MFP Change of Stance?

Pulls up a chair

This content has been removed.

chivalryder wrote: »

Since the forums changed to this new, and arguably much worse set up, many of the old regulars, the ones who actually knew things about losing weight successfully and were successful themselves, have left.

Now, the vast majority of people on the forums are people who are here simply out of entertainment and because they don't have anything better to do.

MFP has dropped a few steps in terms of quality with this change. Quality of the social environment, quality in support, quality in usability.

It's now best to simply avoid the forums altogether if you want help and support. Try to find a good few people and add them to your friend list, then add friends of these friends when you find that they too are supportive and positive. You will not find this so easily on the forums.

no need to totally stay away. there are much more frivolous threads and more condescending types but there is "some" good advice to be had. Finding it can take more wading though.

I use the search function often before I post. I like to see what was asked and answered in the past. Many times that is all I need....unless I get angry and post because of my need for entertainment value on the forums

I'm pretty sure it's the same group of people, but they have just changed their wording a bit.

Eating at a deficit will cause you to lose weight and at the same time to large of a deficit can be unhealthy/cause binging/ect.

Eat more to weigh less, simply means eating as many calories as you can to lose weight at a healthy rate. It seems that generally people who use this method are extremely careful when tracking (weighing everything solid/measuring liquids/logging every little nibble) because they have less room to make mistakes. While they have less room to make mistakes, some notice that the smaller deficit gives them more energy and makes them able to workout at a higher intensity. Some don't realise that, when increasing their calories they became more accurate with their logging.

So essetially it's the same thing. Just the deficit isn't as large. I'm glad I read about the "eat more to weight less" last year when I joined. The above is what I got out of it. I'm also comfortably losing weight (except for 9 months of pregnancy) eating in the 1800-2000 calorie range on average. I attempted to eat a bit less (thus increasing my deficit) a month or so ago and I did notice my workouts suffered. So for me, the concept is right on. However some people might do better with larger deficit.

I know what you mean, OP. I've been here 3 1/2 years and I too have seen a gradual change over. Even the stickies are different-- when I got here the most popular sticky was "700 calories and not losing weight!" in which the theory of starvation mode was supported.

Personally I do believe in CICO, although I believe in some cases it's a little more complicated than it sounds due to health issues, hormone shifts, etc. But that doesn't mean CICO doesn't work, it just means we may not understand all the variables. Still, "just eat less" isn't always good advice. It depends on the situation.

In my opinion, EM2WL went away long before the forum upgrade. I came back about a year ago and it was pretty much gone, whereas it was the forum battle cry in 2012, you're right.

I think it went away because people realized they were wrong. You can't 'eat more to lose more', unless there's something behavioral with you so that when you 'eat less' you binge or track wrong.

But people still are big fans of the tiny deficit, presumably to retain muscle. But even that is going to change, I think, as more and more research shows it just doesn't make that much difference and there are significant advantages to not losing at a snail's pace as well.

jellybaby84 wrote: »

Has anyone else noticed this change or was I just reading different threads at different times?

Which philosophy do you agree with?

Yes, from reading old threads I've noticed it. I haven't noticed any change in the time I've been actively reading the forums (since March of this year).

I think starvation mode in the sense that if you eat too little you won't lose, because your body will "hold onto fat" makes no sense, so I agree with the current consensus, if it is indeed a consensus (that's probably too strong).

However, that doesn't mean that there aren't good reasons to avoid putting your calories too low (with what too low is a separate issue and probably somewhat individual). I believe that bad effects could relate to health, to the sustainability of a diet, to the ability to make fitness/exercise improvements and maintain lean body mass, to metabolism (you can suffer a reduction of metabolism and many or most dieters ultimately do, even if they of course don't stop losing), and by creating a pattern of restriction followed by binging for those prone to it.

Rather than the advice being to always reduce calories, I think there's a pragmatic understanding by many that there are many reasons why logging can be imperfect (or exercise calories overvalued) and thus when people report extremely low intakes or net intakes and aren't losing that the issue is likely to be logging inaccuracy, with an individual medical problem the next possibility (to be identified in part by logging as precise as possible). The idea that you aren't losing because you are eating too little just doesn't seem to have a scientific explanation or to happen with people actually starving.

So many people are happily losing while eating 1400-2000 calories a day. They lose slowly, but it works for them. It may give skin a better shot at keeping up with you, too. I'm really happy for those people and wish I were one of them!

Too many people have said they were strict with their restriction, then ate some more and dropped pounds...they can't all be lying. There must be something to it.

I don't personally eat more to weigh less. I do shake it up with the calories, but that's hunger-related and not theory.

I know there are things yet to be learned. I'm convinced that anorexia isn't solely mental and there must be a chemical part. Obesity, too. I believe there are brain differences and/or chemical contributors to all these things.

If they could figure that stuff out before I die, I'd be delighted. I don't expect it, though.

shadow2soul wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's the same group of people, but they have just changed their wording a bit.

Eating at a deficit will cause you to lose weight and at the same time to large of a deficit can be unhealthy/cause binging/ect.

Eat more to weigh less, simply means eating as many calories as you can to lose weight at a healthy rate. It seems that generally people who use this method are extremely careful when tracking (weighing everything solid/measuring liquids/logging every little nibble) because they have less room to make mistakes. While they have less room to make mistakes, some notice that the smaller deficit gives them more energy and makes them able to workout at a higher intensity. Some don't realise that, when increasing their calories they became more accurate with their logging.

So essetially it's the same thing. Just the deficit isn't as large. I'm glad I read about the "eat more to weight less" last year when I joined. The above is what I got out of it. I'm also comfortably losing weight (except for 9 months of pregnancy) eating in the 1800-2000 calorie range on average. I attempted to eat a bit less (thus increasing my deficit) a month or so ago and I did notice my workouts suffered. So for me, the concept is right on. However some people might do better with larger deficit.

This exactly!

dammitjanet0161 wrote: »

Kalikel wrote: »

Too many people have said they were strict with their restriction, then ate some more and dropped pounds...they can't all be lying. There must be something to it.

Anecdotally this happens a lot doesn't it? How many times have you heard people complain when they have been "good" all week or month and haven't lost weight or only lost a negliable amount, and then they'll say they were scared to weigh in one week because they had a blowout for some reason but then they lose more than they have in a while.

I don't know the science behind it, but I'm glad I found MFP and the people on here who promote finding the level where you can still lose weight while eating a sustainable amount rather than the usual strict 1000 calorie quick fix diets touted in magazines etc

I believe the current theory is that when you've been restricting, you're placing your body under stress. Chronic stress translates into chronically raised levels of cortisol which causes water retention. Overeating for a little bit, especially carbs, relieves the stress, lets cortisol levels drop and you drop the water weight.

So you never stopped losing fat, you just kept packing on more water. Eventually, the fat loss would win out over the water retention and you'd see it on the scale, but it would take a loooong time.

I had this happen to me a couple of weeks ago - except I compounded the problem by also steadily increasing some fairly demanding exercise over 2 months (half-marathon training + Starting Strength). Weight was not changing. I started to feel run down, so I ate more. Should specify, I ate my TDEE for a couple of days. Did not just cut loose. Lost 4 pounds in one day - at 118 lbs, so no way was that fat. Plus, my ankles and knees that had been stiff from mild edema - gone.

Now that I'm cutting again, I put 2 of those lost pounds back on. In one day again.

I'm not convinced that cortisol is the whole explanation, because there's just too much variability in the subjects' responses. Something else (maybe many something elses) is probably in play as well. But chronic under-eating and or over-exercise -> stress -> water retention masking fat loss? Especially slow fat loss? That I can get behind.

Oishii wrote: »

GauchoMark wrote: »

That said, I do believe that your body has the ability to slightly "slow" or "speed" your metabolism. In other words, it can be calorie efficient (slow) or performance efficient (fast) and so you have a 100-200 calorie window that your body can play with. So, you might be able to eat a little more and still be OK in terms of weight loss, but that is a very slippery slope.

I agree with the window but have the opposite experience. If I keep my calories towards the high end of my loss window I remain my normal, bouncy self. If my calories go too low, the subconscious bouncing stops and I may need the occasional nap. To lose weight at the lower end of that window I have to make a conscious effort to move which is unnecessary at the higher end of that window. So I'd rather lose slowly at the top end of my window, which I don't see as a 'slippery slope' at all. I'd rather maintain a higher calorie intake than keep going lower and lower.

you read my quote backwards. we are saying the same thing - "slow" and "fast" are regarding metabolism, not weight loss rate - so the high end of the calorie window would be when your metabolism may be faster and your physical performance is better, i.e. you feel better and have more energy.

sofaking6 wrote: »

GauchoMark wrote: »

Oishii wrote: »

GauchoMark wrote: »

That said, I do believe that your body has the ability to slightly "slow" or "speed" your metabolism. In other words, it can be calorie efficient (slow) or performance efficient (fast) and so you have a 100-200 calorie window that your body can play with. So, you might be able to eat a little more and still be OK in terms of weight loss, but that is a very slippery slope.

I agree with the window but have the opposite experience. If I keep my calories towards the high end of my loss window I remain my normal, bouncy self. If my calories go too low, the subconscious bouncing stops and I may need the occasional nap. To lose weight at the lower end of that window I have to make a conscious effort to move which is unnecessary at the higher end of that window. So I'd rather lose slowly at the top end of my window, which I don't see as a 'slippery slope' at all. I'd rather maintain a higher calorie intake than keep going lower and lower.

you read my quote backwards. we are saying the same thing - "slow" and "fast" are regarding metabolism, not weight loss rate - so the high end of the calorie window would be when your metabolism may be faster and your physical performance is better, i.e. you feel better and have more energy.

One thing that is pretty consistent is that people seem to only relate metabolism to consumption, and I never see any threads where it is related to muscle mass and/or energy expenditure. I guess fitness is wholly unrelated to BMR?

Because that requires actual body analysis, and then they'll find out they're mostly flab, and that means that they, in fact, have to eat less to lose weight.