your body shapes itself around what you do. If you sit in chairs all day and don't eat much, you'll look a certain way. If you eat a lot, move a lot, exercise a lot, you'll look a very different way. There's a number of "shapes" in between and beyond those positions but you get the idea. Do what you want to look.

This is the whole idea of fiber recruitment. If you use fibers of a specific type for a while, your body converts fibers of another kind to the one being utilized (through catabolism, recovery, and overcompensation).

If you run a lot, you'll develop a lot of type 1 fibers, which produce a thin, not-very-muscular looking body. Weight lifting with different quantities of time under the stress recruits different kinds of fibers as well (2a vs 2b). So, in essence you're right, but it's a lot more scientific than that.



It depends. You're already eating a very low amount each day, and eventually, yes, your body will catch on. It's just a question of which happens first, either you reach your goal or you stop losing at that caloric intake. This is also going to vary based on the macronutrients that you eat and the type of exercise you do.

Your metabolism is a moving target. Increasing your calories is the same as decreasing them. If I suddenly increase my calories by 2500, I'll put on weight but it won't be as rapid as you might think (excluding water weight). Various metabolic processes will occur, and my body will burn much more throughout the day.



Yeah, the medical and health-science community quite clearly knows what the relationship is. It's the common folk that misinterpret it. Physics is physics. If you burn 4000 calories, but consume 3500, there is a 500 calorie deficit. Your body will have to get those 500 calories from somewhere else. If it's strenuous activity causing the calorie consumption (IE, exercise), your body will catabolize muscle once glycogen is depleted as it's a faster energy source than body fat. Consumption of protein counteracts this and starts the recovery phase of the muscle. Assuming all other things equal (ignoring gluconeogenesis, etc), body fat would be the next thing to get burned. We all know that body fat provides 3500 calories per pound, and muscle provides around 600. Let's assume now that your body needs 1800 calories for some exercise you're doing (it's a stretch, but just work with the example at hand). 1800 calories coming from body fat will produce a .5 pound difference in weight, but coming from muscle it will produce a 3 pound difference in weight.

The math still works out, it's just the source of energy that's causing the difference in weight. More energy can be extracted per pound of fat. Despite what your scale may tell you, preserving the muscle is much more important in the long run. Body fat measurements are infinitely more important than scale readings.

The reason why people are disputing the "calories in vs calories out" fact (notice, fact, not theory) is because they're looking at the equation incorrectly.

"Calories in" is the food you eat. Not much you can misunderstand there.

"Calories out" is where people mess things up. I'll try and explain how.

Someone mentioned the old atkins style diets and how some studies showed that people eating more calories lost more weight than high carbers eating less calories. That's the "calories out" portion of the equation at work.

Most people look at it too simplistically.
The scenario below should be quite enlightening if you don't get it:

Imagine for a second that you cloned yourself. It's a perfect copy of you. Your metabolism is the same, your weight, height, fat percentage -- everything.
Both of you eat 2000 calories today.
Both of you do the same activities and exercise, which causes an activity burn of 2500 calories per day.
This happens for 4 weeks.

Both of you lose the same amount of weight, right? Hang on to your seats....

Not necessarily.

If the clone eats pure carbs and no protein, but you eat tons of protein and fat with barely any carbs, things are going to be very different, metabolically speaking.

The clone will lose muscle because the catabolism from the exercise and caloric deficit is not being counteracted with protein. A lot of weight is lost, but most likely very little fat (unless you're both super obese).

You, however, (with your protein rich diet) experience a lot of weight loss too. The low carbing reduces glycogen replenishment, which in turn cuts a ton of water weight (glycogen stores water, roughly 2-3g per gram of glycogen). Your muscle is preserved. Assuming a low enough carb intake, ketosis occurs (metabolic process that happens to burn calories, adding to the "calories out" number). This means that energy is being drawn from fat while muscle is preserved (simplistic example, I know). Since your carbs are so low, gluconeogenesis kicks in, and the protein starts being used for glycogen creation. This is a metabolic process that also burns extra calories and adds to the "calories out".

I could keep going, but I think you get the point. The "calories out" aren't even close to the same, relatively speaking. Despite identical activity levels and caloric intakes, the macronutrients are determining which metabolic processes are active. Beyond that, while the clone is losing muscle (higher weight loss, but not the good kind ), you're losing water weight due to glycogen depletion. Furthermore, blood sugar levels that drop too low due to low carbing cause glucagon creation, which is actually catabolic (muscle burning) as well. I could go on for days with other factors that could change things.

In the end, who loses more weight? It's impossible to say, it depends on how much water weight you had to begin with, how insulin resistant you are, etc. Who loses more fat? The low carber.

This is a very simplistic example, but I'm trying to get a point across. "Calories out" is more than just what you do in a day. In fact, the "calories in" helps determine true "calories out". The math still works out and the total energy expenditure doesn't break the law of conservation of energy, but the scale will certainly tell you different results.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not endorsing low carb diets. This is an extreme example that tries to show different metabolic processes at work. The clone could just as easily be sparing muscle with a high carb diet. Also, he has more glycogen which fuels the work outs better. That's important. I'm not biased one way or another. Also, if any biology gurus want to dispute my facts, I don't care. Realize that I can't take into consideration every little detail. It's the big picture that counts.

So, the bottom line is, the relationship is very clear. Educated scientists know about it. Try explaining this to the laymen though. I just gave it my all, and I'm pretty sure I failed. Still, it's not some big mystery, there's just a lot of factors that people keep ignoring.

I hope that helps... someone.

an00bis, wow, and correct. That is all!

Etyls -- there aren't as many peaks and valleys as it looks like on my diet calendar. It's just that if I have a holiday meal or something really complicated out, I have a tendency not to try to calendar it -- although since I generally know in advance I'm going to eat something unusual for dinner, I try to make sure the rest of my day is under control, so that even if I don't calendar that meal, I know I'm still within that 1350-1550 framework I've set for myself.

Sure. I don't think what I said was ever intended to substitute for scientific literature. It was, as they say, a short-hand. Thanks for shedding light on the specific fiber-type relationship there.



Two things here, An00bis. First, I wasn't implying that the relationship isn't known at all, only that the relationship is less clear than the simple addition and subtraction of calories one does when using the tools on this website. I have no doubt that there are people out there who can quite capably explain the process in a coherent and straightforward manner, so I certainly don't think this is all a magical mystery. (ahem.)

Second, (...imagine, if you will, a perfectly spherical cow...) when dealing with estimates for calories burned during exercise, basal metabolic rates, and the consumption and conversion of foods, the problem is the very fact that these components are just estimates. The exact numbers are not going to be reflected in the Fatsecret calculator and food counter; so, while your informative post is very pertinent and interesting, the bottom line is that the calculators used on this websites are based on estimates: the relationship (and here I'm clarifying; apologies if I wasn't clear before) between calories consumed as estimated through the Fatsecret calculator, the calories burned as estimated by the Fatsecret basal metabolism calculator, and the calories burned by the Fatsecret exercise calculator is not always a stable one due to complicating factors which, for my limited knowledge, make the relationship "not as clear," since my primary engagement with this data is through the tools on this site, rather than through something more sophisticated, informative, and accurate.

Etyls, to clarify, I agree with everything you're saying. Quoting you in my post was just a stepping stone to making my points, it wasn't intended to be a "you're a big liar face!" post.

So yeah, I really dislike the fatsecret calculator as well, simply because beginners aren't aware of its inaccurate (and estimating) nature.

No problem, I just wanted to be clear that I didn't think there was any magic or incantations involved, just that the specifics are largely beyond my ken!