It is NOT that simple.

pastryari

You are terribly rude and completely misinformed. There is such a thing as not eating enough. That's where YOU effed up the calories in calories out equation. It's a different ball game when you're starving your body. You are not a special snowflake. Please stop spreading incorrect information.

Oy vey. Seriously reading way more into my post. Read my last one.

Admittedly I was frustrated after seeing about 3 posts in a row when someone had posted useful information on metabolism, whole foods, and stalling, and about a dozen people jumped on them and shouted "calories in calories out!", as if that should be the end of the discussion. So I may not have clarified as well as I should have in the first post. Obviously I was starving myself, and obviously that was stalling me, but while I used that as an example of why it's not that SIMPLE (being the key word here), that wasn't the whole of my stance/argument. My point with that example was that if the oversimplification of that equation were true, then I would have lost weight, because I was eating fewer calories than I was using. And multiple people on here who are disagreeing with me, are actually agreeing with me, by pointing out that there is a point where it becomes unhealthy. But they are still missing the point by ignoring the word "SIMPLE". My point is not that is is untrue, but that it's not as easy as 4-1=3, but that there are multiple factors to consider, such as macros, getting enough cals to stay healthy, quality of food (making sure it can actually be used by the body), and individual metabolism. My point (again) was not that it was completely false, but that it wasn't the complete picture, and the oversimplification is condescending to those who say otherwise.

Would you mind posting links of these threads you're talking about?

binknbaby

You are terribly rude and completely misinformed. There is such a thing as not eating enough. That's where YOU effed up the calories in calories out equation. It's a different ball game when you're starving your body. You are not a special snowflake. Please stop spreading incorrect information.

Oy vey. Seriously reading way more into my post. Read my last one.

Admittedly I was frustrated after seeing about 3 posts in a row when someone had posted useful information on metabolism, whole foods, and stalling, and about a dozen people jumped on them and shouted "calories in calories out!", as if that should be the end of the discussion. So I may not have clarified as well as I should have in the first post. Obviously I was starving myself, and obviously that was stalling me, but while I used that as an example of why it's not that SIMPLE (being the key word here), that wasn't the whole of my stance/argument. My point with that example was that if the oversimplification of that equation were true, then I would have lost weight, because I was eating fewer calories than I was using. And multiple people on here who are disagreeing with me, are actually agreeing with me, by pointing out that there is a point where it becomes unhealthy. But they are still missing the point by ignoring the word "SIMPLE". My point is not that is is untrue, but that it's not as easy as 4-1=3, but that there are multiple factors to consider, such as macros, getting enough cals to stay healthy, quality of food (making sure it can actually be used by the body), and individual metabolism. My point (again) was not that it was completely false, but that it wasn't the complete picture, and the oversimplification is condescending to those who say otherwise.

Would you mind posting links of these threads you're talking about?

I honestly didn't stay on them long and not sure I can find them again, but one was sharing an article about why someone may not be losing weight, another one was about processed sugar vs natural sugar, and I think the other one was the paleo/GF one. There might have been one more that I perused briefly but didn't comment on after seeing too many people shouting CI/CO. LOL

chubbygirl253

As per the usual in the forums, sometimes it is the tone in which something is conveyed that causes negative or condescending reactions and responses. When one approaches a subject in anger, or with an air of superiority or irritation towards a certain group (who by the way are in majority on this site), one cannot expect to have a civilized discussion.

This of course is just MY opinion, one that will be lost amid the responses of NUH UH! and hilarious gifs.

This exactly! Instead of being angry and bitter and calling calories in vs. out bunk, perhaps one should look at the reasons why it works for so many yet, didnt work for you. It sounds like a classic case of eating too few calories restricting weightloss if you were truly living on 1100 for over a year. Your body needs more than that. By upping your calories (clean eating or not) you rectified that and lost weight. I think that speaks more to the credit of eating more to lose more rather than clean eating, but you can credit what you want. No need to condemn the calories in/out method that works for so many. Others suggested your tracking was off. Maybe. Maybe your commitment level changed. I'm just saying, it could be several things that contributed to failure in the past and success this time. Your message isn't well-received because you angrily get up on your soapbox and act like it was calories in/out that kept you overweight through no fault of your own. It just doesn't sound likely or credible you stuck to 1100 calories for a year and saw no loss. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. And if you dont like people getting defensive and calling your methods and results into question, careful how you approach the forums. The royal highness of dieting doesn't do it for most of us, particularly those of us having success doing the very thing you condemn.

Topher1978

Anyways, I am glad you are eating higher quality food.

binknbaby

As per the usual in the forums, sometimes it is the tone in which something is conveyed that causes negative or condescending reactions and responses. When one approaches a subject in anger, or with an air of superiority or irritation towards a certain group (who by the way are in majority on this site), one cannot expect to have a civilized discussion.

This of course is just MY opinion, one that will be lost amid the responses of NUH UH! and hilarious gifs.

This exactly! Instead of being angry and bitter and calling calories in vs. out bunk, perhaps one should look at the reasons why it works for so many yet, didnt work for you. It sounds like a classic case of eating too few calories restricting weightloss if you were truly living on 1100 for over a year. Your body needs more than that. By upping your calories (clean eating or not) you rectified that and lost weight. I think that speaks more to the credit of eating more to lose more rather than clean eating, but you can credit what you want. No need to condemn the calories in/out method that works for so many. Others suggested your tracking was off. Maybe. Maybe your commitment level changed. I'm just saying, it could be several things that contributed to failure in the past and success this time. Your message isn't well-received because you angrily get up on your soapbox and act like it was calories in/out that kept you overweight through no fault of your own. It just doesn't sound likely or credible you stuck to 1100 calories for a year and saw no loss. I'm sorry, but it doesn't. And if you dont like people getting defensive and calling your methods and results into question, careful how you approach the forums. The royal highness of dieting doesn't do it for most of us, particularly those of us having success doing the very thing you condemn.

That wasn't my intention at all. I wasn't meaning to call it bunk, but to say that it's more than just 2-1=1. It's more than just CI/CO. That's the very most basic piece, but it isn't all of it, and by oversimplifying, it can be misunderstood and taken to the extreme. What's the title of this? That's it's not that *simple*. My entire point is not that it is wrong but that it's one part of a whole picture of health. And that true health (as in, disease free and living well) is achieved by eating healthy, since, as the old saying goes, you are what you eat. Literally. On a molecular level, the food you eat becomes your cells, so by eating processed junk, even if you lose weight, you may still have other health problems as a result of your diet. I wasn't trying to be "the royal highness of dieting", but merely pointing out that by oversimplifying, one can ostracize and degrade an entire group of people who, after trying CI/CO and not losing weight, will say, "Why bother?" and just give up for lack of support and a skewed perspective.

If someone is not losing weight in the conventional way (CI/CO), they should look into other possibilities of why their loss is stalled. But shouting "calories in calories out! it's so simple!" implies that the person seeking help or offering additional/alternative information is lying, ignorant, or "not doing it right".

BrettPGH

Would you mind posting links of these threads you're talking about?

I honestly didn't stay on them long and not sure I can find them again, but one was sharing an article about why someone may not be losing weight, another one was about processed sugar vs natural sugar, and I think the other one was the paleo/GF one. There might have been one more that I perused briefly but didn't comment on after seeing too many people shouting CI/CO. LOL

If you'll allow me just a minute.

I think I know what happened. Some threads are hotly debated (not really that hotly). Threads about paleo dieting, threads dealing with sugars or eating back exercise calories.. people feel differently on them and like to present their sides.

You saw some posters and assumed they spoke for everyone here. The posts you disagreed with are the ones that stuck out in your mind. That's what happens. You then took that to mean ALL of MFP feels a certain way.

We don't. We're all on different programs here, catered to what we're trying to achieve. There is no one way on this site.

But calorie counting is pretty much the one thing we have in common. It's a website and an app specifically for that. So most people are always going to be on the side of calorie counting, whatever their specific plan might be.

Maybe you were in a bad mood or having a lousy day, and those posts you didn't like stuck out to you. And you put the blame on the entire site for them.

You're going to read things you don't agree with here. Know that. The trick is to find what works best for you and focus on that.

You got mad at something you read on the internet. Congratulations. You're as bad as the rest of us. Welcome!

iomramh

The fact that you were only eating 1100 calories put your body into starvation mode. That was too far of a cut back for your body to handle. I'm glad you are eating more sensibly and that you have lost weight.

Cheers. :drinker:

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.

Barbellerella

binknbaby

Would you mind posting links of these threads you're talking about?

I honestly didn't stay on them long and not sure I can find them again, but one was sharing an article about why someone may not be losing weight, another one was about processed sugar vs natural sugar, and I think the other one was the paleo/GF one. There might have been one more that I perused briefly but didn't comment on after seeing too many people shouting CI/CO. LOL

If you'll allow me just a minute.

I think I know what happened. Some threads are hotly debated (not really that hotly). Threads about paleo dieting, threads dealing with sugars or eating back exercise calories.. people feel differently on them and like to present their sides.

You saw some posters and assumed they spoke for everyone here. The posts you disagreed with are the ones that stuck out in your mind. That's what happens. You then took that to mean ALL of MFP feels a certain way.

We don't. We're all on different programs here, catered to what we're trying to achieve. There is no one way on this site.

But calorie counting is pretty much the one thing we have in common. It's a website and an app specifically for that. So most people are always going to be on the side of calorie counting, whatever their specific plan might be.

Maybe you were in a bad mood or having a lousy day, and those posts you didn't like stuck out to you. And you put the blame on the entire site for them.

You're going to read things you don't agree with here. Know that. The trick is to find what works best for you and focus on that.

You got mad at something you read on the internet. Congratulations. You're as bad as the rest of us. Welcome!

I do get what you're saying but... when did I ever say it was "everyone"? I didn't. I said it was *some* people who oversimplify.

And personally, as far as using MFP works for me, I pay more attention to getting enough of my macros and tracking my nutrients, more than the calories. That's just my philosophy on food--that quality is more important than quantity--but I also understand the concept that, first of all, the body does need a specific number of units of energy to function, and that one must burn that energy to result in weight loss, but that also the caloric quantity can many times be an indicator of quality (ie, the small french fries has more calories than kale salad, and has far less nutritional value). But I also don't freak out if I go over, as long as I know that the foods I ate were of quality, of proper macro ratios for better metabolizing, and will be put to good use. So for me, it's not strictly about calorie counting--but also not strictly about weight loss. I'd rather be 150 and healthy than 120 and unhealthy. Now, if I can be 120 and healthy, I won't complain about that either... (lol) but I won't use an unhealthy means to accomplish 120.

But again... my point was not that the concept was wrong, merely that those who oversimplify it (and that's NOT everyone on MFP, as I've seen a good deal of explanations that were thorough and allowed for medical conditions, warned against starvation, and were very well-balanced) tend to be on the condescending side and that weight loss is not that simple for everyone. Sometimes it's more complicated, and to degrade someone else who says it is more complicated is rude and pretentious.

NRSPAM

You are terribly rude and completely misinformed. There is such a thing as not eating enough. That's where YOU effed up the calories in calories out equation. It's a different ball game when you're starving your body. You are not a special snowflake. Please stop spreading incorrect information.

Oy vey. Seriously reading way more into my post. Read my last one.

Admittedly I was frustrated after seeing about 3 posts in a row when someone had posted useful information on metabolism, whole foods, and stalling, and about a dozen people jumped on them and shouted "calories in calories out!", as if that should be the end of the discussion. So I may not have clarified as well as I should have in the first post. Obviously I was starving myself, and obviously that was stalling me, but while I used that as an example of why it's not that SIMPLE (being the key word here), that wasn't the whole of my stance/argument. My point with that example was that if the oversimplification of that equation were true, then I would have lost weight, because I was eating fewer calories than I was using. And multiple people on here who are disagreeing with me, are actually agreeing with me, by pointing out that there is a point where it becomes unhealthy. But they are still missing the point by ignoring the word "SIMPLE". My point is not that is is untrue, but that it's not as easy as 4-1=3, but that there are multiple factors to consider, such as macros, getting enough cals to stay healthy, quality of food (making sure it can actually be used by the body), and individual metabolism. My point (again) was not that it was completely false, but that it wasn't the complete picture, and the oversimplification is condescending to those who say otherwise.

the mfp forum is all about being condescending when people don't agree with you. lose the weight as you see fit and ignore the haters.

:happy: So true! I think there's too many hungry, cranky people on here today! Lol.

kennethmgreen

I am angry because there is an awful lot of shaming and pretentiousness coming from the cals-in/cals-out crowd who look down their noses at anyone who doesn't agree with their oversimplification of how weight loss works. Well, it doesn't work that way for everyone, and overall health is found in eating healthfully, which means a lot more than simply eating less. Otherwise anorexic people would be the epitome of health, no? It does make me angry that when someone posts something that might be useful to someone pursuing health, and when they post something that is different from the mainstream view of health/weight loss, then they get jumped on and called idiots because of course the answer is fewer cals... And that's not the whole picture. That's one tiny piece of the puzzle.

(my emphasis)
You do see where you are creating much of this argument on your own, right? When you say "weight loss" or "losing weight" that generally means the number on the scale is going down. One is literally losing weight. It does not measure overall health, except in the context of an arbitrary number corresponding to weight. In fact, the number - by itself - isn't an indicator of health at all. (200 lbs. can be healthy for some, unhealthy for others)

When you talk about overall health, that can include a lot of things - calories among them - like macros, nutrients, body fat %, body composition, etc. As long as you continue to use "weight loss" and "overall health" interchangeably, you will continue to get arguments. And probably be frustrated. The truth is, not all weight loss is healthy. And eating healthy foods does not equal weight loss. I think you know this, but are perhaps distracted by your own frustration.

Weight loss does boil down to a calorie deficit. And this is a calorie counting website. Healthy weight loss, overall health, etc. are broader topics. Good for you for promoting healthy eating. It will no doubt help some people, and you probably feel a lot better not eating so much processed stuff. But people can lose weight eating "unhealthy" stuff. Although your motivation for exclaiming "healthy eating is the way!" may be well-intended, I think it's important for people to realize that a calorie deficit works. Not because I want people to only eat cookies. But because I want people who are working on losing weight, and end up having some cookies, to not freak out because they had some cookies. In fact, for a LOT of people, planning around those cookies is what makes this whole thing work. Fitting the cookies within their calorie goals means enjoying some cookies guilt-free. That's a wonderful thing.

You probably have some good information to share with the community. There is lots to gain from healthy eating. You might consider your approach. If you want to come in swinging, by all means, that's your choice. But if you come looking for a fight on an Internet forum, the likelihood of finding yourself in one is pretty high.

Also, as any scientist can tell you (and I'm using the term "scientist" loosely - meaning 4th grade science should be enough), the best method of determining cause and effect is changing only one input across tests. If you maintained your caloric input, changed nothing else but the quality of food - no exercise change, no calorie change, no medication change, etc. - then you'd have a true experiment. And a great argument. Otherwise, you may end up focusing on one change, ignoring everything else. Great for forum debating and ranting. But not very scientific.

*Apologies to real scientists.

numsquat

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/you-are-not-different.html

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.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

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.

Exactly.....I have been to many doctors and specialists. It isn't as simple as CI/CO.

I can gain weight easy when eating the wrong foods. I lose weight easy when eating the right foods....

Quality over quantity any day

jofjltncb6

Really? You haven't seen the hundreds of people saying, "I'm at my goal weight but I'm unhappy with my body. I ate 1200 calories for two years... what happened?" I'd go so far as to say that the crazy statistic of people who end up regaining lost weight stems from a loss of muscle on prolonged VLCD.

i don't think it means they are skinny fat. it's because the ideal now has changed to be muscular and they want to be the ideal.

You are incessant...

...and annoying.

infamousmk

OP, you really seem like you just want to argue with everyone. There are a lot of VERY smart people here, trying to speak SCIENCE to you. If you don't understand it, that's okay -- I didn't get it at first either. But instead of b!tching to everyone about how I think I am way different than the way everyone says things worked, I befriended these smart motherfruckers and started asking questions with an open mind. You're new here, so I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you just don't realize the greatness that surrounds you, but it would be wise for you to chill the fruck out and try listening with your eyes (and hey, if you need to, do some research from medical journals [not guys that are hawking books on NPR]) and be amazed at the fabulousness you end up with.

Aviva92

Really? You haven't seen the hundreds of people saying, "I'm at my goal weight but I'm unhappy with my body. I ate 1200 calories for two years... what happened?" I'd go so far as to say that the crazy statistic of people who end up regaining lost weight stems from a loss of muscle on prolonged VLCD.

i don't think it means they are skinny fat. it's because the ideal now has changed to be muscular and they want to be the ideal.

You are incessant...

...and annoying.

that's a shame.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

Excellent...you ate more, and were able to lose the weight.

Where those calories came from is irrelevant, however.
You would have lost either way.

That is where your terribly wrong.

If I ate 1500 calories of processed foods, I will gain and gain and gain and be starving hungry. I can eat 1500 calories of fresh meats, vegetables, fats and fruits and lose weight.

rockangel8907

Truth is: doesn't matter what program a person is using in some way shape or form it boils down to calories in calories out. I couldn't lose weight if I was consuming 2700 a day but my bmr was at 1800, unless I did a **** ton of exercise. I could eat 2500 Cals of healthy clean food and gain if my bmr is lower than that and I was not doing any exercise to burn the extra Cals.