Unhelpful advice by experts
Replies
-
ianblackburn wrote: »"it's not rocket science, just eat less and exercise more" - maybe not from experts, but I see this often enough, and it makes my blood boil! My usual response is: "great idea, oh and by the way, if you want to be a billionaire here's a tip for you - it's not rocket science, just reduce your costs and increase revenue's - simple!"
No, it's not rocket science. It's Chemistry and Biology. If you eat at a deficit, you'll lose weight. Period. That some people fail in that does not make the science any less wrong. It just makes those people failures.
I've never heard an expert say "reduce costs and increase revenues" to a person wanting to become rich. That's not even sound advice for someone who owns a business let alone some middle class schmuck trying to save for retirement. A billionaire?
Specious made up "advice" that you've gathered in your head is not from an "expert".-1 -
The myth: Have a good breakfast, your brain needs carbs to function well, it will stop you getting hungry through the day and overeating - The reality I found that a good, healthy carb (low GI) loaded breakfast made my brain foggy and set me up for behavioural failure. I was hungry all day long. My brain works best on my fast days when all I have for breakfast is a home made cappuccino. Eating less in the day and having "left over" calories that I "have to eat" at the end of the day has prevented late night bingeing and has produced a much more workable system. (This breaks the "Breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, dinner like a pauper" myth - for me).
I listen to the nutrition experts. It gets confusing at times, because they don't always agree. Sometimes that's because studies yield conflicting results. More often it's a matter of newspapers, magazines and internet news feeds recycling outdated notions, which is what the "good breakfast myth" is.
When it comes to losing weight, it really doesn't matter when you eat. What does matter is how much you eat over the course of a day. Personally, I like a big breakfast. And a big lunch. I also snack throughout the day. I often skip dinner, opting for a light snack like popcorn. It works for me. The next guy will be miserable on a regimen like that and will crave a big dinner and maybe a late night snack. But as long as we both eat the same number of daily calories, all other things being equal, we'll both lose the same exact amount of weight.
0 -
rcottonrph1 wrote: »If you aren't hungry in the morning, it is a sign that your metabolism is sluggish. After 8 hours of not eating, you should be hungry!
Hunger =/= metabolism. I can exercise and work on an empty stomach. I lose weight at the appropriate rate--a little faster than MFP says I should, actually, so maybe my metabolism is the opposite of sluggish. Of course, this is anecdotal. I would be interested in seeing any evidence that backs up the metabolism/hunger link.0 -
I will give the same piece of advice for this particular topic as I do for many other things:
Do whatever the F you want.
0 -
Unhelpful advice for me is to practice elimination. Rather than confront the problem (of, say, binging) I should hide from it, stick my head in the sand and pretend my favorite foods don't exist and I can't eat them in any amount ever again.
Like telling someone with money problems to go bury their unpaid bills in the backyard and change their phone number. Because the bills and the collectors knowing your phone number are the problems that needs solving...0 -
sure I will bite...
carbs and sugar are bad and lead to weight gain, and must be eliminated..
everyone is different when it comes to weight loss < no, we are not CICO works for everyone....0 -
ianblackburn wrote: »"it's not rocket science, just eat less and exercise more" - maybe not from experts, but I see this often enough, and it makes my blood boil! My usual response is: "great idea, oh and by the way, if you want to be a billionaire here's a tip for you - it's not rocket science, just reduce your costs and increase revenue's - simple!"
really??
yes, it is that simple. Eat less and move more ..
-1 -
It varies from person to person. I usually function well on a high carb breakfast.Although my day job is as an "expert" (Occupational Therapist/Counsellor) - one of the things I've learned from my own weight loss/chronic disease management journey - is that a lot of stuff that seems accepted just doesn't work for me. I'll share my favourite bad advice and look forward to others experience. As I say to my clients, "If it works, keep doing it, if it doesn't, try something different".
The myth: Have a good breakfast, your brain needs carbs to function well, it will stop you getting hungry through the day and overeating - The reality I found that a good, healthy carb (low GI) loaded breakfast made my brain foggy and set me up for behavioural failure. I was hungry all day long. My brain works best on my fast days when all I have for breakfast is a home made cappuccino. Eating less in the day and having "left over" calories that I "have to eat" at the end of the day has prevented late night bingeing and has produced a much more workable system. (This breaks the "Breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince, dinner like a pauper" myth - for me).
0 -
I've always hated the advice of eating "only when hungry, and stop when you're full" along with the advice of eating very slowly and chewing your food x number of times. I eat pretty fast. I need to monitor my intake by portion control and good choices. Not slow eating. And asking myself (especially during stressful moments) "am I hungry? am I full?" just doesn't work well for me.
Another bit of advice that works for some, but not me, is eating 6-8 "mini meals" rather than 3 larger meals. I have done well with a very small breakfast, and larger lunch & dinner. I almost never snack. A few times I've tried the mini meals and I felt so dissatisfied! I would be truly miserable eating mini meals of 200 cal throughout each day.
While yes "move more, eat less" is true...there are so many ways to achieve this!0 -
seltzermint wrote: »I've always hated the advice of eating "only when hungry, and stop when you're full" along with the advice of eating very slowly and chewing your food x number of times. I eat pretty fast. I need to monitor my intake by portion control and good choices. Not slow eating. And asking myself (especially during stressful moments) "am I hungry? am I full?" just doesn't work well for me.
Another bit of advice that works for some, but not me, is eating 6-8 "mini meals" rather than 3 larger meals. I have done well with a very small breakfast, and larger lunch & dinner. I almost never snack. A few times I've tried the mini meals and I felt so dissatisfied! I would be truly miserable eating mini meals of 200 cal throughout each day.
While yes "move more, eat less" is true...there are so many ways to achieve this!
It seems most problematic when people say you must do it my way. Usually it's someone who read a book or a documentary, and they say "everyone should do this because now I know x" or "this worked for me you need to do it too". Then people will say, no you don't have to do that, and then there's always a fight.
I have no idea why it's so hard to fathom "CICO, and find the foods that keeps you feeling satiated and gets you to your goals" is so difficult. But everyone seems to rail against it.0 -
Oh man, I could never go without my breakfast. It's my favorite meal of the day!0
-
I feel nauseous if I don't eat breakfast soon after I wake up. Not sure why. It doesn't have to be a huge breakfast, but I have to eat something or I'll start to feel sick.0
-
Yep until some joker comes along and want to know how to calculate the calories that you eat as well as calories that you burn. Then of a sudden it's measure this, read that, log, estimate, guess, look up, calculate, ignore etc and etc.The fact is you don't need an expert to lose weight: just eat less calories than you burn on a regular basis.
"experts" make it complicated because they want to make money out of it. But the info is simple and available for free. Great tools (like mfp) are also available for free. All you have to supply is patience and sticking power...
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »I feel nauseous if I don't eat breakfast soon after I wake up. Not sure why. It doesn't have to be a huge breakfast, but I have to eat something or I'll start to feel sick.
Yes! I'm exactly same way. It gets so bad that I actually run to the restroom sometimes thinking I'm going to throw up. Plus I get nasty headaches.
0 -
BMI calcuators:
According to the calculator, I'm currently Obese/Morbidly. To fit into the "norm," I should be between 122 and 164. My lowest weight at one point after losing was 164. I was HUNGRY and super B*TCHY!!!!! I don't want that again.
My goal is to be 185ish. And according to the chart, I would still be overweight/obese.
I have to disagree with that.
0 -
LandyBreigh wrote: »BMI calcuators:
According to the calculator, I'm currently Obese/Morbidly. To fit into the "norm," I should be between 122 and 164. My lowest weight at one point after losing was 164. I was HUNGRY and super B*TCHY!!!!! I don't want that again.
My goal is to be 185ish. And according to the chart, I would still be overweight/obese.
I have to disagree with that.
BMI = garbage stat IMO0 -
rcottonrph1 wrote: »If you aren't hungry in the morning, it is a sign that your metabolism is sluggish. After 8 hours of not eating, you should be hungry!
No.
0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »For me the biggest myth that I was THRILLED to see dispelled (and I credit with much of my 69 pounds lost) is that you can still eat the things you love - you don't have to cut out certain foods, or eat a specific way to have success.
People say to me "Aren't you dieting? Can you eat that?" and then I rip open my chips or my ice cream and eat what I've portioned.
About specific ways to success...I've learned over time that I feel better on 5-6 hours of sleep as compared to a full "recommended" 8.0 -
ianblackburn wrote: »"it's not rocket science, just eat less and exercise more" - maybe not from experts, but I see this often enough, and it makes my blood boil! My usual response is: "great idea, oh and by the way, if you want to be a billionaire here's a tip for you - it's not rocket science, just reduce your costs and increase revenue's - simple!"
really??
yes, it is that simple. Eat less and move more ..
