Additionally I have gotten up to 7 days a week working out. Again, not forcing myself. I started small but than I feel like working out so I do. Originally planned on taking the weekends off but I had too much energy and needed to run. So this morning I look at my scale and wonder why the hell it has not moved in 4 weeks. I am still at least 30lbs overweight. I have a spreadsheet showing everything I have consumed, drink plenty of water daily (I fill up a pitcher and drink it all during the work day and drink plenty more when i get home.) I get between 6-8 hrs of sleep. I am generally a happy person. So what’s the deal? Oh, and my whole family is fat and most of them are diabetic except my sister and I.

My body fat percentage has not changed either so I can’t even say muscle gain is the cause. My clothes fit the same. I just added running on the weekends to my routine so any plateau should have been broken from that.

Seriously, you can take my food spreadsheet and write a book on it and call it the next big diet. Nice balance of proteins, fiber, fat. Colorful vegetables and whole grains. I have gotten up to 25-30 grams of fiber and 80-90 grams of protein. Calories out is DEFINITELY greater than calories in. So what am I doing wrong?

Could it be true what everyone has been saying? Our bodies really are complex and its NOT that simple? Or am I lying about my routine? I really challenge anyone to tell me I am lying and in addition invite you to email me. Not to fight, but hopefully help you understand that maybe, just maybe, its NOT that simple for everyone.

Ms. Kirshenbaum was clearly not the only scientist who read the report and saw that it confirms this particular “plan.”

It is true that for some believing is seeing. For others, reality is more important.

I can send you a link to a prof’s website that claims that there are aliens are amongst us, but that doesn’t refute *actual* lack of evidence of aliens.

If you think the study is flawed, or you can find other studies that show long term weight loss, that would be worth discussion. Maybe you think it’s a fluke, or that we’re misinterpreting the data. But continuing to point to the press release and claiming it “proves” something is not constructive to the discussion, and misses the point of scientific studies completely – that the data is the important bit.

(insert passive-aggressive smiley here.)

http://www.bobpark.org/

Denial seems to be working great for you, dear. Just go ahead and keep feeling superior, if that’s what gets you through the night.

Cheers.

On average at 6 months the subject’s caloric intake varied from target by 8.9%. On average at 2 years the subjects caloric intake varied from target by 6.1%. So at the two year mark subjects were actually closer to their target caloric intakes. I’m assuming that the caloric intakes were constant here, but that would indicate to me that at two years they regained weight while consuming fewer calories.

They were unable to meet targets, this is true. But they did reduce their overall caloric intake, and got closer to the targeted caloric intake over time.

I think it is also important to note that just because they did not reach target levels does not mean they did not reduce calories in below calories out. Without know thing the weights, heights activity levels and target caloric intake, we cannot make that assumption simply because they regained weight.

What we do know based on the aforementioned information is that a reduced caloric intake in this case did not cause sustained weight loss, and even though caloric intake was reduced further, subjects regained weight lost earlier in the study.