Which would you rather do?
TimothyFish
Posts: 4,925 Member
No one can balance calories in and calories out exactly, even in a lab. So which would you rather do? Would you rather eat more than you burn and have to cut calories occasionally? Or would you rather eat less than you burn and have to eat more to gain weight?
0
Replies
-
Maybe because I've never been in that position but the idea of needing to gain and therefore being able to indulge in some of those high calorie foods sounds pretty appealing. I don't think that will ever be me, and it may be insensitive to those who struggle with it....but....French fries and milkshakes....yum!0
-
I like to eat significantly less during the work week and eat significantly more (about twice as much) on the weekends.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I like to eat significantly less during the work week and eat significantly more (about twice as much) on the weekends.
This is pretty much what I've been doing too, to a lesser extent, and it's worked well for 2+ years of maintenance. I am starting something new this week though and aiming for specific macros amounts, so my calories will be more even throughout the week/weekend. Still don't know how it's going to work out on the weekends but I'm going to give it a try at least
0 -
That's kind of what I'm thinking. I haven't reached that point yet, but I was telling myself that if I saw the scale over my goal weight by so much for a couple of weeks that I would start cutting calories again. But then I thought, that's silly. Since I'll be at a point where losing weight would be less harmful than gaining weight, I might as well plan my meals and exercise in such a way that I'm 50 to 100 calories below what I calculate that I'm burning. Worst case, I'll lose a pound a month and have to figure out how to gain it back. But most likely, I'll have a special occasion or a holiday that pushes my calorie count up and the weight gain will already be accounted for.0
-
I rather eat less and have the 'problem' of trying to gain weight 0
-
This content has been removed.
-
RunRutheeRun wrote: »I rather eat less and have the 'problem' of trying to gain weight
Yep.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I like to eat significantly less during the work week and eat significantly more (about twice as much) on the weekends.
The story of my life! I have no problem with the restriction and feeling hungry at bedtime Mon - Fri, because I know it's pizza and whiskey come Saturday 0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »No one can balance calories in and calories out exactly, even in a lab. So which would you rather do? Would you rather eat more than you burn and have to cut calories occasionally? Or would you rather eat less than you burn and have to eat more to gain weight?
Neither. It's the average over time that matters.
ETA: I guess "Both" would be just as valid an answer as "Neither"
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I like to eat significantly less during the work week and eat significantly more (about twice as much) on the weekends.
The story of my life! I have no problem with the restriction and feeling hungry at bedtime Mon - Fri, because I know it's pizza and whiskey come Saturday
So happy to read that other people do this too I know it's not generally considered healthy, but I can't eat all I want all the time, or I'd be enormous, so I allow myself weekends off 
and make up for it during the week 
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »No one can balance calories in and calories out exactly, even in a lab. So which would you rather do? Would you rather eat more than you burn and have to cut calories occasionally? Or would you rather eat less than you burn and have to eat more to gain weight?
Neither. It's the average over time that matters.
Unfortunately, my historical average over time has been an increase in weight. This time, I would like to adopt an approach that results in my weight staying fairly constant by adjusting my calories in/out when my weight gets outside of a given range.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »No one can balance calories in and calories out exactly, even in a lab. So which would you rather do? Would you rather eat more than you burn and have to cut calories occasionally? Or would you rather eat less than you burn and have to eat more to gain weight?
Neither. It's the average over time that matters.
Unfortunately, my historical average over time has been an increase in weight. This time, I would like to adopt an approach that results in my weight staying fairly constant by adjusting my calories in/out when my weight gets outside of a given range.
That's why I edited to say Both is valid too. You're just manipulating the average. Sometimes up, sometimes down.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »No one can balance calories in and calories out exactly, even in a lab. So which would you rather do? Would you rather eat more than you burn and have to cut calories occasionally? Or would you rather eat less than you burn and have to eat more to gain weight?
Neither. It's the average over time that matters.
Unfortunately, my historical average over time has been an increase in weight. This time, I would like to adopt an approach that results in my weight staying fairly constant by adjusting my calories in/out when my weight gets outside of a given range.
maybe you should tighten up your logging and get a food scale and you would have your numbers pegged more accurately.
Over the winter I bulked and gained about ten pounds, and have been cutting for three months and am down about eight to nine pounds. Once I have my TDEE pegged I have no issues, gaining, maintaining, or losing...
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »No one can balance calories in and calories out exactly, even in a lab. So which would you rather do? Would you rather eat more than you burn and have to cut calories occasionally? Or would you rather eat less than you burn and have to eat more to gain weight?
Neither. It's the average over time that matters.
Unfortunately, my historical average over time has been an increase in weight. This time, I would like to adopt an approach that results in my weight staying fairly constant by adjusting my calories in/out when my weight gets outside of a given range.
maybe you should tighten up your logging and get a food scale and you would have your numbers pegged more accurately.
Over the winter I bulked and gained about ten pounds, and have been cutting for three months and am down about eight to nine pounds. Once I have my TDEE pegged I have no issues, gaining, maintaining, or losing...
Why make it hard on myself? Even if I could measure my food calories exactly, there's no way I can measure my exercise calories exactly. The wind blowing a few miles an hour faster on one day versus another or blowing down the hill instead of up the hill, even the length of time I ride with my hands on the hoods instead of the drops can result in several calories difference. So, it makes more sense to adopt a plan that anticipates that the calorie balance won't be exact. And once I do that, close enough is good enough.0 -
I would prefer the latter much more, as there's nothing better in this world than a good cheat meal! In fact, I had this happen just the other day, when I realized I dropped below my range I wanted to be in and needed to gain .4 pounds. Pure Reese's it was. An hour passed and I felt absolutely horrible as the sugar levels caught up with me, but the next day I felt incredible and bustling with energy! There was probably a healthier way to go about adding those extra calories, but I wanted that Reese's darn it, so half a pound cup it was! #yolo
I'm sorry. I couldn't resist.0 -
I've maintained for over 2 years without logging...I eat healthfully, I eat food in appropriate portions, I allow myself a little leeway on occasion, I exercise regularly. I just live a pretty healthful life and pretty much maintaining a healthy weight is a bi-product of that.
I also weigh myself regularly so if I see that as a trend I'm going up a little, I take a look at what I'm doing and usually all I have to do is cut out some little snack that has somehow inserted itself into my days or I will notice that maybe it's nice out and I've been drinking a few more beers than normal or maybe been doing a little less exercise or something. It's pretty easy to pin point deficiencies and make minor adjustments if you're paying attention.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »No one can balance calories in and calories out exactly, even in a lab. So which would you rather do? Would you rather eat more than you burn and have to cut calories occasionally? Or would you rather eat less than you burn and have to eat more to gain weight?
Neither. It's the average over time that matters.
Unfortunately, my historical average over time has been an increase in weight. This time, I would like to adopt an approach that results in my weight staying fairly constant by adjusting my calories in/out when my weight gets outside of a given range.
maybe you should tighten up your logging and get a food scale and you would have your numbers pegged more accurately.
Over the winter I bulked and gained about ten pounds, and have been cutting for three months and am down about eight to nine pounds. Once I have my TDEE pegged I have no issues, gaining, maintaining, or losing...
Why make it hard on myself? Even if I could measure my food calories exactly, there's no way I can measure my exercise calories exactly. The wind blowing a few miles an hour faster on one day versus another or blowing down the hill instead of up the hill, even the length of time I ride with my hands on the hoods instead of the drops can result in several calories difference. So, it makes more sense to adopt a plan that anticipates that the calorie balance won't be exact. And once I do that, close enough is good enough.
Close enough is indeed good enough. It might help to consider your weight to be a range instead of a number, and just keep your CICO within a set of tolerances rather that at a specific point. Lots of people on this site see loss, gain, or maintenance as a rigid set of exact numbers, but its really not. It's all about not letting the normal ebb and flow of all that become statistically significant.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »No one can balance calories in and calories out exactly, even in a lab. So which would you rather do? Would you rather eat more than you burn and have to cut calories occasionally? Or would you rather eat less than you burn and have to eat more to gain weight?
Neither. It's the average over time that matters.
Unfortunately, my historical average over time has been an increase in weight. This time, I would like to adopt an approach that results in my weight staying fairly constant by adjusting my calories in/out when my weight gets outside of a given range.
maybe you should tighten up your logging and get a food scale and you would have your numbers pegged more accurately.
Over the winter I bulked and gained about ten pounds, and have been cutting for three months and am down about eight to nine pounds. Once I have my TDEE pegged I have no issues, gaining, maintaining, or losing...
Why make it hard on myself? Even if I could measure my food calories exactly, there's no way I can measure my exercise calories exactly. The wind blowing a few miles an hour faster on one day versus another or blowing down the hill instead of up the hill, even the length of time I ride with my hands on the hoods instead of the drops can result in several calories difference. So, it makes more sense to adopt a plan that anticipates that the calorie balance won't be exact. And once I do that, close enough is good enough.
I am not the one that is starting a thread complaining about putting on too much weight over the long run ...
Just pointing out that your existing method is flawed, as you are not getting the results you want.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »No one can balance calories in and calories out exactly, even in a lab. So which would you rather do? Would you rather eat more than you burn and have to cut calories occasionally? Or would you rather eat less than you burn and have to eat more to gain weight?
Neither. It's the average over time that matters.
Unfortunately, my historical average over time has been an increase in weight. This time, I would like to adopt an approach that results in my weight staying fairly constant by adjusting my calories in/out when my weight gets outside of a given range.
maybe you should tighten up your logging and get a food scale and you would have your numbers pegged more accurately.
Over the winter I bulked and gained about ten pounds, and have been cutting for three months and am down about eight to nine pounds. Once I have my TDEE pegged I have no issues, gaining, maintaining, or losing...
Why make it hard on myself? Even if I could measure my food calories exactly, there's no way I can measure my exercise calories exactly. The wind blowing a few miles an hour faster on one day versus another or blowing down the hill instead of up the hill, even the length of time I ride with my hands on the hoods instead of the drops can result in several calories difference. So, it makes more sense to adopt a plan that anticipates that the calorie balance won't be exact. And once I do that, close enough is good enough.
Close enough is indeed good enough. It might help to consider your weight to be a range instead of a number, and just keep your CICO within a set of tolerances rather that at a specific point. Lots of people on this site see loss, gain, or maintenance as a rigid set of exact numbers, but its really not. It's all about not letting the normal ebb and flow of all that become statistically significant.
People wouldn't think of it as a rigid number if it wasn't portrayed that way. One of the posts above you literally uses the phrase "once I have my TDEE pegged" implying yet again it's a rigid number.
OP Said that. I'm refuting it.
ETA: OOPS .. not OP. Another poster.
ETA: Reading comprehension fail. I read "one of the posts above you literally uses .... " as "In one of the posts above, you literally use .. " ...0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »No one can balance calories in and calories out exactly, even in a lab. So which would you rather do? Would you rather eat more than you burn and have to cut calories occasionally? Or would you rather eat less than you burn and have to eat more to gain weight?
Neither. It's the average over time that matters.
Unfortunately, my historical average over time has been an increase in weight. This time, I would like to adopt an approach that results in my weight staying fairly constant by adjusting my calories in/out when my weight gets outside of a given range.
maybe you should tighten up your logging and get a food scale and you would have your numbers pegged more accurately.
Over the winter I bulked and gained about ten pounds, and have been cutting for three months and am down about eight to nine pounds. Once I have my TDEE pegged I have no issues, gaining, maintaining, or losing...
Why make it hard on myself? Even if I could measure my food calories exactly, there's no way I can measure my exercise calories exactly. The wind blowing a few miles an hour faster on one day versus another or blowing down the hill instead of up the hill, even the length of time I ride with my hands on the hoods instead of the drops can result in several calories difference. So, it makes more sense to adopt a plan that anticipates that the calorie balance won't be exact. And once I do that, close enough is good enough.
Close enough is indeed good enough. It might help to consider your weight to be a range instead of a number, and just keep your CICO within a set of tolerances rather that at a specific point. Lots of people on this site see loss, gain, or maintenance as a rigid set of exact numbers, but its really not. It's all about not letting the normal ebb and flow of all that become statistically significant.
People wouldn't think of it as a rigid number if it wasn't portrayed that way. One of the posts above you literally uses the phrase "once I have my TDEE pegged" implying yet again it's a rigid number.TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »No one can balance calories in and calories out exactly, even in a lab. So which would you rather do? Would you rather eat more than you burn and have to cut calories occasionally? Or would you rather eat less than you burn and have to eat more to gain weight?
Neither. It's the average over time that matters.
Unfortunately, my historical average over time has been an increase in weight. This time, I would like to adopt an approach that results in my weight staying fairly constant by adjusting my calories in/out when my weight gets outside of a given range.
maybe you should tighten up your logging and get a food scale and you would have your numbers pegged more accurately.
Over the winter I bulked and gained about ten pounds, and have been cutting for three months and am down about eight to nine pounds. Once I have my TDEE pegged I have no issues, gaining, maintaining, or losing...
Why make it hard on myself? Even if I could measure my food calories exactly, there's no way I can measure my exercise calories exactly. The wind blowing a few miles an hour faster on one day versus another or blowing down the hill instead of up the hill, even the length of time I ride with my hands on the hoods instead of the drops can result in several calories difference. So, it makes more sense to adopt a plan that anticipates that the calorie balance won't be exact. And once I do that, close enough is good enough.
Close enough is indeed good enough. It might help to consider your weight to be a range instead of a number, and just keep your CICO within a set of tolerances rather that at a specific point. Lots of people on this site see loss, gain, or maintenance as a rigid set of exact numbers, but its really not. It's all about not letting the normal ebb and flow of all that become statistically significant.
People wouldn't think of it as a rigid number if it wasn't portrayed that way. One of the posts above you literally uses the phrase "once I have my TDEE pegged" implying yet again it's a rigid number.
OP Said that. I'm refuting it.
ETA: OOPS .. not OP. Another poster.
ETA: Reading comprehension fail. I read "one of the posts above you literally uses .... " as "In one of the posts above, you literally use .. " ...
I think it makes a difference whether you are trying to maintain or trying to lose (or gain) weight. When losing weight, you have a target in mind and you know you've succeeded when you get to the other side of that target. For maintenance, you are at your target and trying to stay at one number would be like trying to balance something on the tip of a pin. Having a range allows you to stay successful, while recognizing that you aren't going to stay at the dead center of the range.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
If I understand correctly, I would actually prefer the first option.. eat more and gain very slowly, since I'm lifting in the long run it actually would be better off in my case, almost like a reallly slow constant bulk... then if I started to feel too fluffy I would just cut it down a little.0
-
I'm always under every week and have been for three years. I'm always full and when I want to eat more, I just do, making sure I'm under for the week.
When I gained a little and went back on a deficit, it was really irritating. (I don't know why, I had no problem the first time.) So when I need to lose a little now, I just adjust my macros so my carbs are lower/protein higher. That winds up lowering my calories without trying.0 -
I'd rather eat a little under and get an occasional day to eat over and enjoy some richer foods I don't normally indulge in. I already do this a bit. When my weight goes a little under my range, I overeat by 50-100 calories a day until it comes back up.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K 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