Is 'eating at deficit' enough?
Options
Replies
-
?????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.
Do you have some device that determines exactly how your body processes every calorie from every type of food? If not then I've proved my point. If you eat the same foods every day and the same calories then you may be able to find a calorie level where you can maintain at, but even then you could still be over by 50 calories a day and you wouldn't know it until months later when you've accrued an extra few thousand calories and have gained a lb or 2. If you're eating a variety of foods (as many people do), it will be impossible to know exactly how many calories you are burning, but again you may be able to find a calorie level where you maintain for that point in time but again you won't know until months later when you may have gained a lb and then you won't even know by how much you're going over. Anyway, you obviously have it all figured out. Good for you.
But here's the reality. If you truly care about just maintenance, a pound or two is nothing to panic about and can be burned off either with minimal calorie adjustment or exercise. If you're in a caloric deficit to lose weight , your deficit is probably something like 250 calories a day at the minimum, so even a discrepancy of 50 calories per day would not be the end of the world - you would still lose weight. This is also why we're advised to be very careful about logging. Weigh everything, and be careful eating foods you didn't make because of the inherent errors in estimating their calories. Even then, with consistent logging and enough of a buffer, things can still even out.
Your 2000 calories of kale vs 2000 calories of twinkies is actually what makes calories in calories out so simple. If two guys require 2000 calories to lose weight at the same rate, the Twinkie guy is gonna want some chicken at some point. The chicken guy is gonna want some twinkies every so often to mix things up. They can BOTH do this. They will both lose weight. I'm not saying don't eat veggies or clean or Taleo or whatever you want. It's just that making it seem like any kind of dietary restriction is needed for the average individual without unique medical issues I would say is responsible for many a failed attempt to lose weight. At some point you simply get tired of eating **** you don't like and decide to find something else to do with your time. Eating what you like, but "a little less" of it is much more sustainable.
No I never said you couldn't easily just lower your calories again to make up for the gained weight, but my point was that you can't determine an exact amount of cals needed to maintain your weight or how many cals you are burning with each type of food. So the only way around it is to either be under calorie goals but not knowing by how much and therefore you maintain, or gain weight and count calories until you lose what you've gained. And no, a small discrepancy won't show up initially but over the course of a month going over by 50 cals a day is around 1500 calories. So if one person is burning 50 cals less a day than someone else because of what they're eating they will lose less weight in that month than the other person and when you're talking about someone with a lot of weight to lose, over a year that amounts to over 5lbs less just from 50 cals, but we don't know that the discrepancy is even that small. If you look at the study I quoted earlier, it shows a much larger discrepancy between people dependent on what they were eating. So this is why I've been saying that 2 people can be eating at the same calculated calories to lose 1lb per week, but dependent on what they're eating they will lose weight at different rates but I haven't said that the one WON'T lose weight - it will just take a lot longer unless they create a larger deficit or are eating foods that increase their energy expenditure.
I don't know what you're trying to say about the 2 people eating 2000 cals a day because as I've said, if there is a deficit both will lose weight, but the RATE of weight loss will be different because of how our bodies process different foods. The difference in rate will be even larger if the one eating twinkies has a medical condition. It's not the point that they will get tired of what they're eating, it's the fact that the body does not process those 2 foods in the same way. The guy eating the twinkies will need to lower his calories to have the same rate of weight loss as the other guy, even if their calorie requirements are the same because their energy expenditure will be different - related directly to WHAT they are eating.
I don't think I said at any time that people should stop eating what they like, but I think if you are willing to look at food as fuel rather than having an emotional attachment to it you will be much better off and when you look at it that way you will eat the foods that fuel your body the best and you will be more efficient at burning off fat and maintaining muscle. If you absolutely need things that taste good but aren't health giving then you'll need to accept that you'll lose more muscle and will have to create a larger deficit to lose weight at a decent rate. That's all it's about. Calories matter, but not all calories are created equal and that is just a fact. If you ate a bunch of plastic you'd be eating calories, but your body can't digest plastic or extract those calories. You have to give it calories that it can effectively use for fuel or everything stops working.
you remind me of someone else you used to cruise the threads and argue just for the sake of arguing and was never wrong ….
Talk about arguing for the sake of arguing...yeesh. Is responding to what someone says "arguing for the sake of arguing"? I'll admit when I'm wrong, but on this I've provided evidence and details. No one's provided anything to refute what I've said. I'm actually here to share information. If I'm going to be in the health industry I'm hardly going to sit by and let people believe that all foods have the same effect on the body for everybody. So that begs the question, why are you here? I mean really, what is your issue?0 -
If you 'eat at deficit' and the scale still isn't moving then it may not be how much you are eating but what you are eating that is holding you back.
Nope.
if you are at a significant deficit, your weight will drop.
Generally, your suggestions were excellent. Thank you for them! I just took exception to the first statement.
You were correct that you will may feel poorly if you do not get the proper nutrition. If you eat only greens then you may feel lethargic because you will lack sources of convertible energy like carbohydrates or proteins.
Generally, your suggestions were excellent. I just took exception to the first statement0 -
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...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.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.
Do you have some device that determines exactly how your body processes every calorie from every type of food? If not then I've proved my point. If you eat the same foods every day and the same calories then you may be able to find a calorie level where you can maintain at, but even then you could still be over by 50 calories a day and you wouldn't know it until months later when you've accrued an extra few thousand calories and have gained a lb or 2. If you're eating a variety of foods (as many people do), it will be impossible to know exactly how many calories you are burning, but again you may be able to find a calorie level where you maintain for that point in time but again you won't know until months later when you may have gained a lb and then you won't even know by how much you're going over. Anyway, you obviously have it all figured out. Good for you.
But here's the reality. If you truly care about just maintenance, a pound or two is nothing to panic about and can be burned off either with minimal calorie adjustment or exercise. If you're in a caloric deficit to lose weight , your deficit is probably something like 250 calories a day at the minimum, so even a discrepancy of 50 calories per day would not be the end of the world - you would still lose weight. This is also why we're advised to be very careful about logging. Weigh everything, and be careful eating foods you didn't make because of the inherent errors in estimating their calories. Even then, with consistent logging and enough of a buffer, things can still even out.
Your 2000 calories of kale vs 2000 calories of twinkies is actually what makes calories in calories out so simple. If two guys require 2000 calories to lose weight at the same rate, the Twinkie guy is gonna want some chicken at some point. The chicken guy is gonna want some twinkies every so often to mix things up. They can BOTH do this. They will both lose weight. I'm not saying don't eat veggies or clean or Taleo or whatever you want. It's just that making it seem like any kind of dietary restriction is needed for the average individual without unique medical issues I would say is responsible for many a failed attempt to lose weight. At some point you simply get tired of eating **** you don't like and decide to find something else to do with your time. Eating what you like, but "a little less" of it is much more sustainable.
No I never said you couldn't easily just lower your calories again to make up for the gained weight, but my point was that you can't determine an exact amount of cals needed to maintain your weight or how many cals you are burning with each type of food. So the only way around it is to either be under calorie goals but not knowing by how much and therefore you maintain, or gain weight and count calories until you lose what you've gained. And no, a small discrepancy won't show up initially but over the course of a month going over by 50 cals a day is around 1500 calories. So if one person is burning 50 cals less a day than someone else because of what they're eating they will lose less weight in that month than the other person and when you're talking about someone with a lot of weight to lose, over a year that amounts to over 5lbs less just from 50 cals, but we don't know that the discrepancy is even that small. If you look at the study I quoted earlier, it shows a much larger discrepancy between people dependent on what they were eating. So this is why I've been saying that 2 people can be eating at the same calculated calories to lose 1lb per week, but dependent on what they're eating they will lose weight at different rates but I haven't said that the one WON'T lose weight - it will just take a lot longer unless they create a larger deficit or are eating foods that increase their energy expenditure.
I don't know what you're trying to say about the 2 people eating 2000 cals a day because as I've said, if there is a deficit both will lose weight, but the RATE of weight loss will be different because of how our bodies process different foods. The difference in rate will be even larger if the one eating twinkies has a medical condition. It's not the point that they will get tired of what they're eating, it's the fact that the body does not process those 2 foods in the same way. The guy eating the twinkies will need to lower his calories to have the same rate of weight loss as the other guy, even if their calorie requirements are the same because their energy expenditure will be different - related directly to WHAT they are eating.
I don't think I said at any time that people should stop eating what they like, but I think if you are willing to look at food as fuel rather than having an emotional attachment to it you will be much better off and when you look at it that way you will eat the foods that fuel your body the best and you will be more efficient at burning off fat and maintaining muscle. If you absolutely need things that taste good but aren't health giving then you'll need to accept that you'll lose more muscle and will have to create a larger deficit to lose weight at a decent rate. That's all it's about. Calories matter, but not all calories are created equal and that is just a fact. If you ate a bunch of plastic you'd be eating calories, but your body can't digest plastic or extract those calories. You have to give it calories that it can effectively use for fuel or everything stops working.
you remind me of someone else you used to cruise the threads and argue just for the sake of arguing and was never wrong ….
Talk about arguing for the sake of arguing...yeesh. Is responding to what someone says "arguing for the sake of arguing"? I'll admit when I'm wrong, but on this I've provided evidence and details. No one's provided anything to refute what I've said. I'm actually here to share information. If I'm going to be in the health industry I'm hardly going to sit by and let people believe that all foods have the same effect on the body for everybody. So that begs the question, why are you here? I mean really, what is your issue?
ummm yea….you keep trying to say that two people eating at a the same deficit will not lose at the same rate and then somehow try tying it back into this thread when it has been pointed out to you several times that NO ONE is making that argument..yet you keep bringing it up …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...
TEF is minimimal and has been show to be so with respect to increasing metabolism...
unless you manage to find the study that you mentioned early and never posted….0 -
So why does it ask you how often you exercise and increase cals based on that then?
If you're referring to the Goal setting part the exercise entered there has no effect on calories, it's a standalone goal for exercise for you to measure yourself against.
When you do exercise and log it then the food calories are increased in order to cancel out the exercise and maintain the original deficit.
No there's a section when you set your goals that asks how active you are and it changes your maintenance cals based on what you select, but that might just be down to how active you are in your day in general as opposed to working out.
I was pretty sure that the exercise goals are just there for motivational purposes and don't actually affect your calories.
I wasn't talking about exercise goals, I was referring to when they set your weight loss goals it asks for your activity level and ups your calories based on that. Aside from that there is also a setting for exercise goals which doesn't impact allowed calories unless you add that exercise to your diet every day.
That's the same as setting your activity level and then adding in exercise separately. I couldn't blanket enter my exercise since I can't be certain I'll burn the same amount every day. That's why it's best to add exercise after the fact.
Well I mean it's a flexible tool. If you're a mover for a living you could always set your activity level as such if you prefer
No, if you're a mover you set your activity level to active, and if you go to the gym after work and burn 500 calories, you add them in separately.
Right. This doesn't mean that using the activity portion is wrong. It will impact your daily non-exercise calorie goals and you can change the non-exercise activity level to suit your lifestyle if you prefer. I sit at a desk mostly so I use sedentary0 -
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...
TEF is minimimal and has been show to be so with respect to increasing metabolism...
unless you manage to find the study that you mentioned early and never posted….
She posted this on page 4 but it was buried in a paragraph:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=11991540 -
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...
TEF is minimimal and has been show to be so with respect to increasing metabolism...
unless you manage to find the study that you mentioned early and never posted….
I did post it, you obviously missed it. But here it is again: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=11991540 -
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.0 -
After seeing how everyone was jumping on the OP, I was going to step in and try to give some validation to some of the points she made.
But I decided to check out her diary first, and NAHHHHH, she is on her own with this one.
In my opinion, Shakeology would fall under the garbage category. And I think even Jonny -'McDonalds'-than eats more veggies than OP does,
I don't see many jumping but because of this post I did look at her diary...
I want to find that bacon that is 69 calories for 1.5 slices...:laugh:
Hmm? My bacon says 80 calories for two "pan fried" slices. For this reason I try to be careful to soak up the juices/fat with a paper towel once the bacon has cooked (I then throw in eggs so I usually don't drain them on a paper towel). The brand I'm using now is "Farmland lower sodium" I had one slice with dinner last night 40 calories. I would have preferred them to just list the calories with the fat that liquefies off and all, but I guess this is the latest marketing thing
not super relevant- but Farmland makes great bacon- Love that stuff.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.
Do you have some device that determines exactly how your body processes every calorie from every type of food? If not then I've proved my point. If you eat the same foods every day and the same calories then you may be able to find a calorie level where you can maintain at, but even then you could still be over by 50 calories a day and you wouldn't know it until months later when you've accrued an extra few thousand calories and have gained a lb or 2. If you're eating a variety of foods (as many people do), it will be impossible to know exactly how many calories you are burning, but again you may be able to find a calorie level where you maintain for that point in time but again you won't know until months later when you may have gained a lb and then you won't even know by how much you're going over. Anyway, you obviously have it all figured out. Good for you.
But here's the reality. If you truly care about just maintenance, a pound or two is nothing to panic about and can be burned off either with minimal calorie adjustment or exercise. If you're in a caloric deficit to lose weight , your deficit is probably something like 250 calories a day at the minimum, so even a discrepancy of 50 calories per day would not be the end of the world - you would still lose weight. This is also why we're advised to be very careful about logging. Weigh everything, and be careful eating foods you didn't make because of the inherent errors in estimating their calories. Even then, with consistent logging and enough of a buffer, things can still even out.
Your 2000 calories of kale vs 2000 calories of twinkies is actually what makes calories in calories out so simple. If two guys require 2000 calories to lose weight at the same rate, the Twinkie guy is gonna want some chicken at some point. The chicken guy is gonna want some twinkies every so often to mix things up. They can BOTH do this. They will both lose weight. I'm not saying don't eat veggies or clean or Taleo or whatever you want. It's just that making it seem like any kind of dietary restriction is needed for the average individual without unique medical issues I would say is responsible for many a failed attempt to lose weight. At some point you simply get tired of eating **** you don't like and decide to find something else to do with your time. Eating what you like, but "a little less" of it is much more sustainable.
No I never said you couldn't easily just lower your calories again to make up for the gained weight, but my point was that you can't determine an exact amount of cals needed to maintain your weight or how many cals you are burning with each type of food. So the only way around it is to either be under calorie goals but not knowing by how much and therefore you maintain, or gain weight and count calories until you lose what you've gained. And no, a small discrepancy won't show up initially but over the course of a month going over by 50 cals a day is around 1500 calories. So if one person is burning 50 cals less a day than someone else because of what they're eating they will lose less weight in that month than the other person and when you're talking about someone with a lot of weight to lose, over a year that amounts to over 5lbs less just from 50 cals, but we don't know that the discrepancy is even that small. If you look at the study I quoted earlier, it shows a much larger discrepancy between people dependent on what they were eating. So this is why I've been saying that 2 people can be eating at the same calculated calories to lose 1lb per week, but dependent on what they're eating they will lose weight at different rates but I haven't said that the one WON'T lose weight - it will just take a lot longer unless they create a larger deficit or are eating foods that increase their energy expenditure.
I don't know what you're trying to say about the 2 people eating 2000 cals a day because as I've said, if there is a deficit both will lose weight, but the RATE of weight loss will be different because of how our bodies process different foods. The difference in rate will be even larger if the one eating twinkies has a medical condition. It's not the point that they will get tired of what they're eating, it's the fact that the body does not process those 2 foods in the same way. The guy eating the twinkies will need to lower his calories to have the same rate of weight loss as the other guy, even if their calorie requirements are the same because their energy expenditure will be different - related directly to WHAT they are eating.
I don't think I said at any time that people should stop eating what they like, but I think if you are willing to look at food as fuel rather than having an emotional attachment to it you will be much better off and when you look at it that way you will eat the foods that fuel your body the best and you will be more efficient at burning off fat and maintaining muscle. If you absolutely need things that taste good but aren't health giving then you'll need to accept that you'll lose more muscle and will have to create a larger deficit to lose weight at a decent rate. That's all it's about. Calories matter, but not all calories are created equal and that is just a fact. If you ate a bunch of plastic you'd be eating calories, but your body can't digest plastic or extract those calories. You have to give it calories that it can effectively use for fuel or everything stops working.
you remind me of someone else you used to cruise the threads and argue just for the sake of arguing and was never wrong ….
Talk about arguing for the sake of arguing...yeesh. Is responding to what someone says "arguing for the sake of arguing"? I'll admit when I'm wrong, but on this I've provided evidence and details. No one's provided anything to refute what I've said. I'm actually here to share information. If I'm going to be in the health industry I'm hardly going to sit by and let people believe that all foods have the same effect on the body for everybody. So that begs the question, why are you here? I mean really, what is your issue?
ummm yea….you keep trying to say that two people eating at a the same deficit will not lose at the same rate and then somehow try tying it back into this thread when it has been pointed out to you several times that NO ONE is making that argument..yet you keep bringing it up …
Ok well if that's what you think then let it go, why don't you? If you want to ignore all the other people saying the same calories produce the same results no matter the source then that's up to you. I'm hardly arguing against a point that no one is making. Several people have now said that it doesn't matter WHAT you eat, that the same calories of kale and twinkies will have the SAME effect.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 success0 -
I can sort of agree with the OP. There are many things that I wasn't aware of at first that have slowly been revealed to me beyond the simple eat at a deficit. I had absolutely ZERO health insight before signing onto MFP and trying to lose weight. The process seemed very simple to me; put in my numbers and try to eat within the restriction. This has worked flawlessly. But slowly and surely the weight loss goal has morphed into a, I want to be healthy goal. This simple fact has changed everything. Now exercise has come to play, and it doesn't tell you all the rules to start with. What to do and how to do it and the best foods to fuel it are mysteries to me. It doesn't take very long perusing the internet on how your body digests, processes, and breaks down different foods before you seriously consider doing some no carb, raw food diet. Then you look that stuff up and quickly realize there are as many opponents as proponents.
Truly eat at a deficit to lose weight. For goals that go beyond that simple desire, it is like when you are walking in a lake and suddenly step off a ledge. All at once it seems the water is over your head and your fighting for the surface. So I can sorta understand the sentiment of the OP.0 -
You are trying to simplify what is not as simple. Obviously you did not read the study and how a calorie is a calorie only applies to Law 1 of thermodynamics and thinking as such actually violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
And you obviously don't understand the study you linked to. As I tore it apart in another thread where it was mentioned, it's absolute garbage.
Firstly, they misdefine every law of thermodynamics except the first. As such, they have no business talking about the laws of thermodynamics in the first place.
Secondly, human bodies are not closed systems. As such, the argument(s) that they are trying to make don't apply.
You took the words right out of my fingers. I didn't even finish the article because it was so bad and such a horrible misunderstanding of thermodynamics.
:drinker:
Since this study comes from a very reputable source I am inclined to believe it is you all that have the misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics.
Ha, that's funny seeing that I'm a chemical engineer with a M.S. in chemistry. It makes absolutely no sense to try to apply entropy and Gibbs free energy to the human body processes because we are not a closed system as someone else stated. Plus just because an article comes from a reputable source does not automatically make it a good article or study, that's why you critically review it and don't just read it and take it as truth.0 -
It doesn't matter what you eat, really.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.
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.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.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.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.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
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions