Why is calorie restriction considered to be so bad on MFP?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
Tbh I'm not even reading her posts because my attention span is maxed out with studying. She goes on too long Lol.0
-
Firstly, I was just asking a general question after having seen/read a lot of information about this subject recently, and wondered as a user of MFP and someone who reads the forums why calorie restriction or IF in general was not approved of by a lot of people on here. Not only for weight loss reasons but also for reasons of health.
Secondly, I was just making a point of saying that I personally follow 5:2 fasting but that I am not losing much weight despite restricting calories and exercising quite a bit. I made this point to show that for some people even with moderate calorie restriction using any method it's not enough to provoke significant weight loss.
0 -
Goes on a site where lots of people restrict calories and wonders why people are against calorie restriction?
Yeah, still not getting it.
How long has your weight loss been stalled?
How long have you been eating at a deficit?
FTR, I have never seen any push back against IF on the forums.0 -
When you diet the way the OP describes, it messes with your head. You dread those two days of denial. You dread them like hell. Then you can't wait for them to be over -- and that is your most vulnerable time for backsliding and going on a food bender.
I've lost 21 pounds in 10.5 weeks. That's exactly 2 lbs per week. And I have not been deprived or starving or feeling weak even once in all that time. I've eaten really well and am thoroughly enjoying every day of this weight loss journey. My emotional problems with food are even fading into the background.
I absolutely never want to wake up in the morning and think, "Aww, crap! This is a calorie-restriction day, wahhh!"0 -
Firstly, I was just asking a general question after having seen/read a lot of information about this subject recently, and wondered as a user of MFP and someone who reads the forums why calorie restriction or IF in general was not approved of by a lot of people on here. Not only for weight loss reasons but also for reasons of health.
Secondly, I was just making a point of saying that I personally follow 5:2 fasting but that I am not losing much weight despite restricting calories and exercising quite a bit. I made this point to show that for some people even with moderate calorie restriction using any method it's not enough to provoke significant weight loss.
Except that physics, you know. You're clearly not at a deficit on average if you are failing to lose weight. I'm guessing you DON'T weigh your food despite what your log would indicate (because no eggs are always 37 grams, etc). You are eating more than you think,.0 -
To those people who ask about measuring food and logging accurately I can confirm that I am extremely anal about such matters so yes. Other than the fact that food labels may not be 100% accurate, I weigh and measure absolutely everything and as I work from home I am able to do so for the majority of things I eat. If it seems like there are some strange measures in there there is always a reason for it. For example I use repeat entries as I eat a lot of the same foods several times a week so I either use it as it was logged previously if it's the same quantity each time or adjust if I have more or less. For example if I have 100g of heritage cottage cheese on one day and the next day I only have 70g left in the pot I'll measure out that amount and log it as a percentage of the original amount ie. 0,7 or change it to 70 x 1g etc. It's irrelevant what the MFP database says ie. on rounded scoop of protein 44g because I look at the label which says 44g per scoop and measure out that exact amount and drink it. I then find a matching entry in the MFP database where the numbers match up etc.
Secondly regarding calorie burns, I have a HRM and when I do a workout I look at the MFP database as well as what my HRM says. For example if I do one of my workout DVDs I'll log it as circuit training as it is interval training and if MFP says 350 calories burned but my HRM says 300 I'll normally log 275 so I'm not overestimating. Most days I do both a walk and a workout so the minimum my calorie burns can be in any one day is 400 calories and a lot of days I do more than that like a 2 hour walk plus a workout or a 45 minute cardio session in the gym plus circuit training etc.
It's irrelevant anyway because I calculate the weekly calorie deficit I need to be able to lose at least 0.5lb per week (without exercise), work out my fast day calories and then from that work out what my non-fast day calories should be. I then eat that amount, not above, regardless of the exercise I do so I don't eat anything extra back. The average I'm eating if split evenly across the week works out to 1300 per day.
This means that most days my deficit is a minimum of 500-600 calories, sometimes more, which should allow me to lose at least 1lb per week, but that hasn't been happening except in the first month when I lost 5.5lbs, the second month I lost 2lbs and this month 1lb.
0 -
wondered as a user of MFP and someone who reads the forums why calorie restriction or IF in general was not approved of by a lot of people on here.
Calorie restriction isn't disapproved of at all. Nearly everyone thinks it's necessary for many of us to maintain weight, and of course to lose. Do you mean a particular level of calorie restriction? (In other words, a deficit or calorie goal of a particular level?)
I don't think that many people are against IF.for some people even with moderate calorie restriction using any method it's not enough to provoke significant weight loss.
Moderate calorie restriction is relative--if your TDEE is 3200, it's going to be a very different number than if your TDEE is 1600. But if your numbers are right everyone loses with a moderate calorie deficit, just at a slower rate than with a higher deficit, at least if you have a good bit to lose and there aren't hormonal complications.
Also, especially if you don't have that much to lose you may lose a higher percentage of actual fat (as opposed to weight) with a less aggressive deficit.
But if you aren't losing, you aren't at a deficit.0 -
Ana, I always buy the smallest eggs, most other foods I take the nutritional information about calories from the label and for fruit and vegetables I buy the smallest possible and log based on that depending on how much I have. I don't think I'm eating more than I realise and even if I was, my calorie burns should allow me to lose more than enough anyway.
I think what the real issue in my case is that my TDEE is overestimated by the calculators so I am eating more than my body needs.0 -
The best thing I found to speed things up is exercise. Exercising large muscle groups will help you to continue burning calories even after you are done exercising. I personally use the Beachbody home programs because that is what I like. I just can't restrict calories too much because I then don't have the energy to exercise. I eat 5 smaller meals a day. This is the only thing that has worked for me. I make sure I at least eat 1200 calories a day and more depending on what exercising I do.0
-
Okay... I'm trying to follow you, but it's hard.
Forgetting the IF calculations.... Let's just try to figure out why you're not losing, then we'll get back to your calorie calculations.
It was hard to tell from your post, but it sounds like you're not including your exercise calories in your calculations, is this correct?
How are you calculating what your deficit should be to lose in the first place? Have you readjusted the figure for your current weight?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions