When losing weight, the weight loss for most dieters is rarely linear. Often, there are periods of “stalls” i.e. time when the weight doesn’t move downwards, that can last for weeks, followed by “whoosh” i.e. relatively sudden drop in weight. A “whoosh” can be a single event, or can last for a few days, when the weight usually drops rapidly e.g. pound and more daily. This is considering consistent diet with regular calorie deficit.
One of the explanations that I read is that the fat cells fill up with water temporarily after releasing fat content, thus the same weight and shape is retained until the water is finally released.
Do you think this is possible answer? Or can you propose different explanation to non-linear weight loss?
OTOH water shifts can be part of the answer. One hypothesis is that the the physiologic stress of caloric deficit leads to hormonal responses (such as aberrant cortisol pulses) that result in water retention. Fat loss continues but is not reflected in the scale. Hence the paradoxical experience that many have of a sudden whoosh of weight loss when they slack off from their strict program for a day or so, eating a bit more and taking a day off from exercise … the body relaxes, so to speak, and the excess water is released. BUt the water is not in the fat cells I do not think.
But it’s a great start. Our body does retain water in lots of places, but inside fat cells specifically is unlikely. In fact, a lot of our extra water hangs out between our cells, in the “interstitial space.”
Another potential cause is that the dieter reaches homeostasis: their calorie intake and expenditure balance out again, so there isn’t any change in weight until they do something new (e.g. increase the amount the exercise).
Well sure, and that the body finally recalibrates to a modified set point, but neither of them address the “whoosh” effect that many dieters experience after a prolonged plateau of no weight loss that the op was referencing.
Sorry, what I meant was that people don’t (and can’t) eat precisely X calories in a day and burn precisely Y, so that some of these “wooshes” might simply be that they’ve unwittingly done something–dietary or exercise-wise, like starting to take the stairs ever day–that tips that balance.
Oh I understood that. It is just that suddenly taking the stairs every day, even with taking in moderately fewer calories, won’t cause a major sudden loss. Weight loss will typically average 2 to 3 pounds a week but it often does occur stutterstep; nothing for weeks then 6 to 8 pounds in one week. Unwitting calories in calories out variability, and new set point, are insufficient to explain that.
Do we have any studies (I ask, knowing how awesome you are at navigating journals!) showing whether this can/should be exploited for healthy weight loss? That is, do people lose more weight over 6 or 12 months if they’re given a “slack” day, because of an easing off of the cortisol, or because it’s behaviorally easier to maintain (or some other reason)?
I ask because my personal experience would indicate that, for me, I do better sticking to a healthier eating plan if I build in a “cheat” day every week or two, and I do notice this plateau and then “whoosh” effect that often succeeds a cheat day. Just wondering if it’s got any widespread evidence, or it’s just me.
Well after that flattery I am sorry to disappoint: not that I can find and not that I would think is likely true. My guess is that fat loss is chugging along pretty evenly at that close to 2 pounds a week, modified by those set point changes and intake and/or activity changes that may be subtle (and even controlled by the set point); the weight is not so reflective of it because of excess water. If so then losing the water will result in a scale change but not change the amount of fat mass. Good psychologically to get the scale attaboy but the work was being done just as much so while the scale was stagnant. Of course to the degree that “cheating” facilitates the reset of the set point it would work, but I have no evidence to conclude that such happens.