Why does eating more calories = losing more weight?
Options
Replies
-
CasperNaegle wrote: »I think from reading your posts you really don't know if you are eating 1200 or 1500. If you would weigh you food and measure everything in grams or ounces instead of tablespoons or cups you would see a big difference. Without that all the talk in here is just wasted time.
agreed. he's already received excellent advice, his failures and successes are now his own.1 -
For nearly 3 years I've been in deficit. I did WW for 6 months then found MFP. I did 1400 cal at first and lost another 10lbs but after that I started losing extremely slow. I dropped to 1200 then to 1100 or less the last year. At that point I'd lost 40lbs. In March I completely came to a stand still. I had surgery in June so my diet increased to 1500 or less that month. Well I gained 4lbs. I dropped calories back down in July and also started methotrexate for Rheumatoid Arthritis. I was very nauseous so it was easy to not eat. Well, over that month I gained another 3 lbs to my disbelief! Over the last 2 weeks I tried Keto. I tweaked my proteins to 60g carbs to 15g and the rest was fat. It was hard because eating that much fat was difficult for me and the limited carbs and protein made me feel very hungry because I felt empty i guess. Oh and moody! I just got by between 1200-1300 cal. My body felt horrible so I added potassium, magnesium and extra salt due to Keto induced electrolyte imbalance. The experience ended when my hubs took me out for our anniversary dinner. Now since I've been doing this for so long I'm pretty good at it. I'm very strong willed as well. I also weigh and measure my food as not to deceive myself. I drink about 64oz of water a day and keep my carbs usually less than 100g. Since the RA I have is not controlled it is difficult to get standard excersize routine but I do clean, cook and chores every day and walk with my daughter when I can. I put down sedentary as my physical frequency. I also am hypothyroid and my last TSH was .87. I'm exhausted and my hair has thinned as well as constipation. Very classic symptoms. I need to lose 30 more. My doc said drop my calories. I said I've done the 800 cal a day thing intermittently just to kick myself into loss mode but going down further seems extreme to me. I really don't know what else I can do. I'm planning on going to a nutritionist in October. But for now I'm reading about nacent iodine and selenium added to my regiment. I know there are folks who can't believe weightloss won't happen if you drop CI but the fact is it is happening to me right now and I'm petrified! Im going to bump my calories up to 1300-1400 for a week or so then start over AGAIN. I pray I don't gain more! My only hope is to keep going. Keep measuring, weighing, logging. Keep the faith you guys who struggle.
I think you need an endocrinologist rather than your general practitioner.0 -
cross2bear wrote: »Oh for petes sake, the guy doesnt want help, he just wants to talk about what a special snow flake he is!! Kind and clever people have given great advice and feedback, and its just proving to be a waste of time - save your breath for someone who really appreciates it.
I agree. He is just doing one of those "blog" things, where he talks to the interwebz about his general day but doesn't want feedback.
Everyone gives feedback anyway because they are not so much concerned about him (now) but they are concerned about someone else reading this and thinking it's a good idea.
Personally, I would hope the OP stops posting...this type of rambling, non-responsive posting is better suited to the blog section of this site.1 -
For nearly 3 years I've been in deficit. I did WW for 6 months then found MFP. I did 1400 cal at first and lost another 10lbs but after that I started losing extremely slow. I dropped to 1200 then to 1100 or less the last year. At that point I'd lost 40lbs. In March I completely came to a stand still. I had surgery in June so my diet increased to 1500 or less that month. Well I gained 4lbs. I dropped calories back down in July and also started methotrexate for Rheumatoid Arthritis. I was very nauseous so it was easy to not eat. Well, over that month I gained another 3 lbs to my disbelief! Over the last 2 weeks I tried Keto. I tweaked my proteins to 60g carbs to 15g and the rest was fat. It was hard because eating that much fat was difficult for me and the limited carbs and protein made me feel very hungry because I felt empty i guess. Oh and moody! I just got by between 1200-1300 cal. My body felt horrible so I added potassium, magnesium and extra salt due to Keto induced electrolyte imbalance. The experience ended when my hubs took me out for our anniversary dinner. Now since I've been doing this for so long I'm pretty good at it. I'm very strong willed as well. I also weigh and measure my food as not to deceive myself. I drink about 64oz of water a day and keep my carbs usually less than 100g. Since the RA I have is not controlled it is difficult to get standard excersize routine but I do clean, cook and chores every day and walk with my daughter when I can. I put down sedentary as my physical frequency. I also am hypothyroid and my last TSH was .87. I'm exhausted and my hair has thinned as well as constipation. Very classic symptoms. I need to lose 30 more. My doc said drop my calories. I said I've done the 800 cal a day thing intermittently just to kick myself into loss mode but going down further seems extreme to me. I really don't know what else I can do. I'm planning on going to a nutritionist in October. But for now I'm reading about nacent iodine and selenium added to my regiment. I know there are folks who can't believe weightloss won't happen if you drop CI but the fact is it is happening to me right now and I'm petrified! Im going to bump my calories up to 1300-1400 for a week or so then start over AGAIN. I pray I don't gain more! My only hope is to keep going. Keep measuring, weighing, logging. Keep the faith you guys who struggle.
I think you need an endocrinologist rather than your general practitioner.
I'm guessing she has a rheumatologist as well as a GP. A rheumatologist ought to be familiar enough with hypothyroidism (since it comes along with so many autoimmune diseases) to deal with it. If not, she needs to see one.0 -
I forgot to say how much I eat per day. I eat 1360 cal per day before counting any work out.
0 -
It has already been stated multiple times, but basically, you don't know how much you are eating. For example, while those 3 small eggs are probably pretty spot on due to the accuracy of sorting machines for eggs, you then state you will have a 6oz steak. How do you know it was 6oz if you didn't weigh it. Did you guess? If so, you have no idea if it is 6oz. Did it come out of a package of frozen steaks that are supposedly 6oz? If so, know this, they are rarely ever the weight that the package says they are. I have these wonderful steaks I love to eat. The nutritional information says one steak with an amount of grams in brackets after it, was a certain amount of calories. I would simply eat them assuming it must be close. Then one day I weighed one. It was twice the weight. I weighed more, and almost all of them were anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 times the weight that a single steak was supposed to be. WEIGH YOUR FOOD.0
-
So, coffeeNCardio are you saying that a person who doesn't eat all day and just eats a handful of peanuts here and there Or popcorn handfuls here and there will lose weight? Because I know someone who does that... and low and behold hasn't lost a pound. And... another case... My husband was following my guidelines and plateaued a little bit. So he decided to eat less. Well he gained weight and then decided I was right that he needed to start eating more again. And he started losing again. I am talking good food and the correct amount for age, height, etc. We are both doing great (he went from 207 to 168/170) and we have stayed that way. So I guess it is ok to agree to disagree. Right/0
-
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.0 -
So, coffeeNCardio are you saying that a person who doesn't eat all day and just eats a handful of peanuts here and there Or popcorn handfuls here and there will lose weight? Because I know someone who does that... and low and behold hasn't lost a pound. And... another case... My husband was following my guidelines and plateaued a little bit. So he decided to eat less. Well he gained weight and then decided I was right that he needed to start eating more again. And he started losing again. I am talking good food and the correct amount for age, height, etc. We are both doing great (he went from 207 to 168/170) and we have stayed that way. So I guess it is ok to agree to disagree. Right/
Eating fewer calories than you burn always, inevitably, leads to weight loss. Excepting cases of extreme medical conditions, this is law. It is an absolute fact of thermodynamics.
If someone is not losing weight, it's because A. They aren't actually eating fewer calories than they are burning, or B. The completely natural situation that we are all individuals and we don't all lose weight at the same speed. Weight loss isn't linear. Some weeks you will lose nothing and other weeks you will lose more than your goal loss. Adding water retention into it, you may appear not to have lost weight, but are simply retaining water (which has weight) while having actually lost fatty tissue. This is especially common for women who are on a menstruation cycle, as we tend to retain a lot of water at certain times during that cycle (this is individual, one woman may carry water on her period, where another may carry leading up to her period and then drop it all during).
Most importantly, you aren't in a plateau unless you have been without loss for 6+ weeks. Going a week or two without losing means nothing. Weight loss is not linear. If you experience a REAL plateau, then there is a reason. Most commonly, that reason is poor logging/eating more than you think you are or not burning as much as you think you are.
ETA: Water retention also effects us after starting a new fitness routine or increasing the intensity of an existing fitness routine, as the breakdown/buildup process of muscle growth makes you retain a ton of water. And eating large amounts of salt can cause the body to retain water.1 -
CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
If only BMR wasn't 80% of your TDEE...
In any case, no absolutely not. You weren't around these people the whole time to see exactly what they were eating. You weren't tracking their calories.
People severly underestimate how much they eat. Grazing all day on snacks (high calorie ones like nuts) doesn't help your cause. I don't have the video on hand, but there's one from the BBC where two women just as you describe went on and on about how they don't eat anything and their skinny friend eats so much! They gave them doubly labeled water and found out that the obese person was eating 2-3x the total calorie amount the thinner person was.
Quantity and Calorie Density are not the same thing.
CI-CO works every single time.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
If only BMR wasn't 80% of your TDEE...
In any case, no absolutely not. You weren't around these people the whole time to see exactly what they were eating. You weren't tracking their calories.
People severly underestimate how much they eat. Grazing all day on snacks (high calorie ones like nuts) doesn't help your cause. I don't have the video on hand, but there's one from the BBC where two women just as you describe went on and on about how they don't eat anything and their skinny friend eats so much! They gave them doubly labeled water and found out that the obese person was eating 2-3x the total calorie amount the thinner person was.
Quantity and Calorie Density are not the same thing.
CI-CO works every single time.
Were you disagreeing with me or with him? Cause what you just said is exactly what I've been saying.0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
If only BMR wasn't 80% of your TDEE...
In any case, no absolutely not. You weren't around these people the whole time to see exactly what they were eating. You weren't tracking their calories.
People severly underestimate how much they eat. Grazing all day on snacks (high calorie ones like nuts) doesn't help your cause. I don't have the video on hand, but there's one from the BBC where two women just as you describe went on and on about how they don't eat anything and their skinny friend eats so much! They gave them doubly labeled water and found out that the obese person was eating 2-3x the total calorie amount the thinner person was.
Quantity and Calorie Density are not the same thing.
CI-CO works every single time.
Were you disagreeing with me or with him? Cause what you just said is exactly what I've been saying.
with him! I was just saying that when you said "Moving less is the reason." I just want to point out that this is not the case. His argument is not right in any circumstance.
BMR makes up almost ALL of your TDEE, so even if someone is sedentary, they aren't going to pack on the pounds because they are "eating less" and subsequently being less active.
1 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.0 -
I registered to this site last week. It was recommended so I decided to give it a try. It took my profile and decided I needed to eat 1500 calories a day. Well doing that and I'm maintaining my present wt. 1200 a day and I lose. I know, I lost 40 pounds two years ago doing 1200 a day. Anything over it and I gain. So far, I lost 3 and now I'm maintaining my present wt....which isn't what the goal is. I have an additional 77 to go. So I changed the parameters this morning. 1200 cal a day which is enough for me. It also had me on 2800 mg.s of sodium. I won't do that at all. I'm no salt, no sugar....so this is going to be interesting for sure. I figure, if you don't put it in your mouth, it won't show up on the scale.
Are youYou are , what you eat. Remember that quote? If it doesn't go in your mouth, it won't go on your *kitten*? My wife had her teeth out recently and dropped from 156 to 112 pounds in as little as 4 months. When you can't take in nourishment.....you lose.
You may lose that way, but it's not sustainable or healthy. Is your goal to simply lose pounds or to be healthy and fit?0 -
I'm not crash dieting. I've changed the way I eat. I've slowed down. My metabolism is slower , thanks in part to cardiac drugs. I don't know why I'm here either....everyone is telling me what to do...to gain. Sorry for the inconvenience.
You asked a question. They are answering with their opinions. That's how this forum works.0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
If only BMR wasn't 80% of your TDEE...
In any case, no absolutely not. You weren't around these people the whole time to see exactly what they were eating. You weren't tracking their calories.
People severly underestimate how much they eat. Grazing all day on snacks (high calorie ones like nuts) doesn't help your cause. I don't have the video on hand, but there's one from the BBC where two women just as you describe went on and on about how they don't eat anything and their skinny friend eats so much! They gave them doubly labeled water and found out that the obese person was eating 2-3x the total calorie amount the thinner person was.
Quantity and Calorie Density are not the same thing.
CI-CO works every single time.
Were you disagreeing with me or with him? Cause what you just said is exactly what I've been saying.
with him! I was just saying that when you said "Moving less is the reason." I just want to point out that this is not the case. His argument is not right in any circumstance.
BMR makes up almost ALL of your TDEE, so even if someone is sedentary, they aren't going to pack on the pounds because they are "eating less" and subsequently being less active.
^^^^^THIS^^^^
0 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.1 -
CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »CaptainJoy wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »For the lurkers confused about the title: Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight. This is a myth as despicable as starvation mode. An illusion. Nothing more.
When people do "seem" to lose more weight on more calories, it's just an illusion. What happens is that the increase calorie allotment freaks you out, so you redouble your efforts at logging to assuage the guilt/fear, which in turn leads to better logging, which leads to better weight loss. It has nothing to do with eating more calories. It's only because you were probably eating that many or more at the lower calorie allotment and just weren't logging accurately. Once you begin logging accurately, of course you lose weight better/faster.
Never say never and there are always exceptions. Some people eat too few calories and have no energy to move. Calories = energy. They would lose better by upping the calories so they're not so lethargic.
Eating fewer calories is not the REASON behind their failure to lose. Moving less is the reason. Burning less is the reason. So while I agree you need to eat enough to properly fuel yourself so you can continue to acheive the burn side of the CICO equation, what I said stands. Eating fewer calories than you burn causes weight loss, inevitably.
Inevitably over an extended period of time I think you mean?
Remember not all weight is fat so your "Eating more calories NEVER EVER EVER equals losing more weight" is actually wrong.
Speaking in absolute terms does tend to mean you are absolutely wrong some of the time...
I don't want anyone getting the idea that they should up their calories if they stall. Quibble about the semantics all you want. CICO works, if it isn't working for you, you're doing it wrong.
It's worked perfectly for me thank you, I lost my weight and have been happily maintaining for years.
But I've also had short term periods where I lost weight when increasing calories.
And I wasn't suggesting that people react to a stall by increasing calories - argue with what I say if you chose but don't try to put words in my mouth.
Calorie balance is the primary cause of stalls but not the only cause.
Again weight =/= fat. There's a clue for you.
You have a problem with my semantics. "Absolutely wrong when using absolutes" remember? I'm addressing that by stating that it doesn't matter what language it comes in, the point of the matter is that there is no situation in which Eating more calories than you burn results in weight loss. Eating more calories than you burn results in weight gain. Stop taking this so personally. I don't know why you imagine I've singled you out here. I set out to make a point to anyone who looked at that title and thought "Gee, maybe I should up my calorie intake" If that's not you, super. Aside from trying to assert yourself over me or something, I cannot fathom why you replied in the first place. We clearly agree on CICO, so what is your problem? Aside from the language I used to make my point?
ETA: Also, I addressed weight does not equal fat in a previous comment which you may have missed. Long drawn out explanation of water weight gain. I didn't talk about muscle loss, but I felt like concerning the comment I was replying to, that wasn't pertinent information.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions