MFP Change of Stance?

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.