MFP Change of Stance?

allyphoe

Kalikel 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.

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.

WalkingAlong

britishbroccoli wrote: »

Many people believe that they HAVE to eat 1,200 calories to lose weight.

You don't think most people realize that they can set their rate of loss to something slower and eat more? You might be right, I might be giving people too much credit.

I do agree most people who aim for 1200 probably achieve at least 1400, in practice. I think studies have shown even trained loggers underestimate by 25% or something.

indianwin2001

herrspoons wrote: »

The facts don't change.

Understand your calorie allowance and eat at it to maintain, below it to lose, and above it to gain weight.

Try to eat a reasonable diet whatever you're doing.

And that's it. Anything else is window dressing.

THIS

indianwin2001

Illini_Jim wrote: »

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

I'm unsure what this has to do with this thread,BUT great song

runnerchick69

jellybaby84 wrote: »

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 found early in my journey, when I would hit a plateau, increasing my calories broke it every single time! I think it really is a mix of both. You do need to eat at a deficit to lose weight but at the same time, you do not want to put your body in the position where it feels it needs to hang on to fat. I have been maintaining for several years now so I must be doing something right

Illini_Jim

indianwin2001 wrote: »

Illini_Jim wrote: »

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

I'm unsure what this has to do with this thread,BUT great song

It’s my commentary (albeit through Who lyrics) on people rebelling against the “only my way works” mentality of weight loss. Plus, I like the song.

Hornsby

I guess I haven't been on the forums long enough to see the change (2 years or so). It has pretty much been the same for those 2 years.

RGv2

esjones12 wrote: »

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.....

I've done the same reading some of the advice reportedly given by nutritionists and dietitians as well, so there is that too.

Isn't it something like a 6hr course...if that...for some of these certifications?

Kalikel

RGv2 wrote: »

esjones12 wrote: »

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.....

I've done the same reading some of the advice reportedly given by nutritionists and dietitians as well, so there is that too.

Isn't it something like a 6hr course...if that...for some of these certifications?

Registered Dietitians have a college degree. Nutritionists...I don't know. I think I could be one, lol.

But Dietitians study the hell out of nutrition for a long time. Like everyone else, they probably forget a lot of what they don't use, but it's no half-assed program for them.

happyfeetrebel1

WalkingAlong wrote: »

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.

I agree. I used MFP fairly extensively in 2012, and that's all I heard. Now people have learned that if you're not losing, eating more isn't going to help. That's what got you here in the first place. And, this change happened WAY prior to the new format. I've been back since May, and I haven't seen/heard those people even since then.

indianwin2001

Illini_Jim wrote: »

indianwin2001 wrote: »

Illini_Jim wrote: »

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

I'm unsure what this has to do with this thread,BUT great song

It’s my commentary (albeit through Who lyrics) on people rebelling against the “only my way works” mentality of weight loss. Plus, I like the song.

cool-the who rule

maidentl

happyfeetrebel1 wrote: »

WalkingAlong wrote: »

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.

I agree. I used MFP fairly extensively in 2012, and that's all I heard. Now people have learned that if you're not losing, eating more isn't going to help. That's what got you here in the first place. And, this change happened WAY prior to the new format. I've been back since May, and I haven't seen/heard those people even since then.

Yup, the "new guard" was here well before the forums were upgraded. I was surprised to see the change in tone when I returned but I'll tell you, it has helped me out immensely. I think it's why I have finally stuck around for a while, it all makes sense and it works.

k8blujay2

I don't think Eat more to weigh less has necessarily gone away... but it can fit into idea of calories in and calories out.... It's necessary to eat fewer calories than you body can expend... but not so little that you don't get the proper nutrition either... it's all a balancing at that like Iliftheavyacrylics said depends on some internal factors as well...

sofaking6

It's still around, note how every post complaining about temptation has a million replies about how "I eat whatever I want whenever I want and lose weight like crazy".

ILiftHeavyAcrylics

sofaking6 wrote: »

It's still around, note how every post complaining about temptation has a million replies about how "I eat whatever I want whenever I want and lose weight like crazy".

I see that as a separate issue, since those people usually say they eat whatever they want within their calorie goal (or within calories and macro goals) and still lose weight. They're still saying it's a matter of CICO. Unless we're thinking of different posts.

WalkingAlong

The EM2WL group has over 14,000 members, that's how pervasive it was in 2012. It looks like there's not much activity in there now.

I got so frustrated with the two men ringleaders and their followers for spreading myths I deleted my whole account in 2012 (food lists and all) and didn't poke my head back in until mid-2013.

Maybe that's why I still get so defensive when I see so many men here berating the women over their choice of calorie levels. Not that it's just the men but they seem the more militant about it and more prone to insulting you if you disagree.

ithrowconfetti

I'm relatively new here, but I find, as with most forums, there'll be people who give you both good and bad advice here. I've learned a lot from the forums and discussions that I never knew before, and it's compelled me to be more discerning of what I should listen to. I signed up solely to track calories, but the informative forums were a pleasant surprise, and MFP has helped me a great deal, in that sense. Of course, it's human nature to seek out what we want to hear or feel strongly about, so I find I'm always drawn to CICO and intermittent fasting discussions.

Oishii

GauchoMark wrote: »

Oishii 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.

But then you say that eating a little bit more (putting you at the high end of the window) is a slippery slope. We seem to agree on the window but you seem to be saying to aim for the bottom of it, or do you not mean that?

WalkingAlong

I think GauchoMark was saying aiming for the top of the window is fine but the danger is you don't really know what the top of the window is so you can very easily be eating maintenance levels without knowing until you can't lose for weeks. Or that it's easy to keep slipping closer and closer to maintenance level, because we get diet/logging fatigue over time.

I agree. I'd rather aim for a decent deficit and achieve half of it than aim for a tiny one, weigh every morsel for months, and possibly achieve maintenance. Those online calculators are at best rough estimators of what we burn. We don't really know, and it changes. It's like shooting at a moving target, blindfolded, with a lousy weapon.

GauchoMark

WalkingAlong wrote: »

I think GauchoMark was saying aiming for the top of the window is fine but the danger is you don't really know what the top of the window is so you can very easily be eating maintenance levels without knowing until you can't lose for weeks. Or that it's easy to keep slipping closer and closer to maintenance level, because we get diet/logging fatigue over time.

I agree. I'd rather aim for a decent deficit and achieve half of it than aim for a tiny one, weigh every morsel for months, and possibly achieve maintenance. Those online calculators are at best rough estimators of what we burn. We don't really know, and it changes. It's like shooting at a moving target, blindfolded, with a lousy weapon.

This is more inline with what I was saying. Thanks for helping me out!

Oishii wrote: »

GauchoMark wrote: »

Oishii 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.

But then you say that eating a little bit more (putting you at the high end of the window) is a slippery slope. We seem to agree on the window but you seem to be saying to aim for the bottom of it, or do you not mean that?

Personally, I'd aim for the middle of the window. The edges (either side) can be the slippery part! My point was that there is a little bit of wiggle room - not much, but some - that you can achieve very similar results within that window.

Maitria

Yes, things have changed. People will still recommend adjusting intake, but the rationale is different. It used to be 1200=starvation mode/hold onto fat/no one alive needs to eat 1200 calories to lose weight. If people would suggest that people with less access to food or eating disorders as an argument against the theory, others would accuse that person of promoting eating disorders.

Now, it's gone away from the absolutes. Very few insist anymore that only sedentary women who are 4 feet tall need to eat 1200 calories to lose weight. People usually say, "The majority of people can eat more than 1200," and upping calories is more connected to adherence and energy instead of "holding onto (or even creating) fat." I think the change is nice. It's still good advice for a lot of people who are struggling, but it's not ridiculed that some people have very different calorie needs. I feel like people dialogue more about these topics rather than argue now, and everyone's question and situation is treated individually.