Why is losing weight so effortless for some and so difficult for others?
Replies
-
MommyL2015 wrote: »You can't bring home leftover food that you paid for? What kind of insanity is that? (Sorry for going off topic, that just made me go "what in the heck?" )
Well it's just not done I guess. Not in France anyway... or Belgium, I believe (I admit I'm not that familiar with the other countries though, so my bad).0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
If only when people brought cupcakes to work they baked teeny tiny ones for us petite people. If only restaurants provided meals that fit our requirements. It annoys me to spend money on a nice steak and it's literally quadrulple what I 'should' eat. When even the salads and entrees are out of proportion unless I've exercised for two hours earlier on in the day. And then I'm hungry anyway because the volume was tiny but the calorie density was high. I'm fine if I can prep all my own food, eating out is much harder when you have less wiggle room.
That is often not allowed in restaurants where I live due to food safety laws. And you're missing the point about there being something deeply frustrating about spending $60 on a meal and still being hungry because I've had to cut it in half. I work out a lot to eat more which gets me by. In some ways the calorie needs and appetites of a 5' person are proportionate (sometimes), can you admit that there might be additional challenges in eating out and so forth?
You can't bring food home from Australian restaurants? Pity.
Here in the US, at the majority of the restaurants I frequent, half an entree is the perfect size for filling me up. I'm almost 5'7". I bring the other half home, which has the additional benefit of being able to weigh it.
(For anyone else curious, $60 AUD = $42 US dollars.)
You can't in any European country either, as far as I know.
I don't think there are restrictions on bringing food home from restaurants where I live (Norway) because of hygiene, but it's generally frowned upon as being miserly. The portions aren't that enormous either. You wouldn't normally try to split a dish with another guest either, for the same reasons.
Portion sizes in the US are crazy.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/weight-management/big-food-are-we-eating-more.aspx
...Half-pound muffins? Two-pound pasta bowls? Since the 1970s, American fast-food and sit-down restaurants alike have contributed to the obesity epidemic by serving individual people enough food for a small family.
Portion Size and Obesity: How It All Adds Up
In competition with each other and operating under the philosophy that bigger is better, restaurants often serve up a portion size that is equal to two to four normal servings, while menu boards at fast-food restaurants scream “supersized burgers and fries!” Consider these portion-size facts:- In the 1950s, a regular fast-food burger was 2.8 ounces and 202 calories. In 2004, that same burger was 4.3 ounces and 310 calories.
- A regular Coke grew from six ounces in 1916 to 21 ounces in 1996.
- These days, you can buy a “double gulp” drink that’s 64 ounces and more than 600 calories, and a burrito that’s 1,100 calories or almost three-fourths of the entire daily 1,600-calorie allotment for an average-sized, non-exercising woman. Have them both, and you’re over the allotment.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/news-events/matte1.htm
...Consider, for example, if you had today's portions of the following meals:- Breakfast: a bagel (6 inches in diameter) and a 16-ounce coffee with sugar and milk.
- Lunch: two pieces of pepperoni pizza and a 20-ounce soda.
- Dinner: a chicken Caesar salad and a 20-ounce soda.
In one day, you would consume 1,595 more calories than if you had the same foods at typical portions served 20 years ago. Over the course of one year, if consumed daily, the larger portions could amount to more than 500,000 extra calories.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
If only when people brought cupcakes to work they baked teeny tiny ones for us petite people. If only restaurants provided meals that fit our requirements. It annoys me to spend money on a nice steak and it's literally quadrulple what I 'should' eat. When even the salads and entrees are out of proportion unless I've exercised for two hours earlier on in the day. And then I'm hungry anyway because the volume was tiny but the calorie density was high. I'm fine if I can prep all my own food, eating out is much harder when you have less wiggle room.
That is often not allowed in restaurants where I live due to food safety laws. And you're missing the point about there being something deeply frustrating about spending $60 on a meal and still being hungry because I've had to cut it in half. I work out a lot to eat more which gets me by. In some ways the calorie needs and appetites of a 5' person are proportionate (sometimes), can you admit that there might be additional challenges in eating out and so forth?
You can't bring food home from Australian restaurants? Pity.
Here in the US, at the majority of the restaurants I frequent, half an entree is the perfect size for filling me up. I'm almost 5'7". I bring the other half home, which has the additional benefit of being able to weigh it.
(For anyone else curious, $60 AUD = $42 US dollars.)
You can't in any European country either, as far as I know.
I don't think there are restrictions on bringing food home from restaurants where I live (Norway) because of hygiene, but it's generally frowned upon as being miserly. The portions aren't that enormous either. You wouldn't normally try to split a dish with another guest either, for the same reasons.
Portion sizes in the US are crazy.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/weight-management/big-food-are-we-eating-more.aspx
...Half-pound muffins? Two-pound pasta bowls? Since the 1970s, American fast-food and sit-down restaurants alike have contributed to the obesity epidemic by serving individual people enough food for a small family.
Portion Size and Obesity: How It All Adds Up
In competition with each other and operating under the philosophy that bigger is better, restaurants often serve up a portion size that is equal to two to four normal servings, while menu boards at fast-food restaurants scream “supersized burgers and fries!” Consider these portion-size facts:- In the 1950s, a regular fast-food burger was 2.8 ounces and 202 calories. In 2004, that same burger was 4.3 ounces and 310 calories.
- A regular Coke grew from six ounces in 1916 to 21 ounces in 1996.
- These days, you can buy a “double gulp” drink that’s 64 ounces and more than 600 calories, and a burrito that’s 1,100 calories or almost three-fourths of the entire daily 1,600-calorie allotment for an average-sized, non-exercising woman. Have them both, and you’re over the allotment.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/news-events/matte1.htm
...Consider, for example, if you had today's portions of the following meals:- Breakfast: a bagel (6 inches in diameter) and a 16-ounce coffee with sugar and milk.
- Lunch: two pieces of pepperoni pizza and a 20-ounce soda.
- Dinner: a chicken Caesar salad and a 20-ounce soda.
In one day, you would consume 1,595 more calories than if you had the same foods at typical portions served 20 years ago. Over the course of one year, if consumed daily, the larger portions could amount to more than 500,000 extra calories.
Gotta love the 'have an appetizer instead of an entree' advice for restaurants... considering that a lot of appetizers have more calories than an entree.
It's an over generalization though. Yes, some restaurants have huge portion sizes, but some do not... I've actually been burned ordering something thinking it was going to be big enough and it was just not enough food. Or I've asked the waiter if a dessert was big enough to share and she said it's for one person, and it was DEFINITELY big enough for two (I mean, two brownies, one huge scoop of ice cream, for one person? Shaking my head).
But yeah, maybe it's because I've been living in the US for 13 years, but a lot of portions just don't seem that huge to me anymore... and when I went back to France 5 years ago I wasn't shocked by 'tiny portions' or anything either... it just seemed like a normal amount of food.
Maybe people are just thinking of chain restaurants when they talk about 'huge portion sizes'? Because most local restaurants have always given me pretty reasonable portions.0 -
Some things are easy and some things are not. Everyone is good and bad at something. Years ago my mother was put on prednisone for Lupus and as predicted she gained a ton of weight. Everyone at the time told her there was nothing she could do about it. Having to stay on a high dose of this drug will make it incredibly hard if not impossible to lose weight. But she sucked it up and through sheer willpower, dedication and extreme discipline she dropped all of the weight and then some. She never went back either... stayed thin all of her life. Being Sicilian she ate and cooked a lot of healty peasant types of meals (that's what she called them), lentils, stews, beans, broths and of course there was always bread and pasta with gravy every Sunday. But she ate small portions, slowly, only when she was hungry and she'd eat like a dozen times a day... snacking. From the outside it seemed like she lost weight and maintained a slim figure very easily! But it wasn't easy for her.
What is seen and percieved are two different things.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Exactly. If I were running a site trying to make money from people trying to lose weight, I'd try to make it as hard as possible for people to argue using science, I'd place an emphasis on emotions and feelings rather than facts, and I'd make it as inconvenient as possible to find concise lists of posts that conflicted with the foregoing.ceoverturf wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have no idea. I was chubby/overweight my whole life for as long as I remember and well into my early 20s, and then I just... kinda decided and did it, no hassle.
Ditto - except I was well into my 30s.
Here's my personal opinion.
Once someone educates themselves and truly embraces exactly what is needed to lose weight...it's a very simple process.
The biggest obstacle to overcome is that there is A LOT of money to be made by intentionally distorting that very simple process, and many companies have taken advantage of that. The intentional distortion causes confusion, and leads people down paths of guaranteed failure.
If people would just educate themselves and ignore all the useless noise, the correct path would be abundantly clear.
Who would do such a thing? That's outright evil
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It attracts the drop bears.kshama2001 wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
If only when people brought cupcakes to work they baked teeny tiny ones for us petite people. If only restaurants provided meals that fit our requirements. It annoys me to spend money on a nice steak and it's literally quadrulple what I 'should' eat. When even the salads and entrees are out of proportion unless I've exercised for two hours earlier on in the day. And then I'm hungry anyway because the volume was tiny but the calorie density was high. I'm fine if I can prep all my own food, eating out is much harder when you have less wiggle room.
That is often not allowed in restaurants where I live due to food safety laws. And you're missing the point about there being something deeply frustrating about spending $60 on a meal and still being hungry because I've had to cut it in half. I work out a lot to eat more which gets me by. In some ways the calorie needs and appetites of a 5' person are proportionate (sometimes), can you admit that there might be additional challenges in eating out and so forth?
You can't bring food home from Australian restaurants? Pity.
Wear a pointy hat. And run like hell.0 -
It was hard for me until I found a WOE that worked really well for me. I would start, drop a few, fail and regain, miserable the whole time.
This time I found a WOE that addresses my health issues and has made me feel better even when eating at a deficit. It has made all the difference for me.
My WOE won't be right for everyone, but if I stick with it, I am sure I'll continue to have success.0 -
It was hard for me until I found a WOE that worked really well for me. I would start, drop a few, fail and regain, miserable the whole time.
This time I found a WOE that addresses my health issues and has made me feel better even when eating at a deficit. It has made all the difference for me.
My WOE won't be right for everyone, but if I stick with it, I am sure I'll continue to have success.
Yes, I understand, it has to "click".
(One aspect that muddles this, is that lots of things can feel like "clicking" initially, but then we can't keep it up, and struggle to understand why it doesn't work anymore. We can do almost anything for a short while. A lifestyle change (a term I have come to dislike almost as much as "clean eating", "weightloss journey" and "loosing weight"
) is for eh... life, not a short term fix.) 0 -
The places I've eaten in the U.S. and Canada serve portions for 2 people. Not just national, chain places, but Mom & Pop types as well. That's why it's usually a pain for me to plan a meal out because I have to plan to eat it again the next day. Not that the food is horrible, but it means I have to cut back on other meals 2 days in a row in order to fit it in. People want the most food for their money, so double portion sizes. Well, except for silly things like coleslaw. That's always 1/4 cup.kshama2001 wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »oh_happy_day wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
If only when people brought cupcakes to work they baked teeny tiny ones for us petite people. If only restaurants provided meals that fit our requirements. It annoys me to spend money on a nice steak and it's literally quadrulple what I 'should' eat. When even the salads and entrees are out of proportion unless I've exercised for two hours earlier on in the day. And then I'm hungry anyway because the volume was tiny but the calorie density was high. I'm fine if I can prep all my own food, eating out is much harder when you have less wiggle room.
That is often not allowed in restaurants where I live due to food safety laws. And you're missing the point about there being something deeply frustrating about spending $60 on a meal and still being hungry because I've had to cut it in half. I work out a lot to eat more which gets me by. In some ways the calorie needs and appetites of a 5' person are proportionate (sometimes), can you admit that there might be additional challenges in eating out and so forth?
You can't bring food home from Australian restaurants? Pity.
Here in the US, at the majority of the restaurants I frequent, half an entree is the perfect size for filling me up. I'm almost 5'7". I bring the other half home, which has the additional benefit of being able to weigh it.
(For anyone else curious, $60 AUD = $42 US dollars.)
You can't in any European country either, as far as I know.
I don't think there are restrictions on bringing food home from restaurants where I live (Norway) because of hygiene, but it's generally frowned upon as being miserly. The portions aren't that enormous either. You wouldn't normally try to split a dish with another guest either, for the same reasons.
Portion sizes in the US are crazy.
http://www.everydayhealth.com/diet-nutrition/weight-management/big-food-are-we-eating-more.aspx
...Half-pound muffins? Two-pound pasta bowls? Since the 1970s, American fast-food and sit-down restaurants alike have contributed to the obesity epidemic by serving individual people enough food for a small family.
Portion Size and Obesity: How It All Adds Up
In competition with each other and operating under the philosophy that bigger is better, restaurants often serve up a portion size that is equal to two to four normal servings, while menu boards at fast-food restaurants scream “supersized burgers and fries!” Consider these portion-size facts:- In the 1950s, a regular fast-food burger was 2.8 ounces and 202 calories. In 2004, that same burger was 4.3 ounces and 310 calories.
- A regular Coke grew from six ounces in 1916 to 21 ounces in 1996.
- These days, you can buy a “double gulp” drink that’s 64 ounces and more than 600 calories, and a burrito that’s 1,100 calories or almost three-fourths of the entire daily 1,600-calorie allotment for an average-sized, non-exercising woman. Have them both, and you’re over the allotment.
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/news-events/matte1.htm
...Consider, for example, if you had today's portions of the following meals:- Breakfast: a bagel (6 inches in diameter) and a 16-ounce coffee with sugar and milk.
- Lunch: two pieces of pepperoni pizza and a 20-ounce soda.
- Dinner: a chicken Caesar salad and a 20-ounce soda.
In one day, you would consume 1,595 more calories than if you had the same foods at typical portions served 20 years ago. Over the course of one year, if consumed daily, the larger portions could amount to more than 500,000 extra calories.
Gotta love the 'have an appetizer instead of an entree' advice for restaurants... considering that a lot of appetizers have more calories than an entree.
It's an over generalization though. Yes, some restaurants have huge portion sizes, but some do not... I've actually been burned ordering something thinking it was going to be big enough and it was just not enough food. Or I've asked the waiter if a dessert was big enough to share and she said it's for one person, and it was DEFINITELY big enough for two (I mean, two brownies, one huge scoop of ice cream, for one person? Shaking my head).
But yeah, maybe it's because I've been living in the US for 13 years, but a lot of portions just don't seem that huge to me anymore... and when I went back to France 5 years ago I wasn't shocked by 'tiny portions' or anything either... it just seemed like a normal amount of food.
Maybe people are just thinking of chain restaurants when they talk about 'huge portion sizes'? Because most local restaurants have always given me pretty reasonable portions.
OT: Some people are just better at moderating their intake/output than others. I have to log my food, weigh and measure it, pre-plan meals, count calories, get my 30k steps each day for the next few decades if I want to not go back to being 320#.
0 -
I agree. The "click" needs to last many weeks or months before you can be sure it is maintainable.0
-
I have some deep-rooted problems with emotional eating and binges, so I would say weight loss has been hard for me. But I've tried to keep cool and not think too negatively each day if I overeat my suggested calories by a little bit...0
-
It became easier when I started to see it as a continuous process rather than a period of suffering to achieve some goal: a MECHANICAL process of (measuring calories in) + (measuring calories out) + TIME = eventual weight-loss.
However, it took many many years of yo yo dieting to get here. For the longest time, the primary obstacles has been a mentality of, if I have to constantly watch what I eat, ugh, what's the point of even being alive -_=0 -
It was tremendously hard for me, but I didn't set out to lose weight. That's just icing on the cake. I set out to get healthy and that required changing...well, as it turns out, it required changing just about everything in my life. It started with a diet flip, though, and that was horribly hard. Surgery, obviously, sucks for everyone.lemurcat12 wrote: »I set out to get healthier, but had no idea what I was in for. If someone had told me all the changes it would take, I probably wouldn't have started. I'd have said, "That's not the life I want!"
This is interesting. For me, once I had a clear, realistic picture in my head of what it would take (thinking back to the first time I lost, in 2003), I thought it WAS the life I wanted--cooking regularly, healthy food, putting priority on making time to exercise, being a strong fit person who enjoyed lots of outdoor activity, so on. There was just a disconnect in how to get there. Before I started I wanted to get back to being able to go on a long run, but I was out of shape and running just made that obvious and was hard, so if I was feeling tired and lazy and stressed already I didn't do it. Similarly, cooking was something I wanted--I always enjoyed home cooked meals and wanted to be one of those people who could just whip something up, I just didn't know how. I didn't believe that I could really change my body, either (in theory I knew how it worked, but I didn't believe it would work for me, since weight control hadn't been something I'd ever thought about before).
But at some point (after seeing a photo of myself and realizing how bad it had gotten and doing a trip with a bunch of fit people and realizing I wanted that lifestyle), I just decided things had to change. I'd done lots of other hard things, I could figure out how to do this. So I put together a plan.
What was surprising was that other than working myself back into shape (which wasn't that fun, but exercise was once I started to get better at it), the changes were quite easy and I was right that it was the lifestyle I wanted.
That's why allowing myself to regain after having that lifestyle for 7 years (the loss period and maintenance period) made me kick myself so much -- the whole time I was regaining and then fat again I knew I'd been happier being a more active person, eating better (I didn't eat horribly, but I ate in ways I knew were contributing to the regain), but for some reason my other issues won out over what I knew was good for me and would actually make me happy.
(Of course there were emotional reasons--I was depressed during part of this time, going through some really stressful periods, but it is related to the fact that I still have some innately dysfunctional ways of coping that I need to work on.)
I really don't perceive the weight loss or the changes I made to get there as all that hard, though. However, one thing this discussion is causing me to do is think about what "hard" means to me.
I didn't make a plan. I just tackled one challenge and moved on to the next one when it presented itself. When I run out of new challenges, I'll be delighted.
Almost every single part of my life has been changed. Some of those changes weren't things I was happy to do and I had to force myself to do them. Others were just done as a matter of course, things that needed doing. As I did them, I didn't even think about how this thing I was doing was directly related to my new, healthier lifestyle. I just did them because stuff comes up. Others were things I was glad to do.
When I decided I needed shorter hair, I didn't relate it to the healthier lifestyle, but looking back, it was. My hair was fried because I swam a lot. Doing something other than my standard ponytail didn't seem like a chore because just taking a shower didn't wipe me out. Because of the new lifestyle, I needed shorter hair. Because of the surgery and ability to exercise, styling wasn't out of the question.
When I pulled everything out of the pantry to organize it, I didn't relate it to my new lifestyle immediately. It was just a mess. It used to be stocked with store-bought prepared foods and as they dwindled, new stuff took their place. Where once sat Oreos, there are now giant tubs of flours and oat bran. Where a deep fryer that has been donated used to be, the ice cream maker that used to sit on the dang counter has been placed.
I packed away my water glasses because the Tervis ones don't sweat and I was dropping the old ones too often and everything breaks on my extremely hard-tiled floors. When I did that, I didn't relate it to my healthier lifestyle, but it is. I needed more and more Tervis glasses because I'm drinking water, not cans of soda. They need a place to be. Out with the old and in with new.
Everything, from my hair to my shoes, from my car to where it's driven (and where it is parked in the garage) is new and different.
I bought a lot of new cookware and cookbooks, but no longer pay pool and lawn guys. So, when I whip out my wallet (which is new because I needed a smaller one for when I'm out walking and has new cards in it that relate to my new lifestyle), I'm paying for different things.
Everything is different. It took lots of work.
If someone had said, "You're going to lose the man you love and a couple friends, get new friends, go to a gym, get rid of lots of kitchen stuff, have to buy new kitchen stuff, learn a bunch of new ways to cook, bake your own bread, make your own cottage cheese (and weigh the finished products!), mow your own lawn, test your own pool, learn a whole new way of cooking, buy new shoes, lift weights, completely revamp your diet, buy amusement park passes, walk or run eight miles a day and swim, give up these ponytails you love, toss the scrunchies and keep vitamins in that container instead, review nutrition (and actually learn it this time), take a bunch of pills and have your food and life revolve around their timing, have a never-ending series of medical tests requiring countless hours in waiting rooms, surgeries, buy a new wallet, weigh every little bite you eat, write it down, log it..." et cetera, et cetera...It would've seemed like much too much.
I'm glad I didn't know what I was in for. I'm glad the doctor said, "Just don't eat any fat or pasta. You can have all the fruits and veggies you want. You need to get some exercise. Think about going to the gym. I go to this one, you should check it out."
That was enough! That right there, was hard enough and more than I was sure I could do. If I'd known what I was in for, I'm not sure I'd have done it. I might've said, "Screw that, I'd rather die. I can't do all that and I don't want to."
I'm glad I just started with eating healthy and exercising. In the end, that's what everything else stems from, anyway.
0 -
Lifestyle changes are strssful,even when they are positive. The only way is "All In". Otherwise its self-defeating.
0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Exactly. If I were running a site trying to make money from people trying to lose weight, I'd try to make it as hard as possible for people to argue using science, I'd place an emphasis on emotions and feelings rather than facts, and I'd make it as inconvenient as possible to find concise lists of posts that conflicted with the foregoing.ceoverturf wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have no idea. I was chubby/overweight my whole life for as long as I remember and well into my early 20s, and then I just... kinda decided and did it, no hassle.
Ditto - except I was well into my 30s.
Here's my personal opinion.
Once someone educates themselves and truly embraces exactly what is needed to lose weight...it's a very simple process.
The biggest obstacle to overcome is that there is A LOT of money to be made by intentionally distorting that very simple process, and many companies have taken advantage of that. The intentional distortion causes confusion, and leads people down paths of guaranteed failure.
If people would just educate themselves and ignore all the useless noise, the correct path would be abundantly clear.
In the short-term yeah, I can see where your site might be tempted by the prospect of some quick dollar signs and those might seem like good ideas. At least until such time as the user group realizes your site was peddling a bunch of woo and leaves en masse.
In the long term though, I would think that if your site could accumulate several members who were long-term users, achieved great success using their methods, and promoted those members' success, and fostered an environment where they stuck around even after they were successful to help out others, that would be a much better long-term business model.
What you guys are talking about, I can't quite put my finger on it..... I think I had a dream like this last night. That must be it. Only explanation for why this sounds so familiar...
0 -
[/quote]
It may be because I have Asperger's and thus a lack of empathy. I know I have trouble with imagination and seeing things from other people's views. I don't understand myself sometimes either. I struggle with other issues, but weight is so easy. I just want to grasp the "why". [/quote]
In for you the CICO numbers game matches your theoretical predicted weight loss then that indeed would be relatively easy. In my view, for many of us we can be disciplined for weeks and then plateau or gain (salt, PMS, Constipation, muscles etc) and be put off _why bother? I am failing anyway and food is my! . We didn't gain weight, most likely, without some issues around mental health and food. Thus folk can beat themselves up mentally and give up when these hurdles occur. Thus it is hard, especially close to ideal weight for many folk.
0 -
It was tremendously hard for me, but I didn't set out to lose weight. That's just icing on the cake. I set out to get healthy and that required changing...well, as it turns out, it required changing just about everything in my life. It started with a diet flip, though, and that was horribly hard. Surgery, obviously, sucks for everyone.
Yeah, surgery is hard, for sure.
The first time, I did set out to lose weight (I was very upset when it hit home how fat I'd gotten), but I actually did focus more on making health-related (or fitness-related) changes, since I knew I could control what I ate or how much exercise I did and was confident I could get physically fit. (I just was skeptical that I'd actually get thinner, which again is insane, but I had no experience with dieting.)I didn't make a plan. I just tackled one challenge and moved on to the next one when it presented itself. When I run out of new challenges, I'll be delighted.
I'm not sure I see this as so different than making a plan, but maybe it is. I did focus on specific steps (what you might call challenges) although I did them simultaneously, sometimes, but for me I get motivated much better when I create an overarching plan and see where these steps are leading. (This is also why I do much better when I weigh myself than when I do not.)
Like I said, I wonder if part of this comes down to a different understanding of the term hard. I made fitness into a hobby, but because I enjoy the hobby I don't see the time spent on it as hard. In fact, what helped was changing my mind set so the things I needed to do seemed fun or appealing in some other way, not burdensome.
I wonder if part of this is the difference between starting it out of health reasons vs. not, so having to come up with some other reasons to make it seem something that had to be done NOW. (I think everyone who is obese has health reasons, but when you are in good health and are able to do what you want to do without problem it's easy to think yeah, I should think about that soon but not have it be immediate.)
But also, I wasn't really attached to the elements of my life that I changed -- I think I saw my failure to exercise or cook (much) or eat well (this is back in '02) as things that weren't ideal and that I should have changed already as part of being an adult, so it was kind of like I got a kick all of a sudden into "it's time, I am going to be an adult and live like I should be." And once I started doing everything I went overboard because that's me, but that's also fun for me.0 -
I had my Come To Jesus at the doctor and it had to be done NOW. Do or die. Pick a side. Like most people (even those who say they'd rather die), I picked Do.lemurcat12 wrote: »It was tremendously hard for me, but I didn't set out to lose weight. That's just icing on the cake. I set out to get healthy and that required changing...well, as it turns out, it required changing just about everything in my life. It started with a diet flip, though, and that was horribly hard. Surgery, obviously, sucks for everyone.
Yeah, surgery is hard, for sure.
The first time, I did set out to lose weight (I was very upset when it hit home how fat I'd gotten), but I actually did focus more on making health-related (or fitness-related) changes, since I knew I could control what I ate or how much exercise I did and was confident I could get physically fit. (I just was skeptical that I'd actually get thinner, which again is insane, but I had no experience with dieting.)I didn't make a plan. I just tackled one challenge and moved on to the next one when it presented itself. When I run out of new challenges, I'll be delighted.
I'm not sure I see this as so different than making a plan, but maybe it is. I did focus on specific steps (what you might call challenges) although I did them simultaneously, sometimes, but for me I get motivated much better when I create an overarching plan and see where these steps are leading. (This is also why I do much better when I weigh myself than when I do not.)
Like I said, I wonder if part of this comes down to a different understanding of the term hard. I made fitness into a hobby, but because I enjoy the hobby I don't see the time spent on it as hard. In fact, what helped was changing my mind set so the things I needed to do seemed fun or appealing in some other way, not burdensome.
I wonder if part of this is the difference between starting it out of health reasons vs. not, so having to come up with some other reasons to make it seem something that had to be done NOW. (I think everyone who is obese has health reasons, but when you are in good health and are able to do what you want to do without problem it's easy to think yeah, I should think about that soon but not have it be immediate.)
Health crises are hugely motivating. Having a condition that has no surgical treatment and is only treated and improved with diet and exercise - even more motivating. I'm motivated. I have motivation coming out the...bottom.
Some of it is fun. The better I do on lab results, the yummier my healthy food gets, the better I look and feel - that's all great.
But the first months of watching other people eat (and smelling the) ribs and fries while I ate plain, boring food...that was tough.
Struggling through my first workouts and walks...tough.
Letting go of everything I did and doing everything new...sometimes tough, sometimes not.
I worked very, very hard to get where I am.
I'm still not done. Some things are still tough...like any and all resistance training. I hate it. I do it. I hate it less than I sued to!! But I don't like it. Maybe someday. Working on it!
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Hi, I'm DeguelloTex and I had 14 chocolate cupcakes with chocolate frosting over the weekend. Then we ran out.refuseresist wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
Lol I am a 5' woman, and my desire and capacity for cupcakes outstrips any man I have ever known.
As a 5'2" woman who loves her cupcakes, I have to chime in. If you and I were in a cupcake eating competition, I have no doubt you'd be able to smoke me. And yes, I could take a scalpel and do cupcake surgery to adjust the portion for my caloric needs. But it's just much more mentally satisfying to have 1 cupcake rather than .67 of a cupcake. And after a certain point, a portion of a treat just gets so small that it doesn't even seem worth it. If my husband and I are both really craving a treat, that 300 calorie cupcake is over 20% of my daily calories vs. less than 12% of his, so in very real terms, yes it's harder for me to decide to go get a cupcake than for him.
I'm not complaining, just explaining.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Hi, I'm DeguelloTex and I had 14 chocolate cupcakes with chocolate frosting over the weekend. Then we ran out.refuseresist wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
Lol I am a 5' woman, and my desire and capacity for cupcakes outstrips any man I have ever known.
As a 5'2" woman who loves her cupcakes, I have to chime in. If you and I were in a cupcake eating competition, I have no doubt you'd be able to smoke me. And yes, I could take a scalpel and do cupcake surgery to adjust the portion for my caloric needs. But it's just much more mentally satisfying to have 1 cupcake rather than .67 of a cupcake. And after a certain point, a portion of a treat just gets so small that it doesn't even seem worth it. If my husband and I are both really craving a treat, that 300 calorie cupcake is over 20% of my daily calories vs. less than 12% of his, so in very real terms, yes it's harder for me to decide to go get a cupcake than for him.
I'm not complaining, just explaining.
Eh, I'm not beyond splitting a cupcake with my fiance (although he usually ends up with 1.5 for all the above reasons). Sometimes I make it work in my calories, sometimes I say F* the calories I want a cupcake. I'm ok with both choices really.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Hi, I'm DeguelloTex and I had 14 chocolate cupcakes with chocolate frosting over the weekend. Then we ran out.refuseresist wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Why should she have as much extra cupcake as someone much larger, though?honkytonks85 wrote: »People who are shorter and lighter have fewer calories to work with. If you are 5'3 and weigh 65kg unfortunately you need to cut calories pretty much down to 1200 calories to create a reasonable deficit and be super accurate with your logging.
Not always true. Many women workout hard to be able to eat more. This thread isn't specifically about short women, but several are peppered through the responses:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/506349/women-who-eat-more-than-1800-calories-a-day/
Yeah but it will still be harder on the petite woman to have that extra cupcake than for the 6 foot man, if both exercise the same.
I've never been a 5' woman, but I'd think that her appetite and caloric needs should be roughly proportional to the 6' man's, such that an extra cupcake would be out of proportion for her.
Lol I am a 5' woman, and my desire and capacity for cupcakes outstrips any man I have ever known.
As a 5'2" woman who loves her cupcakes, I have to chime in. If you and I were in a cupcake eating competition, I have no doubt you'd be able to smoke me. And yes, I could take a scalpel and do cupcake surgery to adjust the portion for my caloric needs. But it's just much more mentally satisfying to have 1 cupcake rather than .67 of a cupcake. And after a certain point, a portion of a treat just gets so small that it doesn't even seem worth it. If my husband and I are both really craving a treat, that 300 calorie cupcake is over 20% of my daily calories vs. less than 12% of his, so in very real terms, yes it's harder for me to decide to go get a cupcake than for him.
I'm not complaining, just explaining.
Eh, I'm not beyond splitting a cupcake with my fiance (although he usually ends up with 1.5 for all the above reasons). Sometimes I make it work in my calories, sometimes I say F* the calories I want a cupcake. I'm ok with both choices really.
LOL Yes, my husband used to be the "receptacle" for all of my half donuts, brownies, cupcakes, etc. I think that's one of the reasons he decided to join MFP
0 -
The mental aspect is what makes it hard for some and easy for some. When I want something, I go after it with gusto and never give up. But I realize not everyone is like me. I've only tried to lose weight 1x, and I lost more than I intended. It wasn't ever hard. Yes, I stalled multiple times, but I never said, forget it and quit. I also don't have the problems that some people do, like emotional eating, stress eating, etc. I overeat and eat mindlessly on occasion, but its usually a couple days at the most. Its very easy for me to refocus. Recognize that we all have our struggles and we are all different.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It became easier when I started to see it as a continuous process rather than a period of suffering to achieve some goal: a MECHANICAL process of (measuring calories in) + (measuring calories out) + TIME = eventual weight-loss.
However, it took many many years of yo yo dieting to get here. For the longest time, the primary obstacles has been a mentality of, if I have to constantly watch what I eat, ugh, what's the point of even being alive -_=
Understanding the role of the time factor was something that helped click this time around - I was so sad I couldn't have chocolate etc anymore now that I had that big lifestyle change - until I realised that I could eat anything I wanted, if I just didn't eat all of it at once, and not all the time. With that in mind, and understanding what amounts I have to work with, it's not so difficult to pass up chocolate etc most of the time. Something has happened to my head
0 -
If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
I'd say with all due respect that luck has nothing to do with it.
Luck and circumstances always have something to do with it. You can walk 20k steps most days. Some people just can't.
But you're right, it's probably not luck or bad luck that some people can be satisfied on less. Just wish I knew what it was.
0 -
If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
As a person who prefers sweets over protein, I can and have eaten a single dessert as one meal (a DQ peanut buster parfait) and was happily full for 5 hours. I don't expect or tell people they should be full on eating ice cream just because it satiates me because humans are not cookie cutters of the same mold. Some people need high fat, some need high protein, and some need high carbs to be full/satiated.
As for the whole ideology of short women can't eat cupcakes like a man can it's simply BS. I'm 5'2". 45 y/o, female and you bet your butt I will match Deguello Tex his 14 cupcakes. My height isn't going to stop me from eating a cupcake (or several cupcakes). It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.0 -
If I want a cupcake, I'll eat one...maybe two. I also run or elliptical on a daily basis and get over 20K in steps on most days. I could probably fit a half dozen cupcakes in my diet if I wanted to.
I think we all have to find what works for us...and what our sweet spot is (pun intended) with diet and activity.
Lucky. Even with my 2200 calorie maintenance, the days I could fit a 400 calorie cupcake are few and far between, they don't fill me up at all then I end up hangry... It was easier for me to fit that stuff when I was losing though... I was less hungry.
Hunger levels DEFINITELY make a difference about how easy or hard weight loss is. And sweet tooth too... someone who loves burgers and steaks will be full after having their burgers... people who love cake, candy and cupcakes, well... nope.
As a person who prefers sweets over protein, I can and have eaten a single dessert as one meal (a DQ peanut buster parfait) and was happily full for 5 hours. I don't expect or tell people they should be full on eating ice cream just because it satiates me because humans are not cookie cutters of the same mold. Some people need high fat, some need high protein, and some need high carbs to be full/satiated.
As for the whole ideology of short women can't eat cupcakes like a man can it's simply BS. I'm 5'2". 45 y/o, female and you bet your butt I will match Deguello Tex his 14 cupcakes. My height isn't going to stop me from eating a cupcake (or several cupcakes). It's irritaing to read all the crap of how "shorties" and "fun-sized" women can't eat certain foods because of height.
Nothing stops you from eating them. But it's probably a good 20% of your TDEE... while for a tall man it will be closer to 15%. It's just math... obviously assuming the same activity level and age.
But yeah a DQ parfait could keep me full for hours some days too. And other days I can eat a huge piece of cheesecake and still be as hungry afterwards. Again, I'm just happy that started happening after I lost all the weight. Maintenance sucks but at least I did manage to lose weight. I'm guessing some are not that lucky (yes, I used the word again, because that's what it is). And for them, it *is* probably much harder to lose weight.0 -
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions