Why is calorie restriction considered to be so bad on MFP?
Replies
-
For health and longevity, a lot of recent TV programs, books, diets and studies done have come to conclusion that to be at our healthiest and to live longer than the average person we need to restrict calories forever.
This is not true. More and more research is showing that elderly women who are on the heavier side of "normal" live longer and are healthier than those on the low side of "normal". Your grandma's squishy lap to snuggle into is keeping her around longer.
(No, I am not talking about being fat, but holding on to a few extra pounds as you age is not a bad thing).
0 -
Rabbitjb, I've actually been averaging 1330 calories a day across the week and I'm not losing. I am also burning off a minimum of 300 calories per day and some days it's been as much as 700 or so (being conservative with calorie burns).
My TDEE is 'supposed to be' about 1475 sedentary. I want to lose 22lbs in total and 10% body fat.0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »
I know you don't venture into the forums often but this right here is why you should. Simple, short, sarcastic forum gold my friend....
0 -
OP I admit I'm having trouble following the logic and what questions you're actually trying to answer but...
If the choices are:
1). Eat at a moderate deficit, hitting macro and micro ratios, allowing room for all foods I enjoy in context of an overall healthy diet, lose weight in a slow sustainable fashion, improve health markers, transition to maintenance to continue with the healthy habits I developed here, live into my 70s or 80s while enjoying life experiences with my spouse, children and grandchildren
Or
2). Eat a severely restricted diet possibly even fasting for some periods on an ongoing basis, lose weight faster, lose some of my lean muscle and or put my bone density at risk, maintain those restrictions for life, live into my 90s or 100s but constantly be depriving myself or abstaining from things like cake on my future grandchilds first birthday or not having the energy to keep up with them playing at the park or at Disneyworld...
Well I know which I would pick....
0 -
-
Kruggeri I don't have scientific evidence about things like the lean muscle or bone density of these individuals but they all claim to have masses of energy, though personally like you'd I'd much rather eat a little of what I like such as chocolate, cake, alcohol etc.
I was just curious as to why these kind of lifestyle choices were frowned upon more than people who eat at a small deficit if the overall health of these calorie restriction dieters or fasters seems to be generally good that's all.0 -
Kruggeri I don't have scientific evidence about things like the lean muscle or bone density of these individuals but they all claim to have masses of energy, though personally like you'd I'd much rather eat a little of what I like such as chocolate, cake, alcohol etc.
I was just curious as to why these kind of lifestyle choices were frowned upon more than people who eat at a small deficit if the overall health of these calorie restriction dieters or fasters seems to be generally good that's all.
I don't know where you are getting that these things are frowned upon, because honestly I haven't seen a concise explanation from you of what exactly you're asking about. In one post you reference fasting programs, which I don't do and don't know much about but I know there are people/groups here at MFP who follow that. In others you talk about general calorie restrictions, and I'm not sure if you're talking about eating below 1000 cals/day or what you are defining as calorie restrictions. The entire premise of MFP is built around restricting calories. If you are asking why VLCD diets are not recommended or supported on here, well there are many scientific studies done showing the negative effects of these approaches, not to mention the ability to sustain them long term.
You said you haven't seen examples of people on MFP being successful and I again don't know where you are getting that. People post success stories day in and day out. There are people who have lost 20-30 lbs, like me, there are people who have lost 100+ pounds and kept it off.
You use a lot of vague statements like "people say" or "supposed health benefits". It makes it difficult to answer your questions or debate the merits of the arguments.
0 -
That's an awful lot of justifying the "health benefits," but when you get all the way to the end, your real motivation is just losing fat weight faster. Then that's what the other 90% of your post should focus on, because that's why you want to do it. If you think it will work for you, fine. But people who are really participating in those diets to test health and longevity, etc., probably don't have the massive risk of bouncing back with more fat and less muscle than someone does who's doing it to speed up weight loss.... Sorry, but girl, you in danger!! Slow down if you want to lose that fat for good. And I say that as someone who has rapidly dropped weight using a VLCD twice and then yoyoed right back up where I started and then some. I have lost one pound a week for the last month, and I'm already cutting my goal to half a pound a week while amping up my weights and protein. I'm not interested in temporary results anymore....0
-
You said you haven't seen examples of people on MFP being successful and I again don't know where you are getting that. People post success stories day in and day out. There are people who have lost 20-30 lbs, like me, there are people who have lost 100+ pounds and kept it off.
Yup. 99.4 lb here. I started eating 1900 calories per day plus about 75% of my exercise calories. Currently am eating 1760 plus about 50% of exercise calories.
0 -
I have not dipped below 1200 a day and I have lost significant weight. If "MFP'ers" are opposed to VLCD's and fast days then I'll happily identify with this group. I am losing weight to have a healthier, longer life. According to my death clock I've gained over ten years already!
The OP hasn't chatted with me either.
Why won't I take the claims of a TV documentary and some random testimonials at face value? On principle.
Breatharians claim longevity too but most are too weak to show up here to make their case.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Kruggeri I don't have scientific evidence about things like the lean muscle or bone density of these individuals but they all claim to have masses of energy, though personally like you'd I'd much rather eat a little of what I like such as chocolate, cake, alcohol etc..
Who are 'these' people?0 -
Sorry but tl;dr. Winner is the person eating the most food while losing weight. Pointless to make yourself eat way less when you can lose on way more and enjoy life way more.
I agree with this statement; eating less is not sustainable for the rest of your life. I follow IIFYM (if it fits your macros) method and i've lost 8 lbs. Granted it was a slow 8lbs but i don't mind that.0 -
Maybe restrictive eating just makes you feel like you're living longer. I know I would feel miserable and cranky. I get 'hangry.'. Some people, psychologically, need all kinds of plans and gizmos to remain interested in their diet. I myself tried the Dukan Diet last year. I went mad. Trying to keep the schedule and cutting out all carbs at the start? Yuk. I gave it a good try and was actually doing okay on it til I plateaued and was just tired of it. Weight started moving again when I allowed myself some fruit and more than a tablespoon of grain. I am doing well on the plan here. I don't usually eat back my exercise calories and have been feeling unusually well. People should do what works well for them and I admire those who can stick to rigid, unbending plans.0
-
Fair enough, I am currently enjoying fasting but like you am not losing much weight. How much are you eating every day now to be able to lose 1lb per week and how much do you have to lose? I think I'll continue with 5:2 mainly because it allows me to be able to eat a lot more on non-fast days as otherwise I'd be on 1200 calories every single day. I have been eating up to 1650 on non-fast days using this method, though I may lower that slightly to be able to lose a bit more. I also want to continue because my boyfriend has some health issues which seem to be improving on 5:2.
The reason for my post was not related to my personal situation or experience but just something I'd noticed in the media recently and started thinking about how MFP doesn't seem to support some of these alternative methods either for weight loss or health and was curious as to why.
Sorry couldn't follow thread ...too wordy and I was out last night
But on your 5:2 you're averaging 1500 calories a day across the week and you aren't losing weight? What's your TDEE and how much are you expecting to lose?
I would guess either poor logging or she is miscalculating her intake. Because most would lose on that.0 -
isulo_kura wrote: »Kruggeri I don't have scientific evidence about things like the lean muscle or bone density of these individuals but they all claim to have masses of energy, though personally like you'd I'd much rather eat a little of what I like such as chocolate, cake, alcohol etc..
Who are 'these' people?
Probably, unfortunately, people with disordered eating. If op struggles with this then I'll assume she asked others on her friends list with an ED, if she's claiming everyone who meet their body composition goals did so on a vlcd.0 -
Also this is probably what op is referring to re: eating less for longevity. It's due to metabolic rates. Your brain consumes a lot of energy so I don't see this as being optimal for anyone who wants to actually enjoy life (namely the 40% calorie reduction iirc, watched this last fall in c class.)
0 -
Rabbitjb, I've actually been averaging 1330 calories a day across the week and I'm not losing. I am also burning off a minimum of 300 calories per day and some days it's been as much as 700 or so (being conservative with calorie burns).
My TDEE is 'supposed to be' about 1475 sedentary. I want to lose 22lbs in total and 10% body fat.
Are you weighing and accurately logging your foods
Are you sure of your burns ..MFP database/machines notoriously overestimate
I would assume you are unknowingly consuming more / burning fewer calories than you think and should refocus your energies here0 -
While I somewhat agree, it's very hard for any study to follow anyone for a lifetime to see what lifestyle someone truly stuck with for the health and longevity. I can verify that my grandparents and parents easily got into their mid late 80's (parents are still alive) without exercising consistently and by not dieting. They also still ate whatever they wanted. Of course, they don't over consume either which is why they never really got overweight.I'm not talking about weight loss but health and longevity. Of course we'd all love to be able to eat loads and weigh what we want and look amazing while doing so but that's not what I mean at all.
For health and longevity, a lot of recent TV programs, books, diets and studies done have come to conclusion that to be at our healthiest and to live longer than the average person we need to restrict calories forever.
I am trying to get to the bottom of why this is frowned upon so much on this website and why people say you shouldn't restrict more than a certain amount etc.
We'll have to see because I'm probably the heaviest person in our family and right now in really good health. However to save my joints as I age, it's probably much to lose some pounds now. Been at this weight approximately (between 10lbs or so) for several years now and a little lighter in the 2000's (about 190lbs).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Sorry, is OP weighing food? Was this established? Because the food is listed in grams...
Also 2nd the eating more than realizing notion. Some examples:
Bread - White, toasted, 2.5 slice
EDymatize - Elite Fusion 7 - Cookies & Cream, 1 Rounded Scoop (44g) (esp the ROUNDED part)
Generic - 5 Medium Stawberries, 4 stawberries -- waht does this mean?
Banana - Extra Small, 0.5
Food consistently logged as the same weight across consecutive days
And OP isnt' even eating back her exercise calories anyways.
Log accurately, eat to your goal EVERY day (eating AT LEAST half of your logged exercise calories and ALWAYS meeting your base net goal), and if you want to practice 5:2 then consume the uneaten calories on your non-fasting days so that you are making up for the lost calories.
And if you are weighing your food, your log doesn't seem to confidently portray this. If you aren't weighing your food, then stop using weight-based entries.0 -
HappyCampr1 wrote: »
I was just curious as to why these kind of lifestyle choices were frowned upon more than people who eat at a small deficit if the overall health of these calorie restriction dieters or fasters seems to be generally good that's all.
Sustainability. No point in losing weight doing something you aren't planning on keeping up long-term. Since I can't see this being a permanent solution for most people, I'm definitely not going to recommend it to others.
It needs to be a better reason than "sustainability", because the failure and re-gain rates for slow-losers are just as high as for crash dieters.0 -
IMO this highlights the root of the problem - the reason weight loss is so hard to achieve and even harder to maintain is because most of us really have no compelling reason to do it. Food is abundant, medical help is abundant, and for the most part we aren't living physically challenging lives...
So, yeah, food tastes good, feeling full *feels* good, and we get fat mostly because....well, because we can.
0 -
A little piece of trivia: Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the famous advocate for physician assisted suicide follows a 500 calorie "calorie-restricted" diet.0
-
HappyCampr1 wrote: »HappyCampr1 wrote: »
I was just curious as to why these kind of lifestyle choices were frowned upon more than people who eat at a small deficit if the overall health of these calorie restriction dieters or fasters seems to be generally good that's all.
Sustainability. No point in losing weight doing something you aren't planning on keeping up long-term. Since I can't see this being a permanent solution for most people, I'm definitely not going to recommend it to others.
It needs to be a better reason than "sustainability", because the failure and re-gain rates for slow-losers are just as high as for crash dieters.
You're right that it's not a great reason, but it's the only one I have. The OP asked why people frowned upon other types of diets and I can only speak from my experience and try to explain why I frown upon them. At least I can fathom staying within my TDEE for my lifetime by counting calories. For me, personally, nothing else would work long-term. I'm not trying to give a blanket statement as to why other people may frown upon these choices. Nor am I trying to say they won't work for some people.
I lost about 10lb/month when I was out of highschool. So about 50 in 6 months. I regained because the manner in which I lost the weight wasn't sustainable and didn't tach me a life style change - cardio six hours a week and eating " clean ". I still ate lots of food but this was not sustainable. Eating what I want in portions that fit my current needs is. So yes, sustainability is a fine reason, because eating lots of food isn't the only factor to bring able to sustain ones life style changes and weight.0 -
GoPerfectHealth wrote: »A little piece of trivia: Dr. Jack Kevorkian, the famous advocate for physician assisted suicide follows a 500 calorie "calorie-restricted" diet.
I'm an advocate for physician assisted suicide and I eat four times that number. Not sure why one's political/moral beliefs are all that relevant?0 -
Eating what I want in portions that fit my current needs is.
The evidence is very clear that isn't sustainable for most people needing to lose weight.
Nor are you in a position to claim it is sustainable for you, since you are quite young and are therefore limited to assuming it "will be" sustainable for you - an assumption many make, only to discover over time that it isn't true.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »I'll wait foe the 500 year study that proves fasting makes any significant difference to lifespan.
Whilst eating a burger and having a pint.
They obviously won't share that because conspiracy theory Illuminati blah blah0 -
Kruggeri I don't have scientific evidence about things like the lean muscle or bone density of these individuals but they all claim to have masses of energy, though personally like you'd I'd much rather eat a little of what I like such as chocolate, cake, alcohol etc.
I was just curious as to why these kind of lifestyle choices were frowned upon more than people who eat at a small deficit if the overall health of these calorie restriction dieters or fasters seems to be generally good that's all.
I don't know where you are getting that these things are frowned upon, because honestly I haven't seen a concise explanation from you of what exactly you're asking about.
This.
Sometimes it seems to be IF, which I don't think is generally frowned upon at MFP at all, although some people obviously don't care for it. (I don't wish to do it, but so far my impression is that it works great for some people.
Other times it seems to be CRON, which is generally not discussed at all at MFP, because it's not for weight loss and in many ways the goals are the opposite of the average person on MFP--reducing the metabolism and eating less long term, not worrying about or being willing to sacrifice athletic performance, etc. I will note that my understanding is that the CRON people are NOT in favor of quick weight loss or cutting calories super low (like below 1200).
At still other times it seems to be VLCD or, perhaps, some form of under 1200 diet.
And at others it's simply cutting more than 20% off your TDEE, which some at MFP are against, but clearly MFP in general is not--recommended calorie goals are quite typically well below 20% and MFP doesn't use TDEE anyway.
Thus, I am confused by the question also.0 -
I'm still confused as to the point of this thread, and the OP isn't offering much clarification. I can't figure out if she's trying to find out:
1. Why she's not losing weight at her current intake
2. IF MFP posters are against low calories
3. More about different fasting protocols and/or if MFP is "against" them
4. More about long-term low calorie eating for longevity
5. If there's validation for doing VLCD to get to goal weight0 -
This content has been removed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZMsIao2Jlo
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
- 427 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