Do you believe it is ALL just CICO?
Replies
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You can call it what you want.
One guy (allegedly) ate Twinkies for an extended period of time and lost weight. It's not worth citing.
Just like citing a guy did not count calories on keto and lost weight proves that you don't have to count calories.
Both are ridiculous.
You're the only person talking about studies here.
Why are you even bringing this up?
Obviously counting calories isn't required to lose weight, I don't know anybody who thinks that it is. It's an easy way for at least some people to reach a calorie deficit (the thing that is required for weight loss), but you can lose weight without even being aware of what calories are.6 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't believe this stuff below for a second. Losing 27 lbs. in two months (from 201 to 174) on an 1,800 calorie diet? Complete BS. If it were that easy, we wouldn't have any "can't lose weight" posts on this site.
And a little research shows that Haub was on Coca Cola's payroll. And he did an an unsupervised, unverified study, and claims to lose weight eating Twinkies.
"For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
I don't think it's "complete BS" that a guy could lose 27 pounds on an 1,800 calorie diet of anything. I don't know his activity level, that could be a pretty big deficit for him. Keep in mind that 1,500 is a minimum for most men, so 1,800 isn't really that much. I'm a small woman and I maintain on about 2,220 calories a day.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't believe this stuff below for a second. Losing 27 lbs. in two months (from 201 to 174) on an 1,800 calorie diet? Complete BS. If it were that easy, we wouldn't have any "can't lose weight" posts on this site.
And a little research shows that Haub was on Coca Cola's payroll. And he did an an unsupervised, unverified study, and claims to lose weight eating Twinkies.
"For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
I don't think it's "complete BS" that a guy could lose 27 pounds on an 1,800 calorie diet of anything. I don't know his activity level, that could be a pretty big deficit for him. Keep in mind that 1,500 is a minimum for most men, so 1,800 isn't really that much. I'm a small woman and I maintain on about 2,220 calories a day.
If memory serves, he did also supplement with some protein sources (so not quite 100% snack cakes).1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't believe this stuff below for a second. Losing 27 lbs. in two months (from 201 to 174) on an 1,800 calorie diet? Complete BS. If it were that easy, we wouldn't have any "can't lose weight" posts on this site.
And a little research shows that Haub was on Coca Cola's payroll. And he did an an unsupervised, unverified study, and claims to lose weight eating Twinkies.
"For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
I don't think it's "complete BS" that a guy could lose 27 pounds on an 1,800 calorie diet of anything. I don't know his activity level, that could be a pretty big deficit for him. Keep in mind that 1,500 is a minimum for most men, so 1,800 isn't really that much. I'm a small woman and I maintain on about 2,220 calories a day.
Yes. A man who isn't a couch potato will likely be in a decent-sized deficit at 1800.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't believe this stuff below for a second. Losing 27 lbs. in two months (from 201 to 174) on an 1,800 calorie diet? Complete BS. If it were that easy, we wouldn't have any "can't lose weight" posts on this site.
And a little research shows that Haub was on Coca Cola's payroll. And he did an an unsupervised, unverified study, and claims to lose weight eating Twinkies.
"For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
I don't think it's "complete BS" that a guy could lose 27 pounds on an 1,800 calorie diet of anything. I don't know his activity level, that could be a pretty big deficit for him. Keep in mind that 1,500 is a minimum for most men, so 1,800 isn't really that much. I'm a small woman and I maintain on about 2,220 calories a day.
Yes. A man who isn't a couch potato will likely be in a decent-sized deficit at 1800.
I just plugged my mostly couch potato husband's stats into a calculator and it estimated he could lose 27 lbs in 60 days eating 1529 calories a day. If you started off heavier and/or were more active, 1800 is totally plausible.6 -
andrederosier wrote: »No though it is a big part. Unfortunately nutrition and metabolism also play large roles. You calories consumed get turned into glucose for fuel but you need other nutrients in the process of burning that fuel. Also the body adapts so your metabolism changes to match your calorie intake which causes stalls and rapid weight gain once you go off diet. The simple calorie out part gets complicated by metabolic changes. Just my two cents though.
First, there aren't huge changes in metabolism. And second, if there are changes in metabolism, you have a change in your CO, which means that your deficit will be less unless you adjust your CI. Ironically, my maintenance levels have maintained at 3000 calories the entire time I lost weight and have continued in maintenance over the last 5 years. Now how is that possible, because my intensity during exercise (TEA) and daily movements (NEAT) have increased.
It's all about energy balance. Adjustments in CO can and may occur. Inaccuracies in CI are highly likely considering professionally trained people can be off by 400 calories. Neither disprove CICO.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/95/4/9893 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?12 -
If you reject the science that is basic to weight loss of any type, then it's easy to not believe that it happens.
But it's still proven science.Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
I don't believe this stuff below for a second. Losing 27 lbs. in two months (from 201 to 174) on an 1,800 calorie diet? Complete BS. If it were that easy, we wouldn't have any "can't lose weight" posts on this site.
And a little research shows that Haub was on Coca Cola's payroll. And he did an an unsupervised, unverified study, and claims to lose weight eating Twinkies.
"For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
5 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan.13 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan.
I'm not missing anything. He claimed his metabolic markers improved (like triglycerides going down 40%). Either he's lying, or is just very unusual. I'm thinking he was bought off by Coca Cola, and had to make sure he got what they paid for.
Metabolic markers improvements are very normal and to be expected when someone who is overfat loses some of that fat, Coca Cola or not, regardless of the way used to achieve that loss (which is all about calories). If the choice is between eating a twinkie diet that puts you at a deficit and a clean superfood paleo low carb organic [insert any other buzzword here] diet at a surplus, metabolically speaking the twinkie diet is likely to induce a more potent improvement. It would potentially introduce other problems in the long run, but the choice is rarely that binary in reality. In the real world people who ONLY eat nutritionally poor snack foods and nothing else are rare.
The whole point of this thread is that if having some days with nothing but snack foods helps with sustained weight loss, it's better than jeopardizing the weight loss process and its sustainability. I believe people should experiment with alternatives that may be just as easy but more nutritious before settling for snack food days, but if that's what ends up being the best choice for adherence, sustained weight loss trumps all. I also firmly believe that a diet should be looked at as a whole, not as isolated incidents. The occasional poorly planned day, or nutritionally poor foods as a part of a nutritious overall diet are most likely fine for both health and weight loss.25 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan.
I'm not missing anything. He claimed his metabolic markers improved (like triglycerides going down 40%). Either he's lying, or is just very unusual. I'm thinking he was bought off by Coca Cola, and had to make sure he got what they paid for.
You find it very unusual that his metabolic markers improved considerably with a significant weight loss?
Yep, you're definitely missing something.23 -
Weight yes, health and muscles no.2
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
*whoosh*13 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan.
I'm not missing anything. He claimed his metabolic markers improved (like triglycerides going down 40%). Either he's lying, or is just very unusual. I'm thinking he was bought off by Coca Cola, and had to make sure he got what they paid for.
There's nothing unusual about weight loss improving someone's metabolic markers. It's incredibly common.18 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan.
I'm not missing anything. He claimed his metabolic markers improved (like triglycerides going down 40%). Either he's lying, or is just very unusual. I'm thinking he was bought off by Coca Cola, and had to make sure he got what they paid for.
"If it doesn't agree with my preconceived notions, he must be lying".
Congratulations, you're a conspiracy theorist.22 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan.
I'm not missing anything. He claimed his metabolic markers improved (like triglycerides going down 40%). Either he's lying, or is just very unusual. I'm thinking he was bought off by Coca Cola, and had to make sure he got what they paid for.
No, you definitely have missed the point or know very little to nothing about nutrition. Weight loss is the bigger driver for metabolic health. It's why all diets "work" and improve health. I am not saying the twinkie diet is beneficial or even recommended, but if someone is trying to get healthy, the first step is losing weight. Worrying about a type of diet or a specific food (e.g., fish) is not as important.19 -
@amusedmonkey
"The whole point of this thread is that if having some days with nothing but snack foods helps with sustained weight loss, it's better than jeopardizing the weight loss process and its sustainability. I believe people should experiment with alternatives that may be just as easy but more nutritious before settling for snack food days, but if that's what ends up being the best choice for adherence, sustained weight loss trumps all. I also firmly believe that a diet should be looked at as a whole, not as isolated incidents. The occasional poorly planned day, or nutritionally poor foods as a part of a nutritious overall diet are most likely fine for both health and weight loss."
Extremely well said. This should be an automated response to all the "Is it okay to have a (insert junk food item here) once a week?"9 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan.
The guy lost 27 lbs in 8 weeks going from 2,600 calories to 1,800 calories, which is not exactly a radical reduction.
Given that we have so many people posting here who lose no weight in two weeks and a few pound in four weeks after significantly cutting calories, perhaps we should stop worrying about macros and balanced diets, and just recommend Twinkies.
I mean if it worked for this guy (if you believe he lost this incredible amount of weight), why not? His results probably place him in the Top 1% of calorie counters.
And once they meet their weight goal, thanks to Twinkies, then they can start thinking about macros and a balanced diet for long term health.
Once again, whoosh.
There are reasons Haub lost weight and reasons that people don't lose weight in 2 weeks or just a few pounds in 4 weeks.
They have everything to do with calories consumed and nothing to do with food choice.
You're being willfully ignorant here.15 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan.
The guy lost 27 lbs in 8 weeks going from 2,600 calories to 1,800 calories, which is not exactly a radical reduction.
Given that we have so many people posting here who lose no weight in two weeks and a few pound in four weeks after significantly cutting calories, perhaps we should stop worrying about macros and balanced diets, and just recommend Twinkies.
I mean if it worked for this guy (if you believe he lost this incredible amount of weight), why not? His results probably place him in the Top 1% of calorie counters.
And once they meet their weight goal, thanks to Twinkies, then they can start thinking about macros and a balanced diet for long term health.
You not only miss the point entirely on how people lose weight, you also miss the point entirely on how people fail to lose weight. I'm still trying to suss out what you're getting at, because it's not clear at all.12 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »JustRobby1 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »
How much science do you need? How many isocaloric studies do you want? Do you also notice that the professor not only lost weight, but also improved his metabolic markers?
First time in my life it has been suggested that the Twinkie Diet is not only good for losing weight, but it's healthy. Thanks for the head's up. I'm buying stock in the company that makes Twinkies.
You seem to be willfully missing the point. It's specifically about weight loss being created by eating at a deficit, regardless of food type. It's not a recommendation for a long-term plan.
The guy lost 27 lbs in 8 weeks going from 2,600 calories to 1,800 calories, which is not exactly a radical reduction.
Given that we have so many people posting here who lose no weight in two weeks and a few pound in four weeks after significantly cutting calories, perhaps we should stop worrying about macros and balanced diets, and just recommend Twinkies.
I mean if it worked for this guy (if you believe he lost this incredible amount of weight), why not? His results probably place him in the Top 1% of calorie counters.
And once they meet their weight goal, thanks to Twinkies, then they can start thinking about macros and a balanced diet for long term health.
He's probably better at counting garbage calories than all those OPs of "can't lose weight" threads are at counting healthy calories
17 -
collectingblues wrote: »
Not necessarily true. My weight is within four pounds of where I was a year ago. I've been in a consistent deficit for that time. Everything is weighed before I eat it. I actively avoid most restaurants because I don't trust their food.Alatariel75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you are ovulating at that time, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
But it's not like water weight keeps going up and up and up, if you're losing fat but retaining water, you should still be seeing a drop on the scale
I've also dropped four inches off my chest and my hips each in that time (three inches off my thighs, and two off my arms), and had a serious Come to Jesus talk from my therapist about how she thinks (and considering she's an ED therapist, I trust her perception) that I look like I've lost more than I agreed the bottom number was. My best friend (and her mother) and my parents are on my case and telling me that I look emaciated in some settings.
But my weight is the same. It's been infuriatingly stable since I ran my first half marathon in May. Since then, I've seen some drops, and then as soon as I do another endurance event, it spikes again.
So where's that drop on the scale?
Maybe I'm a freak of nature. But I've simply stopped believing that the only thing that influences the number on the scale is CICO.I don't think you are a freak of nature. It sounds like you've recomped and now have more muscle and less body fat than you used to have. That muscle takes up less volume so you look smaller at about the same weight.
Another vote for recomp as the likely explanation.
If one looks and feels good at a weight, who cares about the number on the scale?
This woman wasn't happy with her body when she got to her goal weight, so she recomped. Notice how much heavier she is in the picture on the right than the middle picture.
1 -
If all you want to do is lose weight, CICO is the majority factor. Overall health, and fitness on the other hand, for some people is even more important than the weight on the scale and that is where exercise and a focus on macro-nutrients can pay huge dividends.2
-
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0804748#t=article might provide some insight to those interested. In the study, various macro combinations were used by doctors, and none of them offered any advantage in the realm of weight loss. This is, of course, exactly what you would expect provided calories were the same, but stating what should be the obvious is often needed in the Twilight Zone realm of health/fitness.
Many fad diet proponents (except perhaps here on MFP on occasion) have given up trying to convince people they will lose more weight by following their plans. They instead tend to stick with more vague and subjective factors that are difficult to prove or disprove convincingly.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »
Not necessarily true. My weight is within four pounds of where I was a year ago. I've been in a consistent deficit for that time. Everything is weighed before I eat it. I actively avoid most restaurants because I don't trust their food.Alatariel75 wrote: »collectingblues wrote: »Well, when it comes to a nutrition/calorie perspective, sure.
But then there's water weight, which doesn't seem to follow CICO rules. So you may do everything right, but if you're not drinking enough, if you suddenly up your water intake *because* you're not drinking enough, if you start a new exercise program, if you travel for some time, if you eat higher sodium foods than usual, if you're stressed and your cortisol production increases, if you're female and you get a period, if you're female and you are ovulating at that time, if you're female and you've got oligomenorrhea and you only get a period sometimes, if you've done a marathon and your body is crying out for every drop of water it can get...
And then, if you've got several of those going on back to back over a multi-month period? Then you can't even necessarily compare a month-to-month trend and see a loss.
So sure, you might eat everything in a deficit, but that doesn't mean your body is going to reward you with weight loss that you can see on the scale.
And people like to say that water weight doesn't matter. But what about when that water weight is bouncing around for months on end? Does it suddenly matter then?
But it's not like water weight keeps going up and up and up, if you're losing fat but retaining water, you should still be seeing a drop on the scale
I've also dropped four inches off my chest and my hips each in that time (three inches off my thighs, and two off my arms), and had a serious Come to Jesus talk from my therapist about how she thinks (and considering she's an ED therapist, I trust her perception) that I look like I've lost more than I agreed the bottom number was. My best friend (and her mother) and my parents are on my case and telling me that I look emaciated in some settings.
But my weight is the same. It's been infuriatingly stable since I ran my first half marathon in May. Since then, I've seen some drops, and then as soon as I do another endurance event, it spikes again.
So where's that drop on the scale?
Maybe I'm a freak of nature. But I've simply stopped believing that the only thing that influences the number on the scale is CICO.I don't think you are a freak of nature. It sounds like you've recomped and now have more muscle and less body fat than you used to have. That muscle takes up less volume so you look smaller at about the same weight.
Another vote for recomp as the likely explanation.
If one looks and feels good at a weight, who cares about the number on the scale?
This woman wasn't happy with her body when she got to her goal weight, so she recomped. Notice how much heavier she is in the picture on the right than the middle picture.
The photo on the right does not show this woman 18 lb. heavier than the photo in the middle. Look again. Start with her legs.
what?3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions