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
-
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.
Perhaps "most" or "some" would have been more appropriate terms. For me, this statement has lots of credibility. We all have emotional baggage that may or may not lead to overeating and weight gain. OP opened a can of worms and the responses have been thought provoking if nothing else.0 -
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.
Quoted in full for excellence.1 -
I can understand your fears/frustration. I tend to agree with a popular TV cook who had to lose a few pounds himself. He pointed out that simple, informed lifestyle changes, including balanced nutrition, make the most difference. I learned during the show that the origin of "the diet" is the Greek word diaita, which simply means "way of life." The only things I respectfully disagreed with were his decision not to involve a doctor in the journey and the exclusion of fast food and diet products, which we all need/like. His "vital signs" all became healthy, but I think it's common sense to ask your doctor for guidance, for safety reasons.0
-
Dude, I'm currently set to 1200 because I'm a woman, and I feel terrific. I am not starving myself and I love working out now. I feel at least 20 years younger than I did before nearly 79lbs heavier. I have energy, I'm efficient, I feel strong and powerful. I have more free time to the important things because I get more done faster, and still have energy for my loved ones and hobbies.
I'm not a fan of cheat days or elimination diets, but that's me. Eating what I thought was a good amount led to my obesity. Going to the gym is going to be a permanent part of my life because I love it. I will track calories all my life if I have to, and it doesn't feel like a burden to me.4 -
I can understand your fears/frustration. I tend to agree with a popular TV cook who had to lose a few pounds himself. He pointed out that simple, informed lifestyle changes, including balanced nutrition, make the most difference. I learned during the show that the origin of "the diet" is the Greek word diaita, which simply means "way of life." The only things I respectfully disagreed with were his decision not to involve a doctor in the journey and the exclusion of fast food and diet products, which we all need/like. His "vital signs" all became healthy, but I think it's common sense to ask your doctor for guidance, for safety reasons.
Sadly, doctors, other than ones who specialize in weight loss, know almost nothing about weight loss or nutrition.
3 -
I can understand your fears/frustration. I tend to agree with a popular TV cook who had to lose a few pounds himself. He pointed out that simple, informed lifestyle changes, including balanced nutrition, make the most difference. I learned during the show that the origin of "the diet" is the Greek word diaita, which simply means "way of life." The only things I respectfully disagreed with were his decision not to involve a doctor in the journey and the exclusion of fast food and diet products, which we all need/like. His "vital signs" all became healthy, but I think it's common sense to ask your doctor for guidance, for safety reasons.
I agree that for the obese, even maybe the overweight, wanting to get into a healthy weight range, simple lifestyle changes are probably going to be fine. But not everyone on MFP fits into that category. Some people are within a normal healthy range but want to be leaner, some want to make advances in fitness, others who-knows-what?
My objection the the OPs initial post was that he was indicating that we've all got it wrong by paying attention to the details, but for some the details are where they must focus to achieve their goals.5 -
I haven't singled anyone out. Ultimately we are all strangers and I don't expect anyone to stop what they are doing just because I said it. I stand by what I said however. Seska422, I see people on here sometimes ask for advice. Do you think starvation and excess exercise is sensibly advice? Do you think that is right?
I understand that what I said about personal issues vs weight loss might be upsetting and annoying for some to here from a random guy on the net. Again I apologise for that.
I think if you actually did some lurking you would find that the vast majority of advice is to eat at a reasonable calorie deficit sufficient to lose weight without starving one's self and do a reasonable amount of exercise within the context of a good fitness plan that includes rest/recovery. I rarely if ever see anyone suggesting to eat extremely low calories and do incessant amounts of exercise.8 -
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
And these would likely be posts from newbs who have no clue about what they're doing...and likely there were other posts in that thread from veteran users saying that it wasn't necessary or a healthy mentality.5 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I haven't singled anyone out. Ultimately we are all strangers and I don't expect anyone to stop what they are doing just because I said it. I stand by what I said however. Seska422, I see people on here sometimes ask for advice. Do you think starvation and excess exercise is sensibly advice? Do you think that is right?
I understand that what I said about personal issues vs weight loss might be upsetting and annoying for some to here from a random guy on the net. Again I apologise for that.
I think if you actually did some lurking you would find that the vast majority of advice is to eat at a reasonable calorie deficit sufficient to lose weight without starving one's self and do a reasonable amount of exercise within the context of a good fitness plan that includes rest/recovery. I rarely if ever see anyone suggesting to eat extremely low calories and do incessant amounts of exercise.
And those who do recommend extremely low calories and/or incessant amounts of exercsie are usually taken to task by the vast majority of users who advise against it.2 -
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
You and the OP seem to be saying you see people posting different things. The OP is complaining that people suggest huge calorie deficits, overexercising, and eliminating sugar/carbs, etc. You're saying you see people post about CICO and being ok with eating processed foods. So I'm confused if you're agreeing or disagreeing with the original point.
Also, are these the same few posters who advocate for a moderate deficit appropriate for your goals? The same few posters who advocate exercising for health and muscle preservation, but making sure you eat enough calories to fuel your exercise? The same few posters who advocate for people eating diets they can adhere to, which can include ultra-processed food if they wish, because at the end of the day the laws of thermodynamics will determine if you lose weight and not the macro breakdown of your food? The same few posters who can back their points of view up with peer-reviewed studies and do so when asked?
What are your issues with the information you see posted? I've seen you complain quite a few times but have not seen you contribute in a positive fashion, so I'd really like to know what you think people SHOULD be advocating for.
For the record: not offended, and not arguing for the sake of being PC. Genuinely confused, because I'm not seeing what the OP or this quoted post are seeing.15 -
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.
Yes, exactly. It was just relating the equivalent exercise to the calories in the doughnut. Not suggesting that the poster wouldn't eat a doughnut without running 10 miles.
It was an exaggeration anyway, unless that was a hell of a big doughnut, or the poster is mighty tiny. Most doughnuts are somewhere between 300-500 cals. Even at 117 lbs, I'd only need to run about 7 miles to burn 500 cals*.
Before you get upset, OP, I run distances because I like to - not so I can eat sweets. I lost weight without exercising at all, and still managed to fit in some pie, cake and ice cream. I picked up weight lifting after that, and running a year or so into lifting.
*No big deal if you like running and train for half marathon distances. I normally run 6-10 miles per day, 5 days per wk.2 -
You seem to be conflating diet and starvation. At least in this post.I haven't singled anyone out. Ultimately we are all strangers and I don't expect anyone to stop what they are doing just because I said it. I stand by what I said however. Seska422, I see people on here sometimes ask for advice. Do you think starvation and excess exercise is sensibly advice? Do you think that is right?
I understand that what I said about personal issues vs weight loss might be upsetting and annoying for some to here from a random guy on the net. Again I apologise for that.
3 -
kommodevaran wrote: »Derpy_Hooves wrote: »
For the most part, we are mislead by government guidelines, diet industry, media, and religion.
Agreed. And some freely available hyper palatable, high calorie, low nutrient foods.1 -
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.
You don't? How do people starve to death, then?
In case you're not aware, you do need to eat a minimum amount of calories simply to get the daily nutrients you need to survive (minimum fats and proteins). You could replace other nutrients with zero calorie supplements, but you can't avoid the need for fat and protein.
ETA: To forestall nitpicking - yes, I mean over time. Obviously in the short term you can eat nothing and not die.2 -
Am I doing it wrong? I am not eating 1200 calories but would if I wanted more food. I am still fitting in a fast food burger or a processed frozen meal now and then along with all the healthier fresh lean meats. Unfortunately, I am not a fruit and veggie person so it makes it a little more difficult to "eat right" but what I am doing is working for me. I am not exercising a lot because I sat on my butt for 6 years..hardly leaving the house. I walk some but with the lower calorie intake I am not concerned with making sure I am doing a lot of it at this point. I used to eat ONLY processed food and take out and snacked ALL day. I have only been at this for 19 days and feel great. I started off being able to eat more calories but since then when I eat I am completely satisfied for long periods of time so I usually only eat 2 meals. I plan on incorporating more exercise once I get a bit more weight off but I would like to know if I am way off base here. Should we force ourselves to eat to get to a certain calorie amount even if we aren't hungry. I am only 5'3" tall and was 204.5lbs. I am down to 193. Oh...and I'm 471
-
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
I understand what you are saying here, when you here someone saying that here, just open up to them and make them see that they are doin worng and they should enjoy life rather than spending their times running to burn the calories from 1 donut (which by the way wont do any harm). Make them see that weight loss, fitness and healthy lifestyle should more fun.
If they dont accept what you said, its ok, its their problem but I'm sure many other users who see that will agree with you (on that debate)0 -
Diet = food you eat. Words have more than one definition.1
-
Am I doing it wrong? I am not eating 1200 calories but would if I wanted more food. I am still fitting in a fast food burger or a processed frozen meal now and then along with all the healthier fresh lean meats. Unfortunately, I am not a fruit and veggie person so it makes it a little more difficult to "eat right" but what I am doing is working for me. I am not exercising a lot because I sat on my butt for 6 years..hardly leaving the house. I walk some but with the lower calorie intake I am not concerned with making sure I am doing a lot of it at this point. I used to eat ONLY processed food and take out and snacked ALL day. I have only been at this for 19 days and feel great. I started off being able to eat more calories but since then when I eat I am completely satisfied for long periods of time so I usually only eat 2 meals. I plan on incorporating more exercise once I get a bit more weight off but I would like to know if I am way off base here. Should we force ourselves to eat to get to a certain calorie amount even if we aren't hungry. I am only 5'3" tall and was 204.5lbs. I am down to 193. Oh...and I'm 47
Undereating can be as much of a problem as over eating over time. Short term, the negative effects don't show up, but over time they will. At 5'3" you are pretty close to what would be considered an average height for a woman. That would mean that the 1200 minimum for reaching your necessary nutritional requirements applies to you. So eating below that would not be recommended. Also, over time severe calorie restriction works against long term calorie deficit adherence. In other words, seeking to eat very little leads to a higher likelihood of falling off the wagon into a binge cycle.
Having said that, unless you are really measuring your food portions well, the chances are you are eating more than you think. Few people can eyeball portions or even be accurate with measuring cups and spoons used to measure solids (including those that are ground and grated). For most people, accurate logging will need a digital food scale to weigh portions.
So, are you doing it wrong? Possibly if your calories eaten are accurate. The thing to realize with all this is most of us who have been overweight or obese for a long portion of our life have issues with knowing what an appropriate amount of food is. The tendency is to eat too much. The problem is that we can often carry that dysfunction over to cutting back on what we eat, and eat too little. It is probably a good idea to eat an amount that is not officially under eating, so yes, there are times to eat more even when not feeling hungry because if you are like me and many people who struggle with having too much fat, your sense of hunger is majorly messed up.2 -
kommodevaran wrote: »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.
Holy smokes, Batman, run on sentence!
0 -
Am I doing it wrong? I am not eating 1200 calories but would if I wanted more food. I am still fitting in a fast food burger or a processed frozen meal now and then along with all the healthier fresh lean meats. Unfortunately, I am not a fruit and veggie person so it makes it a little more difficult to "eat right" but what I am doing is working for me. I am not exercising a lot because I sat on my butt for 6 years..hardly leaving the house. I walk some but with the lower calorie intake I am not concerned with making sure I am doing a lot of it at this point. I used to eat ONLY processed food and take out and snacked ALL day. I have only been at this for 19 days and feel great. I started off being able to eat more calories but since then when I eat I am completely satisfied for long periods of time so I usually only eat 2 meals. I plan on incorporating more exercise once I get a bit more weight off but I would like to know if I am way off base here. Should we force ourselves to eat to get to a certain calorie amount even if we aren't hungry. I am only 5'3" tall and was 204.5lbs. I am down to 193. Oh...and I'm 47
Are you saying you eat less than 1200?0 -
rileysowner. Yes, I do have a digital scale that I am using. For things like condiments though I am still using a teaspoon and tablespoon measuring spoon to do it.0
-
Yes...I have been eating less than 1200 the past several days.0
-
Wow. Lots of comments some great and some quite cantankerous.
I guess all I can say is, if you are happy then continue to do what you are doing. If not, then change something but it's about happiness.
2 -
Hey...ya got people talking....HAHAHAHAHA1
-
I think it's kind of cute when men twice my size with twice the daily physical activity get all concerned about the intake of small women (especially older, more sedentary women.) 1200 calories a day for me and women like me is not a large cut at all - it's a very, very moderate reduction in calories and less than a pound a week of weight loss. It's a very far cry from "starvation."
I know it's hard to realize for a person who maintains on 3000 calories a day that littler people just don't need that (and that the smaller you are, the fewer calories you burn from activity too - a 10K run for me might burn only 600 calories.) Like...I ride my bike to work, run 10-15K a few times a week (and 20+ once a week), and I still tend to maintain around 2000/day even with quite a bit of regular cardio. I'm just not very large and my body doesn't need as many calories as heavier people.
1200 calories per day is a very aggressive cut for some people, but I think you need to adjust your perspective and realize that for a short, lightish woman, 1500/day might actually be maintenance...know what I mean?8 -
Here's an easier and more accurate way for things that show grams in the nutritional information:rileysowner. Yes, I do have a digital scale that I am using. For things like condiments though I am still using a teaspoon and tablespoon measuring spoon to do it.
put the jar on the scale
tare the scale (zero it out)
take out how much you want
put the jar back on the scale
You'll get a negative number for the number of grams that you've removed from the jar. That tells you how many grams you've used.3 -
I never thought of that seska422. THANKS2
-
I have always said "diets" don't work, its the lifestyle that does. My lifestyle went south... by about plus 40lbs, lol. Changed the lifestyle and am almost back on track.1
-
I understand what you were saying in your op @d4_54 I myself don't like to say "diet', I say this is my lifestyle, I eat healthy. I eat a lot of calories compared to most women. They're all healthy calories for the most part. I do say "cheat meal" or "cheat day" that's just ingrained and a word I use. It drives me nuts when females restrict calories in an unhealthy way, go no carb, refuse to use weights because they think they'll get big or bulky and do tons of cardio. Lift those weights ladies! Muscle burns fat 24/7. Calories and carbs are not the devil as long as you're eating healthy cals and carbs. I wish I'd known that I could eat like this back when I was a teen, 20's etc. I used to restrict cals and would have been so much happier eating as much as I do now.2
-
Sometimes low carb works really well to help me maintain a calorie deficit. Sometimes it doesn't. It's not that it's necessary, it's that sometimes higher fat keeps me full for longer.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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K 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