MFP Change of Stance?
jellybaby84
Posts: 583 Member
I used to log here very regularly months and years ago (keep coming and going) and, when I came to the boards then, most threads were full of people saying that you had to 'eat more to weigh less' and warning of 'starvation mode'. Many people even said that eating too little made them GAIN weight! As someone who had/has an eating disorder I thought it was crazy but there were loads of personal stories appearing to endorse this. The idea of calories in vs calories out was widely decried and people who suggested someone eats less to lose weight were either mocked or told off.
I've just come back again over the last couple of weeks and it seems totally different. Those saying 'eat more to break your plateau' are now in the minority and are being ridiculed by people saying all you have to do is eat in a deficit and you can't help but lose weight.
Has anyone else noticed this change or was I just reading different threads at different times?
Which philosophy do you agree with?
I've just come back again over the last couple of weeks and it seems totally different. Those saying 'eat more to break your plateau' are now in the minority and are being ridiculed by people saying all you have to do is eat in a deficit and you can't help but lose weight.
Has anyone else noticed this change or was I just reading different threads at different times?
Which philosophy do you agree with?
0
Replies
-
Pulls up a chair
-1 -
Since the forums changed to this new, and arguably much worse set up, many of the old regulars, the ones who actually knew things about losing weight successfully and were successful themselves, have left.
Now, the vast majority of people on the forums are people who are here simply out of entertainment and because they don't have anything better to do.
MFP has dropped a few steps in terms of quality with this change. Quality of the social environment, quality in support, quality in usability.
It's now best to simply avoid the forums altogether if you want help and support. Try to find a good few people and add them to your friend list, then add friends of these friends when you find that they too are supportive and positive. You will not find this so easily on the forums.-1 -
It's not you. I see it too. Over the years these boards have filled with crazy angry people who don't understand nothing works for everybody and that variety will keep you healthy and continue weight loss.0
-
chivalryder wrote: »Since the forums changed to this new, and arguably much worse set up, many of the old regulars, the ones who actually knew things about losing weight successfully and were successful themselves, have left.
Now, the vast majority of people on the forums are people who are here simply out of entertainment and because they don't have anything better to do.
MFP has dropped a few steps in terms of quality with this change. Quality of the social environment, quality in support, quality in usability.
It's now best to simply avoid the forums altogether if you want help and support. Try to find a good few people and add them to your friend list, then add friends of these friends when you find that they too are supportive and positive. You will not find this so easily on the forums.
no need to totally stay away. there are much more frivolous threads and more condescending types but there is "some" good advice to be had. Finding it can take more wading though.
0 -
Interesting. Thanks. The layout doesn't seem that different to me, I wonder why it drove so many people away.0
-
I use the search function often before I post. I like to see what was asked and answered in the past. Many times that is all I need....unless I get angry and post because of my need for entertainment value on the forums
0 -
As with most things dealing with nutrition, fitness and weight loss, the facts change constantly! Remember how we thought eggs were evil 10-15 years ago? Now we can't get enough of them!
We now know that starvation mode is a myth and if someone isn't losing at their current calorie goal and activity level that they need to take a closer look at their tracking. Accurate logging of both calories in and out is key whether you're trying to lose, maintain or gain. Unfortnately this can take some time and trial and error which most people don't have the patience for.0 -
I'm pretty sure it's the same group of people, but they have just changed their wording a bit.
Eating at a deficit will cause you to lose weight and at the same time to large of a deficit can be unhealthy/cause binging/ect.
Eat more to weigh less, simply means eating as many calories as you can to lose weight at a healthy rate. It seems that generally people who use this method are extremely careful when tracking (weighing everything solid/measuring liquids/logging every little nibble) because they have less room to make mistakes. While they have less room to make mistakes, some notice that the smaller deficit gives them more energy and makes them able to workout at a higher intensity. Some don't realise that, when increasing their calories they became more accurate with their logging.
So essetially it's the same thing. Just the deficit isn't as large. I'm glad I read about the "eat more to weight less" last year when I joined. The above is what I got out of it. I'm also comfortably losing weight (except for 9 months of pregnancy) eating in the 1800-2000 calorie range on average. I attempted to eat a bit less (thus increasing my deficit) a month or so ago and I did notice my workouts suffered. So for me, the concept is right on. However some people might do better with larger deficit.0 -
I still see plenty of regulars responding to posts on the forums. Avoiding them altogether seems a little draconian...
To the OP - I've been around for a long time and I've never really accepted the eat more to lose weight and break plateaus concept, and I've been fairly vocal about it in the past. The thing is, most of the time "plateaus" are really just poor logging/estimating, so eating more doesn't work. Yes your body can slow its metabolism, but it can't stop it and your metabolism certainly can't reverse (aka create energy aka "I'm actually GAINING weight while on a deficit"). Some people just need an excuse.
That said, I do believe that your body has the ability to slightly "slow" or "speed" your metabolism. In other words, it can be calorie efficient (slow) or performance efficient (fast) and so you have a 100-200 calorie window that your body can play with. So, you might be able to eat a little more and still be OK in terms of weight loss, but that is a very slippery slope.0 -
I know what you mean, OP. I've been here 3 1/2 years and I too have seen a gradual change over. Even the stickies are different-- when I got here the most popular sticky was "700 calories and not losing weight!" in which the theory of starvation mode was supported.
Personally I do believe in CICO, although I believe in some cases it's a little more complicated than it sounds due to health issues, hormone shifts, etc. But that doesn't mean CICO doesn't work, it just means we may not understand all the variables. Still, "just eat less" isn't always good advice. It depends on the situation.
0 -
"most threads were full of people saying that you had to 'eat more to weigh less' and warning of 'starvation mode'. Many people even said that eating too little made them GAIN weight!"
These people are deluded and or/in denial. I bet they also believe that the quickest way to get to the supermarket is to walk backwards....-1 -
In my opinion, EM2WL went away long before the forum upgrade. I came back about a year ago and it was pretty much gone, whereas it was the forum battle cry in 2012, you're right.
I think it went away because people realized they were wrong. You can't 'eat more to lose more', unless there's something behavioral with you so that when you 'eat less' you binge or track wrong.
But people still are big fans of the tiny deficit, presumably to retain muscle. But even that is going to change, I think, as more and more research shows it just doesn't make that much difference and there are significant advantages to not losing at a snail's pace as well.0 -
chivalryder wrote: »Since the forums changed to this new, and arguably much worse set up, many of the old regulars, the ones who actually knew things about losing weight successfully and were successful themselves, have left.
When was this change? You don't mean the very recent one, do you? I haven't noticed any change wrt what the OP is talking about (or really anything) since then.
I have noticed in older threads that starvation mode seems to be much more frequently taken seriously and warned against in those threads than now.
0 -
jellybaby84 wrote: »Has anyone else noticed this change or was I just reading different threads at different times?
Which philosophy do you agree with?
Yes, from reading old threads I've noticed it. I haven't noticed any change in the time I've been actively reading the forums (since March of this year).
I think starvation mode in the sense that if you eat too little you won't lose, because your body will "hold onto fat" makes no sense, so I agree with the current consensus, if it is indeed a consensus (that's probably too strong).
However, that doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons to avoid putting your calories too low (with what too low is a separate issue and probably somewhat individual). I believe that bad effects could relate to health, to the sustainability of a diet, to the ability to make fitness/exercise improvements and maintain lean body mass, to metabolism (you can suffer a reduction of metabolism and many or most dieters ultimately do, even if they of course don't stop losing), and by creating a pattern of restriction followed by binging for those prone to it.
Rather than the advice being to always reduce calories, I think there's a pragmatic understanding by many that there are many reasons why logging can be imperfect (or exercise calories overvalued) and thus when people report extremely low intakes or net intakes and aren't losing that the issue is likely to be logging inaccuracy, with an individual medical problem the next possibility (to be identified in part by logging as precise as possible). The idea that you aren't losing because you are eating too little just doesn't seem to have a scientific explanation or to happen with people actually starving.0 -
I'm like "in again out again finnegan" as far as tracking and participating, so no real insight, just to say that I've noticed it too just in the past two days (since I've been "in again")!
I'm a CICO kinda girl (acknowledging that "calories out" is a LOT MORE complicated than many think), so I'm happy.0 -
So many people are happily losing while eating 1400-2000 calories a day. They lose slowly, but it works for them. It may give skin a better shot at keeping up with you, too. I'm really happy for those people and wish I were one of them!
Too many people have said they were strict with their restriction, then ate some more and dropped pounds...they can't all be lying. There must be something to it.
I don't personally eat more to weigh less. I do shake it up with the calories, but that's hunger-related and not theory.
I know there are things yet to be learned. I'm convinced that anorexia isn't solely mental and there must be a chemical part. Obesity, too. I believe there are brain differences and/or chemical contributors to all these things.
If they could figure that stuff out before I die, I'd be delighted. I don't expect it, though. 0 -
GauchoMark wrote: »
That said, I do believe that your body has the ability to slightly "slow" or "speed" your metabolism. In other words, it can be calorie efficient (slow) or performance efficient (fast) and so you have a 100-200 calorie window that your body can play with. So, you might be able to eat a little more and still be OK in terms of weight loss, but that is a very slippery slope.
I agree with the window but have the opposite experience. If I keep my calories towards the high end of my loss window I remain my normal, bouncy self. If my calories go too low, the subconscious bouncing stops and I may need the occasional nap. To lose weight at the lower end of that window I have to make a conscious effort to move which is unnecessary at the higher end of that window. So I'd rather lose slowly at the top end of my window, which I don't see as a 'slippery slope' at all. I'd rather maintain a higher calorie intake than keep going lower and lower.
0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »I'm pretty sure it's the same group of people, but they have just changed their wording a bit.
Eating at a deficit will cause you to lose weight and at the same time to large of a deficit can be unhealthy/cause binging/ect.
Eat more to weigh less, simply means eating as many calories as you can to lose weight at a healthy rate. It seems that generally people who use this method are extremely careful when tracking (weighing everything solid/measuring liquids/logging every little nibble) because they have less room to make mistakes. While they have less room to make mistakes, some notice that the smaller deficit gives them more energy and makes them able to workout at a higher intensity. Some don't realise that, when increasing their calories they became more accurate with their logging.
So essetially it's the same thing. Just the deficit isn't as large. I'm glad I read about the "eat more to weight less" last year when I joined. The above is what I got out of it. I'm also comfortably losing weight (except for 9 months of pregnancy) eating in the 1800-2000 calorie range on average. I attempted to eat a bit less (thus increasing my deficit) a month or so ago and I did notice my workouts suffered. So for me, the concept is right on. However some people might do better with larger deficit.
This exactly!
0 -
Too many people have said they were strict with their restriction, then ate some more and dropped pounds...they can't all be lying. There must be something to it.
Anecdotally this happens a lot doesn't it? How many times have you heard people complain when they have been "good" all week or month and haven't lost weight or only lost a negliable amount, and then they'll say they were scared to weigh in one week because they had a blowout for some reason but then they lose more than they have in a while.
I don't know the science behind it, but I'm glad I found MFP and the people on here who promote finding the level where you can still lose weight while eating a sustainable amount rather than the usual strict 1000 calorie quick fix diets touted in magazines etc0 -
dammitjanet0161 wrote: »Too many people have said they were strict with their restriction, then ate some more and dropped pounds...they can't all be lying. There must be something to it.
Anecdotally this happens a lot doesn't it? How many times have you heard people complain when they have been "good" all week or month and haven't lost weight or only lost a negliable amount, and then they'll say they were scared to weigh in one week because they had a blowout for some reason but then they lose more than they have in a while.
I don't know the science behind it, but I'm glad I found MFP and the people on here who promote finding the level where you can still lose weight while eating a sustainable amount rather than the usual strict 1000 calorie quick fix diets touted in magazines etc
I believe the current theory is that when you've been restricting, you're placing your body under stress. Chronic stress translates into chronically raised levels of cortisol which causes water retention. Overeating for a little bit, especially carbs, relieves the stress, lets cortisol levels drop and you drop the water weight.
So you never stopped losing fat, you just kept packing on more water. Eventually, the fat loss would win out over the water retention and you'd see it on the scale, but it would take a loooong time.
I had this happen to me a couple of weeks ago - except I compounded the problem by also steadily increasing some fairly demanding exercise over 2 months (half-marathon training + Starting Strength). Weight was not changing. I started to feel run down, so I ate more. Should specify, I ate my TDEE for a couple of days. Did not just cut loose. Lost 4 pounds in one day - at 118 lbs, so no way was that fat. Plus, my ankles and knees that had been stiff from mild edema - gone.
Now that I'm cutting again, I put 2 of those lost pounds back on. In one day again.
I'm not convinced that cortisol is the whole explanation, because there's just too much variability in the subjects' responses. Something else (maybe many something elses) is probably in play as well. But chronic under-eating and or over-exercise -> stress -> water retention masking fat loss? Especially slow fat loss? That I can get behind.0 -
Fortunately MFP does not hand out degrees in nutrition. If you want to know the real deal - go pay money to get the scoop from a real nutritionist or dietitian. The ones I've talked to would fall off their chairs laughing at the advice on this forum.....0
-
GauchoMark wrote: »
That said, I do believe that your body has the ability to slightly "slow" or "speed" your metabolism. In other words, it can be calorie efficient (slow) or performance efficient (fast) and so you have a 100-200 calorie window that your body can play with. So, you might be able to eat a little more and still be OK in terms of weight loss, but that is a very slippery slope.
I agree with the window but have the opposite experience. If I keep my calories towards the high end of my loss window I remain my normal, bouncy self. If my calories go too low, the subconscious bouncing stops and I may need the occasional nap. To lose weight at the lower end of that window I have to make a conscious effort to move which is unnecessary at the higher end of that window. So I'd rather lose slowly at the top end of my window, which I don't see as a 'slippery slope' at all. I'd rather maintain a higher calorie intake than keep going lower and lower.
you read my quote backwards. we are saying the same thing - "slow" and "fast" are regarding metabolism, not weight loss rate - so the high end of the calorie window would be when your metabolism may be faster and your physical performance is better, i.e. you feel better and have more energy.0 -
i've watched with great interest over the past years the changing of the guards. i guess its all about who shouts louder, or which camp has more members. idk, red rover.-1
-
GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »
That said, I do believe that your body has the ability to slightly "slow" or "speed" your metabolism. In other words, it can be calorie efficient (slow) or performance efficient (fast) and so you have a 100-200 calorie window that your body can play with. So, you might be able to eat a little more and still be OK in terms of weight loss, but that is a very slippery slope.
I agree with the window but have the opposite experience. If I keep my calories towards the high end of my loss window I remain my normal, bouncy self. If my calories go too low, the subconscious bouncing stops and I may need the occasional nap. To lose weight at the lower end of that window I have to make a conscious effort to move which is unnecessary at the higher end of that window. So I'd rather lose slowly at the top end of my window, which I don't see as a 'slippery slope' at all. I'd rather maintain a higher calorie intake than keep going lower and lower.
you read my quote backwards. we are saying the same thing - "slow" and "fast" are regarding metabolism, not weight loss rate - so the high end of the calorie window would be when your metabolism may be faster and your physical performance is better, i.e. you feel better and have more energy.
One thing that is pretty consistent is that people seem to only relate metabolism to consumption, and I never see any threads where it is related to muscle mass and/or energy expenditure. I guess fitness is wholly unrelated to BMR?
0 -
We're not gonna take it
Never did and never will
We're not gonna take it
Gonna break it
Gonna shake it
Let's forget it better still
0 -
Because that requires actual body analysis, and then they'll find out they're mostly flab, and that means that they, in fact, have to eat less to lose weight.GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »
That said, I do believe that your body has the ability to slightly "slow" or "speed" your metabolism. In other words, it can be calorie efficient (slow) or performance efficient (fast) and so you have a 100-200 calorie window that your body can play with. So, you might be able to eat a little more and still be OK in terms of weight loss, but that is a very slippery slope.
I agree with the window but have the opposite experience. If I keep my calories towards the high end of my loss window I remain my normal, bouncy self. If my calories go too low, the subconscious bouncing stops and I may need the occasional nap. To lose weight at the lower end of that window I have to make a conscious effort to move which is unnecessary at the higher end of that window. So I'd rather lose slowly at the top end of my window, which I don't see as a 'slippery slope' at all. I'd rather maintain a higher calorie intake than keep going lower and lower.
you read my quote backwards. we are saying the same thing - "slow" and "fast" are regarding metabolism, not weight loss rate - so the high end of the calorie window would be when your metabolism may be faster and your physical performance is better, i.e. you feel better and have more energy.
One thing that is pretty consistent is that people seem to only relate metabolism to consumption, and I never see any threads where it is related to muscle mass and/or energy expenditure. I guess fitness is wholly unrelated to BMR?
0 -
GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »
That said, I do believe that your body has the ability to slightly "slow" or "speed" your metabolism. In other words, it can be calorie efficient (slow) or performance efficient (fast) and so you have a 100-200 calorie window that your body can play with. So, you might be able to eat a little more and still be OK in terms of weight loss, but that is a very slippery slope.
I agree with the window but have the opposite experience. If I keep my calories towards the high end of my loss window I remain my normal, bouncy self. If my calories go too low, the subconscious bouncing stops and I may need the occasional nap. To lose weight at the lower end of that window I have to make a conscious effort to move which is unnecessary at the higher end of that window. So I'd rather lose slowly at the top end of my window, which I don't see as a 'slippery slope' at all. I'd rather maintain a higher calorie intake than keep going lower and lower.
you read my quote backwards. we are saying the same thing - "slow" and "fast" are regarding metabolism, not weight loss rate - so the high end of the calorie window would be when your metabolism may be faster and your physical performance is better, i.e. you feel better and have more energy.
One thing that is pretty consistent is that people seem to only relate metabolism to consumption, and I never see any threads where it is related to muscle mass and/or energy expenditure. I guess fitness is wholly unrelated to BMR?
depending on the BMR estimation equation used, BMR can be calculated directly from muscle mass. Look into the Katch-McArdle equation and similar. I, for one, always use a bmr estimation that accounts for muscle mass.
So to answer your question - depends!
Oh, and for what it's worth, these equations are not gender/age/height specific - they only rely on how much muscle you carry0 -
GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »GauchoMark wrote: »
That said, I do believe that your body has the ability to slightly "slow" or "speed" your metabolism. In other words, it can be calorie efficient (slow) or performance efficient (fast) and so you have a 100-200 calorie window that your body can play with. So, you might be able to eat a little more and still be OK in terms of weight loss, but that is a very slippery slope.
I agree with the window but have the opposite experience. If I keep my calories towards the high end of my loss window I remain my normal, bouncy self. If my calories go too low, the subconscious bouncing stops and I may need the occasional nap. To lose weight at the lower end of that window I have to make a conscious effort to move which is unnecessary at the higher end of that window. So I'd rather lose slowly at the top end of my window, which I don't see as a 'slippery slope' at all. I'd rather maintain a higher calorie intake than keep going lower and lower.
you read my quote backwards. we are saying the same thing - "slow" and "fast" are regarding metabolism, not weight loss rate - so the high end of the calorie window would be when your metabolism may be faster and your physical performance is better, i.e. you feel better and have more energy.
One thing that is pretty consistent is that people seem to only relate metabolism to consumption, and I never see any threads where it is related to muscle mass and/or energy expenditure. I guess fitness is wholly unrelated to BMR?
depending on the BMR estimation equation used, BMR can be calculated directly from muscle mass. Look into the Katch-McArdle equation and similar. I, for one, always use a bmr estimation that accounts for muscle mass.
So to answer your question - depends!
Oh, and for what it's worth, these equations are not gender/age/height specific - they only rely on how much muscle you carry
Good link, thanks!
0 -
shadow2soul wrote: »I'm pretty sure it's the same group of people, but they have just changed their wording a bit.
Eating at a deficit will cause you to lose weight and at the same time to large of a deficit can be unhealthy/cause binging/ect.
Eat more to weigh less, simply means eating as many calories as you can to lose weight at a healthy rate. It seems that generally people who use this method are extremely careful when tracking (weighing everything solid/measuring liquids/logging every little nibble) because they have less room to make mistakes. While they have less room to make mistakes, some notice that the smaller deficit gives them more energy and makes them able to workout at a higher intensity. Some don't realise that, when increasing their calories they became more accurate with their logging.
So essetially it's the same thing. Just the deficit isn't as large. I'm glad I read about the "eat more to weight less" last year when I joined. The above is what I got out of it. I'm also comfortably losing weight (except for 9 months of pregnancy) eating in the 1800-2000 calorie range on average. I attempted to eat a bit less (thus increasing my deficit) a month or so ago and I did notice my workouts suffered. So for me, the concept is right on. However some people might do better with larger deficit.
This this this. Many people believe that they HAVE to eat 1,200 calories to lose weight. People on the forums are quick to point out that this is not necessary. Most people can lose weight slowly and steadily at more than 1,200 calories. I think that many people who do 1,200 calories are actually eating at 1,300-1,400 on average because they're more likely to have cheat days/don't use a food scale, but that's just what I've seen.0 -
Too many people have said they were strict with their restriction, then ate some more and dropped pounds...they can't all be lying. There must be something to it.
Part of it is Berkson's Paradox aka Berkson's Fallacy. Because the people posting aren't representative of the entire population of people trying to lose weight, you get spurious correlations when you look at the restricted pool of posters.
Part of it is that weight loss isn't linear, and people are hard-wired to identify patterns even when no such pattern exists. "I ate 3000 calories in a day and saw downward scale movement the next day; eating more causes weight loss" is the same erroneous pattern identification as "I ate 700 calories in a day and saw upward scale movement the next day; eating less causes weight gain."
Part of it is that gut feel and anecdotes are no substitute for data. Unless you're doing a bunch of data analysis in Excel, you're probably wrong. If I take the 105 days of data I have handy, during which time I saw exactly 15.0 pounds of downward scale movement, and calculate the correlation between calories consumed on Day 1 and change in weight from Day 1 to Day 2, I get 0.11. That's close to zero (which would imply that daily fluctuation is essentially random), but still positive (which means that lower intake generally results in downward movement and higher intake in upward movement).
During that same time, I saw 2.2 pounds of upward movement after consuming 1430 calories, and 2 pounds of downward movement after consuming 1875 calories, but the data as a whole shows that those days were statistical outliers, rather than being representative of the actual relationship between consumption and scale movement.
You don't have to be lying in order to be mistaken.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions