Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why do people overeat and/or become obese? Is it harder than average for some to lose weight?
Replies
-
Well, my wild-babyunicorn guess was wrong by over 4 decades. This woman published a book in 1918 advocating 1200 calories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_Hunt_Peters
"She explains in her book that "hereafter you are going to eat calories of food. Instead of saying one slice of bread, or a piece of pie, you will say 100 calories of bread, 350 calories of pie".[3] She shows women how to calculate their ideal weight with a formula. Her book included estimates of food portions that would contain 100 calories, based on research in a variety of technical publications that were not available to the general reader. She also indicates how many calories someone should eat per pound of ideal body weight, to keep the ideal weight that her system suggests (similar to body mass index). She paid less attention to issues of what sorts of foods a person should eat. Under her system, a person of Peters' height could eat whatever she wanted, as long as she maintained a strict diet of 1,200 calories a day. However, she warned against eating candy, because she thought that women who ate a little candy would binge on it.[3]"
The earliest calorie-estimation formula, the original Harris-Benedict equation, didn't come about until 1919.
Sorry for the tangent... This was interesting. Back onto why people overeat
12 -
Why did I overeat? A mixture of things really, as a child I had to finish my plate, no matter what. My mother would tell me how lucky I was to have food and that children were starving in Africa. How would they feel knowing I wanted to throw away food that could save their lives? It has taken me to THIS year, well into my adulthood to not feel guilty for leaving food on my plate. Even now I can hear my mothers voice in my head at times, reminding me of those poor starving children in Africa.
I also suffered with depression for a while, and ate anything in sight that was not nailed down. Food was a comforter and I craved comfort. I would defrost food to eat it, sometimes eat half frozen food as I could not wait till it defrosted. Once I sorted out my mental state, the above behaviour stopped, I pulled myself together and could not understand why I was not loosing when I cut my daily calories from the recommended 2000 a day to 15-1800 a day. I was still putting on weight. It took time to realise that us shorties (I am 5'2) need less calories than a 5'10 woman.
I thought I was doing good, following the government guidelines, after a while I gave up dieting.
After re-educating myself and realising where I went wrong, here I am on a paltry 1200 calories a day (MFP guideline based upon a max loss of 1lbs a week)
Does CICO work? Yes, but does it keep me full? That depends on what I eat. Proteins and non diet products works for me, carbs simply makes me hungry again after an hour or so.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
that a good amount of calories for women to lose weight on is 1200...and no this has nothing to do with the previous posts about Deb's current calorie goal of 1200.
Well, most women would probably lose on that number, the same could be said for 1100 or 1000. Or do you mean that people just blindly prescribe 1200 calories to all women? That would be ill-advised. Or do you mean the that 1200 calories being the line drawn where people think it is safe?
Yeah, I thought people were talking about it being the default recommendation, as with old diet plans (which I did not know, so found interesting) or doctors just saying "eat 1200" without any real analysis.tlflag1620 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lexbubbles wrote: »your post is irrelevant to the op and this isn't a discussion on individuals but those who overeat and those who say it's harder for them to lose that normal people.I think we've lost sight of the original topic of discussion. It was not about the population in general, but about those individuals who say they have a harder time than most to lose weight and what drives them to eat even knowing the harm it's doing to them.
...
Because when someone says "Hi, I maintain on less than 2k" and your immediate response is ARE YOU LOGGING ARE YOU TINY YOU MUST BE SEDENTARY that doesn't imply "I would like clarification" that implies disbelief. If you actually believed Deb when she said she maintained <2k you wouldn't have asked for clarification in the first place. I could question your apparent maintenance because it doesn't line up with my personal experience, but I didn't. Because I believe you, on account of human variance being... varied.I asked a few clarifying questions so what. You seem angry that I went that routeAnd what evidence did you provide your bmr so...mine is 50 above that...proves nothing neither does an arbitrary calculation of 1.3 against it a study of 1 is not gospel.
But your study of 1 is. (Also multiple people on this thread have now pointed out that they maintain on sub-2,000. The only thing I did was back it up with actual numbers as a "hey, look, totally possible to maintain on this number without being a tiny sedentary person")
I mean I also have the evidence of "using that number I am losing exactly the amount of weight I should be losing with the deficit I have against said number" as I'm sure the other low maintainers do also (except that's not my BMR. Mine's below that as I pointed out last time I posted in this thread. I was providing stats for a person my height/age/weight without a metabolic issue)
This just in though: BMR and TDEE calculations prove nothing and are useless.As well you haven't responded once in the 16 pages...seems odd you jump in to post about something that is irrelevant to the OP...
I mean, I have. But I've just been reading for a while because I only post when I have something to contribute to the conversation as it currently stands. The conversation as it stood was about maintenance cals.
If you think maintenance cals are irrelevant to the OP about why certain individuals may have a harder time (or believe they do) than other people then... er...
Whatever, I'm done here.
Those two top statements say the same thing...this is not about individual in this topic posting about themselves per say it's about those who say they have a harder time losing then others...
To your 2nd point...I did ask questions...note the question marks at the end of the sentences to indicate I was asking if she was smaller and/or sedentary etc...and me saying "I have to ask...."
....
and I have to ask if you gain on 2k a day are you totally sedentary? exceptionally short (under 5ft tall) and a very tiny woman?
and I have to ask if you use a food scale and are you sure you only eat 1200 and gain on 2k...
@DebSozo and @lexbubbles es Maintenance calories have nothing to do with why people over eat...or are obese or find it harder to lose weight lack of understanding of what maintenance calories are and how to achieve maintenance maybe but I said that on page 1...lack of education not know how to lose but mostly not knowing how to maintain. Not understand CICO or even what calories/servings mean.
but again not going to further this debate with non on topic debates with how people interpret text with prejudice due to their own issues.
Hunh? You missed the point which is that if a person believes that their maintenance level is higher than it is that the pounds will gradually add up. The overeating is not on purpose. It happens under the radar.
no I didn't...how can you think your maintenance is higher than it is if you understand maintenance? How can someone who knows what maintenance is think it's higher? If they eat over it they gain weight that's a sure sign they are eating above maintenance....
There is a very simple calculation for it...total calories consumed+(lbs lost x 3500)/#days and if you aren't losing but staying the same or gaining you adjust the calculation...hence my statement of lack of knowledge and education...
I know my maintenance within 50-100 calories (nothing is perfect) now that I am educated...4 years ago...had no clue...and guess what I was fat...as soon as I understood what it was and how to calculate it the weight fell off...and I have maintained wonderfully.
Do I understand your posts correctly that you believe most people think they are gaining weight without overeating? That they literally have no clue that they could lose weight if they ate less?
no not at all...
They have no clue how much they can eat to lose/maintain or how many calories are in what they are eating or what a serving size is even tho it's on the package...or what an appropriate serving size is...and if they know that they don't really know how to get an accurate count of calories.
You see it here all the time...I am eating 1200 calories and not losing help...when in fact they are eating about 2000 but because they can't judge portion size are not in a deficit.
Okay, got it.
I don't know where the whole 1200 calories thing came from but that seems to be a real problem IMO. I'd actually never heard that women should eat 1200 calories when losing before joining MFP. I wonder where that started.
My mother told me about 1200 calories long before I joined MFP - 300 for breakfast, 400 for lunch, 500 for dinner. It's a very common guideline in older diet programs. My wild-kitten guess is that it got so much traction because in the 60s/70s/early 80s women lost weight when self-reporting consuming 1200 calories. They were eating more because they weren't weighing and measuring everything (so in the 1400-1600 cal range). Then as food evolved further into calorie-dense, nutrient-sparse products, the amount people self-report to be 1200 increased... Thus why people don't lose eating "1200" calories.
Also keep in mind that during that time frame the Internet didn't exist, nutrition labels were not required, and the little books you could look up calories counts of common foods were hardly comprehensive - if you ate something that didn't have a label and wasn't in that little book, you were SOL. Calorie counting back in the day was done by guess and by golly, and to get any degree of accuracy it was terribly cumbersome, tedious, and not particularly sustainable. True calorie counting, MFP-style (weighing and measuring and having access to huge databases of every food item imaginable, with algorithms to do all the math for you), hasn't been around very long.... Maybe twenty years.
I think these are great points. Back in the day even figuring out TDEE would have been a pain -- no easy estimates from plugging numbers into a calculator online, and 2000 was generally thought of as a standard maintenance number. Add to that that it makes sense to aim low if you can't be that accurate (as with the tools allowed) and it's not surprising. Also not surprising that things like WW became popular.
I never ran into the 1200 number personally pre MFP. My mom dieted, but I don't think she ever did a calorie based plan, and I didn't have weight issues as a teen or read a lot of women's magazines that talked about it. (I did, weirdly, read the Beverly Hills Diet Book, of all silly things.)
yes this.-1 -
Is 1200 the default or is it just the cap that everybody ends up at due to their desire to lose weight faster?0
-
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So that would mean it is the cap. In other words, anybody with a BMR estimated to be at 2199 or lower will have a 1200 calorie goal. That's one of the things I don't like about MFP. I don't think it does a good job of communicating that.1 -
For me...I got heavier and stayed that way because:
1. I loved food, it tastes good and it brings me comfort.
2. I did not weigh myself, I knew I was over weight, so why should I weigh myself.
3. I was content to be where I was at the time (overweight).
4. If I wanted to lose weight, it would take a lot of sacrifices to make it work. And, I was not prepared to make the sacrifices.
5. I ate because I was bored, lonely, or stressed.
6. I ate because I was happy (birthdays, holiday, vacations).
7. I over ate because I did not care! I loved food and I will eat whatever I want to eat.
8. I am overweight because I hate to exercise. I hate getting sweaty and then I have to shower and get all cleaned up again. It was a waste of time for me.
9. I am overweight because high calorie food is cheap compared to high nutritional foods.
10. I am overweight because as soon as you walk into a store all to see is junk food. It is on sale, it is cheap. The junk food is every where.
I challenge you to walk into a food store and notice all the junk food compared to high nutritional foods.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So that would mean it is the cap. In other words, anybody with a BMR estimated to be at 2199 or lower will have a 1200 calorie goal. That's one of the things I don't like about MFP. I don't think it does a good job of communicating that.
Agree with this for sure. Of course I picked 2 lbs/week when I first signed up - why would I choose anything lower? I only had 30 lbs to lose and had no idea 2 lbs/week was a far too aggressive goal. Then I'd close out my diary and it would tell me I'd weigh ___ in 5 weeks, so I ate as little as I could to make that number lower... Yeah I was not good at this when I started. I'd bet a LOT of people do exactly what I did, and they fall off the wagon fast because it's so unsustainable.
Can we add "Bad MFP Instructions" to reasons why people struggle to lose weight?3 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So that would mean it is the cap. In other words, anybody with a BMR estimated to be at 2199 or lower will have a 1200 calorie goal. That's one of the things I don't like about MFP. I don't think it does a good job of communicating that.
Agree with this for sure. Of course I picked 2 lbs/week when I first signed up - why would I choose anything lower? I only had 30 lbs to lose and had no idea 2 lbs/week was a far too aggressive goal. Then I'd close out my diary and it would tell me I'd weigh ___ in 5 weeks, so I ate as little as I could to make that number lower... Yeah I was not good at this when I started. I'd bet a LOT of people do exactly what I did, and they fall off the wagon fast because it's so unsustainable.
Can we add "Bad MFP Instructions" to reasons why people struggle to lose weight?
Post it in the debate section!! LOL0 -
For me...I got heavier and stayed that way because:
1. I loved food, it tastes good and it brings me comfort.
2. I did not weigh myself, I knew I was over weight, so why should I weigh myself.
3. I was content to be where I was at the time (overweight).
4. If I wanted to lose weight, it would take a lot of sacrifices to make it work. And, I was not prepared to make the sacrifices.
5. I ate because I was bored, lonely, or stressed.
6. I ate because I was happy (birthdays, holiday, vacations).
7. I over ate because I did not care! I loved food and I will eat whatever I want to eat.
8. I am overweight because I hate to exercise. I hate getting sweaty and then I have to shower and get all cleaned up again. It was a waste of time for me.
9. I am overweight because high calorie food is cheap compared to high nutritional foods.
10. I am overweight because as soon as you walk into a store all to see is junk food. It is on sale, it is cheap. The junk food is every where.
I challenge you to walk into a food store and notice all the junk food compared to high nutritional foods.
This all reminds me of the WW ad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWMsezS1SN4
I do notice the junk food, but sale prices are never appealing. To fit in my grocery budget, I'd have to give up something else I want. I'm not an impulse buyer though - I think through my purchases, and I plan my meals. Not planning before going to the grocery store can definitely be a recipe for disaster for some.4 -
queenliz99 wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So that would mean it is the cap. In other words, anybody with a BMR estimated to be at 2199 or lower will have a 1200 calorie goal. That's one of the things I don't like about MFP. I don't think it does a good job of communicating that.
Agree with this for sure. Of course I picked 2 lbs/week when I first signed up - why would I choose anything lower? I only had 30 lbs to lose and had no idea 2 lbs/week was a far too aggressive goal. Then I'd close out my diary and it would tell me I'd weigh ___ in 5 weeks, so I ate as little as I could to make that number lower... Yeah I was not good at this when I started. I'd bet a LOT of people do exactly what I did, and they fall off the wagon fast because it's so unsustainable.
Can we add "Bad MFP Instructions" to reasons why people struggle to lose weight?
Post it in the debate section!! LOL
Hahaha. With all the derp across the forums today, do I really need to add more?0 -
Is 1200 the default or is it just the cap that everybody ends up at due to their desire to lose weight faster?
Apparently it's often handed out as a default (not talking MFP) -- eat 1200 to lose weight.
Another common misunderstanding re MFP is that exercise calories aren't included and often should be eaten back. Few women are going to have a TDEE of above 2200 before exercise is included. Yet because you put in your exercise plans people often assume it's included in the calorie goal.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So that would mean it is the cap. In other words, anybody with a BMR estimated to be at 2199 or lower will have a 1200 calorie goal. That's one of the things I don't like about MFP. I don't think it does a good job of communicating that.
If they choose a higher rate of weight loss...
When I came I had 30lbs to lose and was content with 1lb a week...I got 1460 as my goal...
If MFP could it should set the weekly goal in accordance with total weight loss desired....and not let those with 10lbs to lose to choose 2lbs a week.0 -
that a good amount of calories for women to lose weight on is 1200...and no this has nothing to do with the previous posts about Deb's current calorie goal of 1200.
Well, most women would probably lose on that number, the same could be said for 1100 or 1000. Or do you mean that people just blindly prescribe 1200 calories to all women? That would be ill-advised. Or do you mean the that 1200 calories being the line drawn where people think it is safe?
MFP won't let us go below 12000 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Well, my wild-babyunicorn guess was wrong by over 4 decades. This woman published a book in 1918 advocating 1200 calories: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu_Hunt_Peters
"She explains in her book that "hereafter you are going to eat calories of food. Instead of saying one slice of bread, or a piece of pie, you will say 100 calories of bread, 350 calories of pie".[3] She shows women how to calculate their ideal weight with a formula. Her book included estimates of food portions that would contain 100 calories, based on research in a variety of technical publications that were not available to the general reader. She also indicates how many calories someone should eat per pound of ideal body weight, to keep the ideal weight that her system suggests (similar to body mass index). She paid less attention to issues of what sorts of foods a person should eat. Under her system, a person of Peters' height could eat whatever she wanted, as long as she maintained a strict diet of 1,200 calories a day. However, she warned against eating candy, because she thought that women who ate a little candy would binge on it.[3]"
The earliest calorie-estimation formula, the original Harris-Benedict equation, didn't come about until 1919.
Sorry for the tangent... This was interesting. Back onto why people overeat
I went online to look for her book, she wrote the following all those years ago, almost 100!!
In vain I told them that it did not matter so long as my total caloric intake did not equal the number that I needed. It was not until some months after, when they saw that I was normal weight again, that they began to realize I knew whereof I spoke. She was basically skipping breakfast, eating a decent lunch and only dessert for dinner!!! and LOST weight.6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So that would mean it is the cap. In other words, anybody with a BMR estimated to be at 2199 or lower will have a 1200 calorie goal. That's one of the things I don't like about MFP. I don't think it does a good job of communicating that.
If they choose a higher rate of weight loss...
When I came I had 30lbs to lose and was content with 1lb a week...I got 1460 as my goal...
If MFP could it should set the weekly goal in accordance with total weight loss desired....and not let those with 10lbs to lose to choose 2lbs a week.
I, personally, would like to see them be able to override it somehow and take responsibility for themselves. But then again, I have strange viewpoints on personal responsibility and freedom.
3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So that would mean it is the cap. In other words, anybody with a BMR estimated to be at 2199 or lower will have a 1200 calorie goal. That's one of the things I don't like about MFP. I don't think it does a good job of communicating that.
If they choose a higher rate of weight loss...
When I came I had 30lbs to lose and was content with 1lb a week...I got 1460 as my goal...
If MFP could it should set the weekly goal in accordance with total weight loss desired....and not let those with 10lbs to lose to choose 2lbs a week.
I, personally, would like to see them be able to override it somehow and take responsibility for themselves. But then again, I have strange viewpoints on personal responsibility and freedom.
I agree1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So that would mean it is the cap. In other words, anybody with a BMR estimated to be at 2199 or lower will have a 1200 calorie goal. That's one of the things I don't like about MFP. I don't think it does a good job of communicating that.
If they choose a higher rate of weight loss...
When I came I had 30lbs to lose and was content with 1lb a week...I got 1460 as my goal...
If MFP could it should set the weekly goal in accordance with total weight loss desired....and not let those with 10lbs to lose to choose 2lbs a week.
I, personally, would like to see them be able to override it somehow and take responsibility for themselves. But then again, I have strange viewpoints on personal responsibility and freedom.
with awareness they do....take me for example I knew that 1lb was enough based on what I had read...
Most think 2lbs is good...get it over quick...get back to regular life...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So that would mean it is the cap. In other words, anybody with a BMR estimated to be at 2199 or lower will have a 1200 calorie goal. That's one of the things I don't like about MFP. I don't think it does a good job of communicating that.
If they choose a higher rate of weight loss...
When I came I had 30lbs to lose and was content with 1lb a week...I got 1460 as my goal...
If MFP could it should set the weekly goal in accordance with total weight loss desired....and not let those with 10lbs to lose to choose 2lbs a week.
I, personally, would like to see them be able to override it somehow and take responsibility for themselves. But then again, I have strange viewpoints on personal responsibility and freedom.
with awareness they do....take me for example I knew that 1lb was enough based on what I had read...
Most think 2lbs is good...get it over quick...get back to regular life...
I started out with 20 pounds to lose and originally set 2 pounds a week as a goal because I thought I could be done with it in 5 weeks. It was impossible for me to do that. I ended up losing 10 pounds over 3 months. I spent time in turmoil when I didn't need to.
Now that I'm down to the last 10 pounds I'm recalculating so I can lose 0.5 pounds a week so I'm not so stressed out. I plateaued for a while but just started losing weight again this week. I think that it is easier to keep the weight off when weight comes off more slowly. It is a permanent change, and I'll never be able to eat as hearty as I once did if I want to keep it off.
(Edited for Typo)0 -
bennettinfinity wrote: »One of the things I came across in the forums when I first started MFP was the old chestnut 'Weight loss is simple, but it's not easy'. The concept of CICO isn't rocket science; people need to be aware that there are individual variations to both sides of the CICO equation - but still, with a little determination, pretty simple.
The hard part for me, and I suspect quite a few that argue that weight-loss isn't as simple as just CICO, was the emotional component that triggered overeating. There are many such triggers, and until the individual becomes aware of their specific trigger(s), understands their impact, and is able to formulate a plan to address them, it will remain difficult.
So while I get that 'put down the fork' is technically all that needs to be done, if there's an underlying emotional component, putting down the fork won't be easy.
Weight-loss is 90% mental.
Nailed it!2 -
mskessler89 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So that would mean it is the cap. In other words, anybody with a BMR estimated to be at 2199 or lower will have a 1200 calorie goal. That's one of the things I don't like about MFP. I don't think it does a good job of communicating that.
Agree with this for sure. Of course I picked 2 lbs/week when I first signed up - why would I choose anything lower? I only had 30 lbs to lose and had no idea 2 lbs/week was a far too aggressive goal. Then I'd close out my diary and it would tell me I'd weigh ___ in 5 weeks, so I ate as little as I could to make that number lower... Yeah I was not good at this when I started. I'd bet a LOT of people do exactly what I did, and they fall off the wagon fast because it's so unsustainable.
Can we add "Bad MFP Instructions" to reasons why people struggle to lose weight?
To be fair though, MFP did not tell you to eat less than 1200. And it expects you to log exercise and gives you more calories when you do. If most women followed the plan 1200 wouldn't often be an unhealthy or overly aggressive goal. It's not really fair to blame the plan you failed to follow.4 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »mskessler89 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
So that would mean it is the cap. In other words, anybody with a BMR estimated to be at 2199 or lower will have a 1200 calorie goal. That's one of the things I don't like about MFP. I don't think it does a good job of communicating that.
Agree with this for sure. Of course I picked 2 lbs/week when I first signed up - why would I choose anything lower? I only had 30 lbs to lose and had no idea 2 lbs/week was a far too aggressive goal. Then I'd close out my diary and it would tell me I'd weigh ___ in 5 weeks, so I ate as little as I could to make that number lower... Yeah I was not good at this when I started. I'd bet a LOT of people do exactly what I did, and they fall off the wagon fast because it's so unsustainable.
Can we add "Bad MFP Instructions" to reasons why people struggle to lose weight?
To be fair though, MFP did not tell you to eat less than 1200. And it expects you to log exercise and gives you more calories when you do. If most women followed the plan 1200 wouldn't often be an unhealthy or overly aggressive goal. It's not really fair to blame the plan you failed to follow.
That last part was mostly in jest. Of course it was my fault for going under 1200. And I did lose weight, and quickly, so it "worked" for me. It wasn't healthy, but back in those days I didn't care about healthy.
I still don't like the MFP setup system. You can manually change your calorie goal if you want, so I don't see a problem with it not giving you a choice about your weight loss goal when you initially set up your account. I hate the "5 weeks" thing when you close out your diary and think it can encourage unrealistic expectations and dangerous behaviors, but that's from my perspective as someone with an ED history.
I do worry about all the people who think they can "improve" on the plan by not eating back exercise calories or eating under their calorie goal. It happens way too often. I don't think there's a good way for UA/MFP to explain why it's so important to not do those things without taking on liability, so I can only hope people find the forums and learn.
That's all I'll say about that.... If we want to keep discussing this I guess we could start another debate thread, lol.1 -
Moe if you plug in your current weight, height, age, and gender, assuming that you are male it will probably direct you to eat more than 1200. 1200 is commonly given to short/older/desk working women. I eat that because I'm only five three, 47 years old, and a copy editor. Men can often eat something like 1700 and lose. You might want to use a TDEE calculator instead and custom set your daily calories at that level instead of having MFP calculate it, because MFP calculates pre exercise, and then expects you to custom eat back some of your exercise calories on workout days. You may prefer to account for your exercise in an evenly portioned fashion, giving you the same number to eat daily. I would do this if my life weren't so chaotic. How much and how hard I work out is too variable for me to feel good about the TDEE method. But knowing your options is half the battle here I think.5
-
lexbubbles wrote: »your post is irrelevant to the op and this isn't a discussion on individuals but those who overeat and those who say it's harder for them to lose that normal people.I think we've lost sight of the original topic of discussion. It was not about the population in general, but about those individuals who say they have a harder time than most to lose weight and what drives them to eat even knowing the harm it's doing to them.
...
Because when someone says "Hi, I maintain on less than 2k" and your immediate response is ARE YOU LOGGING ARE YOU TINY YOU MUST BE SEDENTARY that doesn't imply "I would like clarification" that implies disbelief. If you actually believed Deb when she said she maintained <2k you wouldn't have asked for clarification in the first place. I could question your apparent maintenance because it doesn't line up with my personal experience, but I didn't. Because I believe you, on account of human variance being... varied.I asked a few clarifying questions so what. You seem angry that I went that routeAnd what evidence did you provide your bmr so...mine is 50 above that...proves nothing neither does an arbitrary calculation of 1.3 against it a study of 1 is not gospel.
But your study of 1 is. (Also multiple people on this thread have now pointed out that they maintain on sub-2,000. The only thing I did was back it up with actual numbers as a "hey, look, totally possible to maintain on this number without being a tiny sedentary person")
I mean I also have the evidence of "using that number I am losing exactly the amount of weight I should be losing with the deficit I have against said number" as I'm sure the other low maintainers do also (except that's not my BMR. Mine's below that as I pointed out last time I posted in this thread. I was providing stats for a person my height/age/weight without a metabolic issue)
This just in though: BMR and TDEE calculations prove nothing and are useless.As well you haven't responded once in the 16 pages...seems odd you jump in to post about something that is irrelevant to the OP...
I mean, I have. But I've just been reading for a while because I only post when I have something to contribute to the conversation as it currently stands. The conversation as it stood was about maintenance cals.
If you think maintenance cals are irrelevant to the OP about why certain individuals may have a harder time (or believe they do) than other people then... er...
Whatever, I'm done here.
Those two top statements say the same thing...this is not about individual in this topic posting about themselves per say it's about those who say they have a harder time losing then others...
To your 2nd point...I did ask questions...note the question marks at the end of the sentences to indicate I was asking if she was smaller and/or sedentary etc...and me saying "I have to ask...."
....
and I have to ask if you gain on 2k a day are you totally sedentary? exceptionally short (under 5ft tall) and a very tiny woman?
and I have to ask if you use a food scale and are you sure you only eat 1200 and gain on 2k...
@DebSozo and @lexbubbles es Maintenance calories have nothing to do with why people over eat...or are obese or find it harder to lose weight lack of understanding of what maintenance calories are and how to achieve maintenance maybe but I said that on page 1...lack of education not know how to lose but mostly not knowing how to maintain. Not understand CICO or even what calories/servings mean.
but again not going to further this debate with non on topic debates with how people interpret text with prejudice due to their own issues.
Hunh? You missed the point which is that if a person believes that their maintenance level is higher than it is that the pounds will gradually add up. The overeating is not on purpose. It happens under the radar.
This is true. When people use articles in popular magazines and the commonly accepted 2,000 cals to estimate what they should be eating, their standard is way off because it's a maintenance calorie level that's geared for young/active folks, particularly males.
You should have seen my face when I got my metabolism tested and found out what my maintenance cals actually are. My "magic number" is only 1400. *all the cuss words* lol2 -
that a good amount of calories for women to lose weight on is 1200...and no this has nothing to do with the previous posts about Deb's current calorie goal of 1200.
Well, most women would probably lose on that number, the same could be said for 1100 or 1000. Or do you mean that people just blindly prescribe 1200 calories to all women? That would be ill-advised. Or do you mean the that 1200 calories being the line drawn where people think it is safe?
1200 is the medically accepted lower limit of safety. Except for unusual circumstances, doctors tell you not to eat less than 1200. In the eighties people like Victoria Principal were publishing diets of only 700-800 calories a day; others were advocating 1,000. I think it was in the 1990s that some medical consensus was reached about 1200 being the lower safe limit for the vast majority of people.0 -
lexbubbles wrote: »your post is irrelevant to the op and this isn't a discussion on individuals but those who overeat and those who say it's harder for them to lose that normal people.I think we've lost sight of the original topic of discussion. It was not about the population in general, but about those individuals who say they have a harder time than most to lose weight and what drives them to eat even knowing the harm it's doing to them.
...
Because when someone says "Hi, I maintain on less than 2k" and your immediate response is ARE YOU LOGGING ARE YOU TINY YOU MUST BE SEDENTARY that doesn't imply "I would like clarification" that implies disbelief. If you actually believed Deb when she said she maintained <2k you wouldn't have asked for clarification in the first place. I could question your apparent maintenance because it doesn't line up with my personal experience, but I didn't. Because I believe you, on account of human variance being... varied.I asked a few clarifying questions so what. You seem angry that I went that routeAnd what evidence did you provide your bmr so...mine is 50 above that...proves nothing neither does an arbitrary calculation of 1.3 against it a study of 1 is not gospel.
But your study of 1 is. (Also multiple people on this thread have now pointed out that they maintain on sub-2,000. The only thing I did was back it up with actual numbers as a "hey, look, totally possible to maintain on this number without being a tiny sedentary person")
I mean I also have the evidence of "using that number I am losing exactly the amount of weight I should be losing with the deficit I have against said number" as I'm sure the other low maintainers do also (except that's not my BMR. Mine's below that as I pointed out last time I posted in this thread. I was providing stats for a person my height/age/weight without a metabolic issue)
This just in though: BMR and TDEE calculations prove nothing and are useless.As well you haven't responded once in the 16 pages...seems odd you jump in to post about something that is irrelevant to the OP...
I mean, I have. But I've just been reading for a while because I only post when I have something to contribute to the conversation as it currently stands. The conversation as it stood was about maintenance cals.
If you think maintenance cals are irrelevant to the OP about why certain individuals may have a harder time (or believe they do) than other people then... er...
Whatever, I'm done here.
Those two top statements say the same thing...this is not about individual in this topic posting about themselves per say it's about those who say they have a harder time losing then others...
To your 2nd point...I did ask questions...note the question marks at the end of the sentences to indicate I was asking if she was smaller and/or sedentary etc...and me saying "I have to ask...."
....
and I have to ask if you gain on 2k a day are you totally sedentary? exceptionally short (under 5ft tall) and a very tiny woman?
and I have to ask if you use a food scale and are you sure you only eat 1200 and gain on 2k...
@DebSozo and @lexbubbles es Maintenance calories have nothing to do with why people over eat...or are obese or find it harder to lose weight lack of understanding of what maintenance calories are and how to achieve maintenance maybe but I said that on page 1...lack of education not know how to lose but mostly not knowing how to maintain. Not understand CICO or even what calories/servings mean.
but again not going to further this debate with non on topic debates with how people interpret text with prejudice due to their own issues.
Hunh? You missed the point which is that if a person believes that their maintenance level is higher than it is that the pounds will gradually add up. The overeating is not on purpose. It happens under the radar.
This is true. When people use articles in popular magazines and the commonly accepted 2,000 cals to estimate what they should be eating, their standard is way off because it's a maintenance calorie level that's geared for young/active folks, particularly males.
You should have seen my face when I got my metabolism tested and found out what my maintenance cals actually are. My "magic number" is only 1400. *all the cuss words* lol
Oh wow so that's just maintenance??? how do you go about getting your metabolism tested? i'm curious to know what mine actually is.0 -
I have been morbidly obese for as long as I can remember. I was over 100lb when I was like 6 years old. I am almost 30 now, and though I have lost some weight recently, I am still over 450lb. What I will say for trying to lose weight is that even while knowing that it is as simple as calories in and calories out, that knowledge does not make it easy.
I have dieted on and off all my life, but I have also had unhealthy eating habits ingrained in me all of my life and they can be very hard to break. It has been a long process to train myself into eating veggies (which I hated most of my life from never having eaten them) and learning to accept my meals without the butter and cheese that my mother always used to excess in her cooking. But even then, I am an emotional eater (which I am working to correct) and am prone to binge eating. All of these habits will creep back up if I do not work at keeping them in check.
So while it is easy to say "eat less calories than you burn" and "put down the fork and you will lose weight", breaking those bad habits and facing the fact that you will always be an overeater the way an alcoholic will always be an alcoholic can be very difficult to face every day. And if those habits start to overtake you again, it is very hard to start to break them again.
While most people will need to lose some weight at some point in their lives, there is a difference between needing to tighten up your routine a bit to lose a few pounds and having to overhaul your entire lifestyle. Think of it like your many attempts to be more organised, only to have your closet devolve back into a junk heap before long because you don't stick to the cleaning routine; those plants you buy, only to let them die when you stop watering it daily; or those attempts you make to drink water instead of pop, but after a few weeks you are back to guzzling dr pepper by the litre.
I dunno if most people feel that way, but that is the best way I can describe my struggle.8 -
I do not believe this is just a calorie counting site. If there wasn't a psychological component to eating, everyone educated on CICO would eat healthy foods within their caloric range all the time. They wouldn't need any of the motivation or support the other users of this site provide.3
-
I'm speaking for myself here but before I had kids I could lose weight as easy as I could gain it. It was simple! Low calorie diets and exercise were enough but now I'm postpartum and I'm really struggling. I'm not sure if it's my metabolism slowing weigh down or because I'm breastfeeding and HAVE to take in 500 extra calories a day to keep my milk supply but it's so much harder! I workout about 2-3 hours a day and eat 1500 calories or less a day and I'm still not losing weight. It's frustrating. And then I see the number on the scale and get depressed and for a split second I'll tell myself "screw it, I'll just be fat!" And I'll binge and then afterward I realize what I've done and feel awful about myself. It's just harder for some people then others0
-
Been there done that. Not to mention your hormones are probably out of whack (not to say that hormones make you gain weight but the fluctuations may be a reason to make you want to eat more and in turn make it harder to lose weight) Just keep looking forward. Take it easy. Its not necessary to work out so much. Find something you enjoy and do it for 1/2 hour. Eat enough. You will be fine once your heart and mind is in it. We have all been there at one point.chevysmommy41 wrote: »I'm speaking for myself here but before I had kids I could lose weight as easy as I could gain it. It was simple! Low calorie diets and exercise were enough but now I'm postpartum and I'm really struggling. I'm not sure if it's my metabolism slowing weigh down or because I'm breastfeeding and HAVE to take in 500 extra calories a day to keep my milk supply but it's so much harder! I workout about 2-3 hours a day and eat 1500 calories or less a day and I'm still not losing weight. It's frustrating. And then I see the number on the scale and get depressed and for a split second I'll tell myself "screw it, I'll just be fat!" And I'll binge and then afterward I realize what I've done and feel awful about myself. It's just harder for some people then others
2
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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