I was starving myself - Now I just had buttered cornbread!
Options
Replies
-
So you're of the opinion that people should eat less for the sake of eating less, since comfort and psychological reasons aren't good enough for you. I'm not sure who you are to decide that people aren't 'losing very quickly' (I would assume they're losing at a rate that fits their needs)
No, people who want to lose weight should eat at a deficit. The larger the deficit, the faster they will lose weight. There is nothing wrong with losing weight quickly, as long as exercise and proper nutrition is adhered to. The "very quickly" part of what I said is mostly based on their complaints, not my opinion. They decided they were not losing quickly, not me (in most cases). In other cases I've seen, people are not losing weight at all, or it's a pound or two per month when they have 100 or more to lose. Of course there are also lots of cases of success, I'm not discounting that... but in my experience the "average" user here is not completely happy with the results they're seeing. Or maybe that is who I have subconsciously been focusing on, I dunno. Too many times I've seen posts like "hey why am I not losing weight" and a ton of people respond "you need to eat more to lose weight". That is patently untrue in every case.
do I personally have some science that proves that a larger deficit is "better"? No, I'm an engineer, not a scientist. but the internet is full of papers from people who *are* scientists. Google can turn up lots of very useful literature (peer reviewed and from actual credible resources with lots of equivalently credible references, not some bro science "weight loss" website). Also, it really depends on how you define "better". IMO breaking the pleasure relationship with food is key to long-term success. Allowing yourself a brownie once in a while sure is fun, but it also keeps your brain thinking of unhealthy food as a "reward", which in my book is a terrible idea. Not everyone wants to or is able to maintain that level of dedication, though. Thus, the religion of "you have to eat more if you want to lose weight" was born.Do you have some 'science' that proves a larger deficit is better or anymore physically required than a smaller deficit? I would say the only real difference is that a deficit can never be too small, as long as a person is happy with it, but a deficit can be large, to a point where it impacts nutrition, happiness, and comfort.
I also never said one should sacrifice proper nutrition. It doesn't take 2000 or even 1200 net calories to get proper nutrition, though.
Joy and eating should not go together for someone who needs to lose a lot of weight. Breaking that bond is important for long-term success. Food is for fuel, not for fun. I love me some lasagna, but my body does not need it. Nobody's does. The majority of obese people got that way because of an unhealthy relationship with food. Sure, it's easier to find a way to keep that unhealthy relationship and still lose weight, but it's slower and plenty of people regress on that plan (just like with basically any other plan).I could eat at 1200 and lose 2 pounds a week but...well, what the hell for. The joy of eating less? Lol?
I personally like to draw the financial analogy. Let's say (hypothetically, of course) that you're financially obese. As in, lots of credit card debt and a relatively lavish lifestyle. You could opt to pay things off very slowly and still have fun... but you'll be paying for that debt for a very long time and will severaly impact your chances of ever becoming wealthy. On the other hand, you can stop partying and get rid of your fancy car, etc... living a much more stark existence for a short period of time while you pay that debt off quickly. At the end you have developed better discipline and set yourself up for a wealthy life down the road. You juat have to avoid the common pitfalls of binge spending along the way. This is exactly like eating. Do it the easy way or the hard way. How successful you are depends on you, but the hard way is almost always better in the long run.
A personal example: I was in fantastic shape after losing 85 lbs when I was 21 years old. 215 lbs at 6'6", and with the moderate amount of muscle I had at the time I was very fit, not overweight. I worked my *kitten* off to get that way, eating low calorie, high protein, low fat, and working out constantly. Then I lost my workout buddy to a cross-state move, I got lazy and made plenty of excuses, and fell out of the habit of being fit. I slowly gained that 85 lbs back over the next 8 years and then got really bad.. gaining another 50 in the 4 years following. That was *my* fault, not my "fit" diet's fault. I got lazy. Now I'm bound and determined to get as close to that shape as possible before I turn 35. To do it, I have made the conscious decision to sacrifice the pleasure that comes from things like chinese food, pizza, and chocolate cake. I'm not allowing any of those things in my life at all... and I don't crave them any more. I'm doing it the hard way, and it's working very, very well. I'm the healthiest I've been in years. I'm 50 lbs down from a year ago, 20 of that since joining MFP. I have about 85 more to go.
Yes, that is what worked for me, and of course the psychological part of it is not perfect for everyone. Physically though, if one should choose to make those sacrifices, it would work for them.0 -
So you're of the opinion that people should eat less for the sake of eating less, since comfort and psychological reasons aren't good enough for you. I'm not sure who you are to decide that people aren't 'losing very quickly' (I would assume they're losing at a rate that fits their needs)
No, people who want to lose weight should eat at a deficit. The larger the deficit, the faster they will lose weight. There is nothing wrong with losing weight quickly, as long as exercise and proper nutrition is adhered to. The "very quickly" part of what I said is mostly based on their complaints, not my opinion. They decided they were not losing quickly, not me (in most cases). In other cases I've seen, people are not losing weight at all, or it's a pound or two per month when they have 100 or more to lose. Of course there are also lots of cases of success, I'm not discounting that... but in my experience the "average" user here is not completely happy with the results they're seeing. Or maybe that is who I have subconsciously been focusing on, I dunno. Too many times I've seen posts like "hey why am I not losing weight" and a ton of people respond "you need to eat more to lose weight". That is patently untrue in every case.
do I personally have some science that proves that a larger deficit is "better"? No, I'm an engineer, not a scientist. but the internet is full of papers from people who *are* scientists. Google can turn up lots of very useful literature (peer reviewed and from actual credible resources with lots of equivalently credible references, not some bro science "weight loss" website). Also, it really depends on how you define "better". IMO breaking the pleasure relationship with food is key to long-term success. Allowing yourself a brownie once in a while sure is fun, but it also keeps your brain thinking of unhealthy food as a "reward", which in my book is a terrible idea. Not everyone wants to or is able to maintain that level of dedication, though. Thus, the religion of "you have to eat more if you want to lose weight" was born.Do you have some 'science' that proves a larger deficit is better or anymore physically required than a smaller deficit? I would say the only real difference is that a deficit can never be too small, as long as a person is happy with it, but a deficit can be large, to a point where it impacts nutrition, happiness, and comfort.
I also never said one should sacrifice proper nutrition. It doesn't take 2000 or even 1200 net calories to get proper nutrition, though.
Joy and eating should not go together for someone who needs to lose a lot of weight. Breaking that bond is important for long-term success. Food is for fuel, not for fun. I love me some lasagna, but my body does not need it. Nobody's does. The majority of obese people got that way because of an unhealthy relationship with food. Sure, it's easier to find a way to keep that unhealthy relationship and still lose weight, but it's slower and plenty of people regress on that plan (just like with basically any other plan).I could eat at 1200 and lose 2 pounds a week but...well, what the hell for. The joy of eating less? Lol?
I personally like to draw the financial analogy. Let's say (hypothetically, of course) that you're financially obese. As in, lots of credit card debt and a relatively lavish lifestyle. You could opt to pay things off very slowly and still have fun... but you'll be paying for that debt for a very long time and will severaly impact your chances of ever becoming wealthy. On the other hand, you can stop partying and get rid of your fancy car, etc... living a much more stark existence for a short period of time while you pay that debt off quickly. At the end you have developed better discipline and set yourself up for a wealthy life down the road. You juat have to avoid the common pitfalls of binge spending along the way. This is exactly like eating. Do it the easy way or the hard way. How successful you are depends on you, but the hard way is almost always better in the long run.
A personal example: I was in fantastic shape after losing 85 lbs when I was 21 years old. 215 lbs at 6'6", and with the moderate amount of muscle I had at the time I was very fit, not overweight. I worked my *kitten* off to get that way, eating low calorie, high protein, low fat, and working out constantly. Then I lost my workout buddy to a cross-state move, I got lazy and made plenty of excuses, and fell out of the habit of being fit. I slowly gained that 85 lbs back over the next 8 years and then got really bad.. gaining another 50 in the 4 years following. That was *my* fault, not my "fit" diet's fault. I got lazy. Now I'm bound and determined to get as close to that shape as possible before I turn 35. To do it, I have made the conscious decision to sacrifice the pleasure that comes from things like chinese food, pizza, and chocolate cake. I'm not allowing any of those things in my life at all... and I don't crave them any more. I'm doing it the hard way, and it's working very, very well. I'm the healthiest I've been in years. I'm 50 lbs down from a year ago, 20 of that since joining MFP. I have about 85 more to go.
Yes, that is what worked for me, and of course the psychological part of it is not perfect for everyone. Physically though, if one should choose to make those sacrifices, it would work for them.
Well its clear this will go nowhere. I believe that food is most certainly for fun and should be a joy, so it is clear there is nothing to be gained here.
Also when one makes claims using 'science' to back them up it's generally regarded as their duty to back up their claim with that science, not the duty of the other party to hit up google.0 -
Perhaps you should start here:Well its clear this will go nowhere. I believe that food is most certainly for fun and should be a joy, so it is clear there is nothing to be gained here.
Also when one makes claims using 'science' to back them up it's generally regarded as their duty to back up their claim with that science, not the duty of the other party to hit up google.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
Yes, you will have to click a few things for yourself, and for that I hope you will forgive me. There are lots and lots of references in that post to real, scientific data. Those references have references of their own. you could literally read for hours just by clicking through those papers.0 -
Perhaps you should start here:Well its clear this will go nowhere. I believe that food is most certainly for fun and should be a joy, so it is clear there is nothing to be gained here.
Also when one makes claims using 'science' to back them up it's generally regarded as their duty to back up their claim with that science, not the duty of the other party to hit up google.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss
Yes, you will have to click a few things for yourself, and for that I hope you will forgive me. There are lots and lots of references in that post to real, scientific data. Those references have references of their own. you could literally read for hours just by clicking through those papers.
lol.
Just lol.0 -
lol.
Just lol.
you asked for scientific data, and there it is... maybe I'm missing the joke. In case you can't do the reading for yourself, either:
1) the "you must eat more calories to lose weight" concept is based primarily off of the myth of "starvation mode". That is not a real thing. Adaptive thermogenesis *is* a real thing, but it very widely misunderstood.
2) a 1200 calorie net is not the same thing as a Very Low Calorie Diet. a VLCD is more to the tune of 500 or 800 calories in a day with no exercise. A proper high deficit diet means taking in enough calories to get the nutrients you need while at the same time exercising enough to create the deficit required to lose weight quickly. 30%, 40%, even 50% for short periods of time is perfectly safe as long as you keep an eye on nutrition.
3) using exercise and proper nutrition to create a larger than 25% deficit is well known to be the most effective way to lose fat while maintaining Lean Body Mass. Of course you don't want to drop so low as to create a malnourished condition... but hopefully nobody has to be told that. Well, I'm sure some people do, so there is that.0 -
IMO breaking the pleasure relationship with food is key to long-term success. Allowing yourself a brownie once in a while sure is fun, but it also keeps your brain thinking of unhealthy food as a "reward", which in my book is a terrible idea. Not everyone wants to or is able to maintain that level of dedication, though. Thus, the religion of "you have to eat more if you want to lose weight" was born.Joy and eating should not go together for someone who needs to lose a lot of weight. Breaking that bond is important for long-term success. Food is for fuel, not for fun.
There is a lot going on in this thread, but I'm only going to start off on this.
A strategy of denial clearly works for some people - it's simple and one can build strong habits around it.
But it is certainly not necessary or important. A healthy mental relationship with food is, imo, a more successful mental long term success.
A lot of the psychological literature around motivation, in general, and specific about weight loss is about long-term practices and failure modes and how those failure modes affect us.
When barriers are so difficult that one does not have the ability to meet expectations all the time - one fails every once in a while. How do you deal with it - do you need to go through the cycle of fail, recognize, accept, strengthen resolve or is it easier to say "keep on swimming" in a less drastic mode.
I'm betting that there are no single answers and that both strategies can work with different persons. But clearly "gumption traps" and "setting one up for failure and guilt" are things that are *often* outlined as one of the reasons why too strict strategies fail.
Whatever your strategy - you need to somehow along the way assure that it is a not only transitionable to long-term practices but that those long term practices do not have a social, time, family cost that you do not find easy to meet.
I was a long-distance racing cyclist many years ago - that lifestyle was very healthy but not the reasonable commitment I wanted, so I willingly gave it up. It's not about commitment. I have the same amount of resolve I had back then but I've placed it in different buckets and priorities.
There are very few unhealthy foods - and a brownie once in a while isn't unhealthy. Thinking of it as a reward might be.
The French, as a whole, love food, appreciate the art of making and sharing and all things taste and smell. Yet historically they were not particulalry fat for the last 200 years.
I'd guess it's more about gluttony than total denial.0 -
perhaps instead of "unhealthy" I should have said "indulgent and calorie-dense, with little nutritional value".
Otherwise, I mostly agree with what you're saying. The only part I take exception with is the denial part. Changing my junk-food eating ways has virutally eliminated my desire for such things. I want to see another few pounds drop off this week more than I want my entertain my tastebuds for a few minutes. Of course one treat isn't going to derail a weight loss effort, but I strongly believe that mindset it a huge part of success. Choosing to view those indulgent and calorie-dense, with little nutritional value foods as things that just plain do not belong in my body is not setting myself up for failure. It might work that way for some, but that's not true for everyone.
Just like when I'm laying on the weight bench and pressing the bar up towards the ceiling... I don't *have* to do it. it's not entertaining. It's hard work. It gets results, though... so I do it. I *want* those results, so I do what it takes to get them. That's how my psychology works... I don't consider it denial, either. Sure, watching a movie would be more fun. This is more important.0 -
From EvgeniZyntx
There are very few unhealthy foods - and a brownie once in a while isn't unhealthy. Thinking of it as a reward might be.
The French, as a whole, love food, appreciate the art of making and sharing and all things taste and smell. Yet historically they were not particulalry fat for the last 200 years.
I'd guess it's more about gluttony than total denial.
@EvgeniZyntx - That is a great summary. - Thanks!
The reason literally most of us are on these boards is because we want to improve our relationship with food. The majority of what I eat is unprocessed and I cook it myself:
fish, chicken, lots of raw vegetables (broccoli, carrots, kale, lettuce, celery etc.), raw almonds, egg whites, etc.
but when I am at friends, or travelling I plan ahead and I enjoy my food. When I eat pizza, or key lime pie, or some potato chips - I enjoy them and don't feel guilt because they are just part of the "new big picture".
I have finally broken the "eat really well then pig out cycle" Hopefully next month I will be able to report back and show how consistent my gross calorie intake and my subsequent net are.
90%-95% people on these boards are here to improve themselves. I actually like reading the "back and forth" about how many calories to eat, if it is OK to eat back exercise calories, what "clean" eating is, TDEE method vs. MFP method, lifting weights, HIIT, Paleo vs. Low carb vs. 5;2, Food as a reward, Food as fuel, and on and on.
It keeps things interesting and people who have been at this a lot longer than I have weigh in with some good information.
Keeping it real - I started out at 32% BF I am at 29% now - I have a long way to go. I choose to do it by losing 2-4 lbs per month and eating enough to fuel my workouts.
To everyone on this thread - Thanks for the posts - "An opinion is way better than bored indifference"!
With that... I got up before 6:00 today so I could go on a run.. Lacing up the running shoes in 3,2,1.....0 -
what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?
people
are
not
all
the
same
most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.
EDIT: Didn't see you explain yourself. I do think that most people who are eating 1200 are undereating. While this will not cause "starvation mode" wouldn't you agree that it is ideal to lose weight slowly and to eat as many calories as you can while still losing weight?0 -
what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?
people
are
not
all
the
same
most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.0 -
perhaps instead of "unhealthy" I should have said "indulgent and calorie-dense, with little nutritional value".
Otherwise, I mostly agree with what you're saying. The only part I take exception with is the denial part. Changing my junk-food eating ways has virutally eliminated my desire for such things. I want to see another few pounds drop off this week more than I want my entertain my tastebuds for a few minutes. Of course one treat isn't going to derail a weight loss effort, but I strongly believe that mindset it a huge part of success. Choosing to view those indulgent and calorie-dense, with little nutritional value foods as things that just plain do not belong in my body is not setting myself up for failure. It might work that way for some, but that's not true for everyone.
Just like when I'm laying on the weight bench and pressing the bar up towards the ceiling... I don't *have* to do it. it's not entertaining. It's hard work. It gets results, though... so I do it. I *want* those results, so I do what it takes to get them. That's how my psychology works... I don't consider it denial, either. Sure, watching a movie would be more fun. This is more important.
That's great that it is working for you. Just let us know how pure denial is working in another year. Or two. Or three. It certainly doesn't work for everyone and there is evidence that reasonable diets without serious denial work quite well. The goal for many of us, and I would assume that you're the same in this, is long term consistency and adherence (keeping the weight off). Some people do indeed need to cut out their trigger foods in the beginning, but many of us don't. I'd much rather have someone start with simply a modest calorie deficit that they keep most days, and learn to exercise, for several months in the beginning simply so that their old habits can start to disappear and these new ones formed. As they get better at it, they can improve, but absent trigger foods, there doesn't seem to be any reason to cut out anything from one's diet. Instead, it is better to learn moderation and how to mix various foods in ways that satisfies the basic macronutrient, fiber, and micronutrient needs.
As for liking exercise, that's great, many of us love to work out. I'd personally much rather be in the gym or on the beach for a run then pretty much any other place.
And as for "breaking the relationship with food," maybe some need to do that, but food and me go way back and there's no way in hell I'm denying myself the pleasure of pizza, beer, ice cream, or any of the other things that I enjoy. Balance for me is found where I can eat the maximum amount possible and still hit my goals.0 -
The heavy restriction (1200 or less) then binging/rebounding you describe is is exactly how I have yo-yo'd for the last 10 or so years, once I realised I can actually eat as I am going to for the rest of my life and still lose weight it all fell into place for me. (obvs a bit below maintenance for loss :laugh: I am not a special snowflake, but I wish I was)
Great post OP :flowerforyou:0 -
I am a tiny person. I DO N O T N E E D T O E A T M O R E!!!!! I am almost 57 years old. I have been doing this for YEARS and I know perfectly well what works for ME! ANd - it is not "yo yo dieting." Western people just go through cycles and life events and sometimes we gain weight and need to take it off. Please - no more of this preaching.0
-
And as for "breaking the relationship with food," maybe some need to do that, but food and me go way back and there's no way in hell I'm denying myself the pleasure of pizza, beer, ice cream, or any of the other things that I enjoy. Balance for me is found where I can eat the maximum amount possible and still hit my goals.
OP Here - Well Put - It is about finding balance - Thanks!
----
OK - Now I am going to run LOL0 -
And as for "breaking the relationship with food," maybe some need to do that, but food and me go way back and there's no way in hell I'm denying myself the pleasure of pizza, beer, ice cream, or any of the other things that I enjoy. Balance for me is found where I can eat the maximum amount possible and still hit my goals.
OP Here - Well Put - It is about finding balance - Thanks!
----
OK - Now I am going to run LOL
Cheers, OP. And enjoy the run!0 -
Pookylou ..
once I realised I can actually eat as I am going to for the rest of my life and still lose weight it all fell into place for me.
thanks! :drinker:
That right there is the quote of the day. I really feel that when I get to maintenance I will be eating the same way. It is Liberating!0 -
[/quote]
Cheers, OP. And enjoy the run!
[/quote]
Thanks Beach ... and... I was able to go for 30 minutes after a very long hiatus because I had enough fuel in me to run!0 -
Love the OP's point. Cheers bro...also..those cornbread muffins are pretty good...im thinking about some this weekend.0
-
Love the OP's point. Cheers bro...also..those cornbread muffins are pretty good...im thinking about some this weekend.
Thanks.. Can't eat them every day.. but when I do I kick my feet up and enjoy them! LOL0
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
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions