Calories in/Calories out vs. low carb
Options
Replies
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
That article you keep posting, apropos of nothing, also contains this little gem:Eating several smaller meals will increase your RMR because your metabolism is used to digest your food every time you eat. Besides making you feel full longer, eating smaller meals will help you to drop weight easier. You won’t be so apt to binge on something because you’re hungry if you know you are going to eat something in another hour.
So now that you've finished moving the goalposts, please tell me how age and genetics and your RMR have anything to do with your continued assertions that you damaged your metabolism by eating 1200 calories to lose 10 pounds?
What? I lost 10 pounds in 5 months. I damaged my metabolism by being on 1200 calories for 2 years. Big mistake. I found MFP AFTER being on a plateau for a couple of years. Since then I've raised my maintenance calories thankfully. I'm so happy about that.
You weren't maintaining on 1200 caloriesno.
Reverse diets, which you say you did, don't work in the way you think they do.
Yes. I did. I plateaued. And I wasn't well. And my body slowed way down. I am still a very, very slow loser. I haven't had my thyroid checked, but I may go just to rule that possibility out.
I wasn't willing to drop down more than 1200 so I unhappily stayed at that number thinking it was my plight.
I later learned about TDEE and that my maintenance calories should be around 1800, so I gradually reversed dieted after researching. Now when I diet next I only plan to dip down to 1500 calories or so. I never plan to go that low (ETA 1200 ) ever again.
Others have TDEEs that are different based on age, sex, height, genetics, health, activity levels or whatever. I'm sorry you don't believe me or agree with me. That isn't something I can ever prove to your satisfaction if it never has happened to you. It happened to me in my 50s. I have no reason to lie about this.
I get no benefit from sharing other than knowing that there are others it has happened to out there. They report it plenty, but people accuse them of lying or not weighing food with kitchen scales or not logging properly. But I tend to believe that many are experienced dieters who have been doing this a while who plateau even on a diet.
Three words. Concentration camp survivors.
Three more words: Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
These people continued to lose weight in the face of continuing caloric restriction.
The body does not work in the way you believe it works, Deb. You were eating more than you thought. There were either times you were binging or sneaking bites of food here or there, or you were eating extra food.
I'm sorry, you were not maintaining on 1200 calories.
That is a caloric intake for a very short much older sedentary woman.
No, I don't believe you. Not in the least. I've seen you flit from fad to fad on these boards, latching onto whatever you read to easily. Now you're into low carb. The last big thing you were into was recomp. What's going to be next?
And I had no idea that recomp is a fad. You never cease to learn on these boards.
2 -
I've found when you're down to the last 10 pounds or the scale is stuck, increase protein and decrease carbs and add 1 extra hour per week of walking or swimming or your favorite moderate cardio. All minor adjustments, but you'll feel fuller and less deprived. Major changes seem to always backfire!.There's food for nutrition and food for sanity. I'm 55 and i's getting harder and harder but this adjustment has helped me. Good luck.0
-
LCHF isn't a "fad" either. It is a way of eating.5
-
The highest I got was borderline overweight/normal BMI threshold. This gain started creeping up in my 40s. I find now that I am in my 50s it is harder for me to diet it down because I only have a couple hundred calories deficit.
Protein definitely helps. I found that when I was high protein and low fat I was hungry, so I had to drop protein a little bit to add fat when I dropped carbs. But everyone seems to have their own satiety point.
I find that now I need to rely on activity to create a deficit because I don't have a lot of extra calories to play with.1 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
That article you keep posting, apropos of nothing, also contains this little gem:Eating several smaller meals will increase your RMR because your metabolism is used to digest your food every time you eat. Besides making you feel full longer, eating smaller meals will help you to drop weight easier. You won’t be so apt to binge on something because you’re hungry if you know you are going to eat something in another hour.
So now that you've finished moving the goalposts, please tell me how age and genetics and your RMR have anything to do with your continued assertions that you damaged your metabolism by eating 1200 calories to lose 10 pounds?
What? I lost 10 pounds in 5 months. I damaged my metabolism by being on 1200 calories for 2 years. Big mistake. I found MFP AFTER being on a plateau for a couple of years. Since then I've raised my maintenance calories thankfully. I'm so happy about that.
You weren't maintaining on 1200 caloriesno.
Reverse diets, which you say you did, don't work in the way you think they do.
Yes. I did. I plateaued. And I wasn't well. And my body slowed way down. I am still a very, very slow loser. I haven't had my thyroid checked, but I may go just to rule that possibility out.
I wasn't willing to drop down more than 1200 so I unhappily stayed at that number thinking it was my plight.
I later learned about TDEE and that my maintenance calories should be around 1800, so I gradually reversed dieted after researching. Now when I diet next I only plan to dip down to 1500 calories or so. I never plan to go that low (ETA 1200 ) ever again.
Others have TDEEs that are different based on age, sex, height, genetics, health, activity levels or whatever. I'm sorry you don't believe me or agree with me. That isn't something I can ever prove to your satisfaction if it never has happened to you. It happened to me in my 50s. I have no reason to lie about this.
I get no benefit from sharing other than knowing that there are others it has happened to out there. They report it plenty, but people accuse them of lying or not weighing food with kitchen scales or not logging properly. But I tend to believe that many are experienced dieters who have been doing this a while who plateau even on a diet.
Three words. Concentration camp survivors.
Three more words: Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
These people continued to lose weight in the face of continuing caloric restriction.
The body does not work in the way you believe it works, Deb. You were eating more than you thought. There were either times you were binging or sneaking bites of food here or there, or you were eating extra food.
I'm sorry, you were not maintaining on 1200 calories.
That is a caloric intake for a very short much older sedentary woman.
No, I don't believe you. Not in the least. I've seen you flit from fad to fad on these boards, latching onto whatever you read to easily. Now you're into low carb. The last big thing you were into was recomp. What's going to be next?
And I had no idea that recomp is a fad. You never cease to learn on these boards.
Anything can be a fad; it's about why one does it and how one approaches it.2 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
That article you keep posting, apropos of nothing, also contains this little gem:Eating several smaller meals will increase your RMR because your metabolism is used to digest your food every time you eat. Besides making you feel full longer, eating smaller meals will help you to drop weight easier. You won’t be so apt to binge on something because you’re hungry if you know you are going to eat something in another hour.
So now that you've finished moving the goalposts, please tell me how age and genetics and your RMR have anything to do with your continued assertions that you damaged your metabolism by eating 1200 calories to lose 10 pounds?
What? I lost 10 pounds in 5 months. I damaged my metabolism by being on 1200 calories for 2 years. Big mistake. I found MFP AFTER being on a plateau for a couple of years. Since then I've raised my maintenance calories thankfully. I'm so happy about that.
You weren't maintaining on 1200 caloriesno.
Reverse diets, which you say you did, don't work in the way you think they do.
Yes. I did. I plateaued. And I wasn't well. And my body slowed way down. I am still a very, very slow loser. I haven't had my thyroid checked, but I may go just to rule that possibility out.
I wasn't willing to drop down more than 1200 so I unhappily stayed at that number thinking it was my plight.
I later learned about TDEE and that my maintenance calories should be around 1800, so I gradually reversed dieted after researching. Now when I diet next I only plan to dip down to 1500 calories or so. I never plan to go that low (ETA 1200 ) ever again.
Others have TDEEs that are different based on age, sex, height, genetics, health, activity levels or whatever. I'm sorry you don't believe me or agree with me. That isn't something I can ever prove to your satisfaction if it never has happened to you. It happened to me in my 50s. I have no reason to lie about this.
I get no benefit from sharing other than knowing that there are others it has happened to out there. They report it plenty, but people accuse them of lying or not weighing food with kitchen scales or not logging properly. But I tend to believe that many are experienced dieters who have been doing this a while who plateau even on a diet.
Three words. Concentration camp survivors.
Three more words: Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
These people continued to lose weight in the face of continuing caloric restriction.
The body does not work in the way you believe it works, Deb. You were eating more than you thought. There were either times you were binging or sneaking bites of food here or there, or you were eating extra food.
I'm sorry, you were not maintaining on 1200 calories.
That is a caloric intake for a very short much older sedentary woman.
No, I don't believe you. Not in the least. I've seen you flit from fad to fad on these boards, latching onto whatever you read to easily. Now you're into low carb. The last big thing you were into was recomp. What's going to be next?
And I had no idea that recomp is a fad. You never cease to learn on these boards.
It's in the attitude one takes when approaching things. My sister latches on to anything new she discovers, these things aren't necessarily new, but they're new to her. They're fads or phases for her.
0 -
The highest I got was borderline overweight/normal BMI threshold. This gain started creeping up in my 40s. I find now that I am in my 50s it is harder for me to diet it down because I only have a couple hundred calories deficit.
Protein definitely helps. I found that when I was high protein and low fat I was hungry, so I had to drop protein a little bit to add fat when I dropped carbs. But everyone seems to have their own satiety point.
I find that now I need to rely on activity to create a deficit because I don't have a lot of extra calories to play with.
Okay, seriously, dropping the cynical nature I've had towards what you're saying... I am a bit concerned about you dropping protein here.
If you're trying to build muscle through recomp, you're over 50, and you're in a deficit, you need adequate protein.
What are your stats?
I believe I'm older than you and am shorter and weigh less. I'm only 5'1". I just found out I shrunk an inch at my last physical (stupid scoliosis). I weigh 117. I'm 54. I can lose weight at 1400-1600, but slowly. I aim to get around 100 grams of protein a day. I have ... this is a tough one... calipers put me at 20% body fat. Tape measure puts me at 21%. Visually? I'd say somewhere between 20-25. I dunno. I thank my protein intake while dieting and lifting. Protein intake is important.6 -
Newsflash - ALL diets work! And they work for same reason. Less Calories come in that you burn. Period. But its what works best for people. Yes if you are super active and run a ton or work out a ton and are in your 30s - then yes you can eat 3000 cals a day and lose weight. I got it. Some people find it easier to do low carbs. Some people are not addicted to Choc or cake or Ice cream or break and therefore - not a bit loss to eat those foods. I do love these debates its fun to see how people think especially the militant ones that say there is only ONE way!!! But the point is - all diets works - its what you can stay with in the long term.3
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
That article you keep posting, apropos of nothing, also contains this little gem:Eating several smaller meals will increase your RMR because your metabolism is used to digest your food every time you eat. Besides making you feel full longer, eating smaller meals will help you to drop weight easier. You won’t be so apt to binge on something because you’re hungry if you know you are going to eat something in another hour.
So now that you've finished moving the goalposts, please tell me how age and genetics and your RMR have anything to do with your continued assertions that you damaged your metabolism by eating 1200 calories to lose 10 pounds?
What? I lost 10 pounds in 5 months. I damaged my metabolism by being on 1200 calories for 2 years. Big mistake. I found MFP AFTER being on a plateau for a couple of years. Since then I've raised my maintenance calories thankfully. I'm so happy about that.
You weren't maintaining on 1200 caloriesno.
Reverse diets, which you say you did, don't work in the way you think they do.
Yes. I did. I plateaued. And I wasn't well. And my body slowed way down. I am still a very, very slow loser. I haven't had my thyroid checked, but I may go just to rule that possibility out.
I wasn't willing to drop down more than 1200 so I unhappily stayed at that number thinking it was my plight.
I later learned about TDEE and that my maintenance calories should be around 1800, so I gradually reversed dieted after researching. Now when I diet next I only plan to dip down to 1500 calories or so. I never plan to go that low (ETA 1200 ) ever again.
Others have TDEEs that are different based on age, sex, height, genetics, health, activity levels or whatever. I'm sorry you don't believe me or agree with me. That isn't something I can ever prove to your satisfaction if it never has happened to you. It happened to me in my 50s. I have no reason to lie about this.
I get no benefit from sharing other than knowing that there are others it has happened to out there. They report it plenty, but people accuse them of lying or not weighing food with kitchen scales or not logging properly. But I tend to believe that many are experienced dieters who have been doing this a while who plateau even on a diet.
Three words. Concentration camp survivors.
Three more words: Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
These people continued to lose weight in the face of continuing caloric restriction.
The body does not work in the way you believe it works, Deb. You were eating more than you thought. There were either times you were binging or sneaking bites of food here or there, or you were eating extra food.
I'm sorry, you were not maintaining on 1200 calories.
That is a caloric intake for a very short much older sedentary woman.
No, I don't believe you. Not in the least. I've seen you flit from fad to fad on these boards, latching onto whatever you read to easily. Now you're into low carb. The last big thing you were into was recomp. What's going to be next?
And I had no idea that recomp is a fad. You never cease to learn on these boards.
It's in the attitude one takes when approaching things. My sister latches on to anything new she discovers, these things aren't necessarily new, but they're new to her. They're fads or phases for her.
I see, nothing new then. Ancient latins called it "levitas animi" and it was the reason why women were considered incompetent...Oh wait
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
That article you keep posting, apropos of nothing, also contains this little gem:Eating several smaller meals will increase your RMR because your metabolism is used to digest your food every time you eat. Besides making you feel full longer, eating smaller meals will help you to drop weight easier. You won’t be so apt to binge on something because you’re hungry if you know you are going to eat something in another hour.
So now that you've finished moving the goalposts, please tell me how age and genetics and your RMR have anything to do with your continued assertions that you damaged your metabolism by eating 1200 calories to lose 10 pounds?
What? I lost 10 pounds in 5 months. I damaged my metabolism by being on 1200 calories for 2 years. Big mistake. I found MFP AFTER being on a plateau for a couple of years. Since then I've raised my maintenance calories thankfully. I'm so happy about that.
You weren't maintaining on 1200 caloriesno.
Reverse diets, which you say you did, don't work in the way you think they do.
Yes. I did. I plateaued. And I wasn't well. And my body slowed way down. I am still a very, very slow loser. I haven't had my thyroid checked, but I may go just to rule that possibility out.
I wasn't willing to drop down more than 1200 so I unhappily stayed at that number thinking it was my plight.
I later learned about TDEE and that my maintenance calories should be around 1800, so I gradually reversed dieted after researching. Now when I diet next I only plan to dip down to 1500 calories or so. I never plan to go that low (ETA 1200 ) ever again.
Others have TDEEs that are different based on age, sex, height, genetics, health, activity levels or whatever. I'm sorry you don't believe me or agree with me. That isn't something I can ever prove to your satisfaction if it never has happened to you. It happened to me in my 50s. I have no reason to lie about this.
I get no benefit from sharing other than knowing that there are others it has happened to out there. They report it plenty, but people accuse them of lying or not weighing food with kitchen scales or not logging properly. But I tend to believe that many are experienced dieters who have been doing this a while who plateau even on a diet.
Three words. Concentration camp survivors.
Three more words: Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
These people continued to lose weight in the face of continuing caloric restriction.
The body does not work in the way you believe it works, Deb. You were eating more than you thought. There were either times you were binging or sneaking bites of food here or there, or you were eating extra food.
I'm sorry, you were not maintaining on 1200 calories.
That is a caloric intake for a very short much older sedentary woman.
No, I don't believe you. Not in the least. I've seen you flit from fad to fad on these boards, latching onto whatever you read to easily. Now you're into low carb. The last big thing you were into was recomp. What's going to be next?
And I had no idea that recomp is a fad. You never cease to learn on these boards.
It's in the attitude one takes when approaching things. My sister latches on to anything new she discovers, these things aren't necessarily new, but they're new to her. They're fads or phases for her.
I see, nothing new then. Ancient latins called it "levitas animi" and it was the reason why women were considered incompetent...Oh wait
???0 -
Doing low carb you have to eat less calories than you burn, that part never chagnes no matter what the diet is called. Just find the one that you think you can sustain on.1
-
courtneyfabulous wrote: »Skip low carb- counting calories is all you need. What you actually need to focus on is getting enough PROTEIN. Then fill in the rest of your calories with carbs or fats in whatever proportion you want. Eating low carb is actually counterproductive to weight loss in the long term because it causes a reduction in weight loss hormones and slows the metabolism. People just do it as a way to cut calories but if you track all your calories it's not necessary.
I wouldn't go high carb though, because eating a lot of carbs increases appetite and will make sticking to your calories more difficult.
Just eat what you want in correct portions & proportions and make sure you get enough protein (this is important for maintaining muscle and prioritizing fat loss)
Also FYI calorie counting is the only diet that has ever really worked for me- and instead of having to give up foods I love I get to eat whatever I want. You may want to make some switches- like I gave up sweets and muffins & cookies but now I let myself have protein bars and protein cookies and chocolate protein shakes- I still get to satisfy my seeet tooth but I get to fulfill my protein needs at the same time and these types of treats generally have less sugar and sometimes more fiber & vitamins than my old treat foods.
Courtney, the stuff above works for you, but it is not universally factual. There is nothing wrong with low carb, and many people love and do well on this particular dietary plan.
Also, a sweet is a sweet whether or not it has less or more protein, but each to their own.
1 -
courtneyfabulous wrote: »For those wondering about my post - look up the effects of low carb diets and prolonged caloric deficit on leptin and the metabolism.
Leptin is reduced with calorie suppression.. Not just carbs.5 -
courtneyfabulous wrote: »Skip low carb- counting calories is all you need. What you actually need to focus on is getting enough PROTEIN. Then fill in the rest of your calories with carbs or fats in whatever proportion you want. Eating low carb is actually counterproductive to weight loss in the long term because it causes a reduction in weight loss hormones and slows the metabolism. People just do it as a way to cut calories but if you track all your calories it's not necessary.
I wouldn't go high carb though, because eating a lot of carbs increases appetite and will make sticking to your calories more difficult.
Just eat what you want in correct portions & proportions and make sure you get enough protein (this is important for maintaining muscle and prioritizing fat loss)
Also FYI calorie counting is the only diet that has ever really worked for me- and instead of having to give up foods I love I get to eat whatever I want. You may want to make some switches- like I gave up sweets and muffins & cookies but now I let myself have protein bars and protein cookies and chocolate protein shakes- I still get to satisfy my seeet tooth but I get to fulfill my protein needs at the same time and these types of treats generally have less sugar and sometimes more fiber & vitamins than my old treat foods.
Courtney, the stuff above works for you, but it is not universally factual. There is nothing wrong with low carb, and many people love and do well on this particular dietary plan.
Agree with this. And some even like and feel satiated on high carb. Increasing protein if it's low is definitely the first thing I'd recommend to someone struggling with hunger (maybe increasing the overall fiber in the diet too), but one can do that without protein bars and other protein snacks too (even when including some chocolate or ice cream in the diet, although if you don't want to no reason to -- for me rather than most protein bars I'd rather have some good cheese or some other extra I really love).
The key point is that as long as the calories are right there's a huge variety of diets that will work and people will differ on what they enjoy/feel good on (and the best way to get the calories right).1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I can do some serious damage to cold cereal and milk. But it's the combination. I was never one for eating it straight out of the box.
But I've also overeaten (to ridiculous extremes) egg salad and cheese.
Having been an emotional eater, it really was all about putting away a vast quantity of food, no matter what I was eating. That's why I don't really get the "the macros made me do it" arguments. My overeating was always behavior based.
I've never been an overeater or an emotional eater-- don't like feeling "full". I gradually gained a few pounds over time. I tend to plateau and maintain easily. I think my gain was age related and due to slowing metabolism over time. I was never overweight when younger and not too overweight at max weight. But I have trouble losing weight and don't understand how others can lose so easily but can gain back easily. I don't lose weight easily and do stall easily.
Well, I used to think those same things about myself -- that I had a slowed metabolism due to age and that I lost weight slowly.
That's not true.
You said you were using Nutri-System to lose weight. Were you logging and tracking at the time? Were you using a food scale? If you weren't you don't truly know your caloric intake.
At the time I thought I was having a hard time losing weight, I was estimating my food intake by eyeballing portions. When I starting actually logging and weighing everything, it was a real eye opener. I also started losing weight at pretty much the expected rate.
The truth is that age accounts for a very small decrease in metabolic rate, about 100 calories per decade.
I've said before that the way you speak about metabolism indicates that you misunderstand it. I stand by that.
I had this same type of experience as well. I blamed my weight gain, and my inability to lose weight, on hormones, peri-menopause, everything else but my intake.
I lost my weight during menopause, and it was darned easy when I figured out my food scale works much better than my eyeballs, which are completely broken to identifying portion control. Really, they are.
I am 99.99999% percent sure that anybody who professes that they lost weight due to a certain diet rather than a calorie deficit did not weight and log all their food prior to the diet, or during the diet.
When it comes to weight loss, everything outside of CICO is preference only.
The only magic in any diet is the magic we give it.4 -
Everyone is different but I did low Carb and never maintained the losses. I got so I would kill for a potato, lol. I have lost 65 pounds eating healthy. I still use sour cream sparingly and other favorites. I have been dieting for almost a year and I do not feel deprived. I could eat this way for life and probably will with a slight elevation in calories. I'm 60 years old so my loss has not been fast but has been about 1.4 pounds a week. I am mostly sedentary but I walk daily to get my metabolism working. Don't buy in to the low carb nonsense. You certainly don't want a diet of nothing but carb but your body needs a balance. I still have 32 pounds to go and expect my losses to slow down but I feel so much better I can wait a bit longer to reach goal. Good luck kiddo.2
-
LCHF isn't a "fad" either. It is a way of eating.
It's both...it's currently the hot new trendy thing within the diet and fitness community at the moment...just pick up that fitness magazine in the checkout line...pretty soon it will be something else...that makes it a fad. If it weren't a fad you wouldn't get posts like the OP..."I heard I need to go ultra low carb..." She heard that because it is currently a fad and carbs are "bad"...8 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Age and genetics can impact rmr
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.healthydietadvisor.com/resting-metabolic-rate/amp/
That article you keep posting, apropos of nothing, also contains this little gem:Eating several smaller meals will increase your RMR because your metabolism is used to digest your food every time you eat. Besides making you feel full longer, eating smaller meals will help you to drop weight easier. You won’t be so apt to binge on something because you’re hungry if you know you are going to eat something in another hour.
So now that you've finished moving the goalposts, please tell me how age and genetics and your RMR have anything to do with your continued assertions that you damaged your metabolism by eating 1200 calories to lose 10 pounds?
What? I lost 10 pounds in 5 months. I damaged my metabolism by being on 1200 calories for 2 years. Big mistake. I found MFP AFTER being on a plateau for a couple of years. Since then I've raised my maintenance calories thankfully. I'm so happy about that.
You weren't maintaining on 1200 caloriesno.
Reverse diets, which you say you did, don't work in the way you think they do.
Yes. I did. I plateaued. And I wasn't well. And my body slowed way down. I am still a very, very slow loser. I haven't had my thyroid checked, but I may go just to rule that possibility out.
I wasn't willing to drop down more than 1200 so I unhappily stayed at that number thinking it was my plight.
I later learned about TDEE and that my maintenance calories should be around 1800, so I gradually reversed dieted after researching. Now when I diet next I only plan to dip down to 1500 calories or so. I never plan to go that low (ETA 1200 ) ever again.
Others have TDEEs that are different based on age, sex, height, genetics, health, activity levels or whatever. I'm sorry you don't believe me or agree with me. That isn't something I can ever prove to your satisfaction if it never has happened to you. It happened to me in my 50s. I have no reason to lie about this.
I get no benefit from sharing other than knowing that there are others it has happened to out there. They report it plenty, but people accuse them of lying or not weighing food with kitchen scales or not logging properly. But I tend to believe that many are experienced dieters who have been doing this a while who plateau even on a diet.
Three words. Concentration camp survivors.
Three more words: Minnesota Starvation Experiment.
These people continued to lose weight in the face of continuing caloric restriction.
The body does not work in the way you believe it works, Deb. You were eating more than you thought. There were either times you were binging or sneaking bites of food here or there, or you were eating extra food.
I'm sorry, you were not maintaining on 1200 calories.
That is a caloric intake for a very short much older sedentary woman.
No, I don't believe you. Not in the least. I've seen you flit from fad to fad on these boards, latching onto whatever you read to easily. Now you're into low carb. The last big thing you were into was recomp. What's going to be next?
And I had no idea that recomp is a fad. You never cease to learn on these boards.
It's in the attitude one takes when approaching things. My sister latches on to anything new she discovers, these things aren't necessarily new, but they're new to her. They're fads or phases for her.
I see, nothing new then. Ancient latins called it "levitas animi" and it was the reason why women were considered incompetent...Oh wait
Misogynistic stereotyping coming from you. Quelle surprise.4 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »LCHF isn't a "fad" either. It is a way of eating.
It's both...it's currently the hot new trendy thing within the diet and fitness community at the moment...just pick up that fitness magazine in the checkout line...pretty soon it will be something else...that makes it a fad. If it weren't a fad you wouldn't get posts like the OP..."I heard I need to go ultra low carb..." She heard that because it is currently a fad and carbs are "bad"...
Don't forget to do HIIT while you're LCHF'ing. Gotta combine the latest fads for max effectiveness!5 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »LCHF isn't a "fad" either. It is a way of eating.
It's both...it's currently the hot new trendy thing within the diet and fitness community at the moment...just pick up that fitness magazine in the checkout line...pretty soon it will be something else...that makes it a fad. If it weren't a fad you wouldn't get posts like the OP..."I heard I need to go ultra low carb..." She heard that because it is currently a fad and carbs are "bad"...
Don't forget to do HIIT while you're LCHF'ing. Gotta combine the latest fads for max effectiveness!
I would literally die if I tried that. Anaerobic + low carb = painful death, lol.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 964 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions