weight watchers and mfp
Options
Replies
-
storyjorie wrote: »I'm not sure I agree with much here. I'm hitting MFP's suggested macro breakdown on the nose pretty much every day on the new WW SmartPoints, am not hungry, not craving anything, and feel pretty good...I'm just following the plan online without any WW branded foods. My calorie count is 1300-1400 and I don't eat back what I burn (with the exception of this weekend--had a half marathon and obviously needed to load up for that.) I get that everyone has their own solution and if CICO works for you, that's wonderful, but also not really understanding this disdain for WW. I did the program in various versions throughout my adult life and while I did have an episode of fiber overload in the early 2000s that was quite epic, I can't say I have many complaints.
So - are you still trying to lose weight, or is this version of WW an eating program that you now use to maintain?
0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »http://www.huffingtonpost.com/red-room/undereating_b_4123345.html
Your RMR is responsible for 70 percent of all the calories your body burns in a day regardless of how much or how little you eat. These are calories burned, by definition, when you are literally doing nothing — totally at rest. The only time your metabolism is stopped or killed is when you are dead. In a hypocaloric state your RMR clicks along, 10-25 percent slower than when you are maintaining, no matter how little you exercise or how little you eat. Undereating is not the cause of your weight stall.
This article reports a 10-25% (pretty significant if you're at the 25% end, even a 10% slow down has impact to your 'calorie out' quota!) change in basal metabolic rate in a hypocaloric state (deficit below basal metabolic rate).
It then goes on to use the point that your body does this to hang onto extra fat as an argument AGAINST eating too little being related to weight stall/plateau.
........
I know your reference is just an online blog but even for a blog piece the logic of the writers argument is fuzzy at best.
0 -
storyjorie wrote: »I'm not sure I agree with much here. I'm hitting MFP's suggested macro breakdown on the nose pretty much every day on the new WW SmartPoints, am not hungry, not craving anything, and feel pretty good...I'm just following the plan online without any WW branded foods. My calorie count is 1300-1400 and I don't eat back what I burn (with the exception of this weekend--had a half marathon and obviously needed to load up for that.) I get that everyone has their own solution and if CICO works for you, that's wonderful, but also not really understanding this disdain for WW. I did the program in various versions throughout my adult life and while I did have an episode of fiber overload in the early 2000s that was quite epic, I can't say I have many complaints.
So - are you still trying to lose weight, or is this version of WW an eating program that you now use to maintain?
I think this would be a fabulous maintenance program0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Eating slightly lower than your BMR won't hurt your metabolism - but BMR is a pretty good rough guideline to the minimum amount of food you need to consume to get all of the nutrients (fat, protein and macronutrients) that your body needs to be healthy. So, as a general rule, I'd say that somebody regularly eating below BMR (more than just a couple of calories below) needs to either (1) set more conservative weight loss goals or (2) become more active.
Now, there are people who simply can't do either of those. Maybe they have a disability that prevents them from taking an extra couple thousand steps each day and their goal is already down to 0.5 pounds/week. In that case, I'd just advise them to watch their nutrition really really carefully. Maybe even talk to a good dietitian.
everything I read and have researched states that you shouldnt eat below it because it slows down your metabolism and your BMR will get lower as well(we know it gets lower when you lose weight.). if you are eating less than your body needs to function then how is your body going to function properly if you do it day in and day out for say a year? I know it will slow metabolism down to save energy.if you are obese like I said then you may get away with it for awhile but with so little mass from what I read it is not healthy.why would you eat less than what your body requires to function without exercise? if you were in a coma you would still need that amount of calories. this was also posted on MFP Im borrowing this-https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/21403053/#Comment_21403053
I agree that you shouldn't eat below BMR; my reasons are just different from yours (nutrition-based rather than metabolism-based). In terms of affecting calorie burn, your NEAT is going to get hit long before any actual change to the BMR happens. Too little food = too little energy = a drop in NEAT unless you make a *really* concerted effort to prevent that happening. So, where a person might have gotten 5,000 or 6,000 steps before cutting calories, now they only get 2,000-3,000 and they fidget less. That's easily a drop of 250ish "calories out" without directly affecting metabolism.0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »http://www.huffingtonpost.com/red-room/undereating_b_4123345.html
Your RMR is responsible for 70 percent of all the calories your body burns in a day regardless of how much or how little you eat. These are calories burned, by definition, when you are literally doing nothing — totally at rest. The only time your metabolism is stopped or killed is when you are dead. In a hypocaloric state your RMR clicks along, 10-25 percent slower than when you are maintaining, no matter how little you exercise or how little you eat. Undereating is not the cause of your weight stall.
This article reports a 10-25% (pretty significant if you're at the 25% end, even a 10% slow down has impact to your 'calorie out' quota!) change in basal metabolic rate in a hypocaloric state (deficit below basal metabolic rate).
It then goes on to use the point that your body does this to hang onto extra fat as an argument AGAINST eating too little being related to weight stall/plateau.
You are misreading what the article is saying. ANYONE that eats less than they have been, and loses weight, will cause a very slight change in metabolism. It's normal, and expected. It is NOT an effect that will prevent you from losing weight. Saying "don't eat less than XXX because you will kill your metabolism" is nonsense.
1 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »http://www.huffingtonpost.com/red-room/undereating_b_4123345.html
Your RMR is responsible for 70 percent of all the calories your body burns in a day regardless of how much or how little you eat. These are calories burned, by definition, when you are literally doing nothing — totally at rest. The only time your metabolism is stopped or killed is when you are dead. In a hypocaloric state your RMR clicks along, 10-25 percent slower than when you are maintaining, no matter how little you exercise or how little you eat. Undereating is not the cause of your weight stall.
This article reports a 10-25% (pretty significant if you're at the 25% end, even a 10% slow down has impact to your 'calorie out' quota!) change in basal metabolic rate in a hypocaloric state (deficit below basal metabolic rate).
It then goes on to use the point that your body does this to hang onto extra fat as an argument AGAINST eating too little being related to weight stall/plateau.
You are misreading what the article is saying. ANYONE that eats less than they have been, and loses weight, will cause a very slight change in metabolism. It's normal, and expected. It is NOT an effect that will prevent you from losing weight. Saying "don't eat less than XXX because you will kill your metabolism" is nonsense.
I dunno that I am misreading. The medical definition of hypocaloric is:
The author of your cited blog post is applying the data relevant to a hypocaloric state to eating less than a person was before.
What he's saying had kinda half got elements of truth ... which also means half is not.
0 -
Victoria42015 wrote: »The other thing is, you can eat less than your BMR (how much you burn at rest all day) if you want to. I just checked mine, which is sadly 1341. I am eating 1200 calories a day. You won't lose unless you eat less than you burn. (But of course you burn more than your BMR says because of exercise and movement.)
I wouldn't reccomend this. You can lose weight which is not the same as losing fat. The Calculators are all guides, so may not be appropriate for you (generic you). The more muscle you lose, the lower your metabolism will be and one would have to eat even less calories to maintain/lose.0 -
Honestly when I got stuck I tightened up on logging, and readjusted my calorie goals until it got me unstuck.
It sounds like you're pretty tight on logging, so go back and readjust until you find the perfect balance that gets you losing again.0 -
jjohnstonlni wrote: »Honestly when I got stuck I tightened up on logging, and readjusted my calorie goals until it got me unstuck.
It sounds like you're pretty tight on logging, so go back and readjust until you find the perfect balance that gets you losing again.
She's never logged here and has never counted vegetables because they're "free" on WW. That's the issue. She's been eating more than she realises. So just the act of logging absolutely everything, including veg, will get the scale moving again.0 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »You are misreading what the article is saying. ANYONE that eats less than they have been, and loses weight, will cause a very slight change in metabolism. It's normal, and expected. It is NOT an effect that will prevent you from losing weight. Saying "don't eat less than XXX because you will kill your metabolism" is nonsense.
10% reduction of a BMR of 1500 is 150 calories a day. That's a fairly significant dent in your deficit. 20% reduction in BMR of 1500 would be 300 calories a day. It's definitely enough to slow your loss, and you need to be aware of that possibility.0 -
that is so interesting, I don't see the difference they are both measured, oz or grams?
Grams make the math easier because if you find those "calories per 100 grams" entries you can use simple percentages. So if you eat 45 grams of something, and find the 100 gram entry in the database, you ate .45 of a serving!0 -
storyjorie wrote: »I'm not sure I agree with much here. I'm hitting MFP's suggested macro breakdown on the nose pretty much every day on the new WW SmartPoints, am not hungry, not craving anything, and feel pretty good...I'm just following the plan online without any WW branded foods. My calorie count is 1300-1400 and I don't eat back what I burn (with the exception of this weekend--had a half marathon and obviously needed to load up for that.) I get that everyone has their own solution and if CICO works for you, that's wonderful, but also not really understanding this disdain for WW. I did the program in various versions throughout my adult life and while I did have an episode of fiber overload in the early 2000s that was quite epic, I can't say I have many complaints.
So - are you still trying to lose weight, or is this version of WW an eating program that you now use to maintain?
I just had 7 lbs to lose and then my real goal is to find a comfortable, healthy and easy way maintain, so I guess both.0 -
storyjorie wrote: »I'm not sure I agree with much here. I'm hitting MFP's suggested macro breakdown on the nose pretty much every day on the new WW SmartPoints, am not hungry, not craving anything, and feel pretty good...I'm just following the plan online without any WW branded foods. My calorie count is 1300-1400 and I don't eat back what I burn (with the exception of this weekend--had a half marathon and obviously needed to load up for that.) I get that everyone has their own solution and if CICO works for you, that's wonderful, but also not really understanding this disdain for WW. I did the program in various versions throughout my adult life and while I did have an episode of fiber overload in the early 2000s that was quite epic, I can't say I have many complaints.
So - are you still trying to lose weight, or is this version of WW an eating program that you now use to maintain?
I think this would be a fabulous maintenance program
I really hope so!! But, eating 1300-1400 calories a day on WW right now in losing mode, it's also perfectly adept as a weight loss program. People who are tweaking the program to fit in 1800 calories on 30 points probably aren't having the same luck, but unless you go out of your way to eat a 250 calorie grilled chicken breast as a "snack" rather than a yogurt or some fruit and cheese, I'm not really sure why it wouldn't work.0 -
jjohnstonlni wrote: »Honestly when I got stuck I tightened up on logging, and readjusted my calorie goals until it got me unstuck.
It sounds like you're pretty tight on logging, so go back and readjust until you find the perfect balance that gets you losing again.
after you tightened up on logging did you slightly decrease or increase your calories
0 -
CICO isn't a diet, and it isn't synonymous with counting calories. It is a mathematical equation that describes a fundamental energy balance, and if a person wants to lose weight, their CI needs to be less than their CO. How they achieve that deficit is up to the individual - but CICO is always the governing principle.storyjorie wrote: »
I guess I was seeing the philosophy (not science) of CICO as "eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over your caloric guard rails and don't even think about limiting a food group!" Because I see these passionate defenses of Twinkies (or whatever is high in points but the same calorie count as a mango) that seem to suggest WW is doing something terrible by "shaming" people who don't eat high protein and lots of fruit. For me, having a little structure in terms of what I should be eating/not eating helps because non-Twinkie foods fill me up better and seem to result in fewer cravings.
yes, in the end, it's all CICO, but just having a calorie ceiling cap has not worked from ME from a practicality standpoint. I have no personal qualms with Twinkies, fries, candy, whatever, and think it's great if someone has been able to lose weight eating whatever they want, within caloric limits--but for me, the structure of WW is a better fit, and I'm not really understanding all of this criticism of the new program as some sort of rip off or marketing scam. I see it as a tool, just like my food scale is a tool. I've bought several of those over the years--my kids keep destroying them--and have never begrudged the expense, and feel the same way about my $15 WW subscription.
I began have an issue when a 120 calorie, fat-free strawberry Greek yogurt and a 277 calorie 6oz chicken breast have the same points value. 6 points for 2tbsp of peanut butter at 190 calories?! Not one of those foods is bad for you but they are penalized in WW. And my banana didn't instantly become more calories just because I blended it into my protein shake. Yes, it may take less work for my system to digest it than if I chewed it but it shouldn't automatically go from 0 to 2 points because I mashed it up. That's the problem with WW. You don't actually understand the true the caloric impact of the food you eat, and regardless of how you chose to go about it you still have to consume less calories than you use. Even if someone decided to eat nothing but twinkies, burgers, and beer if they are in a deficit they will lose (and feel like garbage). If you stay within your 30 pts but eat 700 calories of veggies a day because your hungry all the time, it's still 700 calories of veggies and at some point that will become a problem. My issue with the new program is that Smart Points values are not proportionately related to actual calories and have become less so with each program revision, and ultimately it all boils down to CICO. Nobody is saying don't follow WW if it works for you, but there is definitely a fundamental problem with the way they are assigning points that is not working for a lot of people.[/quote]
couldn't have said it better myself! [/quote]
Yeah, that's true, but unless you are "snacking" on a 277 calorie chicken breast, I am not sure why you'd run into that issue. I still have snacks that are 2-3 points (like a Greek yogurt or some cheese or almonds.) Sure, you can manipulate the program to try to get in as many calories per point as you can, but who wants to eat that much chicken or fish? It's not a pleasurable snack food. I remember doing WW in the past and trying crank up that slider to get as much food as I could before breaking into a higher point, but with this plan, there just isn't that need. It's the same points for 4-6 oz. of grilled chicken and 4 is plenty for me. At a certain point, you learn to eat till you're satisfied and then stop, and the foods that are lower in points are just not the kind anyone would enjoy mindlessly noshing on.0 -
storyjorie wrote: »storyjorie wrote: »I'm not sure I agree with much here. I'm hitting MFP's suggested macro breakdown on the nose pretty much every day on the new WW SmartPoints, am not hungry, not craving anything, and feel pretty good...I'm just following the plan online without any WW branded foods. My calorie count is 1300-1400 and I don't eat back what I burn (with the exception of this weekend--had a half marathon and obviously needed to load up for that.) I get that everyone has their own solution and if CICO works for you, that's wonderful, but also not really understanding this disdain for WW. I did the program in various versions throughout my adult life and while I did have an episode of fiber overload in the early 2000s that was quite epic, I can't say I have many complaints.
So - are you still trying to lose weight, or is this version of WW an eating program that you now use to maintain?
I think this would be a fabulous maintenance program
I really hope so!! But, eating 1300-1400 calories a day on WW right now in losing mode, it's also perfectly adept as a weight loss program. People who are tweaking the program to fit in 1800 calories on 30 points probably aren't having the same luck, but unless you go out of your way to eat a 250 calorie grilled chicken breast as a "snack" rather than a yogurt or some fruit and cheese, I'm not really sure why it wouldn't work.
I believe weight watchers allowed mw to look away from things...veggies do have calories and everyone is right, they need to be counted for...i didn't have oil so i used spray pam, w second spray said 5 calories, I made it 10, but i never counted Pam either...just the small things add up1 -
storyjorie wrote: »
CICO isn't a diet, and it isn't synonymous with counting calories. It is a mathematical equation that describes a fundamental energy balance, and if a person wants to lose weight, their CI needs to be less than their CO. How they achieve that deficit is up to the individual - but CICO is always the governing principle.storyjorie wrote: »
I guess I was seeing the philosophy (not science) of CICO as "eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over your caloric guard rails and don't even think about limiting a food group!" Because I see these passionate defenses of Twinkies (or whatever is high in points but the same calorie count as a mango) that seem to suggest WW is doing something terrible by "shaming" people who don't eat high protein and lots of fruit. For me, having a little structure in terms of what I should be eating/not eating helps because non-Twinkie foods fill me up better and seem to result in fewer cravings.
yes, in the end, it's all CICO, but just having a calorie ceiling cap has not worked from ME from a practicality standpoint. I have no personal qualms with Twinkies, fries, candy, whatever, and think it's great if someone has been able to lose weight eating whatever they want, within caloric limits--but for me, the structure of WW is a better fit, and I'm not really understanding all of this criticism of the new program as some sort of rip off or marketing scam. I see it as a tool, just like my food scale is a tool. I've bought several of those over the years--my kids keep destroying them--and have never begrudged the expense, and feel the same way about my $15 WW subscription.
I began have an issue when a 120 calorie, fat-free strawberry Greek yogurt and a 277 calorie 6oz chicken breast have the same points value. 6 points for 2tbsp of peanut butter at 190 calories?! Not one of those foods is bad for you but they are penalized in WW. And my banana didn't instantly become more calories just because I blended it into my protein shake. Yes, it may take less work for my system to digest it than if I chewed it but it shouldn't automatically go from 0 to 2 points because I mashed it up. That's the problem with WW. You don't actually understand the true the caloric impact of the food you eat, and regardless of how you chose to go about it you still have to consume less calories than you use. Even if someone decided to eat nothing but twinkies, burgers, and beer if they are in a deficit they will lose (and feel like garbage). If you stay within your 30 pts but eat 700 calories of veggies a day because your hungry all the time, it's still 700 calories of veggies and at some point that will become a problem. My issue with the new program is that Smart Points values are not proportionately related to actual calories and have become less so with each program revision, and ultimately it all boils down to CICO. Nobody is saying don't follow WW if it works for you, but there is definitely a fundamental problem with the way they are assigning points that is not working for a lot of people.
couldn't have said it better myself! [/quote]
Yeah, that's true, but unless you are "snacking" on a 277 calorie chicken breast, I am not sure why you'd run into that issue. I still have snacks that are 2-3 points (like a Greek yogurt or some cheese or almonds.) Sure, you can manipulate the program to try to get in as many calories per point as you can, but who wants to eat that much chicken or fish? It's not a pleasurable snack food. I remember doing WW in the past and trying crank up that slider to get as much food as I could before breaking into a higher point, but with this plan, there just isn't that need. It's the same points for 4-6 oz. of grilled chicken and 4 is plenty for me. At a certain point, you learn to eat till you're satisfied and then stop, and the foods that are lower in points are just not the kind anyone would enjoy mindlessly noshing on. [/quote]
I think that stopping the mindless noshing by making protein look like the better bargain was one of the reasons for the change. I felt miserable trying to snack on tuna and lunch meat (1 or 2 pts each) so I switched to fruits and veggies. Used to be yogurt and Fiber One bars tilthe points went up.0 -
The author of your cited blog post is applying the data relevant to a hypocaloric state to eating less than a person was before.
What he's saying had kinda half got elements of truth ... which also means half is not.
Like anything else online, you either make a decision to believe it, or not. It makes a helluva lot of sense, to me, and that is why I posted it.
0 -
storyjorie wrote: »of grilled chicken and 4 is plenty for me. At a certain point, you learn to eat till you're satisfied and then stop, and the foods that are lower in points are just not the kind anyone would enjoy mindlessly noshing on.
All true. A very big part of being successful when trying to lose weight, is just becoming accustomed to eating LESS FOOD, and getting used to not having that "full" feeling that so many want to have. If I eat until I am "full", every time I eat, I would gain 20 pounds in a month, easy. It's the hardest part...and I know that well. I remember back when I started the WW plan, ( I had gained 50- 60 pounds over 5 years, this was after a split with ex, small child at home, stopped the gym, and just ate whatever), the first 2 weeks I felt like I was starving. I was eating so much less food, and it took that two weeks for me to adjust.
3 to 4 oz of chicken is normal for me - if I eat out somewhere, such as a grilled chicken sandwich, I know it will be more. But when making my lunches/dinners, 4 oz is usually what I have. And it really is plenty.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions