If calories in-calories out is immutable...
Options
Replies
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
You need me to be clear? Are you a moderator or something? Or just hoping to report me for advocating VLCD?WalkingAlong wrote: »Not claiming that I am never sure when i overeat, but I often eat more than I think I have.
Honestly, I have trouble feeling "full". logging gives me an idea of when to stop.
I don't know about the IF method or why the OP is having trouble.
Fast days can help put you back in touch with your feelings of hunger and fullness, too.
JaneiR36- I don't think the OP minds a little discussion of IF in "her" thread. If you're really curious about compliance levels, etc., I can point you toward the books and studies, though I imagine you could also google it.
I feel like the "I'm a fat person, I can't control my eating without an app" attitude is defeatist. Virtually all of us can relearn the skills of self-moderating. If you choose not to, fine, but often it seems like the claim is that "I can't so no one can. If they could they would've never been overweight."
Is the 1000 average intake for 90 days what you're promoting here? Because that's what the OP is doing. The OP sees you as someone supporting her chosen WOE. I need you to be clear that eating at these levels for 90 days for a 192 lb woman is what you're backing. Your continued IF discussions could give her the impression that you're okay with her proposed diet. Are you?
It was a question I asked earlier, just like my request for compliance levels. If you're worried about wasting your time or something, don't worry about it
I'm not calculating others' calorie averages or advocating for or against any levels. We're all adults here. That's not my interest-- playing diet referee and telling others how they're "doing it wrong".
I see some changes to things since I spent time here last in 2014 or so, but the diet policing still seems to be a popular sport, with a lot of the same players. Seems to occur a lot less, though. In 2011 or so it was every damn thread. Positive trend overall.
Actually if you want to think of it that way, the OP came here for just a little bit of "diet policing" by coming here wondering why she can't comply long enough to shake those 50 lbs, and I resent the idea that you would promote some WOE at the expense of her health and long term success
My title is under my username, same as anyone else. 1000 cals ain't a VLCD to me, just damn unrealistic for a 37 year old 192lb woman who has struggled with successfully losing weight, including a 3 month 1100 cals per day stint while being active with a personal trainer (notice any similarities?).
Like I said, don't worry about it. I just figured since you took the time to respond to me, you'd actually answer my questions. You can just ignore them from now on if you can't be bothered0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »BTW, if you read the information provided by the OP, she weighs 192. If she doing this program of alternating between 500 and 1500 calories or whatever her daily is going to be, what was her intake to maintain the 192 pounds? I wonder if people are reading her comments or not.
I'm starting to resent the possibility that they may be using this topic as a launching pad to argue some random philosophy at the expense of the OP. Her selecting a plan to average 1000 cals per day? Who cares? IF is great. But ultimately, I suppose I need to realize she's an adult and is responsible for reading all the comments and making her decision
I was focusing on the "eating freely on off days" part of what the OP said and didn't get that the OP would only average 1000 calories per day if she was truly alternating between 500 and 1500 calorie days. Thanks for pointing it out. However, since she's not weighing and not losing weight, she's eating more than this.
Good point, similar to what Terra mentioned. IMO it could be more, it could be less. And even if she were to get up to the "1200" average level, I'd still say she should likely consider consuming more calories than that, due to prior issues adhering to previous similar diet(s).0 -
I wonder what activity level someone has who can eat 8500 calories a day and not only maintain their weight but lose 7% BF? Hmmm. . . . .for how many days? Hmmm. . . .This may be derailing for the OP so apologies in advance. It is sort of interesting.0
-
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »I wonder what activity level someone has who can eat 8500 calories a day and not only maintain their weight but lose 7% BF? Hmmm. . . . .for how many days? Hmmm. . . .This may be derailing for the OP so apologies in advance. It is sort of interesting.
This guy, bit of an athlete, experimented on himself for 3 weeks by eating close to a 6000 kcal per day diet. First he did it LCHF, and his barely gained anything but appeared to get slimmer (smaller waist). He later did the same caloric level but with a high carb, more processed diet. The high carb diet did make him gain a pound for every extra 3500 kcal he ate. For him, what he ate affected his CI<CO ratio.
I found it interesting.
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/
http://live.smashthefat.com/5000-calorie-carb-challenge-day-21/0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »No. Muscle does not weigh more than fat. 1 pound of muscle weighs exactly as much as 1 pound of fat.
I don't weigh more than my 12yo, because a pound of me weighs exactly as much as a pound of her.
Intentionally misinterpreting common usage (and "weighs more" is common usage for both "is more dense than" and "is a greater quantity of equivalent density") isn't really the helpful kind of pedantry.
I believe the distinction between weight and density is meaningful, not pendantic. Addressing the error in the common usage can help people understand why they may appear more toned even when the scale doesn't move. It can help take the focus off the number on the scale and shifts it to non-scale victories such as clothes fitting better, etc.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »BTW, if you read the information provided by the OP, she weighs 192. If she doing this program of alternating between 500 and 1500 calories or whatever her daily is going to be, what was her intake to maintain the 192 pounds? I wonder if people are reading her comments or not.
I'm starting to resent the possibility that they may be using this topic as a launching pad to argue some random philosophy at the expense of the OP. Her selecting a plan to average 1000 cals per day? Who cares? IF is great. But ultimately, I suppose I need to realize she's an adult and is responsible for reading all the comments and making her decision
You wrote what I thought; I personally think it is great she (OP) is trying to find her way. If she averages less then MFP's 1,200 again I think her head will not fall off. I know the adage of 'missing micro and macro intake' when we dip below a certain calorie number. When I first joined over 3 years ago I remember a poster consuming well below the minimum. They post regularly and 3 years later their intake is below the minimum for MFP. Over 1,000 days is much different then 90. Also, since we know accuracy increases with a scale(oh no a blanket statement) she will probably consume more then what she thinks.
I agree IF has some incredible benefits. (1) It is a shock to get the mind wrapped around energy level changes and feelings of hunger. (2) The discipline to maintain a caloric deficit for the day (3) For some folks it allows them to simplify their weekly intake (4) For some, it is a great tool during training for either endurance or body building.
My apologies for those who read these bullet points and I placed the words 'some, many, all, or none' in the wrong sentences. It is a tool folks, jut like counting calories or running 5 miles. No one thing is 'THE' thing.
I'd be curious to know compliance levels for beginner dieters who eat "500" cals every other day. I think many of us are coming as this from a formerly fat person stand point. If you're eating enough to weigh 192 lbs, chances are there's an extremely slim chance you'll sustain this sort of diet for 90 days, and subsequently transition successfully to ongoing weight loss or maintenance.
To answer the question of how much I was eating to maintain 192: 1932 calories based on my TDEE.
It's too soon for me to tell you how well I'm complying, but I would argue, and it's been my experience so far, that severely restricting calories on one day is easier than thinking about calorie intake for every meal and snack. I'm sure this is the effect of my personality and my daily routines.
Also, as Walking Along mentioned in another post, I think fasting is having the effect of making me feel like I don't HAVE to respond to feeling hungry the moment I feel it. I can have a hot tea or some water and address it later. I think it will end up being a behavioral tool, as well as a way to restrict calories.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »BTW, if you read the information provided by the OP, she weighs 192. If she doing this program of alternating between 500 and 1500 calories or whatever her daily is going to be, what was her intake to maintain the 192 pounds? I wonder if people are reading her comments or not.
I'm starting to resent the possibility that they may be using this topic as a launching pad to argue some random philosophy at the expense of the OP. Her selecting a plan to average 1000 cals per day? Who cares? IF is great. But ultimately, I suppose I need to realize she's an adult and is responsible for reading all the comments and making her decision
You wrote what I thought; I personally think it is great she (OP) is trying to find her way. If she averages less then MFP's 1,200 again I think her head will not fall off. I know the adage of 'missing micro and macro intake' when we dip below a certain calorie number. When I first joined over 3 years ago I remember a poster consuming well below the minimum. They post regularly and 3 years later their intake is below the minimum for MFP. Over 1,000 days is much different then 90. Also, since we know accuracy increases with a scale(oh no a blanket statement) she will probably consume more then what she thinks.
I agree IF has some incredible benefits. (1) It is a shock to get the mind wrapped around energy level changes and feelings of hunger. (2) The discipline to maintain a caloric deficit for the day (3) For some folks it allows them to simplify their weekly intake (4) For some, it is a great tool during training for either endurance or body building.
My apologies for those who read these bullet points and I placed the words 'some, many, all, or none' in the wrong sentences. It is a tool folks, jut like counting calories or running 5 miles. No one thing is 'THE' thing.
I'd be curious to know compliance levels for beginner dieters who eat "500" cals every other day. I think many of us are coming as this from a formerly fat person stand point. If you're eating enough to weigh 192 lbs, chances are there's an extremely slim chance you'll sustain this sort of diet for 90 days, and subsequently transition successfully to ongoing weight loss or maintenance.
To answer the question of how much I was eating to maintain 192: 1932 calories based on my TDEE.
It's too soon for me to tell you how well I'm complying, but I would argue, and it's been my experience so far, that severely restricting calories on one day is easier than thinking about calorie intake for every meal and snack. I'm sure this is the effect of my personality and my daily routines.
Also, as Walking Along mentioned in another post, I think fasting is having the effect of making me feel like I don't HAVE to respond to feeling hungry the moment I feel it. I can have a hot tea or some water and address it later. I think it will end up being a behavioral tool, as well as a way to restrict calories.
So, something to remember, is right now, you find restricting on some days easier then trying to restrict on all days. A point I failed to remember up thread about people eating 5:2 or 6:1. You may find little change in your TDEE as you lose. There will be time where you become more active then when you started this program. Hopefully, you can incorporate activities you enjoy and recognize your body needs fuel as you move more. Or not. Maybe for now, losing the weight first is more important. Good luck. If you learn as you go it is a worthwhile strategy.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »BTW, if you read the information provided by the OP, she weighs 192. If she doing this program of alternating between 500 and 1500 calories or whatever her daily is going to be, what was her intake to maintain the 192 pounds? I wonder if people are reading her comments or not.
I'm starting to resent the possibility that they may be using this topic as a launching pad to argue some random philosophy at the expense of the OP. Her selecting a plan to average 1000 cals per day? Who cares? IF is great. But ultimately, I suppose I need to realize she's an adult and is responsible for reading all the comments and making her decision
You wrote what I thought; I personally think it is great she (OP) is trying to find her way. If she averages less then MFP's 1,200 again I think her head will not fall off. I know the adage of 'missing micro and macro intake' when we dip below a certain calorie number. When I first joined over 3 years ago I remember a poster consuming well below the minimum. They post regularly and 3 years later their intake is below the minimum for MFP. Over 1,000 days is much different then 90. Also, since we know accuracy increases with a scale(oh no a blanket statement) she will probably consume more then what she thinks.
I agree IF has some incredible benefits. (1) It is a shock to get the mind wrapped around energy level changes and feelings of hunger. (2) The discipline to maintain a caloric deficit for the day (3) For some folks it allows them to simplify their weekly intake (4) For some, it is a great tool during training for either endurance or body building.
My apologies for those who read these bullet points and I placed the words 'some, many, all, or none' in the wrong sentences. It is a tool folks, jut like counting calories or running 5 miles. No one thing is 'THE' thing.
I'd be curious to know compliance levels for beginner dieters who eat "500" cals every other day. I think many of us are coming as this from a formerly fat person stand point. If you're eating enough to weigh 192 lbs, chances are there's an extremely slim chance you'll sustain this sort of diet for 90 days, and subsequently transition successfully to ongoing weight loss or maintenance.
To answer the question of how much I was eating to maintain 192: 1932 calories based on my TDEE.
It's too soon for me to tell you how well I'm complying, but I would argue, and it's been my experience so far, that severely restricting calories on one day is easier than thinking about calorie intake for every meal and snack. I'm sure this is the effect of my personality and my daily routines.
Also, as Walking Along mentioned in another post, I think fasting is having the effect of making me feel like I don't HAVE to respond to feeling hungry the moment I feel it. I can have a hot tea or some water and address it later. I think it will end up being a behavioral tool, as well as a way to restrict calories.
Okay, good luck. At the very minimum you know that you'll have to think of the dreaded managing your calorie intake at a reasonable level everyday, at some point. Unless you intend to continue alternate day fasting indefinitely. BTW logging your food does not have to mean thinking about calorie intake every meal. You could always plan in advance, log the food and then eat according to that plan. Personally I do no more than a meal or two, but some do up to a whole week or more
Finally, let me restate that averaging 1000 calories per day is almost certainly a bad idea, unless maybe if you're perfectly sedentary. It's unlikely to provide someone your size with adequate nutrition and you only have the one body. Don't be in such a hurry to lose the weight that you'll compromise your health in the process. The time will pass either way, and I encourage you to do this right. Once again, good luck0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
But you are male and if you eat 2500-2800 (and lose weight?) you must either be very large, very active or both. I don't think your own intake is applicable to anyone not similar in gender, age, size and activity level._Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »JustMissTracy wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »The Krista Varady plan:
But in the Every-Other-Day Diet, you’ll find only one rule: eat no more than 500 calories on Diet Day, eat anything you want and as much as you want on Feast Day, and alternate those two days. That’s it! No counting calories, carbs, fat or protein. No avoiding any particular food; all foods are allowed. There are no complex meal preparations and plans.
In the Every-Other-Day Diet, you’ll unlock the secret to rapid and sustained weight loss and never endure every dieter’s nightmare: daily deprivation. Alternating between “Feast” days in which you eat whatever you want, and “Diet” day in which you eat 500 calories, you’ll lose: pounds, belly fat—and improve your health. Without giving up the foods you love.
I don't understand how this diet would work. (?)
I don't understand how, if you don't count calories, you know that you're only taking in 500 on your fast days, and how you know you aren't wiping out your deficit on the non fast days?
Plus, and I know this is beside the point, what would a 500 calorie day look like? How could it include any exercise? It sounds like punishment.
I agree completely.
For my 500 calorie days I'm consuming water, black coffee or hot tea until around noon. I have a 100 or 150 calorie protein shake or smoothie for lunch. When I get home from work (6pm) I have a spinach salad with tuna, 2 tbs of hummus and a drizzle of balsamic vinegar (350-400 calories depending on the amount of tuna and hummus). Hot tea in between when I feel hungry.
I haven't incorporated exercise. Yet. Unfortunately I probably won't until Feb, due to a job change to another city and my existing gym membership is geographically challenging now.
So, over 90 days how many would be 500? And no, you don't need to weigh your food for weight loss. Have you attempted any other diets in the past?
Well, half--45, as long as I stick with it.
Well, if I had 1500 every other day I'd fail. I'd easily fail. If you aren't exercising maybe it would be doable. I was attempting 1500 once a week and it was tough. My average day is 2500-2800 depending on activity. Any other diets you've attempted since you've been on MFP?
That's true for everybody, though.
Yes, but no one else is claiming that 1500 calories won't work for the OP because it doesn't work for him.
I kind of am, but I'm also almost too flabbergasted to say so. Basically someone who has struggled with continuously maintaining a deficit wants to alternate 500 and 1500 calories every other day until she loses 50 lbs. Just so I'm clear, nothing at all wrong with this full picture, as far as you're concerned?
Having read one of the IF books, I actually understood this to be contrary to the protocol unless her maintenance calories are 1500. The non restrict days are supposed to be truly non restrict/maintenance. (I do think this might be a difficulty re the plan, as for me it's really hard not to subconsciously be more restrictive when dieting, especially toward the beginning. One reason weighing helped me is that I started realizing I was cutting too low and adding back in some cheese and oil and other tasty stuff, which I think helped me remain happy with my diet over time vs. getting bored with the meals I was originally eating -- tasty enough, but missing some things I like and not as varied.)
So, no one else finds it at all problematic that her average intake is 1000 cals?
ETA: Never mind, just caught up with the last page0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »You don't NEED a food scale or NEED to log daily. There is not only one way to diet. It sounds like you're roughly on Krista Varady's ADF plan. On that you can eat freely on your non-fast days (though logging them is fine, too). A pound a week is probably a reasonable expectation. Good luck!
Agreed. You actually don't need to log ever. Most people have the ability to know when they are eating too much, they just ignore it. A human scale can work for weight loss just fine if used properly.
Looking at labels or logging food helps people understand the calorie dense stuff, the nutritional content, etc, but in the end being able to apply it is more important. A person could log everything and struggle if they don't figure out what keeps them full, gives them more energy, and gets them through the day.
am I unusual? I am here because I can't gauge when I am done eating for the day.
That depends. Are you claiming that you eat too much and never have any idea you've eaten too much? I'm not claiming we can all eat all we want and our body will stop us. I'm stating that most people at some level do know they are eating beyond what they should. I've heard people grab food stating things like "I really shouldn't eat this" etc, but they still do.
And if logging works then people should go for it. If logging, exercise, weighing food and yoga works they should go for that. But if the IF methods actually work for some people, no reason they shouldn't do it. I know a lot of people that don't overeat, and they all go about it different ways. The "easiest" way will vary by person and what works for them, and that's really my point. I would say most likely the people that find weight control the easiest are those that would be few and far between on this web site. They hop on a scale now and then, or notice when their clothes are snug, and eat less and/or move more.
When I say that, I don't mean I'm eating too much. I mean I'm eating something I shouldn't from a nutritional standpoint. Like a brownie after a week filled with similar treats. I would never say that when going over on calories with steamed veg or baked fish or similar.0 -
BTW logging your food does not have to mean thinking about calorie intake every meal. You could always plan in advance, log the food and then eat according to that plan.
Yup. I only think about calories for a few minutes each day when I plan the next day's meals. Beyond that I simply eat what I planned to eat.0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »BTW, if you read the information provided by the OP, she weighs 192. If she doing this program of alternating between 500 and 1500 calories or whatever her daily is going to be, what was her intake to maintain the 192 pounds? I wonder if people are reading her comments or not.
I'm starting to resent the possibility that they may be using this topic as a launching pad to argue some random philosophy at the expense of the OP. Her selecting a plan to average 1000 cals per day? Who cares? IF is great. But ultimately, I suppose I need to realize she's an adult and is responsible for reading all the comments and making her decision
You wrote what I thought; I personally think it is great she (OP) is trying to find her way. If she averages less then MFP's 1,200 again I think her head will not fall off. I know the adage of 'missing micro and macro intake' when we dip below a certain calorie number. When I first joined over 3 years ago I remember a poster consuming well below the minimum. They post regularly and 3 years later their intake is below the minimum for MFP. Over 1,000 days is much different then 90. Also, since we know accuracy increases with a scale(oh no a blanket statement) she will probably consume more then what she thinks.
I agree IF has some incredible benefits. (1) It is a shock to get the mind wrapped around energy level changes and feelings of hunger. (2) The discipline to maintain a caloric deficit for the day (3) For some folks it allows them to simplify their weekly intake (4) For some, it is a great tool during training for either endurance or body building.
My apologies for those who read these bullet points and I placed the words 'some, many, all, or none' in the wrong sentences. It is a tool folks, jut like counting calories or running 5 miles. No one thing is 'THE' thing.
I'd be curious to know compliance levels for beginner dieters who eat "500" cals every other day. I think many of us are coming as this from a formerly fat person stand point. If you're eating enough to weigh 192 lbs, chances are there's an extremely slim chance you'll sustain this sort of diet for 90 days, and subsequently transition successfully to ongoing weight loss or maintenance.
It's too soon for me to tell you how well I'm complying, but I would argue, and it's been my experience so far, that severely restricting calories on one day is easier than thinking about calorie intake for every meal and snack.
Admittedly this is what drew me to alternate day fasting. When I first joined here, I found worrying about food and calories every minute of the day, everyday, overwhelming, and the fast days gave me a freeing feeling of all that pressure. But eventually I got used to the whole calorie counting thing and I transitioned over to a normal everyday deficit. I did ADF for 4mths and lost the majority of my weight doing so (24lbs).
OP if it works for you and you can easily comply then you will get results. My only advice is not to to dip below your TDEE on up days, and if you find yourself bingeing on those days then fasting is not a good fit for you.0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Addressing the error in the common usage can help people understand why they may appear more toned even when the scale doesn't move. It can help take the focus off the number on the scale and shifts it to non-scale victories such as clothes fitting better, etc.
Common usage may be ambiguous, but ambiguity isn't incorrectness. The person you initially called out made a statement that unambiguously was using weight to mean "weight for a fixed volume," and that attempted to explain why someone might see no scale movement despite eating at a deficit. Claiming that "weight" can't be used that way didn't reduce ambiguity or add useful information.
0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Addressing the error in the common usage can help people understand why they may appear more toned even when the scale doesn't move. It can help take the focus off the number on the scale and shifts it to non-scale victories such as clothes fitting better, etc.
Common usage may be ambiguous, but ambiguity isn't incorrectness. The person you initially called out made a statement that unambiguously was using weight to mean "weight for a fixed volume," and that attempted to explain why someone might see no scale movement despite eating at a deficit. Claiming that "weight" can't be used that way didn't reduce ambiguity or add useful information.
Then why not write that muscle takes up less space than fat, pound for pound? I'm not saying that common usage is ambiguous. I'm saying that it's wrong.0 -
Because no one talks that way. "I take up less space than you, pound for pound." "Feathers take up more space than lead, pound for pound." People understand the common usage: "X weighs more than Y".
Well, 99% of people. On a diet forum there are always some who claim it's wrong. It's like a law of the internet.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions