move less and eat less

of course anecdotal evidence isn't science. science is a method, so...

So no science will occur in this thread?


What does it matter though if you create a calorie deficit of 3500 calories while eating 2700 calories a day (exercising 5-6 hours a week) or 2200 calories a day (with 2-3 days a week)? In the end, it will still create a 1 lb loss.

I am struggling to understand how lowering your intake and your TDEE will create more weight loss?

I have been here a year almost, and have yet to see "science occurring" in MFP.

Never have I seen you do any science.

This is a discussion forum for people on the consumer level. If I wanted to do science, I wouldn't start with a cohort that doesnt agree in basic definitions.

I also lost a lot of weight doing the opposite of what I recommend. It proves nothing. I would be more fit now had I done something better. I would be closer to my goal.

Okay so what you are saying then is this...

I was 40 when I started, 5ft 7 and started at 205...I have in the past weighed as little at 130lbs...so lets use that weight.

If I had just concentrated on losing the 75lbs then started exercise I would have been better off????really???

Now is losing probably 20lbs of muscle mass a good thing???? That would have taken me at what 4 years to build back...bulking, cutting ,bulking, cutting...how is that better?????

No thank you. I prefer to maintain as much of my 120lbs of muscle, eat at a reasonable deficet and take 2-3 years to acheive my ultimate goals (20-22% BF, bench my bw, DL 2x my BW etc) rather than take 1-2 years to lose 75lbs, and another maybe 4 to build back what I lost.

No, that's pretty much a crappy program I wouldn't recommend. Why would you think I would recommend no exercise?

ah because of this post and your response....

I lost around 50lbs without doing any exercise at all. For me it was too overwhelming to learn how to lose weight (for the first time in my life) and also figure out the whole exercise thing (also for the first time in my life). So I decided to focus on diet/calorie deficit. And it worked great for me doing it this way. I lost the weight and improved my health (including getting my glucose number back down into the normal range), and then as I transitioned into maintenance I started walking and my exercise routine has progressed from there. If I had to do it all over I would do the same thing again

Clearly focusing on doing one thing at a time, which is called "specificity", is a really good concept to have when you want I create any adaptation.

Wish I were as smart a you! Took me forever to realize this.

that word... focus... I don't think it means what you think it means. when I focus on one thing it doesn't mean i completely exclude another. if I meant to say "do exclusively", I'd probably say that.

I need a little "straw man award" sticker to post on some of these "takedowns" this one is quite a reach though.

No not trying to create a straw man actually asking a question...just like I did at first to clarify exactly what you meant, not that you clarified much and glossed over my questions like "what do you consider extreme for workouts"

. You are not very precise or concise with your thoughts and the OP was a bit how do I say...confusing then as you continue and not answer questions it gets more confusing then when you say "focus" on one thing...yah that means the main area of interest...trust me I read the words and take their meaning just fine.

Mean what you say, say what you mean and be able to back it up and when asked a question for clarification answer it...but Im not the only one here who still believes this OP is not as great as you think.

I will continue on my way working out 5x a week, lifting 3x out of those 5 and eating at a deficet and not worry about eating less and moving less...as I am getting great results and in less time than a lot of people that are doing this with me outside of MFP.

You see, the kind of person who needs this message already knows that their workouts are too extreme relative to their capabilities. But there is a cognitive distortion going on. If I give real numbers, that kind of person now has a solid target for creating a new version of why they are a special unicorn who needs to train like a pro.

In any case, it's NOT a thread about overtraining and how that can hold you back.


It's a thread about REST, and how it can take you to the next level.

"how about a more goldylocks type approach for compliance?

some people seem to hold up better through a slow grind, some like to rip a bandaid off as quick as possible.

you just weigh your type against your goals. no reason to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.


but if you are like me, a 300 cal deficit feels more or less like a 1000 cal deficit, only with more energy to get bored with. much easier for me, personally, it turns out, to cut 3 times as hard for 1/3 as long. and oddly more effective now that I got this rest thing down."

@OP - so what I understand you to be saying above is that you are comfortable eating at 1000 calories/day deficit, with less workouts so that you can cut quicker. That is a very steep cut to maintain for an extended period - perhaps if you are someone with alot to lose, and only for a period of time...but, general recommendations on these forums seem to suggest 1 lb/week (500 cals deficit) as a rule of thumb decreasing to 250 deficit as you get within striking range of your goal. I can only speak for myself when I say there is no way I would entertain a 1000 cal deficit for an extended period of time. To me, there is a significant difference between a 300 cal deficit and a 1000 cal deficit.

I agree. However, it appears that OP has decided that his experience is the only one that matters and that anyone else's amounts to a straw man argument if it at all differs from his own.

No, it's a straw man, for instance, if I say MOVE LESS and FOCUS ON REST, and then a bunch of disingenuous and/or reading challenged individuals try to put me into a position of defending a sedentary lifestyle with very little food.


That, not sort of, IS a straw man argument. Exactly.

It's also a straw man if you ask me to defend prolonged steep deficits, especially when I've already expressed concern about the trauma of weight loss and the cumulative effects of many days in a deficit, and that it actually is the underlying reason for doing what I suggest (which, again, is this: when losing weight, FOCUS on rest and your calorie deficit)

Yeah, those are pretty clear and definite examples of the straw man approach to discrediting someone.


As for the personal attacks, they don't bother me so much. Davpul gets a lot of joy from his personal attacks, for instance, and it's no skin off my *kitten* so let him have his therapy.

of course anecdotal evidence isn't science. science is a method, so...

So no science will occur in this thread?


What does it matter though if you create a calorie deficit of 3500 calories while eating 2700 calories a day (exercising 5-6 hours a week) or 2200 calories a day (with 2-3 days a week)? In the end, it will still create a 1 lb loss.

I am struggling to understand how lowering your intake and your TDEE will create more weight loss?

I have been here a year almost, and have yet to see "science occurring" in MFP.

Never have I seen you do any science.

This is a discussion forum for people on the consumer level. If I wanted to do science, I wouldn't start with a cohort that doesnt agree in basic definitions.

Soooooo.....you can just put something out there and back it up with......nothing? Everyone who had succeeded by doing the opposite of your claim is either a special snowflake or could maybe/possibly/maybe/sorta had better results if they followed your "plan"? And if dozens upon dozens of well reasoned, informed, and experienced posters have no idea what the hell you're talking about, the problem is with them? Because they just wanna argue? Or they are stupid?

TIL that calling out BS and trying to suss out the reasoning for unreasonable claims is a personal attack.

Brb, gonna fire my therapist because I get everything I need right here on mfp

Someone stepped in and gave plenty of citations.


So yeah, I can step in here and not back it up with anything except the idea itself and an expectation that my audience shares a certain level of education. Just like you do all the time. Because it's a forum, submissions generally don't come with citations, and don't result in peer reviewed research. It's almost like, I'm not a scientist, and neither are you, we don't do science here, and that standard gets applied awfully selectively (usually by someone who thinks posting an abstract for a journal nobody can access for free is the same as being a scientist).

To the ones who asked for citations, I respectfully reminded I was on iOS and would look for them later. But someone stepped in. Those were GOOD questions, and not once did I complain about them. Nice try.


Division of labor man. Now go do your job, and find a gif to express your profundity and indicate your tribal associations.

"My plan" is not "my plan". It's pretty much literally the program Martin Berkhan recommends, which is a version of RPT. But I'm having trouble figuring out where I laid out "my plan" or on what basis you can criticize it. This post addresses something on the CONCEPTUAL level. Which is important because whichever intellectual framework I use to interpret the data I collect is going to affect the conclusions. When I focus on training, rest is something I do to keep from overtraining. When I focus on rest, rest becomes the conceptual means whereby I am effecting change, and training becomes something I do to keep from over-resting.

I am advocate a shift in concepts.

Why don't you just get into it with Berkhan? Aren't I a little below your intellectual weight class, as you've made clear many times before? He can say "an extra day of rest is more important than an extra day of training", and you can post willy wonka gifs. Oh yeah, then, be sure to bring up "science".



Seriously fed up with you dav. I would at least expect you to gloat, since I lost a firm of this argument to you in the past, WhenI was on the other side. It's almost like this has nothing to do with what was said, and everything to do with who is talking. Almost.

of course anecdotal evidence isn't science. science is a method, so...

So no science will occur in this thread?


What does it matter though if you create a calorie deficit of 3500 calories while eating 2700 calories a day (exercising 5-6 hours a week) or 2200 calories a day (with 2-3 days a week)? In the end, it will still create a 1 lb loss.

I am struggling to understand how lowering your intake and your TDEE will create more weight loss?

I have been here a year almost, and have yet to see "science occurring" in MFP.

Never have I seen you do any science.

This is a discussion forum for people on the consumer level. If I wanted to do science, I wouldn't start with a cohort that doesnt agree in basic definitions.

Soooooo.....you can just put something out there and back it up with......nothing? Everyone who had succeeded by doing the opposite of your claim is either a special snowflake or could maybe/possibly/maybe/sorta had better results if they followed your "plan"? And if dozens upon dozens of well reasoned, informed, and experienced posters have no idea what the hell you're talking about, the problem is with them? Because they just wanna argue? Or they are stupid?

TIL that calling out BS and trying to suss out the reasoning for unreasonable claims is a personal attack.

Brb, gonna fire my therapist because I get everything I need right here on mfp

Someone stepped in and gave plenty of citations.


So yeah, I can step in here and not back it up with anything except the idea itself and an expectation that my audience shares a certain level of education. Just like you do all the time. Because it's a forum, submissions generally don't come with citations, and don't result in peer reviewed research. It's almost like, I'm not a scientist, and neither are you, we don't do science here, and that standard gets applied awfully selectively (usually by someone who thinks posting an abstract for a journal nobody can access for free is the same as being a scientist).

To the ones who asked for citations, I respectfully reminded I was on iOS and would look for them later. But someone stepped in. Those were GOOD questions, and not once did I complain about them. Nice try.


Division of labor man. Now go do your job, and find a gif to express your profundity and indicate your tribal associations.

So progression isn't needed for weight loss?? or for anything in life??? If a person had been sedentary for several years and was morbidly obese, their best course of action is to just Eat less and continue to lead that sedentary lifestyle they have been leading because their overall success would see better results with this approach over say, eating at a modest deficit and begin a Physical therapy program that would allow them to begin to become mobile and build strength and stamina which in turn will allow them to function better in their overall life bringing not only physical ability but also mental clarity. But instead of resting on their morals they continue to improve always building upon their previous success. As success is achieved they continue to work with their dietician and increase calories to fuel their exercises (all still while running a deficit to continue to lose weight), all while increase their overall strength allowing them to no longer be a recluse but a more productive member of society. How is that a bad thing?? and please don't come back with "Well I never said they had to be sedentary, because if you are not always progressing both mentally and most definitely physically then you will plateau. That is the miracle of the human body, it's ability to continue to improve on every level giving it the challenges to do so. There doesn't have to be limitation during weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain for that matter. Always striving for progression is built into our DNA from birth. It is or should be our survival instinct. It is only when we get complacent that we tend to fall short of our potentials.

What?

How can I argue I didn't say to be sedentary, without arguing I didn't say to be sedentary? Lol!


Not exercising at all isn't good for you, man. Don't do that. (Although if you are very morbidly obese and in poor health, this is EXACTLY what your doctor will order, because your doc learned in med school that weight loss is a destructive and traumatic process, and has inherent short term risks along with long term benefits)


But if you want to lose weight, rest and a deficit is your "means-whereby", and training should be thought of as a way to make that process work better and with fewer negative side effects.


If you lean out without sufficiently activating your muscular tissues, you'll wind up losing way more than necessary. Everybody knows that, or is about to, so let's just take it for granted, ok?


As for your progression stuff... I totally agree. I'd suggest strength is the safest and best place to look for progress during weight loss, because increasing strength can be the result of learning rather than muscle growth, and strength training is one of the safest forms of training around. Now although learning also is one of those things that work better in a neutral or positive energy balance, it nonetheless works really well in a negative energy balance.

Incidentally, this realization came after this last round of cutting, which started with a switch to an RPT routine specifically recommended as a good pairing with the diet I follow (leangains). I've been overjoyed to see my stalled out lifts start to progress again, but I'm still having trouble believing how much resting I have to do just to follow the basic pattern, never mind that "extra day of rest", which BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IS AN ACTUAL THING.

of course anecdotal evidence isn't science. science is a method, so...

So no science will occur in this thread?


What does it matter though if you create a calorie deficit of 3500 calories while eating 2700 calories a day (exercising 5-6 hours a week) or 2200 calories a day (with 2-3 days a week)? In the end, it will still create a 1 lb loss.

I am struggling to understand how lowering your intake and your TDEE will create more weight loss?

I have been here a year almost, and have yet to see "science occurring" in MFP.

Never have I seen you do any science.

This is a discussion forum for people on the consumer level. If I wanted to do science, I wouldn't start with a cohort that doesnt agree in basic definitions.

Soooooo.....you can just put something out there and back it up with......nothing? Everyone who had succeeded by doing the opposite of your claim is either a special snowflake or could maybe/possibly/maybe/sorta had better results if they followed your "plan"? And if dozens upon dozens of well reasoned, informed, and experienced posters have no idea what the hell you're talking about, the problem is with them? Because they just wanna argue? Or they are stupid?

TIL that calling out BS and trying to suss out the reasoning for unreasonable claims is a personal attack.

Brb, gonna fire my therapist because I get everything I need right here on mfp

Someone stepped in and gave plenty of citations.


So yeah, I can step in here and not back it up with anything except the idea itself and an expectation that my audience shares a certain level of education. Just like you do all the time. Because it's a forum, submissions generally don't come with citations, and don't result in peer reviewed research. It's almost like, I'm not a scientist, and neither are you, we don't do science here, and that standard gets applied awfully selectively (usually by someone who thinks posting an abstract for a journal nobody can access for free is the same as being a scientist).

To the ones who asked for citations, I respectfully reminded I was on iOS and would look for them later. But someone stepped in. Those were GOOD questions, and not once did I complain about them. Nice try.


Division of labor man. Now go do your job, and find a gif to express your profundity and indicate your tribal associations.

So progression isn't needed for weight loss?? or for anything in life??? If a person had been sedentary for several years and was morbidly obese, their best course of action is to just Eat less and continue to lead that sedentary lifestyle they have been leading because their overall success would see better results with this approach over say, eating at a modest deficit and begin a Physical therapy program that would allow them to begin to become mobile and build strength and stamina which in turn will allow them to function better in their overall life bringing not only physical ability but also mental clarity. But instead of resting on their morals they continue to improve always building upon their previous success. As success is achieved they continue to work with their dietician and increase calories to fuel their exercises (all still while running a deficit to continue to lose weight), all while increase their overall strength allowing them to no longer be a recluse but a more productive member of society. How is that a bad thing?? and please don't come back with "Well I never said they had to be sedentary, because if you are not always progressing both mentally and most definitely physically then you will plateau. That is the miracle of the human body, it's ability to continue to improve on every level giving it the challenges to do so. There doesn't have to be limitation during weight loss, maintenance, or weight gain for that matter. Always striving for progression is built into our DNA from birth. It is or should be our survival instinct. It is only when we get complacent that we tend to fall short of our potentials.

What?

How can I argue I didn't say to be sedentary, without arguing I didn't say to be sedentary? Lol!


Not exercising at all isn't good for you, man. Don't do that.


But if you want to lose weight, rest and a deficit is your "means-whereby", and training should be thought of as a way to make that process work better and with fewer negative side effects.


If you lean out without sufficiently activating your muscular tissues, you'll wind up losing way more than necessary. Everybody knows that, or is about to, so let's just take it for granted, ok?

Your missing the whole progression part of the equation... Where is this success you talk of, if you progressively are preaching to move less. No better yet please explain in the simplest of terms your theory. If someone says don't be sedentary then you say well by all means no don't do that (when to me this is a direct correlation to the whole move less mantra). I have to fall back to the progression thing though because to me if you aren't setting goals and accomplishing them and setting new ones then how will you ever meet your true potential?

Ehhh!!!

Gimme a minute to edit before you reply, sorry. I have a bad habit of hitting reply too early and then editing.


Addressed progression in the edit, you are right sir, and progressing in my lifts again is just one more reason I am so big on rest now.

Again, to sum up:


What's advocated in the OP isn't magic, or some miracle way to lose. It's a conceptual shift in how we identify the "means whereby" we can realize positive change. Especially when weight loss is the goal, we need to FOCUS on rest as that means whereby, as the cornerstone and foundation.

It's about your relationship to yourself. It's about not grudgingly giving yourself a day off because you don't want overtrain, but rather taking that extra day off and feeling badass about it. It's about your confirmation bias reinforcing your extra day off, instead of reinforcing your addiction to training. It's about not letting this struggle be fueled by desperation, but by reason and patience.

It has taken me a year to figure out, and I'd be a jerk if I didn't share.

Trying to lose weight? Working out more than 3 times a week? There is your problem.


Take a look around at posts from people "doing everything right and not losing". What do almost all of them have in common? Crazy exercise regimen.


Losing weight is a destructive process. By definition. While you are tearing down the body you have now, don't think of training as anything but a way to reduce the damage from this process. Eat less, move less. Find a distraction that isn't going to prolong your weight loss. Working out is not a good one!

I'm sorry but this makes absolutely no sense at all...

Which statement(s) do you disagree with?


I'll list the concepts in order, keeping in mind the criticisms of my admittedly somewhat cryptic writing style:


X1)I figured something out through trial and error, which was not necessary because guys like Berkhan and McDonald said it a million times

2)if you are trying to (as opposed to succeeding at) lose weight and you are working out more than 3 times a week (arbitrary number, since I just want the subject to experiment with doing less), your problem is too much working out

3)probability-based guess, based in my unscientific sense of reading the same complaint over and over with the similar details from the poster; pretty much the most common mistake after undercounting is the crazy exercise regimen

4)losing weight is a destructive process (you can look up two words, entropy and decomposition, to figure out why I and the medical community define weight loss as a destructive process with associated trauma). Incidentally, training itself is also destructive and traumatic, even though the resulting adaptation and the overall process is constructive

5)rest is good therapy for trauma, generally speaking, but also specifically in training for adaptation

6)eat less, move less - you can handle higher deficits with more rest than you can if you eat and burn it off as exercise (not overestimated please - this is because even though we think of "net" energy balance, growth of organisms as adaptation is not a simple zero-sum game, and total total metabolic output is going to influence how the system operates to an extent - if you don't believe me just consume and burn 12,000 cals a day for a week and let me know how you feel after.) really all this is saying is that you should not add trauma in top of trauma if you can help it, but rather apply a therapeutic intervention (rest! Or in certain cases, drugs)


7) find a distraction - see the marshmallow experiment, Mischel et al.




In the interest of avoiding more straw man, please refer to the concepts by number when refuting them. If you feel I didn't
To account for a concept I'd be glad to own it or not own it (up to me, btw) based on your suggestion. I will not defend concepts I don't agree with or things I didn't say, nor will I respond to them, because the haters just see it as an opening to shift the conversation away from the topic at hand, to "win" the thread (starting to wonder if so,e of us get prizes or if it's just ego boost, or plain old stimulating for bored people)

The more I work out the more I hungrier I get. The hungrier I get the more likely I am to overeat/Binge. So the more I exercise, the more I eat, the more I GAIN. This is something I have noticed in my years of trying to lose weight.

Well said, and a possible explanation for my practical conclusion, since we all know thermodynamics applies universally.

The more I workout, especially running, the less hungry I am. And I know others experience the same.

Me too! It's weird. Only applies before I get some sleep, too, and before I start eating. But I'll be totally ravenous coming off two days rest, have a huge workout and refeed planned, and after the workout I'm all like "ugh, food." So I wait until later, and then I STILL feel the same way.

I've also noticed the threshold for this is very low and the "effort" required can be mostly mental, it makes no difference. So when I practice (I'm a pro musician), I have no appetite. The Stanford marshmallow experiment I referenced earlier makes a pretty good case that a big part of this effect is DISTRACTION.


Another weird thing - a 250 cal deficit is pretty freaking excruciating for me, and I'm ravenous, but double it and it's easier (and I do it for half as long - bonus!)

Working out makes me motivated to fuel my body properly to facilitate the workout. If not for exercise, I would (and did) eat more out of boredom. No way would I have lost this much weight without exercise. The amount I have to eat to lose weight with no exercise is so low that I can't stick to it long-term. What I'm doing now is what works for me.

Hey, great!

Just keep in mind, as you lean out you may need to up your game if you want to keep going, as I have found. Since the rules haven't changed, it strongly implies if you can find a way to distract yourself that isn't exercise, you will be EVEN BETTER at this NOW, regardless of leanness.

if you are already PERFECT, and have NO ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT, I can see why you would reject what I have to say out of hand.