Quick way to get the weight going down!!
Options
Replies
-
Cut out sugar... It helps me...0
-
It's pretty amusing to watch people haviing completely different arguments.
Yes if you are at a calorie deficit you will always lose weight.
How much of a deficit you need depends on your personal health also.
Everyone's right, they just all need to argue haha0 -
Welcome to the argument. The basic issue is that some people are denying that this is true.As a newcomer/outsider reading this thread, it is painfully obvious to me that you guys (who are arguing) are basically going around in circles. All people are identical in that a caloric deficit will cause weight loss. Whether a person is in said deficit or how deep in the deficit depends on your CO. This is where all people are not the same. The CO is what can be affected by a medical condition (or personal activity level, exercise, etc...). You just simply need to figure out how your medical issues affect your CO so you can plan and accurately weigh/measure your CI.
My $.02, take it for what its worth.
exactly ….
I guess simple concepts are tough for some to grasp ...0 -
It's pretty amusing to watch people haviing completely different arguments.
Yes if you are at a calorie deficit you will always lose weight.
How much of a deficit you need depends on your personal health also.
Everyone's right, they just all need to argue haha
yes, unless you are a special snowflake and defy the laws of math, physics, and thermodynamics….other then that your statement holds true….0 -
It's pretty amusing to watch people haviing completely different arguments.
Yes if you are at a calorie deficit you will always lose weight.
How much of a deficit you need depends on your personal health also.
Everyone's right, they just all need to argue haha
yes, unless you are a special snowflake and defy the laws of math, physics, and thermodynamics….other then that your statement holds true….
+ infinity0 -
After reading this post...i must say it got ugly fast..... back to my popcorn... with extra butter... and enjoy the show...0
-
After reading this post...i must say it got ugly fast..... back to my popcorn... with extra butter... and enjoy the show...
your late….shows over….0 -
Drink water like it's your job. Try keto? Eat clean and move/ work out (cardio).
I'm not convinced that water intake makes a difference unless it fills you up to the point that you eat less. I also don't want to get to the end of my life and have my only contribution to the world as "she drank a lot of water."0 -
Drink water like it's your job. Try keto? Eat clean and move/ work out (cardio).
I'm not convinced that water intake makes a difference unless it fills you up to the point that you eat less. I also don't want to get to the end of my life and have my only contribution to the world as "she drank a lot of water."
it works if you have water retention ….if I feel bloated/like I am holding a lot of water I drink a crap ton of water, pee a lot, and usually drop about two pounds in water weight ….
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/of-whooshes-and-squishy-fat.html0 -
Sigh - i feel like i read so many different opinions on these threads that i get sooo confused about what is true and what isn't. sometimes a deficit stops working for me and then i up my calories for a few days....then when i go back to 1200 for a few more days i lose like crazy....
what seems to work for me is tricking my body. that's how i get weight off really fast. 1800 one day, 1100 the next, 1300 the next day, 1000 the next, 2000, 1600, 1200, 800, 1600 etc etc. (exercising 4-5 days per week for at least 30 mins)
i do think everyone is different. some people need small deficits, some need large. some need a 5:2 diet. some need to just add exercise.
as for losing it quick? good luck in finding what works for you. in my experience, i didn't put it on overnight so i cant expect to lose it overnight. my mom always told me that the slower you lose, the easier it will be to keep it off. the quicker you lose, the easier you could put it back on. i know that's not professional advice, but my mom is pretty freaking amazing
good luck ox
This is frustrating. OP, I understand your confusion. But the fact is, regardless of weak arguments to the contrary, if you are in a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. Period. You can't trick your body, it is physics. If you are on the negative side of the energy equation, you lose weight, it is impossible to do otherwise. If you are not losing weight, you are on the positive side of the equation. Consume fewer calories. No, it makes no difference where the calories come from.
What law of physics is it? What law of thermodynamics? A lot of people on this site like to say this, but I don't think they actually know much about physics or the laws of thermodynamics...0 -
I think you and I are both pretty well versed in physics if I'm not much mistaken. It'd be the 1st law and 2nd law taken together.What law of physics is it? What law of thermodynamics? A lot of people on this site like to say this, but I don't think they actually know much about physics or the laws of thermodynamics...
\Delta U_{system}=Qin -Qout - W
The change in energy in the system (your body) will be equal to the energy input (gleaned from ingested calories) plus the energy output (excreted, used in repair work to keep your body in homeostasis, or used to do useful work), plus the heat dissipated as required by the ever-increasing entropy of the universe.
If the change in energy is positive, your body will store the excess as fat. If the change in energy is negative, your body will (attempt) to draw the shortfall from fat stores. If they don't exist, of course, your body will resort (for as long as it can) to catabolizing whatever it sees as non-essential muscle to preserve heart and brain function, and it will slow down non-essential processes in an attempt to conserve available resources
The macro makeup of your diet affects the available energy gleaned from ingested calories. Metabolic adaptation to scarcity of food resources/ metabolic disorders affect the energy output term, and probably have an effect on how much energy is wasted as heat too.0 -
I think you and I are both pretty well versed in physics if I'm not much mistaken. It'd be the 1st law and 2nd law taken together.What law of physics is it? What law of thermodynamics? A lot of people on this site like to say this, but I don't think they actually know much about physics or the laws of thermodynamics...
\Delta U_{system}=Qin -Qout - W
The change in energy in the system (your body) will be equal to the energy input (gleaned from ingested calories) plus the energy output (excreted, used in repair work to keep your body in homeostasis, or used to do useful work), plus the heat dissipated as required by the ever-increasing entropy of the universe.
If the change in energy is positive, your body will store the excess as fat. If the change in energy is negative, your body will (attempt) to draw the shortfall from fat stores. If they don't exist, of course, your body will resort (for as long as it can) to catabolizing whatever it sees as non-essential muscle to preserve heart and brain function, and it will slow down non-essential processes in an attempt to conserve available resources
The macro makeup of your diet affects the available energy gleaned from ingested calories. Metabolic adaptation to scarcity of food resources/ metabolic disorders affect the energy output term, and probably have an effect on how much energy is wasted as heat too.
Right, but doesn't the first law require a closed system? And the body isn't a closed system. And how does CICO even account for entropy according to the second law?
I definitely think they're related, don't get me wrong. I think the idea of CICO is based upon the premise of conservation of energy. It's just not a direct 1:1 correlation like some folks seem to think -- "you can't deny the laws of thermodynamics!" The body is full of a lot of chemical and physical processes --- which I'm sure do obey the laws of thermodynamics. But, you've got to keep in mind those limitations, like the closed system (and the body isn't a closed system) or the fact that we don't see or are able to investigate all those processes. We can just compare beginning and end products, note trends and put together hypotheses on what is actually happening in between.
And CICO is a hypothesis -- not a law. I think it's a good hypothesis and makes a lot of sense for those in "normal" parameters. But, doesn't seem to be always true for those outside of normal parameters, and we don't seem to have a really good understanding of why that is. Perhaps there is something that's neutral/silent for "normal" people, so we don't observe it there, but only becomes apparent when people have issues -- whether thyroid, PCOS, insulin resistance, etc. I don't know. But, you see the differences in weight loss for people on different macros with differences in insulin sensitivity, so something has to be up -- it's got to be more than just sheer caloric value or the type of calories are touching off some process in the body that's greatly shifting the CO part of the equation for reasons we don't completely understand.0 -
People really need to stop telling everyone it's a simple deficit. Yes, for a lot of people, this works; however, there is no need to make people feel stupid or like they must be doing something wrong just because a deficit isn't working for them. It IS more complicated for some people than it is for others. I would weigh a LOT less if a deficit worked for me, but when I eat at TDEE - 15/20%, I get nowhere.
Are you weighing your food? If you're decently healthy and have no conditions (Diabetes, PCOS, Insulin Resistance, etc.) that would restrict your weight loss, you may be eating more than you think you are. I personally used to eat less than I thought I was, and then wonder why I was constantly hungry and binging at night. I once passed out thinking I'd eaten around 9 oz of chicken all day, when really I'd only had around 2-3. A LOT of people are the opposite, though, so make sure you're counting your calories correctly.
As for the deficit, if it's not working for you, you're not alone. Certain conditions may prevent a deficit from being the only diet-change necessary. I personally have PCOS and have to net significantly under my calorie goal in order to lose weight. I also try to stick to a high-fat, mod-protein, low-carb (and by low, I mean around 30g per meal, not 30g per day) diet. Sometimes, when there are conditions such as these, Macros matter A LOT. PCOS comes with insulin resistance, so carbs and sugars are not my friends.
Good luck losing! Just remember that everyone's body is different, and it's a process figuring out what works for you. Not everyone responds so quickly to a caloric deficit.
Ditto! PCOS here too.... I have to weigh EVERYTHING religiously and I can't go over 1500cals most days or I won't lose (although My TDEE minus 20% is something like 1900)... God help me if I go over on my sugar or carbs (which was my problem this week after all the Easter festivities). Unfortunately, it's not as simple as "calories are calories... eat in a deficit, you will lose" for some people.0 -
I would just read the sexy pants link and ignore the snowflakes
LOL! Agreed.0 -
If that's true, then *your* TDEE -20% is NOT 1900. Some calculator on the Internet might have responded with 1900 based on numbers it asked you for, but your results are telling you that it is not *your* TDEE - 20%. Sounds more like 1900 is your TDEE (without the - 20%).Ditto! PCOS here too.... I have to weigh EVERYTHING religiously and I can't go over 1500cals most days or I won't lose (although My TDEE minus 20% is something like 1900)... God help me if I go over on my sugar or carbs (which was my problem this week after all the Easter festivities). Unfortunately, it's not as simple as "calories are calories... eat in a deficit, you will lose" for some people.
Well, when you throw in the additional element of compliance, "calories are calories" is most certainly not true. If I ate 1800 calories of vodka, butter or sugar I would be terrible at sticking to a caloric limit (and I wouldn't be healthy for very long). But if I eat vegetables, meats, whole grains, fruits, cheese, and a couple of small desserts a day, compliance becomes much easier.0 -
If that's true, then *your* TDEE -20% is NOT 1900. Some calculator on the Internet might have responded with 1900 based on numbers it asked you for, but your results are telling you that it is not *your* TDEE - 20%. Sounds more like 1900 is your TDEE (without the - 20%).Ditto! PCOS here too.... I have to weigh EVERYTHING religiously and I can't go over 1500cals most days or I won't lose (although My TDEE minus 20% is something like 1900)... God help me if I go over on my sugar or carbs (which was my problem this week after all the Easter festivities). Unfortunately, it's not as simple as "calories are calories... eat in a deficit, you will lose" for some people.
Well, when you throw in the additional element of compliance, "calories are calories" is most certainly not true. If I ate 1800 calories of vodka, butter or sugar I would be terrible at sticking to a caloric limit (and I wouldn't be healthy for very long). But if I eat vegetables, meats, whole grains, fruits, cheese, and a couple of small desserts a day, compliance becomes much easier.
What about the differences for those with glucose metabolism issues? Since she has PCOS, she likely has insulin resistance. There are studies out there that show that difference macros affect those with insulin resistance issues differently -- some will lose nearly twice as much weight as others on a calorically equivalent diet with different macros.
How do you reconcile that?0 -
Insulin resistance means that there will be too much glucose and too much insulin in the blood. The increased insulin allows more glucose into cells to be stored as fat in energy surplus. If the levels of glucose are controlled through diet, less insulin will be produced, so less glucose gets shuttled into the cells, so there isn't as likely to be an energy surplus in the cell leading to fat storage.
If that's true, then *your* TDEE -20% is NOT 1900. Some calculator on the Internet might have responded with 1900 based on numbers it asked you for, but your results are telling you that it is not *your* TDEE - 20%. Sounds more like 1900 is your TDEE (without the - 20%).Ditto! PCOS here too.... I have to weigh EVERYTHING religiously and I can't go over 1500cals most days or I won't lose (although My TDEE minus 20% is something like 1900)... God help me if I go over on my sugar or carbs (which was my problem this week after all the Easter festivities). Unfortunately, it's not as simple as "calories are calories... eat in a deficit, you will lose" for some people.
Well, when you throw in the additional element of compliance, "calories are calories" is most certainly not true. If I ate 1800 calories of vodka, butter or sugar I would be terrible at sticking to a caloric limit (and I wouldn't be healthy for very long). But if I eat vegetables, meats, whole grains, fruits, cheese, and a couple of small desserts a day, compliance becomes much easier.
What about the differences for those with glucose metabolism issues? Since she has PCOS, she likely has insulin resistance. There are studies out there that show that difference macros affect those with insulin resistance issues differently -- some will lose nearly twice as much weight as others on a calorically equivalent diet with different macros.
How do you reconcile that?0 -
Insulin resistance means that there will be too much glucose and too much insulin in the blood. The increased insulin allows more glucose into cells to be stored as fat in energy surplus. If the levels of glucose are controlled through diet, less insulin will be produced, so less glucose gets shuttled into the cells, so there isn't as likely to be an energy surplus in the cell leading to fat storage.
If that's true, then *your* TDEE -20% is NOT 1900. Some calculator on the Internet might have responded with 1900 based on numbers it asked you for, but your results are telling you that it is not *your* TDEE - 20%. Sounds more like 1900 is your TDEE (without the - 20%).Ditto! PCOS here too.... I have to weigh EVERYTHING religiously and I can't go over 1500cals most days or I won't lose (although My TDEE minus 20% is something like 1900)... God help me if I go over on my sugar or carbs (which was my problem this week after all the Easter festivities). Unfortunately, it's not as simple as "calories are calories... eat in a deficit, you will lose" for some people.
Well, when you throw in the additional element of compliance, "calories are calories" is most certainly not true. If I ate 1800 calories of vodka, butter or sugar I would be terrible at sticking to a caloric limit (and I wouldn't be healthy for very long). But if I eat vegetables, meats, whole grains, fruits, cheese, and a couple of small desserts a day, compliance becomes much easier.
What about the differences for those with glucose metabolism issues? Since she has PCOS, she likely has insulin resistance. There are studies out there that show that difference macros affect those with insulin resistance issues differently -- some will lose nearly twice as much weight as others on a calorically equivalent diet with different macros.
How do you reconcile that?
Right, so isn't how you control it with diet important?
For example, restricting carbs will often help with this so you don't get the exaggerated insulin response? But for some, even this isn't enough and they need medication like metformin to aid with it.
That's essentially what the study showed -- those with insulin resistance on a diet with 40% carbs (and 40% fats and 20% protein) lost nearly twice as much as their counterparts with 60/20/20 ratio for calorically equivalent diets. So, doesn't that show that macro balance of the calories is important for people with those issues? That merely eating at a deficit will not produce the same results for such people?0 -
Of course limiting carbohydrate is how you prevent an exaggerated insulin response. I could be mistaken, but I don't think anybody was saying that people with PCOS shouldn't modify their diet to limit carbs.Right, so isn't how you control it with diet important?
For example, restricting carbs will often help with this so you don't get the exaggerated insulin response? But for some, even this isn't enough and they need medication like metformin to aid with it.
That's essentially what the study showed -- those with insulin resistance on a diet with 40% carbs (and 40% fats and 20% protein) lost nearly twice as much as their counterparts with 60/20/20 ratio for calorically equivalent diets. So, doesn't that show that macro balance of the calories is important for people with those issues? That merely eating at a deficit will not produce the same results for such people?
Does that show that macro balance is important? Yes.
Does it show that eating at a deficit will not produce the same results for such people? No.
Perhaps what I need to specifically articulate at this juncture is that the macro balance for people with metabolic disorders seems to have an effect on what constitutes a deficit. If they have all that glucose and insulin whizzing around, and that glucose getting shuttled into the cells, the cells will be less likely to be in energy deficit and more likely to be in energy surplus and can store fat. If they limit the amount of carbohydrate (and possibly also take Metformin), thereby suppressing the amount of circulating glucose and insulin, less glucose can be shuttled into the cells, which will be less likely to result in an energy surplus (fat storage) and more likely to result in an energy deficit.
I don't see this as materially different from tinkering with the macro ratio to achieve different TEF efficiencies, and it doesn't change the inescapable fact that weight loss means an energy deficit and a weight gain means an energy surplus.
For the record, I think a 60/20/20 diet would be miserable for just about anyone.0 -
Of course limiting carbohydrate is how you prevent an exaggerated insulin response. I could be mistaken, but I don't think anybody was saying that people with PCOS shouldn't modify their diet to limit carbs.Right, so isn't how you control it with diet important?
For example, restricting carbs will often help with this so you don't get the exaggerated insulin response? But for some, even this isn't enough and they need medication like metformin to aid with it.
That's essentially what the study showed -- those with insulin resistance on a diet with 40% carbs (and 40% fats and 20% protein) lost nearly twice as much as their counterparts with 60/20/20 ratio for calorically equivalent diets. So, doesn't that show that macro balance of the calories is important for people with those issues? That merely eating at a deficit will not produce the same results for such people?
Does that show that macro balance is important? Yes.
Does it show that eating at a deficit will not produce the same results for such people? No.
Perhaps what I need to specifically articulate at this juncture is that the macro balance for people with metabolic disorders seems to have an effect on what constitutes a deficit. If they have all that glucose and insulin whizzing around, and that glucose getting shuttled into the cells, the cells will be less likely to be in energy deficit and more likely to be in energy surplus and can store fat. If they limit the amount of carbohydrate (and possibly also take Metformin), thereby suppressing the amount of circulating glucose and insulin, less glucose can be shuttled into the cells, which will be less likely to result in an energy surplus (fat storage) and more likely to result in an energy deficit.
I don't see this as materially different from tinkering with the macro ratio to achieve different TEF efficiencies, and it doesn't change the inescapable fact that weight loss means an energy deficit and a weight gain means an energy surplus.
For the record, I think a 60/20/20 diet would be miserable for just about anyone.
From what I've seen, some people argue that for weight loss, the content of the calories, including macro balance, is immaterial -- it's all about sheer caloric numbers. And for normal folks, this may be true -- though I imagine there can be always some efficiency gains with adjusting macros. It's these people I have an issue with.
I'm not opposed to the whole CICO idea in general -- just that it's not the whole picture for everyone. Some will have to manipulate that deficit in very specific ways to maximize weight loss. To me, that says weight loss for those people is about more than just sheer caloric deficit.
Sorry, if this seems redundant -- I think we're in agreement for the most part.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions