Why am I losing weight?
Replies
-
The answer is "poutine". It's magical and stuff. For real. I read it in the Journal of Stuff I Made Up, issue 47. <pokerface>
Good issue. That's where I learned that there's only a window of an hour each day where your body properly digests carbz.0 -
http://www.gnolls.org/3374/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-calorie-to-your-body/
http://www.gnolls.org/3324/there-is-another-level-above-im-doing-fine/
http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/1/29/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-macronutrient-part-i-fats.html
http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/5/no-such-thing-as-a-macronutrient-part-ii-carbohydrates-revis.html
http://thatpaleoguy.com/2012/12/19/calorie-rants-and-ketosis-part-1/
http://thatpaleoguy.com/2012/12/24/calorie-rants-and-ketosis-part-2/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-context-of-calories/#axzz2O07gACuz
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-metabolic-paradigm-shift-fat-carbs-human-body-metabolism/#axzz2O09KzrzV
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/gender-differences-in-fat-metabolism/#axzz2O09hLFSf
I'm glad you have found your N=1. But your N=1 isn't the same as mine. or the next person...or the next person...and so on...0 -
http://www.gnolls.org/3374/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-calorie-to-your-body/
http://www.gnolls.org/3324/there-is-another-level-above-im-doing-fine/
http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/1/29/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-macronutrient-part-i-fats.html
http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2011/2/5/no-such-thing-as-a-macronutrient-part-ii-carbohydrates-revis.html
http://thatpaleoguy.com/2012/12/19/calorie-rants-and-ketosis-part-1/
http://thatpaleoguy.com/2012/12/24/calorie-rants-and-ketosis-part-2/
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-context-of-calories/#axzz2O07gACuz
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/a-metabolic-paradigm-shift-fat-carbs-human-body-metabolism/#axzz2O09KzrzV
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/gender-differences-in-fat-metabolism/#axzz2O09hLFSf
Oh thanks, I'll look this over after I finish reading this Archie comic. Just how does Jughead stay so slim? He eats so many burgers!0 -
At 300lbs, with all due respect, it will be a case of calories in, calories out. And yes this is the basis of weight loss. However, as many people discover, as your body fat percentage decreases, it becomes tougher to lose. They want to build muscle, or strengthen & tone existing muscle. Age also plays a huge factor in this, especially for women. The older you get, the more you have to work at it.
And as you lose, you'll have to mix things up, try different things, your body will get 'comfortable' with the new regime and you'll have to shake it up a little. or a lot.
So its great that its working for you right now, I am all for the calories in calories out approach, but all I'm saying is, keep an open mind as you get further down the line.0 -
It's because it takes a lot of calories for your body to sustain such a high weight. The more you lose the less in calories you will need to consume. I was 350lbs and started losing on weight watchers for 9 months until I got stuck for 3 months at 270lbs. Then switched over to mfp. I like it better because it goes by calorie deficit and not just a point system. Lets me have a better idea of overall balanced food intake.0
-
I bet you are eating a lot less than you used to eat and making some better choices.......Good for you!0
-
Re-post when you're 50, have hardened arteries, high blood pressure, and diabetes. There is a huge body of work that shows that there are detrimental affects to eating like that. Sure you can lose weight, but what is happening inside your body is another story.0
-
Re-post when you're 50, have hardened arteries, high blood pressure, and diabetes. There is a huge body of work that shows that there are detrimental affects to eating like that. Sure you can lose weight, but what is happening inside your body is another story.
OP, you rock. Just sayin.'0 -
Funny, I get just as frustrated when I see people saying that it is ONLY calories in vs calories out. I think for some people, it may work. For others, it doesn't. I think there are many provedn biological reasons why calories in vs calories out does not work for everyone. There are also some terrible things in the general food supply that I think do not do our bodies good.
Great that calories in vs calories out seems to be working for you.
Agree to disagree on the issue.
ETA: I just watched watched a show where the guy ate 2600 cals per day (which is over the daily average for sedentary men), but 2000 of those were chocolate. He was very, very thin, but his cholesterol numbers were terrible because his diet lacked essential nutrients. I thought it was very interesting.0 -
bump0
-
The answer is "poutine". It's magical and stuff. For real. I read it in the Journal of Stuff I Made Up, issue 47. <pokerface>
now I want poutine0 -
I think you are magic. :flowerforyou:
Not because of the weight loss or anything, but just because YOU LIVE IN MY COMPUTER AND TYPE MESSAGES FOR ME TO READ OMG HOW WEIRD0 -
I think you have the right idea...you are doing what works for you! I, myself, have cut carbs and sugar way down, and have lost over 140 lbs, because that's what has worked for me. It's the only "diet" that has ever been sustainable and satisfying to me. However, I do cheat, not often, but I do0
-
I'm 5'4, 105 lbs, and no matter what I eat, if I overeat I gain weight, if I eat fewer calories I lose weight. It's that simple. I eat a lot better now than I did 4 years ago, but I don't follow any fad diets or pay much attention to sugar intake or specific nutrients. I just eat healthy foods without denying myself things I enjoy and I don't over eat. I don't know why people try to make it out to be so much more complicated.0
-
Some background - I started at 320 pounds in October of 2012 and today I weighed in at 266. That's 54 pounds gone in less than 6 months -but...HOW? Based on this site, I'm doing everything wrong.
I eat between 2000-2500 calories a day, my macros are set at 45carbs/35 fats/20protein. That leaves me eating between 200-300 grams of carbs a day.
First of all, congrats on your weight-loss success! Second, I feel you might have stumbled into the BMR/TDEE or "Eat more to lose" strategy. Generally, MFP sets goals for you (i.e., I want to lose 2 lbs a week so it tells me I should eat 1200 cals). HOWEVER, this can be too little calories for more people's metabolism and our weight remains stagnant or shoots up. The gentleman has an interesting post: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/654536-in-place-of-a-road-map-2-0-revised-7-2-12 that helps calculate how to eat the right amount of calories for your metabolism to burn weight. He never mentions food restriction, portion sizing, the like, just enter in numbers, to find your base metabolic rate and BOOM! More calories = weight loss.
SOO! After that long winded statement all I really think is you're losing because your eating enough calories to help your metabolism burn fat and shed pounds.0 -
I'm glad you have found your N=1. But your N=1 isn't the same as mine. or the next person...or the next person...and so on...
This applies across the board...I gained weight eating primal. Granted, its not all fat, but it is possible that you can 'eat clean' and gain weight. I eat 100g of carbs a day or less, I should be burning fat like a motherb***h according to marks daily apple (which I love btw so not hating), but I'm not. Sometimes calorie tracking and macro tracking isnt a bad thing.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 389.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43K Getting Started
- 259.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.2K Recipes
- 232.1K Fitness and Exercise
- 359 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.4K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.4K Motivation and Support
- 7.7K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 742 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions