I was starving myself - Now I just had buttered cornbread!

what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

people
are
not
all
the
same

most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.

what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

people
are
not
all
the
same

most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.

Btw, I lost 50lbs by NOT EATING ENOUGH. I actually had losses after cheat days.... wouldnt lose whenever I really tried getting consistent in the gym. I gained back 30lbs because I'd gone really deprived so long. Now, I've got the bodymedia fit armband and I eat so much more every day 200-700 extra calories consistently compared to before every day and I lose weight consistently and easier. Yes....

I NEEDED TO EAT MORE CALORIES.

Get over yourself.

How do you reach such a conclusion? If they're losing or maintaining at whatever level then they certainly don't need to be eating any less. My goal is 1825 to lose .8 pounds a week and I'll maintained around 2200-2300, should I be eating less? Other people maintain at 3000, should they be eating less? If yes, then why?

I'm really curious about your line of reasoning.

Most of the diaries I've seen, the people are not maintaining or losing very quickly. They allow themselves unhealthy foods in small quantities in the name of "well I have to eat X calories, all the dudes on MFP say so" then end up overindulging on a regular basis. Those people need to eat less. The only people that *really* need to eat more are those who have trouble getting all of the nutrients required for a healthy body. The rest is pure psychology. Lots of people find it difficult to stay focused and ignore cravings, so they screw themselves by binging, then blame it on the high deficit.

It seems like the overwhelming majority of people on this board refuse to acknowledge the difference between something that is actually working better physically, and something that is making the effort less difficult for them. Physical versus Psychological. Eating more calories (i.e. the mythical TDEE-20%) is never, ever physically required. Science supports this.

Hey, some people also believe that cutting out gluten will make them healthier, even though they have no disease or allergy to the substance. Those people are completely incorrect... but you can throw a rock and hit hundreds of people that swear it has worked for them.

So you're of the opinion that people should eat less for the sake of eating less, since comfort and psychological reasons aren't good enough for you. I'm not sure who you are to decide that people aren't 'losing very quickly' (I would assume they're losing at a rate that fits their needs)

No, people who want to lose weight should eat at a deficit. The larger the deficit, the faster they will lose weight. There is nothing wrong with losing weight quickly, as long as exercise and proper nutrition is adhered to. The "very quickly" part of what I said is mostly based on their complaints, not my opinion. They decided they were not losing quickly, not me (in most cases). In other cases I've seen, people are not losing weight at all, or it's a pound or two per month when they have 100 or more to lose. Of course there are also lots of cases of success, I'm not discounting that... but in my experience the "average" user here is not completely happy with the results they're seeing. Or maybe that is who I have subconsciously been focusing on, I dunno. Too many times I've seen posts like "hey why am I not losing weight" and a ton of people respond "you need to eat more to lose weight". That is patently untrue in every case.

Do you have some 'science' that proves a larger deficit is better or anymore physically required than a smaller deficit? I would say the only real difference is that a deficit can never be too small, as long as a person is happy with it, but a deficit can be large, to a point where it impacts nutrition, happiness, and comfort.

do I personally have some science that proves that a larger deficit is "better"? No, I'm an engineer, not a scientist. but the internet is full of papers from people who *are* scientists. Google can turn up lots of very useful literature (peer reviewed and from actual credible resources with lots of equivalently credible references, not some bro science "weight loss" website). Also, it really depends on how you define "better". IMO breaking the pleasure relationship with food is key to long-term success. Allowing yourself a brownie once in a while sure is fun, but it also keeps your brain thinking of unhealthy food as a "reward", which in my book is a terrible idea. Not everyone wants to or is able to maintain that level of dedication, though. Thus, the religion of "you have to eat more if you want to lose weight" was born.

I also never said one should sacrifice proper nutrition. It doesn't take 2000 or even 1200 net calories to get proper nutrition, though.

I could eat at 1200 and lose 2 pounds a week but...well, what the hell for. The joy of eating less? Lol?

Joy and eating should not go together for someone who needs to lose a lot of weight. Breaking that bond is important for long-term success. Food is for fuel, not for fun. I love me some lasagna, but my body does not need it. Nobody's does. The majority of obese people got that way because of an unhealthy relationship with food. Sure, it's easier to find a way to keep that unhealthy relationship and still lose weight, but it's slower and plenty of people regress on that plan (just like with basically any other plan).

I personally like to draw the financial analogy. Let's say (hypothetically, of course) that you're financially obese. As in, lots of credit card debt and a relatively lavish lifestyle. You could opt to pay things off very slowly and still have fun... but you'll be paying for that debt for a very long time and will severaly impact your chances of ever becoming wealthy. On the other hand, you can stop partying and get rid of your fancy car, etc... living a much more stark existence for a short period of time while you pay that debt off quickly. At the end you have developed better discipline and set yourself up for a wealthy life down the road. You juat have to avoid the common pitfalls of binge spending along the way. This is exactly like eating. Do it the easy way or the hard way. How successful you are depends on you, but the hard way is almost always better in the long run.

A personal example: I was in fantastic shape after losing 85 lbs when I was 21 years old. 215 lbs at 6'6", and with the moderate amount of muscle I had at the time I was very fit, not overweight. I worked my *kitten* off to get that way, eating low calorie, high protein, low fat, and working out constantly. Then I lost my workout buddy to a cross-state move, I got lazy and made plenty of excuses, and fell out of the habit of being fit. I slowly gained that 85 lbs back over the next 8 years and then got really bad.. gaining another 50 in the 4 years following. That was *my* fault, not my "fit" diet's fault. I got lazy. Now I'm bound and determined to get as close to that shape as possible before I turn 35. To do it, I have made the conscious decision to sacrifice the pleasure that comes from things like chinese food, pizza, and chocolate cake. I'm not allowing any of those things in my life at all... and I don't crave them any more. I'm doing it the hard way, and it's working very, very well. I'm the healthiest I've been in years. I'm 50 lbs down from a year ago, 20 of that since joining MFP. I have about 85 more to go.

Yes, that is what worked for me, and of course the psychological part of it is not perfect for everyone. Physically though, if one should choose to make those sacrifices, it would work for them.

Well its clear this will go nowhere. I believe that food is most certainly for fun and should be a joy, so it is clear there is nothing to be gained here.

Also when one makes claims using 'science' to back them up it's generally regarded as their duty to back up their claim with that science, not the duty of the other party to hit up google.

Perhaps you should start here:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1077746-starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss

Yes, you will have to click a few things for yourself, and for that I hope you will forgive me. There are lots and lots of references in that post to real, scientific data. Those references have references of their own. you could literally read for hours just by clicking through those papers.

IMO breaking the pleasure relationship with food is key to long-term success. Allowing yourself a brownie once in a while sure is fun, but it also keeps your brain thinking of unhealthy food as a "reward", which in my book is a terrible idea. Not everyone wants to or is able to maintain that level of dedication, though. Thus, the religion of "you have to eat more if you want to lose weight" was born.

Joy and eating should not go together for someone who needs to lose a lot of weight. Breaking that bond is important for long-term success. Food is for fuel, not for fun.

what is it going to take to stop these "see what works for me? what's wrong with you people everyone is the same!" threads?

people
are
not
all
the
same

most of us *do not* need to be eating more. just going by the diaries I've flipped through on here, most of us need to be eating less.