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.
Scared at what I am reading
Replies
-
I can't believe that people are still even using the word diet. This is a rant but I am willing to debate. If you excessively cut calories and starve yourself and add to this with excessive exercise you will regain any weight you lose.
Do you think that the word "diet" means "excessively cut calories and starve yourself"? Huh, I never thought of the word having that meaning. But if it has that meaning, then the term "starvation diet" is redundant.9 -
Tell me where you got your M.D. and we'll talk.6
-
If I'm eating under my maintenance calories, then I'm on a diet.
I'm 5"8 and 147lbs, mfp will give me 1200 calories if i set my weight loss goal too high. Most newbies will zero in on the 2lb per week goal, I did too when i first started here, but i lasted a whole 4 days before i crashed and burned :explode:1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Diet simply means food intake.Lemurcat12 I will look up the history of the word and post it hear but for me I see it as a word that can be used to sell us something. We should replace it with 'eating'. However they can't sell us that.
Just because people have perverted the meaning over time does not mean we need to pass a peach seed over it.
Just accept the primary definition of diet and don't get caught up in semantics.
di·et
ˈdīət/
noun
1.
the kinds of food that a person, animal, or community habitually eats.
"a vegetarian diet"
synonyms: selection of food, food, foodstuffs; informal: grub, nosh
"health problems related to your diet"11 -
BreezeDoveal I appreciate you saying that about that point.
I just read in another debate someone saying that they had to "run 10 miles to eat 1 donut".
I was too coward to say anything. I was thinking what kind horrible existence is that? To enjoy a the occasional donut I have to run almost half a marathon. Wow3 -
I promise my next post will be positive. No more rants.
The message I want to share is consistently feeding and nourishing our bodies in a healthy way. I swear this works.
If everyone had this down pat there would be no need for MFP. Unfortunately, it's not that cut & dried. I, for one, don't use the word "diet" because every time in the past I have gone on a "diet" I set myself up for failure. I have now lost the 43 pounds I needed to lose "consistently feeding and nourishing" my body in a healthy way. I will continue to do so, because for the first time in 30 years I'm in a good place with my weight and my health.
Rocknut53 I truly am pleased you are in a good place. So am I. I think we understand that it's not just our bodies that are in a good place but how we feel about ourselves. So we are nourishing ourselves and that's good.
I eat so well now I can't actually decide what to enjoy today. Can you suggest something I can eat for dinner I fancy a new treat1 -
BreezeDoveal I appreciate you saying that about that point.
I just read in another debate someone saying that they had to "run 10 miles to eat 1 donut".
I was too coward to say anything. I was thinking what kind horrible existence is that? To enjoy a the occasional donut I have to run almost half a marathon. Wow
Which point? There are just so many gems to choose from..
Can you post the link to the donut thread. Having to run 10 miles for 1 donut does sound rather depressing and a tad over the top.
ETA: Never mind, found the donut thread1 -
I agree, I have seen some worrisome things here in my short time as well. I think it's partly to blame on the default MFP settings, which seems to set every woman to 1200 calories regardless of starting weight, and I think it's because by default it adds in activity, and has them eat back those calories.
I guess that's one (confusing) way to do things, and it doesn't seem too terrible if they end up actually eating 1500+ calories due to activity, but because of all the confusion, it's pretty tough to know.
When someone says they're 250-300 pounds on 1200 calories, hopefully that doesn't actually mean they're on 1200 calories. And if it does, hopefully they know what they're doing and are getting enough protein and EFAs.
Obviously, everyone's free to do what they want, and I also don't buy in to calories being "too low to be healthy". I do, however, think that calories can be too low to be sustainable.4 -
I don't have a problem with rants, or with the word diet, or the concept of dieting - for me, "diet" is the way you eat, and "dieting" deliberately and knowingly eating below maintenance to lose weight. Stupid diets, on the other had, I really hate them. Crash dieting too. And all the terms that don't mean much or can mean anything - good/bad carbs/fats, lifestyle change, weightloss journey, clean eating, healthy food etc etc.6
-
-
Appreciating.
Overtime you will notice its the same few posters who are
a)easily offended
b)will argue for the sake of being PC
c)least openminded and stuck in the processed food + CICO bubble
Ignore them and don't let those few stop you from voicing your opinions
0 -
Derpy_Hooves wrote: »
For the most part, we are mislead by government guidelines, diet industry, media, and religion.6 -
Derpy_Hooves wrote: »
We created this disordered pattern of eating so we can struggle with it so we don't have to face the real struggle.
I sound like a idiot guru because where I am with my life but not everyone is here. I am just happy that I can just flipping eat whatever I want (and most crucially) I no longer want to eat burgers, pizza, and ice cream all day.
However any 'diet' that doesn't have pizza and ice cream can....do one !!3 -
kommodevaran wrote: »Derpy_Hooves wrote: »
For the most part, we are mislead by government guidelines, diet industry, media, and religion.
Mmm not so sure about this. What happened to common sense and taking responsibility for your own actions?
Don't get me wrong now, I don't find this easy at all, but it's still me putting the cookies in my big gob, nothing to do with goverment guidelines, let alone religion.3 -
Derpy_Hooves wrote: »
Because some people's goals require significantly more precision and/or effort than that.4 -
Derpy_Hooves wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Derpy_Hooves wrote: »
For the most part, we are mislead by government guidelines, diet industry, media, and religion.
Mmm not so sure about this. What happened to common sense and taking responsibility for your own actions?
Don't get me wrong now, I don't find this easy at all, but it's still me putting the cookies in my big gob, nothing to do with goverment guidelines, let alone religion.
common sense isnt very common and many people lack willpower.
Another bunch of excuses, I know but it's true.5 -
Derpy_Hooves wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Derpy_Hooves wrote: »
For the most part, we are mislead by government guidelines, diet industry, media, and religion.
Mmm not so sure about this. What happened to common sense and taking responsibility for your own actions?
Don't get me wrong now, I don't find this easy at all, but it's still me putting the cookies in my big gob, nothing to do with goverment guidelines, let alone religion.
common sense isnt very common and many people lack willpower.
Another bunch of excuses, I know but it's true.
No, fully agree with that.1 -
Derpy_Hooves wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Derpy_Hooves wrote: »
For the most part, we are mislead by government guidelines, diet industry, media, and religion.
Mmm not so sure about this. What happened to common sense and taking responsibility for your own actions?
Don't get me wrong now, I don't find this easy at all, but it's still me putting the cookies in my big gob, nothing to do with goverment guidelines, let alone religion.
common sense isnt very common and many people lack willpower.
Another bunch of excuses, I know but it's true.
Common sense has led us down may blind alleys.
"Eat less fat to lose body fat" and "high dietary cholesterol foods lead to high serum cholesterol" are two examples of common sense dietary thinking that were later proved to be incorrect.13 -
Derpy_Hooves wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Derpy_Hooves wrote: »
For the most part, we are mislead by government guidelines, diet industry, media, and religion.
Mmm not so sure about this. What happened to common sense and taking responsibility for your own actions?
Don't get me wrong now, I don't find this easy at all, but it's still me putting the cookies in my big gob, nothing to do with goverment guidelines, let alone religion.
Sure, I'm responsible for what I'm putting into my head - which means I should also have been critical to what I read, and I'm fully to blame for blindly trusting government sites/posters and believing or internalizing diet myths. BUT, the way the human body and mind works, makes us crave what we need, and when we don't let ourselves have what we need, we will get what we can, when we can, and being in a mental conflict and ambivalent, as well as confused, and also feeling like a failure, because of the vague but really strong messages and imagery presented by government and diet industry, paired with religious piety and ideas of greed, gluttony, sinful behavior, and penance to make up for it, is NOT a good posision in which to make sound and informed decisions.2 -
I just read in another debate someone saying that they had to "run 10 miles to eat 1 donut".
Way to take something out of context. The poster says this:
There's an awesome donut shop in my area called Hurts Donuts. I sometimes stop by for a splurge on long run day. I call them my 10 mile donuts because that's how long I need to run to earn one!
They are referring to a treat that they have when they have hit a certain mileage? Something that many people do and mfp posters do and parents do for their kids, they are rewarding themselves, for an achievement. Well at least that's the way I interpreted it.
10 -
RelevantGains wrote: »I agree, I have seen some worrisome things here in my short time as well. I think it's partly to blame on the default MFP settings, which seems to set every woman to 1200 calories regardless of starting weight, and I think it's because by default it adds in activity, and has them eat back those calories.
I guess that's one (confusing) way to do things, and it doesn't seem too terrible if they end up actually eating 1500+ calories due to activity, but because of all the confusion, it's pretty tough to know.
When someone says they're 250-300 pounds on 1200 calories, hopefully that doesn't actually mean they're on 1200 calories. And if it does, hopefully they know what they're doing and are getting enough protein and EFAs.
Obviously, everyone's free to do what they want, and I also don't buy in to calories being "too low to be healthy". I do, however, think that calories can be too low to be sustainable.
MFP is a dummy system. So the inputs are as good as the person using it. The reason it defaults most people at 1200 calories is because the average person wants to lose 2 lbs a week or more; and there are plenty of threads where people lower their calories more than what is suggested because they think it's too high. Add on top of that, exercise is not included into the equation until it's performed, in which many don't understand the point of eating them back.
The good news is though, most people don't weigh their food with a scale (especially as a noob), which generally means they are eating more than they think.6 -
OK, I'll bite. I don't necessarily disagree with you, but since this is a debate thread, here it is.I can't believe that people are still even using the word diet. This is a rant but I am willing to debate. If you excessively cut calories and starve yourself and add to this with excessive exercise you will regain any weight you lose. You will waste your life in your head and in the gym.
I use the word diet. As others have pointed out, it is contextually correct when talking about the food you eat or in a colloquial reference to losing weight. In mixed company, if I start talking about not eating a handful of nuts because I will miss my protein macro by 5 grams, people will think that I am some kind of freak.
I cut calories all the time. I also do bulks and sometimes spend time at maintenance. Starving is a relative word. Sometimes I am in slight caloric deficit and feel like I am starving, other times I am in deep deficit and not hungry at all. If someone is not suffering from malnutrition or dying, then they are not literally starving. What do you consider the appropriate distinction between long-term caloric deficit and starvation?
Excessively cutting calories and excessive exercise do not mean you will regain the weight you lost. A lot of people do yo-yo, but not everyone. Excessive exercise is relative. Sometimes I lift 6 days a week. Is that excessive? I don't feel like I am wasting my life. I do it because I love it. I lift at home. Sometimes my family hangs out with me while I lift. I am not missing out on anything.
How do you know you are sufficiently eating enough and are nourished? I log my food here on MFP to let me know. Just being active, rest and repeat is not enough for me. I have been doing this for a long time and am looking for ways to reach new levels. Sometimes I feel like crap because that is what it takes to get to the next level.Just eat enough that you are nourished. Be active, rest and repeat this. If you are doing this and feel crap it's probably not the weight that is upsetting you.The rubbish I am hearing about cheat days and 1200 calories and no carbs is ridiculous. Seriously. I love you all but the food and body is not the problem. It's a problem you have created to avoid another problem.
Sometimes I do cheat days. Sometimes I do 1200 calorie days (even as a lean 190 lb active person). I have even intentionally gone over 48 hours without eating before (although not for losing weight). I have done keto, but I don't anymore because I don't enjoy it. I have never seen a study that suggests that long-term keto is unhealthy. Some people enjoy it.
I am not trying to avoid problems. I hit my goals and move on. Your comments here are too generic and don't apply to everyone. Some smaller women do have to eat 1200 calories every day to lose weight.Energy balance and trying to enjoy everyday. Do not give the pass anymore of your time and expect no less then a positive future. This is the bit you should focus on. Not the amount of cals in your coffee.
Rant over. I am actually a nice guy but seriously I feel like I am in the matrix with some of you.
I am not sure what this means beyond some generic motivational philosophy. But I choose to not add any calories to my coffee because I don't want to. The matrix isn't such a bad place. We have good steak here.
6 -
BreezeDoveal I appreciate you saying that about that point.
I just read in another debate someone saying that they had to "run 10 miles to eat 1 donut".
I was too coward to say anything. I was thinking what kind horrible existence is that? To enjoy a the occasional donut I have to run almost half a marathon. Wow
This is in the "eat a donut post workout to spike insulin thread" and was joke per se. This is a bad example of what you are trying to convey to the masses here.2 -
RelevantGains wrote: »I agree, I have seen some worrisome things here in my short time as well. I think it's partly to blame on the default MFP settings, which seems to set every woman to 1200 calories regardless of starting weight, and I think it's because by default it adds in activity, and has them eat back those calories.
I guess that's one (confusing) way to do things, and it doesn't seem too terrible if they end up actually eating 1500+ calories due to activity, but because of all the confusion, it's pretty tough to know.
When someone says they're 250-300 pounds on 1200 calories, hopefully that doesn't actually mean they're on 1200 calories. And if it does, hopefully they know what they're doing and are getting enough protein and EFAs.
Obviously, everyone's free to do what they want, and I also don't buy in to calories being "too low to be healthy". I do, however, think that calories can be too low to be sustainable.
I never got 1200.
I also didn't choose 2lbs a week which had "(not recommended)" beside it.
People usually get 1200 if they put their activity level lower than it should be and aim for a weight loss per week goal that is too high for them. It's pretty clear that the system wants you to eat back your exercise calories.1 -
BreezeDoveal I appreciate you saying that about that point.
I just read in another debate someone saying that they had to "run 10 miles to eat 1 donut".
I was too coward to say anything. I was thinking what kind horrible existence is that? To enjoy a the occasional donut I have to run almost half a marathon. Wow
So rather than asking for clarification on that thread, or engaging with the person who made that comment to discuss your concerns directly with them, you create a passive aggressive thread directing vague criticism at the masses? Doesn't seem very productive...
As others have pointed out, the word diet had different meanings and doesn't explicitly mean "starvation". VLCD are discouraged here and even though 1200 is not considered VLC, I am usually the first one asking those posters if they are sure that is an appropriate calorie goal for them. Same with low carb, some people have medical reasons for needing to restrict carbs, others do it because they find it to be a sustainable way to create a calorie deficit.
whether you call it "dieting" or "eating at a deficit" or "cutting" or "eating below my maintenance cals", at the end of the day in order to lose weight a person must be in an energy deficit, their CI<CO. The way to achieve that is largely up to the individual. That is the advice I most often give, and see given, on this site.8 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »RelevantGains wrote: »I agree, I have seen some worrisome things here in my short time as well. I think it's partly to blame on the default MFP settings, which seems to set every woman to 1200 calories regardless of starting weight, and I think it's because by default it adds in activity, and has them eat back those calories.
I guess that's one (confusing) way to do things, and it doesn't seem too terrible if they end up actually eating 1500+ calories due to activity, but because of all the confusion, it's pretty tough to know.
When someone says they're 250-300 pounds on 1200 calories, hopefully that doesn't actually mean they're on 1200 calories. And if it does, hopefully they know what they're doing and are getting enough protein and EFAs.
Obviously, everyone's free to do what they want, and I also don't buy in to calories being "too low to be healthy". I do, however, think that calories can be too low to be sustainable.
I never got 1200.
I also didn't choose 2lbs a week which had "(not recommended)" beside it.
People usually get 1200 if they put their activity level lower than it should be and aim for a weight loss per week goal that is too high for them. It's pretty clear that the system wants you to eat back your exercise calories.
Well it is totally unfortunate that is 1200 calories thing is all I get to loose .5 pounds (actually a little less). But my current stats rule this, my age, current weight and height. I use my exercise calories to beat this number!
There are people that qualify as being short as there are some 4'8" to 5'4" women that fit in this range to loose less than then .5 - 1 pound a week.
This 1200 calories thing is not a death sentence. It is bad for those that are trying to do it unhealthy that do not fit the small majority of women, so I look at the entire picture of someone's case to determine if they are trying to walk themselves into unhealthy weight loss and this is a always on a case by case basis and does not apply to the masses out there OP is saying.2 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »RelevantGains wrote: »I agree, I have seen some worrisome things here in my short time as well. I think it's partly to blame on the default MFP settings, which seems to set every woman to 1200 calories regardless of starting weight, and I think it's because by default it adds in activity, and has them eat back those calories.
I guess that's one (confusing) way to do things, and it doesn't seem too terrible if they end up actually eating 1500+ calories due to activity, but because of all the confusion, it's pretty tough to know.
When someone says they're 250-300 pounds on 1200 calories, hopefully that doesn't actually mean they're on 1200 calories. And if it does, hopefully they know what they're doing and are getting enough protein and EFAs.
Obviously, everyone's free to do what they want, and I also don't buy in to calories being "too low to be healthy". I do, however, think that calories can be too low to be sustainable.
I never got 1200.
I also didn't choose 2lbs a week which had "(not recommended)" beside it.
People usually get 1200 if they put their activity level lower than it should be and aim for a weight loss per week goal that is too high for them. It's pretty clear that the system wants you to eat back your exercise calories.
Well it is totally unfortunate that is 1200 calories thing is all I get to loose .5 pounds (actually a little less). But my current stats rule this, my age, current weight and height. I use my exercise calories to beat this number!
There are people that qualify as being short as there are some 4'8" to 5'4" women that fit in this range to loose less than then .5 - 1 pound a week.
This 1200 calories thing is not a death sentence. It is bad for those that are trying to do it unhealthy that do not fit the small majority of women, so I look at the entire picture of someone's case to determine if they are trying to walk themselves into unhealthy weight loss and this is a always on a case by case basis and does not apply to the masses out there OP is saying.
I didn't mean no one would get it For some, it is an appropriate number. And as you mention, adding exercise will affect it as well.
My point was the poster says MFP gives every woman 1200. It doesn't. But for some, it's fine if it does.0 -
3dogsrunning wrote: »3dogsrunning wrote: »RelevantGains wrote: »I agree, I have seen some worrisome things here in my short time as well. I think it's partly to blame on the default MFP settings, which seems to set every woman to 1200 calories regardless of starting weight, and I think it's because by default it adds in activity, and has them eat back those calories.
I guess that's one (confusing) way to do things, and it doesn't seem too terrible if they end up actually eating 1500+ calories due to activity, but because of all the confusion, it's pretty tough to know.
When someone says they're 250-300 pounds on 1200 calories, hopefully that doesn't actually mean they're on 1200 calories. And if it does, hopefully they know what they're doing and are getting enough protein and EFAs.
Obviously, everyone's free to do what they want, and I also don't buy in to calories being "too low to be healthy". I do, however, think that calories can be too low to be sustainable.
I never got 1200.
I also didn't choose 2lbs a week which had "(not recommended)" beside it.
People usually get 1200 if they put their activity level lower than it should be and aim for a weight loss per week goal that is too high for them. It's pretty clear that the system wants you to eat back your exercise calories.
Well it is totally unfortunate that is 1200 calories thing is all I get to loose .5 pounds (actually a little less). But my current stats rule this, my age, current weight and height. I use my exercise calories to beat this number!
There are people that qualify as being short as there are some 4'8" to 5'4" women that fit in this range to loose less than then .5 - 1 pound a week.
This 1200 calories thing is not a death sentence. It is bad for those that are trying to do it unhealthy that do not fit the small majority of women, so I look at the entire picture of someone's case to determine if they are trying to walk themselves into unhealthy weight loss and this is a always on a case by case basis and does not apply to the masses out there OP is saying.
I didn't mean no one would get it For some, it is an appropriate number. And as you mention, adding exercise will affect it as well.
My point was the poster says MFP gives every woman 1200. It doesn't. But for some, it's fine if it does.
Good point.. and...
Because the OP clearly stated 1200 calories (meaning women to me) and has not discussed the men's calories range, but clearly stated "all" are having some sort of disordered thinking or have some sort of mental/emotional/psychological problem they need to deal with that is not food related at all, this is the part that is more alarming to me.1 -
I have been "dieting" for around 25 years now. I have tried several diets - all have failed. In the last 2 years I have lost 2 stone and kept it off for the last year now by NOT being "on a diet". I say I am not on a diet, what I am doing is eating healthily. I have changed my lifestyle to a more healthy one. This way, if I have a time when I don't eat healthy and go off track a little, then I am more able to get back on track and draw a line under it because I know that it is not a short term goal and its not that I have failed I have just had a bump in the road.
At the end of the day that is life, and events and things happen that occasionally mean that I am not eating as healthily as I want to but by having this approach I am not setting myself up for failure. Of course I would have liked to have continued losing weight over the last year but keeping it off is a massive achievement for me and I am now going to try and get another stone off.
My calorie allowance is 1620 but what I find is that sometimes I am not hungry. So I eat when I am hungry, stop when I am satisfied (not full) and don't stress over not eating my calorie allowance and being so obsessed about everything. So some days I don't eat my full allowance by as many as 400 calories. But generally this is after a day when I have perhaps gone overboard, like on my wedding anniversary when I ate and drank (alcohol) far over my calorie allowance and I guess by not being hungry my body was saying "hey give me a rest please".
I would like to know what people think would happen to my weight loss if I regularly ate 1200-1300 calories a day (bearing in mind that 1620 is a 500 calorie deficit). Incidentally, I used to eat all my exercise calories back but didn't lose weight so now I only eat half of them.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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 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