Why is losing weight so effortless for some and so difficult for others?
Replies
-
honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
That's not true, I am 5'2, 46 years old and weigh 117, can lose weight eating 1700-1800 calories on average. Maintain around 2200-2500 depending on exercise.0 -
If I were six feet tall and mostly muscle I could eat more cupcakes without having to worry about is there enough hours in the day to burn them off because absent a medical condition, my resting metabolic rate would be higher. That's all.0
-
SamandaIndia wrote: »In for you the CICO numbers game matches your theoretical predicted weight loss then that indeed would be relatively easy. In my view, for many of us we can be disciplined for weeks and then plateau or gain (salt, PMS, Constipation, muscles etc) and be put off _why bother? I am failing anyway and food is my! . We didn't gain weight, most likely, without some issues around mental health and food. Thus folk can beat themselves up mentally and give up when these hurdles occur. Thus it is hard, especially close to ideal weight for many folk.lemurcat12 wrote: »Like I said, I wonder if part of this comes down to a different understanding of the term hard. I made fitness into a hobby, but because I enjoy the hobby I don't see the time spent on it as hard. In fact, what helped was changing my mind set so the things I needed to do seemed fun or appealing in some other way, not burdensome.The mental aspect is what makes it hard for some and easy for some. When I want something, I go after it with gusto and never give up. But I realize not everyone is like me. I've only tried to lose weight 1x, and I lost more than I intended. It wasn't ever hard. Yes, I stalled multiple times, but I never said, forget it and quit. I also don't have the problems that some people do, like emotional eating, stress eating, etc. I overeat and eat mindlessly on occasion, but its usually a couple days at the most. Its very easy for me to refocus. Recognize that we all have our struggles and we are all different.
I am getting a clearer understanding of why I think this is so easy and why others may find it difficult. I love tables and plans and getting all the little details to line up. Dieting and calories and meal planning and food shopping became a game, a hobby, something fun and interesting, and very rewarding, for me. CICO is such a simple principle and I believe in maths
I have never had emotional - body image - eating issues (but that is all you ever hear about, so I reckoned that was why I couldn't stop eating. I guess I didn't question that until a month ago.). For someone who does base their self-worth on what they eat or don't eat, "just do it" will be somewhat useless advice.
0 -
i'm both, when i'm mentally ready to lose weight i can get rid of it really easily...but i feel like if i'm not deliberate with my food choices i can gain weight so easily.0
-
If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
I'd say with all due respect that luck has nothing to do with it.
Luck and circumstances always have something to do with it. You can walk 20k steps most days. Some people just can't.
But you're right, it's probably not luck or bad luck that some people can be satisfied on less. Just wish I knew what it was.
It's still not luck. I didn't wake up one morning and be able to run 13 miles or logging 20K+ per day. It wasn't luck and wishes coming true. But I'm gonna bow out of this and no longer participate in derailing this nice lady's thread.
But you are lucky to be in a position where you CAN. Ask a single mother of little kids if she has time to run 13 miles and logging 20K+ per day. My guess is that the answer is no.
I'm not saying that you didn't work hard to get there, heck I couldn't run 13 miles a day. What I'm saying is that people circumstances DO matter. Like that person above who talked about how her mom just was not in a situation where she could do it. That's what I'm talking about.
And yeah, some people need more food to be satisfied. And there again, maybe luck isn't the best word for it, but it will be harder for those people to lose... I'm sure there are long distance runners who are overweight because they get so much hungrier from their workouts too...0 -
If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
I'd say with all due respect that luck has nothing to do with it.
Luck and circumstances always have something to do with it. You can walk 20k steps most days. Some people just can't.
But you're right, it's probably not luck or bad luck that some people can be satisfied on less. Just wish I knew what it was.
It's still not luck. I didn't wake up one morning and be able to run 13 miles or logging 20K+ per day. It wasn't luck and wishes coming true. But I'm gonna bow out of this and no longer participate in derailing this nice lady's thread.
But you are lucky to be in a position where you CAN. Ask a single mother of little kids if she has time to run 13 miles and logging 20K+ per day. My guess is that the answer is no.
I'm not saying that you didn't work hard to get there, heck I couldn't run 13 miles a day. What I'm saying is that people circumstances DO matter. Like that person above who talked about how her mom just was not in a situation where she could do it. That's what I'm talking about.
And yeah, some people need more food to be satisfied. And there again, maybe luck isn't the best word for it, but it will be harder for those people to lose... I'm sure there are long distance runners who are overweight because they get so much hungrier from their workouts too...
Sorry to butt in or maybe this isn't what you're talking about
- but I don't have the lungs to run 200 meters, and still I lost 45 pounds. 0 -
If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.
I agree, the blanket statements that because someone is petite, they are doomed to a lifetime of losing weight at 1200 cals and maintaining at low levels as well, drives me crazy. I'm 5'2, 40 years old, and my TDEE according to my FitBit is ~2200. I lost weight netting 1600 cals. I have an office job. I don't run marathons or lift extremely heavy things. I walk around 14,000 steps/day and lift dumbbells a couple times a week.
So as not to derail the OP - I too think that the process of weight loss is simple, may not be "easy". It is just math. And not even particularly hard math either. Figure out how many calories you burn. Eat less calories than that. Exercise if you enjoy it. Have reasonable expectations. Know that much of this is about estimation. Be patient.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.
I agree, the blanket statements that because someone is petite, they are doomed to a lifetime of losing weight at 1200 cals and maintaining at low levels as well, drives me crazy. I'm 5'2, 40 years old, and my TDEE according to my FitBit is ~2200. I lost weight netting 1600 cals. I have an office job. I don't run marathons or lift extremely heavy things. I walk around 14,000 steps/day and lift dumbbells a couple times a week.
So as not to derail the OP - I too think that the process of weight loss is simple, may not be "easy". It is just math. And not even particularly hard math either. Figure out how many calories you burn. Eat less calories than that. Exercise if you enjoy it. Have reasonable expectations. Know that much of this is about estimation. Be patient.
But you have to workout more than someone taller to be able to eat so much... and everyone can't do that.
I guess I must be confused. I thought this thread was about why it's easier for some people than others to lose weight. I'm not really talking rocket science here.
- it will be harder for people who get hungry faster than for people who are full on 1200 calories (guessing that's hormone related)
- it will be harder for people who have medical issues that affect their appetite or metabolism
- it will be harder for people with a lower metabolism because a cupcake is still going to be 400 calories whether your sedentary maintenance is 1400 or 2300 calories
- it will be harder for people who have a busy lifestyle and less time to exercise (YES, it's 100% diet, but when you have time to exercise, it's much easier to fit in that 400 calories cupcake than when you don't... I think we've pretty much established that)
Then obviously there's all the mental stuff that has been mentioned before. Does it mostly come down to willpower? Definitely. But I don't think you can deny that some people will have to work more for it than others... sometimes more than they're willing to do (like kudos to the 13 miles runners because I'd rather be chubby than do that, for example).
Ok I hope my posts make more sense now.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.
I agree, the blanket statements that because someone is petite, they are doomed to a lifetime of losing weight at 1200 cals and maintaining at low levels as well, drives me crazy. I'm 5'2, 40 years old, and my TDEE according to my FitBit is ~2200. I lost weight netting 1600 cals. I have an office job. I don't run marathons or lift extremely heavy things. I walk around 14,000 steps/day and lift dumbbells a couple times a week.
So as not to derail the OP - I too think that the process of weight loss is simple, may not be "easy". It is just math. And not even particularly hard math either. Figure out how many calories you burn. Eat less calories than that. Exercise if you enjoy it. Have reasonable expectations. Know that much of this is about estimation. Be patient.
But you have to workout more than someone taller to be able to eat so much... and everyone can't do that.
I guess I must be confused. I thought this thread was about why it's easier for some people than others to lose weight. I'm not really talking rocket science here.
- it will be harder for people who get hungry faster than for people who are full on 1200 calories (guessing that's hormone related)
- it will be harder for people who have medical issues that affect their appetite or metabolism
- it will be harder for people with a lower metabolism because a cupcake is still going to be 400 calories whether your sedentary maintenance is 1400 or 2300 calories
- it will be harder for people who have a busy lifestyle and less time to exercise (YES, it's 100% diet, but when you have time to exercise, it's much easier to fit in that 400 calories cupcake than when you don't... I think we've pretty much established that)
Then obviously there's all the mental stuff that has been mentioned before. Does it mostly come down to willpower? Definitely. But I don't think you can deny that some people will have to work more for it than others... sometimes more than they're willing to do (like kudos to the 13 miles runners because I'd rather be chubby than do that, for example).
Ok I hope my posts make more sense now.
I guess I was more after the mental aspect, not the physical aspect, of difficulties losing weight. Why some people seem to make things more difficult for themselves - not logging properly, not believing that water weight fluctuations are normal, looking for diet pills and the latest fad, not realising that calories is math, that it's more about (in my opinion) about skillpower than willpower, all the fuddling we do when we can't see the whole picture because the details are in the way.0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.
I agree, the blanket statements that because someone is petite, they are doomed to a lifetime of losing weight at 1200 cals and maintaining at low levels as well, drives me crazy. I'm 5'2, 40 years old, and my TDEE according to my FitBit is ~2200. I lost weight netting 1600 cals. I have an office job. I don't run marathons or lift extremely heavy things. I walk around 14,000 steps/day and lift dumbbells a couple times a week.
So as not to derail the OP - I too think that the process of weight loss is simple, may not be "easy". It is just math. And not even particularly hard math either. Figure out how many calories you burn. Eat less calories than that. Exercise if you enjoy it. Have reasonable expectations. Know that much of this is about estimation. Be patient.
But you have to workout more than someone taller to be able to eat so much... and everyone can't do that.
I guess I must be confused. I thought this thread was about why it's easier for some people than others to lose weight. I'm not really talking rocket science here.
- it will be harder for people who get hungry faster than for people who are full on 1200 calories (guessing that's hormone related)
- it will be harder for people who have medical issues that affect their appetite or metabolism
- it will be harder for people with a lower metabolism because a cupcake is still going to be 400 calories whether your sedentary maintenance is 1400 or 2300 calories
- it will be harder for people who have a busy lifestyle and less time to exercise (YES, it's 100% diet, but when you have time to exercise, it's much easier to fit in that 400 calories cupcake than when you don't... I think we've pretty much established that)
Then obviously there's all the mental stuff that has been mentioned before. Does it mostly come down to willpower? Definitely. But I don't think you can deny that some people will have to work more for it than others... sometimes more than they're willing to do (like kudos to the 13 miles runners because I'd rather be chubby than do that, for example).
Ok I hope my posts make more sense now.
I guess I was more after the mental aspect, not the physical aspect, of difficulties losing weight. Why some people seem to make things more difficult for themselves - not logging properly, not believing that water weight fluctuations are normal, looking for diet pills and the latest fad, not realising that calories is math, that it's more about (in my opinion) about skillpower than willpower, all the fuddling we do when we can't see the whole picture because the details are in the way.
Ok then yeah ignore my posts, lol.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.
I agree, the blanket statements that because someone is petite, they are doomed to a lifetime of losing weight at 1200 cals and maintaining at low levels as well, drives me crazy. I'm 5'2, 40 years old, and my TDEE according to my FitBit is ~2200. I lost weight netting 1600 cals. I have an office job. I don't run marathons or lift extremely heavy things. I walk around 14,000 steps/day and lift dumbbells a couple times a week.
So as not to derail the OP - I too think that the process of weight loss is simple, may not be "easy". It is just math. And not even particularly hard math either. Figure out how many calories you burn. Eat less calories than that. Exercise if you enjoy it. Have reasonable expectations. Know that much of this is about estimation. Be patient.
But you have to workout more than someone taller to be able to eat so much... and everyone can't do that.
I guess I must be confused. I thought this thread was about why it's easier for some people than others to lose weight. I'm not really talking rocket science here.
- it will be harder for people who get hungry faster than for people who are full on 1200 calories (guessing that's hormone related)
- it will be harder for people who have medical issues that affect their appetite or metabolism
- it will be harder for people with a lower metabolism because a cupcake is still going to be 400 calories whether your sedentary maintenance is 1400 or 2300 calories
- it will be harder for people who have a busy lifestyle and less time to exercise (YES, it's 100% diet, but when you have time to exercise, it's much easier to fit in that 400 calories cupcake than when you don't... I think we've pretty much established that)
Then obviously there's all the mental stuff that has been mentioned before. Does it mostly come down to willpower? Definitely. But I don't think you can deny that some people will have to work more for it than others... sometimes more than they're willing to do (like kudos to the 13 miles runners because I'd rather be chubby than do that, for example).
Ok I hope my posts make more sense now.
I think how it got off track was a blanket statement like, "sure, you can lose weight eating ____ cals, but I'm short so I have to eat less". People pointed out that being petite doesn't necessarily doom someone to a lifetime of kale and plain boiled chicken breasts to stay under a certain number of calories. Then people pointed out that only the ones who are taller, or start out heavier, or who work out excessively are lucky enough to be able to eat more food.
I prefer not to get caught up in what other people can do that I can't do. I'm never going to be able to dunk a basketball, and I won't be able to maintain a sedentary lifestyle on 2200 cals because I'm 5'2. I'm ok with both of those things. If I want to eat more food, I work out more. Turns out, I enjoy being more active. I'm even keeping up with @shell1005 in the weekly fitbit challenges, and she's a runner!
Point is, the OP asked why some people seem to think this is easy and others think this is so difficult. It all boils down to what someone else said early on in the thread - it's about your mindset. If I was always looking at this like, "man I wish I could have half a pizza, and a giant cupcake, and 3 beers for dinner like I used to and still lose weight", of course I would be miserable and think this is hard. Instead I figured out how many calories I need to consume to lose (or now maintain weight), and what I want to eat that day, if the food fits in my calorie allotment great, if not, I can either choose something else, eat smaller portions, or exercise more. Likely I can have 2 pieces of pizza, 1 beer, and a piece of dark chocolate. I'm ok with that. I'll have the cupcake tomorrow when I have chicken and vegetables for dinner instead.
I prefer to just figure out how to play my hand instead of complaining that someone else got better cards than me.
0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.
I agree, the blanket statements that because someone is petite, they are doomed to a lifetime of losing weight at 1200 cals and maintaining at low levels as well, drives me crazy. I'm 5'2, 40 years old, and my TDEE according to my FitBit is ~2200. I lost weight netting 1600 cals. I have an office job. I don't run marathons or lift extremely heavy things. I walk around 14,000 steps/day and lift dumbbells a couple times a week.
So as not to derail the OP - I too think that the process of weight loss is simple, may not be "easy". It is just math. And not even particularly hard math either. Figure out how many calories you burn. Eat less calories than that. Exercise if you enjoy it. Have reasonable expectations. Know that much of this is about estimation. Be patient.
But you have to workout more than someone taller to be able to eat so much... and everyone can't do that.
I guess I must be confused. I thought this thread was about why it's easier for some people than others to lose weight. I'm not really talking rocket science here.
- it will be harder for people who get hungry faster than for people who are full on 1200 calories (guessing that's hormone related)
- it will be harder for people who have medical issues that affect their appetite or metabolism
- it will be harder for people with a lower metabolism because a cupcake is still going to be 400 calories whether your sedentary maintenance is 1400 or 2300 calories
- it will be harder for people who have a busy lifestyle and less time to exercise (YES, it's 100% diet, but when you have time to exercise, it's much easier to fit in that 400 calories cupcake than when you don't... I think we've pretty much established that)
Then obviously there's all the mental stuff that has been mentioned before. Does it mostly come down to willpower? Definitely. But I don't think you can deny that some people will have to work more for it than others... sometimes more than they're willing to do (like kudos to the 13 miles runners because I'd rather be chubby than do that, for example).
Ok I hope my posts make more sense now.
I guess I was more after the mental aspect, not the physical aspect, of difficulties losing weight. Why some people seem to make things more difficult for themselves - not logging properly, not believing that water weight fluctuations are normal, looking for diet pills and the latest fad, not realising that calories is math, that it's more about (in my opinion) about skillpower than willpower, all the fuddling we do when we can't see the whole picture because the details are in the way.
Ok then yeah ignore my posts, lol.
I won't ignore them, they are interesting - medical issues do play a part in lots of people's weight loss challenges. But not everybody has problems with genes, metabolism, abusive SOs or are bedridden etc etc - but they struggle. (I want to shake them up real good and say hey, look how easy it is, just do this Lacking empathy does not equal lack of compassion 
)
0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.
I agree, the blanket statements that because someone is petite, they are doomed to a lifetime of losing weight at 1200 cals and maintaining at low levels as well, drives me crazy. I'm 5'2, 40 years old, and my TDEE according to my FitBit is ~2200. I lost weight netting 1600 cals. I have an office job. I don't run marathons or lift extremely heavy things. I walk around 14,000 steps/day and lift dumbbells a couple times a week.
So as not to derail the OP - I too think that the process of weight loss is simple, may not be "easy". It is just math. And not even particularly hard math either. Figure out how many calories you burn. Eat less calories than that. Exercise if you enjoy it. Have reasonable expectations. Know that much of this is about estimation. Be patient.
But you have to workout more than someone taller to be able to eat so much... and everyone can't do that.
I guess I must be confused. I thought this thread was about why it's easier for some people than others to lose weight. I'm not really talking rocket science here.
- it will be harder for people who get hungry faster than for people who are full on 1200 calories (guessing that's hormone related)
- it will be harder for people who have medical issues that affect their appetite or metabolism
- it will be harder for people with a lower metabolism because a cupcake is still going to be 400 calories whether your sedentary maintenance is 1400 or 2300 calories
- it will be harder for people who have a busy lifestyle and less time to exercise (YES, it's 100% diet, but when you have time to exercise, it's much easier to fit in that 400 calories cupcake than when you don't... I think we've pretty much established that)
Then obviously there's all the mental stuff that has been mentioned before. Does it mostly come down to willpower? Definitely. But I don't think you can deny that some people will have to work more for it than others... sometimes more than they're willing to do (like kudos to the 13 miles runners because I'd rather be chubby than do that, for example).
Ok I hope my posts make more sense now.
I guess I was more after the mental aspect, not the physical aspect, of difficulties losing weight. Why some people seem to make things more difficult for themselves - not logging properly, not believing that water weight fluctuations are normal, looking for diet pills and the latest fad, not realising that calories is math, that it's more about (in my opinion) about skillpower than willpower, all the fuddling we do when we can't see the whole picture because the details are in the way.
Ok then yeah ignore my posts, lol.
I won't ignore them, they are interesting - medical issues do play a part in lots of people's weight loss challenges. But not everybody has problems with genes, metabolism, abusive SOs or are bedridden etc etc - but they struggle. (I want to shake them up real good and say hey, look how easy it is, just do thisLacking empathy does not equal lack of compassion )
I'm going to take this as my motto for all those times I've bumbled through social interactions, never meaning to offend.
Still working on that, though. I don't like accidentally hurting someone's feelings. If I'm going to hurt someone's feelings, I darn well want it to be deliberate!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.
I agree, the blanket statements that because someone is petite, they are doomed to a lifetime of losing weight at 1200 cals and maintaining at low levels as well, drives me crazy. I'm 5'2, 40 years old, and my TDEE according to my FitBit is ~2200. I lost weight netting 1600 cals. I have an office job. I don't run marathons or lift extremely heavy things. I walk around 14,000 steps/day and lift dumbbells a couple times a week.
So as not to derail the OP - I too think that the process of weight loss is simple, may not be "easy". It is just math. And not even particularly hard math either. Figure out how many calories you burn. Eat less calories than that. Exercise if you enjoy it. Have reasonable expectations. Know that much of this is about estimation. Be patient.
But you have to workout more than someone taller to be able to eat so much... and everyone can't do that.
I guess I must be confused. I thought this thread was about why it's easier for some people than others to lose weight. I'm not really talking rocket science here.
- it will be harder for people who get hungry faster than for people who are full on 1200 calories (guessing that's hormone related)
- it will be harder for people who have medical issues that affect their appetite or metabolism
- it will be harder for people with a lower metabolism because a cupcake is still going to be 400 calories whether your sedentary maintenance is 1400 or 2300 calories
- it will be harder for people who have a busy lifestyle and less time to exercise (YES, it's 100% diet, but when you have time to exercise, it's much easier to fit in that 400 calories cupcake than when you don't... I think we've pretty much established that)
Then obviously there's all the mental stuff that has been mentioned before. Does it mostly come down to willpower? Definitely. But I don't think you can deny that some people will have to work more for it than others... sometimes more than they're willing to do (like kudos to the 13 miles runners because I'd rather be chubby than do that, for example).
Ok I hope my posts make more sense now.
I think how it got off track was a blanket statement like, "sure, you can lose weight eating ____ cals, but I'm short so I have to eat less". People pointed out that being petite doesn't necessarily doom someone to a lifetime of kale and plain boiled chicken breasts to stay under a certain number of calories. Then people pointed out that only the ones who are taller, or start out heavier, or who work out excessively are lucky enough to be able to eat more food.
I prefer not to get caught up in what other people can do that I can't do. I'm never going to be able to dunk a basketball, and I won't be able to maintain a sedentary lifestyle on 2200 cals because I'm 5'2. I'm ok with both of those things. If I want to eat more food, I work out more. Turns out, I enjoy being more active. I'm even keeping up with @shell1005 in the weekly fitbit challenges, and she's a runner!
Point is, the OP asked why some people seem to think this is easy and others think this is so difficult. It all boils down to what someone else said early on in the thread - it's about your mindset. If I was always looking at this like, "man I wish I could have half a pizza, and a giant cupcake, and 3 beers for dinner like I used to and still lose weight", of course I would be miserable and think this is hard. Instead I figured out how many calories I need to consume to lose (or now maintain weight), and what I want to eat that day, if the food fits in my calorie allotment great, if not, I can either choose something else, eat smaller portions, or exercise more. Likely I can have 2 pieces of pizza, 1 beer, and a piece of dark chocolate. I'm ok with that. I'll have the cupcake tomorrow when I have chicken and vegetables for dinner instead.
I prefer to just figure out how to play my hand instead of complaining that someone else got better cards than me.
This. It's math. We have a daily calorie budget, and each person has to decide how to spend that budget. Once you figure that out, it's not hard on a purely numbers level. It's the mental part, getting to the point where you are comfortable in viewing it as a daily budget.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.
I agree, the blanket statements that because someone is petite, they are doomed to a lifetime of losing weight at 1200 cals and maintaining at low levels as well, drives me crazy. I'm 5'2, 40 years old, and my TDEE according to my FitBit is ~2200. I lost weight netting 1600 cals. I have an office job. I don't run marathons or lift extremely heavy things. I walk around 14,000 steps/day and lift dumbbells a couple times a week.
So as not to derail the OP - I too think that the process of weight loss is simple, may not be "easy". It is just math. And not even particularly hard math either. Figure out how many calories you burn. Eat less calories than that. Exercise if you enjoy it. Have reasonable expectations. Know that much of this is about estimation. Be patient.
But you have to workout more than someone taller to be able to eat so much... and everyone can't do that.
I guess I must be confused. I thought this thread was about why it's easier for some people than others to lose weight. I'm not really talking rocket science here.
- it will be harder for people who get hungry faster than for people who are full on 1200 calories (guessing that's hormone related)
- it will be harder for people who have medical issues that affect their appetite or metabolism
- it will be harder for people with a lower metabolism because a cupcake is still going to be 400 calories whether your sedentary maintenance is 1400 or 2300 calories
- it will be harder for people who have a busy lifestyle and less time to exercise (YES, it's 100% diet, but when you have time to exercise, it's much easier to fit in that 400 calories cupcake than when you don't... I think we've pretty much established that)
Then obviously there's all the mental stuff that has been mentioned before. Does it mostly come down to willpower? Definitely. But I don't think you can deny that some people will have to work more for it than others... sometimes more than they're willing to do (like kudos to the 13 miles runners because I'd rather be chubby than do that, for example).
Ok I hope my posts make more sense now.
I think how it got off track was a blanket statement like, "sure, you can lose weight eating ____ cals, but I'm short so I have to eat less". People pointed out that being petite doesn't necessarily doom someone to a lifetime of kale and plain boiled chicken breasts to stay under a certain number of calories. Then people pointed out that only the ones who are taller, or start out heavier, or who work out excessively are lucky enough to be able to eat more food.
I prefer not to get caught up in what other people can do that I can't do. I'm never going to be able to dunk a basketball, and I won't be able to maintain a sedentary lifestyle on 2200 cals because I'm 5'2. I'm ok with both of those things. If I want to eat more food, I work out more. Turns out, I enjoy being more active. I'm even keeping up with @shell1005 in the weekly fitbit challenges, and she's a runner!
Point is, the OP asked why some people seem to think this is easy and others think this is so difficult. It all boils down to what someone else said early on in the thread - it's about your mindset. If I was always looking at this like, "man I wish I could have half a pizza, and a giant cupcake, and 3 beers for dinner like I used to and still lose weight", of course I would be miserable and think this is hard. Instead I figured out how many calories I need to consume to lose (or now maintain weight), and what I want to eat that day, if the food fits in my calorie allotment great, if not, I can either choose something else, eat smaller portions, or exercise more. Likely I can have 2 pieces of pizza, 1 beer, and a piece of dark chocolate. I'm ok with that. I'll have the cupcake tomorrow when I have chicken and vegetables for dinner instead.
I prefer to just figure out how to play my hand instead of complaining that someone else got better cards than me.
Yes, it has to be the mindset. I have lost and gained weight before, but only this time felt like it's no big deal, no deprivation, no more having to exercise, just freedom from cravings and overeating, and a little more structure to my everyday meals. "Falling off the wagon" is not possible, because there is no wagon. I have regarded it as quite an achievement that I have been able to maintain my desired weight, effortlessly, for a year. It hit me a few days ago that that is a logical fallacy - something has to be/feel effortless in order to be sustainable.0 -
A lot of this is individual... So if you're happily & successfully eating just 1200 calories that's cool. I'm not judging the happy successful ones! But the original comment referenced those who suffer and struggle and say nothing is working. Among them I notice three basic misperceptions: a) they have unrealistically fast expectations, b) they fail to apprehend the true volume of what they are eating by not accurately measuring, or c) they strive for unsustainably large calorie deficits thru super low calorie goals that hurt their ability to stay the course. That's all. I'm not judging them; I'm sure they are perfectly lovely people. Just my observations!0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.
I agree, the blanket statements that because someone is petite, they are doomed to a lifetime of losing weight at 1200 cals and maintaining at low levels as well, drives me crazy. I'm 5'2, 40 years old, and my TDEE according to my FitBit is ~2200. I lost weight netting 1600 cals. I have an office job. I don't run marathons or lift extremely heavy things. I walk around 14,000 steps/day and lift dumbbells a couple times a week.
So as not to derail the OP - I too think that the process of weight loss is simple, may not be "easy". It is just math. And not even particularly hard math either. Figure out how many calories you burn. Eat less calories than that. Exercise if you enjoy it. Have reasonable expectations. Know that much of this is about estimation. Be patient.
But you have to workout more than someone taller to be able to eat so much... and everyone can't do that.
I guess I must be confused. I thought this thread was about why it's easier for some people than others to lose weight. I'm not really talking rocket science here.
- it will be harder for people who get hungry faster than for people who are full on 1200 calories (guessing that's hormone related)
- it will be harder for people who have medical issues that affect their appetite or metabolism
- it will be harder for people with a lower metabolism because a cupcake is still going to be 400 calories whether your sedentary maintenance is 1400 or 2300 calories
- it will be harder for people who have a busy lifestyle and less time to exercise (YES, it's 100% diet, but when you have time to exercise, it's much easier to fit in that 400 calories cupcake than when you don't... I think we've pretty much established that)
Then obviously there's all the mental stuff that has been mentioned before. Does it mostly come down to willpower? Definitely. But I don't think you can deny that some people will have to work more for it than others... sometimes more than they're willing to do (like kudos to the 13 miles runners because I'd rather be chubby than do that, for example).
Ok I hope my posts make more sense now.
I think how it got off track was a blanket statement like, "sure, you can lose weight eating ____ cals, but I'm short so I have to eat less". People pointed out that being petite doesn't necessarily doom someone to a lifetime of kale and plain boiled chicken breasts to stay under a certain number of calories. Then people pointed out that only the ones who are taller, or start out heavier, or who work out excessively are lucky enough to be able to eat more food.
I prefer not to get caught up in what other people can do that I can't do. I'm never going to be able to dunk a basketball, and I won't be able to maintain a sedentary lifestyle on 2200 cals because I'm 5'2. I'm ok with both of those things. If I want to eat more food, I work out more. Turns out, I enjoy being more active. I'm even keeping up with @shell1005 in the weekly fitbit challenges, and she's a runner!
Point is, the OP asked why some people seem to think this is easy and others think this is so difficult. It all boils down to what someone else said early on in the thread - it's about your mindset. If I was always looking at this like, "man I wish I could have half a pizza, and a giant cupcake, and 3 beers for dinner like I used to and still lose weight", of course I would be miserable and think this is hard. Instead I figured out how many calories I need to consume to lose (or now maintain weight), and what I want to eat that day, if the food fits in my calorie allotment great, if not, I can either choose something else, eat smaller portions, or exercise more. Likely I can have 2 pieces of pizza, 1 beer, and a piece of dark chocolate. I'm ok with that. I'll have the cupcake tomorrow when I have chicken and vegetables for dinner instead.
I prefer to just figure out how to play my hand instead of complaining that someone else got better cards than me.
This. It's math. We have a daily calorie budget, and each person has to decide how to spend that budget. Once you figure that out, it's not hard on a purely numbers level. It's the mental part, getting to the point where you are comfortable in viewing it as a daily budget.
For me it wasn't hard to grasp the CICO principle. It felt obvious and straightforward. But I have seen smart people vigorously deny that it's a numbers game. Can it be an emotional barrier, in addition to the brainwashing of the diet industry?0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.
I agree, the blanket statements that because someone is petite, they are doomed to a lifetime of losing weight at 1200 cals and maintaining at low levels as well, drives me crazy. I'm 5'2, 40 years old, and my TDEE according to my FitBit is ~2200. I lost weight netting 1600 cals. I have an office job. I don't run marathons or lift extremely heavy things. I walk around 14,000 steps/day and lift dumbbells a couple times a week.
So as not to derail the OP - I too think that the process of weight loss is simple, may not be "easy". It is just math. And not even particularly hard math either. Figure out how many calories you burn. Eat less calories than that. Exercise if you enjoy it. Have reasonable expectations. Know that much of this is about estimation. Be patient.
But you have to workout more than someone taller to be able to eat so much... and everyone can't do that.
I guess I must be confused. I thought this thread was about why it's easier for some people than others to lose weight. I'm not really talking rocket science here.
- it will be harder for people who get hungry faster than for people who are full on 1200 calories (guessing that's hormone related)
- it will be harder for people who have medical issues that affect their appetite or metabolism
- it will be harder for people with a lower metabolism because a cupcake is still going to be 400 calories whether your sedentary maintenance is 1400 or 2300 calories
- it will be harder for people who have a busy lifestyle and less time to exercise (YES, it's 100% diet, but when you have time to exercise, it's much easier to fit in that 400 calories cupcake than when you don't... I think we've pretty much established that)
Then obviously there's all the mental stuff that has been mentioned before. Does it mostly come down to willpower? Definitely. But I don't think you can deny that some people will have to work more for it than others... sometimes more than they're willing to do (like kudos to the 13 miles runners because I'd rather be chubby than do that, for example).
Ok I hope my posts make more sense now.
I guess I was more after the mental aspect, not the physical aspect, of difficulties losing weight. Why some people seem to make things more difficult for themselves - not logging properly, not believing that water weight fluctuations are normal, looking for diet pills and the latest fad, not realising that calories is math, that it's more about (in my opinion) about skillpower than willpower, all the fuddling we do when we can't see the whole picture because the details are in the way.
Ok then yeah ignore my posts, lol.
I won't ignore them, they are interesting - medical issues do play a part in lots of people's weight loss challenges. But not everybody has problems with genes, metabolism, abusive SOs or are bedridden etc etc - but they struggle. (I want to shake them up real good and say hey, look how easy it is, just do thisLacking empathy does not equal lack of compassion )
I'm going to take this as my motto for all those times I've bumbled through social interactions, never meaning to offend.
Still working on that, though. I don't like accidentally hurting someone's feelings. If I'm going to hurt someone's feelings, I darn well want it to be deliberate!
I LOLed and almost choked on my non-caloric beverage! So true!0 -
Fascinating topic, a lot of self reflection has taken place while I have been reading this, and 2 pages added!!
To keep it succinct:
I was an easy loser, and now an easy maintainer.
January 2009 my son and DIL sent a pic from over Christmas 2008 ( see profile)
I was fat, frumpy, and 55.
That wasn't me!
I changed that day.
Counted calories and started structured exercise for the first time in my life.
I never looked back.
I didn't need big changes in my diet to lose the 30 lb, and my main fear of exercise, apart from friends laughing because I had claimed for 40 years I was allergic to it, was quelled when the first thing I tried I liked.
I don't even think I am in maintenance most of the time, I am just me, being me- with less pints of full bodied beer; more wine, less sat on the sidelines cheering; more jumping in and participating.
I don't know what changed me in that instant, but it was mind blowing. I have had a fuller, happier, action packed life since then, and I love myself more than ever.
OP, I really appreciate you trying to understand this dichotomy. It's a tough one.
Cheers, h.0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »Is losing weight supposed to be hard?
Sometimes fitness and health is a salient moment and easy. Other times, when lots of things might be out of whack it is hard to focus on. Everyone is different.
0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »Sandra37405 wrote: »Because life isn't fair.TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »If losing weight and eating right is so easy for you, how did you get to the point of needing to lose weight in the first place?
People are all different. What is easy for you is difficult for someone else. It doesn't matter what the issue is. I don't understand why that is hard for you to understand OP.
OP. I don't understand why you don't understand. If weight loss is so easy then why is our country full of so many over weight people.
If it's Sooo easy, why would there be a need for MFP? And more to the point, why do you feel the need to be on it?
Everyone is different and have different strengths and weaknesses. Food is one of life's great pleasures, so it can be a challenge for a lot of people to control this aspect of their life.
It has always been the human condition to self medicate.
People just medicate with different things.
For some it is food, alcohol, drugs,sex,exercise,meditation, psychiatry or even religion.
0 -
Just going to jump in here and say there's a lot of debate going on about height and weight and exercise, etc. It's simple, as many have said.
I can't exercise at all. I'm 5'7" and 123 pounds, right now, and I maintain on around 1800 calories per day. I've told people in these forums, over and over, that exercise isn't necessary for weight loss. It's doesn't matter how tall you are, either. If you are short, and you want to lose weight, you follow your deficit, and you lose weight. If you are able to exercise, then you do that, and you eat back your exercise calories. You don't lose weight any faster with the exercising, it only improves your fitness and gives you the ability to eat more. That's it. If you're exercising, and burning more calories, you're going to need more fuel, anyway. If you're not exercising, you don't need as much fuel, and should be eating less.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
Bingo. I'm a 5'1" woman married to a 6'1" man. To think that it's "not fair" that I don't get to eat as much food as him? It's silly.
One of the things it was important for me to wrap my head around was the idea of how many calories my body NEEDS and truly embracing that on a deep level.
I refuse to whine because I'm short. This is my body, it needs what it needs. Full stop. I used to give it more than it needed and that was stupid. I've stopped doing that.
0 -
Experience and time make it "easy" it's always hard in the beggining. It's so difficult for humans to make conscious, uncomfortable life changes.0
-
kommodevaran wrote: »I guess I was more after the mental aspect, not the physical aspect, of difficulties losing weight. Why some people seem to make things more difficult for themselves - not logging properly, not believing that water weight fluctuations are normal, looking for diet pills and the latest fad, not realising that calories is math, that it's more about (in my opinion) about skillpower than willpower, all the fuddling we do when we can't see the whole picture because the details are in the way.
I think a lot of the mental aspects are still physical in nature.
Everyone's body is attempting to control their weight. We have systems of hormones that drive our appetite, and can influence whether we feel hungry or full, energetic or lethargic, can influence our emotions, etc. In some people, it definitely seems that this hormone regulation isn't working properly. It could be genetic, it could be epigenetic, it could be environmental or dietary, but the result is that some people are going to have these hormone systems working on their behalf (helping them lose weight) and others will have this system working against them.
It's a spectrum, of course, and people fall somewhere along it. Some people have horrible cravings they can barely tolerate, others seem to have a fairly easy time of it, and most are somewhere between the extremes. That's not dissimilar to anything in life - in school I was always the person who could earn top grades without studying; things just make sense to me and if I see it or read it once, I know it, with very little practice or repetition needed (except for learning languages, which is harder for me). People who put in a lot more effort than I regularly did a lot worse.
Some people must have a lot of willpower to stay on a diet, just like some people must study very hard to get good grades. And some people don't.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
If only when people brought cupcakes to work they baked teeny tiny ones for us petite people. If only restaurants provided meals that fit our requirements. It annoys me to spend money on a nice steak and it's literally quadrulple what I 'should' eat. When even the salads and entrees are out of proportion unless I've exercised for two hours earlier on in the day. And then I'm hungry anyway because the volume was tiny but the calorie density was high. I'm fine if I can prep all my own food, eating out is much harder when you have less wiggle room.
That is often not allowed in restaurants where I live due to food safety laws. And you're missing the point about there being something deeply frustrating about spending $60 on a meal and still being hungry because I've had to cut it in half. I work out a lot to eat more which gets me by. In some ways the calorie needs and appetites of a 5' person are proportionate (sometimes), can you admit that there might be additional challenges in eating out and so forth?
You can't bring food home from Australian restaurants? Pity.
Here in the US, at the majority of the restaurants I frequent, half an entree is the perfect size for filling me up. I'm almost 5'7". I bring the other half home, which has the additional benefit of being able to weigh it.
(For anyone else curious, $60 AUD = $42 US dollars.)
You can't in any European country either, as far as I know.
I don't think there are restrictions on bringing food home from restaurants where I live (Norway) because of hygiene, but it's generally frowned upon as being miserly. The portions aren't that enormous either. You wouldn't normally try to split a dish with another guest either, for the same reasons.
Portion sizes in the US are crazy.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/weight-management/big-food-are-we-eating-more.aspx
...Half-pound muffins? Two-pound pasta bowls? Since the 1970s, American fast-food and sit-down restaurants alike have contributed to the obesity epidemic by serving individual people enough food for a small family.
Portion Size and Obesity: How It All Adds Up
In competition with each other and operating under the philosophy that bigger is better, restaurants often serve up a portion size that is equal to two to four normal servings, while menu boards at fast-food restaurants scream “supersized burgers and fries!” Consider these portion-size facts:- In the 1950s, a regular fast-food burger was 2.8 ounces and 202 calories. In 2004, that same burger was 4.3 ounces and 310 calories.
- A regular Coke grew from six ounces in 1916 to 21 ounces in 1996.
- These days, you can buy a “double gulp” drink that’s 64 ounces and more than 600 calories, and a burrito that’s 1,100 calories or almost three-fourths of the entire daily 1,600-calorie allotment for an average-sized, non-exercising woman. Have them both, and you’re over the allotment.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/news-events/matte1.htm
...Consider, for example, if you had today's portions of the following meals:- Breakfast: a bagel (6 inches in diameter) and a 16-ounce coffee with sugar and milk.
- Lunch: two pieces of pepperoni pizza and a 20-ounce soda.
- Dinner: a chicken Caesar salad and a 20-ounce soda.
In one day, you would consume 1,595 more calories than if you had the same foods at typical portions served 20 years ago. Over the course of one year, if consumed daily, the larger portions could amount to more than 500,000 extra calories.
Gotta love the 'have an appetizer instead of an entree' advice for restaurants... considering that a lot of appetizers have more calories than an entree.
It's an over generalization though. Yes, some restaurants have huge portion sizes, but some do not... I've actually been burned ordering something thinking it was going to be big enough and it was just not enough food. Or I've asked the waiter if a dessert was big enough to share and she said it's for one person, and it was DEFINITELY big enough for two (I mean, two brownies, one huge scoop of ice cream, for one person? Shaking my head).
But yeah, maybe it's because I've been living in the US for 13 years, but a lot of portions just don't seem that huge to me anymore... and when I went back to France 5 years ago I wasn't shocked by 'tiny portions' or anything either... it just seemed like a normal amount of food.
Maybe people are just thinking of chain restaurants when they talk about 'huge portion sizes'? Because most local restaurants have always given me pretty reasonable portions.
I find that the healthier choices have actual single-person serving sizes vs. When you order, for example, a pasta. Probably because the healthier choices have to be to be "healthy" (I love it when the menu posts the calories) but also because those ingredients are much more expensive for the restaurant to have. (E.g. salmon fresh vegetables etc.)0 -
I have found weightloss to be relatively effortless ... actually a whole lot easier than I thought it was going to be.
But why?
Perhaps ...
-- I'm stubborn. Drives my husband crazy sometimes, but when I get it in my head that this is how it is going to be, that's how it is. So when I decided that I was going to sign up with MFP and lose weight, that's what I did.
-- I decided to go the CI<CO route rather than eliminating entire food groups. CI<CO makes sense to me, and I like that I can eat whatever I want to eat. It did take a little bit of experimentation to find foods that work for me, that leave me feeling fuller longer, and there have been a few times I've tried something and ended up thinking that it was so not worth it, but I've found a lot of good options.
-- I decided that I was only going to eat foods I like. No sense wasting calories on foods I don't like.
-- I combed the grocery stores and markets around for low-calorie foods I like ... and I'm now eating more variety than I was before. I've discovered all kinds of delicious options out there.
-- I took the food side of things on as a challenge. It was like a scavenger hunt to find the low-calorie foods mentioned in the point above. And when I plan to go out to restaurants and cafes, it is a challenge to find their menus and the nutritional value of the foods, and to select the best choices.
-- I exercise, which gives me more freedom to eat what I like. For example, when I do a strenuous, hilly 40 km bicycle ride on the weekend ... I can have pizza or whatever else I'm hungry for.
-- But I exercise because I love being active. It drives me crazy to be inactive. Cycling has been my sport since, well actually, since I was about 6 years old. I grew up in a cycling family, and then became a lot more serious about it 25 years ago. My recent weight gain (last 4-ish years, until mid-Feb 2015 when I signed on here), put a damper on the cycling which I didn't like. So as I have lost weight over the last few months, my cycling has improved. I can climb easier, ride faster, and generally I feel a whole lot better on the bicycle. I'm looking forward to some good rides this coming summer.
-- I enjoy numbers ... so I like the idea of weighing my food and recording everything. I already keep a cycling log, and have done for the past 25 years. So it's not a stretch to log my food as well.
-- I weigh myself every day and in doing so, I have learned my patterns. So when I gain a little bit on the Monday after a weekend ... probably water retention from the exercise and pizza. I'll lose it in a few days and by the weekend I'll be lower than I was the previous weekend. When I gain a little bit just before my TOM, that's OK, I know I'll lose it and some in about a week.
-- I have been slender most of my life. In fact, I have spent many years borderline underweight because of the amount of cycling I have done. It is really only the past 4-ish years (until mid-Feb 2015 when I signed on here) that I gained weight. So I have had no trouble picturing what I could look like if I lost a bit of weight ... I've got heaps of photos of the more slender me from a few years ago.
-- I approached this weight loss with no weight goal in mind. Instead, I was determined to stick to a certain calorie limit for 4 months, and wherever I ended up at the end of 4 months is where I ended up. At the end of 4 months, I was taking a 1-month break during which time I went on holidays. Then I was going to assess the situation and decide whether or not I wanted to keep going. So I didn't panic if my weight kind of went up and down, as weight does, during those first 4 months ... as long as the general trend was down, I was OK. If I lost 5 kg, I'd be happy with that. If I lost 10 kg, even happier. As it was, I lost 15 kg in those 4 months. I took that 1-month break with the intention of eating everything in sight ... but couldn't stomach a lot of the foods I used to eat. Too sweet. Too salty. I ended up eating a lot of salads! When I returned, I decided to keep going and see where I ended up at the end of September. Guess what ... it's the end of September, and I have lost more weight than I thought I would. I am going to the end of October now, and will likely transition into maintenance then.
Those are a few things off the top of my head.
All that said, there have been difficult moments along the way. A few tears have been shed. There were some struggles. But the results are worth it!
0 -
I'm sure there are things you're absolutely terrible at that others think are easy too.0
-
Ashtoretet wrote: »I'm sure there are things you're absolutely terrible at that others think are easy too.
Yeah ... C# programming, which I'm trying to learn right now leaps to mind.
Losing weight is a piece of cake compared with learning that!!
0
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