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.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »I wouldn't ever hire a personal trainer, that looks like they need a personal trainer.
There are many coaches who are amazing coaches, but would never do well at whatever they're coaching.
Perhaps the pt has spent many years educating themselves and pt-ing to get experience, and lacks time to put the effort in to themselves?
one of the most renown swim coaches in Australia (trained multiple Olympians) - couldn't swim to save his life...4 -
deannalfisher wrote: »livingleanlivingclean wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »I wouldn't ever hire a personal trainer, that looks like they need a personal trainer.
There are many coaches who are amazing coaches, but would never do well at whatever they're coaching.
Perhaps the pt has spent many years educating themselves and pt-ing to get experience, and lacks time to put the effort in to themselves?
one of the most renown swim coaches in Australia (trained multiple Olympians) - couldn't swim to save his life...
LOL. Reminds me of the old adage: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach."4 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
The problem with you statement is that it's not specific enough. It depends on your goals.
The statement is not true, per se. If my goal is to lose weight, I can do that eating McDonalds everyday.
So, for weight loss, what you eat does not matter. How much of it you eat matters a lot.
I would say what you eat matters for some purpose, namely health, perhaps how you feel and satiety. Agreed not for weight loss, if you control calories in some other way and don't eat a diet that makes you feel bad, which is why I did not say "what you eat matters for weight loss."
Whether you care about those things does not mean they don't matter. Just that they aren't concerns/goals of yours. I totally agree that plenty of people don't care to concern themselves with nutrition.
Similarly, I would say that eating calories over one's TDEE matters (or makes a difference, if you prefer). Some people may not care if they gain weight, or gain a little weight in the short term, or may want to or need to gain weight -- that's their goal. Fact remains that eating calories over TDEE makes a difference (matters). Same for "what you eat."
I'd also say that at the calories the average person eats in the US and with the variety of foods available and common supplementation, most people are unlikely to have nutrient deficiencies. I just don't think that's the end-all of why nutrition matters.
Given the lack of fruits and vegetables in the average US diet, not sure if the highlighted is a true statement.
Only about one in every 10 Americans eats enough fruits and vegetables, a new government report shows.
Just 13 percent of U.S. residents consume one and a half to two cups of fruit every day as recommended by federal dietary guidelines, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. The news on the vegetable front was even worse. Less than 9 percent of Americans eat two to three cups of vegetables every day as recommended, the report showed.[/i]
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/07/09/only-1-in-10-americans-eats-enough-fruits-and-veggies-cdc
It is true, regardless of their fruit and vegetable intake. The sheer amount of calories many people consume makes sure they're okay on nutrients. Nutrient poor foods are not devoid of nutrients. I did this test a while back where I used cronometer to track one deliberately "junky" day. I was expecting it to look horrible, but it didn't look half as bad as I thought it would.
Menu:
Breakfast: Sandwich
Lunch: instant noodles with canned wieners and chickpeas
Dinner: Mcdonald's cheeseburger and fries
Snacks: peanut butter and jam, milk (many people drink milk), and some fruits (yes, I cheated a little because going without vegetables was bad enough I couldn't also go without fruits and very few people go completely without any nutrient dense foods)
Total calories: 2113
Where is that screenshot with all your micronutrients from?
Cronometer. If you eat more packaged foods than you would be bothered to add manually it can be tedious. For chain restaurants and whole foods it's great, except it doesn't have a multi-add like MFP which I use a lot for foods I eat often.
Yeah, cronometer is awesome for giving very detailed breakdowns, but it's also very tedious to use for any length of time.
I switched to cronometer a few months back and don't find it at all tedious. I like that I don't have to double check entires for accuracy like I did when using MFP.
The reason I switched was for the database accuracy but it's fun to see the micros.
0 -
OliveGirl128 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »born_of_fire74 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Eh, I think what you eat matters (I mean overall diet, of course), and I never thought that particular opinion of mine was an unpopular one. Seems to me to be shared by most.
The problem with you statement is that it's not specific enough. It depends on your goals.
The statement is not true, per se. If my goal is to lose weight, I can do that eating McDonalds everyday.
So, for weight loss, what you eat does not matter. How much of it you eat matters a lot.
I would say what you eat matters for some purpose, namely health, perhaps how you feel and satiety. Agreed not for weight loss, if you control calories in some other way and don't eat a diet that makes you feel bad, which is why I did not say "what you eat matters for weight loss."
Whether you care about those things does not mean they don't matter. Just that they aren't concerns/goals of yours. I totally agree that plenty of people don't care to concern themselves with nutrition.
Similarly, I would say that eating calories over one's TDEE matters (or makes a difference, if you prefer). Some people may not care if they gain weight, or gain a little weight in the short term, or may want to or need to gain weight -- that's their goal. Fact remains that eating calories over TDEE makes a difference (matters). Same for "what you eat."
I'd also say that at the calories the average person eats in the US and with the variety of foods available and common supplementation, most people are unlikely to have nutrient deficiencies. I just don't think that's the end-all of why nutrition matters.
Given the lack of fruits and vegetables in the average US diet, not sure if the highlighted is a true statement.
Only about one in every 10 Americans eats enough fruits and vegetables, a new government report shows.
Just 13 percent of U.S. residents consume one and a half to two cups of fruit every day as recommended by federal dietary guidelines, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. The news on the vegetable front was even worse. Less than 9 percent of Americans eat two to three cups of vegetables every day as recommended, the report showed.[/i]
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/articles/2015/07/09/only-1-in-10-americans-eats-enough-fruits-and-veggies-cdc
It is true, regardless of their fruit and vegetable intake. The sheer amount of calories many people consume makes sure they're okay on nutrients. Nutrient poor foods are not devoid of nutrients. I did this test a while back where I used cronometer to track one deliberately "junky" day. I was expecting it to look horrible, but it didn't look half as bad as I thought it would.
Menu:
Breakfast: Sandwich
Lunch: instant noodles with canned wieners and chickpeas
Dinner: Mcdonald's cheeseburger and fries
Snacks: peanut butter and jam, milk (many people drink milk), and some fruits (yes, I cheated a little because going without vegetables was bad enough I couldn't also go without fruits and very few people go completely without any nutrient dense foods)
Total calories: 2113
Where is that screenshot with all your micronutrients from?
Cronometer. If you eat more packaged foods than you would be bothered to add manually it can be tedious. For chain restaurants and whole foods it's great, except it doesn't have a multi-add like MFP which I use a lot for foods I eat often.
Yeah, cronometer is awesome for giving very detailed breakdowns, but it's also very tedious to use for any length of time.
I switched to cronometer a few months back and don't find it at all tedious. I like that I don't have to double check entires for accuracy like I did when using MFP.
The reason I switched was for the database accuracy but it's fun to see the micros.
I go back and forth. I get frustrated with the database here, I run to cronometer. I get frustrated with the tediousness of cronometer (no multi add, no convenient recent foods, I need to enter everything manually, odd fitbit calorie calculations...etc) I bounce back here. I'm perpetually going back and forth. I wish the two would merge into one app with a trustworthy database and user friendly functionality.2 -
Lgcoulter33 wrote: »My unpopular opinion? I can eat totally healthy, 1400 calories or less a day drink nothing but water except for a pop once a week and exercise and still gain weight. Case in point? The last 10 months. That's how I lived and gained 120 pounds. I had lost 140 pounds previously and kept it off for years. The culprit for my weight gain? My pcos was retriggered by the depo shot for birth control that my obgyn put me on again saying it would be different this time and better for me. I've spent the last 9 months trying to get it under control again and I'm going as a candidate for weight loss surgery to put it into permanent remission and relose all the weight I originally lost plus the final 70 pounds I had to goal. Also I'm on a low dose of topamax for weight loss. As I see it, It's not cheating as I've lowered calorie intake to 1200 a day and dropped the pop once a week. I've lost 12 pounds so far. My bmi is 56. I'm 327 pounds as of yesterday, was 339.9. Wls is not cheating if you have conditions that it can cure and you know that it's something you're willing to commit to for the rest of your life.
this isn't unpopular it is against the science of weight loss...
sorry you might be logging 1400 but you sure as hell aren't eating 1400.15 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »BabyBear76 wrote: »I wouldn't ever hire a personal trainer, that looks like they need a personal trainer.
There are many coaches who are amazing coaches, but would never do well at whatever they're coaching.
Perhaps the pt has spent many years educating themselves and pt-ing to get experience, and lacks time to put the effort in to themselves?
I know, one of my gym rat buddie's dad is a cardiovascular surgeon that smokes a pack and a half a day, he's still a great surgeon and extremely knowledgeable. That's why it's an unpopular opinion. I just have a hard time trusting someone with my body when they don't take care of thier own. Kinda like hiring a psychiatrist with mental issues. It has more to do with my trust issues.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Yeah, never, ever take weightlifting advice from a guy who looks like this
(sarcasm font in full effect in this post)
Well played.
ETA: for those who don't know, that's Mark Rippetoe, author of Starting Strength and one of the most successful trainers out there.
Is it just me or does Ripp look a little like an overweight Tim Allen with a bad haircut?
19 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Yeah, never, ever take weightlifting advice from a guy who looks like this
(sarcasm font in full effect in this post)
Well played.
ETA: for those who don't know, that's Mark Rippetoe, author of Starting Strength and one of the most successful trainers out there.
Is it just me or does Ripp look a little like an overweight Tim Allen with a bad haircut?
YES! I couldn't make the connection.1 -
Lgcoulter33 wrote: »My unpopular opinion? I can eat totally healthy, 1400 calories or less a day drink nothing but water except for a pop once a week and exercise and still gain weight. Case in point? The last 10 months. That's how I lived and gained 120 pounds. I had lost 140 pounds previously and kept it off for years. The culprit for my weight gain? My pcos was retriggered by the depo shot for birth control that my obgyn put me on again saying it would be different this time and better for me. I've spent the last 9 months trying to get it under control again and I'm going as a candidate for weight loss surgery to put it into permanent remission and relose all the weight I originally lost plus the final 70 pounds I had to goal. Also I'm on a low dose of topamax for weight loss. As I see it, It's not cheating as I've lowered calorie intake to 1200 a day and dropped the pop once a week. I've lost 12 pounds so far. My bmi is 56. I'm 327 pounds as of yesterday, was 339.9. Wls is not cheating if you have conditions that it can cure and you know that it's something you're willing to commit to for the rest of your life.
this isn't unpopular it is against the science of weight loss...
sorry you might be logging 1400 but you sure as hell aren't eating 1400.
I don't know how much if affects the calories (or how correctly she is logging), but I do know that PCOS and other IR issues can mess with the CO part of CI/CO. And it's a Catch-22 situation: losing weight is one of the best ways to deal with the medical situation, but the condition makes it a lot harder. If the 1200 calories a day plus medication is working, it sounds like she may be doing things well enough.
And, especially in cases like this WLS may be the best option in the long run, provided the work is there as well to keep it off.3 -
Lgcoulter33 wrote: »My unpopular opinion? I can eat totally healthy, 1400 calories or less a day drink nothing but water except for a pop once a week and exercise and still gain weight. Case in point? The last 10 months. That's how I lived and gained 120 pounds. I had lost 140 pounds previously and kept it off for years. The culprit for my weight gain? My pcos was retriggered by the depo shot for birth control that my obgyn put me on again saying it would be different this time and better for me. I've spent the last 9 months trying to get it under control again and I'm going as a candidate for weight loss surgery to put it into permanent remission and relose all the weight I originally lost plus the final 70 pounds I had to goal. Also I'm on a low dose of topamax for weight loss. As I see it, It's not cheating as I've lowered calorie intake to 1200 a day and dropped the pop once a week. I've lost 12 pounds so far. My bmi is 56. I'm 327 pounds as of yesterday, was 339.9. Wls is not cheating if you have conditions that it can cure and you know that it's something you're willing to commit to for the rest of your life.
this isn't unpopular it is against the science of weight loss...
sorry you might be logging 1400 but you sure as hell aren't eating 1400.
I don't know how much if affects the calories (or how correctly she is logging), but I do know that PCOS and other IR issues can mess with the CO part of CI/CO. And it's a Catch-22 situation: losing weight is one of the best ways to deal with the medical situation, but the condition makes it a lot harder. If the 1200 calories a day plus medication is working, it sounds like she may be doing things well enough.
And, especially in cases like this WLS may be the best option in the long run, provided the work is there as well to keep it off.
lots of things impact the CO part of the equation but to say that eating 1400 calories and exercise etc and she is gaining weight at the rate of 12lbs a month means 42000 calories over maintenance each month...7 -
Actually, i measure everything I eat, and have for the past 6 years. So don't tell me I'm not eating what I say I am. You don't know me or my situation. I have been diligent in everything I have done. So sorry I don't fit into your perfect little box of what diet and exercise should be.
So because I am deciding to do what is best for my condition I am going against science? That's completely untrue. I'm doing what is best for ME.13 -
Lgcoulter33 wrote: »Actually, i measure everything I eat, and have for the past 6 years. So don't tell me I'm not eating what I say I am. You don't know me or my situation. I have been diligent in everything I have done. So sorry I don't fit into your perfect little box of what diet and exercise should be.
So because I am deciding to do what is best for my condition I am going against science? That's completely untrue. I'm doing what is best for ME.
Science isn't open to haggling.13 -
Lgcoulter33 wrote: »Actually, i measure everything I eat, and have for the past 6 years. So don't tell me I'm not eating what I say I am. You don't know me or my situation. I have been diligent in everything I have done. So sorry I don't fit into your perfect little box of what diet and exercise should be.
So because I am deciding to do what is best for my condition I am going against science? That's completely untrue. I'm doing what is best for ME.
It's impossible. Weight loss and gain is simple science. You need to over eat by 3500 calories to gain 1lb. To gain the 120lbs you did you overate by 420000 calories.
You can't do that by only eating 1400 calories a day.
PCOS does not make you a different, science still applies.18 -
This one might offend some people. I think there is a strong belief here that any innate differences in metabolism are negligible, and that there really aren't people out there who are born having it really easy or really hard. I believe this is utter horse$#!^. I believe this is a way for people to pat themselves on the back and give themselves a sense of superiority. If you don't believe me, google "Dutch famine 1944 epigenetics". Stress, trauma, genes, environmental factors, prenatal environmental factors, so many things (many of which irreversible) can affect metabolism throughout life, and through the generations.
As for me personally, I eat around 2500 - 3200 calories a day, at 128 (5'8"), my only exercise is doing crunches (no cardio), and I regularly indulge in alcohol, and don't seem to gain a pound (and when I do, it's muscle... My waist line keeps steadily shrinking). I would love to pat myself on the back and take credit for the weight I lost, but I am certain now that it was a medication I was taking that was screwing up my metabolism in the first place. So I don't judge people who are struggling, and I don't tell them that they're just not working hard enough, or that they're not going to face diminishing returns that will set an upper limit on their efforts. Even if they can't seem to lose the weight, my hat's off to anyone working against the hand circumstances gave them.18 -
Metabolisms do vary, although not as much as some think, and in particular some people ARE hard gainers, who naturally compensate with increased NEAT when they increase calories.
But on the other end there's a limit to how low metabolism can be and the idea that one operates as normal with a huge decrease in metabolism (no decrease in NEAT, no low energy) doesn't make a lot of sense.
Also, how WLS works is making it easier to eat less, isn't it? So you are still going to be eating 1000 or whatever, which you can do without WLS if it's really needed (although I am skeptical about whether it would be).
I would love to read an article showing that metabolism can be as low as 1000 with exercise, however, especially absent a thyroid problem which could be medicated. (I'm genuine here -- that would be very interesting, as it goes against my understanding of how the body works.)
On the other hand, people way miscalculating what they eat is common (see, e.g., Secret Eaters).4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Metabolisms do vary, although not as much as some think, and in particular some people ARE hard gainers, who naturally compensate with increased NEAT when they increase calories.
But on the other end there's a limit to how low metabolism can be and the idea that one operates as normal with a huge decrease in metabolism (no decrease in NEAT, no low energy) doesn't make a lot of sense.
Also, how WLS works is making it easier to eat less, isn't it? So you are still going to be eating 1000 or whatever, which you can do without WLS if it's really needed (although I am skeptical about whether it would be).
I would love to read an article showing that metabolism can be as low as 1000 with exercise, however, especially absent a thyroid problem which could be medicated. (I'm genuine here -- that would be very interesting, as it goes against my understanding of how the body works.)
On the other hand, people way miscalculating what they eat is common (see, e.g., Secret Eaters).
Metabolism is related to heart rate, (and other things). That's why hummingbirds, hamsters, field mice need to eat so much relative to thier body weight. Now humans average between 60-70bpm standing heart rate, that's not a huge difference from one person to another. It might make 100/calorie a day difference, but that's about it (I don't know exactly the number).
Secret eaters is the big one on why people can't lose weight. The other is miscalculated exercize, many people overestimate how much they workout. Unless on a treadmill that measures distance or utilization of a gps monitor, most people underestimate how far a mile really is. There is also the question of activity level. Some people "can't sit still", yet don't see themselves as active and vice versa. But science, especially numbers, does not lie. If you burn 1500 calories a day and eat 1600, you will gain weight. Eat 1400 and you will lose weight. That's an absolute.9 -
Lgcoulter33 wrote: »My entire family, my boyfriend and my doctors will all sit here and correlate my story. Don't try arguing that it goes against science, because it doesn't. There are different conditions and medications that no matter what you do They're going to cause weight gain. Sorry, it's just the way it is. It's science. Sorry you narrow minded people can't wrap your heads around it.
Agreed. The human body isn't a machine that operates at a factory standard, where you can just blame malfunctions on human error. It's a jury-rigged mishmash jalopy of a contraption thrown together from mismatched parts, and it should be astounding that it even functions at all. Biology is weird and complicated, and if you try to simplify things across the spectrum of humanity you're going to end up with egg on your face.18 -
Lgcoulter33 wrote: »Actually, i measure everything I eat, and have for the past 6 years. So don't tell me I'm not eating what I say I am. You don't know me or my situation. I have been diligent in everything I have done. So sorry I don't fit into your perfect little box of what diet and exercise should be.
So because I am deciding to do what is best for my condition I am going against science? That's completely untrue. I'm doing what is best for ME.
define measure? if by eye or cups etc than sorry it's not accurate.
And what I said was you need to over eat 42000 calories a month to gain 120lbs in 10months...
as for my little box I don't have one actually as I know people are impacted by different things such as PCOS, Thyroid, Stress hormones etc...but that doesn't explain how you got in 42000 extra calories a month to gain that weight...that is the box of science...
you are not doing what is best for your condition actually as you are not losing the weight and blaming the condition for it...when in fact PCOS does not make you gain weight...excess calories do...
14 -
etguillemette wrote: »Lgcoulter33 wrote: »My entire family, my boyfriend and my doctors will all sit here and correlate my story. Don't try arguing that it goes against science, because it doesn't. There are different conditions and medications that no matter what you do They're going to cause weight gain. Sorry, it's just the way it is. It's science. Sorry you narrow minded people can't wrap your heads around it.
Agreed. The human body isn't a machine that operates at a factory standard, where you can just blame malfunctions on human error. It's a jury-rigged mishmash jalopy of a contraption thrown together from mismatched parts, and it should be astounding that it even functions at all. Biology is weird and complicated, and if you try to simplify things across the spectrum of humanity you're going to end up with egg on your face.
so are you agreeing that this person is gaining 10lbs a month without eating over maintenance by at least 30000 calories a month?
as for it going against science sure it does...science says to lose 1lb you need to consume 3500 calories less than you burn...
If CI <CO = weight loss
If CI>CO = weight gain
If CI=CO = Maintenance7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Metabolisms do vary, although not as much as some think, and in particular some people ARE hard gainers, who naturally compensate with increased NEAT when they increase calories.
I'm one of those on the opposite end of that spectrum. My TDEE is about 10% lower than any online calculator says it should. Why? Who the hell knows. The difference is all of the calories of 12 ounces of whole milk, or a Klondike bar, a day.4 -
as for it going against science sure it does...science says to lose 1lb you need to consume 3500 calories less than you burn...
If CI <CO = weight loss
If CI>CO = weight gain
If CI=CO = Maintenance
The 3500 calorie rule was based on an approximation of the amount of energy in 1 pound of fat (for a normal person), but does not describe how well a body uses or stores energy.
For an example on one end of the spectrum, here's a woman who whose body is ultra efficient at using energy, but ultra-inefficient at storing it: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/25/opinion/sunday/the-thin-gene.html
"By observing her, scientists can see how a hormone deficiency affects a living person, from her thoughts to her liver function. Several years ago, she spent a day inside a metabolic chamber in a lab so that Dr. Chopra could measure everything she breathed and ate. The results showed that Ms. Solomon takes in about half the calories of a typical woman her age, and also expends half as much energy."
On the other end, studies have found that in certain circumstances people can have a metabolism ~500 calories lower than they should have for their age and weight, which would account for about 1lb weight gain per week: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full#oby21538-bib-0038
Even if someone lowers the amount of calories they're taking in, it doesn't mean the body will keep expending the same amount of calories as it usually does. Why would it? Again I would point to the epigenetics of the Dutch famine of 1944. People still have lowered growth rate and metabolism because of a famine their grandparents suffered. The fetuses adapted to a lack of nutrition in utero, and during their own pregnancy decades later caused them to starve their own unborn children in utero (because their bodies took every last calorie they could save for their own) , forcing their unborn child's metabolism to adapt, continuing this cycle through the generations. The idea that you can predict weight gain/loss based on age/height/weight and the 3500 calorie rule doesn't take hormones into account.
As for the example in question from the poster above, I can believe quite easily that someone could have a metabolism that expends a minute amount of energy, yet stores energy away extremely efficiently.
10 -
If it's so useless why did it work for 6 years? Two when I was originally losing the weight and 4 after I plateaued? Why even put what 1 cup per serving or 3/4 cup serving size if it's so inaccurate? I was a baker and chef, not for myself, where measurements must be precise. I've never had anything turn out any way but the way it's supposed to. Guess I should call my old college instructors at culinary school and tell them their ways of measuring are inaccurate.4
-
I love this thread. So entertaining.
All my own opinions and nothing more!!
- I personally think slender/trim is more attractive than muscular, on both men and women.
- people should strive to eat nutrient dense foods in tandem with calorie tracking. Doesn't have to be all the time but more often than not, fruits, veggie, and whole grains etc should be top picks.
- the fat acceptance movement disgusts me. People who blame their weight on external factors that are "out of their control" annoy me (I used to be one of them).
- documentaries about food suck
- the blue zones are meaningful and I try to follow that closely10 -
Lgcoulter33 wrote: »If it's so useless why did it work for 6 years? Two when I was originally losing the weight and 4 after I plateaued? Why even put what 1 cup per serving or 3/4 cup serving size if it's so inaccurate? I was a baker and chef, not for myself, where measurements must be precise. I've never had anything turn out any way but the way it's supposed to. Guess I should call my old college instructors at culinary school and tell them their ways of measuring are inaccurate.
https://www.browneyedbaker.com/volume-weight-baking-why-should-weigh-ingredients/
http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/03/how-to-measure-wet-dry-ingredients-for-baking-accurately-best-method.htmlCompressibility: Why Dry Measures are Inherently Inaccurate
When it comes to measuring dry ingredients by volume, the difficulty lies in the compressibility of the ingredients. For example, flour—be it all-purpose, cake, or bread flour—can easily be compressed as you spoon, scoop, or pack it into a measuring cup.
A cup filled by dipping a cup into a container can weigh as much as 50% more than a cup filled by sifting flour into it!
Even when using the exact same method, the amount of flour in a cup can vary. In the next two photos you see two cups of flour, measured using the same dip-and-sweep method. I was very light handed when I scooped out the first cup, while I was a bit rough with the second.
A lightly scooped cup of flour weighed 126 grams (about 4.4 ounces)
A firmly scooped cup of flour weighed 164 grams (about 5.8 ounces).
As you can see, these seemingly identical cups of flour are actually quite different—the heavily-scooped cup weighs a full 32% more than the lightly scooped cup! That kind of difference can spell the difference between success and failure in a recipe.
After many tests with various bakers and home cooks, we've found that the dip-and-sweep produces the smallest variation from cook to cook and that the average cup of flour measured using a dip-and-sweep weighs in at about five ounces (148 grams). This is the equivalency we use in all Serious Eats recipes. You may find that other sites or cookbooks use a different method for measuring flour. Make sure to check the equivalency charts of whatever source your using for accurate measuring (and if the site doesn't offer equivalencies, consider heading to a different source!).
If you insist on measuring dry ingredients by volume, the trick is to make sure to practice until you can accurately scoop a cup of flour that weighs the same five ounces each and every time. I'd recommend using the dip-and-sweet method to scoop flour into a bowl set on a scale a few times in a row until it becomes second nature.
It's not that measuring cups don't work in cooking and baking. It's that they don't work as well. And when white flour weighs in at 182 calories for 50 grams, and calories matter, the discrepancies can add up quickly.
23 -
I don't recall how much of it was her PCOS, and how much was other medical issues she had, but my SIL was put on a diuretic by her doctor and lost 40-50 pounds of water weight. Looking at her, I couldn't tell the difference between her fat and her edema (she had plenty of fat and water). @Lgcoulter33 have you had this checked? It may account for some weight gain that is not the extra calories.
I have also been astounded by how much off measuring via cups/spoons can be for solids, when I double checked with a food scale. A bit here, a bit there, and you could be eating a couple hundred more calories when you think. Then consider how you are tracking your exercise calories (or are you not eating those back?). While close is usually good enough, when one is dealing with a metabolic disorder that influences weight, every little bit can count.
That said, I am going to reiterate that, if eating 1200 calories a day is working (it sounds like it is, you've lost 12 pounds already), then that's great, keep doing it. Especially if you are working with medical professionals - endocrinologist, dietician, GI, etc.10 -
@Lgcoulter33 you may want to push for further investigation. Some conditions can cause abnormal weight gain that isn't related to eating (basically due to water retention or growths). I have PCOS and borderline low thyroid and I can empathize. I have to eat a bit less and move more than the average woman with my stats to achieve the same rate of weight loss. Some of us do burn fewer calories than others, but things still have to be within the laws of physics. Fat just can't be created from thin air, which by your calculations would be the case. Even if you burn fewer calories, even if you are very efficient at absorbing and storing the calories, gaining this much fat with that level of intake in that short of a period is just not physically possible. You were eating 1400 calories and gaining quickly, then you dropped your intake to 1200 and started losing, that's just a 200 calorie difference. Energy doesn't work that way.
Here's a thought: how you perceive the amount can vary based on how you feel. If you are hungry you tend to overfill a cup and perceive it as the same amount. When you feel limited the same amount can feel smaller to you. Spoons and cups worked for a while for you, until they didn't. When you things long enough you tend to get a bit complacent and calorie amnesia creeps in. Been there done that, caught it early (multiple times). How about you give weighing food a test for a couple of weeks and not putting them in your mouth until they're logged and see what happens, you may be surprised.
If you believe WLS is right for you, no one has the right to tell you otherwise. If you believe it's your only choice, it could be a relief to know that it's not.14 -
Lgcoulter33 wrote: »If it's so useless why did it work for 6 years? Two when I was originally losing the weight and 4 after I plateaued? Why even put what 1 cup per serving or 3/4 cup serving size if it's so inaccurate? I was a baker and chef, not for myself, where measurements must be precise. I've never had anything turn out any way but the way it's supposed to. Guess I should call my old college instructors at culinary school and tell them their ways of measuring are inaccurate.
Yes you should call them. Proper baking, especially for things like macarons, need to be exact: they only way to get that is using weight not volume. I love cooking and baking, always had a hard time with baking until I went on vacation and took a master class in baking. Not a measuring cup in sight, everything was weighed. Low and behold, suddenly everything was turning out correctly.
They may be another reason. Activity level is a hit and miss thing. Turns out, I am not a "hard gainer" when it comes to building muscle. I'm a twitcher, basically I am always moving. I burn and extra 200 calories a day because I can't sit still, even when I think I'm sitting still. You may be overestimating your physical activity. How much you move your arms while you walk, how you walk (stride length), the actual distance (unless using a goal meter or on a treadmill, it can be off a bit), amount you normally move (parking lot distance, do you circle the store more than once, do you bend at the waist or knees picking stuff up....) All of this adds up, maybe 10 calories here or there, but in the long run and over time, it can be a huge difference. These differences are normal and vary from person to person. So two people may do the same activities and have identical diets, but small nuances can make a difference. No one is saying that they don't believe you, but something doesn't add up. This may be the reason, maybe it's over measuring, or over estimating activity. It's just confusing, because numbers don't lie, so something is just off. That's all. Do what works for you. If it works, why knock it (unless it is actually bad for you - no doing the "Columbia" diet, that people will be angry about. Because that can and will kill someone (Columbia diet is cocaine & coffee).11 -
Lgcoulter33 wrote: »If it's so useless why did it work for 6 years? Two when I was originally losing the weight and 4 after I plateaued? Why even put what 1 cup per serving or 3/4 cup serving size if it's so inaccurate? I was a baker and chef, not for myself, where measurements must be precise. I've never had anything turn out any way but the way it's supposed to. Guess I should call my old college instructors at culinary school and tell them their ways of measuring are inaccurate.
We actually never had a food scale in our house until my husband went to culinary school and it was impressed upon him how important it was to use that in baking rather than cups.
16 -
I don't recall how much of it was her PCOS, and how much was other medical issues she had, but my SIL was put on a diuretic by her doctor and lost 40-50 pounds of water weight. Looking at her, I couldn't tell the difference between her fat and her edema (she had plenty of fat and water). @Lgcoulter33 have you had this checked? It may account for some weight gain that is not the extra calories.
I have also been astounded by how much off measuring via cups/spoons can be for solids, when I double checked with a food scale. A bit here, a bit there, and you could be eating a couple hundred more calories when you think. Then consider how you are tracking your exercise calories (or are you not eating those back?). While close is usually good enough, when one is dealing with a metabolic disorder that influences weight, every little bit can count.
That said, I am going to reiterate that, if eating 1200 calories a day is working (it sounds like it is, you've lost 12 pounds already), then that's great, keep doing it. Especially if you are working with medical professionals - endocrinologist, dietician, GI, etc.
I don't remember the poster even mentioning edema...so I wouldn't even add that to the mix.
0 -
[/quote]
If the medical issues you're talking about are being on crutches, that didn't cause weight gain. Eating more calories than your activity level while on crutches caused the gain.
Congrats on your loss.
[/quote]
Thank you @Packerjohn - not just the leg injuries, I've also dealt with insulin resistance and hypothyroidism. The leg injuries that prevented me from doing my normal exercise routines were only minor glitches that reduced my calories out and I was only moderately successful at a similar reduction for calories IN during that time. I still own what happened, any gain or loss was due to my actions. I never stopped trying while that was happening.
7
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