A Call for a Low-Carb Diet
Replies
-
Camo,
Foods with gluten and refined sugar generally have more calories, thus my guess is you created a calorie deficit by cutting them out of your diet.All I'm gonna say is what I know has worked for me. Without watching portion sizes at all or worrying at all about calories, I dropped 8 pounds by cutting out gluten and refined sugar.
Actually fats have more more calories. Sugars and grains just don't keep most people satisfied so they tend to eat more of them.
Carbs 4 calories per gram
Proteins 4 calories per gram
Fats 9 calories per gram
When was the last time you heard of somebody binging on chicken breast and brocolli ?
What keeps you full longer a cinimon bun or a chicken breast ?
* not trying to pick a fight with you! just having a friendly conversation.
I don't get AT ALl that you are trying to start a fight.
Some fats have more calories than some carbs, and some carbs have more calories than fats. It really depends on which carbs or fats you choose and how much you choose to eat of any given thing.
I've binged on chicken and broccoli before, just as I've binged on cinnamon rolls. When I binged, it was not about hunger but about satisfying some emotional need that I thought food could take care of. This went on for years and years. It was not about type of food, it was about the availability of food.
I get the impression that many people believe that eating low carb is the "answer" to weight loss. Well, it is not, anymore than any other diet plan is the magic answer. No matter what diet you choose, you're going to have to expend more calories than you eat in order to lose the weight.
There is only way way to lose weight (eat less than you burn) but there are many different roads (diet plan choice) to reach that destination. I am all for choosing your own diet plan, but the plan itself is what's best for the individual, not what's simply the best plan to lose weight.
As for me, I choose moderation in all things,including plenty of carbs, and I've done well. That does not mean that I would never try a low carb eating plan if I had an issue that I thought it might help with, such as migraines (my friend does low carb to control her migraines and it works wonders for her), but I would not do it to lose weight.0 -
Why do you care so much about how people "spend" their daily calories?
Nice try so you try and quote a post made after you posted your original claim.
My point I made a few post ago ^^^^^I love this line of thought - you can eat Twinkies and drink Coke all day as long as you are in a calorie deficit.
One package of Twinkies (two cakes) = 270 calories
One can of Coke = 140 calories.
Total = 410 calories
So if you are on a 1,650 calorie daily limit you can have four packages of Twinkies (1,080 calories) and 4 Cokes (560 calories) during the course of a day.
Nobody would make it through more than a couple of days (you could substitute Twinkies with any equivalent pastry, and Coke with fruit juice). So why does anyone even bring up these ridiculous hypotheticals? And if you are limiting calories, why would you want to fill your daily intake with this junk, which does nothing to fill you up?
You are the one arguing extremes and creating the all or nothing hypothetical situations. You've been asked many times before and I'll ask again, link us to the posts or a post where someone is telling people to have nothing twinkies and/or coke all day.
Scroll up on this page. That's as far as you have to go! "Purely for a weight loss purpose alone, yes you can eat only soda, cake and French fries and still lose weight if you're within your calorie allowance."
That poster is talking about calories and deficit. You claim people tell members to eat nothing but twinkies and Coke. When? Where did a member advocate that diet? The person who posted above was in no way telling people to eat nothing but french fries.
I don't care. Just let's stop talking about that you "could" just eat garbage the rest of your life and lose weight.
Why even bring this up? We should be telling people to avoid, as much as possible, high calorie foods that tend to nothing for satiety. This is not rocket science. If you are trying to lose weight, don't drink Coke or any sugary soda; drink water or diet soda. Don't eat Twinkies because one package could represent 15% of your daily limit.
Instead of "could," how about "don't?"
You can do whatever you like. But many people fail at dieting because they are hungry all the time. So let's say you come to this sight and start counting calories to lose weight. Maybe you were averaging 2,300 calories/day, and you are dropping to 1,500 calories/day. That's not easy. And it's even harder if you waste some of those 1,500 calories on sugary soda and junk food, which does nothing to fill you up. Again, this is not rocket science.
I'm a good example of the scenario you mention.
Less than a month ago, I was eating literally half the calories I do today. What did my daily beverages consist of? Multiple cups of coffee with copious amounts of sugar and cream, along with at least two liberal-sized Cokes throughout the day. No point in even mentioning the food.
What do I drink now? Well, if I'm in the mood, I may flavor my water (10 cals per .5 liter). Coffee? Not drinking it now. Previously, I switched to having it black, but I decided that the taste wasn't worth it this time.
Right there, we're talking about hundreds of calories. Granted, I was a bit immoderate in my usage (but I suspect I'm not the only one out there, either).
It's all about choices.0 -
If you haven't gathered, I do eat low carb. However i don't shove it down people's throats as the ONLY way of doing it, but obviously have to defend it's a legit way to cut down overall calories.
You don't want me talking about absolutes, but your post was filled with plenty of "don't eat that, don't eat this". There are plenty of people on mfp that have lost weight while eating on a calorie deficit while drinking coke or eating cake. Cutting those out are not ESSENTIAL to lose weight. Just like eating low carb is a way to calorie deficit, still eating "junk food" and fast food and staying within a calorie deficit is another way that works.0 -
There is one person and one person alone that is responsible for your health as an adult and that is you. Your health is your responsibility and if you become overweight or obese it is because you have neglected your health. You may have reasons for that neglect associated with job or family but that does not mean you did not neglect that one aspect of your life. You may have various medical conditions that make your metabolism different than that of the population (hyper- hypothyroidism, PCOS etc) but then it is your responsibility to recognize that, understand your maintenance level and adjust accordingly. Placing blame on something beyond your control is just acceptance that being unhealthy is somehow your destiny and that is NOT the kind of mindset that is going to improve your life.
Harsh reality time. If you are obese, if you are overweight, that is a self-infliicted condition regardless of what your life or medical situation may be. If there is a condition that forces you to gain weight to an unhealthy level regardless of what you do I have not heard of it.
There CAN be things outside of your control that make you scrawny, or skinny, or unhealthily thin...but there isn't such a thing for being overweight.
Actually, they believe PCOS to be genetic. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776334/) I listed this study because it is a case study and sites many other studies for those of you who are interested.
I'm not sure why being "scrawny" is outside of your control any more than an inherited gene defect the effects the way your body processes insulin. I know about this particular disease because I suffer from it. I also know how difficult it is to get a Dr. to take you seriously when you are seriously suffering and trying to lose weight and be healthy, but you aren't losing any weight because you have a disorder.
edited for clarity0 -
Why do you care so much about how people "spend" their daily calories?
Nice try so you try and quote a post made after you posted your original claim.
My point I made a few post ago ^^^^^I love this line of thought - you can eat Twinkies and drink Coke all day as long as you are in a calorie deficit.
One package of Twinkies (two cakes) = 270 calories
One can of Coke = 140 calories.
Total = 410 calories
So if you are on a 1,650 calorie daily limit you can have four packages of Twinkies (1,080 calories) and 4 Cokes (560 calories) during the course of a day.
Nobody would make it through more than a couple of days (you could substitute Twinkies with any equivalent pastry, and Coke with fruit juice). So why does anyone even bring up these ridiculous hypotheticals? And if you are limiting calories, why would you want to fill your daily intake with this junk, which does nothing to fill you up?
You are the one arguing extremes and creating the all or nothing hypothetical situations. You've been asked many times before and I'll ask again, link us to the posts or a post where someone is telling people to have nothing twinkies and/or coke all day.
Scroll up on this page. That's as far as you have to go! "Purely for a weight loss purpose alone, yes you can eat only soda, cake and French fries and still lose weight if you're within your calorie allowance."
That poster is talking about calories and deficit. You claim people tell members to eat nothing but twinkies and Coke. When? Where did a member advocate that diet? The person who posted above was in no way telling people to eat nothing but french fries.
I don't care. Just let's stop talking about that you "could" just eat garbage the rest of your life and lose weight.
Why even bring this up? We should be telling people to avoid, as much as possible, high calorie foods that tend to nothing for satiety. This is not rocket science. If you are trying to lose weight, don't drink Coke or any sugary soda; drink water or diet soda. Don't eat Twinkies because one package could represent 15% of your daily limit.
Instead of "could," how about "don't?"
You can do whatever you like. But many people fail at dieting because they are hungry all the time. So let's say you come to this sight and start counting calories to lose weight. Maybe you were averaging 2,300 calories/day, and you are dropping to 1,500 calories/day. That's not easy. And it's even harder if you waste some of those 1,500 calories on sugary soda and junk food, which does nothing to fill you up. Again, this is not rocket science.
I'm a good example of the scenario you mention.
Less than a month ago, I was eating literally half the calories I do today. What did my daily beverages consist of? Multiple cups of coffee with copious amounts of sugar and cream, along with at least two liberal-sized Cokes throughout the day. No point in even mentioning the food.
What do I drink now? Well, if I'm in the mood, I may flavor my water (10 cals per .5 liter). Coffee? Not drinking it now. Previously, I switched to having it black, but I decided that the taste wasn't worth it this time.
Right there, we're talking about hundreds of calories. Granted, I was a bit immoderate in my usage (but I suspect I'm not the only one out there, either).
It's all about choices.
And on the converse you get people saying "it's not how much you eat, it's what you eat". And you'll "never lose weight eating that processed garbage."
I can tell you that I'm going to eat McDonald's this week, Chickfila, I had pizza for lunch. I'm going to eat chocolate and ice cream and maybe some chips. Probably lunch meat.
I'll meet my micro nutrient goals and be under my calorie allotment and lose weight.
And there's going to be somebody on this website who is going to fall off the wagon over a 2" x 2" piece of cake that they just know is "bad" for them.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Why do you care so much about how people "spend" their daily calories?
Nice try so you try and quote a post made after you posted your original claim.
My point I made a few post ago ^^^^^I love this line of thought - you can eat Twinkies and drink Coke all day as long as you are in a calorie deficit.
One package of Twinkies (two cakes) = 270 calories
One can of Coke = 140 calories.
Total = 410 calories
So if you are on a 1,650 calorie daily limit you can have four packages of Twinkies (1,080 calories) and 4 Cokes (560 calories) during the course of a day.
Nobody would make it through more than a couple of days (you could substitute Twinkies with any equivalent pastry, and Coke with fruit juice). So why does anyone even bring up these ridiculous hypotheticals? And if you are limiting calories, why would you want to fill your daily intake with this junk, which does nothing to fill you up?
You are the one arguing extremes and creating the all or nothing hypothetical situations. You've been asked many times before and I'll ask again, link us to the posts or a post where someone is telling people to have nothing twinkies and/or coke all day.
Scroll up on this page. That's as far as you have to go! "Purely for a weight loss purpose alone, yes you can eat only soda, cake and French fries and still lose weight if you're within your calorie allowance."
That poster is talking about calories and deficit. You claim people tell members to eat nothing but twinkies and Coke. When? Where did a member advocate that diet? The person who posted above was in no way telling people to eat nothing but french fries.
I don't care. Just let's stop talking about that you "could" just eat garbage the rest of your life and lose weight.
Why even bring this up? We should be telling people to avoid, as much as possible, high calorie foods that tend to nothing for satiety. This is not rocket science. If you are trying to lose weight, don't drink Coke or any sugary soda; drink water or diet soda. Don't eat Twinkies because one package could represent 15% of your daily limit.
Instead of "could," how about "don't?"
You can do whatever you like. But many people fail at dieting because they are hungry all the time. So let's say you come to this sight and start counting calories to lose weight. Maybe you were averaging 2,300 calories/day, and you are dropping to 1,500 calories/day. That's not easy. And it's even harder if you waste some of those 1,500 calories on sugary soda and junk food, which does nothing to fill you up. Again, this is not rocket science.
I'm a good example of the scenario you mention.
Less than a month ago, I was eating literally half the calories I do today. What did my daily beverages consist of? Multiple cups of coffee with copious amounts of sugar and cream, along with at least two liberal-sized Cokes throughout the day. No point in even mentioning the food.
What do I drink now? Well, if I'm in the mood, I may flavor my water (10 cals per .5 liter). Coffee? Not drinking it now. Previously, I switched to having it black, but I decided that the taste wasn't worth it this time.
Right there, we're talking about hundreds of calories. Granted, I was a bit immoderate in my usage (but I suspect I'm not the only one out there, either).
It's all about choices.
And on the converse you get people saying "it's not how much you eat, it's what you eat". And you'll "never lose weight eating that processed garbage."
I can tell you that I'm going to eat McDonald's this week, Chickfila, I had pizza for lunch. I'm going to eat chocolate and ice cream and maybe some chips. Probably lunch meat.
Yeah, I eat all that stuff too. But not when I'm running a deficit.
Is it because I think there's some magical property in those types of foods that hinder weight loss? No, it's an issue of satiety.
And honestly, as much as I like Chik-Fil-A, I could go the rest of my life without eating there again (although their grilled chicken sandwich is surprisingly tasty, although not as good as its fried counterpart).And there's going to be somebody on this website who is going to fall off the wagon over a 2" x 2" piece of cake that they just know is "bad" for them.
And this is a good reason to advocate moderation. It's just not necessary for some, that's all.0 -
You know, I'm starting to see the point of dismissing individuals that don't have a profile pic (such as yours truly).
However, I have a question:
If I place a pic showing washboard abs (for instance), would I have to suffer through individuals who seem to know everything, but apparently can't figure out how to lose weight themselves?
Now, if it would shut those types up, it would be well worth it.
You would obviously be an uncompassionate meanie that happens to be genetically gifted and can't understand mere mortals...like USMCMP.0 -
Why do you care so much about how people "spend" their daily calories?
Nice try so you try and quote a post made after you posted your original claim.
My point I made a few post ago ^^^^^I love this line of thought - you can eat Twinkies and drink Coke all day as long as you are in a calorie deficit.
One package of Twinkies (two cakes) = 270 calories
One can of Coke = 140 calories.
Total = 410 calories
So if you are on a 1,650 calorie daily limit you can have four packages of Twinkies (1,080 calories) and 4 Cokes (560 calories) during the course of a day.
Nobody would make it through more than a couple of days (you could substitute Twinkies with any equivalent pastry, and Coke with fruit juice). So why does anyone even bring up these ridiculous hypotheticals? And if you are limiting calories, why would you want to fill your daily intake with this junk, which does nothing to fill you up?
You are the one arguing extremes and creating the all or nothing hypothetical situations. You've been asked many times before and I'll ask again, link us to the posts or a post where someone is telling people to have nothing twinkies and/or coke all day.
Scroll up on this page. That's as far as you have to go! "Purely for a weight loss purpose alone, yes you can eat only soda, cake and French fries and still lose weight if you're within your calorie allowance."
That poster is talking about calories and deficit. You claim people tell members to eat nothing but twinkies and Coke. When? Where did a member advocate that diet? The person who posted above was in no way telling people to eat nothing but french fries.
I don't care. Just let's stop talking about that you "could" just eat garbage the rest of your life and lose weight.
Why even bring this up? We should be telling people to avoid, as much as possible, high calorie foods that tend to nothing for satiety. This is not rocket science. If you are trying to lose weight, don't drink Coke or any sugary soda; drink water or diet soda. Don't eat Twinkies because one package could represent 15% of your daily limit.
Instead of "could," how about "don't?"
You can do whatever you like. But many people fail at dieting because they are hungry all the time. So let's say you come to this sight and start counting calories to lose weight. Maybe you were averaging 2,300 calories/day, and you are dropping to 1,500 calories/day. That's not easy. And it's even harder if you waste some of those 1,500 calories on sugary soda and junk food, which does nothing to fill you up. Again, this is not rocket science.
I'm a good example of the scenario you mention.
Less than a month ago, I was eating literally half the calories I do today. What did my daily beverages consist of? Multiple cups of coffee with copious amounts of sugar and cream, along with at least two liberal-sized Cokes throughout the day. No point in even mentioning the food.
What do I drink now? Well, if I'm in the mood, I may flavor my water (10 cals per .5 liter). Coffee? Not drinking it now. Previously, I switched to having it black, but I decided that the taste wasn't worth it this time.
Right there, we're talking about hundreds of calories. Granted, I was a bit immoderate in my usage (but I suspect I'm not the only one out there, either).
It's all about choices.
And on the converse you get people saying "it's not how much you eat, it's what you eat". And you'll "never lose weight eating that processed garbage."
I can tell you that I'm going to eat McDonald's this week, Chickfila, I had pizza for lunch. I'm going to eat chocolate and ice cream and maybe some chips. Probably lunch meat.
Yeah, I eat all that stuff too. But not when I'm running a deficit.
Is it because I think there's some magical property in those types of foods that hinder weight loss? No, it's an issue of satiety.
And honestly, as much as I like Chik-Fil-A, I could go the rest of my life without eating there again (although their grilled chicken sandwich is surprisingly tasty, although not as good as its fried counterpart).And there's going to be somebody on this website who is going to fall off the wagon over a 2" x 2" piece of cake that they just know is "bad" for them.
And this is a good reason to advocate moderation. It's just not necessary for some, that's all.
And I agree with this. As I've said, there is no magic diet. It's cico, with variations based on personal experience with satiety and goals.0 -
and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.
As for your efficiency comment if you are saying your BMR is much LOWER than expected that means your body is actually EXTREMELY efficient, much more so than the average population. So I am not sure why you are saying operating at low efficiency.
what i mean is that at a 500-calorie deficit, the daily amount needed to lose one pound per week, i will only lose about .7lbs. it puts my BMR under 1,200 calories a day, which means to lose weight i have to drop down to less than 1,000 calories a day. it's unsustainable and borders on dangerous.0 -
0.03% of 300 million is 9 million people.
The number you're looking for is 90,000 not 9 million.
But this is still good, because based on your post I strongly suggest you open your diary so we can check your math before you declare yourself a special snowflake.
Gotta love the MFP forums, where one can feel superior for calling someone out on elementary math.
It doesn't make me feel superior, it makes me feel sad. This is a person who is clearly struggling but unable to find their answer.
While it appears, based on posting history, that most of the problem is self-inflicted, it's still saddening, because it's no fun when other people are struggling.
my diary is open to friends. as i said before, everything is weighed, measured, and portioned. i cook at home, so every ingredient is listed in the recipe builder, matched with the appropriate database entry, and portioned accordingly. i log first, THEN eat, just in case a portion is going to send me over on one thing or another.
and... i'm sorry, but... self-inflicted??? are you trying to claim that i over eat specifically so that i can whine about not losing weight?
you're right that it's no fun when people are struggling... it's even less fun when you're the one struggling and people dismiss you as nothing more than an idiot.
I'm not sure when being overweight is not self-inflicted.
the same way being born to be tall, short, or the color of your skin isn't self-inflicted.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
what i mean is that at a 500-calorie deficit, the daily amount needed to lose one pound per week, i will only lose about .7lbs. it puts my BMR under 1,200 calories a day, which means to lose weight i have to drop down to less than 1,000 calories a day. it's unsustainable and borders on dangerous.
Why do you have to eat at less than 1000 calories to lose weight if your BMR is below 1200? Are you sedentary? (Sorry if I missed it, just don't want others to think they have to eat less than 1000 with a BMR below 1200.)0 -
what i mean is that at a 500-calorie deficit, the daily amount needed to lose one pound per week, i will only lose about .7lbs. it puts my BMR under 1,200 calories a day, which means to lose weight i have to drop down to less than 1,000 calories a day. it's unsustainable and borders on dangerous.
Why do you have to eat at less than 1000 calories to lose weight if your BMR is below 1200? Are you sedentary? (Sorry if I missed it, just don't want others to think they have to eat less than 1000 with a BMR below 1200.)
i have a desk job, but i go to the gym (circuit/weight training and cardio) 3-5 times a week. using the multiplyer for "sedentary" provides a good margin of error. if the math that everyone puts so much dogmatic faith in really is correct, that means to get a 500 calorie per day deficit, i would have to be down around 880 calories a day. the problem is that based on my age and weight, my BMR should be MUCH higher than that. the fact that it isn't is what seems to be causing the problems.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
All I'm gonna say is what I know has worked for me. Without watching portion sizes at all or worrying at all about calories, I dropped 8 pounds by cutting out gluten and refined sugar.
Good for you! Counting calories works - if you can do it. The vast majority of people cannot.
And I recently ordered a cheeseboard (small piece of various cheeses) that also contained about eight different fruits. How in the world can you count the calories?
if you've been weighing your food for any amount of time you can get a good idea of how many ounces of cheese you just ate from eyeballing it. cheese for the most part is cheese when it comes to calories. the fruit I would pick the highest calorie fruit and estimate the total amount eaten. you're not going to eat like that every day. There will be times you can't log things but the vast majority of the time you can. Even if you're eating a low carb diet you should be logging and eat within a calorie allowance or you won't lose weight. (for low carb it's also essential to track your carbs and fiber and make sure you're not eating too much protein which ironically can also throw you out of keto)0 -
I think there is a balance that needs to be struck -- that the two camps are too far on the extreme. The two camps being (1) you have complete control over your life and if you're overweight, it's self-inflicted and (2) external factors make you fat or nearly impossible to lose weight. The truth is in both and somewhere in between.
If everything is operating within "normal" parameters, you're probably closer to camp no.1. If things are not operating normally, like Meridianova's example, you're probably closer to camp 2, but of course likely still have some ability to affect issues. If you're outside of the norm, the answer isn't just to keep cutting. Anyone with strong insulin resistance or a hypothyroid disorder can tell you how terribly unsustainable and unhealthy this is (i.e. hint it involves awful fatigue, GI issues, losing hair, etc.). And it can be downright dangerous at some point.
If you're out of the norm, then time to dig into what else could be going on in your body that is causing these outside of the norm issues (and the first thin you NEED to do is accurately track food intake to be sure that your calorie count is accurate). But, telling people with legitimate health issues that this is all self-inflicted, etc. is a disservice and can be downright dangerous. And, I'd say the same to those with eating disorders as well. And, as I've said a couple times on this thread, there are a LOT of people out there with various issues that affect them, many of them unknown/undiagnosed.0 -
what i mean is that at a 500-calorie deficit, the daily amount needed to lose one pound per week, i will only lose about .7lbs. it puts my BMR under 1,200 calories a day, which means to lose weight i have to drop down to less than 1,000 calories a day. it's unsustainable and borders on dangerous.
Why do you have to eat at less than 1000 calories to lose weight if your BMR is below 1200? Are you sedentary? (Sorry if I missed it, just don't want others to think they have to eat less than 1000 with a BMR below 1200.)
i have a desk job, but i go to the gym (circuit/weight training and cardio) 3-5 times a week. using the multiplyer for "sedentary" provides a good margin of error. if the math that everyone puts so much dogmatic faith in really is correct, that means to get a 500 calorie per day deficit, i would have to be down around 880 calories a day. the problem is that based on my age and weight, my BMR should be MUCH higher than that. the fact that it isn't is what seems to be causing the problems.
I'm putting my money on Meridianova having an undiagnosed thyroid condition -- I hope she finds the help she needs.0 -
I love this line of thought - you can eat Twinkies and drink Coke all day as long as you are in a calorie deficit.
This is a straw man, as you know.
I was actually curious about how it came up here, but couldn't find the first post. It was when everyone was in essence agreeing that CICO was what mattered, but kind of thinking there was an argument going on. Someone wrote: "It does not matter what you eat as how much you eat ... no deficit no loss. Pure and simple." In context, this seems to be the point that was largely agreed upon--that low carb is not the issue, but the possible fact that the study participants ate fewer calories when they did low carb. So far, no assertion that nutrients don't matter, nothing about drinking Coke, just a general hashing out of what the study means.
And note that this point is precisely why there's nothing in the study that contradicts the usual MFP POV, and you (pretty kitty) still have given no argument to the contrary.
However, after that statement was made, one poster who posted only once in this discussion picked up on it and made the following assertion: "since it doesn't matter what I eat, I should be able to lose wight as long as there's a deficit, even if I'm living off of french fries, soda, and cake? Yeah, right. Dude, you're not going to lose weight by eating ****ty junk food all day even if you're staying within your calorie goal."
First, I'd like to point out that although I usually agree that people talk past each other in this discussion, this is a pretty clear assertion that even if you ate 800 calories a day of cake (not that I'm recommending that; I think it would be dumb to try) you'd not lose weight. In other words, some people do believe that you can gain or maintain on a small number of calories if they are "dirty" enough.
Second, the bigger point is that no one was actually asserting that you can eat whatever. Even when someone made an unsupported and bizarre statement like this, no one even bothered to correct it. IF the question is why should someone have corrected it, why shouldn't we pretend like you have to eat nutrient dense foods to lose weight, the answer is because truth matters. I think people should eat mostly nutrient dense food, that they will feel better and be more satiated, etc., but I'm not going to lie and say that if you drink a Coke you will magically gain weight. You won't, and some people will find their deficit more sustainable if they work in Coke. Not me, for the record, I don't even like non diet Coke (I like artificial sweeteners just fine, though), but why should I slam someone else's preferred empty calories when I eat occasional non nutrient dense foods and lose doing so?
Now, if someone says they can't sustain a deficit because they are hungry, obviously what they are eating matters. That's common advice given on MFP. But that doesn't mean that low carb is the only way to do it. That's idiotic. Some people will find that way the easiest, and it's a great way for them. Still doesn't mean the study contradicts anything regularly said on MFP. It contradicts bizarre misunderstandings of what's said, that's all.0 -
But many people fail at dieting because they are hungry all the time.
Then they should eat differently. Like you said, it's really not rocket science. It's not because low carb or "eating clean" or being a raw foodist or any other way of eating is magic or overrules CICO (even though reading about diets suggests that many people are in a constant search for some way that tricks the body into not caring about calories). It's because--as was said by numerous people early in the discussion--being satiated matters. What makes different people satiated, however, varies somewhat, which is why there's no perfect eating plan that works great for everyone. People should find what works for them.0 -
I don't see how eating low carb is the same as eating only cake and French fries all day. It is POSSIBLE to lose weight only eating those items. You seem to have this view of low carb that it's very restrictive.It does not matter what you eat as how much you eat ... no deficit no loss. Pure and simple.
So, since it doesn't matter what I eat, I should be able to lose wight as long as there's a deficit, even if I'm living off of french fries, soda, and cake? :huh: Yeah, right. Dude, you're not going to lose weight by eating ****ty junk food all day even if you're staying within your calorie goal. Obviously we need the deficit to lose weight, but the quality of food matters too. What we eat matters.
Yes if you stay within your calorie goal you would be losing weight. I'd like to know what cake you're eating if you're sitting on the couch all day eating it and STILL within your calorie goal. Don't muddy the waters more and bring in nutrients. Purely for a weight loss purpose alone, yes you can eat only soda, cake and French fries and still lose weight if you're within your calorie allowance.
I see this come up all the time on the forums and feel like the two "camps" just talk past one another even though they actually believe the same things.
1. It is absolutely true that if you are at a caloric deficit you will lose weight regardless of what the source of said calories is. You can lose weight eating nothing but twinkies if you want.
2. It is absolutely true that if you do not get a proper balance of macros and nutrients you will find it impossible to maintain your diet in a sustainable, satisfying and healthy way long term and therefore eating nothing but twinkies is not a viable way to lose weight.
Both are true and I doubt either side would disagree with either statement, its just one person arguing that the glass is half full while the other yells back that it is half empty. It is boring.
From a weight loss standpoint it really is about calorie deficit. Like I said before, if you bring nutrients into it then it's not just about simple weight loss and CICO. I don't see how it's a "camp" thing at all.
I wasn't even refering to low carb and and no point in this post did I even talk about carbs, i picked twinkies because it is an undeniable junk food not because it is carbs. I wasn't disagreeing with you I was agreeing with you and describing why I thought people say that that sort of weight loss isn't possible. Not sure why you are getting argumentative over something I didn't even say.0 -
There is one person and one person alone that is responsible for your health as an adult and that is you. Your health is your responsibility and if you become overweight or obese it is because you have neglected your health. You may have reasons for that neglect associated with job or family but that does not mean you did not neglect that one aspect of your life. You may have various medical conditions that make your metabolism different than that of the population (hyper- hypothyroidism, PCOS etc) but then it is your responsibility to recognize that, understand your maintenance level and adjust accordingly. Placing blame on something beyond your control is just acceptance that being unhealthy is somehow your destiny and that is NOT the kind of mindset that is going to improve your life.
Harsh reality time. If you are obese, if you are overweight, that is a self-infliicted condition regardless of what your life or medical situation may be. If there is a condition that forces you to gain weight to an unhealthy level regardless of what you do I have not heard of it.
There CAN be things outside of your control that make you scrawny, or skinny, or unhealthily thin...but there isn't such a thing for being overweight.
Actually, they believe PCOS to be genetic. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776334/) I listed this study because it is a case study and sites many other studies for those of you who are interested.
I'm not sure why being "scrawny" is outside of your control any more than an inherited gene defect the effects the way your body processes insulin. I know about this particular disease because I suffer from it. I also know how difficult it is to get a Dr. to take you seriously when you are seriously suffering and trying to lose weight and be healthy, but you aren't losing any weight because you have a disorder.
edited for clarity
I wasn't claiming that for someone with PCOS it is their fault that they have PCOS, of course having PCOS is beyond their control. That said being overweight is within their control, even if they have PCOS. PCOS has affects on your metabolism for sure but it doesn't mean you are doomed to be overweight. My ex had PCOS and she was quite fit, she just had to make sure she ate frequently enough or she would get groggy.0 -
and when step A proves, on multiple data points and calculations, that my "maintenance" level is drastically below my expected calculated BMR, and that the deficits have to be so low as to be in the realm of dangerous (both mentally and physically), then my first priority has to be determining what medical factors are impeding proper weight loss.
As for your efficiency comment if you are saying your BMR is much LOWER than expected that means your body is actually EXTREMELY efficient, much more so than the average population. So I am not sure why you are saying operating at low efficiency.
what i mean is that at a 500-calorie deficit, the daily amount needed to lose one pound per week, i will only lose about .7lbs. it puts my BMR under 1,200 calories a day, which means to lose weight i have to drop down to less than 1,000 calories a day. it's unsustainable and borders on dangerous.
Then exercise more or lose weight at a slower rate, I guess I don't get it. Nothing says you have to lose weight based solely on your BMR nor do you have to lose weight at the rate of 1 pound per week. Nothing here makes CICO wrong or weight loss impossible so I guess what is the point here...that it is hard? Yeah of course it is hard.
Calculators tell me that I maintain at 3000 calories a day, but I don't...I maintain at more like 2500 calories a day. So what do I do about that? Well I adjust to what my body actually does and go off of that and I ignore the calculators. The calculators are based on population averages and assumptions. Just because the calculator says I could be eating 500 calories more when I found that I can't doesn't make me mope about it though nor does it make me think there is something wrong with me.0 -
There is one person and one person alone that is responsible for your health as an adult and that is you. Your health is your responsibility and if you become overweight or obese it is because you have neglected your health. You may have reasons for that neglect associated with job or family but that does not mean you did not neglect that one aspect of your life. You may have various medical conditions that make your metabolism different than that of the population (hyper- hypothyroidism, PCOS etc) but then it is your responsibility to recognize that, understand your maintenance level and adjust accordingly. Placing blame on something beyond your control is just acceptance that being unhealthy is somehow your destiny and that is NOT the kind of mindset that is going to improve your life.
Harsh reality time. If you are obese, if you are overweight, that is a self-infliicted condition regardless of what your life or medical situation may be. If there is a condition that forces you to gain weight to an unhealthy level regardless of what you do I have not heard of it.
There CAN be things outside of your control that make you scrawny, or skinny, or unhealthily thin...but there isn't such a thing for being overweight.
Actually, they believe PCOS to be genetic. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776334/) I listed this study because it is a case study and sites many other studies for those of you who are interested.
I'm not sure why being "scrawny" is outside of your control any more than an inherited gene defect the effects the way your body processes insulin. I know about this particular disease because I suffer from it. I also know how difficult it is to get a Dr. to take you seriously when you are seriously suffering and trying to lose weight and be healthy, but you aren't losing any weight because you have a disorder.
edited for clarity
I wasn't claiming that for someone with PCOS it is their fault that they have PCOS, of course having PCOS is beyond their control. That said being overweight is within their control, even if they have PCOS. PCOS has affects on your metabolism for sure but it doesn't mean you are doomed to be overweight. My ex had PCOS and she was quite fit, she just had to make sure she ate frequently enough or she would get groggy.
I totally agree with you. I have PCOS and if I had blamed it for my weight I wouldn't have been able to lose 90 pounds and counting. Having a medical condition only makes it more possible to gain faster and lose slower, it does not alter the gain/loss process itself - eating over/under maintenance. It's self-inflected, be it by continuously going over maintenance, not caring enough to watch/notice weight change, or by simply not looking for information about one's condition.0 -
Yes. That's what I was getting at - the low carb group made a more significant change from baseline than the low fat group.
In diet composition yes, but calorie intake was not significantly different at 6 or 12 month and LC was 160 cal lower (11%) at 3 months (P=0.0456)
The odd thing (to me) is that both groups kept to a reported intake of at least 500 cals below baseline yet after 3 months both groups regained some weight.0 -
I don't think accepting self reported caloric intakes on diets that are structured completely different from each other to prove a theory works.
Why are they structured differently ? one group was told to restrict fats, the other carbs. Neither had a calorie goal.
It would be odd if the randomisation put all the under-reporters in one group and over-reporters in the other, this time it even managed to spread out the races fairly evenly.0 -
Yes. That's what I was getting at - the low carb group made a more significant change from baseline than the low fat group.
In diet composition yes, but calorie intake was not significantly different at 6 or 12 month and LC was 160 cal lower (11%) at 3 months (P=0.0456)
The odd thing (to me) is that both groups kept to a reported intake of at least 500 cals below baseline yet after 3 months both groups regained some weight.
That just reinforces how well the average person logs their food. Especially after 6 or 9 months and some results, it's easy to get a bit complacent. That's also why I typically feel like banging my head on the keyboard when someone recommends another person eat more after their weight loss has stopped for a few months. Just because they wrote down X calories doesn't mean they are grossing or even netting X calories. That just means they logged X calories. I also thought the numbers in that study with regard to carbs were pretty interesting. I seem to recall their cap was 40g/day, but didn't I see earlier in this thread that the low carbers were averaging 90+ grams per day - and that's just what they logged?0 -
Yes. That's what I was getting at - the low carb group made a more significant change from baseline than the low fat group.
In diet composition yes, but calorie intake was not significantly different at 6 or 12 month and LC was 160 cal lower (11%) at 3 months (P=0.0456)
The odd thing (to me) is that both groups kept to a reported intake of at least 500 cals below baseline yet after 3 months both groups regained some weight.
The margin of error could be higher in the self-reported moderate carb group. That's because, in my own experience, it's easier to nibble around and forget that you did when you are doing a moderate carb diet. In the case of low carb you have to consciously cook and prepare the food, and due to the satiating effect of protein and fat you are less prone to snacking, not to mention that food is less available as packaged, ready to eat, and easy to access products to snack on.
The regain later may have been the result of "a little bit more won't hurt" mentality. After a while almost everyone goes through that phase.0 -
There is one person and one person alone that is responsible for your health as an adult and that is you. Your health is your responsibility and if you become overweight or obese it is because you have neglected your health. You may have reasons for that neglect associated with job or family but that does not mean you did not neglect that one aspect of your life. You may have various medical conditions that make your metabolism different than that of the population (hyper- hypothyroidism, PCOS etc) but then it is your responsibility to recognize that, understand your maintenance level and adjust accordingly. Placing blame on something beyond your control is just acceptance that being unhealthy is somehow your destiny and that is NOT the kind of mindset that is going to improve your life.
Harsh reality time. If you are obese, if you are overweight, that is a self-infliicted condition regardless of what your life or medical situation may be. If there is a condition that forces you to gain weight to an unhealthy level regardless of what you do I have not heard of it.
There CAN be things outside of your control that make you scrawny, or skinny, or unhealthily thin...but there isn't such a thing for being overweight.
Actually, they believe PCOS to be genetic. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776334/) I listed this study because it is a case study and sites many other studies for those of you who are interested.
I'm not sure why being "scrawny" is outside of your control any more than an inherited gene defect the effects the way your body processes insulin. I know about this particular disease because I suffer from it. I also know how difficult it is to get a Dr. to take you seriously when you are seriously suffering and trying to lose weight and be healthy, but you aren't losing any weight because you have a disorder.
edited for clarity
I wasn't claiming that for someone with PCOS it is their fault that they have PCOS, of course having PCOS is beyond their control. That said being overweight is within their control, even if they have PCOS. PCOS has affects on your metabolism for sure but it doesn't mean you are doomed to be overweight. My ex had PCOS and she was quite fit, she just had to make sure she ate frequently enough or she would get groggy.
I totally agree with you. I have PCOS and if I had blamed it for my weight I wouldn't have been able to lose 90 pounds and counting. Having a medical condition only makes it more possible to gain faster and lose slower, it does not alter the gain/loss process itself - eating over/under maintenance. It's self-inflected, be it by continuously going over maintenance, not caring enough to watch/notice weight change, or by simply not looking for information about one's condition.
I'm actually ambivalent about this. Yes, what you put in your mouth is your choice.
But, when I was nursing and gaining weight, I was HUNGRY all the time. Like rob-a-bank hungry. Hunger is pretty compelling. It's designed to be. It can push somebody to take major risks for survival.
I really can't leave it at "it was your choice" for somebody eating the extra sandwich or three in that situation.
I see a lot of people with a lot of excuses. And I see a lot of successful people who, by self-report, have moved beyond them (me being one of them). There's probably more people with excuses than there are people who are being motivated by biological drives to unhealthy behaviors. But I know there are people in the second group too.0 -
I don't think accepting self reported caloric intakes on diets that are structured completely different from each other to prove a theory works.
Why are they structured differently ? one group was told to restrict fats, the other carbs. Neither had a calorie goal.
It would be odd if the randomisation put all the under-reporters in one group and over-reporters in the other, this time it even managed to spread out the races fairly evenly.
One restriction required a substantial change in the diet, one did not. IME, any change which requires someone on the SAD to become more mindful about their diet, as making the significant change would, is likely to help with calorie restriction. Add to that that the low carb diet by definition keeps out foods that are more commonly over eaten, whereas the fat restriction isn't high enough to do that. (At 30 percent it's not really low. They were doing 35 percent before.)
My suspicion, contrary to this, is that a real low fat diet would have performed even worse, but that's because I believe that low carb is on average more satiating than low fat, especially if low fat people compensate with certain kinds of carbs.
The effect was also greatest when people were focusing on changing the diet, in the early period. Again, consistent with common sense.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions