The more I exercise, the more my body adapts to calories and I can't slim further.
rebeccabardet
Posts: 5 Member
Hi everyone -- I've been a Zumba teacher for three years, and I've noticed how I can exercise myself to oblivion (and exhaustion) and still have thick legs. I don't just mean like big calves, but my whole body seems to have what my brother calls a 'sheath of fat', the shakiest of it being on my legs. I am back on MFP because I like to see all the ways I sneak in food without noticing - I appreciate the self-accountability. My real question is whether one can REALLY just add back into one's daily calorie goal the calories burned? I am often under my daily goal numbers, and MFP cheerfully tells me that in 5 weeks I'll weigh some super dream-like number on the scale. If that were true, I would weigh it! So what gives? Should I ignore the calories burned? Should I even bother documenting the daily exercise?
0
Replies
-
I can never add back in all the calories I've supposedly burned based on MFP's calculations. I usually only eat up to X amount maximum no matter how much I exercise and how many calories I've supposedly accrued. For example, yesterday, according to MFP, I accrued 348 extra calories from exercise. I "ate back" about 100 which brought me up to still under 1500. Not everyone has this issue - some people eat back all their calories and lose. But I suppose some people don't. I'm one of those and perhaps you are too.
How about eating back only, say, half of your workout calories and see if you start losing again, and then experimenting and playing around with the number you can get away with, on averge?0 -
rebeccabardet wrote: »Hi everyone -- I've been a Zumba teacher for three years, and I've noticed how I can exercise myself to oblivion (and exhaustion) and still have thick legs. I don't just mean like big calves, but my whole body seems to have what my brother calls a 'sheath of fat', the shakiest of it being on my legs. I am back on MFP because I like to see all the ways I sneak in food without noticing - I appreciate the self-accountability. My real question is whether one can REALLY just add back into one's daily calorie goal the calories burned? I am often under my daily goal numbers, and MFP cheerfully tells me that in 5 weeks I'll weigh some super dream-like number on the scale. If that were true, I would weigh it! So what gives? Should I ignore the calories burned? Should I even bother documenting the daily exercise?
MFP is set up to give you your targets without any exercise...meaning your activity level does not include any exercise. Suffice it to say, if you exercise regularly, your activity level would exceed your activity level without exercise...exercise is unaccounted for activity and the way you account for it with MFP is to log it and earn calories to eat back. Other calculators include exercise in your activity level and thus some estimate of those requisite calories would be included in your targets...it's just common sense...you have to account for that activity somewhere. The biggest issue most people have is overestimating calories burned...often substantially...they trust this and other data bases as gospel, and they're far from it. It's one of the reasons I prefer the TDEE method.
As far as the little projection goes, just ignore it...it's a silly, overly simplified equation that assumes linearity in weight loss...it's a stupid and worthless tool...losing weight isn't as simple as cutting X calories per day and linearly losing Y Lbs per week.
I lost 40 Lbs easily following MFP's method of eating back calories...but I did a lot of research in regards to the calories I burned and used multiple sources for helping me determine that...and then I still knocked some % off the most conservative estimate to account for estimation error in both calories out as well as inherent logging errors of calories in.
0 -
MFP is likely overestimating calories burned for Zumba. It overestimates for most exercise. Many people here have had success with eating back 50-75% of MFP exercise calories.
Start with that, and if after a month you're not losing then reduce overall calories by 100. If after a month you're losing too quickly (and it sounds like you're a healthy weight already so too quickly is probably > 0.5lb per wk and may even be > 0.25lb per wk) then add 100 to your overall cals. Rinse and repeat until you get a healthy rate of loss.
ETA: And yes, you should be eating at least some exercise calories back. Especially if you're at or near a healthy weight.0 -
Wow, thanks everybody. I've never been part of a forum before, and am really giddy to have (quality!) feedback so soon.0
-
Yes, you can. But realize that all of this cals in and cals out stuff is just a series of estimates. If your estimates are off, then your progress probably will be too.rebeccabardet wrote: »My real question is whether one can REALLY just add back into one's daily calorie goal the calories burned?
Again, it's all about estimates. If you're logging food and exercises as consistently and as accurately as you can and still not making any progress, then it's time to change something. You can enter fewer exercise cals, you can eat a little less, you can do a bit of both. Lots of ways to skin this cat.rebeccabardet wrote: »I am often under my daily goal numbers, and MFP cheerfully tells me that in 5 weeks I'll weigh some super dream-like number on the scale. If that were true, I would weigh it! So what gives? Should I ignore the calories burned? Should I even bother documenting the daily exercise?0 -
I eat back half my exercise calories per MFP's calculations (for my daily 5 mile walk, comes out about 120 calories over what my Garmin calcs w/out heart rate monitor, about spot on when I'm wearing my heart-rate monitor.).
Try not eating back everything it gives you, dropping by a 100 or calories a time until you're in loss again.
0 -
There isn't any rule on eating back calories or how well the estimates will work for you. They are just estimates so you'll have to kinda figure it out as you go along. A lot of people start by eating back half the exercise calories then move up or down but it's all estimates so you'll have to figure out your true calories burned by a lot of trial and error.0
-
The other factor is how carefully one logs what they eat. If a person is not using a digital kitchen scale to weigh out solids including ground (peanut butter) and grated (cheese) solids, and using measuring cups and spoons to measure out liquids they are likely not measuring properly. If they don't make sure of the database entries to make sure they match up with what you are logging. There too inaccuracies arise. For example the cocoa powder I use for my protein shake in the morning. I just purchased a new container, and as usual I compared the nutrition information since it was a new container even though it was the same brand and product. Guess what, the old calorie information 6g=15 calories, the new one 6g=20 calories. Looking at the two the colour of the new one is quite a bit darker, hence, even though pure cocoa, the variations from different amounts of cocoa butter in it changes the calories even for the same brand, same product. In other words, if your logging of calories eaten is as accurate as you can make it, then you can start eating say half your Zumba calories, if weight loss is too fast after 4 weeks, eat more. If it is slower, eat a bit less.0
-
Ignore the 5 week prediction. It isn't correct for the majority of people.
As has been stated, the calculators are all estimators. Pick one and stick with it for 4 weeks. Then review your progress. Losing just right? Keep on keepin' on. Losing too slowly? Cut your calories more. Losing too quickly? Add in a few calories.0 -
Keep in mind that as one gets older, their body becomes more metabolically challenged. They naturally become more insulin resistant and as such, their body doesn't deal with the excess glucose in their blood as well, so it stores it as fat. No matter how much exercise you get, you'll never escape this problem without changing how you eat and reconsidering what is "healthy".
Excess glucose obviously comes from added sugars, but it also comes from foods that are converted quickly to sugar in the blood such as grains like wheat and pasta, starches like potato and rice and of course sugars.
The body really wants more fats (saturated, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated... NOT trans).
If you can adjust to this, you'll find your body won't hold onto the excess as easily. It's simple science and is being proven over and over and over.0 -
Keep in mind that as one gets older, their body becomes more metabolically challenged. They naturally become more insulin resistant and as such, their body doesn't deal with the excess glucose in their blood as well, so it stores it as fat. No matter how much exercise you get, you'll never escape this problem without changing how you eat and reconsidering what is "healthy".
Excess glucose obviously comes from added sugars, but it also comes from foods that are converted quickly to sugar in the blood such as grains like wheat and pasta, starches like potato and rice and of course sugars.
The body really wants more fats (saturated, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated... NOT trans).
If you can adjust to this, you'll find your body won't hold onto the excess as easily. It's simple science and is being proven over and over and over.
Just . . . NO. In a state of calorie deficit glucose will not be stored as fat. If you claim it does, I would love to see peer reviewed studies that show this. Original poster, ignore all this post.0 -
Keep in mind that as one gets older, their body becomes more metabolically challenged. They naturally become more insulin resistant and as such, their body doesn't deal with the excess glucose in their blood as well, so it stores it as fat. No matter how much exercise you get, you'll never escape this problem without changing how you eat and reconsidering what is "healthy".
Excess glucose obviously comes from added sugars, but it also comes from foods that are converted quickly to sugar in the blood such as grains like wheat and pasta, starches like potato and rice and of course sugars.
The body really wants more fats (saturated, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated... NOT trans).
If you can adjust to this, you'll find your body won't hold onto the excess as easily. It's simple science and is being proven over and over and over.
Sorry, there is just too much incorrect information in this post.0 -
Suit yourself.
It's proven that the body requires ZERO carbohydrates, it's not a macro that is required as the body has the ability to produce all the glucose it requires. That said, carbs are great, but we've been eating so much of them that we've become sick and obese over the past 40 years. (Since Ansel Keys anti-fat recommendations became promoted)
Just cutting back on sugars, grains and starches will, by default, reduce the excess fats.
If the OP is having trouble finding a way to reduce the extra fat, it's time to try something different.
BTW, here are 23 studies that prove that a LCHF diet works:
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/0 -
Keep in mind that as one gets older, their body becomes more metabolically challenged. They naturally become more insulin resistant and as such, their body doesn't deal with the excess glucose in their blood as well, so it stores it as fat. No matter how much exercise you get, you'll never escape this problem without changing how you eat and reconsidering what is "healthy".
Excess glucose obviously comes from added sugars, but it also comes from foods that are converted quickly to sugar in the blood such as grains like wheat and pasta, starches like potato and rice and of course sugars.
The body really wants more fats (saturated, monounsaturated, polyunsaturated... NOT trans).
If you can adjust to this, you'll find your body won't hold onto the excess as easily. It's simple science and is being proven over and over and over.
Sorry that's just not true OP. I've reached 15% body fat and I'm 45, with just the same amount of calories as when I was 19.
This is on a pretty high carb diet, with syrup, wine, pasta etc etc.
Calories in calories out.
I also time my nutrients but it still all works out, whether I was eating one big meal at night or 25 small ones.0 -
I agree with edival. Insulin resistance is a real thing. That's why so many diabetics are overweight no matter how much they cut calories. Same with hypothyroidism and women with PCOS. It just makes things harder. What you eat is just as important as how much you eat.0
-
Suit yourself.
It's proven that the body requires ZERO carbohydrates, it's not a macro that is required as the body has the ability to produce all the glucose it requires. That said, carbs are great, but we've been eating so much of them that we've become sick and obese over the past 40 years. (Since Ansel Keys anti-fat recommendations became promoted)
Just cutting back on sugars, grains and starches will, by default, reduce the excess fats.
If the OP is having trouble finding a way to reduce the extra fat, it's time to try something different.
BTW, here are 23 studies that prove that a LCHF diet works:
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
I think maybe you should study the diets of East African runners, or some olympic athletes, or many of the fittest, strongest and leanest people on this very website!
0 -
Suit yourself.
It's proven that the body requires ZERO carbohydrates, it's not a macro that is required as the body has the ability to produce all the glucose it requires. That said, carbs are great, but we've been eating so much of them that we've become sick and obese over the past 40 years. (Since Ansel Keys anti-fat recommendations became promoted)
Just cutting back on sugars, grains and starches will, by default, reduce the excess fats.
If the OP is having trouble finding a way to reduce the extra fat, it's time to try something different.
BTW, here are 23 studies that prove that a LCHF diet works:
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
The anti-fat recommendations were never widely done by the population. Carbs are NOT the reason people are overweight.
Cutting back on CALORIES will reduce excess fats.
And it's proven your body requires barely 60 grams of protein and fats per day which is way below your energy needs so that you need ZERO carbohydrates is completely and utterly irrelevant because if you only ate the macronutrients you needed without paying attention to your energy needs, you'd starve to death all the same.0 -
Sorry that's just not true OP. I've reached 15% body fat and I'm 45, with just the same amount of calories as when I was 19.
This is on a pretty high carb diet, with syrup, wine, pasta etc etc.
Calories in calories out.
I also time my nutrients but it still all works out, whether I was eating one big meal at night or 25 small ones.
Fair enough, not everyone is metabolically challenged. Many people can continue to eat as many carbs as they wish and stay thin. There are 2 parts to this though, 1 is that they stay thin, but are still in fact, metabolically challenged and as such have a very high amount of visceral fat. This is fat that surrounds the organs and is a very high indicator of heart disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, among other issues.
The second part is that they're genetically blessed with having a perfect metabolism and have nothing to worry about.
This is something that everyone "can" benefit hugely from, but not everyone needs to do it, such as yourself.
Having the knowledge that there are alternatives to eating, and perhaps better methods isn't a bad thing and attacking an alternative will only do a disservice to the OP.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
if you only ate the macronutrients you needed without paying attention to your energy needs, you'd starve to death all the same.
Well, yeah but no insulin spikes!
OP, you didn't mention how you determine your calories IN. When someone isn't losing, that is usually the issue. If you don't have a food scale, get one, and start weighing all solids. Also take a look at the entries you are using in the database and make sure they are accurate. If you are using any existing entries that say "generic" or "homemade" they could very well be wrong. Keep at it for a couple of weeks and it will probably jump off the page where your numbers are going wrong. (it did for me - I would have sworn I was eating 1400-1500 cal and I was usually eating more like 1800-1900) Once I started using the food scale, I lost the 15 lbs I had been trying to lose for years.0 -
The anti-fat recommendations were never widely done by the population. Carbs are NOT the reason people are overweight.
Cutting back on CALORIES will reduce excess fats.
And it's proven your body requires barely 60 grams of protein and fats per day which is way below your energy needs so that you need ZERO carbohydrates is completely and utterly irrelevant because if you only ate the macronutrients you needed without paying attention to your energy needs, you'd starve to death all the same.
The anti-fat regulations were followed quite well actually, but not in the way you're thinking. What happened is that food producers took the recommendations and removed fat from everything they could (think yogurt as one item) and replaced the tasty fat with added sugar. All this extra sugar is far from good for our bodies, in fact, many people say it's toxic (Look up author Dr. Robert Lustig).
It's funny that for macronutrients, carbs and protein provide 4 kCal of energy, but fats provide 9 kCal... that's a huge boost in energy. Also, fats are satiating and as such you don't need as much and aren't hungry all the time, whereas carbs cause an insulin spike and follow with an insulin crash which causes hunger as your body needs more sugars for energy. Oh, also, your body can hold onto about 2000 calories of energy in the form of glucose, whereas your body can store about 15,000 calories of energy in fats. This is why those who are fat adapted can run/bike, etc for very long times (6-10+ hours) on just water, whereas someone who uses glucose as energy require additional fuel during that same time.
What you say is true for someone who hasn't converted their body to using fat for energy, if you choose to fast as a glucose burner, you would in fact starve to death as your body requires glucose and doesn't have access to the fats as easily.0 -
The anti-fat recommendations were never widely done by the population. Carbs are NOT the reason people are overweight.
Cutting back on CALORIES will reduce excess fats.
And it's proven your body requires barely 60 grams of protein and fats per day which is way below your energy needs so that you need ZERO carbohydrates is completely and utterly irrelevant because if you only ate the macronutrients you needed without paying attention to your energy needs, you'd starve to death all the same.
The anti-fat regulations were followed quite well actually, but not in the way you're thinking. What happened is that food producers took the recommendations and removed fat from everything they could (think yogurt as one item) and replaced the tasty fat with added sugar. All this extra sugar is far from good for our bodies, in fact, many people say it's toxic (Look up author Dr. Robert Lustig).
It's funny that for macronutrients, carbs and protein provide 4 kCal of energy, but fats provide 9 kCal... that's a huge boost in energy. Also, fats are satiating and as such you don't need as much and aren't hungry all the time, whereas carbs cause an insulin spike and follow with an insulin crash which causes hunger as your body needs more sugars for energy. Oh, also, your body can hold onto about 2000 calories of energy in the form of glucose, whereas your body can store about 15,000 calories of energy in fats. This is why those who are fat adapted can run/bike, etc for very long times (6-10+ hours) on just water, whereas someone who uses glucose as energy require additional fuel during that same time.
What you say is true for someone who hasn't converted their body to using fat for energy, if you choose to fast as a glucose burner, you would in fact starve to death as your body requires glucose and doesn't have access to the fats as easily.
I fail to see what your keto evangelism has to do with the OP's question about eating back exercise calories.0 -
Sorry that's just not true OP. I've reached 15% body fat and I'm 45, with just the same amount of calories as when I was 19.
This is on a pretty high carb diet, with syrup, wine, pasta etc etc.
Calories in calories out.
I also time my nutrients but it still all works out, whether I was eating one big meal at night or 25 small ones.
Fair enough, not everyone is metabolically challenged. Many people can continue to eat as many carbs as they wish and stay thin. There are 2 parts to this though, 1 is that they stay thin, but are still in fact, metabolically challenged and as such have a very high amount of visceral fat. This is fat that surrounds the organs and is a very high indicator of heart disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, among other issues.
The second part is that they're genetically blessed with having a perfect metabolism and have nothing to worry about.
This is something that everyone "can" benefit hugely from, but not everyone needs to do it, such as yourself.
Having the knowledge that there are alternatives to eating, and perhaps better methods isn't a bad thing and attacking an alternative will only do a disservice to the OP.
So if you eat carbs and are thin you're either genetically blessed or you're skinny fat and will have heart disease? Oh, okay.
When you hear hoof beats, think of horses, not zebras. OP is not losing weight therefore the first thing to do is to increase her caloric deficit. She can do that by cutting calories (carbs, fat protein, doesn't matter what combo) or increasing exercise or a combination. Since it sounds like she already is exercising a fair bit, the easiest thing to do is look at her calorie intake. She provides no details as to how many calories she's eating. My suggestion is to look at what she's been logging and then cut from there.0 -
Sorry that's just not true OP. I've reached 15% body fat and I'm 45, with just the same amount of calories as when I was 19.
This is on a pretty high carb diet, with syrup, wine, pasta etc etc.
Calories in calories out.
I also time my nutrients but it still all works out, whether I was eating one big meal at night or 25 small ones.
Fair enough, not everyone is metabolically challenged. Many people can continue to eat as many carbs as they wish and stay thin. There are 2 parts to this though, 1 is that they stay thin, but are still in fact, metabolically challenged and as such have a very high amount of visceral fat. This is fat that surrounds the organs and is a very high indicator of heart disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, among other issues.
The second part is that they're genetically blessed with having a perfect metabolism and have nothing to worry about.
This is something that everyone "can" benefit hugely from, but not everyone needs to do it, such as yourself.
Having the knowledge that there are alternatives to eating, and perhaps better methods isn't a bad thing and attacking an alternative will only do a disservice to the OP.Sorry that's just not true OP. I've reached 15% body fat and I'm 45, with just the same amount of calories as when I was 19.
This is on a pretty high carb diet, with syrup, wine, pasta etc etc.
Calories in calories out.
I also time my nutrients but it still all works out, whether I was eating one big meal at night or 25 small ones.
Fair enough, not everyone is metabolically challenged. Many people can continue to eat as many carbs as they wish and stay thin. There are 2 parts to this though, 1 is that they stay thin, but are still in fact, metabolically challenged and as such have a very high amount of visceral fat. This is fat that surrounds the organs and is a very high indicator of heart disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, among other issues.
The second part is that they're genetically blessed with having a perfect metabolism and have nothing to worry about.
This is something that everyone "can" benefit hugely from, but not everyone needs to do it, such as yourself.
Having the knowledge that there are alternatives to eating, and perhaps better methods isn't a bad thing and attacking an alternative will only do a disservice to the OP.
Ahhh...typical low carb evangelism...it's either low carb or you must be eating as many carbs as you wish...
What about diets such as the Mediterranean diet (which I bring up because that is largely what my diet is founded upon)? This tends to be a diet high in whole grains, whole food starches (yes...even the devil potato...ermergerd) vegetables, fruit, lean protein, and healthy fats...it is not a diet of "eat as much as you wish"....I'm 41 and all of my health markers have improved dramatically...and I'm pretty friggin' lean and fit.
I don't think I'm genetically blessed with anything...I eat a healthy and balanced diet...you evangelicals are always trying to compare your low carb diet with eating whatever the hell you want...it doesn't work that way...compare apples to apples for a change and get off your friggin' preacher boxes.0 -
CICO is one way to look at it, but I guarantee one gram of sugar doesn't equal one gram of coconut oil to the body. The body treats both extremely differently.
Again, suit yourself, but in my opinion, it's worth educating yourself about the science.
I keep saying that if I were to go back 5 years and told myself what I know now, I wouldn't believe it. It often takes a major life change or frustration to be open to the idea because we've all been taught since birth that fat is bad and carbs ("healthy whole grains" etc) are good. This has been proven not to be the case and most people won't believe it until they're ready because it's extremely difficult to process new data into their firmly held beliefs, diet is one of those types of beliefs.
Just trying to be helpful is all.0 -
CICO is one way to look at it, but I guarantee one gram of sugar doesn't equal one gram of coconut oil to the body. The body treats both extremely differently.
Again, suit yourself, but in my opinion, it's worth educating yourself about the science.
I keep saying that if I were to go back 5 years and told myself what I know now, I wouldn't believe it. It often takes a major life change or frustration to be open to the idea because we've all been taught since birth that fat is bad and carbs ("healthy whole grains" etc) are good. This has been proven not to be the case and most people won't believe it until they're ready because it's extremely difficult to process new data into their firmly held beliefs, diet is one of those types of beliefs.
Just trying to be helpful is all.
So how exactly did I go about cleaning up all of my *kitten* blood work and dropping 40 Lbs eating evil whole grains then? I mean, the Mediterranean diet is pretty well prescribed and proven to be successful in fixing these issues...it isn't high fat...but according to you, it's a bad diet...even though it works just as well as your diet for most people....
Preacher man...0 -
The Mediterranean diet is actually not a bad diet at all. It has a good mix of healthy fats and lower carbs.
BTW, I never once mentioned anything about keto, the point I'm making is that metabolically, carb tolerance is different for each person and someone who is now gaining weight or unable to lose weight despite continuing to get the same amount of exercise indicates that there may be some metabolic damage that is causing such a frustration.
Oh, and CICO is valid when you can curb your hunger and not feel the need to eat all the time which is the largest drawback to the SAD... constant hunger (for most people).0 -
OP, do you strength train? Its relatively common that no matter how much cardio you do, it becomes increasingly more difficult to get lean. Some people can do so, others run into a brick wall.0
-
Sorry that's just not true OP. I've reached 15% body fat and I'm 45, with just the same amount of calories as when I was 19.
This is on a pretty high carb diet, with syrup, wine, pasta etc etc.
Calories in calories out.
I also time my nutrients but it still all works out, whether I was eating one big meal at night or 25 small ones.
Fair enough, not everyone is metabolically challenged. Many people can continue to eat as many carbs as they wish and stay thin. There are 2 parts to this though, 1 is that they stay thin, but are still in fact, metabolically challenged and as such have a very high amount of visceral fat. This is fat that surrounds the organs and is a very high indicator of heart disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, among other issues.
The second part is that they're genetically blessed with having a perfect metabolism and have nothing to worry about.
This is something that everyone "can" benefit hugely from, but not everyone needs to do it, such as yourself.
Having the knowledge that there are alternatives to eating, and perhaps better methods isn't a bad thing and attacking an alternative will only do a disservice to the OP.
Nothing is wrong with a low carb diet but it's not necessary to lose or maintain weight. There are no advantages unless you have specific medical conditions. I'm a perfect apple and gain most all my weight in viceral fat and that is my genetics, and it defies your statements. I lost 45 pounds in 4 and a half months and have kept out off almost 2 years on a diet that is over 45% carbs.
Viceral fat is the biggest issue but it's not related to carbs but rather overeating your energy requirements.0 -
Suit yourself.
It's proven that the body requires ZERO carbohydrates, it's not a macro that is required as the body has the ability to produce all the glucose it requires. That said, carbs are great, but we've been eating so much of them that we've become sick and obese over the past 40 years. (Since Ansel Keys anti-fat recommendations became promoted)
Just cutting back on sugars, grains and starches will, by default, reduce the excess fats.
If the OP is having trouble finding a way to reduce the extra fat, it's time to try something different.
BTW, here are 23 studies that prove that a LCHF diet works:
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
You keep saying "it's been proven". But the link you posted, just like all the other "proof" I've ever been offered, shows only that low carb gets better results than low fat. Not that low carb is the best way, or the only way, or even that low carb trumps CICO. Just that it's better than low fat.
I don't eat low carb or low fat. It's not like those are the only two options. I think it's slowly but surely becoming common knowledge that low fat was the wrong way to go. But no one here is suggesting low fat. CICO /= low fat.0 -
The Mediterranean diet is actually not a bad diet at all. It has a good mix of healthy fats and lower carbs.
BTW, I never once mentioned anything about keto, the point I'm making is that metabolically, carb tolerance is different for each person and someone who is now gaining weight or unable to lose weight despite continuing to get the same amount of exercise indicates that there may be some metabolic damage that is causing such a frustration.
Oh, and CICO is valid when you can curb your hunger and not feel the need to eat all the time which is the largest drawback to the SAD... constant hunger (for most people).
I don't think anyone really recommends the SAD...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions