Eat more to weigh less....
Replies
-
Can you guys suggest meals to hit 2,200 cal/day?
Extra large eggs are 80 calories each so if for breakfast you had 2 of these, 4 slices of turkey bacon and 2 slices of whole wheat toast thats about the same calories as what you had for breakfast but probably healthier.
Beans,rice, and sweet potatoes as sides will help
If at the end of the day you have some cals to fill int try having nuts or an apple with peanut butter0 -
The EM2WL moderators are pretty honest about saying that if your goal is quick and specific like for a wedding, then it may not be the diet for you! If the goal is to keep it off for a lifetime, then maybe try EM2WL. Try is the optimal word- don't come down on it too hard without first trying it, Very low calorie diets do work(for a short time). In fact they have worked for me over 25 years, over and over again. Quick off and quick back on +++ more weight to boot! As to "pigging out" my TDEE is less than 300 calories more than my BMR, hardly a real pig out.
Many of the people on MFP are morbidly obese....Do you have any idea what that means? It means that playing around with crap/dangerous/unproven theories of weight loss is not a wise course of action and it is in fact a potentially deadly option.....EM2WL has no long proven track record...It doesn't even have any medical documentation...So how can you or anyone else even claim that this is a solution that will keep the weight off for a lifetime?. Different people will swear that LOTS of things work...(rabbits feet,four leaf clovers etc. etc...) All I asked for was some documentation and thus far nobody has been able to produce any...so I stand by what I originally said ...ITS SNAKE OIL!
What on earth are you talkng about? I am not a member, but all they are suggesting is to eat at a resonable deficit from TDEE. Please could you explain exactly what is the issue? Eating below TDEE is a proven weigh loss method - in fact it is THE proven weight loss method and all the other types of diets lead to basically the same thing. There are hundreds of groups on this forum, none of which has medical documentation so I have no idea why you keep harping on about that. You obviously have no idea about what the group is actually about and I am at a loss to understand where you are getting the snake oil and scam ideas from. It makes absolutely no sense.
Now, there is a debate about what level below TDEE is appropriate, and that is a valid discussion. Your comments however just leave me baffled.
ETA: are you saying that you want medical documentation that you will lose weight if you eat less than you expend? If that is the case, you need to ask MFP for their documentation also.0 -
In the book "The New Rules of Lifting for Women" the authors who are a nutritionist and 2 other very well known and respected individuals in the fitness world, also use the same formula for calculating calories as the Eat more to weigh less group.
Here are also some articles for reading:
http://drlissakblog.blogspot.ca/2011/08/chronic-dieting-third-pillar-of-obesity.html
http://www.shapefit.com/overtraining-exercising-too-much.html
About resetting metabolism:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-full-diet-break.html
And anything at this site: http://www.fat2fitradio.com/0 -
I have no issue with small deficits, calorie cycling or using TDEE minus X%. I think that latter is even a vast improvement on the MFP 'eat back' plan.
What I have a problem with is people posting on plateau threads the following misinformation that is based on misunderstanding:
* You will go into starvation mode if you eat below your BMR and your body will hoard all the fat and you will not be able to maintain!
* Your hormones are out of whack. You need an 8-12 week metabolism reset. Follow me to this group....
* If you don't eat back your exercise calories you're effectively only eating 600 calories a day! You're starving!
* No one has to eat 1200 to lose, in fact it's dangerous. We all lose fine on much higher levels.
* You only have 20 lbs. to lose. You can't aim for 2 lbs/week. You have to aim for .5 lbs/week
There's nothing wrong with losing slow but there's nothing wrong with taking a more aggressive yet still safe and healthy approach. It's not starvation, it's not an ED, it's not stupid. It's NORMAL. That's why most diets start with an aggressive phase. People want to see results and success breeds success. Leaving yourself obese or even just overweight for a year or two longer than is necessary is also unhealthy. Which route you take is a choice. People should have accurate info to make the choice. The 'your way is unsafe' info is inaccurate.0 -
The EM2WL moderators are pretty honest about saying that if your goal is quick and specific like for a wedding, then it may not be the diet for you! If the goal is to keep it off for a lifetime, then maybe try EM2WL. Try is the optimal word- don't come down on it too hard without first trying it, Very low calorie diets do work(for a short time). In fact they have worked for me over 25 years, over and over again. Quick off and quick back on +++ more weight to boot! As to "pigging out" my TDEE is less than 300 calories more than my BMR, hardly a real pig out.
Many of the people on MFP are morbidly obese....Do you have any idea what that means? It means that playing around with crap/dangerous/unproven theories of weight loss is not a wise course of action and it is in fact a potentially deadly option.....EM2WL has no long proven track record...It doesn't even have any medical documentation...So how can you or anyone else even claim that this is a solution that will keep the weight off for a lifetime?. Different people will swear that LOTS of things work...(rabbits feet,four leaf clovers etc. etc...) All I asked for was some documentation and thus far nobody has been able to produce any...so I stand by what I originally said ...ITS SNAKE OIL!
What on earth are you talkng about? I am not a member, but all they are suggesting is to eat at a resonable deficit from TDEE. Please could you explain exactly what is the issue? Eating below TDEE is a proven weigh loss method - in fact it is THE proven weight loss method and all the other types of diets lead to basically the same thing. There are hundreds of groups on this forum, none of which has medical documentation so I have no idea why you keep harping on about that. You obviously have no idea about what the group is actually about and I am at a loss to understand where you are getting the snake oil and scam ideas from. It makes absolutely no sense.
Now, there is a debate about what level below TDEE is appropriate, and that is a valid discussion. Your comments however just leave me baffled.
ETA: are you saying that you want medical documentation that you will lose weight if you eat less than you expend? If that is the case, you need to ask MFP for their documentation also.
Thank you! This person must be trolling, otherwise, I don't even know what to say. I already asked her how eating at 15-20% below TDEE is "weight loss rubbish" and she did not respond to my question. Just seems to be trying to get a rise out of people.0 -
I have no issue with small deficits, calorie cycling or using TDEE minus X%. I think that latter is even a vast improvement on the MFP 'eat back' plan.
What I have a problem with is people posting on plateau threads the following misinformation that is based on misunderstanding:
* You will go into starvation mode if you eat below your BMR and your body will hoard all the fat and you will not be able to maintain!
* Your hormones are out of whack. You need an 8-12 week metabolism reset. Follow me to this group....
* If you don't eat back your exercise calories you're effectively only eating 600 calories a day! You're starving!
* No one has to eat 1200 to lose, in fact it's dangerous. We all lose fine on much higher levels.
* You only have 20 lbs. to lose. You can't aim for 2 lbs/week. You have to aim for .5 lbs/week
There's nothing wrong with losing slow but there's nothing wrong with taking a more aggressive yet still safe and healthy approach. It's not starvation, it's not an ED, it's not stupid. It's NORMAL. That's why most diets start with an aggressive phase. People want to see results and success breeds success. Leaving yourself obese or even just overweight for a year or two longer than is necessary is also unhealthy. Which route you take is a choice. People should have accurate info to make the choice. The 'your way is unsafe' info is inaccurate.
You're going to place all of the blame for such comments on the EM2WL *group* which the OP seems to be a part of?
Why do you think so many people who lose weight gain it back? Perhaps because they believe they have to eat little to weigh less and after a period of time they can no longer handle it because they feel deprived and instead of trying to find another way they give up and go back to eating the way they were because they figure they can;t eat so little for the rest of their lives and don;t understand there's a middle ground. *That* is what's normal -*not* keeping the weight off. I'm not saying EM2WL has all the answers and if people followed it they would never gain the weight back, but just because things have "always been done this way" doesn't mean things can't change with new understandings. And there are an awful lot of women who do only have 20 pounds to lose, set their goal for 2lbs, and it doesn't work, yet they're afraid to try something else for fear of gaining. It stopped working for me, and while I follow a different method, I *did* have to up my calories to start losing again.0 -
bump, this is very interesting.0
-
I have no issue with small deficits, calorie cycling or using TDEE minus X%. I think that latter is even a vast improvement on the MFP 'eat back' plan.
What I have a problem with is people posting on plateau threads the following misinformation that is based on misunderstanding:
* You will go into starvation mode if you eat below your BMR and your body will hoard all the fat and you will not be able to maintain!
* Your hormones are out of whack. You need an 8-12 week metabolism reset. Follow me to this group....
* If you don't eat back your exercise calories you're effectively only eating 600 calories a day! You're starving!
* No one has to eat 1200 to lose, in fact it's dangerous. We all lose fine on much higher levels.
* You only have 20 lbs. to lose. You can't aim for 2 lbs/week. You have to aim for .5 lbs/week
There's nothing wrong with losing slow but there's nothing wrong with taking a more aggressive yet still safe and healthy approach. It's not starvation, it's not an ED, it's not stupid. It's NORMAL. That's why most diets start with an aggressive phase. People want to see results and success breeds success. Leaving yourself obese or even just overweight for a year or two longer than is necessary is also unhealthy. Which route you take is a choice. People should have accurate info to make the choice. The 'your way is unsafe' info is inaccurate.
You're going to place all of the blame for such comments on the EM2WL *group* which the OP seems to be a part of?
Why do you think so many people who lose weight gain it back? Perhaps because they believe they have to eat little to weigh less and after a period of time they can no longer handle it because they feel deprived and instead of trying to find another way they give up and go back to eating the way they were because they figure they can;t eat so little for the rest of their lives and don;t understand there's a middle ground. *That* is what's normal -*not* keeping the weight off. I'm not saying EM2WL has all the answers and if people followed it they would never gain the weight back, but just because things have "always been done this way" doesn't mean things can't change with new understandings. And there are an awful lot of women who do only have 20 pounds to lose, set their goal for 2lbs, and it doesn't work, yet they're afraid to try something else for fear of gaining. It stopped working for me, and while I follow a different method, I *did* have to up my calories to start losing again.
The 'eat more' people have no monopoly on long-term maintenance success. 95% of ALL weight-losers gain it back. It's not quite so simple as 'lose it over a decade, maintain it over the next decade'.
I'm not saying change your method, if you're happy with it. I'm saying quit persecuting the normal majority who are doing it their way, the way science supports, the way where you eat less to lose more, or move more to lose more (not to eat more). I don't know who the OP is or what they advocate. I'm talking about MFP's "eat more" brigade in general. And helloitsdan is where half the b.s. info seems to originate from so if I'm misinterpreting comments of his as feelings of the group's in general, let me know. I thought he was the ringleader.0 -
What on earth are you talkng about? I am not a member, but all they are suggesting is to eat at a resonable deficit from TDEE. Please could you explain exactly what is the issue? Eating below TDEE is a proven weigh loss method - in fact it is THE proven weight loss method and all the other types of diets lead to basically the same thing. There are hundreds of groups on this forum, none of which has medical documentation so I have no idea why you keep harping on about that. You obviously have no idea about what the group is actually about and I am at a loss to understand where you are getting the snake oil and scam ideas from. It makes absolutely no sense.
Now, there is a debate about what level below TDEE is appropriate, and that is a valid discussion. Your comments however just leave me baffled.
ETA: are you saying that you want medical documentation that you will lose weight if you eat less than you expend? If that is the case, you need to ask MFP for their documentation also.
Edited by Sarauk2sf on Wed 07/11/12 07:40 PM
And if you are NOT a member....THEN WHO IN HELL ARE YOU TO BE TELLING ANYBODY WHAT THIS GROUP ADVOCATES! People like you actually add more confusion to these discussions and this is a very big part of the problem! If this group has some principles then they need to post them so everybody can read for themselves and judge for themselves...Instead of having to rely on regurgitated babble from folks like you.0 -
What on earth are you talkng about? I am not a member, but all they are suggesting is to eat at a resonable deficit from TDEE. Please could you explain exactly what is the issue? Eating below TDEE is a proven weigh loss method - in fact it is THE proven weight loss method and all the other types of diets lead to basically the same thing. There are hundreds of groups on this forum, none of which has medical documentation so I have no idea why you keep harping on about that. You obviously have no idea about what the group is actually about and I am at a loss to understand where you are getting the snake oil and scam ideas from. It makes absolutely no sense.
Now, there is a debate about what level below TDEE is appropriate, and that is a valid discussion. Your comments however just leave me baffled.
ETA: are you saying that you want medical documentation that you will lose weight if you eat less than you expend? If that is the case, you need to ask MFP for their documentation also.
Edited by Sarauk2sf on Wed 07/11/12 07:40 PM
And if you are NOT a member....THEN WHO IN HELL ARE YOU TO BE TELLING ANYBODY WHAT THIS GROUP ADVOCATES! People like you actually add more confusion to these discussions and this is a very big part of the problem! If this group has some principles then they need to post them so everybody can read for themselves and judge for themselves...Instead of having to rely on regurgitated babble from folks like you.
Firstly, there is no need to shout, I can hear you perfectly well.
Secondly, I do not need to be a member of the group to know what they advocate - they post it on their group home page and you can go in and look at all the threads posted by the group members. So, unlike you, I do not have to go around making ridiculous accusations, I actually know what their 'mission statement' is.
Thirdly, I notice that you have not answered a single question that anyone has asked of you, so I suggest you stop posturing and deflecting and educate yourself a little.
ETA: another question that I doubt you will actually answer - what exactly have I posted with regard to the group that is confusing anyone?0 -
I would die if I had to do 20% fat.. I love my avocado and coconut oil too much~ lol ... I'm finding that 35/35/30 is such a better balance for me. Thats about 50 grams of fat, 120 carbs and more that 1gr protein/pound of my body weight. Keeps my brain happy that way
0 -
Thirdly, I notice that you have not answered a single question that anyone has asked of you, so I suggest you stop posturing and deflecting and educate yourself a little.
That's funny...because I noticed that with you around...nobody else seems to get a chance to answer any questions....You just like to barge right in and answer all of the questions for everyone....Are you another all knowing "authority"?0 -
Thirdly, I notice that you have not answered a single question that anyone has asked of you, so I suggest you stop posturing and deflecting and educate yourself a little.
That's funny...because I noticed that with you around...nobody else seems to get a chance to answer any questions....You just like to barge right in and answer all of the questions for everyone....Are you another all knowing "authority"?
Yes - I am physically stopping you from actually answering any of the questions.0 -
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/early/2012/04/24/jc.2012-1444.abstract?papetoc
Abstract
Context: An important goal during weight loss is to maximize fat loss while preserving metabolically active fat-free mass (FFM). Massive weight loss typically results in substantial loss of FFM potentially slowing metabolic rate.
Objective: Our objective was to determine whether a weight loss program consisting of diet restriction and vigorous exercise helped to preserve FFM and maintain resting metabolic rate (RMR).
Participants and Intervention: We measured body composition by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, RMR by indirect calorimetry, and total energy expenditure by doubly labeled water at baseline (n = 16), wk 6 (n = 11), and wk 30 (n = 16).
Results: At baseline, participants were severely obese (×± sd; body mass index 49.4 ± 9.4 kg/m2) with 49 ± 5% body fat. At wk 30, more than one third of initial body weight was lost (−38 ± 9%) and consisted of 17 ± 8% from FFM and 83 ± 8% from fat. RMR declined out of proportion to the decrease in body mass, demonstrating a substantial metabolic adaptation (−244 ± 231 and −504 ± 171 kcal/d at wk 6 and 30, respectively, P < 0.01). Energy expenditure attributed to physical activity increased by 10.2 ± 5.1 kcal/kg·d at wk 6 and 6.0 ± 4.1 kcal/kg·d at wk 30 (P < 0.001 vs. zero).
Conclusions: Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained.
And in easier to read language:
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/04/biggest-loser-destroys-participants.html0 -
I agree 100%. Check out the threads on the EM2WL boards specifically it will offer far more advice and answer a lot more questions. I did TONS of reading about EM2WL and completed my reset. If it helps any since we are similar this is my story in short:
I am 5'5
28 yrs old
180 lbs
I was netting MAYBE 1200 a day I cut so far before joining MFP and learning of the metabolism reset. It took me several weeks to be able to eat my reccomended 2400 cal and a long time of feeling bloated and lots of doubt and I even gained almost 5 lbs at first, but IT WORKS! I only did the reset for about 5 or 6 weeks, not the reccomended 8, but I knew I was ready because I got to the point where it was actually hard to ONLY eat 2400 calories and the 5 lbs that I had gained disappeared dispite eating twice as much. I have 2 more days to complete my first official calorie cut week following the reset, but I know based on how I feel that it is working already. I hope this helps some! Feel free to friend me!
Okay...let me get this straight...So basically you're saying that you did a 5 or 6 week PIG OUT....after which you gained 5lbs...After a while it became hard to only eat at the higher (PIG OUT) level....and at that point you lost the 5lbs that you gained after starting your PIG OUT....And this is progress?
I don't understand how maintenance level is considered pigging out. If I work a sitting job and burn 1800 calories sitting in the office, then I come home and exercise and burn another 400 doing interval training and/or weight lifting so shouldn't I eat 2,200 and technically not gain or lose anything?
Are you sure 1800 is your maintenance level at your current weight?
http://calorieline.com/tools/tdee
Enter your details in above calculator.0 -
I have no issue with small deficits, calorie cycling or using TDEE minus X%. I think that latter is even a vast improvement on the MFP 'eat back' plan.
What I have a problem with is people posting on plateau threads the following misinformation that is based on misunderstanding:
* You will go into starvation mode if you eat below your BMR and your body will hoard all the fat and you will not be able to maintain!
* Your hormones are out of whack. You need an 8-12 week metabolism reset. Follow me to this group....
* If you don't eat back your exercise calories you're effectively only eating 600 calories a day! You're starving!
* No one has to eat 1200 to lose, in fact it's dangerous. We all lose fine on much higher levels.
* You only have 20 lbs. to lose. You can't aim for 2 lbs/week. You have to aim for .5 lbs/week
There's nothing wrong with losing slow but there's nothing wrong with taking a more aggressive yet still safe and healthy approach. It's not starvation, it's not an ED, it's not stupid. It's NORMAL. That's why most diets start with an aggressive phase. People want to see results and success breeds success. Leaving yourself obese or even just overweight for a year or two longer than is necessary is also unhealthy. Which route you take is a choice. People should have accurate info to make the choice. The 'your way is unsafe' info is inaccurate.
You're going to place all of the blame for such comments on the EM2WL *group* which the OP seems to be a part of?
Why do you think so many people who lose weight gain it back? Perhaps because they believe they have to eat little to weigh less and after a period of time they can no longer handle it because they feel deprived and instead of trying to find another way they give up and go back to eating the way they were because they figure they can;t eat so little for the rest of their lives and don;t understand there's a middle ground. *That* is what's normal -*not* keeping the weight off. I'm not saying EM2WL has all the answers and if people followed it they would never gain the weight back, but just because things have "always been done this way" doesn't mean things can't change with new understandings. And there are an awful lot of women who do only have 20 pounds to lose, set their goal for 2lbs, and it doesn't work, yet they're afraid to try something else for fear of gaining. It stopped working for me, and while I follow a different method, I *did* have to up my calories to start losing again.
This ^^^^
It is just a different approach, it's working for those in the group. It helps break through plateaus after being on a 1200 calorie diet for years or month or whatever. It's sensible eating and it has changed many of our lives in terms of quality of life (read the successes in that group for inspiration).0 -
I have no issue with small deficits, calorie cycling or using TDEE minus X%. I think that latter is even a vast improvement on the MFP 'eat back' plan.
What I have a problem with is people posting on plateau threads the following misinformation that is based on misunderstanding:
* You will go into starvation mode if you eat below your BMR and your body will hoard all the fat and you will not be able to maintain!
* Your hormones are out of whack. You need an 8-12 week metabolism reset. Follow me to this group....
* If you don't eat back your exercise calories you're effectively only eating 600 calories a day! You're starving!
* No one has to eat 1200 to lose, in fact it's dangerous. We all lose fine on much higher levels.
* You only have 20 lbs. to lose. You can't aim for 2 lbs/week. You have to aim for .5 lbs/week
There's nothing wrong with losing slow but there's nothing wrong with taking a more aggressive yet still safe and healthy approach. It's not starvation, it's not an ED, it's not stupid. It's NORMAL. That's why most diets start with an aggressive phase. People want to see results and success breeds success. Leaving yourself obese or even just overweight for a year or two longer than is necessary is also unhealthy. Which route you take is a choice. People should have accurate info to make the choice. The 'your way is unsafe' info is inaccurate.
You're going to place all of the blame for such comments on the EM2WL *group* which the OP seems to be a part of?
Why do you think so many people who lose weight gain it back? Perhaps because they believe they have to eat little to weigh less and after a period of time they can no longer handle it because they feel deprived and instead of trying to find another way they give up and go back to eating the way they were because they figure they can;t eat so little for the rest of their lives and don;t understand there's a middle ground. *That* is what's normal -*not* keeping the weight off. I'm not saying EM2WL has all the answers and if people followed it they would never gain the weight back, but just because things have "always been done this way" doesn't mean things can't change with new understandings. And there are an awful lot of women who do only have 20 pounds to lose, set their goal for 2lbs, and it doesn't work, yet they're afraid to try something else for fear of gaining. It stopped working for me, and while I follow a different method, I *did* have to up my calories to start losing again.
The 'eat more' people have no monopoly on long-term maintenance success. 95% of ALL weight-losers gain it back. It's not quite so simple as 'lose it over a decade, maintain it over the next decade'.
I'm not saying change your method, if you're happy with it. I'm saying quit persecuting the normal majority who are doing it their way, the way science supports, the way where you eat less to lose more, or move more to lose more (not to eat more). I don't know who the OP is or what they advocate. I'm talking about MFP's "eat more" brigade in general. And helloitsdan is where half the b.s. info seems to originate from so if I'm misinterpreting comments of his as feelings of the group's in general, let me know. I thought he was the ringleader.
helloitsdan has nothing to do with the group, he might be a member but he did not start the group or the website and is not even a moderator in the group.
No one is persecuting others for eating 1200 calories, the group just offers another choice. Most of us will post on a plateau thread saying to check out the group to offer an alternative. I stopped losing on 1200 cals and then joined the group. I lost 6.5 lbs immediately after upping cals. And I am so much happier now, and feel stronger, healthier, workouts have improved, TMI but I am no longer constipated after YEARS of being that way.0 -
I have no issue with small deficits, calorie cycling or using TDEE minus X%. I think that latter is even a vast improvement on the MFP 'eat back' plan.
What I have a problem with is people posting on plateau threads the following misinformation that is based on misunderstanding:
* You will go into starvation mode if you eat below your BMR and your body will hoard all the fat and you will not be able to maintain!
* Your hormones are out of whack. You need an 8-12 week metabolism reset. Follow me to this group....
* If you don't eat back your exercise calories you're effectively only eating 600 calories a day! You're starving!
* No one has to eat 1200 to lose, in fact it's dangerous. We all lose fine on much higher levels.
* You only have 20 lbs. to lose. You can't aim for 2 lbs/week. You have to aim for .5 lbs/week
There's nothing wrong with losing slow but there's nothing wrong with taking a more aggressive yet still safe and healthy approach. It's not starvation, it's not an ED, it's not stupid. It's NORMAL. That's why most diets start with an aggressive phase. People want to see results and success breeds success. Leaving yourself obese or even just overweight for a year or two longer than is necessary is also unhealthy. Which route you take is a choice. People should have accurate info to make the choice. The 'your way is unsafe' info is inaccurate.
You're going to place all of the blame for such comments on the EM2WL *group* which the OP seems to be a part of?
Why do you think so many people who lose weight gain it back? Perhaps because they believe they have to eat little to weigh less and after a period of time they can no longer handle it because they feel deprived and instead of trying to find another way they give up and go back to eating the way they were because they figure they can;t eat so little for the rest of their lives and don;t understand there's a middle ground. *That* is what's normal -*not* keeping the weight off. I'm not saying EM2WL has all the answers and if people followed it they would never gain the weight back, but just because things have "always been done this way" doesn't mean things can't change with new understandings. And there are an awful lot of women who do only have 20 pounds to lose, set their goal for 2lbs, and it doesn't work, yet they're afraid to try something else for fear of gaining. It stopped working for me, and while I follow a different method, I *did* have to up my calories to start losing again.
The 'eat more' people have no monopoly on long-term maintenance success. 95% of ALL weight-losers gain it back. It's not quite so simple as 'lose it over a decade, maintain it over the next decade'.
I'm not saying change your method, if you're happy with it. I'm saying quit persecuting the normal majority who are doing it their way, the way science supports, the way where you eat less to lose more, or move more to lose more (not to eat more). I don't know who the OP is or what they advocate. I'm talking about MFP's "eat more" brigade in general. And helloitsdan is where half the b.s. info seems to originate from so if I'm misinterpreting comments of his as feelings of the group's in general, let me know. I thought he was the ringleader.
This is obviously pure conjecture, but I would posit that the typical person trying to lose weight does eat less, in the "typical" 1200 for women range, so they make up the larger number of women gaining weight back. If a person learns they can eat more than a fairly low number, though not as much as they were eating before, and lose weight, it seems like they would be more successful long term. It gives them more room to enjoy the foods they want to. And if they can learn more about the numbers (BMR, TDEE) and why they can eat certain amounts they become more empowered and can learn how to manipulate the numbers rather than sticking to typical 1200. (And in understanding those numbers knowing that these are estimates that may also have to be adjusted, if they understand them and have success they will not be afraid to adjust). It seems logical that such people would have a higher rate of long term success. That's my perspective on the matter.
Plus, you're arguing with the EM2WL group while also arguing against the way MFP does things. So it's like you're a mirror image of those you're against - you only have to eat 1200, don't eat back those exercise calories, you'll be okay. Sure, some people can do fine on that for a while, maybe even a long while. But a lot of women are miserable on that - and why be miserable if you don't have to be?
Another poster already addressed this, but I'm not part of the group and even I know that helloitsdan is not the "leader" of the group. I have never seen an EM2WL person go into a plateau thread and go on about starvation mode and some of the other things you mentioned in another post. Just as that other poster has said, I have seen them come and and say - "hey, this worked for me, maybe check it out" - just like I say about spiking, and what many other people say - they are answering the posters question with what worked for them without alarmist statements. So perhaps the group shouldn't be lumped together with people who come in with their alarmist statements about starvation mode or what have you (although on a starvation mode post there was an interesting article posted about the slowing down of metabolism when eating at a deficit - not really 'starvation mode' but an explanation for why plateaus can hit) and persecuted for advocating a moderate approach to weight loss.
OP - I'm really sorry, it looks like this post has been hijacked. I hope you went to the group and asked your question and got help. It's just like asking a question about veganism - it's better to ask it within the group than post it in the open forums and have all the craziness come out.0 -
I will try to put less blame for misinfo and shamey-fingering I see around on the group itself than on individuals. It's so pervasive, and usually ends with a suggestion to check out the group, so it seems as if it's group propaganda. "You CAN'T eat under your BMR", "you're in starvation mode", etc, though I guess MFP itself spreads that garbage.
Have I joined it and read it? No, I followed the link once with that in mind but found a giant forum of posts of opinions and anecdotes. I'm not condemning the plan. I'm condemning the condemning of not using the plan.0 -
Before making judgements about the group, why don't you join and read through the info?
It's not some radical group...it's a group of people who are working on losing the weight SLOWLY. Anyone who is trying to drop a size in a certain amount of time or lost 20 lbs in a month or whatever, then it's probably not for them.
This method of weight loss is slow but easy to maintain and many people in the group and on these boards in general are having great success with it. I'm not sure why people need to hate on it.
Also, the calculators used to determine how many calories one should consume have been around for EONS. They are recommended on most bodybuilding forums (not that you have to be a bodybuilder), and the science behind the calculators can be found all over the place.
True! This is honestly the same method that has worked for many years. It's the fad diets that don't work. Eating a sensible, portion-controlled, balanced diet is a tried and true method and the science has been around since before I was born!0 -
Are you sure 1800 is your maintenance level at your current weight?
http://calorieline.com/tools/tdee
Enter your details in above calculator.
This is interesting and looks a lot more accurate. What a great website.
Based on this I would fall between 1693 and 1787 without additional exercise when I get home. So maybe 1700 is a better starting point.
I work out about 4-5 hours, plus brisk walk about twice a week for an hour. So I think this makes sense.
Work: Sedentary
Exercise: vigorous workout (e.g. running 6 mph, vigourous gym workout) one hour, 3 times weekly, plus brisk walk for one hour 3 times each week >>>>2131
I think I will try for 1750-1800 then modest cut.0 -
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/early/2012/04/24/jc.2012-1444.abstract?papetoc
Abstract
Context: An important goal during weight loss is to maximize fat loss while preserving metabolically active fat-free mass (FFM). Massive weight loss typically results in substantial loss of FFM potentially slowing metabolic rate.
Objective: Our objective was to determine whether a weight loss program consisting of diet restriction and vigorous exercise helped to preserve FFM and maintain resting metabolic rate (RMR).
Participants and Intervention: We measured body composition by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, RMR by indirect calorimetry, and total energy expenditure by doubly labeled water at baseline (n = 16), wk 6 (n = 11), and wk 30 (n = 16).
Results: At baseline, participants were severely obese (×± sd; body mass index 49.4 ± 9.4 kg/m2) with 49 ± 5% body fat. At wk 30, more than one third of initial body weight was lost (−38 ± 9%) and consisted of 17 ± 8% from FFM and 83 ± 8% from fat. RMR declined out of proportion to the decrease in body mass, demonstrating a substantial metabolic adaptation (−244 ± 231 and −504 ± 171 kcal/d at wk 6 and 30, respectively, P < 0.01). Energy expenditure attributed to physical activity increased by 10.2 ± 5.1 kcal/kg·d at wk 6 and 6.0 ± 4.1 kcal/kg·d at wk 30 (P < 0.001 vs. zero).
Conclusions: Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained.
And in easier to read language:
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2012/04/biggest-loser-destroys-participants.html
Nice an actual study.0 -
That study looked at Biggest Loser style weight loss-- massive losses achieved through extreme deficits. I don't think it applies to people eating 1200-1500 calorie diets and losing up to 2 lbs/week, which is what the issue here is.0
-
That study looked at Biggest Loser style weight loss-- massive losses achieved through extreme deficits. I don't think it applies to people eating 1200-1500 calorie diets and losing up to 2 lbs/week, which is what the issue here is.
I think a lot of people on MFP are eating only 1200 gross and exercising, maybe not to the extent that of the TV show.0 -
I think that comparing eating 1200 and exercising (without eating back) to BL is still apples and carburetors. There is not a published diet plan in the world (that I know of) that would call 1200 and exercising (without eating back) extreme. That's generally considered a healthy way to do it.0
-
Conclusions: Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained.
(Direct quote from the study)...ie....EITHER DO MORE EXERCISE OR LOWER YOUR CALORIES!...
.so where did all of this "eat more to weigh less" business come from?0 -
bump0
-
Conclusions: Despite relative preservation of FFM, exercise did not prevent dramatic slowing of resting metabolism out of proportion to weight loss. This metabolic adaptation may persist during weight maintenance and predispose to weight regain unless high levels of physical activity or caloric restriction are maintained.
(Direct quote from the study)...ie....EITHER DO MORE EXERCISE OR LOWER YOUR CALORIES!...
.so where did all of this "eat more to weigh less" business come from?
Some really good discussions on this topic.
I thought the study showed that even though there was no significant impact on people's BMR their total energy expenditure slowed down due to extremely low diet and extreme workouts. They compared two studies, one of gastric bypass patients and one from biggest loser and with similar losses biggest loser contestants suffered greater metabolism reductions (total energy expenditure) than gastric patients both of whom lost massive amounts of weight.
So basically the article suggests that Biggest Loser contestants would have to continue with extreme exercise or continue with a huge reduction due to depleted metabolism in order to maintain weight.
Does this have anything to do with people eating back (or eating more) calories while exercising as not to create such a huge deficit or am I misinterpreting this?0 -
I don't think you can say that study says anything about 'eating back'. I tried to read the whole study but my academic library doesn't have it.
Here's what I've heard and read. Losing large amounts of weight AT ANY SPEED can result in a 'slower metabolism' (more than the change in BMR predicts alone), but it's probably a small reduction-- 3-5%ish. We think that by incorporating strength training to protect lean mass and by not going into extreme deficit territory (losing more than 2 lbs/week), we're doing all we can to minimize the problem. If you want to lose it very slowly just in case, that's ok, too. But losing up to 2 lbs/week is not considered risky, either.0 -
This is why I joined EM2WL:
I was eating less than 1000 calories per day and exercising on top of that and I got FAT!!!...Then I joined MFP just to see what I should change and exercised even more than before and I only lost 5lbs in 4mths going this route and was starving and miserable...But this is what I have done all my life when I needed to lose weight....
Then I saw this quote on someones profile (I had heard it before) but it never clicked until I read it that day and it was me to a T b/c this is what I had been doing for 20+ years - So I figured I needed to doing something different this time around.....
"The Definition Of Insanity Is Repeating The Same Behaviors, But Expecting A Different Result!"
This group is a very NON-JUDGMENTAL and SUPPORTIVE group....For me, I loved the fact that there was NO NEGATIVITY like on the main forums and I could post a topic with my concerns and questions and not get bashed for ANYTHING like here...This is the MAIN reason why I promote EM2WL b/c of the members and how supportive and motivating everyone is!!!
So, regardless of what anyone thinks of the way we do things in EM2WL. we are all trying to lose weight a more healthy way than we were before b/c we were starving, hair falling out, brittle nails, constipation, barely lifting 2lb dumbbells, fatigued, angry and miserable, whatever the case may be we are all their b/c of the support that we give and receive in there....So, if you don't like it and don't want to be a part of it then just let us carry on with what we are doing for US....
You do whatever it is that is working so well for you and maybe you will share your success and how it works someday as well...So, best of luck to you who does it differently...I wish you the best of success...
For now, everyone just Stay Calm and Carry On.....(an MFP friend says that and I think it fits here)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions