It is NOT that simple.
Options
Replies
-
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.
It wasn't lost on me and I totally agree with you :-)
Everyone is entitled to their opinion I do not have anything against the originator of this thread IF - as you have said she didn't do it with so much anger towards everyone on here who is following the kcal in kcal out and trying their hardest every day to lose weight and keep healthy!!
In my opinion I think no one really knows what works - it is right that our body's are very complex - the fact that there are so many ideas out there as to how weight loss happens / is more effective suggests to me that no one really knows!! So I think it is up to each individual person to find the way that suits them and seems to work for them. There is no need to be having a go at people for what or how they are doing things.0 -
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.
Sorry, it is that simple.
I don't believe you ate 1100 calories per day for any length of time and gained weight.
Yes, quality matters for health, but not for weight.
Even Hashimoto and PCOS don't change that it is about eating less than you burn.
Now that you are eating 1600, you are still eating less than you burn. It's still calories in vs. calories out.
I've lost weight eating McDonalds. I've lost weight eating whole foods. I've gained weight eating McDonalds, and I've gained weight eating whole foods.
In the end, if you eat more than you burn, you will gain. If you eat less than you burn you will lose.0 -
Hmmm...if it's all about the "quality" of food, how did I lose > 20% of my body weight having frozen dinners for lunch, good ole fried chicken and mashed potatoes for dinner, and cake and ice cream for dessert every night?
By burning more than I consumed!
0 -
Thank youHmmm...if it's all about the "quality" of food, how did I lose > 20% of my body weight having frozen dinners for lunch, good ole fried chicken and mashed potatoes for dinner, and cake and ice cream for dessert every night?
By burning more than I consumed!
0 -
Yes, I agree with you! I have thyroid disease and it REALLY matters what kind of calories I'm putting into my body. I can feel and look good if I'm eating vegetables and lean meat, but not at all if I'm eating bread and sweets. The South Beach Diet book has been helpful for me in that way.
Calorie counts help some people lose weight but it certainly isn't that simple for all of us.0 -
Yeah, OP could have mentioned the Hashimoto's and PCOS in the original post. that would probably have saved them at least 50% of the chewing out.
This. Hashimoto's and PCOS makes OP's circumstances unique. Hashimoto's isn't that uncommon for people with hypothyroidism, but mixing it with PCOS is pretty rare. For OP, calories in, calories out didn't work because her hormones were so messed up that nothing was going to work without medical intervention. But with medical intervention, it suddenly worked and the weight fell off. It really is calories in, calories out, plus take a couple pills everyday for the rest of OP's life.
Unless you have Hashimoto's AND PCOS, OP's situation isn't applicable.
OP, glad you are receiving the proper medical treatment.0 -
It's surprising how many people who don't think calorie counting is important are members of a calorie counting website.
Shouldn't you all be out eating 7000 calories of "clean food" per day and magically not gaining any weight?
Pointless thread was pointless.0 -
Calories in, Calories out IS how it works.
The problem with a 1100 calorie diet is that it is too low. You've tricked your body into thinking it is starving, so it lowers your metabolism. You gained weight because 1100 is just under the 1200 minimum needed to prevent that, so while you dropped your intake you were still eating more than you were burning. If you adjusted your diet to match what you burned in starvation mode, you would probably be diagnosed with an eating disorder.
Eating that little bit more, raised your metabolism allowing your to burn more than you ate again.
This happens to a smaller degree on a normal diet which is why people plateau, but adding exercise will keep the metabolism rate up and allow continued weight loss.0 -
Calories in, calories out IS correct. This thread explains all.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
YAWN, I will continue to believe my DR over anyone on this site.
That thread is backed up by many, many people on this site who started off eating too little and wondered why they plateaued. Then, miraculously, started eating more and lost the weight.
Personally, I have been to my doctors 3 times about my weight in the past asking for help, and had appalling and unhelpful advice from all of them. I would rather believe the people on here that have been there and done it. But each to their own.0 -
Not read the entire thread.
The physics of the entire universe says that energy cannot be created, only transferred, this applies to humans. We need a calorie for our body to burn as energy to supply us with movement energy. This is the food we eat. We have an amount of energy stored under our skin and around our organs known as body fat, this too is energy.
We all have an amount of calories we need to sustain ourselves after moving, this is our total daily energy expenditure. On top of this we have hormonal systems within our body to help sustain ourselves when food is scare. This is leptin which controls our thyroids and so metabolisms. The body also like homeostasis, to stay at a set amount weight and calories so it can provide the relevant energy to the bodies systems and digestive enzymes etc.
When the body feels that it is a situation that the energy provision is too low, it will reduce the release of leptin. This causes the metabolism to slow down and stop releasing t3 into our bodies, slowing down our metabolisms, burning far less energy.
Referring this to the OP, at 1100 your body felt the intake (I say feel, I mean the hormonal feedback loops we have built in to defend the body) was too low and reduce calorie expenditure via the thyroid. At 1600 calories, it was enough for the body to continue without it fighting to remain in homeostasis hence the weight loss. Simply, at 1100 the body was fighting for survival, as are most bodily responses.0 -
Calories in/out work for most people. However, if you have specific health issues, it may not work.
I think that is what the OP was saying all along. Obesity is a disease state---and the more obese someone is, the more disease is a daily fact of life---from high blood pressure and Type II diabetes to renal disease, cardiovascular disease and serious complication of diseases like arthritis. The morbidly obese (it is called "morbidly" for a reason) are rather seriously ill. Standing over them and sanctimoniously pronouncing the mantra of "calories in---calories out" and implying that they are just deficient in willpower is to heap scorn on the suffering. Shame on YOU for doing so. If you have never spent a day as an obese person, you do not understand anything about it. Saying, "Well they have no one to blame but themselves." is to ignore the fact that growing numbers of young children are obese from an early age--despite parents' frantic efforts to help them. We have a serious problem with the disease of obesity and mouthing simplistic maxims does nothing to address it. The fact that most who have had significant weight loss (with the very real suffering that it entailed) gain back the weight (and more) within two years should tell you something.
Chemicals? Those on certain "anti-depressants" (like Seroquel, for example--which is uses blithely as an anti-depressant when, if fact, it is an anti-psychotic---but that is beside the point ) are nearly always made obese in a very short period of time---in spite of having NO history of obesity. What does that tell you about the effects of chemicals in the body?
Hormones? (And this should really scare you.) There are many chemicals that are being poured into our environment that act as estrogenic compounds when taken into the body through our water, air and food supply. The compounds (called xenoestrogens) are thought to be affecting male reproductive systems. It is the current theory that is attempting to account for the fact that male sperm counts are dropping---and now at a faster rate than ever. If it keeps up at this pace, there may be no young men capable of being fathers in a generation or two. What other hormonal havoc is being unleashed in our bodies?
Keep on putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "La-la-la-la. I'm not listening. It's calories in calories out---it's as simple as that." It's not. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.0 -
Calories in, calories out IS correct. This thread explains all.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/3047-700-calories-a-day-and-not-losing
YAWN, I will continue to believe my DR over anyone on this site.
That thread is backed up by many, many people on this site who started off eating too little and wondered why they plateaued. Then, miraculously, started eating more and lost the weight.
Personally, I have been to my doctors 3 times about my weight in the past asking for help, and had appalling and unhelpful advice from all of them. I would rather believe the people on here that have been there and done it. But each to their own.
Like I said...............I will believe and trust a well known and respected Metabolic Endocrinologist before I believe anyone that took some online class to get certified in sports nutrition.
It doesn't matter that they have been there, done that. I have seen several people on this site say they have never had a weight issue either.
There are far too many complex components to this to say a simple equation is the answer.0 -
Calories in, Calories out IS how it works.
The problem with a 1100 calorie diet is that it is too low. You've tricked your body into thinking it is starving, so it lowers your metabolism. You gained weight because 1100 is just under the 1200 minimum needed to prevent that, so while you dropped your intake you were still eating more than you were burning. If you adjusted your diet to match what you burned in starvation mode, you would probably be diagnosed with an eating disorder.
Eating that little bit more, raised your metabolism allowing your to burn more than you ate again.
This happens to a smaller degree on a normal diet which is why people plateau, but adding exercise will keep the metabolism rate up and allow continued weight loss.
This calories in calories out equation..............
If it were THAT simplistic, then she should have been losing weight effortlessly. See where this logic is a myth and doesn't work that way?
She was moving more and eating less. According to the equation, should have lost weight. She didn't.
Explain that brainiacs, since YOU ALL know SOOOOOOOOOOOO much more than the Doctors that have been studying the Endocrine and Metabolic systems for years and years and heads up a research center???????
You can't explain it because it is far too complex to be able to explain away with some simple equation. GTFOH0 -
Hmmm...if it's all about the "quality" of food, how did I lose > 20% of my body weight having frozen dinners for lunch, good ole fried chicken and mashed potatoes for dinner, and cake and ice cream for dessert every night?
By burning more than I consumed!
If it worked that way, she would have been losing weight easily..............Was she? NO.
Everyone needs to stop perpetuating this MYTH, along with the starvation mode MYTH and many other myths that the low fat camp have all brainwashed you all into thinking is so correct.0 -
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 think they are talking about skinny people that don't eat correctly or work out. I am much bigger than my skinny friends but I eat healthier and exercise. Just because they are "skinny" doesn't mean they are healthy. They could eat McDonalds every day and never have veggies....0 -
I don't have anything else to add.0 -
I do get tired of everyone's iron clad opinions on how "exactly" it works. The goal is to find what works for "you." Personally..i trust mfp..the true experts. I'm just following that bouncing ball..not all the opinions of everyone here. there are not experts..just dieters.0
-
Hmmm...if it's all about the "quality" of food, how did I lose > 20% of my body weight having frozen dinners for lunch, good ole fried chicken and mashed potatoes for dinner, and cake and ice cream for dessert every night?
By burning more than I consumed!
If it worked that way, she would have been losing weight easily..............Was she? NO.
Everyone needs to stop perpetuating this MYTH, along with the starvation mode MYTH and many other myths that the low fat camp have all brainwashed you all into thinking is so correct.
Why are You are only focusing on the IN and completely ignoring the OUT, which can change quite significantly with changes to activity level and calorie intake?
This thread is nonsense, one persons anecdotal evidence is essentially useless when nothing is controlled or measured.
When she was eating 1100 cals a day at not losing, did she get her basel metabolic rate tested and verified? Appears not. Was all food accounted for? We don't know.0 -
Calories in, Calories out IS how it works.
The problem with a 1100 calorie diet is that it is too low. You've tricked your body into thinking it is starving, so it lowers your metabolism. You gained weight because 1100 is just under the 1200 minimum needed to prevent that, so while you dropped your intake you were still eating more than you were burning. If you adjusted your diet to match what you burned in starvation mode, you would probably be diagnosed with an eating disorder.
Eating that little bit more, raised your metabolism allowing your to burn more than you ate again.
This happens to a smaller degree on a normal diet which is why people plateau, but adding exercise will keep the metabolism rate up and allow continued weight loss.
This calories in calories out equation..............
If it were THAT simplistic, then she should have been losing weight effortlessly. See where this logic is a myth and doesn't work that way?
She was moving more and eating less. According to the equation, should have lost weight. She didn't.
Explain that brainiacs, since YOU ALL know SOOOOOOOOOOOO much more than the Doctors that have been studying the Endocrine and Metabolic systems for years and years and heads up a research center???????
You can't explain it because it is far too complex to be able to explain away with some simple equation. GTFOH
Why are you here?
No seriously. I'd like to know. I've seen you post all the time, always about this issue or similar ones.
You refuse to take the advice on this site. You keep saying you'll listen to your doctor. That's sound reasoning. I hope you have a good doctor who isn't feeding you bad information. But I trust you to make the best decision for your own health.
You've been a member here for over a year. You keep arguing that calorie counting doesn't work for people on a calorie counting website. You haven't lost much weight in all that time, but still you insist on telling people WHAT YOU BELIEVE is the "truth" about how the body works and how to lose weight.
Honestly, and with all due respect, I just don't think this place is working out for you.
How long you gonna keep fighting this uphill battle?
Sorry, I just refuse to believe that ALL of us are wrong. We have proven results. Do WHATEVER you want, but stop acting like an expert when you have nothing but your endocrinologist to back you up.0 -
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 didn't intend it that way. If you look at the context, I was referring to people who were unhealthy but were not obese. That's all I meant by that.glad you lost weight but you seem very angry..at least thats what I got....
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.
i eat pizza, pop tarts, and Reese's peanut butter cups and i lose weight.
what sort of magic is responsible for that if not "calories in vs. calories out", may i ask?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions