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?
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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?
Because the human body is not a static thing.3 -
I don't think CICO tells the whole story...gasp...not a popular opinion on MFP.
21 -
-
middlehaitch wrote: »
CICO is the story...4 -
-
CICO tells me absolutely nothing about whether we are in another housing bubble, thus it does not tell the whole story.
Slightly silly point being that most of the time when people say that, they mean that CICO doesn't tell you what foods will be satiating to you or what a nutritious diet is or if you specifically have any particular health problems or what the particular habits or psychological things will help you lose or make it harder. All that is, of course, true, it says nothing about those things. However, it is hardly unpopular -- no one claims it says anything on those things. I'd say that understanding CICO gives you a good starting point to figure out those things.
If the poster means you can gain weight (setting aside water weight, of course) in a deficit or lose weight in a surplus, well, I would disagree and say the position is not as unpopular as it should be, sadly.13 -
Every time someone says CICO isn't the whole story, I'd be willing to be that they've read or heard the words "a calorie isn't a calorie" somewhere.
Of course it's simplifying things to say that CICO is the whole story somewhat (obesity is a complex issue), but frankly, when it comes to losing weight, creating a calorie deficit is what matters.
Obfuscating and conflating that primary truth with bullet point issues which are secondary to it confuses people and does most dieters a disservice. I really don't understand why people cling to such a disorganized way of thinking about this.
There are ways of prioritizing the variables involved in this process without making meaningless statements about how the process works.15 -
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.
She didn't.
I brought it up as a possible explanation to some of the weight gain. Especially with PCOS and other hormonal issues, it may be something to ask her physician about if it hasn't been addressed already. Water weight is one way to gain more weight without eating all the excess calories (because it's water, not fat, but it's sometimes hard to tell).
But if she doesn't have edema, or at least some water retention, then I would tend to agree that the tracking might not be 100% on for whatever reason.2 -
curiouskate wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »curiouskate wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »curiouskate wrote: »I never listened when people told me the dire statistics until I became one. I used to get mad at the suggestion, in fact. And remember that "20% success rate" includes anyone who kept off 10% of their weight loss. Heck, by that standard I won! But I don't consider gaining back 90% of what I lost success at all. I doubt many people would.
I know this is a futile effort because people generally never think bad things could happen to them, but I just wish I personally had been more humble and less arrogant in the past. It stings to eat those words, it really does. I remember getting real mad at this one woman who said she regained because her child died. I feel so bad about that now- wish I could apologize to her. But I did not understand how it happens. Now I do, from watching all my WL friends and myself.
Also there's nothing special about MFP. People have been calorie counting for decades, it's just that now there's an app. Weight Watchers is basically calorie counting and it has the same dismal long term success rate of anything.
re: the bold section. What are you referring to when you "this is a futile effort"?
Trying to tell people about what happens to most people who lose weight. Nobody wants to hear it. I get that.
Why would they? It's the glass 3/4 empty point of view. Most would rather hear abut the 1/4 glass full.
Totally agree. But I think it makes more rational sense to be realistic. Know that if you are going to be in that small minority it is going to be a challenge forever. Never get complacent. And even if you believe you can do it, know that things are going to change in your life and you might not know now how you will handle it. And mostly I wish people had more compassion for ourselves and others. I keep saying this, but the people who were losing weight when I did, ~10 years ago, we were the "heros" and "success stories." It doesn't insulate you. The "success stories" of today may find themselves in my shoes 10 years from now. Statistics say most will,
This makes no sense. If a majority accept a defeatist attitude it is irrational to incorporate this attitude. This is a key and common failure in the application of statistics.
Weight is simply an output of behavior.5 -
curiouskate wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »curiouskate wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »curiouskate wrote: »I never listened when people told me the dire statistics until I became one. I used to get mad at the suggestion, in fact. And remember that "20% success rate" includes anyone who kept off 10% of their weight loss. Heck, by that standard I won! But I don't consider gaining back 90% of what I lost success at all. I doubt many people would.
I know this is a futile effort because people generally never think bad things could happen to them, but I just wish I personally had been more humble and less arrogant in the past. It stings to eat those words, it really does. I remember getting real mad at this one woman who said she regained because her child died. I feel so bad about that now- wish I could apologize to her. But I did not understand how it happens. Now I do, from watching all my WL friends and myself.
Also there's nothing special about MFP. People have been calorie counting for decades, it's just that now there's an app. Weight Watchers is basically calorie counting and it has the same dismal long term success rate of anything.
re: the bold section. What are you referring to when you "this is a futile effort"?
Trying to tell people about what happens to most people who lose weight. Nobody wants to hear it. I get that.
Why would they? It's the glass 3/4 empty point of view. Most would rather hear abut the 1/4 glass full.
Totally agree. But I think it makes more rational sense to be realistic. Know that if you are going to be in that small minority it is going to be a challenge forever. Never get complacent. And even if you believe you can do it, know that things are going to change in your life and you might not know now how you will handle it. And mostly I wish people had more compassion for ourselves and others. I keep saying this, but the people who were losing weight when I did, ~10 years ago, we were the "heros" and "success stories." It doesn't insulate you. The "success stories" of today may find themselves in my shoes 10 years from now. Statistics say most will,
This makes no sense. If a majority accept a defeatist attitude it is irrational to incorporate this attitude. This is a key and common failure in the application of statistics.
Weight is simply an output of behavior.
Right, and if there are life events that cause distress, food is not the solution.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 392 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions