Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people overeat and/or become obese? Is it harder than average for some to lose weight?
Replies
-
It is hard for people to accept that the reasons why people overeat are varied. It would be great to pinpoint that one reason why the average adult in the US is overweight, but we won't be able to accomplish that in this thread, unfortunately.
Speaking from personal experience, as someone who spent the first 30 years of her life as either overweight or obese, food has never been addicting to me. I used food to enhance my mood, or celebrate, or mark an occasion, or relieve stress. But, I'm not addicted to food. I can fast for 24 hours and feel physically fine. I can say no to food. I'm just heavily co-dependant.
To argue whether it is an addiction is arguing semantics to me. Whatever it is, it is a tremendous challenge to overcome for so many people. And, some people feel so helpless and out of control and beat down that they'll say it is an addiction, for lack of a better term. Overeating to the extent of becoming obese does have some parallels with substance abuse and addiction and carries similar consequences (ie, pre-mature death, alienation, depression).
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't think we can ignore the subject just because we don't like the word. Plus it does have an impact as to why more and more people are getting overweight.
http://drhyman.com/blog/2013/06/27/5-clues-you-are-addicted-to-sugar/
I actually think stuff like this, from people with programs to sell, are why so many people think they are addicted to stuff like sugar when the same phenomenon wouldn't have been called an addiction back in the '80s or '90s, probably (at least I don't remember anyone ever claiming to be addicted to food back then). They are told that it's an addiction, that if they crave tasty food or tend to overeat it there must be something wrong with them.
I also think that some of the research on the addiction hypothesis tends to be based on the notion that something is needed to explain why people overeat and get fat. But for me that is not surprising and requires nothing more than basic human biology + environment.
I actually agree on most of this. The only item of the 5 that would have any relevance is item 4.You have health or social problems (affecting school or work) because of food issues and yet keep eating the way you do despite negative consequences.
That would be an indicator of addiction according to the definitions both Stef and I provided. Item 5 would indicate dependence, but I'm pretty sure physical dependence has never been indicated in any of the studies I've read. That being said, there addictions considered truth today that would not have been considered so in the '80s, '90s.
I mostly agree on this too -- as I've often said, I do believe eating addiction is a real thing, although pretty rare, and I think those cases fit this (and typically aren't sugar specific, of course). My problem with how this is used by people like Hyman, however, is that it's too often interpreted as just meaning "getting fat" = health problem, so if one gets fat and is still tempted to eat high cal foods one likes, one must be "addicted," because how else could you allow it. Unlike drugs or perhaps even cigarettes, the link between consumption and the negative results (when health) are often harder for people to see or easier to deny -- when I used to abuse alcohol there were really clear negative results. When I overate, even when fat, it was much easier to think "oh, this one meal or day won't matter" -- longterm vs. shortterm pleasure issues. I think it's closer when people get clearly related health diagnosis and still cannot change, but even there I think it's more complicated.
There are too many other simpler explanations to assert that "addiction" is required (including simply the fact that many people who get obese to the point when they actually suffer health issues may not believe that weight loss is really possible or that what they'd have to do requires much more sacrifice than it does, which is one way the myths about weight loss are not helpful. Back when I first lost weight I presented it to myself as just being as fit and eating as well as possible, and if the weight loss happened, great, and if not at least I'd be as healthy as possible while fat. Even for me, who understood how it was supposed to work and generally trusts science, there was a difficulty in believing it would, since I never really felt in control of my weight (largely due to a lack of dieting history since most of my life up to then I'd not been fat).
People have all kinds of things that stand in their way mentally re weight loss.2 -
You have to admit that the sheer quantity is an issue.I think the reasons why we overeat is because people don't know what true portion sizes are. Plus people love to snack. We went to a parade for Memorial Day and people were snacking on candy and chips for long time before the parade started. They munch on snacks before and during movies. We went to see car racing and people were eating and snacking. At a baseball game people were eating lots and drinking plenty. We go to carnivals/fairs and people eat cotton candy, candy apples, fried dough, french fries... Americans snack a bunch more now than we did years ago. IMO.
Yup! People do snack more now than when I was a kid. Instead of expecting people (and kids) to wait and behave nicely until the next meal, they snack.
You go to the park for a couple hours, you bring snacks. Kids play soccer for 40 minutes, there is snacks. You run errands for a couple of hours, there's a snack.
Kids are growing up not knowing how to wait until the next meal.
Everything turns into an eating opportunity.
I see it at beaches too! People bring coolers of food and eat for a good portion of the time they arr under their umbrellas. The kids run back and forth from the water to eat snacks and drink soda.
but snacking isn't the issue...nor is the food that is being snacked on.
I don't think so...even here people are touting 6 small meals...eat a snack so you don't over eat later etc.
0 -
I eat mainly at of boredom or it is time to eat. I would do a lot better if I had someone to eat the right way with me. I think I would do a lot better if I had someone to eat the right foods with me. It seems like it is cheaper to eat the wrong foods. Food is like a drug! It can be very addictive! Is it the food or act of eating that is addictive?1
-
You have to admit that the sheer quantity is an issue.I think the reasons why we overeat is because people don't know what true portion sizes are. Plus people love to snack. We went to a parade for Memorial Day and people were snacking on candy and chips for long time before the parade started. They munch on snacks before and during movies. We went to see car racing and people were eating and snacking. At a baseball game people were eating lots and drinking plenty. We go to carnivals/fairs and people eat cotton candy, candy apples, fried dough, french fries... Americans snack a bunch more now than we did years ago. IMO.
Yup! People do snack more now than when I was a kid. Instead of expecting people (and kids) to wait and behave nicely until the next meal, they snack.
You go to the park for a couple hours, you bring snacks. Kids play soccer for 40 minutes, there is snacks. You run errands for a couple of hours, there's a snack.
Kids are growing up not knowing how to wait until the next meal.
Everything turns into an eating opportunity.
I see it at beaches too! People bring coolers of food and eat for a good portion of the time they arr under their umbrellas. The kids run back and forth from the water to eat snacks and drink soda.
but snacking isn't the issue...nor is the food that is being snacked on.
I don't think so...even here people are touting 6 small meals...eat a snack so you don't over eat later etc.
3 meals and 3 snacks at 1200 calories a day is only 200 calories a feeding for those of us on the 1200 calorie a day diet. Even at the average of 2000 calories a day (which BTW I would gain on) one not be able to eat the volume in snacks and beverages I see people eat and drink at events and outings regularly.
I tried to eat small 6 meals a day (6am, 9am, 12pm, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm) and had awful hunger and cravings. I have trouble with that method. IF works well for me eating in an 8 hour window between 10 am and 6 pm.
4 -
because food is delicious2
-
andycool22 wrote: »because food is delicious
Apparently you've never had my Mother In Laws Cooking ...4 -
You have to admit that the sheer quantity is an issue.I think the reasons why we overeat is because people don't know what true portion sizes are. Plus people love to snack. We went to a parade for Memorial Day and people were snacking on candy and chips for long time before the parade started. They munch on snacks before and during movies. We went to see car racing and people were eating and snacking. At a baseball game people were eating lots and drinking plenty. We go to carnivals/fairs and people eat cotton candy, candy apples, fried dough, french fries... Americans snack a bunch more now than we did years ago. IMO.
Yup! People do snack more now than when I was a kid. Instead of expecting people (and kids) to wait and behave nicely until the next meal, they snack.
You go to the park for a couple hours, you bring snacks. Kids play soccer for 40 minutes, there is snacks. You run errands for a couple of hours, there's a snack.
Kids are growing up not knowing how to wait until the next meal.
Everything turns into an eating opportunity.
I see it at beaches too! People bring coolers of food and eat for a good portion of the time they arr under their umbrellas. The kids run back and forth from the water to eat snacks and drink soda.
but snacking isn't the issue...nor is the food that is being snacked on.
I don't think so...even here people are touting 6 small meals...eat a snack so you don't over eat later etc.
3 meals and 3 snacks at 1200 calories a day is only 200 calories a feeding for those of us on the 1200 calorie a day diet. Even at the average of 2000 calories a day (which BTW I would gain on) one not be able to eat the volume in snacks and beverages I see people eat and drink at events and outings regularly.
I tried to eat small 6 meals a day (6am, 9am, 12pm, 3pm, 6pm, 9pm) and had awful hunger and cravings. I have trouble with that method. IF works well for me eating in an 8 hour window between 10 am and 6 pm.
where does 1200 come from????
I maintain on 2500 calories a day in the summer and 2k in the winter (no treadmill)
Kids when active on a beach (running, digging, swimming etc) can burn up to 2600 calories a day...
You can't apply 1200 to the general population...and you really don't have an idea of what the rest of their week is like..maybe they go home and have a light supper like a salad and go to a baseball game where they are playing...
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/downloads/calreqtips.pdf
and having snacks every once in a while is not a killer...even doing that once a week won't cause obesity...esp if you are even somewhat active.
and I have to ask if you gain on 2k a day are you totally sedentary? exceptionally short (under 5ft tall) and a very tiny woman?
and I have to ask if you use a food scale and are you sure you only eat 1200 and gain on 2k...0 -
Yes. I do use a food scale. I do gain at 2000.
1 -
Stef you burn 1000 calories a day above BMR and eat 2500. That is awesome. I don't doubt you.0
-
and I have to ask if you gain on 2k a day are you totally sedentary? exceptionally short (under 5ft tall) and a very tiny woman?
and I have to ask if you use a food scale and are you sure you only eat 1200 and gain on 2k...
I mean, I'm 5'4 / 162lb and my lightly active maintenance cals (BMR*1.3) are 1830ish so... I'd gain on 2k if I ate that and didn't do additional exercise. Lower maintenance cals really aren't all that uncommon. You don't have to be under 5ft and tiny to have maintenance cals that low.
If I wanted to lose 1lb/week without additional working out I'd have to drop to like 1,300.
Even if I weren't menopausal with my hormones all outta whack my maintenance would still only be right around 2k and I'm overweight as it is. That's only gonna get lower. Were I a perfectly mid-range healthy non-menopausal 120lb 26 year old, my lightly active maintenance would be right around 1,700. So I'd still gain on 2k.
It's really not that unbelievable.
ETA: I burn 800-1000 a day in exercise so I COULD maintain on 2.5k (but I'm trying to lose, so no, and my ultimate maintenance won't be that high probably). Most people probably don't work out that much though, let's be real here.2 -
andycool22 wrote: »because food is delicious
Apparently you've never had my Mother In Laws Cooking ...
So true for my MIL also. Lol.0 -
lexbubbles wrote: »and I have to ask if you gain on 2k a day are you totally sedentary? exceptionally short (under 5ft tall) and a very tiny woman?
and I have to ask if you use a food scale and are you sure you only eat 1200 and gain on 2k...
I mean, I'm 5'4 / 162lb and my lightly active maintenance cals (BMR*1.3) are 1830ish so... I'd gain on 2k if I ate that and didn't do additional exercise. Lower maintenance cals really aren't all that uncommon. You don't have to be under 5ft and tiny to have maintenance cals that low.
If I wanted to lose 1lb/week without additional working out I'd have to drop to like 1,300.
Even if I weren't menopausal with my hormones all outta whack my maintenance would still only be right around 2k and I'm overweight as it is. That's only gonna get lower. Were I a perfectly mid-range healthy non-menopausal 120lb 26 year old, my lightly active maintenance would be right around 1,700. So I'd still gain on 2k.
It's really not that unbelievable.
ETA: I burn 800-1000 a day in exercise so I COULD maintain on 2.5k (but I'm trying to lose, so no, and my ultimate maintenance won't be that high probably). Most people probably don't work out that much though, let's be real here.
for me it is as I have seen a lot of women here who are on the short side maintain on 2k and higher...
my sister ...120lbs 5 ft 3 and 45 maintains on 2400 (yes she exercises about 45mins a day)
but that seems more reasonable to me...based on what I have seen here on MFP.
I don't exercise a tonne...a 3 mile walk M thru Th...5 miles on the weekends, some weigh lifting (15mins) and I will maintain that (will be getting a treadmill for winter) for probably the next decade or more...it's not that much exercise..less than an hour a day all totalled up.0 -
for me it is as I have seen a lot of women here who are on the short side maintain on 2k and higher...
my sister ...120lbs 5 ft 3 and 45 maintains on 2400 (yes she exercises about 45mins a day)
but that seems more reasonable to me...based on what I have seen here on MFP.
I don't exercise a tonne...a 3 mile walk M thru Th...5 miles on the weekends, some weigh lifting (15mins) and I will maintain that (will be getting a treadmill for winter) for probably the next decade or more...it's not that much exercise..less than an hour a day all totalled up.
x 1.3 (lightly active) = 1762
Note I said "before additional exercise". Although that's still 700 cals short which is mighty impressive for 45 mins.
Your sister works out. That's great. Your sister isn't everyone and doesn't negate the experiences of other people. Some people have low maintenance calories. But you know *one* short person with a high maintenance so everyone must be high maintenance.3 -
I gain at 2000 too. I maintain at 1800 if I walk at least 80 minutes a day. Without intentional walking I have to eat between 1400-1600 or I will gain.
I weigh every single morsel that goes into my mouth except vegetables. If I start eating a lot of them I will weigh.
It sucks but it's just the way it is.
The more I read other people's experiences with their weight, the more I think that "calories out" is an individual thing.
Two people, same weight, same calories in, same exercise effort, DIFFERENT calories out.
In general I think people think they burn much more than in reality. My mind still boggles at how little I burn. Finding out how little I burn just by being alive has been key for me. Without knowing, I would have never lost weight.5 -
lexbubbles wrote: »
for me it is as I have seen a lot of women here who are on the short side maintain on 2k and higher...
my sister ...120lbs 5 ft 3 and 45 maintains on 2400 (yes she exercises about 45mins a day)
but that seems more reasonable to me...based on what I have seen here on MFP.
I don't exercise a tonne...a 3 mile walk M thru Th...5 miles on the weekends, some weigh lifting (15mins) and I will maintain that (will be getting a treadmill for winter) for probably the next decade or more...it's not that much exercise..less than an hour a day all totalled up.
x 1.3 (lightly active) = 1762
Note I said "before additional exercise". Although that's still 700 cals short which is mighty impressive for 45 mins.
Your sister works out. That's great. Your sister isn't everyone and doesn't negate the experiences of other people. Some people have low maintenance calories. But you know *one* short person with a high maintenance so everyone must be high maintenance.
so I guess my question is what does this have to do with the actual thread?
and why jump in at this point with a post that has nothing to do with it? I asked a question of another poster not you and no where did I say I didn't believe her...I asked for clarification as such low maintenance for a semi active person is not the norm esp on MFP.
1 -
I think we've lost sight of the original topic of discussion. It was not about the population in general, but about those individuals who say they have a harder time than most to lose weight and what drives them to eat even knowing the harm it's doing to them.
Just as a reminder, this was what sparked the conversation:Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed? Casually pointing out that people who have trouble losing weight "are eating too much" isn't helping people identify why.
I think people have pointed out some good reasons why this might happen to some people and not to others and I know that I personally have learned some things.
But I'm going to respectfully request that we refrain from debating food addiction here. There's another thread dedicated to that, and another can be started if anyone wishes. I don't think it's contributing to this conversation at this point.6 -
I think we've lost sight of the original topic of discussion. It was not about the population in general, but about those individuals who say they have a harder time than most to lose weight and what drives them to eat even knowing the harm it's doing to them.
Just as a reminder, this was what sparked the conversation:Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed? Casually pointing out that people who have trouble losing weight "are eating too much" isn't helping people identify why.
I think people have pointed out some good reasons why this might happen to some people and not to others and I know that I personally have learned some things.
But I'm going to respectfully request that we refrain from debating food addiction here. There's another thread dedicated to that, and another can be started if anyone wishes. I don't think it's contributing to this conversation at this point.
True. We have taken that subject as far as it can go without continuing in a circle, anyhow.3 -
I think we've lost sight of the original topic of discussion. It was not about the population in general, but about those individuals who say they have a harder time than most to lose weight and what drives them to eat even knowing the harm it's doing to them.
Just as a reminder, this was what sparked the conversation:Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed? Casually pointing out that people who have trouble losing weight "are eating too much" isn't helping people identify why.
I think people have pointed out some good reasons why this might happen to some people and not to others and I know that I personally have learned some things.
But I'm going to respectfully request that we refrain from debating food addiction here. There's another thread dedicated to that, and another can be started if anyone wishes. I don't think it's contributing to this conversation at this point.
I agree and will refrain from it any further...I should have stuck to my guns the first time...1 -
I think we've lost sight of the original topic of discussion. It was not about the population in general, but about those individuals who say they have a harder time than most to lose weight and what drives them to eat even knowing the harm it's doing to them.
Just as a reminder, this was what sparked the conversation:Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed? Casually pointing out that people who have trouble losing weight "are eating too much" isn't helping people identify why.
I think people have pointed out some good reasons why this might happen to some people and not to others and I know that I personally have learned some things.
But I'm going to respectfully request that we refrain from debating food addiction here. There's another thread dedicated to that, and another can be started if anyone wishes. I don't think it's contributing to this conversation at this point.
I agree and will refrain from it any further...I should have stuck to my guns the first time...
I am new to MFP and have not seen the previous thread, so I have learned some new things and found the debate to be enlightening while it lasted.1 -
so I guess my question is what does this have to do with the actual thread?
and why jump in at this point with a post that has nothing to do with it? I asked a question of another poster not you and no where did I say I didn't believe her...I asked for clarification as such low maintenance for a semi active person is not the norm esp on MFP.
-The discussion went in the direction of how changes in snacking behaviour might cause weight gain (a valid point, which is in fact relevant to the thread) to which your response was that it isn't a valid point because high maintenance cals and that you "don't think quantity is an issue".
-You didn't "ask for clarification you" immediately went the route of incorrect logging, sedentary, and tiny, because no regular person could possibly maintain that low.
-I've been in this thread the whole time, didn't just suddenly jump in on page 16 or wherever we are, but I also have low maintenance (a thing you were discussing! For several posts now!) so provided evidence since you think it's so weird that that's a thing that happens to people and just can't comprehend it.
-Now that I've provided actual evidence (rather than just "I know a guy" anecdotes) that you don't even have to be short and tiny and sedentary and that you can, in fact, be a reasonable height and slightly overweight and lightly active and STILL have lower maintain cals, you've gone "well this is irrelevant to the thread anyway". But it's not irrelevant.
Back to the original point, though, since discussing individual reasons and obstacles in a thread about individual reasons and obstacles to weight is irrelevant
Changes in "snacking culture", or whatever you wish to call it, probably have had an effect. People snack more, on more calorie dense foods. There's no way that doesn't have an impact. But also, since we're here, the "2,000 calories a day" recommendation is... shall we say not good? If someone with maintenance cals under that (a lot of people!) just takes that at face value without looking into it and whether that fits their needs personally they could easily gain weight on it.
As far as individuals go... getting caught up with "eating as much as everyone else" or whatever, if you happen to be lower maintenance... eh I could see how that can evolve into a problem if you're the sort of person who does that. "My friends/family are having a chocolate bar, so I should have one too" and nah, some of us have less calories to play with for that sort of thing.
edited for spelling7 -
Jane, will you link the other thread on here? I would love to read it.
0 -
lexbubbles wrote: »
so I guess my question is what does this have to do with the actual thread?
and why jump in at this point with a post that has nothing to do with it? I asked a question of another poster not you and no where did I say I didn't believe her...I asked for clarification as such low maintenance for a semi active person is not the norm esp on MFP.
As far as individuals go... getting caught up with "eating as much as everyone else" or whatever, if you happen to be lower maintenance... eh I could see how that can evolve into a problem if you're the sort of person who does that. "My friends/family are having a chocolate bar, so I should have one too" and nah, some of us have less calories to play with for that sort of thing.
edited for spelling
Yup. I maintain on 1800 (5'5", 125 lbs, determined through years of calorie counting and data collecting), and it really sucks when the people around me can eat more and not gain - because they're tall guys, because they're more active, because their BMR is a tad higher - but I have to pass on the cheesecake. I used to not pass on the cheesecake, and that's part of how I gained 25 lbs in 2 years in college. My boyfriend would eat all day and stay skinny; I would eat the same things and gain. Different calorie needs.3 -
lexbubbles wrote: »
so I guess my question is what does this have to do with the actual thread?
and why jump in at this point with a post that has nothing to do with it? I asked a question of another poster not you and no where did I say I didn't believe her...I asked for clarification as such low maintenance for a semi active person is not the norm esp on MFP.
-The discussion went in the direction of how changes in snacking behaviour might cause weight gain (a valid point, which is in fact relevant to the thread) to which your response was that it isn't a valid point because high maintenance cals and that you "don't think quantity is an issue".
-I've been in this thread the whole time, didn't just suddenly jump in on page 16 or wherever we are, but I also have low maintenance (a thing you were discussing! For several posts now!) so provided evidence since you think it's so weird that that's a thing that happens to people and just can't comprehend it.
-Now that I've provided actual evidence (rather than just "I know a guy" anecdotes) that you don't even have to be short and tiny and sedentary and that you can, in fact, be a reasonable height and slightly overweight and lightly active and STILL have lower maintain cals, you've gone "well this is irrelevant to the thread anyway". But it's not irrelevant...
Changes in "snacking culture", or whatever you wish to call it, probably have had an effect. People snack more, on more calorie dense foods. There's no way that doesn't have an impact. But also, since we're here, the "2,000 calories a day" recommendation is... shall we say not good?
* If someone with maintenance cals under that (a lot of people!) just takes that at face value without looking into it and whether that fits their needs personally they could easily gain weight on it.
*I think that this is a great point. If people don't know their TDEE baseline it only takes a couple hundred extra "snack" calories to rack up the pounds over time. People tend to underestimate the daily calories that they eat on average of 170 anyhow. So if one doesn't have a big deficit to begin with one could start gaining without realizing "why".
1 -
I linked the addiction vs dependence thread in a few posts before. Here it is to save you the trouble: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10388272/addiction-versus-dependenceJane, will you link the other thread on here? I would love to read it.I think we've lost sight of the original topic of discussion. It was not about the population in general, but about those individuals who say they have a harder time than most to lose weight and what drives them to eat even knowing the harm it's doing to them.
Just as a reminder, this was what sparked the conversation:Why are they eating so much? What drives the desire and need to consume extra calories than needed? Casually pointing out that people who have trouble losing weight "are eating too much" isn't helping people identify why.
I think people have pointed out some good reasons why this might happen to some people and not to others and I know that I personally have learned some things.
But I'm going to respectfully request that we refrain from debating food addiction here. There's another thread dedicated to that, and another can be started if anyone wishes. I don't think it's contributing to this conversation at this point.
Word.2 -
Thanks Moe0
-
I gained a bunch of weight after something traumatic happened to me when I was 16. It was like a defense mechanism for me, I believe. When I decided I wasn't going to be a victim anymore, I started losing weight. I'm still an emotional binge eater so I'm working on that. MFP helps me take accountability. If I don't want to have to put it in my food diary then I probably shouldn't be eating it 1
-
In general I think people think they burn much more than in reality. My mind still boggles at how little I burn. Finding out how little I burn just by being alive has been key for me. Without knowing, I would have never lost weight.
This was somewhat true for me. I started regaining when I went from active to sedentary (various life issues). Once I gained weight I felt like I was already out of shape so it didn't matter (dumb, yes, but there was more to it also), and ate more and continued to gain. Once I decided to lose the weight I ran the numbers a bunch of different places (I'd lost weight years before to 120 without counting calories but eating what I thought was around 1800 -- I was active and younger, so possible). I was shocked and upset that my maintenance when sedentary was predicted to be as low as it was.
I did find out I lost faster than anticipated (I think I wasn't as sedentary as I assumed, even when at my fattest, since I live in a city and walk a lot in daily life). Knowing that my sedentary maintenance now would be around 1550 (5'3, 125, 46) keeps me committed to being as active as possible (I haven't been logging for a while, but estimate that I maintain on around 2100-2200).
Not realizing how little I could eat when not being active was definitely part of my weight gain, although there was a lot more to it.4 -
lexbubbles wrote: »
so I guess my question is what does this have to do with the actual thread?
and why jump in at this point with a post that has nothing to do with it? I asked a question of another poster not you and no where did I say I didn't believe her...I asked for clarification as such low maintenance for a semi active person is not the norm esp on MFP.
-The discussion went in the direction of how changes in snacking behaviour might cause weight gain (a valid point, which is in fact relevant to the thread) to which your response was that it isn't a valid point because high maintenance cals and that you "don't think quantity is an issue".
-You didn't "ask for clarification you" immediately went the route of incorrect logging, sedentary, and tiny, because no regular person could possibly maintain that low.
-I've been in this thread the whole time, didn't just suddenly jump in on page 16 or wherever we are, but I also have low maintenance (a thing you were discussing! For several posts now!) so provided evidence since you think it's so weird that that's a thing that happens to people and just can't comprehend it.
-Now that I've provided actual evidence (rather than just "I know a guy" anecdotes) that you don't even have to be short and tiny and sedentary and that you can, in fact, be a reasonable height and slightly overweight and lightly active and STILL have lower maintain cals, you've gone "well this is irrelevant to the thread anyway". But it's not irrelevant.
Back to the original point, though, since discussing individual reasons and obstacles in a thread about individual reasons and obstacles to weight is irrelevant
Changes in "snacking culture", or whatever you wish to call it, probably have had an effect. People snack more, on more calorie dense foods. There's no way that doesn't have an impact. But also, since we're here, the "2,000 calories a day" recommendation is... shall we say not good? If someone with maintenance cals under that (a lot of people!) just takes that at face value without looking into it and whether that fits their needs personally they could easily gain weight on it.
As far as individuals go... getting caught up with "eating as much as everyone else" or whatever, if you happen to be lower maintenance... eh I could see how that can evolve into a problem if you're the sort of person who does that. "My friends/family are having a chocolate bar, so I should have one too" and nah, some of us have less calories to play with for that sort of thing.
edited for spelling
Deb mentioned it I asked a few clarifying questions so what. You seem angry that I went that route but those are standard questions here when people eat so little because yes it is unusual to have low maintenance calories based on what I have seen on MFP and in real life...
And what evidence did you provide your bmr so...mine is 50 above that...proves nothing neither does an arbitrary calculation of 1.3 against it a study of 1 is not gospel.
And your post is irrelevant to the op and this isn't a discussion on individuals but those who overeat and those who say it's harder for them to lose that normal people.
And what I did say was that snacking didn't have as big of an impact as inferred otherwise it wouldn't be recommended during weight loss...guess you missed that part
ETA: on the arbitrary calculation the reason I dismiss that number is it puts my maintenance at 1840...which I know is not the case...with me being lightly active in the winter (no cardio done) I maintain on at least 2k...
As well you haven't responded once in the 16 pages...seems odd you jump in to post about something that is irrelevant to the OP...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »In general I think people think they burn much more than in reality. My mind still boggles at how little I burn. Finding out how little I burn just by being alive has been key for me. Without knowing, I would have never lost weight.
This was somewhat true for me. I started regaining when I went from active to sedentary (various life issues). Once I gained weight I felt like I was already out of shape so it didn't matter (dumb, yes, but there was more to it also), and ate more and continued to gain.
Yes! I have asked myself a million times why I do that. Very dumb!!And what I did say was that snacking didn't have as big of an impact as inferred otherwise it wouldn't be recommended during weight loss...guess you missed that part
I brought up snacking because I believe people in general are snacking more than in past generations. There are more high calorie snacks available more often. There are more snacking opportunities. I believe this is one reason why some people have the desire to overeat.
2
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions