It's NOT always as simple as a deficit
Replies
-
While googling this, I enjoyed this link:
http://danceswithfat.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/calories-incalories-out-science-says-no/
Expanding on his point, it's not true that all calories are either burned or stored. I expel them in my feces, urine, and gases, I exhale, I radiate heat (especially when working out), and I have a host of bacteria in my gut that consume them for me.
Doesn't invalidate the equation though. *sigh*0 -
Abhorrent huh? Pretty strong word there...
Here's the thing. If you are going to post about the virtues of a particular diet plan because it worked for you, then be prepared for people to look at your diary to see what's working! Otherwise, hide your diary.
If you go back and actually read the posts, there aren't that many haters here at all. It's a pretty tame thread. But, on a forum where people are always posting about no carb, low carb, less carb, more carb, all carb, you can expect that people will be looking for clarification, evidence, etc.
There are other boards set up for dietary nitpicking, such as the Food and Nutrition one. In case you hadn't noticed the OP was giving motivation and support in the appropriately named Motivation and Support board! She did not post the virtues of a particular type of diet, merely shared that people who are experiencing difficulties might have more success by tweaking their macro proportions and basically not to give up trying.
And yes, I do find online bullying or personal attacks abhorrent; and shameful
0 -
Abhorrent huh? Pretty strong word there...
Here's the thing. If you are going to post about the virtues of a particular diet plan because it worked for you, then be prepared for people to look at your diary to see what's working! Otherwise, hide your diary.
If you go back and actually read the posts, there aren't that many haters here at all. It's a pretty tame thread. But, on a forum where people are always posting about no carb, low carb, less carb, more carb, all carb, you can expect that people will be looking for clarification, evidence, etc.
There are other boards set up for dietary nitpicking, such as the Food and Nutrition one. In case you hadn't noticed the OP was giving motivation and support in the appropriately named Motivation and Support board! She did not post the virtues of a particular type of diet, merely shared that people who are experiencing difficulties might have more success by tweaking their macro proportions and basically not to give up trying.
And yes, I do find online bullying or personal attacks abhorrent; and shameful
So you are saying we shouldn't correct misinformation when we see it? Perhaps you should suggest to MFP that they add a 'Unicorns and Rainbow Farts' section. Otherwise, resign yourself to the fact that we can respond to posts according to their content rather than what section they are posted under.0 -
Please point out these bullying, abhorrent personal attacks. :huh: And it is not dietary nitpicking to say that calorie deficit works and that people who are struggling should start looking at their intake and how they are measuring and logging it. That advice is solid and appropriate. This success story is worth a read. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1088600-dear-mean-people-of-mfp
Abhorrent huh? Pretty strong word there...
Here's the thing. If you are going to post about the virtues of a particular diet plan because it worked for you, then be prepared for people to look at your diary to see what's working! Otherwise, hide your diary.
If you go back and actually read the posts, there aren't that many haters here at all. It's a pretty tame thread. But, on a forum where people are always posting about no carb, low carb, less carb, more carb, all carb, you can expect that people will be looking for clarification, evidence, etc.
There are other boards set up for dietary nitpicking, such as the Food and Nutrition one. In case you hadn't noticed the OP was giving motivation and support in the appropriately named Motivation and Support board! She did not post the virtues of a particular type of diet, merely shared that people who are experiencing difficulties might have more success by tweaking their macro proportions and basically not to give up trying.
And yes, I do find online bullying or personal attacks abhorrent; and shameful0 -
And every single one of you has missed the point of the post.
There ARE people where this isn't the case. Medical issues? Maybe! Other issues, perhaps. EITHER WAY, they (we) need support and motivation too.
you need to rephrase what you're saying.
it is more difficult for some people to create a deficit than others. That's what you're trying to say. If you eat at a deficit, you lose weight, even with medical issues and everything else, because of the laws of physics. What medical issues (e.g. thyroid issues, PCOS) and similar do is make it more difficult for some people to create a deficit, because the calories out side of the equation isn't where it should be, so they (you) eat the calories the calculators say, but it doesn't work for you because you're burning less than average for your height, weight,a body fat percentage and activity levels. The numbers the calculator gives you are wrong *for you* but calories in v calories out is still true.
thing is, if you say you're eating at a deficit and not losing weight, people are going to come along and tell you that you're wrong.... because if you're not losing you're not at a deficit. Whether the reason is due to a medical/hormonal issue or due to you miscalculating something somewhere along the line is a different question, and it may very well be something medical or hormonal. But no weight loss = not eating at a deficit.
ETA: if the issue is hormonal, then you need to fix that problem before trying to create a deficit, as eating too little can make these problems worse. In these situations you need to get your body to burn more, rather than eating less.
Great post. I think disputes arise when someone suggest it's not calories in < calories out, when perhaps they should say it's not as simple as eating under your estimated TDEE with whatever foods/macros you want. If you're at a true deficit, your body will tap into fat stores/lean mass stores for energy because that energy has to come from somewhere. On the other hand, your macro/micronutrient intake can influence how your body behaves, meaning that while the calories in may be constant between two diets, the calories out can change based on how your body behaves in response to the food you're eating. In short, it IS as simple as a deficit, but there are times when people think they're creating a deficit when they really aren't.0 -
So you are saying we shouldn't correct misinformation when we see it? Perhaps you should suggest to MFP that they add a 'Unicorns and Rainbow Farts' section. Otherwise, resign yourself to the fact that we can respond to posts according to their content rather than what section they are posted under.
There was no misinformation in the OP - there is plenty of evidence that suggests a calorie in NOT a calorie. Hence you will need to resign yourself to the fact that some people might object to diary bashing for absolutely no justifiable reason in the Support and Motivation board!0 -
But... when you hear hoofbeats, you should think horses, not zebras. For most, it IS as simple as calorie deficit. Usually if a person is not seeing results it is because they are overestimating their exercise calories or underestimating their intake, or both.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/872212-you-re-probably-eating-more-than-you-think
THIS!!!!0 -
in…for the snowflakes...0
-
So you are saying we shouldn't correct misinformation when we see it? Perhaps you should suggest to MFP that they add a 'Unicorns and Rainbow Farts' section. Otherwise, resign yourself to the fact that we can respond to posts according to their content rather than what section they are posted under.
There was no misinformation in the OP - there is plenty of evidence that suggests a calorie in NOT a calorie. Hence you will need to resign yourself to the fact that some people might object to diary bashing for absolutely no justifiable reason in the Support and Motivation board!
And now, misinformation from you, which I am happy to correct. 1 calorie = 1 calorie. Because a calorie is a unit of heat energy.
Diary bashing? Do say. I don't see any of that going on.0 -
Cliffs:
When your body cannot store any more fat in it's existing cells, it creates new fat cells.
You cannot get rid of fat cells once your body has created them.
Thin people don't have as many fat cells in your body, therefore it is harder for thin people to gain weight.
You might find this interesting. :
While I'm not keen on the entire set - point theory, I do think genetic inheritance plays a very important part in the body returning to a "comfortable" weight. I really think weight is due to a combination of both genes and environment. After reading articles like the following I can't help but wonder if dieting is just too hard for some. My thinking (at the moment ) leans towards the possibility that people who relapse are just tired of the struggle to maintain the constant vigilance. Maybe it's due to a shifting of values where remaining thin is no longer a top priority in life, or counting calories and thinking about food becomes too time consuming and starts taking away from someone's life instead of adding to it. It's nice to be free from analyzing your options every time you eat something, to be able to eat something because that's what you "want", and not what you "should" have.
I'm sure there are many reasons, just throwing some possibilities out thereMay 8, 2007
Genes Take Charge, and Diets Fall by the Wayside
By GINA KOLATA
It was 1959. Jules Hirsch, a research physician at Rockefeller University, had gotten curious about weight loss in the obese. He was about to start a simple experiment that would change forever the way scientists think about fat.
Obese people, he knew, had huge fat cells, stuffed with glistening yellow fat. What happened to those cells when people lost weight, he wondered. Did they shrink or did they go away? He decided to find out.
It seemed straightforward. Dr. Hirsch found eight people who had been fat since childhood or adolescence and who agreed to live at the Rockefeller University Hospital for eight months while scientists would control their diets, make them lose weight and then examine their fat cells.
The study was rigorous and demanding. It began with an agonizing four weeks of a maintenance diet that assessed the subjects’ metabolism and caloric needs. Then the diet began. The only food permitted was a liquid formula providing 600 calories a day, a regimen that guaranteed they would lose weight. Finally, the subjects spent another four weeks on a diet that maintained them at their new weights, 100 pounds lower than their initial weights, on average.
Dr. Hirsch answered his original question — the subjects’ fat cells had shrunk and were now normal in size. And everyone, including Dr. Hirsch, assumed that the subjects would leave the hospital permanently thinner.
That did not happen. Instead, Dr. Hirsch says, “they all regained.” He was horrified. The study subjects certainly wanted to be thin, so what went wrong? Maybe, he thought, they had some deep-seated psychological need to be fat.
So Dr. Hirsch and his colleagues, including Dr. Rudolph L. Leibel, who is now at Columbia University, repeated the experiment and repeated it again. Every time the result was the same. The weight, so painstakingly lost, came right back. But since this was a research study, the investigators were also measuring metabolic changes, psychiatric conditions, body temperature and pulse. And that led them to a surprising conclusion: fat people who lost large amounts of weight might look like someone who was never fat, but they were very different. In fact, by every metabolic measurement, they seemed like people who were starving.
Before the diet began, the fat subjects’ metabolism was normal — the number of calories burned per square meter of body surface was no different from that of people who had never been fat. But when they lost weight, they were burning as much as 24 percent fewer calories per square meter of their surface area than the calories consumed by those who were naturally thin.
The Rockefeller subjects also had a psychiatric syndrome, called semi-starvation neurosis, which had been noticed before in people of normal weight who had been starved. They dreamed of food, they fantasized about food or about breaking their diet. They were anxious and depressed; some had thoughts of suicide. They secreted food in their rooms. And they binged.
The Rockefeller researchers explained their observations in one of their papers: “It is entirely possible that weight reduction, instead of resulting in a normal state for obese patients, results in an abnormal state resembling that of starved nonobese individuals.”
Eventually, more than 50 people lived at the hospital and lost weight, and every one had physical and psychological signs of starvation. There were a very few who did not get fat again, but they made staying thin their life’s work, becoming Weight Watchers lecturers, for example, and, always, counting calories and maintaining themselves in a permanent state of starvation.
“Did those who stayed thin simply have more willpower?” Dr. Hirsch asked. “In a funny way, they did.”
One way to interpret Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel’s studies would be to propose that once a person got fat, the body would adjust, making it hopeless to lose weight and keep it off. The issue was important, because if getting fat was the problem, there might be a solution to the obesity epidemic: convince people that any weight gain was a step toward an irreversible condition that they most definitely did not want to have.
But another group of studies showed that that hypothesis, too, was wrong.
It began with studies that were the inspiration of Dr. Ethan Sims at the University of Vermont, who asked what would happen if thin people who had never had a weight problem deliberately got fat.
His subjects were prisoners at a nearby state prison who volunteered to gain weight. With great difficulty, they succeeded, increasing their weight by 20 percent to 25 percent. But it took them four to six months, eating as much as they could every day. Some consumed 10,000 calories a day, an amount so incredible that it would be hard to believe, were it not for the fact that there were attendants present at each meal who dutifully recorded everything the men ate.
Once the men were fat, their metabolisms increased by 50 percent. They needed more than 2,700 calories per square meter of their body surface to stay fat but needed just 1,800 calories per square meter to maintain their normal weight.
When the study ended, the prisoners had no trouble losing weight. Within months, they were back to normal and effortlessly stayed there.
The implications were clear. There is a reason that fat people cannot stay thin after they diet and that thin people cannot stay fat when they force themselves to gain weight. The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range. Gain weight and the metabolism can as much as double; lose weight and it can slow to half its original speed.
That, of course, was contrary to what every scientist had thought, and Dr. Sims knew it, as did Dr. Hirsch.
The message never really got out to the nation’s dieters, but a few research scientists were intrigued and asked the next question about body weight: Is body weight inherited, or is obesity more of an inadvertent, almost unconscious response to a society where food is cheap, abundant and tempting? An extra 100 calories a day will pile on 10 pounds in a year, public health messages often say. In five years, that is 50 pounds.
The assumption was that environment determined weight, but Dr. Albert Stunkard of the University of Pennsylvania wondered if that was true and, if so, to what extent. It was the early 1980s, long before obesity became what one social scientist called a moral panic, but a time when those questions of nature versus nurture were very much on Dr. Stunkard’s mind.
He found the perfect tool for investigating the nature-nurture question — a Danish registry of adoptees developed to understand whether schizophrenia was inherited. It included meticulous medical records of every Danish adoption between 1927 and 1947, including the names of the adoptees’ biological parents, and the heights and weights of the adoptees, their biological parents and their adoptive parents.
Dr. Stunkard ended up with 540 adults whose average age was 40. They had been adopted when they were very young — 55 percent had been adopted in the first month of life and 90 percent were adopted in the first year of life. His conclusions, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1986, were unequivocal. The adoptees were as fat as their biological parents, and how fat they were had no relation to how fat their adoptive parents were.
The scientists summarized it in their paper: “The two major findings of this study were that there was a clear relation between the body-mass index of biologic parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that genetic influences are important determinants of body fatness; and that there was no relation between the body-mass index of adoptive parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that childhood family environment alone has little or no effect.”
In other words, being fat was an inherited condition.
Dr. Stunkard also pointed out the implications: “Current efforts to prevent obesity are directed toward all children (and their parents) almost indiscriminately. Yet if family environment alone has no role in obesity, efforts now directed toward persons with little genetic risk of the disorder could be refocused on the smaller number who are more vulnerable. Such persons can already be identified with some assurance: 80 percent of the offspring of two obese parents become obese, as compared with no more than 14 percent of the offspring of two parents of normal weight.”
A few years later, in 1990, Dr. Stunkard published another study in The New England Journal of Medicine, using another classic method of geneticists: investigating twins. This time, he used the Swedish Twin Registry, studying its 93 pairs of identical twins who were reared apart, 154 pairs of identical twins who were reared together, 218 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared apart, and 208 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared together.
The identical twins had nearly identical body mass indexes, whether they had been reared apart or together. There was more variation in the body mass indexes of the fraternal twins, who, like any siblings, share some, but not all, genes.
The researchers concluded that 70 percent of the variation in peoples’ weights may be accounted for by inheritance, a figure that means that weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other condition, including mental illness, breast cancer or heart disease.
The results did not mean that people are completely helpless to control their weight, Dr. Stunkard said. But, he said, it did mean that those who tend to be fat will have to constantly battle their genetic inheritance if they want to reach and maintain a significantly lower weight.
The findings also provided evidence for a phenomenon that scientists like Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel were certain was true — each person has a comfortable weight range to which the body gravitates. The range might span 10 or 20 pounds: someone might be able to weigh 120 to 140 pounds without too much effort. Going much above or much below the natural weight range is difficult, however; the body resists by increasing or decreasing the appetite and changing the metabolism to push the weight back to the range it seeks.
The message is so at odds with the popular conception of weight loss — the mantra that all a person has to do is eat less and exercise more — that Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, an obesity researcher at the Rockefeller University, tried to come up with an analogy that would convey what science has found about the powerful biological controls over body weight.
He published it in the journal Science in 2003 and still cites it:
“Those who doubt the power of basic drives, however, might note that although one can hold one’s breath, this conscious act is soon overcome by the compulsion to breathe,” Dr. Friedman wrote. “The feeling of hunger is intense and, if not as potent as the drive to breathe, is probably no less powerful than the drive to drink when one is thirsty. This is the feeling the obese must resist after they have lost a significant amount of weight.”
This is an excerpt from Gina Kolata’s new book, “Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss — and the Myths and Realities of Dieting” (Farrar, Straus & Giroux).
Correction: May 12, 2007
An article in Science Times on Tuesday about the role of genes in weight gain misstated the publication date for an article in the journal Science describing the biological controls over body weight. The article was published in 2003, not 2000.
*Lots of comments after this article at the New York Times if you're interested - most not as depressing as this article and a few by readers that are maintaining a large loss of weight.
*To be honest though, I think in certain cases obesity might be related to viruses, microbes, bacterium, and such. adenovirus -36? Methyl markers aren't the only way genes are turned on or off. Promoters and repressors that regulate how much a gene expresses itself into mRNA? and then translating into a protein?0 -
Please point out these bullying, abhorrent personal attacks. :huh: And it is not dietary nitpicking to say that calorie deficit works and that people who are struggling should start looking at their intake and how they are measuring and logging it. That advice is solid and appropriate. This success story is worth a read. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1088600-dear-mean-people-of-mfp
The OP was not looking for what you seem to think is "advice", maybe you should read it again. The "advice" given included:
1. Suggesting the OP is unable to log correctly.
2. Suggesting the OP is doing things wrong despite the fact that the original post states she has found what works (for her).
3. Nitpicking the OP's food diary - carbs intake, food choices, etc.
4. Dragging in the OP's medical history.
These personal attacks do not invalidate what she said, they only serve to stifle discussion by intimidating anyone who doesn't subscribe to the crap science spewed by a gang of vocal MFP members.0 -
And now, misinformation from you, which I am happy to correct. 1 calorie = 1 calorie. Because a calorie is a unit of heat energy.
Diary bashing? Do say. I don't see any of that going on.
Got any science to back up this statement? "A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/0 -
And now, misinformation from you, which I am happy to correct. 1 calorie = 1 calorie. Because a calorie is a unit of heat energy.
Diary bashing? Do say. I don't see any of that going on.
Got any science to back up this statement? "A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
Explain to me how 1 calorie does not equal 1 calorie.
I think you are quite confused if you think this has anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics.0 -
It also depends on age and your personal metabolism. I Log and measure everything that goes into my mouth and I do lose but it is a real struggle even at a good deficit. So she is actually right. What works for one person may not necessarily work for another.But... when you hear hoofbeats, you should think horses, not zebras. For most, it IS as simple as calorie deficit. Usually if a person is not seeing results it is because they are overestimating their exercise calories or underestimating their intake, or both.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/872212-you-re-probably-eating-more-than-you-think0 -
Please point out these bullying, abhorrent personal attacks. :huh: And it is not dietary nitpicking to say that calorie deficit works and that people who are struggling should start looking at their intake and how they are measuring and logging it. That advice is solid and appropriate. This success story is worth a read. http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1088600-dear-mean-people-of-mfp
The OP was not looking for what you seem to think is "advice", maybe you should read it again. The "advice" given included:
1. Suggesting the OP is unable to log correctly.
2. Suggesting the OP is doing things wrong despite the fact that the original post states she has found what works (for her).
3. Nitpicking the OP's food diary - carbs intake, food choices, etc.
4. Dragging in the OP's medical history.
These personal attacks do not invalidate what she said, they only serve to stifle discussion by intimidating anyone who doesn't subscribe to the crap science spewed by a gang of vocal MFP members.
You certainly are a pot stirrer, aren't you?
OP posted why she thinks that weight loss is not as simple as a calorie deficit, and indicates that she is having trouble losing weight. People are trying to help her understand what is going on, using the simple fact that if you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight.
Explain to me how that is a personal attack or diary nitpicking.
Thank you. :flowerforyou:0 -
You certainly are a pot stirrer, aren't you?
OP posted why she thinks that weight loss is not as simple as a calorie deficit, and indicates that she is having trouble losing weight. People are trying to help her understand what is going on, using the simple fact that if you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight.
Explain to me how that is a personal attack or diary nitpicking.
Thank you. :flowerforyou:
But... but... MEANIES!! :sad:0 -
Everyone's body is different and your personal body metabolism may well be different than others. Yes you are right. There are many variables involved.And every single one of you has missed the point of the post.
There ARE people where this isn't the case. Medical issues? Maybe! Other issues, perhaps. EITHER WAY, they (we) need support and motivation too.0 -
Got any science to back up this statement? "A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
Explain to me how 1 calorie does not equal 1 calorie.
I think you are quite confused if you think this has anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics.
Read the paper and you will find it has everything to do with topic. Those that misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics regularly use this as scientific proof that a calorie = a calorie. In fact the law proves the opposite! So it seems that the snowflakes are the special ones that believe their bodies operate beyond scientific law, where a calorie is a calorie and everyone else is doing it wrong and must be greedy, lazy, and stupid.0 -
As I see it, the weight loss formula SOUNDS simple, but it can be hard to fine tune the numbers to enable weight loss for an individual. The calculators give estimates, but those estimates don't apply to every single person who calculates. Any person could need fewer calories or more calories. Staying motivated to find the balance that works for the individual is the hard part.
But in the end I think it still distills down to achieving a deficit.0 -
Got any science to back up this statement? "A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
Explain to me how 1 calorie does not equal 1 calorie.
I think you are quite confused if you think this has anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics.
Read the paper and you will find it has everything to do with topic. Those that misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics regularly use this as scientific proof that a calorie = a calorie. In fact the law proves the opposite! So it seems that the snowflakes are the special ones that believe their bodies operate beyond scientific law, where a calorie is a calorie and everyone else is doing it wrong and must be greedy, lazy, and stupid.
I have read the paper, and it does not say anything like 1 calorie =/= 1 calorie. This was already thoroughly discussed in another thread, that I believe you participated in.
Methinks you are projecting here, because no one is accusing anyone of being greedy, lazy OR stupid. That is your own personal bias speaking.
Your intent here, seems to be to incite a riot over pretty much nothing at all.0 -
As I see it, the weight loss formula SOUNDS simple, but it can be hard to fine tune the numbers to enable weight loss for an individual. The calculators give estimates, but those estimates don't apply to every single person who calculates. Any person could need fewer calories or more calories. Staying motivated to find the balance that works for the individual is the hard part.
But in the end I think it still distills down to achieving a deficit.
Exactly. :drinker:0 -
That poster always post studies, has no idea how to interpret them, gets called out be people that actually read them, gets told that the studies don't say what she thinks they say........it is a losing battle
Got any science to back up this statement? "A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC506782/
Explain to me how 1 calorie does not equal 1 calorie.
I think you are quite confused if you think this has anything to do with the second law of thermodynamics.
Read the paper and you will find it has everything to do with topic. Those that misunderstand the second law of thermodynamics regularly use this as scientific proof that a calorie = a calorie. In fact the law proves the opposite! So it seems that the snowflakes are the special ones that believe their bodies operate beyond scientific law, where a calorie is a calorie and everyone else is doing it wrong and must be greedy, lazy, and stupid.
I have read the paper, and it does not say anything like 1 calorie =/= 1 calorie. This was already thoroughly discussed in another thread, that I believe you participated in.
Methinks you are projecting here, because no one is accusing anyone of being greedy, lazy OR stupid. That is your own personal bias speaking.
Your intent here, seems to be to incite a riot over pretty much nothing at all.0 -
The OP was not looking for what you seem to think is "advice", maybe you should read it again. The "advice" given included:
1. Suggesting the OP is unable to log correctly.
2. Suggesting the OP is doing things wrong despite the fact that the original post states she has found what works (for her).
3. Nitpicking the OP's food diary - carbs intake, food choices, etc.
4. Dragging in the OP's medical history.
These personal attacks do not invalidate what she said, they only serve to stifle discussion by intimidating anyone who doesn't subscribe to the crap science spewed by a gang of vocal MFP members.
You certainly are a pot stirrer, aren't you?
OP posted why she thinks that weight loss is not as simple as a calorie deficit, and indicates that she is having trouble losing weight. People are trying to help her understand what is going on, using the simple fact that if you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight.
Explain to me how that is a personal attack or diary nitpicking.
Thank you. :flowerforyou:
I refer you to my previous post quoted above. She was not looking for advice she was motivating others to keep trying until they find what works for them. The responses that involved my 4 points above were not attempting to help her, but denigrate her capabilities to manage her own diet.0 -
I'm one of those special snowflakes with hypothyroidism and PCOSA lower carb diet seems to work best for me. If I hit my carb macros recommended by MFP, I'm hangry all the time and my weight loss stalls.
Whatever, it works for me.
If that makes me a special snowflake, great.0 -
I'm one of those special snowflakes with hypothyroidism and PCOSA lower carb diet seems to work best for me. If I hit my carb macros recommended by MFP, I'm hangry all the time and my weight loss stalls.
Whatever, it works for me.
If that makes me a special snowflake, great.
I have hypothyroid as well, and it DOESN'T make me a special snowflake. I still lose weight when in a calorie deficit. Macros have nothing to do with it - they are there to be adjusted as we see fit and according to our goals. :drinker:0 -
in for later...gotta clean the house0
-
The OP was not looking for what you seem to think is "advice", maybe you should read it again. The "advice" given included:
1. Suggesting the OP is unable to log correctly.
2. Suggesting the OP is doing things wrong despite the fact that the original post states she has found what works (for her).
3. Nitpicking the OP's food diary - carbs intake, food choices, etc.
4. Dragging in the OP's medical history.
These personal attacks do not invalidate what she said, they only serve to stifle discussion by intimidating anyone who doesn't subscribe to the crap science spewed by a gang of vocal MFP members.
You certainly are a pot stirrer, aren't you?
OP posted why she thinks that weight loss is not as simple as a calorie deficit, and indicates that she is having trouble losing weight. People are trying to help her understand what is going on, using the simple fact that if you eat less than you burn, you will lose weight.
Explain to me how that is a personal attack or diary nitpicking.
Thank you. :flowerforyou:
I refer you to my previous post quoted above. She was not looking for advice she was motivating others to keep trying until they find what works for them. The responses that involved my 4 points above were not attempting to help her, but denigrate her capabilities to manage her own diet.
So you refer me to your own unfounded post in answer to my question as to who was attacking and denigrating the OP? I think you are having a little bit of trouble following here. Or are being purposefully obtuse. Either way, carry on. It's rather entertaining.0 -
How did you know I'd hit that point as well?! Thank you for encouragement. I had been depressed and for the first time in 10 months considered giving up because obviously I'll never get to goal weight. It is so hard the older we get! (I just turned 41). Thanks again for the reminder that it took time to gain and it will take time to lose.0
-
I have read the paper, and it does not say anything like 1 calorie =/= 1 calorie. This was already thoroughly discussed in another thread, that I believe you participated in.
Methinks you are projecting here, because no one is accusing anyone of being greedy, lazy OR stupid. That is your own personal bias speaking.
You clearly have not read the paper or understood it.Your intent here, seems to be to incite a riot over pretty much nothing at all.
Oh, I see - am I not allowed to support someone in the Motivation and Support board? How strange. Whereas it is acceptable and not riot-raising to diary bash here? Something a bit twisted about that logic.That poster always post studies, has no idea how to interpret them, gets called out be people that actually read them, gets told that the studies don't say what she thinks they say........it is a losing battle
Where is the evidence for this little gem? Yes, I post a few studies, show me where I have got "called out".0 -
Calorie deficit = fat loose (probably among muscles).
That's easy.
If a person thinks differently, the logic that person has is flawed.
It's like this: If you turn off the power a light bulp has, it will surely stop to give light after a while.
That's the same as when you don't give enough food to someone. This person will not only get lean over time, but will eventually die because there's not enough energy to keep the body functioning. No one who ever really starved got fat from that.
Everyone who thinks a person can get fat or keep their fat on by not eating enough is believing in magic.
If it's healthy to have this deficit depends on other factors though. Like how large the deficit really is and such.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions