I'm VERY Confused on Why the BMR & TDEE thread was Stickied on the Announcements ?? :( :(

2»

Replies

  • Orphia
    Orphia Posts: 7,097 Member
    MelWick524 wrote: »
    Help me out, guys. On the Announcements, there's that post called "Most Helpful Posts - General Diet & Weight Loss Help (Must Reads)," there's one discussion entitled "BMR & TDEE Explained for those Needing a Guide" or something along those lines. Read through it, and then read my comments on page 19 and then get back to me. Am I wrong? I'm super-duper confused because I see a lot of "starvation mode"-ness to that post. Maybe I'm the one not understanding BMR & TDEE after all? Help!

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/931670/bmr-and-tdee-explained-for-those-needing-a-guide/p1

    Your posts from there (to save people hunting):
    MelWick524 wrote: »
    So, in order to keep you living and breathing, again, body NOT caring about weight loss, the body will slow or stop some other systems (metabolism being the 1st it stops) and hang on to those 1200 calories b/c all it knows is that you are under-feeding it and so it must "hoard" that 1200, store it as fat and keep you alive. You essentially are stopping the metabolic process to a halt when you under eat.

    ... wait a minute here ... ??? ... isn't this post feeding into the Starvation Mode myth? Maybe I'm reading something wrong?
    MelWick524 wrote: »
    and then this later on by the OP...

    The first week, I lost the slight 3 lb gain I had when I was eating at a deficit - despite eating below 1200 when I was "unschooled" my body kept and retained even the plant based food - it was hungry! But after that bump to 1680, I lost those 3 lbs PLUS another 1 lb at that weigh in

    i'm sorry, but i don't think this post should be on the announcements...

    "i gained 3lbs in one week when eating at a deficit" ... no.no.no.no.no. Why is this post getting so much praise? It's taken me a long time to unwrap my head around bro-science.

    That does sound like bro-science.
  • barbecuesauce
    barbecuesauce Posts: 1,771 Member
    professionalHobbyist wrote: »
    I'm not the only one puzzled by this site.

    I had been working with a trainer and dietician, Dr for a year and lost 100 lbs before ever finding this place. A friend used the food diary, told me about it. and that is all I used for a while.

    I looked thru much of this and saw tons of things that contradicted what I was taught, and what worked for me long term. Straight up told it would not work.

    I know there are different diets for different people and all that... I respect different dietary needs and all that.

    But I never hear any of the arguing and craziness in person at the gym I do here.

    Then there is some bit somebody shares that is awesome! I say I have to totally do that in my life.

    Somebody said something to the effect of

    CICO is not a blank check for bad nutritional choices long term.

    That was money.

    Yes Picard, there are 4 lights

    Well, if you see something that contradicts your beliefs, speak up on that thread. I don't know the "CICO is not a blank check" post, but I do know that there is a very vocal faction on here that seems to believe people who don't believe that there are bad foods must be indulging in those bad foods constantly.

    And you don't hear the arguing and craziness in bridal salons that you do in wedding forums. You don't hear the arguing and craziness at concerts that you do in music forums. People are more vocal with their beliefs when there's no real social contract to break.
  • Dnarules
    Dnarules Posts: 2,081 Member
    Orphia wrote: »
    MelWick524 wrote: »
    Help me out, guys. On the Announcements, there's that post called "Most Helpful Posts - General Diet & Weight Loss Help (Must Reads)," there's one discussion entitled "BMR & TDEE Explained for those Needing a Guide" or something along those lines. Read through it, and then read my comments on page 19 and then get back to me. Am I wrong? I'm super-duper confused because I see a lot of "starvation mode"-ness to that post. Maybe I'm the one not understanding BMR & TDEE after all? Help!

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/931670/bmr-and-tdee-explained-for-those-needing-a-guide/p1

    Your posts from there (to save people hunting):
    MelWick524 wrote: »
    So, in order to keep you living and breathing, again, body NOT caring about weight loss, the body will slow or stop some other systems (metabolism being the 1st it stops) and hang on to those 1200 calories b/c all it knows is that you are under-feeding it and so it must "hoard" that 1200, store it as fat and keep you alive. You essentially are stopping the metabolic process to a halt when you under eat.

    ... wait a minute here ... ??? ... isn't this post feeding into the Starvation Mode myth? Maybe I'm reading something wrong?
    MelWick524 wrote: »
    and then this later on by the OP...

    The first week, I lost the slight 3 lb gain I had when I was eating at a deficit - despite eating below 1200 when I was "unschooled" my body kept and retained even the plant based food - it was hungry! But after that bump to 1680, I lost those 3 lbs PLUS another 1 lb at that weigh in

    i'm sorry, but i don't think this post should be on the announcements...

    "i gained 3lbs in one week when eating at a deficit" ... no.no.no.no.no. Why is this post getting so much praise? It's taken me a long time to unwrap my head around bro-science.

    That does sound like bro-science.

    These kinds of posts were widespread when I first started in 2012/2013. If someone, usually a woman, was not losing, a large percentage of posts told them to increase calories, and there was little backlash. I took a long break from MFP, and needless to say, things had really changed when I got back to the forums. If someone said they weren't losing, most members questioned their measuring techniques and scale use and exercise calories. It was a real paradigm shift for me initially.

    I think the person who bumped this again probably saw all the info on BMR and TDEE and didn't read the whole thing.

  • usmcmp
    usmcmp Posts: 21,219 Member
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    Dnarules wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    Stickies should be locked and have no responses

    I agree with this. If no one is monitoring, they can get off track (way off track).

    I disagree. Many of them, especially those made by posters like @usmcmp, are full of useful questions and answers in the comments. I would hate to lose those once the post is stickied.

    Thank you! I appreciate that.

    It's true that blanket answers are given on here a lot. Sometimes it is simply because others don't know any better. Sometimes it's because the blanket answer actually applies to the situation.

    As far as the BMR and TDEE thread goes, the hoarding calories thing is wrong. There are metabolic and hormonal adaptations that happen when we cut calories. If we eat at a slight deficit the adaptations are smaller and may take longer for them to have an impact (usually in the form of a plateau or extreme hunger). Our bodies try to be efficient when we are providing it with a shortage of food, but our metabolism doesn't stop.

    There should be a better way of "vetting" threads to become a sticky, but at least they fixed the issue with replacing the good threads with not so helpful ones for the sake of change.
  • Maitria
    Maitria Posts: 439 Member
    Dnarules wrote: »
    Orphia wrote: »
    MelWick524 wrote: »
    Help me out, guys. On the Announcements, there's that post called "Most Helpful Posts - General Diet & Weight Loss Help (Must Reads)," there's one discussion entitled "BMR & TDEE Explained for those Needing a Guide" or something along those lines. Read through it, and then read my comments on page 19 and then get back to me. Am I wrong? I'm super-duper confused because I see a lot of "starvation mode"-ness to that post. Maybe I'm the one not understanding BMR & TDEE after all? Help!

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/931670/bmr-and-tdee-explained-for-those-needing-a-guide/p1

    Your posts from there (to save people hunting):
    MelWick524 wrote: »
    So, in order to keep you living and breathing, again, body NOT caring about weight loss, the body will slow or stop some other systems (metabolism being the 1st it stops) and hang on to those 1200 calories b/c all it knows is that you are under-feeding it and so it must "hoard" that 1200, store it as fat and keep you alive. You essentially are stopping the metabolic process to a halt when you under eat.

    ... wait a minute here ... ??? ... isn't this post feeding into the Starvation Mode myth? Maybe I'm reading something wrong?
    MelWick524 wrote: »
    and then this later on by the OP...

    The first week, I lost the slight 3 lb gain I had when I was eating at a deficit - despite eating below 1200 when I was "unschooled" my body kept and retained even the plant based food - it was hungry! But after that bump to 1680, I lost those 3 lbs PLUS another 1 lb at that weigh in

    i'm sorry, but i don't think this post should be on the announcements...

    "i gained 3lbs in one week when eating at a deficit" ... no.no.no.no.no. Why is this post getting so much praise? It's taken me a long time to unwrap my head around bro-science.

    That does sound like bro-science.

    These kinds of posts were widespread when I first started in 2012/2013. If someone, usually a woman, was not losing, a large percentage of posts told them to increase calories, and there was little backlash. I took a long break from MFP, and needless to say, things had really changed when I got back to the forums. If someone said they weren't losing, most members questioned their measuring techniques and scale use and exercise calories. It was a real paradigm shift for me initially.

    I think the person who bumped this again probably saw all the info on BMR and TDEE and didn't read the whole thing.

    Yep, and that was also a time when anyone challenging starvation mode was accused of promoting eating disorders and VLCD. The eat more/lose more was very dominant at that time. (Not the idea that eating more will allow for long-term sustainability, but that eating more results in faster weight loss due to no starvation mode.) It's so different now.

    I wish they would the threads in a treasure chest kind of forum rather than sticking them all over.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories