So in theory you could do no exercise at all and still lose weight with a deficit
Replies
-
FreezingDan wrote: »If you've lost weight via CICO it's because you reduced your carbs in the process.
Not necessarily true. I eat lots of carbs and am still losing.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
FreezingDan wrote: »If you've lost weight via CICO it's because you reduced your carbs in the process.
carbs are easy to flex in a diet...but you said 10% carbs which is keto...keto isn't necessary to lose weight...low carb isn't necessary to lose weight....moderating carbohydrate intake to make for a more well rounded and balanced diet is not the same as low carbing or keto....
roughly 50% or so of my diet is carbohydrates...I eat a lot of veg, fruit, legumes, lentils, quinoa, brown rice, potatoes, sweet potatoes, etc...
maybe you should stop posting now.0 -
Down 70 lbs. avid cyclist. never hungry.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I actually do this now, but I know the more I lose the more I will need to incorporate exercise into my lifestyle. For me, I don't think a deficit can be sustained solely from dieting once my caloric goals drop below 13000
-
Did Friday come early this week?0
-
FreezingDan wrote: »If you've lost weight via low carb CICO it's because you reduced your carbs calories in the process.
Fixed it for you.0 -
FreezingDan wrote: »If you've lost weight via CICO it's because you reduced your carbs in the process.
Nope. I didn't cut out any carbs, I like carbs too much. My calories in was reduced by cutting out foods like chips and ice cream, but I ended up compensating by eating more bread, so really, no. I didn't cut carbs down at all.0 -
FreezingDan wrote: »Yes. Just yes. Losing weight is not a math equation. It's a physiological transformation from storing fat to burning fat. The only way to burn fat is to reduce insulin levels. And the only way to that is by reducing your glycemic load.
The actual results of a lot of us here shows otherwise.0 -
Not a theory it's fact.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
It's a tough pill to swallow. Here you've all been starving yourself and self-congratulating yourself because you have such good will power. Then someone comes along and pokes holes in your theory and, instead of looking at it objectively, you prefer to instantly dismiss the messenger.
Fine with me. Enjoy your starvation ritual0 -
FreezingDan wrote: »It's a tough pill to swallow. Here you've all been starving yourself and self-congratulating yourself because you have such good will power. Then someone comes along and pokes holes in your theory and, instead of looking at it objectively, you prefer to instantly dismiss the messenger.
Fine with me. Enjoy your starvation ritual
This seriously made me laugh outloud, I'm not sorry. Starvation ritual? Mmm no. I eat plenty thank you!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
FreezingDan wrote: »It's a tough pill to swallow. Here you've all been starving yourself and self-congratulating yourself because you have such good will power. Then someone comes along and pokes holes in your theory and, instead of looking at it objectively, you prefer to instantly dismiss the messenger.
Fine with me. Enjoy your starvation ritual
I see Vismal is your pal have you explained it all to him?0 -
FreezingDan wrote: »It's a tough pill to swallow. Here you've all been starving yourself and self-congratulating yourself because you have such good will power. Then someone comes along and pokes holes in your theory and, instead of looking at it objectively, you prefer to instantly dismiss the messenger.
Fine with me. Enjoy your starvation ritual
I'm dismissing the erroneous message. If that means dismissing the messenger along with it ... so be it.0 -
7 out of 10, had me going for a little bit.0 -
FreezingDan wrote: »It's a tough pill to swallow. Here you've all been starving yourself and self-congratulating yourself because you have such good will power. Then someone comes along and pokes holes in your theory and, instead of looking at it objectively, you prefer to instantly dismiss the messenger.
Fine with me. Enjoy your starvation ritual
Starvation ritual? That makes no sense. I'm certainly not starving and I'm fairly sure others here aren't as well. Cutting carbs may have worked for you, and there are some people that have to because of medical reasons, but that's not what causes weight loss. Weight loss is caused by burning more calories than you consume. That's it. There's no magic food you have to eat or not eat, there are no evil foods, and not everyone can lose weight with the same eating habits. The statements you have made have been broad and really don't apply to most people, and you're complaining that we're bitching about you 'poking holes in our theories'? Pot, kettle dude. Seriously.
I don't have good will power, that's why a lot of foods that I know I will snack mindlessly on don't get stored in my house. That doesn't mean I won't eat them, I've just found ways to eat less of them. Nothing magic about that. And as it works FOR ME, it's not a theory. There are all kinds of ways to lose weight, some aren't very healthy, but they all boil down to the same thing: burning more calories than you consume. Period. You can do it by lowering the amount of calories you consume, burning more calories than you were before, or a combination of the two. How you do it is up to you; what works for one may not work for others. If cutting carbs worked for you, more power to you. It didn't for me and I'm perfectly fine. So you might as well climb off your high horse and stop preaching your own theory as fact when it's not.
Starvation ritual. *snork*0 -
Of course you can lose weight without exercise. This is why people lose weight when they are sick and just lay in bed not eating.0
-
FreezingDan, are you friends with that other guy who kept obsessively posting about insulin-this, glucose-that, carbs are evil, high fat is good? Are you the SAME PERSON? Because you both are completely and utterly misguided. Carbs are an important macronutrient. I eat about 55-60% carbs (because frankly, I'm awful at hitting my 25% protein goal) yet I lost 11lb my first time here on MFP, and now I've lost 8 lb again. I eat tons of carbs, but I'm losing weight. Why? Because MATH. I burn more calories than I consume.0
-
FreezingDan wrote: »Caloric deficit isn't what leads to weight loss - it's the reduction of carbohydrate-dense foods. You might think it's because you're eating less but any diet plan that leaves you hungry can only be effective for so long. And by the way exercise makes you hungry, too.
Just cut down to 10% or less carbs and you've got a plan for life. Exercise is essential - but not for weight loss. I'm living proof.
Cutting calories may lead to short-term weight loss but so does smoking. And neither one is good for your health. Calories in/calories out is the mindset of the 1970's.
0 -
FreezingDan wrote: »Caloric deficit isn't what leads to weight loss - it's the reduction of carbohydrate-dense foods. You might think it's because you're eating less but any diet plan that leaves you hungry can only be effective for so long. And by the way exercise makes you hungry, too.
Just cut down to 10% or less carbs and you've got a plan for life. Exercise is essential - but not for weight loss. I'm living proof.
Cutting calories may lead to short-term weight loss but so does smoking. And neither one is good for your health. Calories in/calories out is the mindset of the 1970's.
My carb grams for today? 434.
My weight loss? 122 pounds.
My weight gain in maintenance? I'm still four pounds under my initial goal weight.
Number of reasonable statements in your post: Possibly one, because exercise does make some people hungry.
0 -
Not starving. 45% of calories from carbs. 500 Cals reduction daily. Losing weight? Yes!0
-
FreezingDan wrote: »It's a tough pill to swallow. Here you've all been starving yourself and self-congratulating yourself because you have such good will power. Then someone comes along and pokes holes in your theory and, instead of looking at it objectively, you prefer to instantly dismiss the messenger.
Fine with me. Enjoy your starvation ritual
you're making a huge assumption here that everyone is starving or something...i'm not...nor was I when I was losing weight.
how does eating carbs = starving?
this is why I have difficulty taking low carbers seriously....there are a couple of knowledgable ones around here, but pretty much this line of thinking seems to be the primary thinking of the low carb/keto trend....ignorance.
0 -
FreezingDan wrote: »If you've lost weight via CICO it's because you reduced your carbs in the process.
Oh don't be silly!! I've lost weight on almost 100% junk food. I've lost weight with low fat, high carb. I've lost weight by not changing my diet and just adding exercise. I've lost weight by focusing on healthy foods and not even trying to lose weight. And in the past year, I lost weight by eating somewhat similar to the Mediterranean Diet, which is fairly high carb.
My secret is what I learned in the 1970's. Consume less calories than you burn. That knowledge is what has kept me from becoming obese all these years and kept me at a healthy weight for more than 40 of my 51 years.
Drop your carbs if you need or want to, but it's obviously not the only way to do it.0 -
Sorry but I don't see the point of this discussion. Why would you WANT to lose weight but not have any strength or stamina? Why would you want to risk losing whatever fitness level you have? I used to be unable to walk up a small hill, I couldn't walk more than 1/4 mi without rest and being in pain. It's not a fun place to be, so why do you want to go there? If you're not improving your fitness, strength, and stamina, you're letting it slide backwards. Believe me, I know.
SW 301
CW 196
GW 160
15 mo.
0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »FreezingDan wrote: »Yes. Just yes. Losing weight is not a math equation. It's a physiological transformation from storing fat to burning fat. The only way to burn fat is to reduce insulin levels. And the only way to that is by reducing your glycemic load.
Do you have any peer reviewed research to substantiate this position?
So...I take it that's a "no" on the research?
0 -
-
Sorry but I don't see the point of this discussion. Why would you WANT to lose weight but not have any strength or stamina? Why would you want to risk losing whatever fitness level you have? I used to be unable to walk up a small hill, I couldn't walk more than 1/4 mi without rest and being in pain. It's not a fun place to be, so why do you want to go there? If you're not improving your fitness, strength, and stamina, you're letting it slide backwards. Believe me, I know.
SW 301
CW 196
GW 160
15 mo.
Maybe because some people can't exercise, such as the really morbidly obese trapped in a bed 24/7. How do you think they get enough weight off to be mobile again, let alone exercise?
Some people lose weight by cutting calories.
Some people lose weight by exercising more.
Some people lose weight by doing both.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions