carbs are my enemy
Options
Replies
-
They really don't need more than some ding-dong's blog. They can have their opinion and post it. They're not required to source their posts and if someone else doesn't find it "acceptable", that person is going to have to find a way to live with the fact that people posting to discussion boards will sometimes post things they don't agree with and/or things that are wrong.
It's a discussion board, not a research paper. If someone wants to post something that they find interesting, that's acceptable.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
Now who do I believe? - MrM or countless articles that state "As is often the case when science is dummied down, it becomes wrong. Such is the case in the distortion of the Law of Thermodynamics which has been simplified into the popular wisdom: “Calories in = calories out.” This simplistic adage has become something “everyone knows” to be true. It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise. While that’s been used to sell a lot of calorie-reduced diets and calorie-burning exercise programs for weight loss; sadly, it’s also been used to support beliefs that fat people “most certainly must be lying” about their diets and activity levels, because otherwise their failure to lose weight would seem to “defy the Law of Thermodynamics.”
While it might seem inconceivable, this simplified maxim is little more than superstition and urban legend. To realize this fact requires us to first go back to physics class and fill in the missing parts of the first Law of Thermodynamics.
The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.
The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a cheque book, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated.
Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.
In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and fat converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.
Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control.
Now obviously I don't have a great knowledge of physics but I am tying to learn as I go along and MrM does not have the answers that make a lot of sense to me. Basically, the body is a very complex machine and there are other factors involved in gaining and losing weight.
Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.
junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html
Lol. Gale, "junkfoodscience.blogspot.com" is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific database.
That's where LenaGee's 'information' came from
Oh I know! Just telling him that that is not a peer-reviewed site
However, dozens of people have told him that since he started appearing in the forums and he still hasn't grasped the concept of what 'peer-reviewed' means!
Gale, the following are acceptable sources of information:
Message board posts do require a Works Cited page. You are not the first college student to try to tell everyone how to post, what is acceptable, etc.
What you deem acceptable and what people feel like doing may be two different things.
It's a discussion board topic involving the scientific field of nutrition, not a who-wore-it-best side-by-side celebrity outfit comparison. So yes, people can post their opinions and post sources they find interesting, but if they are going to make declarative statements about the science behind diet and nutrition, they need to have a more reliable source than "some guy's blog."
Just because one has an opinion doesn't mean that opinion should be given the same weight as the opinion of another poster who can actually discuss the science behind weight loss. Which is how we ended with one poster telling us that diet can change genetic diseases, then backtracking and admitting that he hasn't taken biology in 20 years and doesn't understand the science behind gene mutation (which he just argued diet could change) when he was confronted by people who actually work in scientific fields.
I'm not sure why people get so upset when the discussion is elevated to examining the existing research and looking at things from an objective viewpoint. Critical thinking is not the enemy.
If they cannot find a way to live with that, the Internet will drive them bonkers.
No, nobody has to give it any weight.
Anyone who has a serious interest will take a more scholarly pursuit than a message board...or they'll pay someone who has for their advice.
If people want to ask for sources, fine by me. I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of knowledge.
On the flip side, it's just not that big a deal if someone is wrong online.
That's my (unsourced, subjective) opinion.
I will not be receiving any more private messages from our new Board Policeperson (who has a "DEGREE", dontchaknow) as I blocked her after the first one, but I also will not be falling in line and sourcing my posts.
I may just have opinions and not cite them. I'm a wild and crazy girl.
No one said the NEEDED anything, but you got on your trusty steed and charged into the fray and missed the whole point.
They were trying to prove something. Their citation failed to prove it because said citation merely was opinion.
-1 -
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
From other posts I've seen, I still feel confident that overall, maintenance levels for most guys on MFP (assuming the same activity level) are lower. Also, if I actually got the U.S. recommended amount of exercise (cardio plus at least the amount of weight lifting I do), I think it's reasonable that my maintenance would actually be up to 21-22 calories per pound of bodyweight. And that's with my (non-exercise) 3500 steps per day lifestyle.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's your activity lifestyle like? Chances are it's higher than mine.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.blktngldhrt wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.blktngldhrt wrote: »Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.
Trust me to join the conversation at this point.
But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol
I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."
What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.
My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.
Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?
Because you don't.
There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is
Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.
You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.
Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.
You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
37 years old. 175 lbs. 20+ calories per pound. You aren't that different, bro.
Even if his activity is higher than yours... it doesn't matter. The math for you works out. You're not an anomaly. Your eating/activity level is at maintenance.
DUDE, it goes by gender/age/weight/height. It takes variables into account.
You are not a special snowflake. Sorry to disappoint. And sorry, 2000 calories is not a freak amount for a guy.
No kidding, I lose at 3000.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »
They really don't need more than some ding-dong's blog. They can have their opinion and post it. They're not required to source their posts and if someone else doesn't find it "acceptable", that person is going to have to find a way to live with the fact that people posting to discussion boards will sometimes post things they don't agree with and/or things that are wrong.
It's a discussion board, not a research paper. If someone wants to post something that they find interesting, that's acceptable.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
Now who do I believe? - MrM or countless articles that state "As is often the case when science is dummied down, it becomes wrong. Such is the case in the distortion of the Law of Thermodynamics which has been simplified into the popular wisdom: “Calories in = calories out.” This simplistic adage has become something “everyone knows” to be true. It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise. While that’s been used to sell a lot of calorie-reduced diets and calorie-burning exercise programs for weight loss; sadly, it’s also been used to support beliefs that fat people “most certainly must be lying” about their diets and activity levels, because otherwise their failure to lose weight would seem to “defy the Law of Thermodynamics.”
While it might seem inconceivable, this simplified maxim is little more than superstition and urban legend. To realize this fact requires us to first go back to physics class and fill in the missing parts of the first Law of Thermodynamics.
The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.
The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a cheque book, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated.
Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.
In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and fat converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.
Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control.
Now obviously I don't have a great knowledge of physics but I am tying to learn as I go along and MrM does not have the answers that make a lot of sense to me. Basically, the body is a very complex machine and there are other factors involved in gaining and losing weight.
Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.
junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html
Lol. Gale, "junkfoodscience.blogspot.com" is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific database.
That's where LenaGee's 'information' came from
Oh I know! Just telling him that that is not a peer-reviewed site However, dozens of people have told him that since he started appearing in the forums and he still hasn't grasped the concept of what 'peer-reviewed' means!
Gale, the following are acceptable sources of information:
Message board posts do require a Works Cited page. You are not the first college student to try to tell everyone how to post, what is acceptable, etc.
What you deem acceptable and what people feel like doing may be two different things.
It's a discussion board topic involving the scientific field of nutrition, not a who-wore-it-best side-by-side celebrity outfit comparison. So yes, people can post their opinions and post sources they find interesting, but if they are going to make declarative statements about the science behind diet and nutrition, they need to have a more reliable source than "some guy's blog."
Just because one has an opinion doesn't mean that opinion should be given the same weight as the opinion of another poster who can actually discuss the science behind weight loss. Which is how we ended with one poster telling us that diet can change genetic diseases, then backtracking and admitting that he hasn't taken biology in 20 years and doesn't understand the science behind gene mutation (which he just argued diet could change) when he was confronted by people who actually work in scientific fields.
I'm not sure why people get so upset when the discussion is elevated to examining the existing research and looking at things from an objective viewpoint. Critical thinking is not the enemy.
If they cannot find a way to live with that, the Internet will drive them bonkers.
No, nobody has to give it any weight.
Anyone who has a serious interest will take a more scholarly pursuit than a message board...or they'll pay someone who has for their advice.
If people want to ask for sources, fine by me. I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of knowledge.
On the flip side, it's just not that big a deal if someone is wrong online.
That's my (unsourced, subjective) opinion.
I will not be receiving any more private messages from our new Board Policeperson (who has a "DEGREE", dontchaknow) as I blocked her after the first one, but I also will not be falling in line and sourcing my posts.
I may just have opinions and not cite them. I'm a wild and crazy girl.
No one said the NEEDED anything, but you got on your trusty steed and charged into the fray and missed the whole point.
They were trying to prove something. Their citation failed to prove it because said citation merely was opinion.
In case you haven't caught on, that's what she does to everyone, in every thread. Don't be offended 0 -
Exception, the difference when you cut out carbs is amazing and your body thanks you for it and punishes you for lapsing. I have had a social weekend eating at Chinese restaurants and at a friend's home and I have had the worst time trying to sleep. My head hurts, I feel foggy and I can't wait to return to normal eating. I am actually craving healthy food. Now please people, don't tell me there is no such thing as good or bad food because I will give you the address of this restaurant and you can check it out for yourselves.
Rachylouise, I hope you are still hanging in there in amongst all the "interesting discussions" about shifting weight and goodness know what. For the record, in Australia we use the term "shift" in relation to weight as well.
Funny, that's how I feel after a day of NOT eating carbs. Might be something to do with it being our primary food source for the last few million years...0 -
*sprinkles holiday cheer about the board*
"In small and petty arguments it isn't about who is right and who is wrong, but who can be the bigger person."
Now I remember the reason why I let MFP fade into the background... the boards, OMG.0 -
Ok, well do you agree that 2200 calories is about right for a 20 year old guy of average size with the kind of lifestyle I have? Because if that's accurate, then I can say that I'm that maintaining on that amount even though I'm a lot smaller than average. Obviously, I know that a lot of guys my age can maintain at a lot more, but that's with a higher activity level.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
From other posts I've seen, I still feel confident that overall, maintenance levels for most guys on MFP (assuming the same activity level) are lower. Also, if I actually got the U.S. recommended amount of exercise (cardio plus at least the amount of weight lifting I do), I think it's reasonable that my maintenance would actually be up to 21-22 calories per pound of bodyweight. And that's with my (non-exercise) 3500 steps per day lifestyle.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's your activity lifestyle like? Chances are it's higher than mine.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.blktngldhrt wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.blktngldhrt wrote: »Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.
Trust me to join the conversation at this point. But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol
I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."
What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.
My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.
Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?
Because you don't.
There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is
Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.
You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.
Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.
You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
37 years old. 175 lbs. 20+ calories per pound. You aren't that different, bro.
Even if his activity is higher than yours... it doesn't matter. The math for you works out. You're not an anomaly. Your eating/activity level is at maintenance.
DUDE, it goes by gender/age/weight/height. It takes variables into account.
You are not a special snowflake. Sorry to disappoint. And sorry, 2000 calories is not a freak amount for a guy.
0 -
They really don't need more than some ding-dong's blog. They can have their opinion and post it. They're not required to source their posts and if someone else doesn't find it "acceptable", that person is going to have to find a way to live with the fact that people posting to discussion boards will sometimes post things they don't agree with and/or things that are wrong.
It's a discussion board, not a research paper. If someone wants to post something that they find interesting, that's acceptable.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
Now who do I believe? - MrM or countless articles that state "As is often the case when science is dummied down, it becomes wrong. Such is the case in the distortion of the Law of Thermodynamics which has been simplified into the popular wisdom: “Calories in = calories out.” This simplistic adage has become something “everyone knows” to be true. It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise. While that’s been used to sell a lot of calorie-reduced diets and calorie-burning exercise programs for weight loss; sadly, it’s also been used to support beliefs that fat people “most certainly must be lying” about their diets and activity levels, because otherwise their failure to lose weight would seem to “defy the Law of Thermodynamics.”
While it might seem inconceivable, this simplified maxim is little more than superstition and urban legend. To realize this fact requires us to first go back to physics class and fill in the missing parts of the first Law of Thermodynamics.
The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.
The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a cheque book, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated.
Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.
In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and fat converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.
Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control.
Now obviously I don't have a great knowledge of physics but I am tying to learn as I go along and MrM does not have the answers that make a lot of sense to me. Basically, the body is a very complex machine and there are other factors involved in gaining and losing weight.
Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.
junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html
Lol. Gale, "junkfoodscience.blogspot.com" is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific database.
That's where LenaGee's 'information' came from
Oh I know! Just telling him that that is not a peer-reviewed site However, dozens of people have told him that since he started appearing in the forums and he still hasn't grasped the concept of what 'peer-reviewed' means!
Gale, the following are acceptable sources of information:
Message board posts do require a Works Cited page. You are not the first college student to try to tell everyone how to post, what is acceptable, etc.
What you deem acceptable and what people feel like doing may be two different things.
It's a discussion board topic involving the scientific field of nutrition, not a who-wore-it-best side-by-side celebrity outfit comparison. So yes, people can post their opinions and post sources they find interesting, but if they are going to make declarative statements about the science behind diet and nutrition, they need to have a more reliable source than "some guy's blog."
Just because one has an opinion doesn't mean that opinion should be given the same weight as the opinion of another poster who can actually discuss the science behind weight loss. Which is how we ended with one poster telling us that diet can change genetic diseases, then backtracking and admitting that he hasn't taken biology in 20 years and doesn't understand the science behind gene mutation (which he just argued diet could change) when he was confronted by people who actually work in scientific fields.
I'm not sure why people get so upset when the discussion is elevated to examining the existing research and looking at things from an objective viewpoint. Critical thinking is not the enemy.
If they cannot find a way to live with that, the Internet will drive them bonkers.
No, nobody has to give it any weight.
Anyone who has a serious interest will take a more scholarly pursuit than a message board...or they'll pay someone who has for their advice.
If people want to ask for sources, fine by me. I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of knowledge.
On the flip side, it's just not that big a deal if someone is wrong online.
That's my (unsourced, subjective) opinion.
I will not be receiving any more private messages from our new Board Policeperson (who has a "DEGREE", dontchaknow) as I blocked her after the first one, but I also will not be falling in line and sourcing my posts.
I may just have opinions and not cite them. I'm a wild and crazy girl.
Opinion is one thing. Saying..oh I don't know about that guy and his physics. You all sound wrong. Here's what I think is correct: insert bs that's actually proving CICO while trying to say it's not the only factor (by listing the things that CICO accounts for!?)..because it makes more sense to me than this physics nonsense.
Of course that's paraphrasing. It's not meant to be mean.
It's one thing to have an opinion on something that's open for debate. It's another completely different thing to have an opinion in opposition of a fact. 2+2=4 um..no. I really think 2+2=22 because that's what makes sense to me.
And..true opinions don't need citations. 0 -
tigersword wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
From other posts I've seen, I still feel confident that overall, maintenance levels for most guys on MFP (assuming the same activity level) are lower. Also, if I actually got the U.S. recommended amount of exercise (cardio plus at least the amount of weight lifting I do), I think it's reasonable that my maintenance would actually be up to 21-22 calories per pound of bodyweight. And that's with my (non-exercise) 3500 steps per day lifestyle.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's your activity lifestyle like? Chances are it's higher than mine.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.blktngldhrt wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.blktngldhrt wrote: »Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.
Trust me to join the conversation at this point. But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol
I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."
What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.
My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.
Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?
Because you don't.
There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is
Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.
You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.
Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.
You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
37 years old. 175 lbs. 20+ calories per pound. You aren't that different, bro.
Even if his activity is higher than yours... it doesn't matter. The math for you works out. You're not an anomaly. Your eating/activity level is at maintenance.
DUDE, it goes by gender/age/weight/height. It takes variables into account.
You are not a special snowflake. Sorry to disappoint. And sorry, 2000 calories is not a freak amount for a guy.
No kidding, I lose at 3000.
Hate
0 -
kungabungadin wrote: »Well on a slightly related matter I had to give up gluten because I have a gluten sensitivity and since doing so I don't crave sugars, pasta or bread like I use to and it just shows me that taking a lot of these types of carbs out has helped me in the long run not to crave these foods and in fact I get full faster off the foods I do eat. I know not all gluten free food is healthy but I try to stick to healthier foods with some things here and there that are not so healthy. However, for the most part I try to eat lean meat, fruits, veggies and healthy fats. This has helped me with the high carb cravings. Good luck to you in getting this under control.
I had this happen to me just a few months ago. At my age it ticked me off to figure out it was me and only me creating the CARB monster that controlled me for the past 40 years.
Don't feed him and he will die and leave one in peace it seems.
Thanks for your story that is on topic.
0 -
tigersword wrote: »Exception, the difference when you cut out carbs is amazing and your body thanks you for it and punishes you for lapsing. I have had a social weekend eating at Chinese restaurants and at a friend's home and I have had the worst time trying to sleep. My head hurts, I feel foggy and I can't wait to return to normal eating. I am actually craving healthy food. Now please people, don't tell me there is no such thing as good or bad food because I will give you the address of this restaurant and you can check it out for yourselves.
Rachylouise, I hope you are still hanging in there in amongst all the "interesting discussions" about shifting weight and goodness know what. For the record, in Australia we use the term "shift" in relation to weight as well.
Funny, that's how I feel after a day of NOT eating carbs. Might be something to do with it being our primary food source for the last few million years...
The funny thing about all this is that I limit carbs myself. I'm a moderate carber, I feel best if I keep them around 100g (net) a day and get them mostly from beans and dairy rather than grains. But that's just me. I have autoimmune conditions and a generally inflammatory bunch of nonsense to deal with, so I eat to feel well and eat what I enjoy.
I feel as fine as I ever did on super low carb. In fact, I'm in less pain now because I exercise. I'm more satisfied with my food than I was on super low carb. I don't crave the stuff I don't eat either. If I do want something I don't normally eat, I have a small amount of it and then go on with my normal way of eating and I feel fine.
The only difference in my life now is that I eat less than I ate before coming to MFP. There's my problem with some of the low carbers in this thread. There's no magic to cutting carbs. If you feel better eating that way for whatever reason? More power to you. That's great. But for weight loss? It's still all about how many low-carb calories you're eating.
0 -
tigersword wrote: »Exception, the difference when you cut out carbs is amazing and your body thanks you for it and punishes you for lapsing. I have had a social weekend eating at Chinese restaurants and at a friend's home and I have had the worst time trying to sleep. My head hurts, I feel foggy and I can't wait to return to normal eating. I am actually craving healthy food. Now please people, don't tell me there is no such thing as good or bad food because I will give you the address of this restaurant and you can check it out for yourselves.
Rachylouise, I hope you are still hanging in there in amongst all the "interesting discussions" about shifting weight and goodness know what. For the record, in Australia we use the term "shift" in relation to weight as well.
Funny, that's how I feel after a day of NOT eating carbs. Might be something to do with it being our primary food source for the last few million years...
Every body is different
No matter which way you choose..switching from high to low or low to high..you can end up feeling like shi* until your body adjusts.
0 -
I didn't take a side in this.blktngldhrt wrote: »
They really don't need more than some ding-dong's blog. They can have their opinion and post it. They're not required to source their posts and if someone else doesn't find it "acceptable", that person is going to have to find a way to live with the fact that people posting to discussion boards will sometimes post things they don't agree with and/or things that are wrong.
It's a discussion board, not a research paper. If someone wants to post something that they find interesting, that's acceptable.FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »blktngldhrt wrote: »
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
Now who do I believe? - MrM or countless articles that state "As is often the case when science is dummied down, it becomes wrong. Such is the case in the distortion of the Law of Thermodynamics which has been simplified into the popular wisdom: “Calories in = calories out.” This simplistic adage has become something “everyone knows” to be true. It’s behind widely held beliefs that managing our weight is simply a matter of balancing calories eaten and exercise. While that’s been used to sell a lot of calorie-reduced diets and calorie-burning exercise programs for weight loss; sadly, it’s also been used to support beliefs that fat people “most certainly must be lying” about their diets and activity levels, because otherwise their failure to lose weight would seem to “defy the Law of Thermodynamics.”
While it might seem inconceivable, this simplified maxim is little more than superstition and urban legend. To realize this fact requires us to first go back to physics class and fill in the missing parts of the first Law of Thermodynamics.
The first Law of Thermodynamics, or energy balance, basically states that in a closed system, energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed or transferred.
The human body is not a machine. There are countless, wildly varying, variables (external and internal) involved and that affect the efficiencies of a system and for which we have no control over. Understanding this helps to explain why calories cannot be balanced like a cheque book, and why people never seem to gain or lose precisely as calculated.
Balance in an open system, like the human body, is when all energy going into the system equals all energy leaving the system plus the storage of energy within the system. But energy in any thermodynamic system includes kinetic energy, potential energy, internal energy, and flow energy, as well as heat and work processes.
In other words, in real life, balancing energy includes a lot more than just the calories we eat and the calories we burn according to those exercise charts. The energy parts of the equation include: calories consumed; calories converted to energy and used in involuntary movement; calories used for heat generation and in response to external environmental exposures and temperatures; calories used with inflammatory and infectious processes; calories used in growth, tissue restoration and numerous metabolic processes; calories used in voluntary movement; calories not absorbed in the digestive tract and matter expelled; calories stored as fat, and fat converted in the liver to glucose; and more. Add to that, to put it simply, each variable affects the others, varies with mass and age, involves complex hormonal and enzyme regulatory influences, and differs in efficiency.
Calories eaten and calories used in voluntary movement are only two small parts of energy balance and are meaningless by themselves, unless all of the other variables are controlled for, as our metabolism… which they can never be as they aren’t under our control.
Now obviously I don't have a great knowledge of physics but I am tying to learn as I go along and MrM does not have the answers that make a lot of sense to me. Basically, the body is a very complex machine and there are other factors involved in gaining and losing weight.
Can you please provide the link to that article? If it isn't from a peer-reviewed scientific database (which I'm sure it isn't), it holds no value or accuracy.
junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/10/first-law-of-thermodynamics-in-real.html
Lol. Gale, "junkfoodscience.blogspot.com" is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific database.
That's where LenaGee's 'information' came from
Oh I know! Just telling him that that is not a peer-reviewed site However, dozens of people have told him that since he started appearing in the forums and he still hasn't grasped the concept of what 'peer-reviewed' means!
Gale, the following are acceptable sources of information:
Message board posts do require a Works Cited page. You are not the first college student to try to tell everyone how to post, what is acceptable, etc.
What you deem acceptable and what people feel like doing may be two different things.
It's a discussion board topic involving the scientific field of nutrition, not a who-wore-it-best side-by-side celebrity outfit comparison. So yes, people can post their opinions and post sources they find interesting, but if they are going to make declarative statements about the science behind diet and nutrition, they need to have a more reliable source than "some guy's blog."
Just because one has an opinion doesn't mean that opinion should be given the same weight as the opinion of another poster who can actually discuss the science behind weight loss. Which is how we ended with one poster telling us that diet can change genetic diseases, then backtracking and admitting that he hasn't taken biology in 20 years and doesn't understand the science behind gene mutation (which he just argued diet could change) when he was confronted by people who actually work in scientific fields.
I'm not sure why people get so upset when the discussion is elevated to examining the existing research and looking at things from an objective viewpoint. Critical thinking is not the enemy.
If they cannot find a way to live with that, the Internet will drive them bonkers.
No, nobody has to give it any weight.
Anyone who has a serious interest will take a more scholarly pursuit than a message board...or they'll pay someone who has for their advice.
If people want to ask for sources, fine by me. I don't begrudge anyone their pursuit of knowledge.
On the flip side, it's just not that big a deal if someone is wrong online.
That's my (unsourced, subjective) opinion.
I will not be receiving any more private messages from our new Board Policeperson (who has a "DEGREE", dontchaknow) as I blocked her after the first one, but I also will not be falling in line and sourcing my posts.
I may just have opinions and not cite them. I'm a wild and crazy girl.
Opinion is one thing. Saying..oh I don't know about that guy and his physics. You all sound wrong. Here's what I think is correct: insert bs that's actually proving CICO while trying to say it's not the only factor (by listing the things that CICO accounts for!?)..because it makes more sense to me than this physics nonsense.
Of course that's paraphrasing. It's not meant to be mean.
It's one thing to have an opinion on something that's open for debate. It's another completely different thing to have an opinion in opposition of a fact. 2+2=4 um..no. I really think 2+2=22 because that's what makes sense to me.
And..true opinions don't need citations.
I don't have any desire to defend (or get approval for) my choices nor do I care what other people eat.-1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, well do you agree that 2200 calories is about right for a 20 year old guy of average size with the kind of lifestyle I have? Because if that's accurate, then I can say that I'm that maintaining on that amount even though I'm a lot smaller than average. Obviously, I know that a lot of guys my age can maintain at a lot more, but that's with a higher activity level.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
From other posts I've seen, I still feel confident that overall, maintenance levels for most guys on MFP (assuming the same activity level) are lower. Also, if I actually got the U.S. recommended amount of exercise (cardio plus at least the amount of weight lifting I do), I think it's reasonable that my maintenance would actually be up to 21-22 calories per pound of bodyweight. And that's with my (non-exercise) 3500 steps per day lifestyle.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's your activity lifestyle like? Chances are it's higher than mine.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.blktngldhrt wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.blktngldhrt wrote: »Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.
Trust me to join the conversation at this point. But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol
I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."
What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.
My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.
Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?
Because you don't.
There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is
Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.
You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.
Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.
You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
37 years old. 175 lbs. 20+ calories per pound. You aren't that different, bro.
Even if his activity is higher than yours... it doesn't matter. The math for you works out. You're not an anomaly. Your eating/activity level is at maintenance.
DUDE, it goes by gender/age/weight/height. It takes variables into account.
You are not a special snowflake. Sorry to disappoint. And sorry, 2000 calories is not a freak amount for a guy.
You keep upping your calories consumed and lowering the amount of exercise you get every time you post. What exactly are you trying to prove?
The original information you gave? The numbers all worked out just fine. You. are. maintaining.
0 -
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »Exception, the difference when you cut out carbs is amazing and your body thanks you for it and punishes you for lapsing. I have had a social weekend eating at Chinese restaurants and at a friend's home and I have had the worst time trying to sleep. My head hurts, I feel foggy and I can't wait to return to normal eating. I am actually craving healthy food. Now please people, don't tell me there is no such thing as good or bad food because I will give you the address of this restaurant and you can check it out for yourselves.
Rachylouise, I hope you are still hanging in there in amongst all the "interesting discussions" about shifting weight and goodness know what. For the record, in Australia we use the term "shift" in relation to weight as well.
Funny, that's how I feel after a day of NOT eating carbs. Might be something to do with it being our primary food source for the last few million years...
The funny thing about all this is that I limit carbs myself. I'm a moderate carber, I feel best if I keep them around 100g (net) a day and get them mostly from beans and dairy rather than grains. But that's just me. I have autoimmune conditions and a generally inflammatory bunch of nonsense to deal with, so I eat to feel well and eat what I enjoy.
I feel as fine as I ever did on super low carb. In fact, I'm in less pain now because I exercise. I'm more satisfied with my food than I was on super low carb. I don't crave the stuff I don't eat either. If I do want something I don't normally eat, I have a small amount of it and then go on with my normal way of eating and I feel fine.
The only difference in my life now is that I eat less than I ate before coming to MFP. There's my problem with some of the low carbers in this thread. There's no magic to cutting carbs. If you feel better eating that way for whatever reason? More power to you. That's great. But for weight loss? It's still all about how many low-carb calories you're eating.
Haha. It is funny. I am super low carb. I eat about 18g of carbs a day (that's my max unless I exercise and eat back some). I still have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. There's no magic here.
Although, I have to admit as a hypoglycemic who suffered for a good while..it feels like magic. But that's just because I feel amazing now compared to before. Not because magic..but because my pancreas doesn't have much to overreact to anymore and my blood glucose isn't dropping into the 50s on a daily basis.
0 -
I don't recall specifically saying 2000 calories before. The first time I posted my activity level, I was saying I got "no more" than that, and then clarified what it truly is. My point was that if you take a large group of 20 year old guys with my activity level, I think it's likely that the average maintenance would not be quite as high as 18 calories per pound. Check out this thread. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10035252/2650-calories-a-day/p1mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, well do you agree that 2200 calories is about right for a 20 year old guy of average size with the kind of lifestyle I have? Because if that's accurate, then I can say that I'm that maintaining on that amount even though I'm a lot smaller than average. Obviously, I know that a lot of guys my age can maintain at a lot more, but that's with a higher activity level.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
From other posts I've seen, I still feel confident that overall, maintenance levels for most guys on MFP (assuming the same activity level) are lower. Also, if I actually got the U.S. recommended amount of exercise (cardio plus at least the amount of weight lifting I do), I think it's reasonable that my maintenance would actually be up to 21-22 calories per pound of bodyweight. And that's with my (non-exercise) 3500 steps per day lifestyle.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's your activity lifestyle like? Chances are it's higher than mine.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.blktngldhrt wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.blktngldhrt wrote: »Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.
Trust me to join the conversation at this point. But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol
I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."
What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.
My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.
Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?
Because you don't.
There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is
Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.
You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.
Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.
You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
37 years old. 175 lbs. 20+ calories per pound. You aren't that different, bro.
Even if his activity is higher than yours... it doesn't matter. The math for you works out. You're not an anomaly. Your eating/activity level is at maintenance.
DUDE, it goes by gender/age/weight/height. It takes variables into account.
You are not a special snowflake. Sorry to disappoint. And sorry, 2000 calories is not a freak amount for a guy.
You keep upping your calories consumed and lowering the amount of exercise you get every time you post. What exactly are you trying to prove?
The original information you gave? The numbers all worked out just fine. You. are. maintaining.
The OP's maintenance is not even close to 4600 calories, and he's actually younger than me. Also, there are other guys who posted in that thread whose maintenance levels are certainly lower than 18 calories per pound despite being more active than me.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »Exception, the difference when you cut out carbs is amazing and your body thanks you for it and punishes you for lapsing. I have had a social weekend eating at Chinese restaurants and at a friend's home and I have had the worst time trying to sleep. My head hurts, I feel foggy and I can't wait to return to normal eating. I am actually craving healthy food. Now please people, don't tell me there is no such thing as good or bad food because I will give you the address of this restaurant and you can check it out for yourselves.
Rachylouise, I hope you are still hanging in there in amongst all the "interesting discussions" about shifting weight and goodness know what. For the record, in Australia we use the term "shift" in relation to weight as well.
Funny, that's how I feel after a day of NOT eating carbs. Might be something to do with it being our primary food source for the last few million years...
The funny thing about all this is that I limit carbs myself. I'm a moderate carber, I feel best if I keep them around 100g (net) a day and get them mostly from beans and dairy rather than grains. But that's just me. I have autoimmune conditions and a generally inflammatory bunch of nonsense to deal with, so I eat to feel well and eat what I enjoy.
I feel as fine as I ever did on super low carb. In fact, I'm in less pain now because I exercise. I'm more satisfied with my food than I was on super low carb. I don't crave the stuff I don't eat either. If I do want something I don't normally eat, I have a small amount of it and then go on with my normal way of eating and I feel fine.
The only difference in my life now is that I eat less than I ate before coming to MFP. There's my problem with some of the low carbers in this thread. There's no magic to cutting carbs. If you feel better eating that way for whatever reason? More power to you. That's great. But for weight loss? It's still all about how many low-carb calories you're eating.
Haha. It is funny. I am super low carb. I eat about 18g of carbs a day (that's my max unless I exercise and eat back some). I still have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. There's no magic here.
Although, I have to admit as a hypoglycemic who suffered for a good while..it feels like magic. But that's just because I feel amazing now compared to before. Not because magic..but because my pancreas doesn't have much to overreact to anymore and my blood glucose isn't dropping into the 50s on a daily basis.
@blktngldhrt I have a question for you… I, too, am hypoglycemic. I overproduce insulin which causes my blood sugar to crash. I used to eat 200+ grams of carbs and my blood glucose was going from 160 to 40 mg/dL in less than 45 minutes. I have cut back tremendously and typically eat between 110-160 grams now. I am still experiencing crashes so I know I need to cut back more. However, every time I try to eat below 75 grams, I am dizzy, weak, confused, shaky, and feel like I'm going to pass out if I don't eat or drink something high in carbs. If I do not eat at least 100 grams of carbs, I cannot keep my blood glucose at a level which I can function normally. Did you experience this?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't recall specifically saying 2000 calories before. The first time I posted my activity level, I was saying I got "no more" than that, and then clarified what it truly is. My point was that if you take a large group of 20 year old guys with my activity level, I think it's likely that the average maintenance would not be quite as high as 18 calories per pound. Check out this thread. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10035252/2650-calories-a-day/p1mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Ok, well do you agree that 2200 calories is about right for a 20 year old guy of average size with the kind of lifestyle I have? Because if that's accurate, then I can say that I'm that maintaining on that amount even though I'm a lot smaller than average. Obviously, I know that a lot of guys my age can maintain at a lot more, but that's with a higher activity level.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
From other posts I've seen, I still feel confident that overall, maintenance levels for most guys on MFP (assuming the same activity level) are lower. Also, if I actually got the U.S. recommended amount of exercise (cardio plus at least the amount of weight lifting I do), I think it's reasonable that my maintenance would actually be up to 21-22 calories per pound of bodyweight. And that's with my (non-exercise) 3500 steps per day lifestyle.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's your activity lifestyle like? Chances are it's higher than mine.ForecasterJason wrote: »
In reality, all I normally get for exercise these days is about 50-60 minutes of weight training a week. A lot of people that do weight training are doing a lot more than that. And on a typical day, I only get about 3500 steps in each day. I literally spend almost my whole day just sitting at a computer. I do think there are a lot of other skinny people that can/are doing something similar, though. But I don't think it's exactly normal. Before I started doing some weight training, I was doing about 45 minutes of cardio a week and maintaining on 16-17 calories per pound (same sedentary lifestyle). Even my own family members (who live with me) found it hard to believe how I can eat what I do and still stay so skinny.mamapeach910 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes, I know, but for some people it's just hard to believe that some can eat a lot and not gain.blktngldhrt wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
I agree with what you're saying, but it's all about perception. I mean, just a week ago I was talking to a friend in person, and she couldn't believe when I said I eat cake and cookies often and yet she can see how skinny I am. I understand that some of us who can just eat and eat without gaining are still eating around maintenance, but it means our maintenance is much higher than normal, and/or our bodies are more efficient at burning calories. So therefore, it appears as though we are in a calorie surplus.blktngldhrt wrote: »Don't be an a@@. You know very well it is a Brit term for making it go away.
Trust me to join the conversation at this point. But I will say I agree with earlnabby. lol
I noticed a lot of the conversation stated as a fact that "overeating leads to weight gain."
What I don't understand is how do people, like myself, my husband and my sons overeat all our lives and not gain weight.
My husband and sons eat constantly and never gain weight. I was the same up until I was 50 (I am too scared to say "until I reached menopause age.") Now I have to be a lot more careful as I have found the weight creeping on slowly over the years. Funny that, weight seems to shift, stall, creep, increase but is mighty hard to lose.
Anyway, what I want to know is, "after eating like a pig for over 50 years why aren't I the size of a house instead of just 5 kilos overweight if the statement about overeating is fact?
Because you don't.
There are people who eat all day long and are still within their maintenance number. My boyfriend is one, for example. He eats a lot. He eats a lot of high calorie foods. He doesn't, however, eat over maintainece when the calories are averaged out over a week.
Like MrM said..physics. You MUST overeat to gain weight. This is fact.
No sir. Fact and perception are not one in the same. The appearance of a calorie surplus does not make it a surplus. It doesn't matter what appears to be. The only thing that matters is what is
Your maintenence is probably not higher than normal..it is simply higher than her maintenance. Also, being able to eat cake and cookies is not really a good yard stick with which to measure your calorie in being higher than hers.
Also, in proportion to my activity level, I'm reasonably certain that my maintenance calories is higher per pound than most other guys. My overall lifestyle is sedentary with less than 90 minutes of exercise a week, but I'm maintaining on 18 calories per pound of bodyweight. I don't think a lot of sedentary guys can do that without gaining.
You keep talking like you're scoring some points, but... hey A+ for effort if it makes you feel better. You might as well be whistling into the wind. You just keep proving the opposite point you're trying to make.
Of course a sedentary person is going to put on weight compared to a person who gets exercise, even a small amount of exercise can make a difference.
You keep trying to make yourself out to be some freak of nature. You know what? You're not. There are variances in metabolic rates and some people have faster metabolisms than others, but they all, barring medical conditions, average near each other for similar age/height/weight/gender groups.
37 years old. 175 lbs. 20+ calories per pound. You aren't that different, bro.
Even if his activity is higher than yours... it doesn't matter. The math for you works out. You're not an anomaly. Your eating/activity level is at maintenance.
DUDE, it goes by gender/age/weight/height. It takes variables into account.
You are not a special snowflake. Sorry to disappoint. And sorry, 2000 calories is not a freak amount for a guy.
You keep upping your calories consumed and lowering the amount of exercise you get every time you post. What exactly are you trying to prove?
The original information you gave? The numbers all worked out just fine. You. are. maintaining.
The OP's maintenance is not even close to 4600 calories, and he's actually younger than me. Also, there are other guys who posted in that thread whose maintenance levels are certainly lower than 18 calories per pound despite being more active than me.
You gave a different calorie figure per pound upstream. That's where I got the 2000 from once you gave your weight.
Go online and look up a TDEE calculator. There are variables. MEN don't work all as one group. The calculation for calories needed to maintain weight depend on a number of variables including gender, weight, height, age, and activity level.
You do not single-handedly defy the laws of thermodynamics. Sorry.
0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »tigersword wrote: »Exception, the difference when you cut out carbs is amazing and your body thanks you for it and punishes you for lapsing. I have had a social weekend eating at Chinese restaurants and at a friend's home and I have had the worst time trying to sleep. My head hurts, I feel foggy and I can't wait to return to normal eating. I am actually craving healthy food. Now please people, don't tell me there is no such thing as good or bad food because I will give you the address of this restaurant and you can check it out for yourselves.
Rachylouise, I hope you are still hanging in there in amongst all the "interesting discussions" about shifting weight and goodness know what. For the record, in Australia we use the term "shift" in relation to weight as well.
Funny, that's how I feel after a day of NOT eating carbs. Might be something to do with it being our primary food source for the last few million years...
The funny thing about all this is that I limit carbs myself. I'm a moderate carber, I feel best if I keep them around 100g (net) a day and get them mostly from beans and dairy rather than grains. But that's just me. I have autoimmune conditions and a generally inflammatory bunch of nonsense to deal with, so I eat to feel well and eat what I enjoy.
I feel as fine as I ever did on super low carb. In fact, I'm in less pain now because I exercise. I'm more satisfied with my food than I was on super low carb. I don't crave the stuff I don't eat either. If I do want something I don't normally eat, I have a small amount of it and then go on with my normal way of eating and I feel fine.
The only difference in my life now is that I eat less than I ate before coming to MFP. There's my problem with some of the low carbers in this thread. There's no magic to cutting carbs. If you feel better eating that way for whatever reason? More power to you. That's great. But for weight loss? It's still all about how many low-carb calories you're eating.
Haha. It is funny. I am super low carb. I eat about 18g of carbs a day (that's my max unless I exercise and eat back some). I still have to eat at a deficit to lose weight. There's no magic here.
Although, I have to admit as a hypoglycemic who suffered for a good while..it feels like magic. But that's just because I feel amazing now compared to before. Not because magic..but because my pancreas doesn't have much to overreact to anymore and my blood glucose isn't dropping into the 50s on a daily basis.
Do you get to eat any fruit or veggies being that low carb?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions