It is NOT that simple.

brower47

If quality food was the only relevant factor, and processed "junk" foods are the true cause of obesity, then how is it possible that any of our ancient predecessors ever became obese? They didn't have candy bars, boxed meals, fast food, etc. They ate what they could hunt, grow and produce for themselves. Yet some of them were still overweight...

Only the rich ones, honey. The rest of the folks were very fortunate to get three squares a day and were engaged in heavy manual labor for their rich, fat overlords. That is why "corpulence" was a status symbol among the wealthy and wannabes.

Now it is completely reversed--obesity is a sign of poverty and being slim and trim is the province of those better off.

Only a sign of relative poverty, some of the time, since plenty of rich folks are fat. I'd say starvation is still a sign of poverty in most parts of the world outside of first world nations.

redraidergirl2009

i agree with you. I lost weight at 1200 calories but I was still fat, like I still had the same fat distribution. Then I started eating more, but it was healthy mostly whole food and I lost weight slower, but my composition was different. I lost far more belly fat that way.

Sarauk2sf

I apologize if this has already been discussed, I may have missed it, but if you were eating such low calories for such a long time while being at that weight and maintaining, why did you not go and see a doctor? I know I would have.

I did see a doctor when I was about 1600 or so... They told me to eat less because "it's basic math". When I still was not seeing any loss after starting a workout regimen 2-3x/wk, I cut back even more until I got to 1100. When I still had not seen any loss, I found a trainer, who then told me to eat more and added one day (with her) to my workouts. When I got up to 1800 and ate less processed food, I lost 60lb in 5 mos. Yes, I did work out a little more, but it wasn't very significant, as I only added one day. One day wouldn't have made that significant of a difference, being only 500 or so more cals burned in a week, so I do attribute the bulk of my weight-loss to the change in diet.

And clearly I was starving myself, but again... although that was the example I provided, was not the whole point.

You say you were at 1100 for a year? Or did I misunderstand that? When you were not losing at that level did you not go back to the doctor and ask them to tests? PCOS, thyroid?

Not trying to interrogate here - just trying to understand.

I worked my way down to 1100, but my starting point was still under my TDEE (found that out later, actually, but still true). I think I was around 1600 when I started (if I'm remembering correctly), and then kept cutting down more and more until I remained at 1100 for about 8 months. When I hadn't lost after 8 mos of being 1100 (net, after workouts, which I never ate back), I sought a trainer, who told me to eat more.

The doctor was the one who told me to cut down, and that it was basic math, and if I just cut down enough, it would come off.

And there WERE underlying factors, which is exactly my point. That yes, I was starving myself and that clearly wasn't going to work in my favor, but also the oversimplification from the doctor did not account for the possibility of any other problems. I went to multiple doctors who all assumed that since I was overweight, I must eat too much. They saw the weight as the cause, not the symptom, of something larger. And so when people on here oversimplify and INSIST that if someone isn't losing on CI/CO that they are doing it wrong, lying, or ignorant... they completely ignore the possibility that there are other things going on that may make it difficult (or impossible) to lose weight. To them, there seems to be no other possibilities or other means to lose weight. They seem to assume that there is nothing more to it--that everyone's metabolism is exactly the same. But certain foods can cause inflammation, water retention, hormonal imbalances, gut disturbances, malnutrition, and even autoimmune reactions. But none of that is mentioned--it's just "You're wrong", "You're lying", "You don't understand science", "You just don't get it", etc. It's rude and ignorant to take that stance.

In defense of a lot of people, I see a lot of threads that ask whether someone has been tested for something that would cause metabolic issues such as thyroid problems and PCOS when they post that they have not been losing weight. Were you ever diagnosed with something along those lines?

riboid

I think you have hit the nail on the head. I have dropped down to roughly 1200 calories a day and only lost 2kg in a 3 week period nearly. My weight seems to have levelled out at this, which I find strange.
I am not hungry and usually eating well, ensuring lots of veggies but I have picked up on my fruit intake though.
Stick with it, you are doing well.

Sarauk2sf

I think you have hit the nail on the head. I have dropped down to roughly 1200 calories a day and only lost 2kg in a 3 week period nearly. My weight seems to have levelled out at this, which I find strange.
I am not hungry and usually eating well, ensuring lots of veggies but I have picked up on my fruit intake though.
Stick with it, you are doing well.

You have lost 7lb in 3 weeks - that is a perfectly acceptable rate. The leveling off is because the first week or two, the majority of the loss is water weight. That being said, 1,200 is way too low for you.

NRSPAM

I think that it is just upsetting to people trying to lose weight, when people are always saying CI/CO, and so they keep cutting down calories, more and more, until they're just starving themselves.

...and that's the problem. We're trying to help the OP understand that in order for the body to burn calories, it needs to have fuel to do so. If you don't amply fuel the body, it won't burn and lose. Eating less isn't necessarily the answer in a straight-forward sense. It is, however, burning more than you consume.

It is CI/CO, effectively. It is more complex in the sense of figuring out what number an individual needs to be at, but it isn't "everyone is a special unique snowflake" complex.

Yes, but another thing, that I said earlier, is that when you hit a plateau, you need to also increase your CI, gain 1-2 lb's, and lose again, and repeat. That gets the body burning again, which again, is more complex than CI/CO. I think she is just saying that there is more to it than the general in/out. But like I said, In vs out is the basics of it, yes, but then there's all the other stuff that people would benefit from knowing.

sarahmonsta

There is such a thing as a "skinny fat" person--who may not be "obese" but is still extremely unhealthy.

I really hate this term and think it needs to stop. It's used way too much to shame otherwise healthy women who just happen to not be muscular. I don't believe you have to be muscular in order to be healthy.

I agree.

rm7161

I think that it is just upsetting to people trying to lose weight, when people are always saying CI/CO, and so they keep cutting down calories, more and more, until they're just starving themselves.

...and that's the problem. We're trying to help the OP understand that in order for the body to burn calories, it needs to have fuel to do so. If you don't amply fuel the body, it won't burn and lose. Eating less isn't necessarily the answer in a straight-forward sense. It is, however, burning more than you consume.

It is CI/CO, effectively. It is more complex in the sense of figuring out what number an individual needs to be at, but it isn't "everyone is a special unique snowflake" complex.

Yes, but another thing, that I said earlier, is that when you hit a plateau, you need to also increase your CI, gain 1-2 lb's, and lose again, and repeat. That gets the body burning again, which again, is more complex than CI/CO. I think she is just saying that there is more to it than the general in/out. But like I said, In vs out is the basics of it, yes, but then there's all the other stuff that people would benefit from knowing.

I have yet to hit a plateau. Every time my weight has stayed the same or gone up a little, it was obvious it was either an increase in food intake (easily explained by holiday meal) or water retention due to my time of month, which is gone a week later. So all I do is just keep doing what I am doing and not sweat a stall on the scale too much when the tape measure is still getting smaller.

NRSPAM

But none of that is mentioned--it's just "You're wrong", "You're lying", "You don't understand science", "You just don't get it", etc. It's rude and ignorant to take that stance.

...and that's all in these threads that you can't seem to come across again... so you're casting a "you're rude and ignorant to take any stance that doesn't cater to my needs" blanket over us.

If you dealt with inept medical professionals and they couldn't figure it out, why would you think a random forum of strangers on the internet would have better advice for free?


Good luck with your loss. Glad to see you've finally got it all figured out. I can't keep chasing my tail in this thread.

Wow, way to totally twist everything I've said to this point. And since you repeatedly do that each and every time you respond, I don't see the point in actually addressing what you've said, other than to say, "Thanks for proving my point."

Girl, just give up! Run away from this thread!!! Lolol...some people just like starting crap, and getting people P'd off. I guess it's fun for them! I'm with you, I think I know where you're coming from, but there's no use in repeating yourself over, and over, if people are just going to get all defensive about it. I'm going to hit the treadmill and run away from this thread....and most of the other ones tonight! Don't worry, be happy!!! :laugh:

Aviva92

My goodness!!! Where's the love folks???? I think the OP was not meant to be rude, and I didn't see it as being such. I think that it is just upsetting to people trying to lose weight, when people are always saying CI/CO, and so they keep cutting down calories, more and more, until they're just starving themselves! I've been there! I know what it felt like! Not good! Nobody wants to go through the torture of starving themselves, just to come up short! It's very discouraging, and eventually, the person will give up. While it is, on one hand, basically CI/CO, it CAN be more complex, like she is trying to say! She's not cutting down MFP, she's just telling people that it is not ALWAYS that simple. I think that we all need to be supporting each other!!! Weight loss is a hard enough thing to do, let alone all the crap we have to deal with just with life, in general. Can't we all just get along!!!

yeah, i thought the op was perfectly polite and her views made sense, but then people were extremely rude to her because they disagreed with her opinion. seems to be the way this forum works a lot of the time.

Aviva92

I have seen so many people here quote the "calories in, calories out" mantra it's ridiculous.

If that is true, please explain how I could be my heaviest while consuming only 1100 cals a day, and "suddenly" lost 60 lbs when I changed my diet to 1600-1800 cals of whole foods. It was the QUALITY of food that changed my health, not the QUANTITY. Not only that, but for overall HEALTH AND WELLNESS, there needs to be much more to it than simply BMI or BF%. There is such a thing as a "skinny fat" person--who may not be "obese" but is still extremely unhealthy. There are thin people who eat 2500 cals/day and obese people who eat 1000 cals/day.

It is absolutely NOT as simple as cals in, cals out. It's much more complicated. Our bodies are so much more complex than that. I can't tell you how many times docs told me I should simply eat less to lose weight. Which is how I got down to 1100 cals/day... and 235lb. I met a trainer who told me to EAT, but to eat WELL, and SURPRISE!!! I lost weight. Go figure. Now, two children later, I'm trying to lose a little more. Not at my heaviest, by far, and even 10lb under what I weighed at high school graduation... but still not where I want to be. Point being, I have SEEN FOR MYSELF what "lower cals" can do, and what "more cals" can do. And I am here to tell you that QUALITY IS WAY MORE IMPORTANT THAN QUANTITY. You cannot be healthy when you eat fewer cals but all processed food; and you can be healthy by eating more cals of whole foods.

Please stop perpetuating this lie. It's just not that simple.

Um, stop overgeneralizing based on your own personal experiences. For some people it is that simple - for others, it's not.

pretty sure she was trying to tell other people to stop overgeneralizing. that was the entire point of her post and you missed it.

Aviva92

Sure a person can be skinny fat... Triglycerides through the roof, hypercholesterolemia, poor HDL/LDL ratio, hypertension. Unless someone is morbidly obese or seriously underweight you cant tell the health of person by the scale. Jeeshers!

then why not just call them unhealthy? the term skinny fat tends to be used for people who don't have muscle. you would have no clue just based on looking at them what those numbers even are. that is why i don't like that term.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

This is basically what my endocrinologist has stated too.

What Dr. Lustig says about sugar, was pretty much said by my cardiologist about a decade ago. Not much new there, I just wasn't ready to listen.

I still think he is trying to sell a book and sensationalising it more than necessary, giving some people the wrong impression that they don't have to exercise (wrong) and they don't have to count calories (also wrong). But overall, he is right about how different sugars metabolise and it is advice well heeded.

I know quite a few people that don't count calories. My personal endocrinologist stated that calorie counting is worthless because people think it is counted in absolutes and it is just estimations, my Endo also stated that we should learn to eat intuitively.

angelams1019

There is such a thing as a "skinny fat" person--who may not be "obese" but is still extremely unhealthy.

I really hate this term and think it needs to stop. It's used way too much to shame otherwise healthy women who just happen to not be muscular. I don't believe you have to be muscular in order to be healthy.

There is nothing wrong with that term. It doesn't exist to say that thinner people with no muscle tone are "skinny fat" people. Its saying that there are thinner people that have awful diets and treat their body terribly but don't necessarily gain a ton of weight and look completely health on the outside but have the same health issues on the inside as someone that is significantly overweight.

Don't worry hun, no one is trying to shame you.

binknbaby

I apologize if this has already been discussed, I may have missed it, but if you were eating such low calories for such a long time while being at that weight and maintaining, why did you not go and see a doctor? I know I would have.

I did see a doctor when I was about 1600 or so... They told me to eat less because "it's basic math". When I still was not seeing any loss after starting a workout regimen 2-3x/wk, I cut back even more until I got to 1100. When I still had not seen any loss, I found a trainer, who then told me to eat more and added one day (with her) to my workouts. When I got up to 1800 and ate less processed food, I lost 60lb in 5 mos. Yes, I did work out a little more, but it wasn't very significant, as I only added one day. One day wouldn't have made that significant of a difference, being only 500 or so more cals burned in a week, so I do attribute the bulk of my weight-loss to the change in diet.

And clearly I was starving myself, but again... although that was the example I provided, was not the whole point.

You say you were at 1100 for a year? Or did I misunderstand that? When you were not losing at that level did you not go back to the doctor and ask them to tests? PCOS, thyroid?

Not trying to interrogate here - just trying to understand.

I worked my way down to 1100, but my starting point was still under my TDEE (found that out later, actually, but still true). I think I was around 1600 when I started (if I'm remembering correctly), and then kept cutting down more and more until I remained at 1100 for about 8 months. When I hadn't lost after 8 mos of being 1100 (net, after workouts, which I never ate back), I sought a trainer, who told me to eat more.

The doctor was the one who told me to cut down, and that it was basic math, and if I just cut down enough, it would come off.

And there WERE underlying factors, which is exactly my point. That yes, I was starving myself and that clearly wasn't going to work in my favor, but also the oversimplification from the doctor did not account for the possibility of any other problems. I went to multiple doctors who all assumed that since I was overweight, I must eat too much. They saw the weight as the cause, not the symptom, of something larger. And so when people on here oversimplify and INSIST that if someone isn't losing on CI/CO that they are doing it wrong, lying, or ignorant... they completely ignore the possibility that there are other things going on that may make it difficult (or impossible) to lose weight. To them, there seems to be no other possibilities or other means to lose weight. They seem to assume that there is nothing more to it--that everyone's metabolism is exactly the same. But certain foods can cause inflammation, water retention, hormonal imbalances, gut disturbances, malnutrition, and even autoimmune reactions. But none of that is mentioned--it's just "You're wrong", "You're lying", "You don't understand science", "You just don't get it", etc. It's rude and ignorant to take that stance.

In defense of a lot of people, I see a lot of threads that ask whether someone has been tested for something that would cause metabolic issues such as thyroid problems and PCOS when they post that they have not been losing weight. Were you ever diagnosed with something along those lines?

Yes, as I said, it's not everyone--just some who are rather vehement about it, and tend to be condescending to anyone who offers a differing viewpoint.

After nearly 20 years of various symptoms, half a dozen doctors, and nothing more than "Eat less to lose the weight", I did finally receive a diagnosis of PCOS (including the accompanying hypoglycemia), and later, of Hashimoto's Thyroiditis, which is a form of hypothyroidism that is primarily triggered by gluten. So by following the doc's advice of simply eating less, and by following mainstream dieting (counting calories, but keeping "whole grains" as a major part of my diet), I did myself no favors. By oversimplifying and assuming that I simply needed to cut calories, it pushed me into a dangerous mode of malnutrition. By altering my diet to whole foods, my hormones became level again, my neurological health was improved (suffered from depression and was able to defeat that with increased natural fat intake), my digestion was much improved--even better once I cut out gluten, which I did not initially do when I lost the first 60 lbs--and I even had better skin, hair, nails, and teeth. Overall, I'm healthier, despite still having a few more pounds I'd like to shave off. The "final fifteen", if you will. But that process taught me that not only is it just plain incorrect to oversimplify weight loss with such broad statements, but it can also be dangerous if taken too strictly/literally.

serenapitala

Awww all those special snow flakes are so pretty!

Thanks for the "special snow flakes" comment. I was really trying to figure out what the h*** that gif had to do with anything. :-P

rm7161

This is basically what my endocrinologist has stated too.

What Dr. Lustig says about sugar, was pretty much said by my cardiologist about a decade ago. Not much new there, I just wasn't ready to listen.

I still think he is trying to sell a book and sensationalising it more than necessary, giving some people the wrong impression that they don't have to exercise (wrong) and they don't have to count calories (also wrong). But overall, he is right about how different sugars metabolise and it is advice well heeded.

I know quite a few people that don't count calories. My personal endocrinologist stated that calorie counting is worthless because people think it is counted in absolutes and it is just estimations, my Endo also stated that we should learn to eat intuitively.

I am aware it is an estimation, but it is an estimation that generally works, and I link it to my use of a food scale to exercise portion control, which after a while teaches you the intuitive skills that you are probably lacking (I certainly was lacking them). My "intuitive skills" for portion control are crap without measuring it out beforehand. Snacking is where I go wrong and measuring it out keeps me from uncontrolled snacking.

As I said in a previous post, I made up all kinds of excuses, I won't accept this as an excuse either. No portion control means I would have never gotten a handle on my snacking. I watch more than just calories, I maintain ratios of protein vs. carbohydrate and fats in my diet as well, as well as a particular amount of fiber intake.

tbkurtz

OP: You are either not including, or are unaware of the entire situation. If you had only 1100 or so calories a day for a year straight, you would be nothing but bones. The science behind it is solid.

To Everyone Else: It really ISN'T as simple as calories in, calories out in the context of the original post. In literal times, yes, it is correct, but for a person who hasn't studied human physiology the myriad of variables that go into the "calories out" portion is to much to take in. Lay off the OP- bottom line here is that she is posting that she had more success with eating more calories. I have my theories as to why she didn't lose weight with less calories, but because I'm not an evil forum troll and have basic human compassion I don't feel compelled to attack her.

::rolleyes::

Sarauk2sf

I apologize if this has already been discussed, I may have missed it, but if you were eating such low calories for such a long time while being at that weight and maintaining, why did you not go and see a doctor? I know I would have.

I did see a doctor when I was about 1600 or so... They told me to eat less because "it's basic math". When I still was not seeing any loss after starting a workout regimen 2-3x/wk, I cut back even more until I got to 1100. When I still had not seen any loss, I found a trainer, who then told me to eat more and added one day (with her) to my workouts. When I got up to 1800 and ate less processed food, I lost 60lb in 5 mos. Yes, I did work out a little more, but it wasn't very significant, as I only added one day. One day wouldn't have made that significant of a difference, being only 500 or so more cals burned in a week, so I do attribute the bulk of my weight-loss to the change in diet.

And clearly I was starving myself, but again... although that was the example I provided, was not the whole point.

You say you were at 1100 for a year? Or did I misunderstand that? When you were not losing at that level did you not go back to the doctor and ask them to tests? PCOS, thyroid?

Not trying to interrogate here - just trying to understand.

I worked my way down to 1100, but my starting point was still under my TDEE (found that out later, actually, but still true). I think I was around 1600 when I started (if I'm remembering correctly), and then kept cutting down more and more until I remained at 1100 for about 8 months. When I hadn't lost after 8 mos of being 1100 (net, after workouts, which I never ate back), I sought a trainer, who told me to eat more.

The doctor was the one who told me to cut down, and that it was basic math, and if I just cut down enough, it would come off.

And there WERE underlying factors, which is exactly my point. That yes, I was starving myself and that clearly wasn't going to work in my favor, but also the oversimplification from the doctor did not account for the possibility of any other problems. I went to multiple doctors who all assumed that since I was overweight, I must eat too much. They saw the weight as the cause, not the symptom, of something larger. And so when people on here oversimplify and INSIST that if someone isn't losing on CI/CO that they are doing it wrong, lying, or ignorant... they completely ignore the possibility that there are other things going on that may make it difficult (or impossible) to lose weight. To them, there seems to be no other possibilities or other means to lose weight. They seem to assume that there is nothing more to it--that everyone's metabolism is exactly the same. But certain foods can cause inflammation, water retention, hormonal imbalances, gut disturbances, malnutrition, and even autoimmune reactions. But none of that is mentioned--it's just "You're wrong", "You're lying", "You don't understand science", "You just don't get it", etc. It's rude and ignorant to take that stance.

In defense of a lot of people, I see a lot of threads that ask whether someone has been tested for something that would cause metabolic issues such as thyroid problems and PCOS when they post that they have not been losing weight. Were you ever diagnosed with something along those lines?

Yes, as I said, it's not everyone--just some who are rather vehement about it, and tend to be condescending to anyone who offers a differing viewpoint.

After nearly 20 years of various symptoms, half a dozen doctors, and nothing more than "Eat less to lose the weight", I did finally receive a diagnosis of PCOS (including the accompanying hypoglycemia), and later, of Hashimoto's Thyroiditis, which is a form of hypothyroidism that is primarily triggered by gluten. So by following the doc's advice of simply eating less, and by following mainstream dieting (counting calories, but keeping "whole grains" as a major part of my diet), I did myself no favors. By oversimplifying and assuming that I simply needed to cut calories, it pushed me into a dangerous mode of malnutrition. By altering my diet to whole foods, my hormones became level again, my neurological health was improved (suffered from depression and was able to defeat that with increased natural fat intake), my digestion was much improved--even better once I cut out gluten, which I did not initially do when I lost the first 60 lbs--and I even had better skin, hair, nails, and teeth. Overall, I'm healthier, despite still having a few more pounds I'd like to shave off. The "final fifteen", if you will. But that process taught me that not only is it just plain incorrect to oversimplify weight loss with such broad statements, but it can also be dangerous if taken too strictly/literally.

Did you find that by cutting out processed foods you decreased your carb intake?

determinedbutlazy

I made it four pages into this thread before I rage quit.