If calories in-calories out is immutable...

1234568»

Replies

  • stealthq
    stealthq Posts: 4,298 Member
    robertw486 wrote: »
    lorib642 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.
  • rankinsect
    rankinsect Posts: 2,238 Member
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    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.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    mandy318 wrote: »
    JaneiR36 wrote: »
    _Terrapin_ wrote: »
    JaneiR36 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.
  • allyphoe
    allyphoe Posts: 618 Member
    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.
  • ClosetBayesian
    ClosetBayesian Posts: 836 Member
    allyphoe wrote: »
    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.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    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.

Categories