It is NOT that simple.

rockangel8907

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.

This. All of it. Sit back and be teachable.

AnnaE

It's BOTH.
When you eat healthy, and clean, and don't eat processed foods, and make sure the bulk of your nutrition comes from vegetables, good fats, lean protein and minimal grains, it's actually quite HARD to eat excess calories! You get up to about 1600 a day and you feel full all the time (or at least I do).
I am at about 1300 calories a day: I watch my macros , make sure my protein is lean (and preferably white), minimize my carb intake, and get my 5 serves of veggies and 2 serves of fruit.
I am "eating properly" but I am also in a calorie deficit. And I am losing weight.
Now I will give you I have never been in the obese weight range so I do not have to battle with a body that has diabetes or is insulin resistant or in any other way actively fights the weight loss effort, but still, calorie deficit is working for me and many others.
I confess I haven't read ALL the pages, but in the first few I couldn't see anywhere how many calories the trainer actually told you to eat, only that is was more then the 1100.
I'd be prepared to bet good money that when you switched to a better diet, even though you were eating "more" calories, you were still eating at a deficit. You just weren't noticing it as much because your "felt" full, due to the better quality and bulk of what you were putting in your mouth.

jkestens63

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.

Just as it is rude and pretentious to tell those of us who follow ci/co and don't care about macronutrients that we are wrong, it doesn't work, etc.

Bottom line, you can sing whatever diet song you want... there's no one size fits all plan... no need to get pissed off and snotty because you don't like what others are singing. Which is how your first post came across.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

How long did you consume 1100 cals per day for and do you still have those tracking records?

Roughly a year, possibly more. But it was mostly processed foods--just smaller quantities.

Weightloss is magic

what makes you think you were overweight at 1100 calories a day?

Ummm... Being 235 lb. Am I understanding this question correctly? I was clinically obese and was only consuming 1100 cals a day. I increased my intake, but changed the quality of food, and lost 60 lb.

I think it is more likely you did not track properly

this. people with eating disorders will eat under 1200, way under, for months even and it shows. the weight just drops. yes, they are losing important muscle and body functions in the process, but i have such a hard time believing you ate 1100 calories for a year, and were at your heaviest. i have an ex-fat-girlfriend who would say just this and whine and ***** about it being fat because she 'ate' 'nothing'. lies!

How do you know she was lying? There are a lot of people in the world like this.

I am one of them. I have over eaten and also ate the recommended amount of calories specialists recommended. I have also under eaten.

If I don't eat the right foods I will gain weight, no matter what

dinosnopro

what I recommend is going out and do some looking around at other websites, not just this one . You will possibly gain more knowledge and come away with a different understanding.

No matter the medical condition , hormonal changes or what have you, it boils down to eating less than you burn.

So yes it is that simple.

EvaD12

It is simple math you just got the math wrong at the start and ate nowhere near enough so it didn't result in the change you wanted.

Having re-adjusted your math the CI/CO is working for you and its nice that your now eating better but it's still the deficit that counts. I could eat healthy all day and still not loose weight due to over-eating, the deficit is the important part.

Topher1978

It's BOTH.
When you eat healthy, and clean, and don't eat processed foods, and make sure the bulk of your nutrition comes from vegetables, good fats, lean protein and minimal grains, it's actually quite HARD to eat excess calories! You get up to about 1600 a day and you feel full all the time (or at least I do).
I am at about 1300 calories a day: I watch my macros , make sure my protein is lean (and preferably white), minimize my carb intake, and get my 5 serves of veggies and 2 serves of fruit.
I am "eating properly" but I am also in a calorie deficit. And I am losing weight.
Now I will give you I have never been in the obese weight range so I do not have to battle with a body that has diabetes or is insulin resistant or in any other way actively fights the weight loss effort, but still, calorie deficit is working for me and many others.
I confess I haven't read ALL the pages, but in the first few I couldn't see anywhere how many calories the trainer actually told you to eat, only that is was more then the 1100.
I'd be prepared to bet good money that when you switched to a better diet, even though you were eating "more" calories, you were still eating at a deficit. You just weren't noticing it as much because your "felt" full, due to the better quality and bulk of what you were putting in your mouth.

Yes, this is my experience. I am much more satiated with the foods I am now consuming. My mind is clearer, and I can feel the way specific foods make my body feel. I have always been pretty sensitive to the way my body reacts to certain foods. I can notice it even more when I am eating healthier.

970Mikaela1

That was exhausting.....

brower47

Actually I heard a doctor on NPR last week and he basically said that calories in and calories out is a fallacy. He advocated for eating whole foods, which is the basis of the whole clean eating movement. Below is the blurb from when he was on Talk of the Nation Science Friday:

In his new book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease, endocrinologist and obesity doc Robert Lustig deconstructs the mythology of fat. He says exercise, for all its benefits, won't help you shed pounds -- and that fasting only worsens weight gain.

He was also on the Diane Rehm show when a nutritionist called in saying that weight loss is all about calories in and calories out, he basically tore her a new one.

On NPR, pushing a book (not a study) and advocating "clean eating", doesn't sound biased at all.

terijoestoes

You are so right about eating under the amount your body needs to stay alive. Doesn't work. And the quality of food is the key. Stack to it girl

PaleoPath4Lyfe

Actually I heard a doctor on NPR last week and he basically said that calories in and calories out is a fallacy. He advocated for eating whole foods, which is the basis of the whole clean eating movement. Below is the blurb from when he was on Talk of the Nation Science Friday:

In his new book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease, endocrinologist and obesity doc Robert Lustig deconstructs the mythology of fat. He says exercise, for all its benefits, won't help you shed pounds -- and that fasting only worsens weight gain.

He was also on the Diane Rehm show when a nutritionist called in saying that weight loss is all about calories in and calories out, he basically tore her a new one.

This is basically what my endocrinologist has stated too.

andyisandy

You are so right about eating under the amount your body needs to stay alive. Doesn't work. And the quality of food is the key. Stack to it girl

quality of food (i assume you are talking about marcos) helps your body look but when it comes to weight loss its cals in and out.

brower47

Ok, it's simple. Calories in / calories out
.
.
.
with some exceptions: starvation, metabolic disorders.

Still quite simple. Especially for most of the folks on here that understand that basic concept (with its exceptions).

HaleyxErin

You weren't losing because your body was grabbing every calorie it could with a death grip 1100 isn't enough 1200 is the bare minimum you should eat but yes nutrients are far more important than calories nutrients=health

binknbaby

Oh my gosh! To the dozen or so people who just responded with the same thing...

I never said that it was totally wrong! I never said that it never works!

I said that sometimes there is MORE to weight loss than simply CI/CO. It's not that it is "wrong", but that it's INCOMPLETE.

Yes, it works on a basic level. But if oversimplified to the extreme, you get people like I was 5 years ago, who starve themselves. Or when other factors are ignored (low-quality food causing water retention, inflammation, blockages, etc), it can be irrelevant, because those other factors are holding it up.

THAT is what I mean. That the oversimplification is the problem. I have a problem with how it is presented, not the idea itself. I have a problem with some of the people here who IGNORE the other factors, and tell others "No, you're just doing it wrong" instead of having an open mind and considering if maybe there are other factors (even undiagnosed medical issues). There is very little room for alternative reasons for why weight loss stalls, and very little empathy for those who are struggling through it. Our bodies are simple, but they are also very complex, and one unknown factor can stall normal functions. So yes, under normal conditions, if a person consumes less than they burn, they will lose weight. But sometimes that is taken to the extreme (and people starve themselves), or it ignores all of the other things that could be going on which contribute to weight gain and stalling.

My example in the OP was not to say that it wasn't true, but that it wasn't that SIMPLE. That if it were that SIMPLE, then starvation diets would work. But clearly our bodies are more complex than "basic math", and do have certain requirements for weight loss, which may be affected by any number of situations. But that is not to say that the "basics" aren't *true*, only that they are one piece of a more complicated puzzle.

trogalicious

It can be that simple, but if you start with the wrong numbers... math isn't going to make sense. I posted a reply a page back or so comparing the entire thing to an engine. Roll back and take a look.

rm7161

That if it were that SIMPLE, then starvation diets would work.

Actually, they do result in weight loss, and eventually end in death if they do not end. Certainly not healthy. Most people will not hold to an actual starvation diet unless they have an eating disorder, or do it for other reasons (hunger strike/fasting, starving due to lack of food resources, etc).

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.

NRSPAM

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!!!

NRSPAM

That if it were that SIMPLE, then starvation diets would work.

Actually, they do result in weight loss, and eventually end in death if they do not end. Certainly not healthy. Most people will not hold to an actual starvation diet unless they have an eating disorder, or do it for other reasons (hunger strike/fasting, starving due to lack of food resources, etc).

Yes, eventually, when even what the body holds on to, is not even enough to sustain life, although, most of us are food junkies, and are not capable of starving ourselves to that point, willingly.