This site is confusing: Ready to go old Fashioned

Options
2»

Replies

  • sheldonklein
    sheldonklein Posts: 854 Member
    Options
    Weight loss=CICO, but there is more to health than weight loss. Macros matter to health not weight loss. However, and this is à big however, your health isn't terribly sensitive to macros. Eat a variety of nutrient dense food and don't sweat the precise macros. Unless you are an elite athlete, it doesn't matter if you are 35%carbs or 55%. If you're at 80% carbs, it's time to worry about macros.
  • EmmaFitzwilliam
    EmmaFitzwilliam Posts: 482 Member
    Options
    I log my meals because the app has the database and does the math behind the scenes so I don't have to fuss with it. My Up24 is linked to the app, so my recommended number of calories based on my generally sedentary lifestyle is augmented by compensation for the additional calories burned during even light exercise (walking at an easy pace for 20 minutes once or twice a day).

    If I ate anything and everything it occurred to me to eat, in the quantities I think I want, my weight would creep up, just like it did last time.

    Logging and portion awareness inspire me to keep my choices "in the green" for calories and my macros give me an impetus to consider whether I want carbs, fat, or protein.

    Your mileage may vary, but using the app isn't inherently onerous.
  • RockstarWilson
    RockstarWilson Posts: 836 Member
    Options
    Lavoisier agrees with CICO. :smiley:
  • maxit
    maxit Posts: 880 Member
    Options
    Machka9 wrote: »
    tyoung8 wrote: »
    What does everyone else think? Is losing weight CICO vs. Starvation Mode or both? or what?

    I really want to make this a lifestyle change, and don't have it consume so much of my time/thoughts/etc.

    Losing weight is all about CI<CO.

    And it's not a "lifestyle change", it's just CI<CO for however long you need to do CI<CO until you lose the weight.

    It's only not a "lifestyle change" if a person is not interested in maintaining once goal is reached. Whatever you do to lose the pounds, make it something you can sustain. Sure, maintenance will have you eating a few hundred calories a day more but thinking that you can maintain going back to whatever lifestyle caused the weight gain in the first place is a road to disappointment.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    I'd be lost without this place. It makes calorie counting easy. Plus it links with my fitbit, which makes it even easier.
  • jennifer_417
    jennifer_417 Posts: 12,344 Member
    Options
    "Starvation mode" isn't really a thing. You will lose weight if you consume fewer calories than you can consume. HOWEVER IT'S REALLY BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH TO CONSUME TOO LITTLE NUTRITION. It also makes sticking with the plan WAY more difficult than necessary. Most people who over-restrict end up in a starve/binge cycle and never hit their goal weight.
  • tyoung8
    tyoung8 Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    Merkavar wrote: »
    tyoung8 wrote: »
    It literally takes up 1 to 2 minutes of my day to log my foods... there is 1440 minutes in a day.

    This is irrelevant to what I am asking.

    thanks tho.

    Seems relevant, your complaint is you don't want it to be time consuming. He said it's not time consuming. Or at least it's as time consuming as you want it to be.
    tyoung8 wrote: »
    I really want to make this a lifestyle change, and don't have it consume so much of my time/thoughts/etc.

    [/quote]


    I didn't say logging specifically was time consuming. I meant the whole aspect of it "dieting"

  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    I find it all very easy and largely boils down to common sense.
  • tyoung8
    tyoung8 Posts: 115 Member
    Options
    maxit wrote: »
    Machka9 wrote: »
    tyoung8 wrote: »
    What does everyone else think? Is losing weight CICO vs. Starvation Mode or both? or what?

    I really want to make this a lifestyle change, and don't have it consume so much of my time/thoughts/etc.

    Losing weight is all about CI<CO.

    And it's not a "lifestyle change", it's just CI<CO for however long you need to do CI<CO until you lose the weight.

    It's only not a "lifestyle change" if a person is not interested in maintaining once goal is reached. Whatever you do to lose the pounds, make it something you can sustain. Sure, maintenance will have you eating a few hundred calories a day more but thinking that you can maintain going back to whatever lifestyle caused the weight gain in the first place is a road to disappointment.

    agree. This will definitely be a lifestly change however I don't see myself logging forever. I will begin to log again if I see my weight go up ten lbs or more. But I plan to use this as a tool only in the first few weeks/months to get healthy patterns going.
  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    Options
    tyoung8 wrote: »
    maxit wrote: »
    Machka9 wrote: »
    tyoung8 wrote: »
    What does everyone else think? Is losing weight CICO vs. Starvation Mode or both? or what?

    I really want to make this a lifestyle change, and don't have it consume so much of my time/thoughts/etc.

    Losing weight is all about CI<CO.

    And it's not a "lifestyle change", it's just CI<CO for however long you need to do CI<CO until you lose the weight.

    It's only not a "lifestyle change" if a person is not interested in maintaining once goal is reached. Whatever you do to lose the pounds, make it something you can sustain. Sure, maintenance will have you eating a few hundred calories a day more but thinking that you can maintain going back to whatever lifestyle caused the weight gain in the first place is a road to disappointment.

    agree. This will definitely be a lifestyle change however I don't see myself logging forever. I will begin to log again if I see my weight go up ten lbs or more. But I plan to use this as a tool only in the first few weeks/months to get healthy patterns going.

    Then you have the right idea - I've been here a little over a year and see people come back once they've gained a bit, started logging, got back on track and back on with life.

    For weight loss your primary concern is the calories you intake - just don't go over the number MFP sets for you. The macros - carbs/proteins/fats are a bit more in depth. Eat enough protein to keep the muscles you have, eat more carbs to build more. You can really dig deep on this if you want to suit specific goals.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    The reason you don't want to go too low on calories is that it will be harder to stick to, may lead to low energy, will result in losing more muscle, may compromise your nutritional goals, and can even harm your health (gall stones, hair loss, etc). You'll lose weight if you go very low, but is it worth it?

    It DOES matter if you eat too little, but not because it won't result in weight loss.

    This^

    Too low calories is very taxing on the body. I wish that all weight loss = just fat loss. But it doesn't. We do have to be a little careful. Macros (protein, fat, and carbs) matter for health reasons. I don't track carbs (no medical issues) but I try to meet protein & fat goals. You don't have to be obsessive about it, just aim for well rounded meals.....and you'll kind of gravitate towards your goals.
  • skinnyinnotime
    skinnyinnotime Posts: 4,141 Member
    Options
    But you're here, after a few attempts, so it would seem the "old fashioned way" doesn't work for you.

Categories