1000 calorie diet for 2lb loss?

13

Replies

  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    She wants to eat 1,000 and exercise for 2 hours every day to burn 500.

    How long do you think she'll be able to keep that up netting 500 calories?

    You keep making your same argument because you're just as dogmatic as the people you think you're railing against. You never seem to take into account a specific situation, you just go straight for your point no matter what.

    I didn't realize this was what OP was asking.

    Good Lord.

    But hey, nevermind! Just go superlow calorie because MFP conventional wisdom is wrongity wrong.

    I know right! We are always spouting nonsense, like sustainability and CICO. Shame on us.

    Sustainability is not for you to decide. You telling someone else what they do or do not have the willpower to sustain IS nonsense.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    She wants to eat 1,000 and exercise for 2 hours every day to burn 500.

    How long do you think she'll be able to keep that up netting 500 calories?

    You keep making your same argument because you're just as dogmatic as the people you think you're railing against. You never seem to take into account a specific situation, you just go straight for your point no matter what.

    I didn't realize this was what OP was asking.

    Good Lord.

    But hey, nevermind! Just go superlow calorie because MFP conventional wisdom is wrongity wrong.

    I know right! We are always spouting nonsense, like sustainability and CICO. Shame on us.

    Sustainability is not for you to decide. You telling someone else what they do or do not have the willpower to sustain IS nonsense.

    Making a suggestion that a more reasonable deficit would be more sustainable is not nonsense. I was not ordering the OP to do anything or making decisions for her. I was making a suggestion based on her asking for advice, and my suggestion was based on MOST people's nutritional needs and on the methods that many of the successful people on this site have used.

    Your nitpicky arguing just for the sake of being obtuse is indeed nonsense.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    Before you stop typing in reply to me being all angry take a second and look at this specific situation. First off, you are taking a side simply to nit pick. The person has no idea how to calculate expenditure from the fact that she thinks 1500 is what at she burns daily. She then wants to limit her intake to 1000. Then she wants to burn an additional 500 while exercising. So think about it for a second, let's pretend what the OP though 1500 is really was like that. She would 1500 then eat 1000 then burn 500 more........net 500. Is that a good idea?

    You're not going to school me on the dangers of 1200 calories. One thing you won't find in my posts is where I randomly say someone must eat 1200 calories for before you lump me in with any particular group save your energy. Feel free to search through my posts for a time where I've told someone "you must eat 1200".

    Now is what her idea of netting 500 daily be wise?

    You raise some good points; in my replies I was reflecting on my own response to the OP, which said she should eat 1300 based on her own calculations which had an error (subbing BMR for TDEE). So my responses were based on my advice, but I can see how that wasn't a fair approach since everyone else would (rightly) be commenting on what she said, not what I said.

    On the other hand, I still don't think that it's terrible to eat your calories and not eat back exercise deficits. Is it unsustainable to net 500? Probably, yeah. But we're thinking beings, not robots. A person who is hungry and artificially creating a deficit will do what any thinking being would do, and eat more. There's a joke by the late comedian Mitch Hedberg that goes "If you have legs and are flammable, you're never blocking a fire exit." It's the same thing; if the OP tries for an unsustainable deficit they'll fail. But does failing necessarily mean going from net 500 to net 3000? If they go from net 500 to net 1500, is it still a total failure? I think a rational person would eat more until finding the point where they're no longer hungry, and then stop, and so I don't think it's dangerous per se to try it at the risk of failing.
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    So if OP eats 1200 calories, is she going to keep lowering them as she loses weight? What if she hits a plateau? What if her maintenance calories at the end is lower than it would've been if she had retained more LBM?

    One big reason why the people on the forums suggests eating at a more reasonable deficit, rather than the largest deficit that is considered "healthy," is because there is room to lower calories if needed later on while still eating a sustainable amount of calories. Not to mention, if you're eating a 1700 calorie diet and are able to lose weight, why would you NOT want to eat more calories? I fail to comprehend why being able to eat more food is a bad thing.

    If you believe in CICO, why would you presume that she would ever plateau? Do you think that the poster could ever reach a TDEE of <1200? A pound of skeletal muscle adds about 13 calories per day to your maintenance needs. Losing lean mass doesn't make as drastic a difference as you seem to think it does.

    I certainly do see why not eating more is good, and it's obviously due to the rate of weight loss. Simply put, people are motivated by many things, but motivation has limits. Nobody - yes, I am speaking in absolutes - nobody maintains a strict calorie goal unfailingly forever. At some point, every diet fails. It should be everyone's goal to lose as much weight as possible (to a healthy goal) before reaching the point of failure. There is harm that comes from being overweight. If one can be less overweight for longer, you can limit that harm. One's goal should be the fastest, healthiest means to get to their goal weight. If you have the option of 1200 calories in a healthy way (which I gather is what you dispute) versus 1700 calories in an equally healthy, slower way, the net benefit is in doing it faster because you'll spend proportionally less time overweight.

    I understand that you would argue that the fast versus slow methods are not equally healthy, and I don't think that argument can be settled today, but at least I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.

    Side note: The thing Alyssa is more than likely referring to is if you start at the bottom you leave yourself no wiggle room. It's not uncommon to here that type of advice be given. It plays more on the thought process of we all do experience some sort of metabolic adaptation as we hold a prolonged deficit, it just is that way. But you rock bottom your calories and don't get proper nutrition, not only do you risk the chance of now breaking down muscle for necessities of life coupled with metabolic adaptation and you'll find yourself losing weight, then you don't lose weight and you still don't look the way you want. Then what? What do you do then?

    Yes, this is exactly what I meant.

    high_five_stephen_colbert.gif
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,147 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    She wants to eat 1,000 and exercise for 2 hours every day to burn 500.

    How long do you think she'll be able to keep that up netting 500 calories?

    You keep making your same argument because you're just as dogmatic as the people you think you're railing against. You never seem to take into account a specific situation, you just go straight for your point no matter what.

    I didn't realize this was what OP was asking.

    Good Lord.

    But hey, nevermind! Just go superlow calorie because MFP conventional wisdom is wrongity wrong.

    I know right! We are always spouting nonsense, like sustainability and CICO. Shame on us.

    Sustainability is not for you to decide. You telling someone else what they do or do not have the willpower to sustain IS nonsense.

    a strong dose of get over yourself would be a good start….
  • ravenstar25
    ravenstar25 Posts: 126 Member
    MFP counts way too high for some people. If I ate what it told me to eat to lose 1 pound a week, I would gain weight. Trial and error.
  • dixiewhiskey
    dixiewhiskey Posts: 3,392 Member
    I will always maintain that eating 1200 cals for an adult is just too low but as ravenstar stated, trial and error. For most people, that amount is not satisfying and does not work. The OP didn't give enough info for anyone to really argue over what advice is being given.
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    Before you stop typing in reply to me being all angry take a second and look at this specific situation. First off, you are taking a side simply to nit pick. The person has no idea how to calculate expenditure from the fact that she thinks 1500 is what at she burns daily. She then wants to limit her intake to 1000. Then she wants to burn an additional 500 while exercising. So think about it for a second, let's pretend what the OP though 1500 is really was like that. She would 1500 then eat 1000 then burn 500 more........net 500. Is that a good idea?

    You're not going to school me on the dangers of 1200 calories. One thing you won't find in my posts is where I randomly say someone must eat 1200 calories for before you lump me in with any particular group save your energy. Feel free to search through my posts for a time where I've told someone "you must eat 1200".

    Now is what her idea of netting 500 daily be wise?

    You raise some good points; in my replies I was reflecting on my own response to the OP, which said she should eat 1300 based on her own calculations which had an error (subbing BMR for TDEE). So my responses were based on my advice, but I can see how that wasn't a fair approach since everyone else would (rightly) be commenting on what she said, not what I said.

    On the other hand, I still don't think that it's terrible to eat your calories and not eat back exercise deficits. Is it unsustainable to net 500? Probably, yeah. But we're thinking beings, not robots. A person who is hungry and artificially creating a deficit will do what any thinking being would do, and eat more. There's a joke by the late comedian Mitch Hedberg that goes "If you have legs and are flammable, you're never blocking a fire exit." It's the same thing; if the OP tries for an unsustainable deficit they'll fail. But does failing necessarily mean going from net 500 to net 3000? If they go from net 500 to net 1500, is it still a total failure? I think a rational person would eat more until finding the point where they're no longer hungry, and then stop, and so I don't think it's dangerous per se to try it at the risk of failing.
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    So if OP eats 1200 calories, is she going to keep lowering them as she loses weight? What if she hits a plateau? What if her maintenance calories at the end is lower than it would've been if she had retained more LBM?

    One big reason why the people on the forums suggests eating at a more reasonable deficit, rather than the largest deficit that is considered "healthy," is because there is room to lower calories if needed later on while still eating a sustainable amount of calories. Not to mention, if you're eating a 1700 calorie diet and are able to lose weight, why would you NOT want to eat more calories? I fail to comprehend why being able to eat more food is a bad thing.

    If you believe in CICO, why would you presume that she would ever plateau? Do you think that the poster could ever reach a TDEE of <1200? A pound of skeletal muscle adds about 13 calories per day to your maintenance needs. Losing lean mass doesn't make as drastic a difference as you seem to think it does.

    I certainly do see why not eating more is good, and it's obviously due to the rate of weight loss. Simply put, people are motivated by many things, but motivation has limits. Nobody - yes, I am speaking in absolutes - nobody maintains a strict calorie goal unfailingly forever. At some point, every diet fails. It should be everyone's goal to lose as much weight as possible (to a healthy goal) before reaching the point of failure. There is harm that comes from being overweight. If one can be less overweight for longer, you can limit that harm. One's goal should be the fastest, healthiest means to get to their goal weight. If you have the option of 1200 calories in a healthy way (which I gather is what you dispute) versus 1700 calories in an equally healthy, slower way, the net benefit is in doing it faster because you'll spend proportionally less time overweight.

    I understand that you would argue that the fast versus slow methods are not equally healthy, and I don't think that argument can be settled today, but at least I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
    REALLY LONG POST

    Thanks for continuing an actual discussion, I basically agree with everything you said. I guess at a fundamental level we're at different places based on approach. I will readily admit that the OP's plan is probably not sustainable, so we both probably would endorse the same ultimate goals. I am more in the "set an aggressive goal and try, there's no harm in failing" camp and you might be more in the "be more conservative, but less likely to fail" camp. Neither is wrong but they are certainly different.

    There's so many posters here who get their panties in a bunch when you disagree with the herd mentality that it gets obnoxious. Thankfully I read and post on the forums because I recognize that they are discussion forums, not make-a-bunch-of-friends forums. I'd rather discuss rational, logical advice than vomit up the source-less, evidence-less posts of the past.

    The problem inherent in the MFP community is that at the end of the day there are multiple successful approaches. You wouldn't think that this is a problem, but it is. If somebody follows a bunch of bad advice - advice like that silly "if you have X to lose then 0.5 lbs per week is ideal" chart - and they lose weight, then they automatically assume that following the bad advice is what made them successful. The truth is that the MFP community is FAR more conservative than actual scientific evidence says you need to be, but because it works there's a cult-like mentality insisting that it's the only way. Just look at some of the responses to me in this thread - how dare I question the herd mentality!
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    @UltimateRBF A valuable and rational contribution to the discussion, thanks!
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    @UltimateRBF A valuable and rational contribution to the discussion, thanks!

    Ever considered that your approach is a big reason why people react you the way they do here?

    This is a discussion forum, not a friend making forum. If people are allergic to rational discussion then by all means, they don't have to reply to me. I promise I won't track you down and force you to think.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,147 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    Before you stop typing in reply to me being all angry take a second and look at this specific situation. First off, you are taking a side simply to nit pick. The person has no idea how to calculate expenditure from the fact that she thinks 1500 is what at she burns daily. She then wants to limit her intake to 1000. Then she wants to burn an additional 500 while exercising. So think about it for a second, let's pretend what the OP though 1500 is really was like that. She would 1500 then eat 1000 then burn 500 more........net 500. Is that a good idea?

    You're not going to school me on the dangers of 1200 calories. One thing you won't find in my posts is where I randomly say someone must eat 1200 calories for before you lump me in with any particular group save your energy. Feel free to search through my posts for a time where I've told someone "you must eat 1200".

    Now is what her idea of netting 500 daily be wise?

    You raise some good points; in my replies I was reflecting on my own response to the OP, which said she should eat 1300 based on her own calculations which had an error (subbing BMR for TDEE). So my responses were based on my advice, but I can see how that wasn't a fair approach since everyone else would (rightly) be commenting on what she said, not what I said.

    On the other hand, I still don't think that it's terrible to eat your calories and not eat back exercise deficits. Is it unsustainable to net 500? Probably, yeah. But we're thinking beings, not robots. A person who is hungry and artificially creating a deficit will do what any thinking being would do, and eat more. There's a joke by the late comedian Mitch Hedberg that goes "If you have legs and are flammable, you're never blocking a fire exit." It's the same thing; if the OP tries for an unsustainable deficit they'll fail. But does failing necessarily mean going from net 500 to net 3000? If they go from net 500 to net 1500, is it still a total failure? I think a rational person would eat more until finding the point where they're no longer hungry, and then stop, and so I don't think it's dangerous per se to try it at the risk of failing.
    Zedeff wrote: »
    MrM27 wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    Assuming that OP is only 45 lbs overweight for her height, and she's not morbidly obese with a 45-lb mini goal, losing two pounds per week would be hard to sustain long term because the deficit needed would be too large.

    I'm of the opinion that sustainability is a question for the user and not the observer. It's really up for the OP to try - and potentially fail - to achieve a goal, not up to the community to tell them what their goal should be.

    There is evidence for example that only 1 in 20 formerly morbidly obese people can sustain a weight loss, but it's uncouth to tell morbidly obese people not to try to reach their goal.

    There are many people who DO comfortably maintain a 1200 cal restriction.
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Your profile says that you want to lose 45 lbs. Two pounds per week would be too large of a deficit for you. I'd shoot for one lb per week.

    Based on what, exactly?

    you know what it's based on...why do you keep poking the bear?

    Also this^^^

    @Zedeff you seem to like to just take the stance contrary to most of the MFP members. Not to mention question the intelligence of people with whom you disagree.

    I don't understand.

    I don't take the position contrary to MFP, I take the position supported by reason and evidence. MFP prides itself on being science-based, but in truth it's only *relatively* science-based. There's still a whole lot of regurgitated dogma which is unhelpful. Strong communities consider dissenting opinions, just like strong democracies host competing parties.

    Here I will take you with your argument. Everyone is wrong. The majority fail. In every group, every age, every eating stile, those than insist on 1200 when they can easily eat more and those that like to eat as many calories as possible and brag about it for days. The success rates for everyone sucks.

    So what? You're saying the same thing I am - failure is seemingly assured for everyone. So does it make sense to tell everyone that they'll fail so they shouldn't try?

    1200 calories isn't a dangerous restriction, so what's the purpose of telling the OP not to try it because they'll fail?

    So if OP eats 1200 calories, is she going to keep lowering them as she loses weight? What if she hits a plateau? What if her maintenance calories at the end is lower than it would've been if she had retained more LBM?

    One big reason why the people on the forums suggests eating at a more reasonable deficit, rather than the largest deficit that is considered "healthy," is because there is room to lower calories if needed later on while still eating a sustainable amount of calories. Not to mention, if you're eating a 1700 calorie diet and are able to lose weight, why would you NOT want to eat more calories? I fail to comprehend why being able to eat more food is a bad thing.

    If you believe in CICO, why would you presume that she would ever plateau? Do you think that the poster could ever reach a TDEE of <1200? A pound of skeletal muscle adds about 13 calories per day to your maintenance needs. Losing lean mass doesn't make as drastic a difference as you seem to think it does.

    I certainly do see why not eating more is good, and it's obviously due to the rate of weight loss. Simply put, people are motivated by many things, but motivation has limits. Nobody - yes, I am speaking in absolutes - nobody maintains a strict calorie goal unfailingly forever. At some point, every diet fails. It should be everyone's goal to lose as much weight as possible (to a healthy goal) before reaching the point of failure. There is harm that comes from being overweight. If one can be less overweight for longer, you can limit that harm. One's goal should be the fastest, healthiest means to get to their goal weight. If you have the option of 1200 calories in a healthy way (which I gather is what you dispute) versus 1700 calories in an equally healthy, slower way, the net benefit is in doing it faster because you'll spend proportionally less time overweight.

    I understand that you would argue that the fast versus slow methods are not equally healthy, and I don't think that argument can be settled today, but at least I hope you can understand where I'm coming from.
    REALLY LONG POST

    Thanks for continuing an actual discussion, I basically agree with everything you said. I guess at a fundamental level we're at different places based on approach. I will readily admit that the OP's plan is probably not sustainable, so we both probably would endorse the same ultimate goals. I am more in the "set an aggressive goal and try, there's no harm in failing" camp and you might be more in the "be more conservative, but less likely to fail" camp. Neither is wrong but they are certainly different.

    There's so many posters here who get their panties in a bunch when you disagree with the herd mentality that it gets obnoxious. Thankfully I read and post on the forums because I recognize that they are discussion forums, not make-a-bunch-of-friends forums. I'd rather discuss rational, logical advice than vomit up the source-less, evidence-less posts of the past.

    The problem inherent in the MFP community is that at the end of the day there are multiple successful approaches. You wouldn't think that this is a problem, but it is. If somebody follows a bunch of bad advice - advice like that silly "if you have X to lose then 0.5 lbs per week is ideal" chart - and they lose weight, then they automatically assume that following the bad advice is what made them successful. The truth is that the MFP community is FAR more conservative than actual scientific evidence says you need to be, but because it works there's a cult-like mentality insisting that it's the only way. Just look at some of the responses to me in this thread - how dare I question the herd mentality!

    You got the responses that you did bc you chose to nitpick and argue for the sake of arguing and being intentionally obtuse
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 11,002 Member
    The herd mentality serves to at least give the occasional poster a chance to achieve their 10% loss, so that they can then have their 20% chance to maintain it for a year.

    Your attitude seems to be that there is 0% chance for long term success so you might as well make the innevitable yo-yo as lengthy as you can.

    Go for broke and when you crash you crash.

    I will take a 1% chance over a 0% chance on most days.

    Embarking on my weight loss attempt I would rather maximize my chancs to succeed, slender (ha, ha) as they may be, rarher than just assume I will innevitably fail so I might as well just try to reduce weight as fast as possible before I crash and burn and gain it all back.
  • Zedeff
    Zedeff Posts: 651 Member
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    The herd mentality serves to at least give the occasional poster a chance to achieve their 10% loss, so that they can then have their 20% chance to maintain it for a year.

    Your attitude seems to be that there is 0% chance for long term success so you might as well make the innevitable yo-yo as lengthy as you can.

    Go for broke and when you crash you crash.

    I will take a 1% chance over a 0% chance on most days.

    Embarking on my weight loss attempt I would rather maximize my chancs to succeed, slender (ha, ha) as they may be, rarher than just assume I will innevitably fail so I might as well just try to reduce weight as fast as possible before I crash and burn and gain it all back.

    A fair point, but not backed by evidence I suspect. Is there any study that shows that 20% of MFP users maintain their losses for a year? I'm not being sarcastic, if there is such a study I'd love to read it. Some websites actually do surveys and such, so maybe you know something I don't.

    On the other hand, there IS scientific evidence that losing weight rapidly does NOT make you more likely to regain, in contrast to conventional "wisdom." As such, it follows logically that losing as rapidly-as-is-safe is the best approach.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=article

    Hit "Control F" for "Rate of weight loss" and see what the New England Journal of Medicine says about the rapid-weight loss myth.
  • Alyssa_Is_LosingIt
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt Posts: 4,696 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    Zedeff wrote: »
    @UltimateRBF A valuable and rational contribution to the discussion, thanks!

    Ever considered that your approach is a big reason why people react you the way they do here?

    This is a discussion forum, not a friend making forum. If people are allergic to rational discussion then by all means, they don't have to reply to me. I promise I won't track you down and force you to think.

    TIL rational discussion = calling people illiterate (other threads) and saying that coherent, well-thought out responses is nonsense.
  • randomtai
    randomtai Posts: 9,014 Member
    Eat 1000 calories and burn 1000 calories a day... How do you expect to live?
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,040 Member
    Zedeff wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    The herd mentality serves to at least give the occasional poster a chance to achieve their 10% loss, so that they can then have their 20% chance to maintain it for a year.

    Your attitude seems to be that there is 0% chance for long term success so you might as well make the innevitable yo-yo as lengthy as you can.

    Go for broke and when you crash you crash.

    I will take a 1% chance over a 0% chance on most days.

    Embarking on my weight loss attempt I would rather maximize my chancs to succeed, slender (ha, ha) as they may be, rarher than just assume I will innevitably fail so I might as well just try to reduce weight as fast as possible before I crash and burn and gain it all back.

    A fair point, but not backed by evidence I suspect. Is there any study that shows that 20% of MFP users maintain their losses for a year? I'm not being sarcastic, if there is such a study I'd love to read it. Some websites actually do surveys and such, so maybe you know something I don't.

    On the other hand, there IS scientific evidence that losing weight rapidly does NOT make you more likely to regain, in contrast to conventional "wisdom." As such, it follows logically that losing as rapidly-as-is-safe is the best approach.

    http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1208051#t=article

    Hit "Control F" for "Rate of weight loss" and see what the New England Journal of Medicine says about the rapid-weight loss myth.

    I'm still not impressed by what it said as being supportive of what you assert:
    Groups were categorized as "FAST" (> or =0.68 kg/week, n = 69), "MODERATE" (> or =0.23 and <0.68 kg/week, n = 104), and "SLOW" (<0.23 kg/week, n = 89) based on rate of weight loss during first month of treatment.

    Fast is a pound a half? Not exactly earth shattering considering the BMI's (the mean was 36.8) of the participants.

    I don't see how this study in any way contradicts the conventional wisdom here on MFP. These were obese patients. Can you find research on fast weight loss for people who weren't obese?


  • runningforthetrain
    runningforthetrain Posts: 1,037 Member
    Where is the OP?