Not exactly, though. Eat less than what? Move more than what? More/less than one has been? That still might not be enough to lose weight, if one's net consumption is still above TDEE.
That's why that advice, while true, is insufficient on its own. In all my previous attempts to lose weight I never knew HOW MUCH less to eat, and HOW MUCH more to move. I've been successful this time because of the tools that are now widely available.0 -
"You have to stop eating out in order to lose weight" So false, I've been eating out once a week roughly and have still shed pounds. I just have to do a little research before going.0
-
seltzermint wrote: »I've always hated the advice of eating "only when hungry, and stop when you're full" along with the advice of eating very slowly and chewing your food x number of times. I eat pretty fast. I need to monitor my intake by portion control and good choices. Not slow eating. And asking myself (especially during stressful moments) "am I hungry? am I full?" just doesn't work well for me.
Agreed. "Hungry" and "full" are not well-defined terms. I think many overweight people don't know what it means to be full. I don't know if I know and I'm three years into this now.0 -
ianblackburn wrote: »"it's not rocket science, just eat less and exercise more" - maybe not from experts, but I see this often enough, and it makes my blood boil! My usual response is: "great idea, oh and by the way, if you want to be a billionaire here's a tip for you - it's not rocket science, just reduce your costs and increase revenue's - simple!"
really??
yes, it is that simple. Eat less and move more ..
Not exactly, though. Eat less than what? Move more than what? More/less than one has been? That still might not be enough to lose weight, if one's net consumption is still above TDEE.
That's why that advice, while true, is insufficient on its own. In all my previous attempts to lose weight I never knew HOW MUCH less to eat, and HOW MUCH more to move. I've been successful this time because of the tools that are now widely available.
Ok ...
amended simple version ..
put yourself in a 500 per day calorie deficit.
move more = do what you like...walk, lift, run, etc...OR just eat in a deficit and don't move at all ...
either way it will result in weight loss.
0 -
dragonmaster69 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »For me the biggest myth that I was THRILLED to see dispelled (and I credit with much of my 69 pounds lost) is that you can still eat the things you love - you don't have to cut out certain foods, or eat a specific way to have success.
People say to me "Aren't you dieting? Can you eat that?" and then I rip open my chips or my ice cream and eat what I've portioned.
OMG same thing here. My coworkers know I'm trying to lose weight because I've lost 40 and it's not something you can miss...I came in with schwarma the other day and my coworker goes "I thought you were on a diet". And when I said no I just fit it in my day he goes "It's a wonder you've lost anything eating that"...yep because grilled chicken, rice, and sauce on the side is terrible for me, how dare I eat anything besides salad.
0 -
Not exactly, though. Eat less than what? Move more than what? More/less than one has been?
Yes, that is more than enough information. You're fat, you weigh 300lbs. In order to get there (no underlying medical conditions) you had to eat a lot and exercise very little. So the answer is eat less than you have been (cause its making you fat) and move more than you have been (cause it's making you unhealthy and could contribute to your being fat).
Hence eat less and move more. It works for everyone.
Falsely claiming you need actual numbers to do this, is incorrect and a intelectually lazy arguement. After a certain time numbers will matter, but whatever those numbers are in order to lose you need to eat less than that number and exercise more (for the health benefits).
Less of something is less, and more of something is more.
Math; Here's a overweight persons equeation.
2N + -(E) = F
N = nutrition. E = exercise, and F = Fat. This overweight person is currently eating 2 times as much food as is needed (to maintain a healthy body weight), and that plus negative amounts of exercise equals, they're fat. If they eat less, even if it's less by .10 or something and still have a negative exercise number. F(at) will be smaller, as in they will lose weight.
Math and science.
0 -
I have to eat breakfast or I'm scarfing everything down in sight.0
-
I couldn't do without some breakfast, though it doesn't really matter if it's high or low carb. Usually just a Fiber One brownie will hold me until lunch. Well, as long as I don't wait 5 hours until lunch! But I know people that can't stand eating first thing in the morning, and they're perfectly fine. It varies from person to person I've found.0
-
Not exactly, though. Eat less than what? Move more than what? More/less than one has been?
Yes, that is more than enough information. You're fat, you weigh 300lbs. In order to get there (no underlying medical conditions) you had to eat a lot and exercise very little. So the answer is eat less than you have been (cause its making you fat) and move more than you have been (cause it's making you unhealthy and could contribute to your being fat).
Hence eat less and move more. It works for everyone.
Falsely claiming you need actual numbers to do this, is incorrect and a intelectually lazy arguement. After a certain time numbers will matter, but whatever those numbers are in order to lose you need to eat less than that number and exercise more (for the health benefits).
Less of something is less, and more of something is more.
Math; Here's a overweight persons equeation.
2N + -(E) = F
N = nutrition. E = exercise, and F = Fat. This overweight person is currently eating 2 times as much food as is needed (to maintain a healthy body weight), and that plus negative amounts of exercise equals, they're fat. If they eat less, even if it's less by .10 or something and still have a negative exercise number. F(at) will be smaller, as in they will lose weight.
Math and science.
Sorry, I disagree. And I do know something about math and science. At it's heart the problem is nothing more that conservation of energy, with fat being the stored energy term.
If I'm in a calorie surplus, it's possible to eat less, move more, and still be in a calorie surplus. Not everyone who is fat, indeed I would guess most people, are in a steady-state equilibrium.
Again, it's not that the advice is unsound, it's that it's incomplete.0 -
Now as for as the OP interesting observation on the breakfast myth, couldn't agree more. I don't want breakfast. Advice and diets in the past that stress this don't work for me. I need a lot more calories late at night. Like the OP, until I realized this was a myth I was kicking myself for binging late at night.
0 -
Not exactly, though. Eat less than what? Move more than what? More/less than one has been?
Yes, that is more than enough information. You're fat, you weigh 300lbs. In order to get there (no underlying medical conditions) you had to eat a lot and exercise very little. So the answer is eat less than you have been (cause its making you fat) and move more than you have been (cause it's making you unhealthy and could contribute to your being fat).
Hence eat less and move more. It works for everyone.
Falsely claiming you need actual numbers to do this, is incorrect and a intelectually lazy arguement. After a certain time numbers will matter, but whatever those numbers are in order to lose you need to eat less than that number and exercise more (for the health benefits).
Less of something is less, and more of something is more.
Math; Here's a overweight persons equeation.
2N + -(E) = F
N = nutrition. E = exercise, and F = Fat. This overweight person is currently eating 2 times as much food as is needed (to maintain a healthy body weight), and that plus negative amounts of exercise equals, they're fat. If they eat less, even if it's less by .10 or something and still have a negative exercise number. F(at) will be smaller, as in they will lose weight.
Math and science.
Sorry, I disagree. And I do know something about math and science. At it's heart the problem is nothing more that conservation of energy, with fat being the stored energy term.
If I'm in a calorie surplus, it's possible to eat less, move more, and still be in a calorie surplus. Not everyone who is fat, indeed I would guess most people, are in a steady-state equilibrium.
Again, it's not that the advice is unsound, it's that it's incomplete.
Agreed. If they start eating at 1.9N and -.9E is still = F, just a tad more slowly. You need to know how much. You don't have to do it specifically by counting calories but you at least need to know how many portions to cut (so say I eat 3 steaks daily, do I need to cut out 0.5 a steak? 2 steaks? What?)0 -
Not exactly, though. Eat less than what? Move more than what? More/less than one has been?
Yes, that is more than enough information. You're fat, you weigh 300lbs. In order to get there (no underlying medical conditions) you had to eat a lot and exercise very little. So the answer is eat less than you have been (cause its making you fat) and move more than you have been (cause it's making you unhealthy and could contribute to your being fat).
Hence eat less and move more. It works for everyone.
Falsely claiming you need actual numbers to do this, is incorrect and a intelectually lazy arguement. After a certain time numbers will matter, but whatever those numbers are in order to lose you need to eat less than that number and exercise more (for the health benefits).
Less of something is less, and more of something is more.
Math; Here's a overweight persons equeation.
2N + -(E) = F
N = nutrition. E = exercise, and F = Fat. This overweight person is currently eating 2 times as much food as is needed (to maintain a healthy body weight), and that plus negative amounts of exercise equals, they're fat. If they eat less, even if it's less by .10 or something and still have a negative exercise number. F(at) will be smaller, as in they will lose weight.
Math and science.
Sorry, I disagree. And I do know something about math and science. At it's heart the problem is nothing more that conservation of energy, with fat being the stored energy term.
If I'm in a calorie surplus, it's possible to eat less, move more, and still be in a calorie surplus. Not everyone who is fat, indeed I would guess most people, are in a steady-state equilibrium.
Again, it's not that the advice is unsound, it's that it's incomplete.
why would non-fat/obese people need to be in a deficit?
We are specifically referring to people that need to lose weight....-1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions