So exercising and eating right to lose weight is a hoax?

KenosFeoh

There is so much conflicting information out there; not all of it can be right. The program I'm working with now (Jamie Eason on BodyBuilding.com) teaches that you need muscle mass to burn fat, so the first stage is muscle building. When I talked about that here, the naysayers attacked.

Good luck to them and to me. The primary directive here on MFP (calories in/calories out) wasn't working for me.

How are muscle building and calories in/calories out conflicting?

The naysayers said (basically) that muscle building being necessary for fat burning is B.S. That's one conflict. Also Eason teaches that the quality of calories is of paramount importance because two items - example a slice of cheesecake vs a steak - can have the exact same calories but be metabolized very differently. So there's another conflict.

WinnerVictorious

What I meant is that it's nowhere as easy as people say. Spend more calories than you eat, for example... it's not accurate.

I'm eating 1300-1400ish calories a day (maybe a bit more if I underestimate some stuff), exercise for 40 minutes 6 times a week (and I sweat and I constantly have sore muscles), I'm 196lb for 5'5". If it was just eating right and exercising, I should lose consistently. But I'm not. Yes I lost a lot since I started, but I'm guessing cutting junk suddenly and starting to work out suddenly had something to do with it. I haven't lost anything in 2 weeks, if anything I've gained 1 lb.

But it's more complicated than that. Which is what my point was. Eating right (by that I mean cutting down processed foods, high fat and sugar foods pretty much) and exercising isn't always enough... Hence the 'hoax' thing.

i would say "Eating right (by that I mean cutting down processed foods, high fat and sugar foods pretty much)" is the part that is a hoax. i don't do that and won't do that and i'm down close to 90lbs so far.

weight loss is not always linear. you will have short periods where your scale doesn't move much, but that's not because your body is behaving different from everyone else. it's because water is used by a number of metabolic processes. you can be losing fat and gaining water weight, so that when you step on the scale, you don't see any change. when your body is ready to shed that water, it will and then in a short period of time, you'll see your weight drop those couple or few pounds that reflect the fact that stored fat has been burned.

the math may be simple, but your body's processes are not. so what you think you should be seeing reflected on the scale every day will not be. it's happening below the surface, but other processes are occurring as well, which affect your overall weight at any given time. stick with it... even if you're not seeing it right now, it's working.

WinnerVictorious

There is so much conflicting information out there; not all of it can be right. The program I'm working with now (Jamie Eason on BodyBuilding.com) teaches that you need muscle mass to burn fat, so the first stage is muscle building. When I talked about that here, the naysayers attacked.

Good luck to them and to me. The primary directive here on MFP (calories in/calories out) wasn't working for me.

How are muscle building and calories in/calories out conflicting?

The naysayers said (basically) that muscle building being necessary for fat burning is B.S. That's one conflict. Also Eason teaches that the quality of calories is of paramount importance because two items - example a slice of cheesecake vs a steak - can have the exact same calories but be metabolized very differently. So there's another conflict.

so do i have to regain the 90lbs or so that i've lost now, simply because i haven't been doing strength training to build muscle first, nor worrying one bit about the "quality" of the calories i've been eating?

i'd really not rather put on all that weight again and then restart in a different way just because this Eason fellow says so. :frown:

jonnythan

There is so much conflicting information out there; not all of it can be right. The program I'm working with now (Jamie Eason on BodyBuilding.com) teaches that you need muscle mass to burn fat, so the first stage is muscle building. When I talked about that here, the naysayers attacked.

Good luck to them and to me. The primary directive here on MFP (calories in/calories out) wasn't working for me.

How are muscle building and calories in/calories out conflicting?

The naysayers said (basically) that muscle building being necessary for fat burning is B.S. That's one conflict. Also Eason teaches that the quality of calories is of paramount importance because two items - example a slice of cheesecake vs a steak - can have the exact same calories but be metabolized very differently. So there's another conflict.

It is, really. A pound of muscle burns like 6-10 more calories per day than a pound of fat.

The cheesecake vs steak will be metabolised differently not because of calorie content, but because of macronutrient content. The steak is mostly protein while the cheesecake is mostly fat and carbs.

ihad

This is what a hoax looks like I guess:

Math rocks!

taiyola

My weight is up, but I'm down 1.5" the last month.

Do I care? No. Inches are better than weight.

rml_16

Yes I lost a lot since I started, but I'm guessing cutting junk suddenly and starting to work out suddenly had something to do with it. I haven't lost anything in 2 weeks, if anything I've gained 1 lb.

It's not a plateau until your weight doesn't change for 6 weeks. And if you haven't dropped your calories as you've lost weight, you're going to stop losing.

Two weeks is nothing. It's a hiccup. If you've lost "a lot" and it's only two weeks you're complaining about, you're never going to reach your goal because your expectations are too high.

Sqeekyjojo

I opened my diary. If all these "processed and fast foods are super unhealthy and the reason you aren't losing weight" people looked at it, they'd think I was on the verge of death and couldn't possibly lose weight that way. That's obviously nonsense.

You and me both.

Adding exercise and reducing the calorie dense stuff like carbs just makes it a bit easier and a bit more pleasant to obtain a deficit than existing purely on salt, fat, carb, sugar, meat, dairy, gluten and flavour free air pie and runaway greens.

It doesn't make you a better person or better equipped to deal with real life where there is takeout everywhere and constant adverts for really refined processed gear, either.


I figure that, if you've got to climb a mountain, it makes sense to get rid of the dead weight first, rather than try and cope with all of it. But you don't drop everything and try and climb barehanded. You go as far as you can with what you've got left and only discard the medipac and tents when you're nearly there.

kennethmgreen

I've always been told that you need to eat right (ie, no junk) and exercise to lose weight and be healthy.

But the more I read about it, the more I realize it just really doesn't seem accurate. It's no wonder it's so hard to diet for some people. You take the right steps, cut all junk, start to exercise... and you still don't lose weight. 'Oh you don't eat enough calories' (I'm not hungry!). 'Oh you might be underestimating what you're eating' (possible but that's why I don't eat my exercise back and I try and stay 100 under my goal).

Sorta depressing.

You've been posting about a plateau for a few days. You say your started your diet two months ago. Dropping from 205 to 194 is a lot of weight very quickly. Unless you are needing to lose 100+ pounds, that's not a healthy weight loss rate.

I know how frustrating it is to be stuck at a certain weight after losing some. I am there myself. It helps to look at your progress over longer periods of time. What have you lost over those two months? You are going to experience some ups and downs. It's normal. Are you weighing yourself every day? Sometimes too much focus on the scale can have a negative affect on your outlook.

Your previous posts indicate you have been overweight for much of your life. Resist the temptation to become impatient and frustrated. Getting healthy doesn't happen in a few quick weeks. You are changing your lifestyle, reshaping your body. Thinking of that way, it doesn't make sense to rush, does it?

You got some good advice in the thread your started Friday about stagnating. Were those suggestions not helpful?

MaryPoppinsIAint

I think the problem with the "eat healthy" mythos lies in a misinterpretation.. the idea that if you eat 80-90% of your diet in foods that can be grown, killed, or made by you, you'll lose weight because it's "healthier". The benefit of eating a more natural diet isn't necessarily DIRECTLY related to weight loss, because as others have pointed out, you can eat "healthy" and still gain weight if you're overeating. The benefit of a healthier, balanced, more natural diet lies in the nutrients consumed.

Yes, you CAN lose weight netting a calorie deficit whether you eat it in salad, free range eggs and local meat or you eat it in ice cream and quarter-pounders with cheese.

But it's a lot a LOT harder to stick to those calorie and nutrient goals eating crap. I know for myself if I go much past 200 calories before about 11am, I WILL go over by the end of the day. I have to eat lightly in morning, because I eat heavy at night regardless of what I ate before noon. So if breakfast is healthy stuff (for example, this morning was a yoplait and a cheese stick with a big mug of hot tea), when I'm not super hungry, I have more calories to spend on lunch (when I am hungry) and dinner (when I'm really hungry). If lunch and dinner also consist of healthier options (salad is my very best friend), I get to eat more VOLUME of food, so I feel full and I'm not craving food again an hour after dinner.

Food is fuel. My body runs better when the fuel it gets is mostly healthy stuff. That doesn't mean it directly translates into weight loss. It means I feel better when I eat more salad and less processed crap.

LorinaLynn

17 pounds in two months and you're complaining... I think the only thing that isn't working right is your expectations.

taso42

So you can eat a good balanced diet, never go hungry, lose weight and feel better than ever. How exactly is this depressing?

elliesem

If you're eating the same calories and foods and doing the same work outs and routines, you are probably seeing a steady result.
But once your body hits a plateau it all stops.
You gotta change up the work outs and diets- variation.
If you run 5 miles a day for a month, 5 miles a day isn't gonna cut it anymore. Your body gets used to it.
Try to vary your workouts- alternate days of different cardio and strength workouts.
Lift weights to build lean muscle and boost your metabolism AND burn fat.
If you run, try indoor cycling. If you don't do either of those, look for a different cardio.
Variation. Keep your body constantly changing.

NatalieWinning

It's not magic, or fast. So it's not exciting. But it works in the long run. If you aren't in it for the long run, you aren't really here for the boring slow progress that lasts for the long run. Healthy does sound boring. Thats why there are shows like Dr. Oz and weight loss programs or drug solutions like on TV. Thats where the money is. Those people will be back and back and back for more for the next time around. I'm not having any more next time arounds.

ldrosophila

Keep moving foward buttercup!

So far what is working for me is portion control, more veggies, more water, and moving a little more. I've got a lot further to go than you, so I'm going to need tons of patience too.

Do what works for you. If it's working great. If it's not revaluate and try something else. You get a life time to experiment. Try to make it as healthy as possible. Dont spend too much times arguing on the forums if there was a 100% answer for weight loss none of us would be fat.

Flintbeats810

this is all i KNOW since i lived it. And i realize that not everyone will have the same results as me.

I've lost 79 pounds in 6 months

I cook everyday and its either chicken fish or turkey. sometimes steak but in appropriate portions alng with veggies

I drink plenty of water

I do 1 hour of cardio a day (two 30 min sessions) plus i work out regulally

Its a fact that when you add more lean muscle you will burn fat more efficently but I don't think its a necessity to lose weight. Plenty of people do it with cardio alone and then pick up the weights when they reach thier goal weight. I just chose to arrive at my goal weight looking toned at the same time.

I think most importantly people need to realize where they are getting their nutrition from exactly. (which upsets me about MFP cause i only see the chart on iphone and ipad (not sure about android) and not on the desktop version.)But people are so surprised when they see that they are under their calorie goal but then look at the % break down pie chart thats on the other devices and see that while under there calorie goal they barely took in any protien and that most of what they ate ,although under their goal, if from crabs and fat; mostly fat sometimes.

Everyone is different and there are so many factors involved that for somone to come in here and say "this is the way it needs to be done or you won't see results" is asinine. I've defied some "logic" by losing what i lost in 6 months. I even have a cheat day every sunday as a reward to myself for having a great week. (i wonder how much weight i would have lost with out the cheat day). I'm just saying find what works best for you. Everything isn't always by the book exact science. I think we can all agree on eat healthy, eat the appropriate amount and the appropriate amount of calories and excersise, wether P90X,ZUMBA,INSANITY,GOLDS GYM, YOUR BASEMENT, YOUR HOUSE, WALKING/RUNNING OUTSIDE, then in most cases you will see results and even thats not guarnteed. But one things is guarnteed is that doing nothing will result in just that.

mfpcopine

Exercise, while important for health, is only a small part of weight loss. Many people overestimate how much they're burning and underestimate how much they're eating.

LiftAllThePizzas

This is what a hoax looks like I guess:

Sure you left out the magic pills, raspberry keytones, and green coffee beans to make it look like eating a moderate deficit did all the work. :laugh:

almc170

17 pounds in two months and you're complaining... I think the only thing that isn't working right is your expectations.

This.

jonnythan

This is what a hoax looks like I guess:

Sure you left out the magic pills, raspberry keytones, and green coffee beans to make it look like eating a moderate deficit did all the work. :laugh:

Shhh you're giving away my secrets. I'm not ready to release the magic formula as a supplement yet.

ACSL3

This is what a hoax looks like I guess:

Where is this from?

That's my past month. It's a little screwy in the beginning because I was pretty dehydrated, but the trend is clear.

I could be wrong but I think she meant what website. The top looks like fitbit (dark green = calories burned; light green = calories eaten) and the bottom is trend weight. www.fitbit.com and www.trendweight.com

jonnythan

This is what a hoax looks like I guess:

Where is this from?

That's my past month. It's a little screwy in the beginning because I was pretty dehydrated, but the trend is clear.

I could be wrong but I think she meant what website. The top looks like fitbit (dark green = calories burned; light green = calories eaten) and the bottom is trend weight. www.fitbit.com and www.trendweight.com

Oh! Yes, you are correct on both counts.

StheK

If you run 5 miles a day for a month, 5 miles a day isn't gonna cut it anymore. Your body gets used to it.

This can't possibly be true. Isn't burning calories just burning calories, no matter how you do it? What does it mean, "your body gets used to it"? If this were true, I'd have to be running marathons every day by the time I lost all the weight I have to lose.

I get that using different muscles and stretching your body to do new things is going to make your workouts more interesting and more motivating, and it's good for you generally, but if I ever get to the point where I'm running 5 miles a day and it's not enough to help me lose weight and/or maintain (depending on my calorie intake), I will know I'm in hell. HELL.

WinnerVictorious

If you run 5 miles a day for a month, 5 miles a day isn't gonna cut it anymore. Your body gets used to it.

This can't possibly be true. Isn't burning calories just burning calories, no matter how you do it? What does it mean, "your body gets used to it"? If this were true, I'd have to be running marathons every day by the time I lost all the weight I have to lose.

I get that using different muscles and stretching your body to do new things is going to make your workouts more interesting and more motivating, and it's good for you generally, but if I ever get to the point where I'm running 5 miles a day and it's not enough to help me lose weight and/or maintain (depending on my calorie intake), I will know I'm in hell. HELL.

if she means calorie burn, then that's completely wrong.

if she means increases in cardiovascular fitness, then she's probably partially right.

they are different things.

jonnythan

If you run 5 miles a day for a month, 5 miles a day isn't gonna cut it anymore. Your body gets used to it.

This can't possibly be true. Isn't burning calories just burning calories, no matter how you do it? What does it mean, "your body gets used to it"? If this were true, I'd have to be running marathons every day by the time I lost all the weight I have to lose.

I get that using different muscles and stretching your body to do new things is going to make your workouts more interesting and more motivating, and it's good for you generally, but if I ever get to the point where I'm running 5 miles a day and it's not enough to help me lose weight and/or maintain (depending on my calorie intake), I will know I'm in hell. HELL.

It's not true. 5 miles a day burns the same number of calories whether you're in shape or out of shape, assuming your technique doesn't change significantly.

People think that if you're working harder, you're burning more calories. That's not true. I am burning the same number of calories per minute at the beginning of a 5 mph jog, when my heart rate is 75 bpm, as I am 30 minutes later when my heart rate is 135 bpm and I'm drenched in sweat.

Physical exertion is not directly related to energy consumed.

The reason you feel like you're doing less work after a month of training at the same speed is that your heart and blood vessels are getting better at delivering oxygen to your body tissues. It's not because your tissues are actually consuming less oxygen.

And, by the way, oxygen consumption *is* directly related to calories burned. For every liter of oxygen your body consumes, you have burned 5 calories.

DopeItUp

Yup, the thousands of people losing weight on this site alone are clearly a part of a huge hoax. It's a massive conspiracy!

MB_Positif

Worked for me! I almost always ate all of my calories on non exercise days and on exercise days I ate my exercise calories. No problems. No real "plateaus" either. Trust the process.

SoDamnHungry

You can eat only the healthiest foods and still eat too many calories. It isn't about cutting out all junk. It's about a calorie deficit. Unless there is something physically wrong with you (thyroid or something else), it will work.

Yes. This. And also, even people with thyroid issues can lose weight.

LiftAllThePizzas

That chart was inspiring, so I had to look at my own. Notice that on Feb 22 I started eating a 1000 calorie a day surplus, which is where the green lines cross over. It's also where my weight started going back up and I gained two pounds this week. It works for weight loss, weight gain, and maintaining a weight.

ETA: also notice I burned 6000 more than I ate and lost approx one pound overall, and that the losses/gains are consistent with the timing and size of my deficit. Given the potential inaccuracy in the estimates that's pretty good that it came out that close!




The thing about eating various foods but at the same calorie count is that while the calorie deficit will produce weight loss, the finer point is that you can get better results if you lose weight while eating a well-balanced diet of foods that contain plenty of vitamins and minerals etc, versus the results you will get eating twinkies and crisco. Ultimately the goal is to increase your health so your choices of foods (especially in the most extreme examples, LOL) can make a difference in that respect.

So while cals in/out is technically all that's needed to lose weight, it's not all that's needed to 'optimize' your health.

rml_16

You've been posting about a plateau for a few days. You say your started your diet two months ago. Dropping from 205 to 194 is a lot of weight very quickly. Unless you are needing to lose 100+ pounds, that's not a healthy weight loss rate.

11 pounds in eight weeks sounds pretty reasonable to me ...