Is 'eating at deficit' enough?
Options
Replies
-
Also, I really don't see the problem with cutting down on that ice cream from every day to once a week. New habits can be formed. Do you really NEED ice cream every day? Once you accept that it is a desire based on emotional attachment and nourishing your body is the most important thing, you will no longer feel the need to have it every day and it won't be unsustainable if you don't want it every day anymore.
Yes. Yes, I need it everyday.0 -
To be fair to Penny, her argument is with me because of an earlier post where I did say that two people eating the same amount of calories from different sources would have essentially the same results in terms of weight loss. Her contention is that someone on a LCHP/LCHF diet will lose more weight than someone who eats just whatever with no regard for macros. I contend that the difference in results over a given time would be negligible, if any. My opinion is based strictly on weight loss, not the % between muscle vs fat loss or recomp of any kind, just weight loss. I say over a given time so as to eliminate the variances of water/glycogen and other variables. For overall health a balanced diet would be better. My point throughout this entire thread is going back to one line in the OP where she says "If you look through the forums there is always talk about 'eating at deficit'. But, really it's more than just eating fewer calories than you burn. It's also about what you eat." For weight loss, it doesn't matter, and when these types of arguments come up it DOES muddy the water for people who don't yet have a good understand of how it all works. I believe most beginning dieters just want the damn scale to get moving, overtime however, they will learn more and begin to make better food choices on their own. I think we make it harder for them with these types of arguments.0
-
Again, "realistically" if you were in it for the long haul and logging properly, changes are you're 50 calories off some days (over, as well as under). Denying any emotional attachment to food is when the restrictions come in. If anything, after eating whatever I want the foods become normal and don't necessarily have some immense pull.
As for 2000 calories of twinkies being processed differently than 2000 calories of veggies and thus causing different rates of loss for similar individuals, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Everyone has told you that people with medical conditions are more or less out of scope for this discussion. I mean think of a person whom even when eating veggies laden with sodium swells up the following morning. Are veggies then bad? Is that what you're saying that if you have a medical condition you probably can't or shouldn't eat certain foods in order to have a lower scale weight? If so, agreed!!!
Well I wasn't saying you're 50 cals off because you're not logging correctly, but because you cannot determine how your body is processing each type of food and some days you might expend more whilst other days you expend less. If foods have no immense pull to you then that's great for you. Not everyone has an emotional attachment to food and those that don't will find it easier to lose weight.
Saying we'll have to agree to disagree on how the body processes different foods is saying you disagree with science, because what I've said is supported by science. I quoted a study which proves that peoples BMRs and TDEE changes depending on what they eat, which directly disproves what you believe. But hey, I'm only studying nutrition and been researching for years on the subject so what do I know? Honestly, it's up to you what you wish to believe because beliefs are just that - beliefs, not fact. Anyone who wants to deny facts is absolutely entitled to do so, I just hope they won't be passing around advice to others on the subject...
Well you've chosen not to believe all the CICO facts supported by studies so you may as well have written that post to yourself. And agreed, people who don't mind eating bland **** can easily set their calories to 1200, eat filling chicken and veg all day and lose tons of weight. Duh.
Where did I say I do not believe in CICO? I am pretty sure I have stated in every post that calories DO matter. I do not deny facts.
And hey, if people choose to eat bland food and don't mind good for them. Some people actually ENJOY some healthy protein mixed with veg and fat though. Funny that.
Sounds like an emotional attachment to me. Barring medical conditions I believe you've repeatedly said CICO is not the only thing that matters for long term weight loss. This is what muddies the waters for many and results in restrictive if not fad diets and "falling off". If you were eating the icecream to begin with, there'd be nothing to fall from, hence longer term success
Enjoying your meal is an emotional attachment now?? No. An emotional attachment is eating when you are not hungry, not being able to stop, eating foods that are highly rewarding. A bit of meat, fat and veg is enjoyable for many when eating out of hunger but it is not highly rewarding and does not make you want to eat and eat and eat. People don't binge on meat, veg and healthy fat. Also, we have tastebuds for a reason. Nature made it so when something tastes good we eat more of it to fuel our bodies and it can be stored in times of famine. If we couldn't taste anything or food tasted like nothing, we would eat only enough to stave off the hunger and that's not how our bodies work.
No, I didn't say CICO doesn't matter. I said different foods have different effects on the body and determine different rates of expenditure. So assuming you can eat 2000 calories of any food and expend the same amount is far from the truth. Calories in and calories out are what determines weight loss, yes, but the foods you eat determine what your calories out will be - aside from added activity of course.
We just had the people can't binge on healthy food thread. I don't have the energy to do it again
maybe I need some more chicken and veg.
Your definition of emotional attachment is so broad and rightly individual I won't even attempt to address it.
You've repeatedly said the types of calories in will change your caloric output and I do not believe or agree with this.
Well most people don't binge on healthy food, but generally the choices are highly refined carbohydrates and sugar - highly rewarding foods.
My definition of emotional attachment is correct. I have an emotional attachment to food myself so I'm well aware of how it works and I have researched it. Enjoying your meal when you're hungry is not an emotional attachment.
As I already said, you can choose not to agree with what I've said, but science supports what I say and does not support what you say so again, there are your beliefs and then there are facts. I have no problem with people who want to ignore facts as long as they are not then giving out advice to others on the subject and misleading them. I'm here to help make people aware of the facts, it is people like you who are muddying the water.0 -
Enjoying your meal is an emotional attachment now?? No. An emotional attachment is eating when you are not hungry, not being able to stop, eating foods that are highly rewarding. A bit of meat, fat and veg is enjoyable for many when eating out of hunger but it is not highly rewarding and does not make you want to eat and eat and eat. People don't binge on meat, veg and healthy fat. Also, we have tastebuds for a reason. Nature made it so when something tastes good we eat more of it to fuel our bodies and it can be stored in times of famine. If we couldn't taste anything or food tasted like nothing, we would eat only enough to stave off the hunger and that's not how our bodies work.
No, I didn't say CICO doesn't matter. I said different foods have different effects on the body and determine different rates of expenditure. So assuming you can eat 2000 calories of any food and expend the same amount is far from the truth. Calories in and calories out are what determines weight loss, yes, but the foods you eat determine what your calories out will be - aside from added activity of course.
Also, I really don't see the problem with cutting down on that ice cream from every day to once a week. New habits can be formed. Do you really NEED ice cream every day? Once you accept that it is a desire based on emotional attachment and nourishing your body is the most important thing, you will no longer feel the need to have it every day and it won't be unsustainable if you don't want it every day anymore.
You've clearly never been taken on a date to a Brazilian steakhouse.
And I don't believe they'd be serving anything healthy in those places either
0 -
Of course, enjoyment is not an emotion. Duh.0
-
I see your icecream edit. The point is based on CICO I can make the numbers work and wouldn't need a lecture on "body fueling" foods to lose weight. Once a week, once a day, nothing but icecream, once every three weeks. It wouldn't matter so long as I was eating all of it in a caloric deficit.
And your point is? Different foods affect how many calories you expend. Fact. That's it. What I said about the ice cream related to emotional attachment.0 -
And I don't believe they'd be serving anything healthy in those places either
They don't serve meat and vegetables at Brazilian steakhouses? I could've sworn the pounds of meat and vegetables I ate came from somewhere.....
I also washed it down with wine and Caramel Pecan Cheesecake.0 -
Again, "realistically" if you were in it for the long haul and logging properly, changes are you're 50 calories off some days (over, as well as under). Denying any emotional attachment to food is when the restrictions come in. If anything, after eating whatever I want the foods become normal and don't necessarily have some immense pull.
As for 2000 calories of twinkies being processed differently than 2000 calories of veggies and thus causing different rates of loss for similar individuals, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Everyone has told you that people with medical conditions are more or less out of scope for this discussion. I mean think of a person whom even when eating veggies laden with sodium swells up the following morning. Are veggies then bad? Is that what you're saying that if you have a medical condition you probably can't or shouldn't eat certain foods in order to have a lower scale weight? If so, agreed!!!
Well I wasn't saying you're 50 cals off because you're not logging correctly, but because you cannot determine how your body is processing each type of food and some days you might expend more whilst other days you expend less. If foods have no immense pull to you then that's great for you. Not everyone has an emotional attachment to food and those that don't will find it easier to lose weight.
Saying we'll have to agree to disagree on how the body processes different foods is saying you disagree with science, because what I've said is supported by science. I quoted a study which proves that peoples BMRs and TDEE changes depending on what they eat, which directly disproves what you believe. But hey, I'm only studying nutrition and been researching for years on the subject so what do I know? Honestly, it's up to you what you wish to believe because beliefs are just that - beliefs, not fact. Anyone who wants to deny facts is absolutely entitled to do so, I just hope they won't be passing around advice to others on the subject...
Well you've chosen not to believe all the CICO facts supported by studies so you may as well have written that post to yourself. And agreed, people who don't mind eating bland **** can easily set their calories to 1200, eat filling chicken and veg all day and lose tons of weight. Duh.
Where did I say I do not believe in CICO? I am pretty sure I have stated in every post that calories DO matter. I do not deny facts.
And hey, if people choose to eat bland food and don't mind good for them. Some people actually ENJOY some healthy protein mixed with veg and fat though. Funny that.
Sounds like an emotional attachment to me. Barring medical conditions I believe you've repeatedly said CICO is not the only thing that matters for long term weight loss. This is what muddies the waters for many and results in restrictive if not fad diets and "falling off". If you were eating the icecream to begin with, there'd be nothing to fall from, hence longer term success
Enjoying your meal is an emotional attachment now?? No. An emotional attachment is eating when you are not hungry, not being able to stop, eating foods that are highly rewarding. A bit of meat, fat and veg is enjoyable for many when eating out of hunger but it is not highly rewarding and does not make you want to eat and eat and eat. People don't binge on meat, veg and healthy fat. Also, we have tastebuds for a reason. Nature made it so when something tastes good we eat more of it to fuel our bodies and it can be stored in times of famine. If we couldn't taste anything or food tasted like nothing, we would eat only enough to stave off the hunger and that's not how our bodies work.
No, I didn't say CICO doesn't matter. I said different foods have different effects on the body and determine different rates of expenditure. So assuming you can eat 2000 calories of any food and expend the same amount is far from the truth. Calories in and calories out are what determines weight loss, yes, but the foods you eat determine what your calories out will be - aside from added activity of course.
We just had the people can't binge on healthy food thread. I don't have the energy to do it again maybe I need some more chicken and veg.
Your definition of emotional attachment is so broad and rightly individual I won't even attempt to address it.
You've repeatedly said the types of calories in will change your caloric output and I do not believe or agree with this.
Well most people don't binge on healthy food, but generally the choices are highly refined carbohydrates and sugar - highly rewarding foods.
My definition of emotional attachment is correct. I have an emotional attachment to food myself so I'm well aware of how it works and I have researched it. Enjoying your meal when you're hungry is not an emotional attachment.
As I already said, you can choose not to agree with what I've said, but science supports what I say and does not support what you say so again, there are your beliefs and then there are facts. I have no problem with people who want to ignore facts as long as they are not then giving out advice to others on the subject and misleading them. I'm here to help make people aware of the facts, it is people like you who are muddying the water.
ahhh yess…the "I am smarter than you" argument…now, where have I heard that before...0 -
?????It's like you just want to nitpick...I already explained above what I meant about maintenance because it's impossible to know what your maintenance requirements are exactly. E.g. MFP says my maintenance cals are about 1750, I highly doubt it's that high at all and I imagine if I ate that amount I would gain weight. And even if that was correct, eating 1750 calories doesn't mean I'm burning that much.
No, it's not impossible to know what one's maintenance level is. It's different for every person, and by tracking calories in and weight changes it can then be determined to a reasonable degree of accuracy. Enough to allow one to maintain their own weight.
You seem to think that "maintenance" is defined by what some guesstimating calculator has spit out, rather than whatever has been observed for an individual. To point out that you have it backwards is not nitpicking. Stop being backwards so that you can make look like you are correcting someone else based on your misuse of the terms/concepts.
^^ This
If you are consistent and accurate with your food diary, then over time your average maintenance is easy to determine. You'll find the math for it explained here, under the heading "Using TDEE:"
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets0 -
Of course, enjoyment is not an emotion. Duh.
Oh please. I've explained the whole thing about tastebuds and how we are designed to like the taste of food so we eat enough to fuel our bodies. When ghrelin is elevated because of HUNGER, it makes food taste better. Have you never noticed that food tastes better when you're really hungry? That's a physiological thing, not a psychological one. It's nature. But the emotional attachment that I am talking about comes into play when we need pleasure and enjoyment from food outside of when we need it and when we are hungry.0 -
And I don't believe they'd be serving anything healthy in those places either
They don't serve meat and vegetables at Brazilian steakhouses? I could've sworn the pounds of meat and vegetables I ate came from somewhere.....
I also washed it down with wine and Caramel Pecan Cheesecake.
Cooking methods and what's added to the food determine it's nutritional and health giving value. Vegetables that are charred and drowning in vegetable oil are no longer the health giving foods they were when they were fresh.0 -
Again, "realistically" if you were in it for the long haul and logging properly, changes are you're 50 calories off some days (over, as well as under). Denying any emotional attachment to food is when the restrictions come in. If anything, after eating whatever I want the foods become normal and don't necessarily have some immense pull.
As for 2000 calories of twinkies being processed differently than 2000 calories of veggies and thus causing different rates of loss for similar individuals, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Everyone has told you that people with medical conditions are more or less out of scope for this discussion. I mean think of a person whom even when eating veggies laden with sodium swells up the following morning. Are veggies then bad? Is that what you're saying that if you have a medical condition you probably can't or shouldn't eat certain foods in order to have a lower scale weight? If so, agreed!!!
Well I wasn't saying you're 50 cals off because you're not logging correctly, but because you cannot determine how your body is processing each type of food and some days you might expend more whilst other days you expend less. If foods have no immense pull to you then that's great for you. Not everyone has an emotional attachment to food and those that don't will find it easier to lose weight.
Saying we'll have to agree to disagree on how the body processes different foods is saying you disagree with science, because what I've said is supported by science. I quoted a study which proves that peoples BMRs and TDEE changes depending on what they eat, which directly disproves what you believe. But hey, I'm only studying nutrition and been researching for years on the subject so what do I know? Honestly, it's up to you what you wish to believe because beliefs are just that - beliefs, not fact. Anyone who wants to deny facts is absolutely entitled to do so, I just hope they won't be passing around advice to others on the subject...
Well you've chosen not to believe all the CICO facts supported by studies so you may as well have written that post to yourself. And agreed, people who don't mind eating bland **** can easily set their calories to 1200, eat filling chicken and veg all day and lose tons of weight. Duh.
Where did I say I do not believe in CICO? I am pretty sure I have stated in every post that calories DO matter. I do not deny facts.
And hey, if people choose to eat bland food and don't mind good for them. Some people actually ENJOY some healthy protein mixed with veg and fat though. Funny that.
Sounds like an emotional attachment to me. Barring medical conditions I believe you've repeatedly said CICO is not the only thing that matters for long term weight loss. This is what muddies the waters for many and results in restrictive if not fad diets and "falling off". If you were eating the icecream to begin with, there'd be nothing to fall from, hence longer term success
Enjoying your meal is an emotional attachment now?? No. An emotional attachment is eating when you are not hungry, not being able to stop, eating foods that are highly rewarding. A bit of meat, fat and veg is enjoyable for many when eating out of hunger but it is not highly rewarding and does not make you want to eat and eat and eat. People don't binge on meat, veg and healthy fat. Also, we have tastebuds for a reason. Nature made it so when something tastes good we eat more of it to fuel our bodies and it can be stored in times of famine. If we couldn't taste anything or food tasted like nothing, we would eat only enough to stave off the hunger and that's not how our bodies work.
No, I didn't say CICO doesn't matter. I said different foods have different effects on the body and determine different rates of expenditure. So assuming you can eat 2000 calories of any food and expend the same amount is far from the truth. Calories in and calories out are what determines weight loss, yes, but the foods you eat determine what your calories out will be - aside from added activity of course.
We just had the people can't binge on healthy food thread. I don't have the energy to do it again maybe I need some more chicken and veg.
Your definition of emotional attachment is so broad and rightly individual I won't even attempt to address it.
You've repeatedly said the types of calories in will change your caloric output and I do not believe or agree with this.
Well most people don't binge on healthy food, but generally the choices are highly refined carbohydrates and sugar - highly rewarding foods.
My definition of emotional attachment is correct. I have an emotional attachment to food myself so I'm well aware of how it works and I have researched it. Enjoying your meal when you're hungry is not an emotional attachment.
As I already said, you can choose not to agree with what I've said, but science supports what I say and does not support what you say so again, there are your beliefs and then there are facts. I have no problem with people who want to ignore facts as long as they are not then giving out advice to others on the subject and misleading them. I'm here to help make people aware of the facts, it is people like you who are muddying the water.
ahhh yess…the "I am smarter than you" argument…now, where have I heard that before...
How is saying that science supports what I say a "I'm smarter than you" argument? I've taken the time to do the research and find out the facts and this is your best way to refute what I've said? try again.0 -
Where did I tell her she was lying?Hey who knows? Maybe she was on a starvation diet for years before doing the study and her metabolism crashed to burning just 600 cals a day...unlikely but hey we don't know all the specifics. I'd rather give someone the benefit of the doubt and explore and research rather than shunt them and tell them they're lying. We don't learn anything that way.
I asked her how she knew that was her TDEE.
I suspect she doesn't have the correct information.
Though, lets say someone came and told you that when they drove their car, it actually filled the fuel tank up with fuel?
Would you say "err, no, I don't think you're telling truth"? Or perhaps you might ask how they had been calculating the figures and wonder if they had missed something?
Even if her TDEE was overestimated, it seems highly unlikely that it was so low to enable a gain of 30lbs in 8 weeks. As someone above said, she would have had to have been eating an excess of 1875 calories to gain that amount of fat so her TDEE would have to have been less than zero. Impossible obviously. Even if we assume that half was water and the other half fat, that would require an excess of 937 cals per day making her TDEE at just under 500. Also highly unlikely. It is possible that the people who designed the study got it wrong and were feeding her more than 1400 cals a day - I don't know the specifics of the study. Either way I'd like to know because it's a very unusual situation.
If someone's TDEE is truly only 1400 calories, add 1875 to that means eating 3275 calorie/day over 8 weeks. That's like child's play.
No problem!
0 -
I see your icecream edit. The point is based on CICO I can make the numbers work and wouldn't need a lecture on "body fueling" foods to lose weight. Once a week, once a day, nothing but icecream, once every three weeks. It wouldn't matter so long as I was eating all of it in a caloric deficit.
And your point is? Different foods affect how many calories you expend. Fact. That's it. What I said about the ice cream related to emotional attachment.
"My point is" that "emotional attachment" or not, if you eat your icecream in a caloric deficit, you will lose an appreciable amount of weight. Would you have slightly better results eating only "healthy" foods? Maybe. But it's generally not sustainable over time, and not even necessary. So why complicate things when you can adjust your own individual lifestyle slightly and still lose weight?0 -
Also, I really don't see the problem with cutting down on that ice cream from every day to once a week. New habits can be formed. Do you really NEED ice cream every day? Once you accept that it is a desire based on emotional attachment and nourishing your body is the most important thing, you will no longer feel the need to have it every day and it won't be unsustainable if you don't want it every day anymore.
Ice cream has protein, carbs, and fat. It IS nourishing.0 -
To be fair to Penny, her argument is with me because of an earlier post where I did say that two people eating the same amount of calories from different sources would have essentially the same results in terms of weight loss. Her contention is that someone on a LCHP/LCHF diet will lose more weight than someone who eats just whatever with no regard for macros. I contend that the difference in results over a given time would be negligible, if any. My opinion is based strictly on weight loss, not the % between muscle vs fat loss or recomp of any kind, just weight loss. I say over a given time so as to eliminate the variances of water/glycogen and other variables. For overall health a balanced diet would be better. My point throughout this entire thread is going back to one line in the OP where she says "If you look through the forums there is always talk about 'eating at deficit'. But, really it's more than just eating fewer calories than you burn. It's also about what you eat." For weight loss, it doesn't matter, and when these types of arguments come up it DOES muddy the water for people who don't yet have a good understand of how it all works. I believe most beginning dieters just want the damn scale to get moving, overtime however, they will learn more and begin to make better food choices on their own. I think we make it harder for them with these types of arguments.
Yes and I provided a link to a study showing that the effects are not minimal and in some cases very significant. And I'll say it again, I don't know what your definition of weight loss is if it doesn't refer to fat or muscle as both these things affect weight and I also gave you reasons as to why weight loss would not be the same if one person was losing more muscle than someone else because muscle is more dense and provides half the amount of energy so someone losing more muscle would show a greater weight loss than someone losing fat.
I've already said I agree that calories matter, but what you eat affects how much energy you expend.0 -
Also, I really don't see the problem with cutting down on that ice cream from every day to once a week. New habits can be formed. Do you really NEED ice cream every day? Once you accept that it is a desire based on emotional attachment and nourishing your body is the most important thing, you will no longer feel the need to have it every day and it won't be unsustainable if you don't want it every day anymore.
Ice cream has protein, carbs, and fat. It IS nourishing.
Thanks for that. Made my day. 0 -
Of course, enjoyment is not an emotion. Duh.
Oh please. I've explained the whole thing about tastebuds and how we are designed to like the taste of food so we eat enough to fuel our bodies. When ghrelin is elevated because of HUNGER, it makes food taste better. Have you never noticed that food tastes better when you're really hungry? That's a physiological thing, not a psychological one. It's nature. But the emotional attachment that I am talking about comes into play when we need pleasure and enjoyment from food outside of when we need it and when we are hungry.
I love how you've stuck two words together and decided that the definition you've provided is some sort of world wide accepted definition of the term. :laugh: I guess making sure the food you eat doesn't elicit any kind of emotion is important to you so you keep going on about it. Just seems kind of sad, is all!0 -
And I don't believe they'd be serving anything healthy in those places either
They don't serve meat and vegetables at Brazilian steakhouses? I could've sworn the pounds of meat and vegetables I ate came from somewhere.....
I also washed it down with wine and Caramel Pecan Cheesecake.
Cooking methods and what's added to the food determine it's nutritional and health giving value. Vegetables that are charred and drowning in vegetable oil are no longer the health giving foods they were when they were fresh.
Oh see, that's perfect because I was referring to the salad bar.
As far are what is added to the food... you're telling me that adding in additional flavors, spices, oils and such makes the food devoid of nutrients then?0 -
And I don't believe they'd be serving anything healthy in those places either
They don't serve meat and vegetables at Brazilian steakhouses? I could've sworn the pounds of meat and vegetables I ate came from somewhere.....
I also washed it down with wine and Caramel Pecan Cheesecake.
Cooking methods and what's added to the food determine it's nutritional and health giving value. Vegetables that are charred and drowning in vegetable oil are no longer the health giving foods they were when they were fresh.
Oh see, that's perfect because I was referring to the salad bar.
As far are what is added to the food... you're telling me that adding in additional flavors, spices, oils and such makes the food devoid of nutrients then?
She kinda lost what little credit I was giving her reading through this thread with that last statement. Makes no sense.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions