Why are so many agains low calorie and VLC dieting?

1234568»

Replies

  • aedreana
    aedreana Posts: 979 Member
    So logical. Love it.
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    This is actually what I wish people had to do first, just accurately track your intake and weight fluctuation for one month, no lifestyle changes, no added activity, just you doing your normal thing for one month, THEN make the adjustments you'll need to get the calorie deficit necessary for the speed of weight loss recommended for your current stats. This of course will NEVER happen, but gosh wouldn't it be wonderful and make everything here so much less dramatic.
    I think people love drama.

    What I find fascinating about weight loss, actually, is that the calorie deficit needed for losing weight is smaller than a calorie deficit that makes you hungry. If you add time to the equation. But many people don't want to spend time doing things that aren't fun. I think dieting is fun, but that's probably because I'm strange. :tongue:
  • QueenBishOTUniverse
    QueenBishOTUniverse Posts: 14,121 Member
    This is actually what I wish people had to do first, just accurately track your intake and weight fluctuation for one month, no lifestyle changes, no added activity, just you doing your normal thing for one month, THEN make the adjustments you'll need to get the calorie deficit necessary for the speed of weight loss recommended for your current stats. This of course will NEVER happen, but gosh wouldn't it be wonderful and make everything here so much less dramatic.
    I think people love drama.

    What I find fascinating about weight loss, actually, is that the calorie deficit needed for losing weight is smaller than a calorie deficit that makes you hungry. If you add time to the equation. But many people don't want to spend time doing things that aren't fun. I think dieting is fun, but that's probably because I'm strange. :tongue:

    I'll take snail paced weight loss over feeling hungry ANY day. I added running in three weeks ago and my weight loss has stalled, probably from the change, but if it turns out next month that I'm really just at maintenance, meh, probably just going to focus on recomp because I'd rather go even slower than have to cut more food just to drop six more pounds on the scale, and I'm averaging 2500-2600 calories a day so I'm hardly limiting my food intake as it is!
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Most people would never track for a month to get a baseline. Most won't even track well enough for one month WHILE dieting to be able to estimate a TDEE. They want software to tell it to them instead. I understand that math is hard for many people, though. I think a lot of plans don't require counting (or much of it) because of that.

    Sometimes food logging, I wonder how people figure out the correct way to convert and all the math challenges or if they just pick something and figure 'close enough'. Not that that can't work, too.

    It would be cool if MFP found a way to have like peer logging. You're a lot more accurate when it's not your own night's intake you're crowding out, I think! :laugh:
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    It would be cool if MFP found a way to have like peer logging. You're a lot more accurate when it's not your own night's intake you're crowding out, I think! :laugh:
    I think I like that! :blushing:
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,300 Member
    Yes jofjltn, and results bore that out. :smile:

    My point was really that people (using Me as an example) saying a low number is right for them aren't always confused or victims of adaptive thermogenesis from chronic under eating or having unrealistic expectations or beginning lifters or anything else.

    1460 was right for me - I don't think it is unfeasible that 1200 would be right for someone 10 years older than me, 4 inches shorter and having a sedentary job.
    a 60 year old 5 foot tall office worker is not an extreme outlier of the population -ie that number would be right for such a person - and such a person is not that uncommon.

    There was recently a thread where OP said LISTEN EVERYBODY, 1200 IS NEVER OKAY!!!!! and to me that is just as wrong as someone saying "I am a 6 ft tall 20 year old male bricklayer, should I set my calories at 1200?"

    I absolutely agree with all your points. And the short sedentary older person is common enough for it to be a logical floor for MFP. however, it's a sad starting point for most of the people who do. I'd argue that a better beginning would be to track current intake for a couple weeks. I haven't created a paradigm shifting weightloss website.

    Please explain what a 'paradigm shifting weightloss website' is? :indifferent:

Categories