Dieting vs. exercising?

kittycatboss wrote: »

I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?

The calorie deficit over time is how you lose weight. Maintenance calorie needs ebbs and flows daily, but it's always in that range within give or take a couple hundred calories. For some people that weight range is step on stage fitness model ready, for others it is just right to be at the higher end, or maybe in the middle. Do not get too hung up on those numbers, YOU decide where you are best healthy, not those numbers.

So maintenance calories are what your body needs to stay the same and never lose or gain. Anything over that is how you gain weight. So some days you might eat under, and other days over. If it's too much over that is how we gain. And even though it seems like we don't eat at or over every day, we go over some days and that is why we can have a weight plateau.

So the trick for fat loss is to stay at maintenance, but also have most days during the week UNDER maintenance to lose fat. If done consistently this is like paying off a debt. It happens slowly over time, just like paying off a mortgage debt. It is the consistent payments that pay it off.

What matters is the calories at the end of the day in the 24 hour period, extend that out 7 days, 30, 60, and 90 days for results.

When embarking on a diet for fat loss and eating at deficits, it is always good to eat up to maintenance at least one day a week to help keep hormones stable.

Exercise for health and of course there will be a little bit of calorie burn, but you can lose body fat with just the deficit over time.

You don't have to worry about starvation mode unless you are 12% body fat or under, but if you eat too low it WILL slow down your metabolism as they proved in the "Minnesota Starvation Study" if you look that up on the internet.

The Army did the best study ever on starvation mode. Unless you are a lean athlete quit worrying about it.

STARVATION MODE:

Here is the Army study on the Theory of Fat Availability:

The Theory of Fat Availability:
•There is a set amount of fat that can be released from a fat cell.
•The more fat you have, the more fat can be used as a fuel when dieting.
•The less fat you have, the less fat can be used as a fuel when dieting.
•Towards the end of a transformation, when body fat is extremely low you
may not have enough fat to handle a large caloric deficit anymore.

At the extreme low end, when your body fat cannot ‘keep up’ with the energy deficit you've imposed on your body, the energy MUST come from SOMEWHERE. This is when you are at risk of losing lean body mass during dieting (commonly referred to as ‘starvation mode’). This happens at extremely low levels of body fat, under 6% in men and 12% in women [Friedl K.E. J Appl Phsiol, 1994].

So some things to think about as you experiment with different calorie levels, fasting periods (or simply the time between meals), and exercise are:

How is your general feeling of well being?
How do you feel working out?
How well do you recover from workouts?
Do you have the energy to complete your daily responsibilities?
How well do you sleep at night?
Are you binging?

Usually it's the answers to those questions that tell you if you are too high or too low with your daily or even rolling daily average over time.

MissusMoon wrote: »

You can't outrun your fork. CICO is everything. It's not about certain foods, being "clean", carbs, none of it. The law of thermodynamics has not fallen. Exercise factors into CICO, but I highly recommend portion control and accurate calorie count coming first. Fitness is awesome, exercise makes you strong, turns up your "furnace" and makes you feel great. But it can only do so much when bombarded with calories.

I love the bolded. Might need to make that into a tattoo with accompanying stick figure and fork running after it.

rdridi12 wrote: »

estherdragonbat wrote: »

• Saturated Fat
• Polyunsaturated Fat
• Monounsaturated Fat
• Trans Fat
• Cholesterol
• Sodium
• Potassium
• Fiber
• Sugar
• Vitamin A
• Vitamin C
• Iron
• Calcium

While I'd like to see the B-vitamins in here, too, I'm really more concerned about my iron.

I think you are mistaken about what micronutrients are

Did you sign up just to tell everyone else how much smarter you are than them?

kshama2001 wrote: »

rdridi12 wrote: »

Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.

Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.

And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.

heiliskrimsli wrote: »

So you're telling me that if I get two steaks at the butcher shop, take them home, run one through the meat grinder thereby "processing" it, and then throw both of them on the grill and cook them both mid rare, the one I didn't grind is healthy, and the one I did is not?

@rdridi12 although everyone off of MFP forums knows what I mean by "processed foods", since running steak through the meat grinder technically is processing it, and there is a lot of this type of pushback here, on MFP I say "Ultra Processed Foods" and refer to the Brazilian definition: http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf

That's great, and we can all agree that a Cheeseburger from a quick service restaurant doesn't meet that definition.

kshama2001 wrote: »

rdridi12 wrote: »

Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.

Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.

And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.

heiliskrimsli wrote: »

So you're telling me that if I get two steaks at the butcher shop, take them home, run one through the meat grinder thereby "processing" it, and then throw both of them on the grill and cook them both mid rare, the one I didn't grind is healthy, and the one I did is not?

@rdridi12 although everyone off of MFP forums knows what I mean by "processed foods", since running steak through the meat grinder technically is processing it, and there is a lot of this type of pushback here, on MFP I say "Ultra Processed Foods" and refer to the Brazilian definition: http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf

For anyone who doesn't want to open and search - ultra-processed is defined here as : Ultra-processed foods include confectionery, drinks that are sweetened with sugar or artficial sweeteners, powders for juices, sausages and other products that are derived from meat and animal fat, pre-prepared frozen dishes, dried products such as cake mix, powdered soup, instant noodles, ready-seasonings, and an infinity of new products that arrive at the markets every year including packaged snacks, morning cereals, cereal bars, and ‘energy’ drinks. Breads and baked goods become ultraprocessed foods when, in addition to wheat flour, yeast, water, and salt, their ingredients include substances such as hydrogenated vegetable fat, sugar, starch, whey, emulsifiers, and other additives.

When all else fails, just keep asking your debate adversary to go into overly detailed explanations, continue pretending like the point he is making is unclear, and he will eventually just give up and walk away. Of course, he will walk away unconvinced, but it matters little at that point, right?