Ok so if you have a Calorie deficit everyday does that guarantee weight loss??
Options
Replies
-
Let's say you're doing 40/40/20 - 40% carb, 40% protein, 20% fats over a nice round 2000 calories (200G protein, 200G carbs, 44G fat)
A pound of broccoli is 155 calories, you're consuming 2g fat, 30g carb and 13g protein (rounded for ease of use). Now let's say we eat nothing but 11 pounds of broccoli a day - for a total of 1705 calories, we do a nice even 205 calories worth of exercise and we create a 500 calorie deficit in our system, losing approximately a pound a week.
Meanwhile, your macronutrients are screwed up, your body will start to shut down and the likelihood of the "CO" part of your equation remaining the same is slim to none; you'll effectively shut down your BMR and despite feeding your body the same amount of calories, you'll have less energy day by day.
So even though a calorie is a calorie, a carb is a carb; a protein is a protein and a fat is a fat; food definitely is not the same in terms of how your body reacts to it.
Plugging any single food into the equation will lead to the same results. Whether it's carrots or chicken or bacon. That's why a varied diet is so important to human beings. The more varied, generally, the better. You cannot prove that a food or a type of food is good or bad based on eating nothing but that one food. Almost anything would look bad under those circumstances.24 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Well wait... who says treats don't have macronutrients that your body utilizes for nourishment?
And... if you're fitting that treat in after eating healthy (or even not so healthy, after all, a Big Mac or pizza has protein, fat, and carbs that your body will use to feed your muscles), how are you starving your body?
Are you aware there's not a separate digestive path for "junk" food and "healthy" food in your body? Carbohydrates are carbohydrates. Protein is protein. Fat (say PUFA) is fat. Your body takes it where it gets it and uses it to feed all the complicated systems.
Completely aware; but take your Big Mac example, being that "all food is equal" in terms of high level macro nutrients in terms of your digestive system, let's even make it more simple and forget about vitamins, sodium, etc...
Let's say you're doing 40/40/20 - 40% carb, 40% protein, 20% fats over a nice round 2000 calories (200G protein, 200G carbs, 44G fat)
A Big Mac is 560ish calories, you're consuming 33g fat, 44g carb and 26g protein. Now let's say we eat nothing big three Big Macs a day - for a total of 1680 calories, we do a nice even 180 calories worth of exercise and we create a 500 calorie deficit in our system, losing approximately a pound a week.
Meanwhile, your macronutrients are screwed up, your body will start to shut down and the likelihood of the "CO" part of your equation remaining the same is slim to none; you'll effectively shut down your BMR and despite feeding your body the same amount of calories, you'll have less energy day by day.
So even though a calorie is a calorie, a carb is a carb; a protein is a protein and a fat is a fat; food definitely is not the same in terms of how your body reacts to it.
Now if we take into account the added sugar in the buns, sauce and such on the Big Mac; you're creating an appetite builder, rather than suppressor, so those three Big Macs won't even feel like they're filling you up within a short order of time.
Nothing above is "new" information to you, I'm sure; but its my personal (humbled) opinion that CICO alone is the major reason people have relapse of weight, it certainly has been for me.
Nonsense...your body is going to shut down because your macros are some specific thing..that's friggin' ludicrous dude.
Macro ratios are a very individual thing...also, nice strawman, nothing but Big Macs argument...which nobody suggested ever.7 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Are you aware that societies around the world exist on varying macronutrient ratios with carbohydrate intakes that are very high and fat intakes very low to other societies existing with high fat high protein intakes and low carbohyrate intakes? As far as I know, these people are able to go about life without their bodies "shutting down" because some vague, decided upon macronutrient ratio wasn't met.
How on earth did human beings get anywhere during times when all you could get to eat was whatever was available instead of being able to choose a macronutrient ratio?
I'm afraid you have much to learn about how the body works.
Of course; are you aware of their different body compositions and evolutionary genetics that have adapted to the food sources available to them...? i.e those on the Savannah that have access to fats and protein usually have more muscular builds and genetics that allow them to more easily pack on muscle, those in Asia that have more access to grains and rices have leaner builds, less muscular that can survive on less total calories per day, those in South America have more access to fibre filled fruits, etc etc etc.
That's a whole deeper topic for discussion; but as you're also no doubt aware, our carbohydrate intake (particularly those gained from non fibre sources) has increased worldwide at the same time the obesity epidemic has increased worldwide. I don't get the hostility though, why are you treating this like an argument to be won, rather than a discussion to be learned from?GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »This is not universally true. While I personally don't eat Big Macs due to being a vegetarian, I know quite a few people on these boards do, and find them to be quite satisfying. This whole sugar making you instantly hungry within an hour bogeyman is not a universal truth, as much as the low-carb gurus would have you believe.
You are trying to apply your personal experience to everyone.
Look, maybe that's true; but I can also point to a pretty thriving diet and supplement industry, and programs like Weight Watchers, or Adkins. I can point to the endless amounts of examples of people losing weight, regaining weight, losing weight, regaining weight. You act like my personal experience isn't a common one.
2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Let's say you're doing 40/40/20 - 40% carb, 40% protein, 20% fats over a nice round 2000 calories (200G protein, 200G carbs, 44G fat)
A pound of broccoli is 155 calories, you're consuming 2g fat, 30g carb and 13g protein (rounded for ease of use). Now let's say we eat nothing but 11 pounds of broccoli a day - for a total of 1705 calories, we do a nice even 205 calories worth of exercise and we create a 500 calorie deficit in our system, losing approximately a pound a week.
Meanwhile, your macronutrients are screwed up, your body will start to shut down and the likelihood of the "CO" part of your equation remaining the same is slim to none; you'll effectively shut down your BMR and despite feeding your body the same amount of calories, you'll have less energy day by day.
So even though a calorie is a calorie, a carb is a carb; a protein is a protein and a fat is a fat; food definitely is not the same in terms of how your body reacts to it.
Plugging any single food into the equation will lead to the same results. Whether it's carrots or chicken or bacon. That's why a varied diet is so important to human beings. The more varied, generally, the better. You cannot prove that a food or a type of food is good or bad based on eating nothing but that one food. Almost anything would look bad under those circumstances.
7 -
Looking only at CICO is why I was successful and haven't relapsed (regained) Knowing that I can always eat whatever I feel like or have a craving for as long as it fits in my calorie goal gives me long term success. If I restrict certain foods, I tend to binge.SymbolismNZ wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Nothing above is "new" information to you, I'm sure; but its my personal (humbled) opinion that CICO alone is the major reason people have relapse of weight, it certainly has been for me.
Just to clarify this; so it's not Captain Obvious; obeying a CICO diet alone and paying no attention to anything other than calories in, calories out is a major reason people relapse, because when they go away from calorie counting, they haven't changed the underlying psychology towards food, nor in many cases added to their BMR through healthy eating and exercise.
6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »On what do you base this "relapse" theory?
In my experience, restriction of food types is the basis for relapse. The act of denying oneself becomes too much and then "poof", the whole endeavor goes down the drain.
On what do I base this relapse theory? I mean, poke your head out of the clouds from argument land and look around at the amount of "I lost all this weight, only to regain it and more" stories that perpetuate in places like this and in gyms, and everywhere else.
Now; keep in mind my point here has been that for those that get to a state of morbid obesity, you absolutely need to change your underlying psychology towards food in order to have sustainable long term success. If you're talking "I need to shift 15-20lbs" - then chances are, you have a completely different set of problems to someone who needs to shift 50+ lbs.
1 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Plugging any single food into the equation will lead to the same results. Whether it's carrots or chicken or bacon. That's why a varied diet is so important to human beings. The more varied, generally, the better. You cannot prove that a food or a type of food is good or bad based on eating nothing but that one food. Almost anything would look bad under those circumstances.
A BigMac isn't a single food - it's a combination of all of the macro nutrients, it's why it's a good example as an extreme, because it's actually not too far off an OK macro nutrient ratio.
1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »On what do you base this "relapse" theory?
In my experience, restriction of food types is the basis for relapse. The act of denying oneself becomes too much and then "poof", the whole endeavor goes down the drain.
On what do I base this relapse theory? I mean, poke your head out of the clouds from argument land and look around at the amount of "I lost all this weight, only to regain it and more" stories that perpetuate in places like this and in gyms, and everywhere else.
Now; keep in mind my point here has been that for those that get to a state of morbid obesity, you absolutely need to change your underlying psychology towards food in order to have sustainable long term success. If you're talking "I need to shift 15-20lbs" - then chances are, you have a completely different set of problems to someone who needs to shift 50+ lbs.
So is it your position, then, that people who make radical changes in their diet/lifestyle and "eat clean" (by whatever nebulous definition) are magically spared from relapsing? That they'll never be tempted to deviate from their organic, grass-fed, non-processed, gluten-free, low fat glory? How does this wizardry happen?15 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Let's say you're doing 40/40/20 - 40% carb, 40% protein, 20% fats over a nice round 2000 calories (200G protein, 200G carbs, 44G fat)
A pound of broccoli is 155 calories, you're consuming 2g fat, 30g carb and 13g protein (rounded for ease of use). Now let's say we eat nothing but 11 pounds of broccoli a day - for a total of 1705 calories, we do a nice even 205 calories worth of exercise and we create a 500 calorie deficit in our system, losing approximately a pound a week.
Meanwhile, your macronutrients are screwed up, your body will start to shut down and the likelihood of the "CO" part of your equation remaining the same is slim to none; you'll effectively shut down your BMR and despite feeding your body the same amount of calories, you'll have less energy day by day.
So even though a calorie is a calorie, a carb is a carb; a protein is a protein and a fat is a fat; food definitely is not the same in terms of how your body reacts to it.
Plugging any single food into the equation will lead to the same results. Whether it's carrots or chicken or bacon. That's why a varied diet is so important to human beings. The more varied, generally, the better. You cannot prove that a food or a type of food is good or bad based on eating nothing but that one food. Almost anything would look bad under those circumstances.
This is why I don't eat broccoli.
But man I could go for a Big Mac right now.9 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Let's say you're doing 40/40/20 - 40% carb, 40% protein, 20% fats over a nice round 2000 calories (200G protein, 200G carbs, 44G fat)
A pound of broccoli is 155 calories, you're consuming 2g fat, 30g carb and 13g protein (rounded for ease of use). Now let's say we eat nothing but 11 pounds of broccoli a day - for a total of 1705 calories, we do a nice even 205 calories worth of exercise and we create a 500 calorie deficit in our system, losing approximately a pound a week.
Meanwhile, your macronutrients are screwed up, your body will start to shut down and the likelihood of the "CO" part of your equation remaining the same is slim to none; you'll effectively shut down your BMR and despite feeding your body the same amount of calories, you'll have less energy day by day.
So even though a calorie is a calorie, a carb is a carb; a protein is a protein and a fat is a fat; food definitely is not the same in terms of how your body reacts to it.
Plugging any single food into the equation will lead to the same results. Whether it's carrots or chicken or bacon. That's why a varied diet is so important to human beings. The more varied, generally, the better. You cannot prove that a food or a type of food is good or bad based on eating nothing but that one food. Almost anything would look bad under those circumstances.
This is why I don't eat broccoli.
But man I could go for a Big Mac right now.
I don't even eat meat and I'm getting hungry for one:) <<< Atkins diet ruined me I can't even enjoy my baco's because of eating so much bacon on that diet.2 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Are you aware that societies around the world exist on varying macronutrient ratios with carbohydrate intakes that are very high and fat intakes very low to other societies existing with high fat high protein intakes and low carbohyrate intakes? As far as I know, these people are able to go about life without their bodies "shutting down" because some vague, decided upon macronutrient ratio wasn't met.
How on earth did human beings get anywhere during times when all you could get to eat was whatever was available instead of being able to choose a macronutrient ratio?
I'm afraid you have much to learn about how the body works.
Of course; are you aware of their different body compositions and evolutionary genetics that have adapted to the food sources available to them...? i.e those on the Savannah that have access to fats and protein usually have more muscular builds and genetics that allow them to more easily pack on muscle, those in Asia that have more access to grains and rices have leaner builds, less muscular that can survive on less total calories per day, those in South America have more access to fibre filled fruits, etc etc etc.
That's a whole deeper topic for discussion; but as you're also no doubt aware, our carbohydrate intake (particularly those gained from non fibre sources) has increased worldwide at the same time the obesity epidemic has increased worldwide. I don't get the hostility though, why are you treating this like an argument to be won, rather than a discussion to be learned from?
How does this address the deeper question: macronutrient ratios do not shut down the body. There is no ideal macronutrient ratio, except on an individual level, and that can vary daily. I prefer to get a decent amount of protein, a good amount of carbs, and very little fat. I feel satiated, some digestive difficulties I have do best eating this way, and my fitness goals are fueled eating this way.
I do not presume that this is true for anyone but me.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »This is not universally true. While I personally don't eat Big Macs due to being a vegetarian, I know quite a few people on these boards do, and find them to be quite satisfying. This whole sugar making you instantly hungry within an hour bogeyman is not a universal truth, as much as the low-carb gurus would have you believe.
You are trying to apply your personal experience to everyone.Look, maybe that's true; but I can also point to a pretty thriving diet and supplement industry, and programs like Weight Watchers, or Adkins. I can point to the endless amounts of examples of people losing weight, regaining weight, losing weight, regaining weight. You act like my personal experience isn't a common one.
I do accept your personal experience as being common, but can you accept other's personal experience as being equally common?
There's some preliminary research indicating that there might be some genetic shenanigans at play here behind this whole "carbs play nicely with me" and "carbs make me a ravenous wild boar" thing that goes on with different people.
1 -
So is it your position, then, that people who make radical changes in their diet/lifestyle and "eat clean" (by whatever nebulous definition) are magically spared from relapsing? How does this wizardry happen?
Of course not; I don't have an expectation that people are perfect.
I will however say that you're far more likely to experience longer term success if you make it about a sustainable lifestyle choice rather than a short term period of dieting... and that fueling your body with a mind to what you're using as fuel will assist you in other goals.
Just to highlight my experience a little.
Agegroup/Schoolboy representitive in multiple sports, signed a professional sports contract at the age of 18, broke my back at 20 and by 22 had gained over 65KG; had severe sciatica and other issues that complicated exercise, but lost 40KG by the age of 25 through a niche/fad diet (Optifast) - kept the weight off approximately six months before starting to gain it back, managed to arrest it having regained 20KG back before starting to become intense around running and marathons, got down to the weight I was as a kid by the age of 28 and sustained it until around 32 through good eating and exercise; ran a sub three hour marathon and was gearing up for an ironman, but blew out my knee, had to stop running and also at the same time, took an executive management position for a corporate with a lot of travel/wining/dining - gained 40KG back until the age of 35; started to pay more attention to diet around a month ago and dropped 10KG within the month, now starting to put together exercise and diet, but with a view of making a lifestyle change where the diet I eat will become my lifelong diet.
I'm atypical of most that get to a state of morbid obesity; but my experience is reasonably common once being there. The idea that people have that relapse is a myth and that obeying calories alone will get you long term results isn't viable in my view; and it is just my opinion, and I'm sure there are people who prove that opinion wrong, just as much as people who prove that opinion right.
But I'm not here to argue; and that's where this is going - so I'll leave it there.
1 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Plugging any single food into the equation will lead to the same results. Whether it's carrots or chicken or bacon. That's why a varied diet is so important to human beings. The more varied, generally, the better. You cannot prove that a food or a type of food is good or bad based on eating nothing but that one food. Almost anything would look bad under those circumstances.
A BigMac isn't a single food - it's a combination of all of the macro nutrients, it's why it's a good example as an extreme, because it's actually not too far off an OK macro nutrient ratio.
How did you get from what people are saying - smaller portions of what you are eating on a normal basis will lead to weight loss in a calorie deficit - to what you are purporting they are saying - you'll be fine eating nothing but Snickers all day every day?
How is moderation of the diet that you are used to eating, which is likely fairly nutritionally balanced, an unsustainable plan?7 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »On what do you base this "relapse" theory?
In my experience, restriction of food types is the basis for relapse. The act of denying oneself becomes too much and then "poof", the whole endeavor goes down the drain.
On what do I base this relapse theory? I mean, poke your head out of the clouds from argument land and look around at the amount of "I lost all this weight, only to regain it and more" stories that perpetuate in places like this and in gyms, and everywhere else.
Now; keep in mind my point here has been that for those that get to a state of morbid obesity, you absolutely need to change your underlying psychology towards food in order to have sustainable long term success. If you're talking "I need to shift 15-20lbs" - then chances are, you have a completely different set of problems to someone who needs to shift 50+ lbs.
Oh, I'm well aware that the success rate for weight loss efforts is only around 20%. I'm asking you how you've come to the conclusion this lies solely at the feet of energy balance.
Also, please stop presuming I'm "arguing" with you. Challenging your assertions isn't arguing. I disagree with you. There's no rancor in what I'm saying to you.7 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »So is it your position, then, that people who make radical changes in their diet/lifestyle and "eat clean" (by whatever nebulous definition) are magically spared from relapsing? How does this wizardry happen?
Of course not; I don't have an expectation that people are perfect.
I will however say that you're far more likely to experience longer term success if you make it about a sustainable lifestyle choice rather than a short term period of dieting... and that fueling your body with a mind to what you're using as fuel will assist you in other goals.
Just to highlight my experience a little.
Agegroup/Schoolboy representitive in multiple sports, signed a professional sports contract at the age of 18, broke my back at 20 and by 22 had gained over 65KG; had severe sciatica and other issues that complicated exercise, but lost 40KG by the age of 25 through a niche/fad diet (Optifast) - kept the weight off approximately six months before starting to gain it back, managed to arrest it having regained 20KG back before starting to become intense around running and marathons, got down to the weight I was as a kid by the age of 28 and sustained it until around 32 through good eating and exercise; ran a sub three hour marathon and was gearing up for an ironman, but blew out my knee, had to stop running and also at the same time, took an executive management position for a corporate with a lot of travel/wining/dining - gained 40KG back until the age of 35; started to pay more attention to diet around a month ago and dropped 10KG within the month, now starting to put together exercise and diet, but with a view of making a lifestyle change where the diet I eat will become my lifelong diet.
I'm atypical of most that get to a state of morbid obesity; but my experience is reasonably common once being there. The idea that people have that relapse is a myth and that obeying calories alone will get you long term results isn't viable in my view; and it is just my opinion, and I'm sure there are people who prove that opinion wrong, just as much as people who prove that opinion right.
But I'm not here to argue; and that's where this is going - so I'll leave it there.
This sir I can absolutely agree with you!
I did Atkins restricted carbs, I did juice fasting - restricted, I did the no white foods - restricted, No processed foods, Vegan...
See the common theme?
I couldn't sustain those restrictive woe. Eating what I want without restricting anything & taking into account my TDEE and making sure that I have an overall balanced diet is sustainable.
I'm not sure why you can't acknowledge that? We don't have to restrict foods if we don't WANT to in order for it to be a lifestyle change.9 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Well wait... who says treats don't have macronutrients that your body utilizes for nourishment?
And... if you're fitting that treat in after eating healthy (or even not so healthy, after all, a Big Mac or pizza has protein, fat, and carbs that your body will use to feed your muscles), how are you starving your body?
Are you aware there's not a separate digestive path for "junk" food and "healthy" food in your body? Carbohydrates are carbohydrates. Protein is protein. Fat (say PUFA) is fat. Your body takes it where it gets it and uses it to feed all the complicated systems.
Completely aware; but take your Big Mac example, being that "all food is equal" in terms of high level macro nutrients in terms of your digestive system, let's even make it more simple and forget about vitamins, sodium, etc...
Strawman 1: No one said "all food are equal." People who distort "calories are calories" or "you can eat anything you want and lose weight" (both true) into a steak = broccoli = a homemade apple pie are (IMO) going out of their way to misunderstand what is being said.
Foods are different. They have different macros and different micronutrients and you will likely feel different or have different health results depending on how you eat if we are talking about extreme differences. Doesn't necessarily matter for weight loss. (I got fat eating basically "clean," lots "cleaner" than I do now (although I still eat a nutrient-dense healthful diet, which is not the same thing).Let's say you're doing 40/40/20 - 40% carb, 40% protein, 20% fats over a nice round 2000 calories (200G protein, 200G carbs, 44G fat)
Okay, but I would have to ask why, as 200 g of protein is way more than I need. On 2000 calories I am good at around 20% protein (there's no reason for me to eat more than 100 g), and even at a deficit 25% or so is adequate.A Big Mac is 560ish calories, you're consuming 33g fat, 44g carb and 26g protein. Now let's say we eat nothing big three Big Macs a day - for a total of 1680 calories, we do a nice even 180 calories worth of exercise and we create a 500 calorie deficit in our system, losing approximately a pound a week.
Why would anyone eat 3 Big Macs daily. Or even on one day. That's just silly. That said, one day of 78 g of protein wouldn't hurt me a bit -- still well over the RDA.
Also, no one has said ignore how much protein you are eating, or nutrition.Meanwhile, your macronutrients are screwed up
You are eating 78 g protein, 132 g carbs, and 99 g fat. I happen to think it is a poor day because of the lack of vegetables and amount of sat fat, but the macros themselves wouldn't mess you up. A bit lower carb than many like, of course, and for me way too much fat to do on the regular as well as lower in protein than I prefer, but eh.
(Percentages average to 20% protein, 30% carbs, and 50% fat, macros that I bet many people here use successfully.)your body will start to shut down and the likelihood of the "CO" part of your equation remaining the same is slim to none; you'll effectively shut down your BMR and despite feeding your body the same amount of calories, you'll have less energy day by day.
You are saying this happens because of the macros? Seriously?Now if we take into account the added sugar in the buns, sauce and such on the Big Mac; you're creating an appetite builder, rather than suppressor, so those three Big Macs won't even feel like they're filling you up within a short order of time.
The Big Mac has 9 grams of sugar. That's a day of 27 g of sugar. In that sugar is sugar (not in terms of what it comes with, of course, but we've already defined that), that's a low sugar day, about 6% of calories. Even assuming it's mostly added, there's nothing crazy about that.
I ate a pear with 17 g of sugar today, btw, as well as vegetables that contributed another 10 g, for a total of (gasp!) 27, and I have not yet eaten dinner.
Also, I WOULD be hungry after the 3 Big Mac day (not that I've ever had such a thing, as I dislike McD's), but that's because fat isn't filling for me, and vegetables are. A little added sugar never makes me super hungry -- I sometimes end my day with ice cream and sometimes with cheese and sometimes with fruit (17 g in about 150 g of pineapple) and it never matters to how hungry I am, because I eat so much other food. Sure if I mostly ate high sugar, low fiber foods I'd be hungry (or high fat, low fiber foods, for that matter), but I don't, I eat a mix of foods, like pretty much everyone, and that I eat a piece of chocolate doesn't make the whole day non filling or non nutritious. That's goofy.
I also wonder why you think "CICO" means that people don't pay attention to how they eat or care about nutrition.10 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Are you aware that societies around the world exist on varying macronutrient ratios with carbohydrate intakes that are very high and fat intakes very low to other societies existing with high fat high protein intakes and low carbohyrate intakes? As far as I know, these people are able to go about life without their bodies "shutting down" because some vague, decided upon macronutrient ratio wasn't met.
How on earth did human beings get anywhere during times when all you could get to eat was whatever was available instead of being able to choose a macronutrient ratio?
I'm afraid you have much to learn about how the body works.
Of course; are you aware of their different body compositions and evolutionary genetics that have adapted to the food sources available to them...? i.e those on the Savannah that have access to fats and protein usually have more muscular builds and genetics that allow them to more easily pack on muscle, those in Asia that have more access to grains and rices have leaner builds, less muscular that can survive on less total calories per day, those in South America have more access to fibre filled fruits, etc etc etc.
That's a whole deeper topic for discussion; but as you're also no doubt aware, our carbohydrate intake (particularly those gained from non fibre sources) has increased worldwide at the same time the obesity epidemic has increased worldwide. I don't get the hostility though, why are you treating this like an argument to be won, rather than a discussion to be learned from?GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »This is not universally true. While I personally don't eat Big Macs due to being a vegetarian, I know quite a few people on these boards do, and find them to be quite satisfying. This whole sugar making you instantly hungry within an hour bogeyman is not a universal truth, as much as the low-carb gurus would have you believe.
You are trying to apply your personal experience to everyone.
Look, maybe that's true; but I can also point to a pretty thriving diet and supplement industry, and programs like Weight Watchers, or Adkins. I can point to the endless amounts of examples of people losing weight, regaining weight, losing weight, regaining weight. You act like my personal experience isn't a common one.
Oh boy, the "carbs are evil" argument. You know what else has increased with the obesity epidemic? Fat intake. Protein intake. Calorie intake. All over this site, people have had success with various macro ratios and with eating various kinds of food. The thing we all have in common is that we're eating in a way that meets our vital nutrients and is sustainable for us. Eating clean is not required, but can be helpful for some. Avoiding daily treats is not required, but can be helpful. And yes, calorie counting is not required, but can be helpful. Whatever strategy someone successfully employs is a different way to the same end: a healthy body.
Why is the weight loss industry thriving? Because they don't teach people how to address their issues with food. They don't teach them sustainable strategies for maintenance. Because people are impatient and want to lose weight as quickly as possible without learning a damn thing.
And FWIW, sugar doesn't make me hungrier, and a small piece of dark chocolate tends to curb my cravings.10 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »Plugging any single food into the equation will lead to the same results. Whether it's carrots or chicken or bacon. That's why a varied diet is so important to human beings. The more varied, generally, the better. You cannot prove that a food or a type of food is good or bad based on eating nothing but that one food. Almost anything would look bad under those circumstances.
A BigMac isn't a single food - it's a combination of all of the macro nutrients, it's why it's a good example as an extreme, because it's actually not too far off an OK macro nutrient ratio.
Do you eat a single, perfectly balanced meal 3x a day, then, or do you prefer a more varied diet?4 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »....I will however say that you're far more likely to experience longer term success if you make it about a sustainable lifestyle choice rather than a short term period of dieting... and that fueling your body with a mind to what you're using as fuel will assist you in other goals...
Exaaaactly.
Which is why many people in this thread have suggested a varied, well-rounded diet with an eye toward macros and micros, while allowing occasional indulgences within the context of said diet.
Eating a Big Mac or a couple slices of pizza or a candy bar (or whatever) once in a while is perfectly acceptable within the overall context of the diet. It won't stop weight loss, it won't shut your body down or make your muscles fall off and it won't immediately give you teh diabeetus or make you dead. It makes adherence easier for many and also helps with satiety - and satiety/adherence are two of the largest factors in whether or not you'll stick to it in the long term.13 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »So is it your position, then, that people who make radical changes in their diet/lifestyle and "eat clean" (by whatever nebulous definition) are magically spared from relapsing? How does this wizardry happen?
Of course not; I don't have an expectation that people are perfect.
I will however say that you're far more likely to experience longer term success if you make it about a sustainable lifestyle choice rather than a short term period of dieting... and that fueling your body with a mind to what you're using as fuel will assist you in other goals.
Just to highlight my experience a little.
Agegroup/Schoolboy representitive in multiple sports, signed a professional sports contract at the age of 18, broke my back at 20 and by 22 had gained over 65KG; had severe sciatica and other issues that complicated exercise, but lost 40KG by the age of 25 through a niche/fad diet (Optifast) - kept the weight off approximately six months before starting to gain it back, managed to arrest it having regained 20KG back before starting to become intense around running and marathons, got down to the weight I was as a kid by the age of 28 and sustained it until around 32 through good eating and exercise; ran a sub three hour marathon and was gearing up for an ironman, but blew out my knee, had to stop running and also at the same time, took an executive management position for a corporate with a lot of travel/wining/dining - gained 40KG back until the age of 35; started to pay more attention to diet around a month ago and dropped 10KG within the month, now starting to put together exercise and diet, but with a view of making a lifestyle change where the diet I eat will become my lifelong diet.
I'm atypical of most that get to a state of morbid obesity; but my experience is reasonably common once being there. The idea that people have that relapse is a myth and that obeying calories alone will get you long term results isn't viable in my view; and it is just my opinion, and I'm sure there are people who prove that opinion wrong, just as much as people who prove that opinion right.
But I'm not here to argue; and that's where this is going - so I'll leave it there.
People aren't arguing with you, they're disagreeing with you.
It sounds like you never understood that you needed to adjust your caloric intake to account for your new weight once you had lost weight, since smaller bodies require less calories to run. And that is why you regained weight. In other words, you just ate too much.
Those of us here understand energy balance at all weights, and that is what CICO is. It's not just about restricting calories while you're losing. It's about eating the appropriate number of calories to maintain your goal weight (taking into account how many calories you're burning through exercise). The forum stickies here explain all of that to us, or barring reading those, the software calculates those needs for you.
Some people find their appetites adjust appropriately to their new size. Others don't.
I've lost 94 pounds learning how energy balance works because I understand my body's energy needs. That is why I won't relapse.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions