You NEED to stop calorie counting and restricting!
Options
Replies
-
That had already been affirmed. More than once.MissusMoon wrote: »
I'm confused. Why are people cheering for someone who ate a diet composed almost entirely of junk food?MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
A blog post. And why for the love of all things does it always wind up being "Well if you're going to only eat donuts"?!?!?! Do you know that someone right here on MFP put the known science and physiology to the test?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
He says he did this unhealthy thing because he didn't believe it was possible and wanted to see for himself - is that why they're applauding? Because he didn't believe it and now does?
Because it affirmed that CICO is what weight is based on. As stated probablly six point seven billion times, no one is advocating for an all garbage diet. But, as a wise man said....
4 -
That had already been affirmed. More than once.MissusMoon wrote: »
I'm confused. Why are people cheering for someone who ate a diet composed almost entirely of junk food?MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
A blog post. And why for the love of all things does it always wind up being "Well if you're going to only eat donuts"?!?!?! Do you know that someone right here on MFP put the known science and physiology to the test?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
He says he did this unhealthy thing because he didn't believe it was possible and wanted to see for himself - is that why they're applauding? Because he didn't believe it and now does?
Because it affirmed that CICO is what weight is based on. As stated probablly six point seven billion times, no one is advocating for an all garbage diet. But, as a wise man said....
Oh, I'd agree. But we are on what has been derailed into a sugar thread, after all
4 -
RosieRose7673 wrote: »RosieRose7673 wrote: »shortvixen09 wrote: »People can lose weight differently. Some lucky folks have the metabolism to do so. Some people say it don't matter what you eat, as looking as you work it off. However, you just can't go wrong with calories counting. Maybe tough at times but now that I think about, it's probably the most simple thing to do. I'd die if I had to work everything I WANT to eat off. Lol.
My sister is one of the "lucky" ones she can eat whatever she wants but she stays a stick, it's not sustainable though her metabolism will slow as she gets older and she's going to start gaining if she doesn't start eating at maintenance instead of a surplus
She doesn't eat at surplus, she eats at maintanece now. She is not lucky unless she is tall. Her maintenance will go down as she gets older.
I find that INCREDIBLY hard to believe as she eats actual crap and never exercises...she's around 5"5? Or 5"6? She just has an extremely thin body type
You can eat crap and still eat at maintenance. She might not excerise but she may be active in her day to day life.
I assure you she isn't lol. She's a high school student who sits 8 hours a day and does 0 exercise at home. I understand that you can eat crap and still be at maintenance.
She's in high school. People don't stop maturing until into their twenties. She likely needs extra energy for growth.
Do you live with her? Are you by her side 24/7? If not, it's likely she doesn't eat that way all the time.
That's literally what I said in my first post! Lol. I mentioned her metabolism would slow as she got older and it would catch up with her.
Yes I live with her
You also said that she is eating a surplus when she is maintaining her weight. Another poster and I were just telling you that if she is maintaining her weight, she is not eating a surplus.
I posted that to give you a few reasons as to why it may seem like she eats at a surplus.
I was just assuming based on the way she eats and her lack of an active lifestyle that she was. I have no idea for certain because unlike me she doesn't count calories lol
I'm late to the conversations, but just about the only time someone would lose weight eating at a surplus is if they have some medical issue that needs immediate attention. Hyperthyroidism comes to mind, as does cancer.
Other than those medical issues, whatever your weight is doing is supported by whether you eat too much, too little, or just about right.
You may not literally be counting calories but, setting aside those medical conditions, a deficit is 100% required to lose weight.
4 -
The guy is there QEDing something that is old news, something he should've just understood and believed. Hardly calls for applause IMO. When he figures out and proves something new, I'll applaud.MissusMoon wrote: »
That had already been affirmed. More than once.MissusMoon wrote: »
I'm confused. Why are people cheering for someone who ate a diet composed almost entirely of junk food?MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
A blog post. And why for the love of all things does it always wind up being "Well if you're going to only eat donuts"?!?!?! Do you know that someone right here on MFP put the known science and physiology to the test?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
He says he did this unhealthy thing because he didn't believe it was possible and wanted to see for himself - is that why they're applauding? Because he didn't believe it and now does?
Because it affirmed that CICO is what weight is based on. As stated probablly six point seven billion times, no one is advocating for an all garbage diet. But, as a wise man said....
Oh, I'd agree. But we are on what has been derailed into a sugar thread, after all
0 -
RosieRose7673 wrote: »RosieRose7673 wrote: »shortvixen09 wrote: »People can lose weight differently. Some lucky folks have the metabolism to do so. Some people say it don't matter what you eat, as looking as you work it off. However, you just can't go wrong with calories counting. Maybe tough at times but now that I think about, it's probably the most simple thing to do. I'd die if I had to work everything I WANT to eat off. Lol.
My sister is one of the "lucky" ones she can eat whatever she wants but she stays a stick, it's not sustainable though her metabolism will slow as she gets older and she's going to start gaining if she doesn't start eating at maintenance instead of a surplus
She doesn't eat at surplus, she eats at maintanece now. She is not lucky unless she is tall. Her maintenance will go down as she gets older.
I find that INCREDIBLY hard to believe as she eats actual crap and never exercises...she's around 5"5? Or 5"6? She just has an extremely thin body type
You can eat crap and still eat at maintenance. She might not excerise but she may be active in her day to day life.
I assure you she isn't lol. She's a high school student who sits 8 hours a day and does 0 exercise at home. I understand that you can eat crap and still be at maintenance.
She's in high school. People don't stop maturing until into their twenties. She likely needs extra energy for growth.
Do you live with her? Are you by her side 24/7? If not, it's likely she doesn't eat that way all the time.
That's literally what I said in my first post! Lol. I mentioned her metabolism would slow as she got older and it would catch up with her.
Yes I live with her
You also said that she is eating a surplus when she is maintaining her weight. Another poster and I were just telling you that if she is maintaining her weight, she is not eating a surplus.
I posted that to give you a few reasons as to why it may seem like she eats at a surplus.
I was just assuming based on the way she eats and her lack of an active lifestyle that she was. I have no idea for certain because unlike me she doesn't count calories lol
You may not literally be counting calories but, setting aside those medical conditions, a deficit is 100% required to lose weight.
I agree 100%. I'm not sure if you read my original post but I was ranting about people who had told me CICO wasn't a thing ...the subject line was shameless clickbait LOL
What you walked into late was a detailed conversation about how my sister maintains her weight0 -
The guy is there QEDing something that is old news, something he should've just understood and believed. Hardly calls for applause IMO. When he figures out and proves something new, I'll applaud.MissusMoon wrote: »
That had already been affirmed. More than once.MissusMoon wrote: »
I'm confused. Why are people cheering for someone who ate a diet composed almost entirely of junk food?MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
A blog post. And why for the love of all things does it always wind up being "Well if you're going to only eat donuts"?!?!?! Do you know that someone right here on MFP put the known science and physiology to the test?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
He says he did this unhealthy thing because he didn't believe it was possible and wanted to see for himself - is that why they're applauding? Because he didn't believe it and now does?
Because it affirmed that CICO is what weight is based on. As stated probablly six point seven billion times, no one is advocating for an all garbage diet. But, as a wise man said....
Oh, I'd agree. But we are on what has been derailed into a sugar thread, after all
Did you happen to notice the context in which I brought the thread up to begin with by chance?4 -
I've seen it in tons of vegans testimonials too, that their lifestyle allows for ENDLESS calorie consumption
It's ridiculous!!2 -
I'm on the Keto diet. If I don't log and keep a strict count of my intake I could end up going out of my ketosis. #everdaycounts
2 -
-
Some people are just ignorant of the effect of calories on weight. I know people who cut out high sodium food to treat high blood pressure and lost weight. So they figured it was sodium causing their obesity, not their poor eating habits and sedentary lifestyles. Of course, sodium has no effect on weight except for fluid retention. I explained to them that omitting this huge class of food reduced their daily calorie intake so they lost weight, but they refused to believe it. But guess what? As soon as they discovered low and no sodium options, the weight came back. And they still blame sodium for everything to this day. They don't want to hear portion control or calories.5
-
If people want to stay fat they can tell themselves whatever they want. I'm going to count calories and restrict because I'm not gonna be fat!7
-
I was curious when I saw the title of this post. I also was hearing the message of "you don't need to count calories." It's pretty popular in the natural health arena. It's in there with "intuitive eating." I tried it. This is where it got me. I tried just eating healthy and exercising. I'm so wishing I hadn't followed that advice. Because sure, real, whole natural foods are healthy. But you can still overeat them. You can still use too big of portion sizes. So now I'm here, working on getting my life back on track after gaining a lot of weight. For me, counting calories is the way to go!3
-
it's a very low carb/high fat/moderate protein diet
https://www.verywell.com/what-is-a-ketogenic-diet-2241628What Do People Eat on Ketogenic Diet?
(The Ketogenic Diet for Epilepsy is a special case of a ketogenic diet. The following are more general guidelines for ketogenic diets.
Carbohydrate - Most of what determines how ketogenic a diet is how much carbohydrate is eaten, as well the individual's own metabolism and activity level. A diet of less than 50 or 60 grams of net (effective) carbohydrate per day is generally ketogenic. However, athletes and people with healthy metabolisms may be able to eat 100 or more grams of net carbohydrate in a day and maintain a good level of ketosis, while an older sedentary person with Type 2 diabetes may have to eat less than 30 net grams to achieve the same level.
Protein - When people first reduce carbohydrates in their diets, it doesn't seem as though the amount of protein they eat is as important to ketosis as it often becomes later on. For example, people on the Atkins diet often eat fairly large amounts of protein in the early stages and remain in ketosis. However, over time some (perhaps most) people need to be more careful about the amount of protein they eat as (anecdotally) the bodies of many people seem to "get better" at converting protein into glucose (gluconeogenesis). At that point, each individual needs to experiment to see if too much protein is throwing them out of ketosis and adjust as necessary.
Fat - Most of the calories in a ketogenic diet come from fat, which is used for energy. The exact amount of fat a person needs to eat will depend on carbohydrate and protein intake, how many calories they use during the day, and whether they are losing weight (using their body fat for energy). Depending on these factors, somewhere in the range of 60-80% of calories will come from fats on a ketogenic diet (even up to 90% on, for example, the Ketogenic Diet for Epilepsy). People tend not to overeat on diets this high in fat, so calorie counting is rarely necessary.
When eating this large amount of fat, you can imagine that the types of fats consumed are very important. Many authors advise steering clear of oils that are high in polyunsaturated omega-6 fats (soy, corn, cottonseed, safflower, etc). Dr. Stephen Phinney, who has been doing research on ketogenic diets since the 1980's, has observed that people don't do as well when they are consuming a lot of these oils (mayonnaise and salad dressings are a common source). This could be because omega-6 fats can be inflammatory, especially in large amounts, or some other factor, but people didn't feel as well or perform as well athletically in his experiments.
On the other hand, fats high in medium-chain triglycerides, such as coconut oil and MCT oil are often encouraged, as these fats are easily turned into ketones by the body. In general, people on ketogenic diets tend to consume a lot of foods high in monounsaturated and saturated fats such as olive oil, butter (often butter from grass-fed cows is recommended), avocado, and cheeses. The "high oleic" types of safflower and sunflower oils (but not the regular forms of these oils) are also good choices, as they are high in monounsaturated fats and low in polyunsaturated fats.3 -
shortvixen09 wrote: »People can lose weight differently. Some lucky folks have the metabolism to do so. Some people say it don't matter what you eat, as looking as you work it off. However, you just can't go wrong with calories counting. Maybe tough at times but now that I think about, it's probably the most simple thing to do. I'd die if I had to work everything I WANT to eat off. Lol.
My sister is one of the "lucky" ones she can eat whatever she wants but she stays a stick, it's not sustainable though her metabolism will slow as she gets older and she's going to start gaining if she doesn't start eating at maintenance instead of a surplus
She doesn't eat at surplus, she eats at maintanece now. She is not lucky unless she is tall. Her maintenance will go down as she gets older.
I find that INCREDIBLY hard to believe as she eats actual crap and never exercises...she's around 5"5? Or 5"6? She just has an extremely thin body type
You can eat crap and still eat at maintenance. She might not excerise but she may be active in her day to day life.
I assure you she isn't lol. She's a high school student who sits 8 hours a day and does 0 exercise at home. I understand that you can eat crap and still be at maintenance.
High school students often walk to school, climb up and down stairs between each class, take phys ed, have stress, stand up and walk around with their friends, dance at parties, etc. And just because what she eats is craps doesn't necessarily mean she eats a lot of it. High school students are also notorious for skipping breakfast.8 -
ScarletCurlz wrote: »I was curious when I saw the title of this post. I also was hearing the message of "you don't need to count calories." It's pretty popular in the natural health arena. It's in there with "intuitive eating." I tried it. This is where it got me. I tried just eating healthy and exercising. I'm so wishing I hadn't followed that advice. Because sure, real, whole natural foods are healthy. But you can still overeat them. You can still use too big of portion sizes. So now I'm here, working on getting my life back on track after gaining a lot of weight. For me, counting calories is the way to go!
Agreed!!1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I have stated somewhere else on this site that my daughter's new registered dietician emphatically stated to not count calories. I assume she tells all her patients. So you can lose weight without counting calories.
My assumption is that unlike most people on this site, who apparently have had good success counting calories, it does not reflect the overall population. I doubt most people could weigh and measure food and count calories for more than a couple of weeks.
What did the dietician say to do instead? Is it portion control? That will result in a weight loss due to cutting overall food quantity down resulting in cutting calories as long as the portions are smaller than what she normally eats at her current weight. But how will she fine tune the loss as her weight goes down without calorie counting or measuring of some type? Will the dietician make her portion sizes smaller and smaller over time (if that is the method)?3 -
shortvixen09 wrote: »People can lose weight differently. Some lucky folks have the metabolism to do so. Some people say it don't matter what you eat, as looking as you work it off. However, you just can't go wrong with calories counting. Maybe tough at times but now that I think about, it's probably the most simple thing to do. I'd die if I had to work everything I WANT to eat off. Lol.
My sister is one of the "lucky" ones she can eat whatever she wants but she stays a stick, it's not sustainable though her metabolism will slow as she gets older and she's going to start gaining if she doesn't start eating at maintenance instead of a surplus
She doesn't eat at surplus, she eats at maintanece now. She is not lucky unless she is tall. Her maintenance will go down as she gets older.
I find that INCREDIBLY hard to believe as she eats actual crap and never exercises...she's around 5"5? Or 5"6? She just has an extremely thin body type
I think some people burn calories at different rates than others. My brother was skinny when we were growing up. We used to say he had a "hollow leg". Lol.5 -
Most teenagers can eat a lot and not gain weight.5
-
rainbowbow wrote: »Don't get me started on the people like durianrider and freelee who say all kinds of ridiculous nonsense. They are like "smash in the calories! no one gets fat off fruit!" but then they are biking 120k a day on their bikes and burning thousands and thousands of calories each and every day.
If you want someone who can give you some information based on actual science and actual facts NOT nonsense woo woo i suggest the following:
Unnatural Vegan
OMG she and him say SO much that makes no sense! I found the unnatural vegan through my research and she makes so much more logical sense
Freelee is confusing. I watched a video of hers where she advocated eating lots and lots of bananas. Those bananas in large quantities have many calories! I don't get how she stays so slim even with all the biking and working out she does.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions