This site is confusing: Ready to go old Fashioned

tyoung8

Hi Everyone!

I really need to take a little bit of time to rant because I am a bit confused. I see ALOT on this site where people post that losing weight is CICO, nothing more, nothing less. Eat Less than you Burn. HOWEVER, I also see a lot of people posting that you also need to make sure that your eating enough calories and hitting all your macros or you wont lose and blah blah blah.

I've always been led to believe (and have also lost a lot of weight doing so) it doesn't matter if you eat too little and work out crazy. As long as you eat at a deficit you will lose weight and it doesn't matter if you are eating too little. (is starvation mode real or nah?)

So, all that being said I am thinking about going back to the old fashioned way (even though I lost weight this way pre-baby, and in high school) and eating just enough to not be hungry and working out moderately.

What does everyone else think? Is losing weight CICO vs. Starvation Mode or both? or what?

I really want to make this a lifestyle change, and don't have it consume so much of my time/thoughts/etc.

IsaackGMOON

Losing weight is always down to CICO.

It literally takes up 1 to 2 minutes of my day to log my foods... there is 1440 minutes in a day.

janejellyroll

The reason you don't want to go too low on calories is that it will be harder to stick to, may lead to low energy, will result in losing more muscle, may compromise your nutritional goals, and can even harm your health (gall stones, hair loss, etc). You'll lose weight if you go very low, but is it worth it?

It DOES matter if you eat too little, but not because it won't result in weight loss.

Ready2Rock206

This site is only as complicated as you make it. Log your food. Hit your calorie goal. Lose weight. That's all there is to it.

kshama2001

tyoung8 wrote: »

So, all that being said I am thinking about going back to the old fashioned way (even though I lost weight this way pre-baby, and in high school) and eating just enough to not be hungry and working out moderately.

Sure, IF your hunger cues work and you don't eat when you're not hungry, you will lose weight this way. (However, that's a pretty big IF.)

tequila5000

i agree with CICO. I also am of the opinion that if you put tons of processed food in your body, you will not feel too great. I personally am not too concerned with hitting any type of magical macros number, but instead i usually choose mainly unprocessed food. that is what has worked for me, anyway.

strong_curves

Old fashioned is CICO. If all the other stuff (macros, starvation mode, etc) ignore it, focus on meeting your daily calorie goal. Also, if you are exercising it's a good idea to eat some of your exercise calories back.

edited to add: all the other stuff (macros, etc) ignore it for now if it's confusing for you. I mostly focus on CICO and my protein macro because it's all my mind can handle right now. Eventually I'm sure I'll start paying more attention to all my macros & meeting them.

jemhh

Losing weight is about calories in versus calories out. There is a minimum level of calories that you should eat in order to ensure that you have enough energy to make it through the day. A lot of people think that cutting their calories super low will help them lose more quickly. The problem with doing that is that it often leads to burnout--low energy, excessive hunger, generally feeling like garbage, etc. That's demotivating and then often leads to people falling off the weight loss wagon, possibly turning to comfort eating, gaining weight again, etc. Moderation (i.e., a moderate calorie deficit, which often means a .5-1 pound per week loss rate) is key.

slaite1

Losing weight is CICO

Eating too little makes it difficult to sustain that weight loss, preserve muscle mass and maintain overall health. It certainly does not prevent you from losing weight.

Eat at a moderate deficit. Exercise for health and body composition. Find a sustainable way to eat and a sustainable workout regimen in order to keep the weight off long term.

Use a little common sense and you'll be fine

tyoung8

slaite1 wrote: »

Losing weight is CICO

Eating too little makes it difficult to sustain that weight loss, preserve muscle mass and maintain overall health. It certainly does not prevent you from losing weight.

Eat at a moderate deficit. Exercise for health and body composition. Find a sustainable way to eat and a sustainable workout regimen in order to keep the weight off long term.

Use a little common sense and you'll be fine

This!

thank you! I think I want to not so much focus on losing weight as I want to focus on making better choices and working out consistently.

AJ_G

There is no such thing as short term starvation mode. There is however adaptive thermogenesis. Basically if you have a large calorie deficit for a sustained period of time (months), your metabolism will begin to adapt to that lower calorie intake and your metabolic capacity will decrease. Adaptive thermogenesis occurs faster, the larger your calorie deficit. This is one of the many reasons that the best possible way to lose weight is to lose weight slowly...

tyoung8

It literally takes up 1 to 2 minutes of my day to log my foods... there is 1440 minutes in a day. [/quote]

This is irrelevant to what I am asking.

thanks tho.

Kalikel

CICO doesn't just cover weight loss, it covers all weight: losing, gaining, maintaining. It's not a weight loss strategy, but a very simplified way of saying that calories have an effect on weight.

Everyone who loses, gains or maintains has done so with CICO.

Eating less than you burn is they key. What you eat makes no difference for your weight loss. It does for your health! Healthy foods help make healthy bodies! But you can eat all carbs, no carbs, McDonalds, whatever (!) and still lose weight.

tyoung8

AJ_G wrote: »

There is no such thing as short term starvation mode. There is however adaptive thermogenesis. Basically if you have a large calorie deficit for a sustained period of time (months), your metabolism will begin to adapt to that lower calorie intake and your metabolic capacity will decrease. Adaptive thermogenesis occurs faster, the larger your calorie deficit. This is one of the many reasons that the best possible way to lose weight is to lose weight slowly...

Thanks for explaining this way!! this made a lot of sense to me.

bpetrosky

CICO for weight loss. It applies to any successful method of losing weight. A moderate sustained calorie deficit is what will drive weight loss.

Macros/micros for nutrition, having a balance that keeps you satisfied and physical performance. You don't have to hit a magic ratio, but focusing on protein and fats ahead of the carbs is usually advisable.

Exercise for fitness (and bonus can let you eat more)

Having a sustainable method of achieving a deficit (avoiding arcane rules/excess complexity, eating things you enjoy, allowing for social gatherings and special occasions, including physical activity that you enjoy) can make it easier to follow through to your goal and maintain it when you get there.

Machka9

tyoung8 wrote: »

What does everyone else think? Is losing weight CICO vs. Starvation Mode or both? or what?

I really want to make this a lifestyle change, and don't have it consume so much of my time/thoughts/etc.

Losing weight is all about CI<CO.

And it's not a "lifestyle change", it's just CI<CO for however long you need to do CI<CO until you lose the weight.

Liftng4Lis

Actually, it really is CICO and the logging is pretty easy, once you get use to it.

zoeysasha37

It is always gonna come down to cico.

In order to make sure your really eating at a deficit, that's where weighing and logging foods comes in handy.it helps to be accurate as possible.

Merkavar

Am I misunderstanding?

Sounds like your trying to decide between healthy slower weightloss using mfp

And

Faster unhealthy weightloss using starving yourself? (Is that not why you mentioned starvation mode)


Healthy or unhealthy? Not a difficult choice for me.

Merkavar

tyoung8 wrote: »

It literally takes up 1 to 2 minutes of my day to log my foods... there is 1440 minutes in a day.

This is irrelevant to what I am asking.

thanks tho.

[/quote]

Seems relevant, your complaint is you don't want it to be time consuming. He said it's not time consuming. Or at least it's as time consuming as you want it to be.

tyoung8 wrote: »

I really want to make this a lifestyle change, and don't have it consume so much of my time/thoughts/etc.