Weight loss problems
Replies
-
Dogmom1978 wrote: »
The reason why IMHO calorie deficit in itself does not work is because the body will react to different types of foods differently. Say my fixed calorie intake a day is 1520, so now I eat 1520 calories worth of chocolate cake, despite the calorie deficit the results will be disastrous. Extreme example I get it but it does highlight the problem.
@bubus05Probably not a very popular opinion on this site but IMHO calorie counting is a waste of time one can do it if there is nothing better to do but adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term. You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well, chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra. This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong. Your body doesn't care about math as you have probably already seen it.
You would get far less push back and disagrees if you presented your experience as simply your experience rather than a rather sweeping and highly inaccurate statement. Your experience is valid but your conclusions as to why are badly flawed.
"adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term"
I decided to calorie count but definitely didn't choose to eat to the same goal every day - that's a choice not a requirement of calorie counting, many people eat to a weekly goal to make their diet fit their lifestyle. My daily intake was massively different day by day.
"You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well"
I lost all the weight I wanted to and it was great as I'd been overweight for 20 years.
Yes I did get some minor adaptive thermogenesis but that corrected itself in the first few months of maintenance. Metabolism is constantly adjusting itself, it's just a collection of chemical processes.
I now eat far more than I ever did when I was chubby as both my exercise and activity level are far higher.
"chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra"
All diets including calorie counting, fasting and low carbing have very poor success rates and I would hazard a guess that people who deliberately make the process harder fail more than people who actively set out to make the process as easy as possible.
Personally I've maintained at my chosen weight for almost 7 years.
"This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong."
Nope - it's the underlying and fundamental reason that people either maintain, gain or lose weight. You, me and everybody else can't create energy out of nowhere. That some people manipulate their energy/calorie balance by indirect means doesn't change the facts behind weight loss. You cut calories by fasting and severely limiting some foods. That 'X' can't be precisely nailed down to a single number and than number changes daily is an irrelevance - you simply don't need that level of accuracy to be successful.
Oppose that to a low carb healthy food and again IMHO and no offence to anyone it doesn't really matter that much how many calories one will consume, your body will or should tell you stop eating.
For weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. Yes, you will probably feel tired, irritable and cranky if you eat 1300 calories of cupcakes a day. However, you can still lose weight as long as 1300 is a deficit for you. It’s an unhealthy and unwise way to go about losing weight and while your body will “react” differently is only true in the sense I just mentioned (lack of energy, possible migraines, etc), it won’t stop you from losing weight. Your body won’t hold onto those calories BECAUSE you got them from a cupcake.
Again, I definitely do not think that’s a good idea, but to say that you won’t lose weight if you eat certain foods over others or if you eat carbs you would lose less or not at all doesn’t make sense.
I also noticed you failed to link even one single reputable source to back your claim.
There is no single “right” way to lose weight and keep it off. If there was, that’s the method we would all universally use. If you have had success not counting calories and eating low carb, congratulations. To say that counting calories doesn’t work though, is simply false. To say that your body will store carbs if you eat them, is again false.
CICO is what matters for weight loss. You ONLY lost weight because you ate in a deficit. If you were able to do that without weighing and measuring your foods, kudos. Most of us can’t (and shouldn’t) attempt to replicate that. Without my trusty food scale I would eat WAY more than a single serving and not know it.
I am not denying that on a fixed low calorie diet with calorie deficit one will lose weight-regardless of what one eats-. The question is whether it's sustainable. If it leads to malnourishment it can't be good and I am not saying that a healthy high carb diet-even if I disagree with it- is necessarily a bad thing otherwise millions vegans would starve to death.
I agree there is no universally right approach, what works for me might not work for you, all I am saying is that counting the calories in itself is not the right approach to losing weight.
Here is a link that seems credible...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/
Quoting the abstract:
"As the widespread availability of highly calorific food has resulted in a high incidence of obesity, attempts to decrease body weight have concentrated on trying to reduce energy intake. It is suggested that this is not the best approach. Although consuming more calories than expended is part of the initial problem, it does not follow that reducing intake, unless consciously counting calories, is the best solution."7 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »
The reason why IMHO calorie deficit in itself does not work is because the body will react to different types of foods differently. Say my fixed calorie intake a day is 1520, so now I eat 1520 calories worth of chocolate cake, despite the calorie deficit the results will be disastrous. Extreme example I get it but it does highlight the problem.
@bubus05Probably not a very popular opinion on this site but IMHO calorie counting is a waste of time one can do it if there is nothing better to do but adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term. You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well, chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra. This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong. Your body doesn't care about math as you have probably already seen it.
You would get far less push back and disagrees if you presented your experience as simply your experience rather than a rather sweeping and highly inaccurate statement. Your experience is valid but your conclusions as to why are badly flawed.
"adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term"
I decided to calorie count but definitely didn't choose to eat to the same goal every day - that's a choice not a requirement of calorie counting, many people eat to a weekly goal to make their diet fit their lifestyle. My daily intake was massively different day by day.
"You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well"
I lost all the weight I wanted to and it was great as I'd been overweight for 20 years.
Yes I did get some minor adaptive thermogenesis but that corrected itself in the first few months of maintenance. Metabolism is constantly adjusting itself, it's just a collection of chemical processes.
I now eat far more than I ever did when I was chubby as both my exercise and activity level are far higher.
"chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra"
All diets including calorie counting, fasting and low carbing have very poor success rates and I would hazard a guess that people who deliberately make the process harder fail more than people who actively set out to make the process as easy as possible.
Personally I've maintained at my chosen weight for almost 7 years.
"This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong."
Nope - it's the underlying and fundamental reason that people either maintain, gain or lose weight. You, me and everybody else can't create energy out of nowhere. That some people manipulate their energy/calorie balance by indirect means doesn't change the facts behind weight loss. You cut calories by fasting and severely limiting some foods. That 'X' can't be precisely nailed down to a single number and than number changes daily is an irrelevance - you simply don't need that level of accuracy to be successful.
Oppose that to a low carb healthy food and again IMHO and no offence to anyone it doesn't really matter that much how many calories one will consume, your body will or should tell you stop eating.
For weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. Yes, you will probably feel tired, irritable and cranky if you eat 1300 calories of cupcakes a day. However, you can still lose weight as long as 1300 is a deficit for you. It’s an unhealthy and unwise way to go about losing weight and while your body will “react” differently is only true in the sense I just mentioned (lack of energy, possible migraines, etc), it won’t stop you from losing weight. Your body won’t hold onto those calories BECAUSE you got them from a cupcake.
Again, I definitely do not think that’s a good idea, but to say that you won’t lose weight if you eat certain foods over others or if you eat carbs you would lose less or not at all doesn’t make sense.
I also noticed you failed to link even one single reputable source to back your claim.
There is no single “right” way to lose weight and keep it off. If there was, that’s the method we would all universally use. If you have had success not counting calories and eating low carb, congratulations. To say that counting calories doesn’t work though, is simply false. To say that your body will store carbs if you eat them, is again false.
CICO is what matters for weight loss. You ONLY lost weight because you ate in a deficit. If you were able to do that without weighing and measuring your foods, kudos. Most of us can’t (and shouldn’t) attempt to replicate that. Without my trusty food scale I would eat WAY more than a single serving and not know it.
I am not denying that on a fixed low calorie diet with calorie deficit one will lose weight-regardless of what one eats-. The question is whether it's sustainable. If it leads to malnourishment it can't be good and I am not saying that a healthy high carb diet-even if I disagree with it- is necessarily a bad thing otherwise millions vegans would starve to death.
I agree there is no universally right approach, what works for me might not work for you, all I am saying is that counting the calories in itself is not the right approach to losing weight.
Here is a link that seems credible...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/
You completely missed the point that counting calories IS the right approach for MANY of us to lose weight.
I have lost over 40 lbs and counting by simply tracking my calories. Millions of us do it. Can you lose weight without counting them? Sure, some people can. Counting calories in and of itself is one of the ways to lose and you’re saying it ISNT.
Frankly, it’s insulting and why you are getting so many disagrees imo.
“ I am saying is that counting the calories in itself is not the right approach to losing weight” your exact words...... 🤦♀️3 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »
The reason why IMHO calorie deficit in itself does not work is because the body will react to different types of foods differently. Say my fixed calorie intake a day is 1520, so now I eat 1520 calories worth of chocolate cake, despite the calorie deficit the results will be disastrous. Extreme example I get it but it does highlight the problem.
@bubus05Probably not a very popular opinion on this site but IMHO calorie counting is a waste of time one can do it if there is nothing better to do but adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term. You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well, chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra. This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong. Your body doesn't care about math as you have probably already seen it.
You would get far less push back and disagrees if you presented your experience as simply your experience rather than a rather sweeping and highly inaccurate statement. Your experience is valid but your conclusions as to why are badly flawed.
"adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term"
I decided to calorie count but definitely didn't choose to eat to the same goal every day - that's a choice not a requirement of calorie counting, many people eat to a weekly goal to make their diet fit their lifestyle. My daily intake was massively different day by day.
"You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well"
I lost all the weight I wanted to and it was great as I'd been overweight for 20 years.
Yes I did get some minor adaptive thermogenesis but that corrected itself in the first few months of maintenance. Metabolism is constantly adjusting itself, it's just a collection of chemical processes.
I now eat far more than I ever did when I was chubby as both my exercise and activity level are far higher.
"chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra"
All diets including calorie counting, fasting and low carbing have very poor success rates and I would hazard a guess that people who deliberately make the process harder fail more than people who actively set out to make the process as easy as possible.
Personally I've maintained at my chosen weight for almost 7 years.
"This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong."
Nope - it's the underlying and fundamental reason that people either maintain, gain or lose weight. You, me and everybody else can't create energy out of nowhere. That some people manipulate their energy/calorie balance by indirect means doesn't change the facts behind weight loss. You cut calories by fasting and severely limiting some foods. That 'X' can't be precisely nailed down to a single number and than number changes daily is an irrelevance - you simply don't need that level of accuracy to be successful.
Oppose that to a low carb healthy food and again IMHO and no offence to anyone it doesn't really matter that much how many calories one will consume, your body will or should tell you stop eating.
For weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. Yes, you will probably feel tired, irritable and cranky if you eat 1300 calories of cupcakes a day. However, you can still lose weight as long as 1300 is a deficit for you. It’s an unhealthy and unwise way to go about losing weight and while your body will “react” differently is only true in the sense I just mentioned (lack of energy, possible migraines, etc), it won’t stop you from losing weight. Your body won’t hold onto those calories BECAUSE you got them from a cupcake.
Again, I definitely do not think that’s a good idea, but to say that you won’t lose weight if you eat certain foods over others or if you eat carbs you would lose less or not at all doesn’t make sense.
I also noticed you failed to link even one single reputable source to back your claim.
There is no single “right” way to lose weight and keep it off. If there was, that’s the method we would all universally use. If you have had success not counting calories and eating low carb, congratulations. To say that counting calories doesn’t work though, is simply false. To say that your body will store carbs if you eat them, is again false.
CICO is what matters for weight loss. You ONLY lost weight because you ate in a deficit. If you were able to do that without weighing and measuring your foods, kudos. Most of us can’t (and shouldn’t) attempt to replicate that. Without my trusty food scale I would eat WAY more than a single serving and not know it.
I am not denying that on a fixed low calorie diet with calorie deficit one will lose weight-regardless of what one eats-. The question is whether it's sustainable. If it leads to malnourishment it can't be good and I am not saying that a healthy high carb diet-even if I disagree with it- is necessarily a bad thing otherwise millions vegans would starve to death.
I agree there is no universally right approach, what works for me might not work for you, all I am saying is that counting the calories in itself is not the right approach to losing weight.
Here is a link that seems credible...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/
Quoting the abstract:
"As the widespread availability of highly calorific food has resulted in a high incidence of obesity, attempts to decrease body weight have concentrated on trying to reduce energy intake. It is suggested that this is not the best approach. Although consuming more calories than expended is part of the initial problem, it does not follow that reducing intake, unless consciously counting calories, is the best solution."
Lol! I was JUST copying that to post it here!
@bubus05 your study supports consciously counting calories as working for weight loss when you claim that it doesn’t work. Maybe you want to try again? Or acknowledge that you could be wrong?
Again, if you lost not tracking, good for you. But to think that means that counting calories somehow DOESNT work is faulty logic.1 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »Dogmom1978 wrote: »
The reason why IMHO calorie deficit in itself does not work is because the body will react to different types of foods differently. Say my fixed calorie intake a day is 1520, so now I eat 1520 calories worth of chocolate cake, despite the calorie deficit the results will be disastrous. Extreme example I get it but it does highlight the problem.
@bubus05Probably not a very popular opinion on this site but IMHO calorie counting is a waste of time one can do it if there is nothing better to do but adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term. You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well, chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra. This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong. Your body doesn't care about math as you have probably already seen it.
You would get far less push back and disagrees if you presented your experience as simply your experience rather than a rather sweeping and highly inaccurate statement. Your experience is valid but your conclusions as to why are badly flawed.
"adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term"
I decided to calorie count but definitely didn't choose to eat to the same goal every day - that's a choice not a requirement of calorie counting, many people eat to a weekly goal to make their diet fit their lifestyle. My daily intake was massively different day by day.
"You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well"
I lost all the weight I wanted to and it was great as I'd been overweight for 20 years.
Yes I did get some minor adaptive thermogenesis but that corrected itself in the first few months of maintenance. Metabolism is constantly adjusting itself, it's just a collection of chemical processes.
I now eat far more than I ever did when I was chubby as both my exercise and activity level are far higher.
"chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra"
All diets including calorie counting, fasting and low carbing have very poor success rates and I would hazard a guess that people who deliberately make the process harder fail more than people who actively set out to make the process as easy as possible.
Personally I've maintained at my chosen weight for almost 7 years.
"This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong."
Nope - it's the underlying and fundamental reason that people either maintain, gain or lose weight. You, me and everybody else can't create energy out of nowhere. That some people manipulate their energy/calorie balance by indirect means doesn't change the facts behind weight loss. You cut calories by fasting and severely limiting some foods. That 'X' can't be precisely nailed down to a single number and than number changes daily is an irrelevance - you simply don't need that level of accuracy to be successful.
Oppose that to a low carb healthy food and again IMHO and no offence to anyone it doesn't really matter that much how many calories one will consume, your body will or should tell you stop eating.
For weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. Yes, you will probably feel tired, irritable and cranky if you eat 1300 calories of cupcakes a day. However, you can still lose weight as long as 1300 is a deficit for you. It’s an unhealthy and unwise way to go about losing weight and while your body will “react” differently is only true in the sense I just mentioned (lack of energy, possible migraines, etc), it won’t stop you from losing weight. Your body won’t hold onto those calories BECAUSE you got them from a cupcake.
Again, I definitely do not think that’s a good idea, but to say that you won’t lose weight if you eat certain foods over others or if you eat carbs you would lose less or not at all doesn’t make sense.
I also noticed you failed to link even one single reputable source to back your claim.
There is no single “right” way to lose weight and keep it off. If there was, that’s the method we would all universally use. If you have had success not counting calories and eating low carb, congratulations. To say that counting calories doesn’t work though, is simply false. To say that your body will store carbs if you eat them, is again false.
CICO is what matters for weight loss. You ONLY lost weight because you ate in a deficit. If you were able to do that without weighing and measuring your foods, kudos. Most of us can’t (and shouldn’t) attempt to replicate that. Without my trusty food scale I would eat WAY more than a single serving and not know it.
I am not denying that on a fixed low calorie diet with calorie deficit one will lose weight-regardless of what one eats-. The question is whether it's sustainable. If it leads to malnourishment it can't be good and I am not saying that a healthy high carb diet-even if I disagree with it- is necessarily a bad thing otherwise millions vegans would starve to death.
I agree there is no universally right approach, what works for me might not work for you, all I am saying is that counting the calories in itself is not the right approach to losing weight.
Here is a link that seems credible...https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/
Quoting the abstract:
"As the widespread availability of highly calorific food has resulted in a high incidence of obesity, attempts to decrease body weight have concentrated on trying to reduce energy intake. It is suggested that this is not the best approach. Although consuming more calories than expended is part of the initial problem, it does not follow that reducing intake, unless consciously counting calories, is the best solution."
Lol! I was JUST copying that to post it here!
@bubus05 your study supports consciously counting calories as working for weight loss when you claim that it doesn’t work. Maybe you want to try again? Or acknowledge that you could be wrong?
Again, if you lost not tracking, good for you. But to think that means that counting calories somehow DOESNT work is faulty logic.
First I didn't mean to insult anyone here I merely suggested a method that worked for me and why I think it worked. The person who started the thread seemed desperate enough.
Now this article IMHO backs me up, 'attempts to decrease body weight have concentrated on trying to reduce energy intake. It is suggested that this is not the best approach'
while I accept counting the cals consciously may help
here is another
'Energy compensation is more likely when you reduce rather than increase energy consumption. For example a study that lasted 14 days, carried out blind in a metabolic laboratory, found that subjects “completely compensated for the loss of calories.” They increased the number of food items consumed that contained normal levels of calories. In contrast they “failed to compensate for an increase in caloric intake” (Foltin, Fischman, Emurian, & Rachlinski, 1988). Similarly Drenowatz (2015) acknowledged that humans are better equipped to replace lost weight than avoid weight gain, although the phenomenon is characterized by individual variability'
'By itself, decreasing calorie intake will have a limited short-term influence'0 -
You don’t seem to understand at all. The study showed that people who don’t track calories weren’t losing weight because they were still eating more calories than needed to lose....
People who weigh and track calories successfully lose weight all the time. Multiple people now have pointed out that the study was done on people NOT tracking calories.
I’m glad you lost weight, but your advice to others is not good advice. Your inability to understand WHY it’s bad advice is even worse.
OP best of luck.2 -
Thanks for that. The point of this study for me anyway is not whether calorie counting is useful or not, I accept it is useful, no argument there, but that by decreasing energy intake with other words eating less is in an off itself not enough because the body will compensate one's metabolism will change-for most people anyway. Now you can argue with that all you want this is coming from experts.Dogmom1978 wrote: »You don’t seem to understand at all. The study showed that people who don’t track calories weren’t losing weight because they were still eating more calories than needed to lose....
People who weigh and track calories successfully lose weight all the time. Multiple people now have pointed out that the study was done on people NOT tracking calories.
I’m glad you lost weight, but your advice to others is not good advice. Your inability to understand WHY it’s bad advice is even worse.
OP best of luck.
0 -
Thanks for that. The point of this study for me anyway is not whether calorie counting is useful or not, I accept it is useful, no argument there, but that by decreasing energy intake with other words eating less is in an off itself not enough because the body will compensate one's metabolism will change-for most people anyway. Now you can argue with that all you want this is coming from experts.Dogmom1978 wrote: »You don’t seem to understand at all. The study showed that people who don’t track calories weren’t losing weight because they were still eating more calories than needed to lose....
People who weigh and track calories successfully lose weight all the time. Multiple people now have pointed out that the study was done on people NOT tracking calories.
I’m glad you lost weight, but your advice to others is not good advice. Your inability to understand WHY it’s bad advice is even worse.
OP best of luck.
The link is not a research study, but an (expert) opinion piece buttressed by carefully chosen studies . . . in a journal of psychology, not biology or physiology or something like that. Just an observation.
Others have already commented on the quote from it "Although consuming more calories than expended is part of the initial problem, it does not follow that reducing intake, unless consciously counting calories, is the best solution." Clearly, the phrase starting with "unless" is kinda important.
Yes, appetite hormones (using that term loosely) can push back against weight loss (whether counting or not). When counting, humans can seek alternate satiation strategies, take "diet breaks" (science behind that, too **), or use sheer force of will (which I wouldn't recommend as the best approach 😆), among other things, to keep calorie balance where it needs to be. It's an obstacle, but not an irresistable one. And it applies to all methods of weight loss, not just counting. For reasonably-accurate calorie counters, if it happens, it isn't hidden, in the sense that portion creep (the mechanism that "prevents" weight loss in this scenario, more or less) is pretty obvious when counting.
Yes, adaptive thermogenesis (that "metabolism compensating" thing) is real, but not massive for most people; and it seems to reverse for many after a period of time at a new, lower weight, eating consistently at maintenance calories for that new weight. (It's a bit speculative, but there seem to be ways to accelerate that reversal, or to minimize/avoid it in the first place.) Again, adaptive thermogenesis is not limited to calorie counting, it's just a thing that can happen with weight loss. Also, adaptive thermogenesis doesn't just keep increasing, to the point where there is no calorie level at which weight can be lost, while still managing to live a normal life.
If counting is "not enough", in some universal sense, why are numbers of us here still at a healthy weight, have been for multiple years, after many previous years (multiple decades in my case) of obesity?
Any method of weight loss is a challenge. Some methods work better for some people than for others. For some people, no method works. For any method, most people regain the lost weight (with friends) in a short time, typically a couple of years, IIRC. ****
As an aside, I'm not arguing with you to convince you. I'm offering counterpoint in the hope that people who could be successful via calorie counting, who may be reading, will not be convinced that it can't work, and therefore give up.
** There's a lot of good science-based info about that in this thread: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
**** For perspectives on those who *don't* regain, see http://www.nwcr.ws/. Some people on MFP are participants. I'm not, but meet the published eligibility criteria.4 -
Thanks for that. The point of this study for me anyway is not whether calorie counting is useful or not, I accept it is useful, no argument there, but that by decreasing energy intake with other words eating less is in an off itself not enough because the body will compensate one's metabolism will change-for most people anyway. Now you can argue with that all you want this is coming from experts.Dogmom1978 wrote: »You don’t seem to understand at all. The study showed that people who don’t track calories weren’t losing weight because they were still eating more calories than needed to lose....
People who weigh and track calories successfully lose weight all the time. Multiple people now have pointed out that the study was done on people NOT tracking calories.
I’m glad you lost weight, but your advice to others is not good advice. Your inability to understand WHY it’s bad advice is even worse.
OP best of luck.snowflake954 wrote: »
Well I can't think of any TBH but "the body will react to different types of food differently" is that really such a controversial statement? An example five pints of beer or six boiled eggs will roughly be the same calories, you will feel differently. Unless you are a pro in pubs:}snowflake954 wrote: »
The reason why IMHO calorie deficit in itself does not work is because the body will react to different types of foods differently. Say my fixed calorie intake a day is 1520, so now I eat 1520 calories worth of chocolate cake, despite the calorie deficit the results will be disastrous. Extreme example I get it but it does highlight the problem.
@bubus05Probably not a very popular opinion on this site but IMHO calorie counting is a waste of time one can do it if there is nothing better to do but adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term. You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well, chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra. This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong. Your body doesn't care about math as you have probably already seen it.
You would get far less push back and disagrees if you presented your experience as simply your experience rather than a rather sweeping and highly inaccurate statement. Your experience is valid but your conclusions as to why are badly flawed.
"adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term"
I decided to calorie count but definitely didn't choose to eat to the same goal every day - that's a choice not a requirement of calorie counting, many people eat to a weekly goal to make their diet fit their lifestyle. My daily intake was massively different day by day.
"You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well"
I lost all the weight I wanted to and it was great as I'd been overweight for 20 years.
Yes I did get some minor adaptive thermogenesis but that corrected itself in the first few months of maintenance. Metabolism is constantly adjusting itself, it's just a collection of chemical processes.
I now eat far more than I ever did when I was chubby as both my exercise and activity level are far higher.
"chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra"
All diets including calorie counting, fasting and low carbing have very poor success rates and I would hazard a guess that people who deliberately make the process harder fail more than people who actively set out to make the process as easy as possible.
Personally I've maintained at my chosen weight for almost 7 years.
"This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong."
Nope - it's the underlying and fundamental reason that people either maintain, gain or lose weight. You, me and everybody else can't create energy out of nowhere. That some people manipulate their energy/calorie balance by indirect means doesn't change the facts behind weight loss. You cut calories by fasting and severely limiting some foods. That 'X' can't be precisely nailed down to a single number and than number changes daily is an irrelevance - you simply don't need that level of accuracy to be successful.
Oppose that to a low carb healthy food and again IMHO and no offence to anyone it doesn't really matter that much how many calories one will consume, your body will or should tell you stop eating.
Could you please link me to studies that say "the body will react to different types of food differently"? Same calories-just different macros. I'd be interested. Thank you.
How about 6 boiled eggs verses a plate of pasta and tomato sauce w Parmigiano? Eggs around 462 cals and pasta the same.
Still haven't answered this. I want to know how my body will react differently to eating these 2 different items. All of your posts are chock full of no proof and just vague opinions. No one is agreeing with you--strange, don't you think? Could you be wrong? Does that ever compute?3 -
@AnnPT77 i always love your answers. You take so much time to explain things in a thorough way and always provide sound evidence based theory with your explanations. If anyone can get through to bubus05 it will be you. 😊3
-
You want to know ehh? Strong words...snowflake954 wrote: »
Thanks for that. The point of this study for me anyway is not whether calorie counting is useful or not, I accept it is useful, no argument there, but that by decreasing energy intake with other words eating less is in an off itself not enough because the body will compensate one's metabolism will change-for most people anyway. Now you can argue with that all you want this is coming from experts.Dogmom1978 wrote: »You don’t seem to understand at all. The study showed that people who don’t track calories weren’t losing weight because they were still eating more calories than needed to lose....
People who weigh and track calories successfully lose weight all the time. Multiple people now have pointed out that the study was done on people NOT tracking calories.
I’m glad you lost weight, but your advice to others is not good advice. Your inability to understand WHY it’s bad advice is even worse.
OP best of luck.snowflake954 wrote: »
Well I can't think of any TBH but "the body will react to different types of food differently" is that really such a controversial statement? An example five pints of beer or six boiled eggs will roughly be the same calories, you will feel differently. Unless you are a pro in pubs:}snowflake954 wrote: »
The reason why IMHO calorie deficit in itself does not work is because the body will react to different types of foods differently. Say my fixed calorie intake a day is 1520, so now I eat 1520 calories worth of chocolate cake, despite the calorie deficit the results will be disastrous. Extreme example I get it but it does highlight the problem.
@bubus05Probably not a very popular opinion on this site but IMHO calorie counting is a waste of time one can do it if there is nothing better to do but adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term. You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well, chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra. This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong. Your body doesn't care about math as you have probably already seen it.
You would get far less push back and disagrees if you presented your experience as simply your experience rather than a rather sweeping and highly inaccurate statement. Your experience is valid but your conclusions as to why are badly flawed.
"adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term"
I decided to calorie count but definitely didn't choose to eat to the same goal every day - that's a choice not a requirement of calorie counting, many people eat to a weekly goal to make their diet fit their lifestyle. My daily intake was massively different day by day.
"You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well"
I lost all the weight I wanted to and it was great as I'd been overweight for 20 years.
Yes I did get some minor adaptive thermogenesis but that corrected itself in the first few months of maintenance. Metabolism is constantly adjusting itself, it's just a collection of chemical processes.
I now eat far more than I ever did when I was chubby as both my exercise and activity level are far higher.
"chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra"
All diets including calorie counting, fasting and low carbing have very poor success rates and I would hazard a guess that people who deliberately make the process harder fail more than people who actively set out to make the process as easy as possible.
Personally I've maintained at my chosen weight for almost 7 years.
"This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong."
Nope - it's the underlying and fundamental reason that people either maintain, gain or lose weight. You, me and everybody else can't create energy out of nowhere. That some people manipulate their energy/calorie balance by indirect means doesn't change the facts behind weight loss. You cut calories by fasting and severely limiting some foods. That 'X' can't be precisely nailed down to a single number and than number changes daily is an irrelevance - you simply don't need that level of accuracy to be successful.
Oppose that to a low carb healthy food and again IMHO and no offence to anyone it doesn't really matter that much how many calories one will consume, your body will or should tell you stop eating.
Could you please link me to studies that say "the body will react to different types of food differently"? Same calories-just different macros. I'd be interested. Thank you.
How about 6 boiled eggs verses a plate of pasta and tomato sauce w Parmigiano? Eggs around 462 cals and pasta the same.
Still haven't answered this. I want to know how my body will react differently to eating these 2 different items. All of your posts are chock full of no proof and just vague opinions. No one is agreeing with you--strange, don't you think? Could you be wrong? Does that ever compute?
No-one is agreeing with me therefore I must be wrong is not a very strong statement IMHO.
How could I be wrong if what I am doing works for me, as said before by others many different approaches might work for different individuals, we are different are we not...and I have an idea how my body or any body will react to different types of foods but won't go into it because again how my body reacts might differ to how your body reacts and we would be arguing about something we could never agree on. And what else could I say other than my opinion. Peace...
1 -
Well no-one is agreeing with me therefore I must be wrong is not a very strong statement IMHO.snowflake954 wrote: »
Thanks for that. The point of this study for me anyway is not whether calorie counting is useful or not, I accept it is useful, no argument there, but that by decreasing energy intake with other words eating less is in an off itself not enough because the body will compensate one's metabolism will change-for most people anyway. Now you can argue with that all you want this is coming from experts.Dogmom1978 wrote: »You don’t seem to understand at all. The study showed that people who don’t track calories weren’t losing weight because they were still eating more calories than needed to lose....
People who weigh and track calories successfully lose weight all the time. Multiple people now have pointed out that the study was done on people NOT tracking calories.
I’m glad you lost weight, but your advice to others is not good advice. Your inability to understand WHY it’s bad advice is even worse.
OP best of luck.snowflake954 wrote: »
Well I can't think of any TBH but "the body will react to different types of food differently" is that really such a controversial statement? An example five pints of beer or six boiled eggs will roughly be the same calories, you will feel differently. Unless you are a pro in pubs:}snowflake954 wrote: »
The reason why IMHO calorie deficit in itself does not work is because the body will react to different types of foods differently. Say my fixed calorie intake a day is 1520, so now I eat 1520 calories worth of chocolate cake, despite the calorie deficit the results will be disastrous. Extreme example I get it but it does highlight the problem.
@bubus05Probably not a very popular opinion on this site but IMHO calorie counting is a waste of time one can do it if there is nothing better to do but adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term. You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well, chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra. This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong. Your body doesn't care about math as you have probably already seen it.
You would get far less push back and disagrees if you presented your experience as simply your experience rather than a rather sweeping and highly inaccurate statement. Your experience is valid but your conclusions as to why are badly flawed.
"adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term"
I decided to calorie count but definitely didn't choose to eat to the same goal every day - that's a choice not a requirement of calorie counting, many people eat to a weekly goal to make their diet fit their lifestyle. My daily intake was massively different day by day.
"You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well"
I lost all the weight I wanted to and it was great as I'd been overweight for 20 years.
Yes I did get some minor adaptive thermogenesis but that corrected itself in the first few months of maintenance. Metabolism is constantly adjusting itself, it's just a collection of chemical processes.
I now eat far more than I ever did when I was chubby as both my exercise and activity level are far higher.
"chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra"
All diets including calorie counting, fasting and low carbing have very poor success rates and I would hazard a guess that people who deliberately make the process harder fail more than people who actively set out to make the process as easy as possible.
Personally I've maintained at my chosen weight for almost 7 years.
"This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong."
Nope - it's the underlying and fundamental reason that people either maintain, gain or lose weight. You, me and everybody else can't create energy out of nowhere. That some people manipulate their energy/calorie balance by indirect means doesn't change the facts behind weight loss. You cut calories by fasting and severely limiting some foods. That 'X' can't be precisely nailed down to a single number and than number changes daily is an irrelevance - you simply don't need that level of accuracy to be successful.
Oppose that to a low carb healthy food and again IMHO and no offence to anyone it doesn't really matter that much how many calories one will consume, your body will or should tell you stop eating.
Could you please link me to studies that say "the body will react to different types of food differently"? Same calories-just different macros. I'd be interested. Thank you.
How about 6 boiled eggs verses a plate of pasta and tomato sauce w Parmigiano? Eggs around 462 cals and pasta the same.
Still haven't answered this. I want to know how my body will react differently to eating these 2 different items. All of your posts are chock full of no proof and just vague opinions. No one is agreeing with you--strange, don't you think? Could you be wrong? Does that ever compute?
How could I be wrong if what I am doing works for me, as said before by others many different approaches might work for different individuals, we are different are we not...and I have an idea how my body or any body will react to different types of foods but won't go into it because again how my body reacts might differ to how your body reacts and we would be arguing about something we could never agree on. And what else could I say other than my opinion. Peace...
@bubus05 as an FYI just because you aren’t counting your calories doesn’t mean you aren’t eating in a deficit. You’re doing EXACTLY the same thing as those of us tracking are doing, just without the tracking part.
You don’t seem to understand that you are eating in a deficit which makes it somewhat surprising that you’ve had success. 🤷🏻♀️1 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »@AnnPT77 i always love your answers. You take so much time to explain things in a thorough way and always provide sound evidence based theory with your explanations. If anyone can get through to bubus05 it will be you. 😊
That's very kind of you. I'm an opinionated li'l ol' lady, fer shure.
I 100% don't care if I get through to bubus05. My whole deal in this is keeping his opinion from poisoning other peoples' well, metaphorically (and unnecessarily melodramatically 😆) speaking.
There are some things that are purely facts (or not), and I admit a few of those are in play in this thread. But the *central* issue in this thread (IMO) is whether calorie counting universally does NOT work. That's somewhat about facts, but also somewhat about subjective experience and opinions. (That's one reason it's relevant IMO that the link was from a psychology journal - not saying that psychology is 100% subjective, that's not my point.)
When it comes to subjective experience, personal tastes, and a whole raft of other things (that aren't verifiable or facts), multiple people can be right, even when they have dramatically different views.
That I like bluegrass music doesn't make someone who likes contemporary chamber music wrong, we're just different. Diversity in that way is good. Which weight loss strategies can work is a similar sort of thing: We need to find the one that fits our personality, habits, outlook best.
I sincerely appreciate that bubus05 is sharing his subjective experience with weight loss, and I'm sincerely glad he's found a way to be successful. His experience can help others. What I don't understand is the need to prove others' experience *wrong*, and cut off avenues that could be successful for others, because those avenues were not successful for him.5 -
I agree 100%! There are a million ways to successfully lose weight and keep it off. I think the entire idea of keto is gross; however, I know that some people are highly successful with keto. I would be even crankier than I am normally and I would quit dieting in a week or less if that was presented as the ONLY viable method to lose weight.
For the OP, based on their post, I think starting with a food scale and weighing and accurately tracking would be a good way to go since they’ve tried other “diets” and failed at them already.
I applaud bubus for being able to lose without tracking. Every single time I stop tracking, I start gaining. Once it’s on my plate I feel the need to eat it whether I’m hungry or not. I am not good at eyeballing portions either, so that scale is my best friend.
Still though, I do like to try to get through to people and help them understand that what worked for them doesn’t mean that something else won’t work for me, you, the OP, or Santa clause 😜 Doesn’t mean bubus05 way is wrong, just that there are many “right” ways to lose and each individual needs to pick the way that will work for them.2 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »
Well no-one is agreeing with me therefore I must be wrong is not a very strong statement IMHO.snowflake954 wrote: »
Thanks for that. The point of this study for me anyway is not whether calorie counting is useful or not, I accept it is useful, no argument there, but that by decreasing energy intake with other words eating less is in an off itself not enough because the body will compensate one's metabolism will change-for most people anyway. Now you can argue with that all you want this is coming from experts.Dogmom1978 wrote: »You don’t seem to understand at all. The study showed that people who don’t track calories weren’t losing weight because they were still eating more calories than needed to lose....
People who weigh and track calories successfully lose weight all the time. Multiple people now have pointed out that the study was done on people NOT tracking calories.
I’m glad you lost weight, but your advice to others is not good advice. Your inability to understand WHY it’s bad advice is even worse.
OP best of luck.snowflake954 wrote: »
Well I can't think of any TBH but "the body will react to different types of food differently" is that really such a controversial statement? An example five pints of beer or six boiled eggs will roughly be the same calories, you will feel differently. Unless you are a pro in pubs:}snowflake954 wrote: »
The reason why IMHO calorie deficit in itself does not work is because the body will react to different types of foods differently. Say my fixed calorie intake a day is 1520, so now I eat 1520 calories worth of chocolate cake, despite the calorie deficit the results will be disastrous. Extreme example I get it but it does highlight the problem.
@bubus05Probably not a very popular opinion on this site but IMHO calorie counting is a waste of time one can do it if there is nothing better to do but adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term. You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well, chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra. This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong. Your body doesn't care about math as you have probably already seen it.
You would get far less push back and disagrees if you presented your experience as simply your experience rather than a rather sweeping and highly inaccurate statement. Your experience is valid but your conclusions as to why are badly flawed.
"adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term"
I decided to calorie count but definitely didn't choose to eat to the same goal every day - that's a choice not a requirement of calorie counting, many people eat to a weekly goal to make their diet fit their lifestyle. My daily intake was massively different day by day.
"You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well"
I lost all the weight I wanted to and it was great as I'd been overweight for 20 years.
Yes I did get some minor adaptive thermogenesis but that corrected itself in the first few months of maintenance. Metabolism is constantly adjusting itself, it's just a collection of chemical processes.
I now eat far more than I ever did when I was chubby as both my exercise and activity level are far higher.
"chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra"
All diets including calorie counting, fasting and low carbing have very poor success rates and I would hazard a guess that people who deliberately make the process harder fail more than people who actively set out to make the process as easy as possible.
Personally I've maintained at my chosen weight for almost 7 years.
"This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong."
Nope - it's the underlying and fundamental reason that people either maintain, gain or lose weight. You, me and everybody else can't create energy out of nowhere. That some people manipulate their energy/calorie balance by indirect means doesn't change the facts behind weight loss. You cut calories by fasting and severely limiting some foods. That 'X' can't be precisely nailed down to a single number and than number changes daily is an irrelevance - you simply don't need that level of accuracy to be successful.
Oppose that to a low carb healthy food and again IMHO and no offence to anyone it doesn't really matter that much how many calories one will consume, your body will or should tell you stop eating.
Could you please link me to studies that say "the body will react to different types of food differently"? Same calories-just different macros. I'd be interested. Thank you.
How about 6 boiled eggs verses a plate of pasta and tomato sauce w Parmigiano? Eggs around 462 cals and pasta the same.
Still haven't answered this. I want to know how my body will react differently to eating these 2 different items. All of your posts are chock full of no proof and just vague opinions. No one is agreeing with you--strange, don't you think? Could you be wrong? Does that ever compute?
How could I be wrong if what I am doing works for me, as said before by others many different approaches might work for different individuals, we are different are we not...and I have an idea how my body or any body will react to different types of foods but won't go into it because again how my body reacts might differ to how your body reacts and we would be arguing about something we could never agree on. And what else could I say other than my opinion. Peace...
@bubus05 as an FYI just because you aren’t counting your calories doesn’t mean you aren’t eating in a deficit. You’re doing EXACTLY the same thing as those of us tracking are doing, just without the tracking part.
You don’t seem to understand that you are eating in a deficit which makes it somewhat surprising that you’ve had success. 🤷🏻♀️
TBH if I actually calculated or tracked my numbers I would see a calorie deficit probably especially on a weekly basis, the only argument as far as I can see in our debate is the importance of tracking those numbers. For me they are not that important while accepting that for others you guys apparently they are essential. The thing with keto/fasting/intermittent fasting is that you dont have to worry about those numbers. But I accept that keto or fasting for that matter are not for everyone.0 -
Most people on the forum who do keto or IF are indeed still tracking calories if you read those threads2
-
Keto and IF still require a deficit to lose weight. Sadly there is no way to eat more than we need and lose. I would be all over that if there was 😂2
-
Dogmom1978 wrote: »
Well no-one is agreeing with me therefore I must be wrong is not a very strong statement IMHO.snowflake954 wrote: »
Thanks for that. The point of this study for me anyway is not whether calorie counting is useful or not, I accept it is useful, no argument there, but that by decreasing energy intake with other words eating less is in an off itself not enough because the body will compensate one's metabolism will change-for most people anyway. Now you can argue with that all you want this is coming from experts.Dogmom1978 wrote: »You don’t seem to understand at all. The study showed that people who don’t track calories weren’t losing weight because they were still eating more calories than needed to lose....
People who weigh and track calories successfully lose weight all the time. Multiple people now have pointed out that the study was done on people NOT tracking calories.
I’m glad you lost weight, but your advice to others is not good advice. Your inability to understand WHY it’s bad advice is even worse.
OP best of luck.snowflake954 wrote: »
Well I can't think of any TBH but "the body will react to different types of food differently" is that really such a controversial statement? An example five pints of beer or six boiled eggs will roughly be the same calories, you will feel differently. Unless you are a pro in pubs:}snowflake954 wrote: »
The reason why IMHO calorie deficit in itself does not work is because the body will react to different types of foods differently. Say my fixed calorie intake a day is 1520, so now I eat 1520 calories worth of chocolate cake, despite the calorie deficit the results will be disastrous. Extreme example I get it but it does highlight the problem.
@bubus05Probably not a very popular opinion on this site but IMHO calorie counting is a waste of time one can do it if there is nothing better to do but adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term. You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well, chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra. This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong. Your body doesn't care about math as you have probably already seen it.
You would get far less push back and disagrees if you presented your experience as simply your experience rather than a rather sweeping and highly inaccurate statement. Your experience is valid but your conclusions as to why are badly flawed.
"adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term"
I decided to calorie count but definitely didn't choose to eat to the same goal every day - that's a choice not a requirement of calorie counting, many people eat to a weekly goal to make their diet fit their lifestyle. My daily intake was massively different day by day.
"You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well"
I lost all the weight I wanted to and it was great as I'd been overweight for 20 years.
Yes I did get some minor adaptive thermogenesis but that corrected itself in the first few months of maintenance. Metabolism is constantly adjusting itself, it's just a collection of chemical processes.
I now eat far more than I ever did when I was chubby as both my exercise and activity level are far higher.
"chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra"
All diets including calorie counting, fasting and low carbing have very poor success rates and I would hazard a guess that people who deliberately make the process harder fail more than people who actively set out to make the process as easy as possible.
Personally I've maintained at my chosen weight for almost 7 years.
"This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong."
Nope - it's the underlying and fundamental reason that people either maintain, gain or lose weight. You, me and everybody else can't create energy out of nowhere. That some people manipulate their energy/calorie balance by indirect means doesn't change the facts behind weight loss. You cut calories by fasting and severely limiting some foods. That 'X' can't be precisely nailed down to a single number and than number changes daily is an irrelevance - you simply don't need that level of accuracy to be successful.
Oppose that to a low carb healthy food and again IMHO and no offence to anyone it doesn't really matter that much how many calories one will consume, your body will or should tell you stop eating.
Could you please link me to studies that say "the body will react to different types of food differently"? Same calories-just different macros. I'd be interested. Thank you.
How about 6 boiled eggs verses a plate of pasta and tomato sauce w Parmigiano? Eggs around 462 cals and pasta the same.
Still haven't answered this. I want to know how my body will react differently to eating these 2 different items. All of your posts are chock full of no proof and just vague opinions. No one is agreeing with you--strange, don't you think? Could you be wrong? Does that ever compute?
How could I be wrong if what I am doing works for me, as said before by others many different approaches might work for different individuals, we are different are we not...and I have an idea how my body or any body will react to different types of foods but won't go into it because again how my body reacts might differ to how your body reacts and we would be arguing about something we could never agree on. And what else could I say other than my opinion. Peace...
@bubus05 as an FYI just because you aren’t counting your calories doesn’t mean you aren’t eating in a deficit. You’re doing EXACTLY the same thing as those of us tracking are doing, just without the tracking part.
You don’t seem to understand that you are eating in a deficit which makes it somewhat surprising that you’ve had success. 🤷🏻♀️
TBH if I actually calculated or tracked my numbers I would see a calorie deficit probably especially on a weekly basis, the only argument as far as I can see in our debate is the importance of tracking those numbers. For me they are not that important while accepting that for others you guys apparently they are essential. The thing with keto/fasting/intermittent fasting is that you dont have to worry about those numbers. But I accept that keto or fasting for that matter are not for everyone.
Exactly. For some folks, keto or IF (or both together) can be excellent appetite control strategies, and for a subset of those, the strategy is so effective that they have no need to count. Especially for people who can slip into obsessive behavior while counting, or simply find counting too tedious to keep up, not needing to count to achieve a deficit is a Really Good Thing.
I wouldn't want to use keto or IF myself (maybe *couldn't* use them successfully 😆), but there are threads where I've suggested people try alternate meal timing strategies (including IF, even OMAD explicitly, in that suggestion), and suggested limiting carbs for people who find that carbs spike appetite (can't remember whether I've ever specifically suggested keto).
There are other people who find other changes in eating have a similar appetite control effect, such as whole foods plant based, or "clean eating", for example.
Lots of strategies can work. Different ones suit different people.3 -
Wow we still going with this!!!! The pan sure got hot on this 1....🍳🍳🍳!! 🤪🤪.
Ya gotta love a calorie deficit!!2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions