Can you really eat anything and lose?

sarah3333

I think you can start out doing this and lose, especially if you have a lot to lose. But once you get down to the last 10 lbs or so it's more about macros and type of food.

Diyah13

Yup!!!!! I've lost 17 pounds so far. I've been on MFP for almost three months. Three times I went over my calorie limit for the day. I try not to do that. In the tally of total calorie intake versus calorie burn, I'm not eating the calories I used to. And I still go to McDonald's, Sbarro, Taco Bell, etc. I just can't have as much as I'd like.

barbararoy

I have only been traking my food intake for a few days, but once I push the complete button it says I will gain weight if I continue to eat the way I did for that day. I am within the calories, fat, protein etc that the program said I could have. What up with that?? :sad:

beckajw

I wanna say no
cause when i want to eat chocolate and drink iced coffee with whipped cream and still stay within my calories I gain weight so the answer is no.
you have to not only look at your calories intake but also look at your sugar, your fat if any of these are red then you ll not lose anything

Uh ... wrong. Unless you defy the rules of science.

Not necessarily. Going from dieting and eating 'clean foods,' as much as I hate that term, to eating junk can definitely cause a boatload of water retention. I mean, think of it like this. When you're dieting, glycogen can be depleted. When you move towards more junk food, glycogen gets repleted. Each molecule of glycogen carries 3 molecules of water.

Put simply, tissue mass is predicated on energy balance. And I know that's what you're implying. But weight entails other variables that can rise in the face of an energy deficit.

Water retention is not the same as weight gain.

Huh? I believe you mean water is not the same as tissue gain. But that's something that I never implied. Water retention most definitely leads to weight gain... acute or not.

Water retention may lead to a higher number on the scale for a day, but it does not lead to actual permanent weight gain.

I'm well aware of this but never suggested anything different. Now that you put the "permanent" qualifier on your statement I can agree with it. How you said it originally though is inaccurate. Seems subtle, I know. But those words mean things.

We're really 'battling' over semantics at this point. You obviously understand. But not everyone does. In fact I started a thread on this forum titled relatively lean people trying to get leaner, or something along those lines. It was one of the most popular threads ever. And the gist of it revolved around the concept of water retention's ability to mask real tissue loss in the face of a deficit... especially in thin people who are eating hypocalorically.

I think it's fine to talk about "science".... assuming you're referring to physics and thermodynamics. But it's more proper to speak about mass or tissue gain/loss than it is weight gain/loss when it comes to energy balance... simply because weight is comprise of variables that aren't necessarily dependent on thermodynamics/energy.

Sorry for nitpicking, but based on the thread I mentioned, plenty of people still don't understand this concept... so I think it's meaningful. You have to remember, as much as we tout the importance of the longer term trends being the important variable, many people are still focused on the short-term fluctuations.

No, let's nitpick. Your statement: "if any of these are red then you ll not lose anything"

That is not true.

You then tried to prove it by saying: "When you move towards more junk food, glycogen gets repleted. Each molecule of glycogen carries 3 molecules of water."

Implying that you won't lose anything because of water retention.

What I said was NEVER inaccurate. What you said is still wrong.

stroutman81

I wanna say no
cause when i want to eat chocolate and drink iced coffee with whipped cream and still stay within my calories I gain weight so the answer is no.
you have to not only look at your calories intake but also look at your sugar, your fat if any of these are red then you ll not lose anything

Uh ... wrong. Unless you defy the rules of science.

Not necessarily. Going from dieting and eating 'clean foods,' as much as I hate that term, to eating junk can definitely cause a boatload of water retention. I mean, think of it like this. When you're dieting, glycogen can be depleted. When you move towards more junk food, glycogen gets repleted. Each molecule of glycogen carries 3 molecules of water.

Put simply, tissue mass is predicated on energy balance. And I know that's what you're implying. But weight entails other variables that can rise in the face of an energy deficit.

Water retention is not the same as weight gain.

Huh? I believe you mean water is not the same as tissue gain. But that's something that I never implied. Water retention most definitely leads to weight gain... acute or not.

Water retention may lead to a higher number on the scale for a day, but it does not lead to actual permanent weight gain.

I'm well aware of this but never suggested anything different. Now that you put the "permanent" qualifier on your statement I can agree with it. How you said it originally though is inaccurate. Seems subtle, I know. But those words mean things.

We're really 'battling' over semantics at this point. You obviously understand. But not everyone does. In fact I started a thread on this forum titled relatively lean people trying to get leaner, or something along those lines. It was one of the most popular threads ever. And the gist of it revolved around the concept of water retention's ability to mask real tissue loss in the face of a deficit... especially in thin people who are eating hypocalorically.

I think it's fine to talk about "science".... assuming you're referring to physics and thermodynamics. But it's more proper to speak about mass or tissue gain/loss than it is weight gain/loss when it comes to energy balance... simply because weight is comprise of variables that aren't necessarily dependent on thermodynamics/energy.

Sorry for nitpicking, but based on the thread I mentioned, plenty of people still don't understand this concept... so I think it's meaningful. You have to remember, as much as we tout the importance of the longer term trends being the important variable, many people are still focused on the short-term fluctuations.

No, let's nitpick. Your statement: "if any of these are red then you ll not lose anything"

That is not true.

You then tried to prove it by saying: "When you move towards more junk food, glycogen gets repleted. Each molecule of glycogen carries 3 molecules of water."

Implying that you won't lose anything because of water retention.

What I said was NEVER inaccurate. What you said is still wrong.

I'm sorry, but can you show me where I said, "if any of these are red then you ll not lose anything"?

stroutman81

I wanna say no
cause when i want to eat chocolate and drink iced coffee with whipped cream and still stay within my calories I gain weight so the answer is no.
you have to not only look at your calories intake but also look at your sugar, your fat if any of these are red then you ll not lose anything

Uh ... wrong. Unless you defy the rules of science.

Not necessarily. Going from dieting and eating 'clean foods,' as much as I hate that term, to eating junk can definitely cause a boatload of water retention. I mean, think of it like this. When you're dieting, glycogen can be depleted. When you move towards more junk food, glycogen gets repleted. Each molecule of glycogen carries 3 molecules of water.

Put simply, tissue mass is predicated on energy balance. And I know that's what you're implying. But weight entails other variables that can rise in the face of an energy deficit.

Water retention is not the same as weight gain.

Huh? I believe you mean water is not the same as tissue gain. But that's something that I never implied. Water retention most definitely leads to weight gain... acute or not.

Water retention may lead to a higher number on the scale for a day, but it does not lead to actual permanent weight gain.

I'm well aware of this but never suggested anything different. Now that you put the "permanent" qualifier on your statement I can agree with it. How you said it originally though is inaccurate. Seems subtle, I know. But those words mean things.

We're really 'battling' over semantics at this point. You obviously understand. But not everyone does. In fact I started a thread on this forum titled relatively lean people trying to get leaner, or something along those lines. It was one of the most popular threads ever. And the gist of it revolved around the concept of water retention's ability to mask real tissue loss in the face of a deficit... especially in thin people who are eating hypocalorically.

I think it's fine to talk about "science".... assuming you're referring to physics and thermodynamics. But it's more proper to speak about mass or tissue gain/loss than it is weight gain/loss when it comes to energy balance... simply because weight is comprise of variables that aren't necessarily dependent on thermodynamics/energy.

Sorry for nitpicking, but based on the thread I mentioned, plenty of people still don't understand this concept... so I think it's meaningful. You have to remember, as much as we tout the importance of the longer term trends being the important variable, many people are still focused on the short-term fluctuations.

No, let's nitpick. Your statement: "if any of these are red then you ll not lose anything"

That is not true.

You then tried to prove it by saying: "When you move towards more junk food, glycogen gets repleted. Each molecule of glycogen carries 3 molecules of water."

Implying that you won't lose anything because of water retention.

What I said was NEVER inaccurate. What you said is still wrong.

If you want to nitpick, I suggest getting who said what straight before firing off. Just a friendly hint when you decide to try and win Internets.

And your implication about my statement pertaining to glycogen and water is inaccurate. I was not implying that you won't lose anything. My implication was that water weight can and often does mask tissue loss in acute time frames and that since so many around here still focus on the short-term fluctuations in weight, which are mostly due to water flux, we should be more careful with our words when we say things like what you said.

What you said was inaccurate. Well, I'll be nice. We can say it was incomplete. You said:

"Water retention is not the same as weight gain."

If you retain more water, seeing as how water weighs something, it actually does equate to weight gain.

Later on in the conversation you refined (read: changed) your statement to say:

"it does not lead to actual permanent weight gain. "

That I can agree with. And you really should have left it at that.

LilLolo22

Sure, but calorie-dense foods tend to have a lot of sugar and very little in the way of protein and will cause your blood sugar to spike, then plummet. You will be hungry again very shortly after eating that. So, as someone said, could you eat 1700 calories a day in jelly donuts and still lose weight? The answer is yes, assuming that's below your BMR, but you'd probably still be hungry during the day and would feel like crap.

You're better off eating less calorie-dense foods (fruits, veggies) and more protein- and fiber-rich foods that will keep you fuller, longer and generally make you feel good by providing necessary vitamins and minerals.

Admittedly when I started logging on MFP almost a year and a half ago, I ate pretty much whatever I wanted in moderation. As an example, I relied on 100-calorie packs of Cheez-Its, etc., for snacks. I did lose weight, but now I can't even imagine eating one of those packs. I eat Greek yogurt and/or fruit for snacks. Maybe it's because I work out regularly and need proper fuel, but for whatever reason I actually crave "good" foods. I will "cheat," though, so long as it's reasonable and a once-in-a-blue-moon thing, like a birthday. I mean, you have to live your life!

^^This is what happened to me too!

korygilliam

I have only been traking my food intake for a few days, but once I push the complete button it says I will gain weight if I continue to eat the way I did for that day. I am within the calories, fat, protein etc that the program said I could have. What up with that?? :sad:

I can't see your diary, but it sounds like you are going over your net calories for the day. You should have a few calories left over (not be red) after counting exercise (if any). The number isn't an exact science anyways, but it should be pointing in the right direction...