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.
Why do people deny CICO ?
Options
Replies
-
mutantspicy wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I would say the vast majority of veteran posters are very much into health and eat very well for the most part and exercise regularly. When people say calories are what matter for weight management, they're not saying that nutrition doesn't matter...and usually it is stated that one should eat well for the most part to meet nutritional needs.
That's fair, I'm fairly new to the forum here. I don't know everyone yet. I've always just used the site, and not the forum. But I keep seeing quite a few people say you can eat whatever you want just your hit calories and you'll be fine. I'm like OK.
I'm pretty sure a majority here know that you have to maintain a calorie deficit to lose weight, it seems like an unnecessary mantra.
If you look at the state of the dieting industry and media reporting on diets, it's quite easy to see that no, most people aren't aware that you need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. A lot of people think that you need to eat certain food or foods in certain proportions or restrict or eliminate certain foods and the weight will magically fall off.
A great many of the posts that are worded "eat whatever you want" are aimed at erasing the mentality that tells you that you need to eliminate certain foods from your diet in order to lose weight, and it usually goes hand in hand with the advice to eat nourishing food at the same time.
The greatest driver of health is maintaining a healthy weight. You can eat a really nutritious diet and be obese (there are a couple of us posting in this thread who lived this example) and be at a far greater risk to your health than if you were eating a less than ideal diet and at a healthy weight.
This isn't to say that it's okay to just have a free for all of dubious food as long as you maintain a healthy weight. The ideal would be to have a nutritious diet and maintain a healthy weight. The point I'm making is that you don't need to be 100% "pure" in your food choices if you maintain a healthy body weight and exercise. Many people have been led to believe otherwise by the dieting industry, and disabusing them of that notion is a good thing.13 -
mutantspicy wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
I would say the vast majority of veteran posters are very much into health and eat very well for the most part and exercise regularly. When people say calories are what matter for weight management, they're not saying that nutrition doesn't matter...and usually it is stated that one should eat well for the most part to meet nutritional needs.
That's fair, I'm fairly new to the forum here. I don't know everyone yet. I've always just used the site, and not the forum. But I keep seeing quite a few people say you can eat whatever you want just your hit calories and you'll be fine. I'm like OK. I'm pretty sure a majority here know that you have to maintain a calorie deficit to lose weight, it seems like an unnecessary mantra.
This is fun read! >>>> http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
12 -
-
mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
20 -
WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
4 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.3 -
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/69/6/1189/4714941
In response to those who lose weight have screwed up metabolisms:
RESULTS:
A stepwise multiple regression found lean mass, fat mass, age, and sex to be the best predictors of RMR in both groups. After adjusting RMR for these variables, we found no significant difference in RMR (5926 +/- 106 and 6015 +/- 104 kJ/d) between the 2 groups (P = 0.35).
CONCLUSION:
These results show that in at least some reduced-obese individuals there does not seem to be a permanent obligatory reduction in RMR beyond the expected reduction for a reduced lean mass.
I’m not sure this study says what you think it says. This is a National Weight Control Registry study. To be enrolled in the study you have to have lost at least 30 pounds and kept it off for at least one year. Among THOSE specific individuals there is not a significant RMR difference. That’s why they’re in the study, and why they haven’t regained the weight. Unfortunately, the majority of individuals don’t keep it off for a year. They regain the weight and experience sustained reductions in RMR. But those individuals are not in this study. I think if you read the study abstract you’ll see that they are clear that this finding is not generalizable.
I think people regain the weight after losing it because they go back to the same behavior and eating habits they had at a higher weight, not because their RMR is reduced to the point where they start gaining weight. Also, people who lose weight will experience a reduction in their RMR. This is normal and expected because you have less mass and therefore need less energy. I would expect the RMR of a 110 pound person to be much less then that of a 300 pound person.
Another example, Susie is 200 pounds. Her TDEE is 2,500 calories a day. She starts eating 2,000 calories a day and loses 50 pounds. At 150 pounds, her new TDEE is 2,000 calories a day. If Susie continues eating 2,000 calories a day and her TDEE stays at 2,000, I don't see how Susie will ever regain the weight. If Susie decides she has reached her goal weight, thank goodness now she now she can start eating large portions again and stop exercising, and goes back to eating 2,500 calories a day, she will gain the weight back.
Note: these numbers are made up, if you disagree with the my point, then feel free to do so, but please don't argue with me that a 200 pound person doesn't have a TDEE or 2,500 calories or that no one can lose weight eating 2,000 calories a day, that was not the point of this illustration.9 -
I think what the research shows is that significant weight loss results in long lasting changes in BMR/TDEE, so there’s no need for her to return to her previous level of eating in order to regain weight. She may regain weight at a caloric intake that would result in weight loss for most individuals without a history of significant weight loss. Sad, but true. It’s why permanent weight loss is as difficult as it is, especially for the formerly obese. Unfortunately almost all of us lack access to a detailed medical calculation of our individual TDEE to guide our choice of maintenance calories.10
-
L1zardQueen wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.
LOL. Thanks for proving my point.14 -
It is around digestion.
I think the other argument you some times get against all calories being equal is that their is suppose to be a slight difference in additional calories consumed from digestion of a protein, fat, and carb.
"Protein takes the most energy to digest (20-30% of total calories in protein eaten go to digesting it). Next is carbohydrates (5-10%) and then fats (0-3%). Thus, if you eat 100 calories from protein, your body uses 20-30 of those calories to digest and absorb the protein."
Certainly, the CICO model is weak in that it doesn't factor in appetite. Your ability to stick to CICO is influenced by what you eat.
https://studyfinds.org/dieting-irregular-eating-habits-weight-gain/
@weequay this seems to support your last statement in my view.14 -
mutantspicy wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.
LOL. Thanks for proving my point.
What point is that?
From the OP of the thread posted: "You can eat McDonalds everyday and still lose weight. Now, I’m not saying to eat McDonalds everyday, of course. Healthy foods, rich in nutrition and sustenance is the key to feeling energetic, keeping bloat away, sleeping well, having your body function awesomely, etc."9 -
mutantspicy wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.
LOL. Thanks for proving my point.
What is LOL.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.
LOL. Thanks for proving my point.
What point is that?
From the OP of the thread posted: "You can eat McDonalds everyday and still lose weight. Now, I’m not saying to eat McDonalds everyday, of course. Healthy foods, rich in nutrition and sustenance is the key to feeling energetic, keeping bloat away, sleeping well, having your body function awesomely, etc."
QFT6 -
mutantspicy wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.
LOL. Thanks for proving my point.
Please explain how this proves your point?
But reading your post, I still think you don't get what is meant by CICO. CICO is not a tool. It is not a way of eating. It is not a good methodology. It is a simple statement relating energy (calories) consumed to energy expended.
If you want to discuss counting calories as a tool, methodology or way of eating, that is a different discussion and will need to focus on "diet" and macros and what is filling vs "empty calories". But that discussion is not about CICO. It is about calorie counting.
CICO is in play regardless of how you choose to eat.9 -
@mutantspicy
I like how this most recent thread is shaping out.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10658915/who-eats-what-they-want-within-a-certain-calorie-deficit-of-course-and-still-looses#latest5 -
mutantspicy wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »mutantspicy wrote: »terryritter1 wrote: »The fact is that the principle of CICO for weight loss is effective in practice. Recording what you eat and keeping a calorie deficit, which is, at the fundamental level, what causes weight loss, is highly effective process for someone with that goal. But, it's also way too simplistic. Though it is a "simple scientific concept", the body isn't. When you have a biological environment that has higher insulin, that does change how people's bodies manage metabolism.
So, at one level, CICO is a good tool. At deeper level, it's not that simple. Anyone that has a deeper understanding of biology knows this, or should. Just because it is a good methodology doesn't mean it's all things. We argue about this because we want to live in a binary world. Calories matter, not doubt. But, composition does, too.
Ultimately, who's more right isn't important. If CICO works for someone's quest to lose weight, it just doesn't matter (and no blog of an anecdotal nature will convince me otherwise, though I will cheer your success nonetheless).
yeah. I'm finding that there is a cult of conformity around here, that wants to force this idea that calories is the only thing that matters. If that's the case why track nutrients and macros, at all? Yes CICO is great for weight management, but what about your actual health. Your body weight isn't the only thing matters.
Find a thread, any thread (if it happens as often as you say then it shouldn't be hard) where someone asks about challenges with losing weight, and all the responses say that "eat whatever you want, CICO is all that matters" and no one mentions health, nutrition, and satiety.
People constantly suggest that this happens and I've yet to have someone come back with an actual thread where it does.
I know there is one somewhere.
Cuz I posted it to make a point
I thought I found it but no, not this one. http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10451302/eat-whatever-you-want-and-lose-weight/p1
Still looking, I know it is out there.
LOL. Thanks for proving my point.
The poster you were quoting was trying to find a thread where no one brought up the importance of good nutrition in the context of using CICO (energy balance) to lose weight. They are saying that they still can't find it after searching. I notice you haven't posted an example either, even though you said it happens all the time in this "culture of conformity".
15 -
Eating processed foods, carbs and sugar really do make me feel like garbage. I don't think I am alone in this. It is WAY easier to eat vegetables, eggs, lean meat and water only if you are going for a steep cut (2lbs+ per week). With a clean diet I can go to bed full on 1700 calories easy (1200 cal deficit). I can't imagine getting through a day after having a 400+ calorie sugary snack. I would wake up the next day with a sugar hangover unable to move. Whatever keeps you sane though.
Calories in-- calories out means everything though. I maintain and gain weight on the same foods, just more volume (and a lot of added butter!)5 -
Eating processed foods, carbs and sugar really do make me feel like garbage. I don't think I am alone in this. It is WAY easier to eat vegetables, eggs, lean meat and water only if you are going for a steep cut (2lbs+ per week). With a clean diet I can go to bed full on 1700 calories easy (1200 cal deficit). I can't imagine getting through a day after having a 400+ calorie sugary snack. I would wake up the next day with a sugar hangover unable to move. Whatever keeps you sane though.
Calories in-- calories out means everything though. I maintain and gain weight on the same foods, just more volume (and a lot of added butter!)
Nope - my greek yogurt with prepackaged granola and berries, my soup made with frozen vegetables, boxed chicken broth, lean ground beef, dried pasta and canned tomatoes do not make me feel like garbage. Nor does pizza, wine, and ice cream; eaten in moderation as part of an overall calorie appropriate diet. Nor is a 1200 calorie deficit appropriate for me or for most people - I'm already at a healthy weight, and even when I was losing, 0.5lb-1 lb /week was the rate of loss appropriate for my goals.
21
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions