Weight loss problems
Options
Replies
-
Well no-one is agreeing with me therefore I must be wrong is not a very strong statement IMHO.snowflake954 wrote: »
Thanks for that. The point of this study for me anyway is not whether calorie counting is useful or not, I accept it is useful, no argument there, but that by decreasing energy intake with other words eating less is in an off itself not enough because the body will compensate one's metabolism will change-for most people anyway. Now you can argue with that all you want this is coming from experts.Dogmom1978 wrote: »You don’t seem to understand at all. The study showed that people who don’t track calories weren’t losing weight because they were still eating more calories than needed to lose....
People who weigh and track calories successfully lose weight all the time. Multiple people now have pointed out that the study was done on people NOT tracking calories.
I’m glad you lost weight, but your advice to others is not good advice. Your inability to understand WHY it’s bad advice is even worse.
OP best of luck.snowflake954 wrote: »
Well I can't think of any TBH but "the body will react to different types of food differently" is that really such a controversial statement? An example five pints of beer or six boiled eggs will roughly be the same calories, you will feel differently. Unless you are a pro in pubs:}snowflake954 wrote: »
The reason why IMHO calorie deficit in itself does not work is because the body will react to different types of foods differently. Say my fixed calorie intake a day is 1520, so now I eat 1520 calories worth of chocolate cake, despite the calorie deficit the results will be disastrous. Extreme example I get it but it does highlight the problem.
@bubus05Probably not a very popular opinion on this site but IMHO calorie counting is a waste of time one can do it if there is nothing better to do but adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term. You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well, chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra. This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong. Your body doesn't care about math as you have probably already seen it.
You would get far less push back and disagrees if you presented your experience as simply your experience rather than a rather sweeping and highly inaccurate statement. Your experience is valid but your conclusions as to why are badly flawed.
"adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term"
I decided to calorie count but definitely didn't choose to eat to the same goal every day - that's a choice not a requirement of calorie counting, many people eat to a weekly goal to make their diet fit their lifestyle. My daily intake was massively different day by day.
"You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well"
I lost all the weight I wanted to and it was great as I'd been overweight for 20 years.
Yes I did get some minor adaptive thermogenesis but that corrected itself in the first few months of maintenance. Metabolism is constantly adjusting itself, it's just a collection of chemical processes.
I now eat far more than I ever did when I was chubby as both my exercise and activity level are far higher.
"chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra"
All diets including calorie counting, fasting and low carbing have very poor success rates and I would hazard a guess that people who deliberately make the process harder fail more than people who actively set out to make the process as easy as possible.
Personally I've maintained at my chosen weight for almost 7 years.
"This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong."
Nope - it's the underlying and fundamental reason that people either maintain, gain or lose weight. You, me and everybody else can't create energy out of nowhere. That some people manipulate their energy/calorie balance by indirect means doesn't change the facts behind weight loss. You cut calories by fasting and severely limiting some foods. That 'X' can't be precisely nailed down to a single number and than number changes daily is an irrelevance - you simply don't need that level of accuracy to be successful.
Oppose that to a low carb healthy food and again IMHO and no offence to anyone it doesn't really matter that much how many calories one will consume, your body will or should tell you stop eating.
Could you please link me to studies that say "the body will react to different types of food differently"? Same calories-just different macros. I'd be interested. Thank you.
How about 6 boiled eggs verses a plate of pasta and tomato sauce w Parmigiano? Eggs around 462 cals and pasta the same.
Still haven't answered this. I want to know how my body will react differently to eating these 2 different items. All of your posts are chock full of no proof and just vague opinions. No one is agreeing with you--strange, don't you think? Could you be wrong? Does that ever compute?
How could I be wrong if what I am doing works for me, as said before by others many different approaches might work for different individuals, we are different are we not...and I have an idea how my body or any body will react to different types of foods but won't go into it because again how my body reacts might differ to how your body reacts and we would be arguing about something we could never agree on. And what else could I say other than my opinion. Peace...
@bubus05 as an FYI just because you aren’t counting your calories doesn’t mean you aren’t eating in a deficit. You’re doing EXACTLY the same thing as those of us tracking are doing, just without the tracking part.
You don’t seem to understand that you are eating in a deficit which makes it somewhat surprising that you’ve had success. 🤷🏻♀️1 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »@AnnPT77 i always love your answers. You take so much time to explain things in a thorough way and always provide sound evidence based theory with your explanations. If anyone can get through to bubus05 it will be you. 😊
That's very kind of you. I'm an opinionated li'l ol' lady, fer shure.
I 100% don't care if I get through to bubus05. My whole deal in this is keeping his opinion from poisoning other peoples' well, metaphorically (and unnecessarily melodramatically 😆) speaking.
There are some things that are purely facts (or not), and I admit a few of those are in play in this thread. But the *central* issue in this thread (IMO) is whether calorie counting universally does NOT work. That's somewhat about facts, but also somewhat about subjective experience and opinions. (That's one reason it's relevant IMO that the link was from a psychology journal - not saying that psychology is 100% subjective, that's not my point.)
When it comes to subjective experience, personal tastes, and a whole raft of other things (that aren't verifiable or facts), multiple people can be right, even when they have dramatically different views.
That I like bluegrass music doesn't make someone who likes contemporary chamber music wrong, we're just different. Diversity in that way is good. Which weight loss strategies can work is a similar sort of thing: We need to find the one that fits our personality, habits, outlook best.
I sincerely appreciate that bubus05 is sharing his subjective experience with weight loss, and I'm sincerely glad he's found a way to be successful. His experience can help others. What I don't understand is the need to prove others' experience *wrong*, and cut off avenues that could be successful for others, because those avenues were not successful for him.5 -
I agree 100%! There are a million ways to successfully lose weight and keep it off. I think the entire idea of keto is gross; however, I know that some people are highly successful with keto. I would be even crankier than I am normally and I would quit dieting in a week or less if that was presented as the ONLY viable method to lose weight.
For the OP, based on their post, I think starting with a food scale and weighing and accurately tracking would be a good way to go since they’ve tried other “diets” and failed at them already.
I applaud bubus for being able to lose without tracking. Every single time I stop tracking, I start gaining. Once it’s on my plate I feel the need to eat it whether I’m hungry or not. I am not good at eyeballing portions either, so that scale is my best friend.
Still though, I do like to try to get through to people and help them understand that what worked for them doesn’t mean that something else won’t work for me, you, the OP, or Santa clause 😜 Doesn’t mean bubus05 way is wrong, just that there are many “right” ways to lose and each individual needs to pick the way that will work for them.2 -
Dogmom1978 wrote: »
Well no-one is agreeing with me therefore I must be wrong is not a very strong statement IMHO.snowflake954 wrote: »
Thanks for that. The point of this study for me anyway is not whether calorie counting is useful or not, I accept it is useful, no argument there, but that by decreasing energy intake with other words eating less is in an off itself not enough because the body will compensate one's metabolism will change-for most people anyway. Now you can argue with that all you want this is coming from experts.Dogmom1978 wrote: »You don’t seem to understand at all. The study showed that people who don’t track calories weren’t losing weight because they were still eating more calories than needed to lose....
People who weigh and track calories successfully lose weight all the time. Multiple people now have pointed out that the study was done on people NOT tracking calories.
I’m glad you lost weight, but your advice to others is not good advice. Your inability to understand WHY it’s bad advice is even worse.
OP best of luck.snowflake954 wrote: »
Well I can't think of any TBH but "the body will react to different types of food differently" is that really such a controversial statement? An example five pints of beer or six boiled eggs will roughly be the same calories, you will feel differently. Unless you are a pro in pubs:}snowflake954 wrote: »
The reason why IMHO calorie deficit in itself does not work is because the body will react to different types of foods differently. Say my fixed calorie intake a day is 1520, so now I eat 1520 calories worth of chocolate cake, despite the calorie deficit the results will be disastrous. Extreme example I get it but it does highlight the problem.
@bubus05Probably not a very popular opinion on this site but IMHO calorie counting is a waste of time one can do it if there is nothing better to do but adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term. You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well, chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra. This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong. Your body doesn't care about math as you have probably already seen it.
You would get far less push back and disagrees if you presented your experience as simply your experience rather than a rather sweeping and highly inaccurate statement. Your experience is valid but your conclusions as to why are badly flawed.
"adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term"
I decided to calorie count but definitely didn't choose to eat to the same goal every day - that's a choice not a requirement of calorie counting, many people eat to a weekly goal to make their diet fit their lifestyle. My daily intake was massively different day by day.
"You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well"
I lost all the weight I wanted to and it was great as I'd been overweight for 20 years.
Yes I did get some minor adaptive thermogenesis but that corrected itself in the first few months of maintenance. Metabolism is constantly adjusting itself, it's just a collection of chemical processes.
I now eat far more than I ever did when I was chubby as both my exercise and activity level are far higher.
"chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra"
All diets including calorie counting, fasting and low carbing have very poor success rates and I would hazard a guess that people who deliberately make the process harder fail more than people who actively set out to make the process as easy as possible.
Personally I've maintained at my chosen weight for almost 7 years.
"This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong."
Nope - it's the underlying and fundamental reason that people either maintain, gain or lose weight. You, me and everybody else can't create energy out of nowhere. That some people manipulate their energy/calorie balance by indirect means doesn't change the facts behind weight loss. You cut calories by fasting and severely limiting some foods. That 'X' can't be precisely nailed down to a single number and than number changes daily is an irrelevance - you simply don't need that level of accuracy to be successful.
Oppose that to a low carb healthy food and again IMHO and no offence to anyone it doesn't really matter that much how many calories one will consume, your body will or should tell you stop eating.
Could you please link me to studies that say "the body will react to different types of food differently"? Same calories-just different macros. I'd be interested. Thank you.
How about 6 boiled eggs verses a plate of pasta and tomato sauce w Parmigiano? Eggs around 462 cals and pasta the same.
Still haven't answered this. I want to know how my body will react differently to eating these 2 different items. All of your posts are chock full of no proof and just vague opinions. No one is agreeing with you--strange, don't you think? Could you be wrong? Does that ever compute?
How could I be wrong if what I am doing works for me, as said before by others many different approaches might work for different individuals, we are different are we not...and I have an idea how my body or any body will react to different types of foods but won't go into it because again how my body reacts might differ to how your body reacts and we would be arguing about something we could never agree on. And what else could I say other than my opinion. Peace...
@bubus05 as an FYI just because you aren’t counting your calories doesn’t mean you aren’t eating in a deficit. You’re doing EXACTLY the same thing as those of us tracking are doing, just without the tracking part.
You don’t seem to understand that you are eating in a deficit which makes it somewhat surprising that you’ve had success. 🤷🏻♀️
TBH if I actually calculated or tracked my numbers I would see a calorie deficit probably especially on a weekly basis, the only argument as far as I can see in our debate is the importance of tracking those numbers. For me they are not that important while accepting that for others you guys apparently they are essential. The thing with keto/fasting/intermittent fasting is that you dont have to worry about those numbers. But I accept that keto or fasting for that matter are not for everyone.0 -
Most people on the forum who do keto or IF are indeed still tracking calories if you read those threads2
-
Keto and IF still require a deficit to lose weight. Sadly there is no way to eat more than we need and lose. I would be all over that if there was 😂2
-
Dogmom1978 wrote: »
Well no-one is agreeing with me therefore I must be wrong is not a very strong statement IMHO.snowflake954 wrote: »
Thanks for that. The point of this study for me anyway is not whether calorie counting is useful or not, I accept it is useful, no argument there, but that by decreasing energy intake with other words eating less is in an off itself not enough because the body will compensate one's metabolism will change-for most people anyway. Now you can argue with that all you want this is coming from experts.Dogmom1978 wrote: »You don’t seem to understand at all. The study showed that people who don’t track calories weren’t losing weight because they were still eating more calories than needed to lose....
People who weigh and track calories successfully lose weight all the time. Multiple people now have pointed out that the study was done on people NOT tracking calories.
I’m glad you lost weight, but your advice to others is not good advice. Your inability to understand WHY it’s bad advice is even worse.
OP best of luck.snowflake954 wrote: »
Well I can't think of any TBH but "the body will react to different types of food differently" is that really such a controversial statement? An example five pints of beer or six boiled eggs will roughly be the same calories, you will feel differently. Unless you are a pro in pubs:}snowflake954 wrote: »
The reason why IMHO calorie deficit in itself does not work is because the body will react to different types of foods differently. Say my fixed calorie intake a day is 1520, so now I eat 1520 calories worth of chocolate cake, despite the calorie deficit the results will be disastrous. Extreme example I get it but it does highlight the problem.
@bubus05Probably not a very popular opinion on this site but IMHO calorie counting is a waste of time one can do it if there is nothing better to do but adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term. You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well, chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra. This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong. Your body doesn't care about math as you have probably already seen it.
You would get far less push back and disagrees if you presented your experience as simply your experience rather than a rather sweeping and highly inaccurate statement. Your experience is valid but your conclusions as to why are badly flawed.
"adjusting diet to a fixed number of calorie intake will only lead to frustration long term"
I decided to calorie count but definitely didn't choose to eat to the same goal every day - that's a choice not a requirement of calorie counting, many people eat to a weekly goal to make their diet fit their lifestyle. My daily intake was massively different day by day.
"You decrease your daily calories you will lose some weight-sounds great- but your body will also adjust your metabolism will slow down as well"
I lost all the weight I wanted to and it was great as I'd been overweight for 20 years.
Yes I did get some minor adaptive thermogenesis but that corrected itself in the first few months of maintenance. Metabolism is constantly adjusting itself, it's just a collection of chemical processes.
I now eat far more than I ever did when I was chubby as both my exercise and activity level are far higher.
"chances are you not only regain what you lost but will put on extra"
All diets including calorie counting, fasting and low carbing have very poor success rates and I would hazard a guess that people who deliberately make the process harder fail more than people who actively set out to make the process as easy as possible.
Personally I've maintained at my chosen weight for almost 7 years.
"This 'math' that my body burns x calories a day therefore I have to go below x calories a day intake is wrong."
Nope - it's the underlying and fundamental reason that people either maintain, gain or lose weight. You, me and everybody else can't create energy out of nowhere. That some people manipulate their energy/calorie balance by indirect means doesn't change the facts behind weight loss. You cut calories by fasting and severely limiting some foods. That 'X' can't be precisely nailed down to a single number and than number changes daily is an irrelevance - you simply don't need that level of accuracy to be successful.
Oppose that to a low carb healthy food and again IMHO and no offence to anyone it doesn't really matter that much how many calories one will consume, your body will or should tell you stop eating.
Could you please link me to studies that say "the body will react to different types of food differently"? Same calories-just different macros. I'd be interested. Thank you.
How about 6 boiled eggs verses a plate of pasta and tomato sauce w Parmigiano? Eggs around 462 cals and pasta the same.
Still haven't answered this. I want to know how my body will react differently to eating these 2 different items. All of your posts are chock full of no proof and just vague opinions. No one is agreeing with you--strange, don't you think? Could you be wrong? Does that ever compute?
How could I be wrong if what I am doing works for me, as said before by others many different approaches might work for different individuals, we are different are we not...and I have an idea how my body or any body will react to different types of foods but won't go into it because again how my body reacts might differ to how your body reacts and we would be arguing about something we could never agree on. And what else could I say other than my opinion. Peace...
@bubus05 as an FYI just because you aren’t counting your calories doesn’t mean you aren’t eating in a deficit. You’re doing EXACTLY the same thing as those of us tracking are doing, just without the tracking part.
You don’t seem to understand that you are eating in a deficit which makes it somewhat surprising that you’ve had success. 🤷🏻♀️
TBH if I actually calculated or tracked my numbers I would see a calorie deficit probably especially on a weekly basis, the only argument as far as I can see in our debate is the importance of tracking those numbers. For me they are not that important while accepting that for others you guys apparently they are essential. The thing with keto/fasting/intermittent fasting is that you dont have to worry about those numbers. But I accept that keto or fasting for that matter are not for everyone.
Exactly. For some folks, keto or IF (or both together) can be excellent appetite control strategies, and for a subset of those, the strategy is so effective that they have no need to count. Especially for people who can slip into obsessive behavior while counting, or simply find counting too tedious to keep up, not needing to count to achieve a deficit is a Really Good Thing.
I wouldn't want to use keto or IF myself (maybe *couldn't* use them successfully 😆), but there are threads where I've suggested people try alternate meal timing strategies (including IF, even OMAD explicitly, in that suggestion), and suggested limiting carbs for people who find that carbs spike appetite (can't remember whether I've ever specifically suggested keto).
There are other people who find other changes in eating have a similar appetite control effect, such as whole foods plant based, or "clean eating", for example.
Lots of strategies can work. Different ones suit different people.3 -
Wow we still going with this!!!! The pan sure got hot on this 1....🍳🍳🍳!! 🤪🤪.
Ya gotta love a calorie deficit!!2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions