Things I had to unlearn about losing weight

triciab79 wrote: »

Just trying to keep this post up top for all the newbies until they make it an announcement.

If there is one thing I wish we could post at the top of every single topic it would be: Starvation Mode is a myth.

I feel so bad for all the people who are new to this and haven't figured out that they need a scale, and have to track even on cheat days. They come to the forums sad because they are not losing and some idiot tells them to eat more. If eating more made you lose weight America would have nothing but skinny people everywhere. Its not logical or supported by any science anywhere but people are desperate to find a solution that allows them to not change their way of life and still get what they want. If someone who posted on the first page has the "why I am not losing" flow chart, can you please edit your post to include the flow chart so that it will be available to people as they first look at this.

Couldn't have said it better.

bpetrosky wrote: »

Morgaen73 wrote: »

chrisskellinton wrote: »

Good post

how about you add..../ Muscle weighs more than fat.....(No, 1lb of Fat is the same of 1lb of muscle)

I've never understood this. Yes I understand density. However making a blank statement that 1kg of muscle weighs the same as 1kg of fat and therefore fat and muscle weigh the same is ridiculous. It creates the impression that everything weights the same. A kilo of feathers and a kilo of lead does weigh the same because both weigh 1 kilo, however, the volume of feathers needed to make up that kilo is FAR more than the volume of lead needed.

One cubic cm of muscle does NOT weigh the same as 1 cubic cm of fat. Therefore if one compares volume and not merely 1kg with 1kg then muscle and fat do not in fact weigh the same.

1 kg of feathers and 1 kg of lead do weigh the same. Drop them in a vacuum (or where air resistance is not a factor) and they fall at exactly the same rate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo's_Leaning_Tower_of_Pisa_experiment

Kg is mass, and mass alone.
Weight is the force on mass due to gravity.

1 kg of fat weighs the same as 1 kg of muscle. 1 kg of fat is less dense (and by definition takes more volume) than 1 kg of muscle.

Didn't you just repeat what the post above said?

Excellent!!!!

This definitely deserved a bump!

Awesome post! Some of these are things I'm having to unlearn as well.

138shades wrote: »

Good post

how about you add..../ Muscle weighs more than fat.....(No, 1lb of Fat is the same of 1lb of muscle)

I agree with everything on this post. Awesome job! I'd like to add stuff that I've learned from multiple failed diets over the past few years:

- Detoxing is not a thing.
- IIFYM is not the optimal diet in practice if you cannot adhere to it consistently for long periods of time.
- Green juices will not magically burn fat. What they have going for them is that they are nutrient dense and calorically undense (is that a word?)
- Waist trainers, bulletproof coffee, etc. are misleading and take advantage of our instant-gratification society.
- Everyone can tell when you wear butt pads (lol)
- Clean eating is often bashed by IIFYMers, but has its merits due to "clean" foods generally having a higher satiety value. This makes it easier to remain in a caloric deficit if your goal is to lose weight.
- Liquid calories are often calorie-dense and do not offer as much satiety as its solid counterpart.
- Fast foods may fit your macros, but do not keep your hunger satisfied for long.


Some of these points were huge problems for me in my diet attempts in the past. I am on a caloric deficit right now and feel that I can adhere to it very closely. My key changes was balancing my macro goals between optimal and maintainable. For example, I used to stick to 1g of protein per pound of body weight before. Now, I decreased it to roughly .75g per pound of body weight. It may not be optimal, but it has been a goal I reliably met.

Since starting my diet a month ago, I have gone from 196lbs to 183lbs. My performance at the gym has not taken any significant hit and I am not miserable as a result of having a strict diet. Flexiblility and maintainability are the cornerstones of a great diet plan.

Bump because its an awesome thread !

WendyLaubach wrote: »

I know from my experience in other areas where I've managed to exhibit some self-discipline that, if something doesn't make me happy on some level, I'm not likely to keep up working hard at it. The trick is diverting my attention from one thing that makes me happy to another. For instance, eating chocolate truffles until I pass out makes me one kind of happy, but throwing away my size 3X clothes and wearing all 1X or L makes me another kind of happy. Very often it's a question of shifting my attention from immediate to long-term gratification. Odd how that comes naturally in the context of learning something difficult, or making money, but was hard in the context of food. Nevertheless, once I gave it a fair try, it turned out to work the same way. I eat much less now, but I enjoy my food as much as or more than I did. Everything I eat is pleasurable both as food, and as a step toward a goal that's important to me. The future seems bright instead of hopeless, and what could be more gratifying or less miserable? Now I wouldn't give this up for the world.