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.
Where do these ideas come from?
mom22dogs
Posts: 470 Member
I've been on MFP for a little over a year and I see over and over and over again "I'm working out x hours a day doing x, y, z and I'm not losing weight" or some variation of that, as though just working out to the point of exhaustion is the only way to lose weight. Where did the idea come from that you have to work yourself to death every day to lose weight?
The other thing that I see ALL THE TIME is the 1200 calorie benchmark for diets. Where did this come from that you have to eat 1200 calories to diet and lose weight? I know when I was a kid (12 years old) my mom put me on Weight Watchers and it was a 1200 calorie diet so for a long time I thought that was the appropriate calorie level to eat to diet. How or why did this become the "diet" calorie point when in reality, most people, even myself, can eat at least 1400-1500 (women) and still lose weight?
These things have just been on my mind because every day there are several threads where people think you have to work yourself to death and only eat 1200 calories in order to lose weight, and it drives me nuts.
The other thing that I see ALL THE TIME is the 1200 calorie benchmark for diets. Where did this come from that you have to eat 1200 calories to diet and lose weight? I know when I was a kid (12 years old) my mom put me on Weight Watchers and it was a 1200 calorie diet so for a long time I thought that was the appropriate calorie level to eat to diet. How or why did this become the "diet" calorie point when in reality, most people, even myself, can eat at least 1400-1500 (women) and still lose weight?
These things have just been on my mind because every day there are several threads where people think you have to work yourself to death and only eat 1200 calories in order to lose weight, and it drives me nuts.
1
Replies
-
I think the 1200 thing is because it's the minimum healthy amount, and therefore the lowest MFP will go for women, and people are in a hurry and think less is better.7
-
Slow is the way to go. Folks want quick loss, but if you want to get and stay at a healthy weight then the eating habits must become habits & normal day to day living choices. I heard someone say it takes 10 years to become an overnight sensation! I lost 30 pounds in 2 years & the low calories I need to maintain are okay. I still have my hunger days but I counter with exercise & getting right back to my normal eating that maintains my weight.4
-
mizsaratoga wrote: »Slow is the way to go. Folks want quick loss, but if you want to get and stay at a healthy weight then the eating habits must become habits & normal day to day living choices. I heard someone say it takes 10 years to become an overnight sensation! I lost 30 pounds in 2 years & the low calories I need to maintain are okay. I still have my hunger days but I counter with exercise & getting right back to my normal eating that maintains my weight.
I know this, but why do most people still think you need to kill yourself and be miserable? I wonder if it's all these weightloss shows that show people working themselves to death. You really don't need to work out that hard or long to see big changes in strength and endurance.0 -
1200 calories was a number determined by scientists as the lowest an average woman could eat and still fit in her nutritional needs. When MFP sets up goals they use a math formula to subtract desired deficit (based on user selected rate of loss) from a person's daily calorie needs. For many women their calorie needs are low enough that selecting the fastest rate of loss would end up below 1200, so MFP stops at where science says our health needs are met.
As for the "I'm doing X, Y, Z and not losing weight" that comes from magazines, diet, and fitness industry garbage for the most part. They make their money off of making weight loss seem like a complicated series of hoops you have to jump through. If you just buy their magazine/product you'll lose weight easier. They'd make far less money if they said "Eat at an appropriate calorie deficit and get some exercise" compared to "eat these foods at these times and do these special exercises combined with these pills". Plus, it's hard work and we all look for short cuts rather than admitting we are over eating.9 -
I know this, but why do most people still think you need to kill yourself and be miserable? I wonder if it's all these weightloss shows that show people working themselves to death. You really don't need to work out that hard or long to see big changes in strength and endurance.
Dieting has a long history of "suffering". I think it has to do with the way we are taught to see obesity as being due to laziness or greed. So you need to be punished for your sins, and dieting is some kind of penance.
I read Yoni Freedhoff's The Diet Fix and it has helped me put some of my own issues into perspective. He's an obesity doctor in Ottawa and he describes serial dieters he's worked with as having a condition he calls Post-Traumatic Dieting Disorder. It's a bit tongue in cheek, but if you've tried more than one diet, you associate suffering with dieting and learn that you have to punish yourself for getting fat.
At some point, if you want to lose weight and keep it off, you have to learn to find a food plan you can eat for the rest of your life and still be happy. Otherwise, that lost weight will find you again. I can't ever see 1200 calories a day being that number for me. My family, friends and coworkers would end up murdering me in my sleep because I would be a cranky, hungry mess of snarling, weepy emotional outbursts if I had to live at that level of hunger for an extended period of time.11 -
If you're a shortie like me, the 1200 calorie limit is the lowest I can go and still lose weight. I'm not in a hurry to take it off, but as someone who is barely 5' tall, if I eat too much more than that without working out an hour a day, I won't lose weight!6
-
If one serving of potato chips is good, then the whole bag is great, because more is better. If losing half a pound a week is good, then losing a pound a week is great, because more is better. #skinny_fat_logic4
-
fitzmonkey13 wrote: »At some point, if you want to lose weight and keep it off, you have to learn to find a food plan you can eat for the rest of your life and still be happy. Otherwise, that lost weight will find you again.
This is ABSOLUTELY the key. We've all heard the phrases... "You are what you eat." "Food is medicine." "Garbage in - garbage out." Once you figure out how your body responds to food (and look PAST the SAD - Standard American Diet) and embrace it, adding a physical routine is the yang to that ying. You will be HAPPY. ;-)0 -
Punishment for sins is an interesting thought. I feel like sometimes people want losing weight to be suffering to be an excuse as why it is too hard. I lost weight by CICO and increased health with exercise seems simple and people would rather hear about all the crazy things someone has to do like "no sugar from anywhere" or "shots of apple cider vinegar" or "eat only sticks of butter" so that they can say they could never do that, they love cake too much or love French fries too much.
NOT to say CICO is easy per se (it is very hard to change these things) but adding weird ideas like "working out 3 times a day and eating only leafy vegetables that start with 's' " is the only way to lose weight makes it seem so much more difficult and easy to dismiss. It shifts the blame from personal habits to seemingly crazy hard sacrifices so that the cause is external or environmental, not internal or personal (or a mix of both, in some cases).
But the fitness/beauty/magazine/etc industry (in general) plays a huge role in perpetuating this like others have said.
5 -
In my opinion it's first of all the womens' magazines with titles like "Lose 10 lbs in one week with our diet plan" etc, etc. This gives people the idea that you (or someone) can really lose that amount in a week--just do everything the article says for a week. People think "Hey, it's only a week, I can do that to lose 10 lbs". Of course it's immpossible, but then you think something must be wrong with you--hence "starvation mode". With this mindset newbies are convinced that if this site works, then it must be a quick loss site. They are also afraid that they'll lose steam, and are all hyped to lose that weight as fast as possible. When they are told it's a long haul and better to slow down, it's a shock and they fight it tooth and nail. It goes against everything that's out there.3
-
How or why did this become the "diet" calorie point when in reality, most people, even myself, can eat at least 1400-1500 (women) and still lose weight?
Hate to say it but you're still in that trap based on saying most people can...ANYTHING. Losing weight is a mathematical formula. Calories consumed < calories expended. Putting ANY number to it is false including 1400-1500. I have a friend that is shredded, 8 pack, show condition on over 5,000 calories a day because he burns more than that.
I hope this doesn't come across as confrontational, that's not what I'm aiming for. Diplomacy requires more words than I feel like typing lol.1 -
joemac1988 wrote: »How or why did this become the "diet" calorie point when in reality, most people, even myself, can eat at least 1400-1500 (women) and still lose weight?
Hate to say it but you're still in that trap based on saying most people can...ANYTHING. Losing weight is a mathematical formula. Calories consumed < calories expended. Putting ANY number to it is false including 1400-1500. I have a friend that is shredded, 8 pack, show condition on over 5,000 calories a day because he burns more than that.
I hope this doesn't come across as confrontational, that's not what I'm aiming for. Diplomacy requires more words than I feel like typing lol.
I don't see how she's trapped into a certain thinking by acknowledging that most people can eat more than the minimum suggested 1200 calories or even 1500 calories. She was giving a sample range of calorie intake for weight loss based on her statistics (which is why she put 'woman' in parenthesis), not on a young and very active male. I'm 100% sure she realizes that there are plenty of people out there who easily lose weight or maintain weight at 2, 3, or 5 times the amount of calories she does. It's actually the reason she created this thread and coming back to your example you proved her point that your friend (or you, or me, or her) could lose weight on much more than 1200 calories.4 -
joemac1988 wrote: »How or why did this become the "diet" calorie point when in reality, most people, even myself, can eat at least 1400-1500 (women) and still lose weight?
Hate to say it but you're still in that trap based on saying most people can...ANYTHING. Losing weight is a mathematical formula. Calories consumed < calories expended. Putting ANY number to it is false including 1400-1500. I have a friend that is shredded, 8 pack, show condition on over 5,000 calories a day because he burns more than that.
I hope this doesn't come across as confrontational, that's not what I'm aiming for. Diplomacy requires more words than I feel like typing lol.
Nope. Not confrontational. Could have even made your point with fewer words/keystrokes. See what I bolded and italicized. I think most would agree to that. You could even throw in the qualifier of the next few words of the next sentence if you felt the need. In general I agree with your sentiment.0 -
I have several friends who "diet" all the time. They always do low carb or less than 1200 calories. I tried to explain to one of them that she could eat more and still lose weight but she argued with me and said that she GAINS weights if she eats over 1200 calories a day (she's about 5'4 and 150 lbs). I'm pretty sure she also tried to tell me that carbs turn into calories...1
-
indigoblue9572 wrote: »If you're a shortie like me, the 1200 calorie limit is the lowest I can go and still lose weight. I'm not in a hurry to take it off, but as someone who is barely 5' tall, if I eat too much more than that without working out an hour a day, I won't lose weight!
1200 makes sense for shorties......but the one-size-fits-all approach is irksome. I know MFP has to bottom out somewhere.
I'm not tall, but my niece is. The average height for women has changed since the.............1920's (?)
I don't know if 1200 was around back in the 1920's....but it does seem like forever.1 -
joemac1988 wrote: »How or why did this become the "diet" calorie point when in reality, most people, even myself, can eat at least 1400-1500 (women) and still lose weight?
Hate to say it but you're still in that trap based on saying most people can...ANYTHING. Losing weight is a mathematical formula. Calories consumed < calories expended. Putting ANY number to it is false including 1400-1500. I have a friend that is shredded, 8 pack, show condition on over 5,000 calories a day because he burns more than that.
I hope this doesn't come across as confrontational, that's not what I'm aiming for. Diplomacy requires more words than I feel like typing lol.
But your friend isn't most people. He's not average Joe. Most people doesn't include the guy who works out like crazy, or is 6'6" and extremely muscular. So, my "most people" means the average person, which I would say a majority of people fall under. My statement stands.4 -
indigoblue9572 wrote: »If you're a shortie like me, the 1200 calorie limit is the lowest I can go and still lose weight. I'm not in a hurry to take it off, but as someone who is barely 5' tall, if I eat too much more than that without working out an hour a day, I won't lose weight!
1200 makes sense for shorties......but the one-size-fits-all approach is irksome. I know MFP has to bottom out somewhere.
I'm not tall, but my niece is. The average height for women has changed since the.............1920's (?)
I don't know if 1200 was around back in the 1920's....but it does seem like forever.
I'm 5'0" tall and can lose weight on almost 1700 calories. My TDEE is just over 2200. I guess until the media changes what they put out there, it probably won't change.
0 -
joemac1988 wrote: »How or why did this become the "diet" calorie point when in reality, most people, even myself, can eat at least 1400-1500 (women) and still lose weight?
Hate to say it but you're still in that trap based on saying most people can...ANYTHING. Losing weight is a mathematical formula. Calories consumed < calories expended. Putting ANY number to it is false including 1400-1500. I have a friend that is shredded, 8 pack, show condition on over 5,000 calories a day because he burns more than that.
I hope this doesn't come across as confrontational, that's not what I'm aiming for. Diplomacy requires more words than I feel like typing lol.
I disagree. By using the word "most," she indicated that it's not appropriate for everyone - and that it's not a "must" for anyone. As such, she is in no such trap at all.3 -
indigoblue9572 wrote: »If you're a shortie like me, the 1200 calorie limit is the lowest I can go and still lose weight. I'm not in a hurry to take it off, but as someone who is barely 5' tall, if I eat too much more than that without working out an hour a day, I won't lose weight!
1200 makes sense for shorties......but the one-size-fits-all approach is irksome. I know MFP has to bottom out somewhere.
I'm not tall, but my niece is. The average height for women has changed since the.............1920's (?)
I don't know if 1200 was around back in the 1920's....but it does seem like forever.
I'm 5'0" tall and can lose weight on almost 1700 calories. My TDEE is just over 2200. I guess until the media changes what they put out there, it probably won't change.
But I am 5'3" and I gain weight on 1700 calories a day. 1200-1300 and I just maintain the same weight. I lose at the 1000-1100 range. Go figure.
As a teenager and through my 20's I could eat 2500 calories a day and stayed petite. That all changed in my 30's. Actually the moment I got on hormonal birth control. It is what it is though.1 -
I think women's magazines and media. I feel like when I used to read that stuff they would always be talking about meal plans and it seemed like1500 calories is the "magic" calorie intake for women, which now that I know better is laughable to me. Obviously we are all the exact same size and activity level. Plus the "booty busting" workouts and what not. When people don't understand the whole picture they can come up with all sorts of "great" ideas.0
-
indigoblue9572 wrote: »If you're a shortie like me, the 1200 calorie limit is the lowest I can go and still lose weight. I'm not in a hurry to take it off, but as someone who is barely 5' tall, if I eat too much more than that without working out an hour a day, I won't lose weight!
1200 makes sense for shorties......but the one-size-fits-all approach is irksome. I know MFP has to bottom out somewhere.
I'm not tall, but my niece is. The average height for women has changed since the.............1920's (?)
I don't know if 1200 was around back in the 1920's....but it does seem like forever.
I'm 5'0" tall and can lose weight on almost 1700 calories. My TDEE is just over 2200. I guess until the media changes what they put out there, it probably won't change.
But I am 5'3" and I gain weight on 1700 calories a day. 1200-1300 and I just maintain the same weight. I lose at the 1000-1100 range. Go figure.
As a teenager and through my 20's I could eat 2500 calories a day and stayed petite. That all changed in my 30's. Actually the moment I got on hormonal birth control. It is what it is though.
And I'm 5'3" and maintain on 1950. Usually eating around 1600-1800 when I exercise, 1450 when I don't.
1 -
-
Diet articles, woo peddlers, shows like The Biggest Loser showing people exercising til they puke. The healthy way to lose weight doesn't make for good episodic TV or news articles, it isn't sexy, you can't use words like stunning, shocking, amazing three times in every sentence. At least for what people want to see today.
I actually think it is pretty amazing that you don't have to do anything exotic to lose weight.4 -
People want what they want right away. No one wants to be on a diet for a year, they want to be ready for the beach next month.1
-
People (me included) who have been trying every diet since forever (6th grade) we were told you can't eat this you can't eat that. You have to give up this or you will never lose. People can not believe that you just need to eat less and it will work. Atkins, Weight Watchers, South Beach Diet those things are all over the place.
It took me a while to work this CICO thing and this is the first time in my life (I'm 34) that I have lost more then ten pounds. Even doctors tout terrible diets like Ideal Protein.2 -
indigoblue9572 wrote: »If you're a shortie like me, the 1200 calorie limit is the lowest I can go and still lose weight. I'm not in a hurry to take it off, but as someone who is barely 5' tall, if I eat too much more than that without working out an hour a day, I won't lose weight!
1200 makes sense for shorties......but the one-size-fits-all approach is irksome. I know MFP has to bottom out somewhere.
I'm not tall, but my niece is. The average height for women has changed since the.............1920's (?)
I don't know if 1200 was around back in the 1920's....but it does seem like forever.
I'm 5'0" tall and can lose weight on almost 1700 calories. My TDEE is just over 2200. I guess until the media changes what they put out there, it probably won't change.
But I am 5'3" and I gain weight on 1700 calories a day. 1200-1300 and I just maintain the same weight. I lose at the 1000-1100 range. Go figure.
As a teenager and through my 20's I could eat 2500 calories a day and stayed petite. That all changed in my 30's. Actually the moment I got on hormonal birth control. It is what it is though.
Are you saying turning 30 and birth control reduced your TDEE by 1300 calories per day!?0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »If one serving of potato chips is good, then the whole bag is great, because more is better. If losing half a pound a week is good, then losing a pound a week is great, because more is better. #skinny_fat_logic
i think there's some form of that in pretty much everybody. might not be about calories or weight loss/gain at all, but it's there.
0 -
It's because of the woo that the fitness and diet industry puts out there to ensure consistently bringing in money.
It's been mentioned, but weight loss/gain/maintenance is just basic math. Some people don't want to accept that it's really that simple.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions