Let's stop calling it "Weight Loss"
Options
lowededwookie
Posts: 10 Member
The problem I have with the idea of weight loss is that it can be a massive de-motivater.
If you're starting out on your journey then you're going to want to measure your progress daily. The problem is that as weight fluctuates you can get yourself in a demotivated rut.
If you measure yourself say the end of each month then you'll get a better idea of how you're tracking but you can still demotivate yourself for the simple reason that while you might be doing well, your weight can go up as fat is converted into H2O and CO2 which generates heat which powers our muscles which get more dense with use which causes our weight to go up.
But if we ignore weight and measure our body shape instead and call the whole process "Fat Loss" then we begin to motivate ourselves to continue.
Fat loss is what we're all trying to achieve isn't it?
If you're starting out on your journey then you're going to want to measure your progress daily. The problem is that as weight fluctuates you can get yourself in a demotivated rut.
If you measure yourself say the end of each month then you'll get a better idea of how you're tracking but you can still demotivate yourself for the simple reason that while you might be doing well, your weight can go up as fat is converted into H2O and CO2 which generates heat which powers our muscles which get more dense with use which causes our weight to go up.
But if we ignore weight and measure our body shape instead and call the whole process "Fat Loss" then we begin to motivate ourselves to continue.
Fat loss is what we're all trying to achieve isn't it?
Tagged:
2
Replies
-
I agree with you 100%. That's why measurements are more meaningful to me than the number on the scale. The scale can measure water weight, muscle loss, etc.
I also don't care to call my current eating habits "a diet." Diet to me implies deprivation which I'm not experiencing. I occasionally eat pizza, chocolate, etc, I just factor the calories in my total.
1 -
While I'm with your thinking on it, I believe that using "fat loss" can also be detrimental to the point where people who are at or are below an acceptable weight limit, but still see themselves as fat may continue to go on a journey of trying to lose fat when they may not need to. Anorexia comes to mind which is why I believe that we focus on weight loss since most people won't get down to single digits in fat loss BUT can get underweight still trying to reduce fat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 35+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
1 -
I want to lose weight and prefer to call it weight loss.
I know that there are fluctuations which is why I approach it from a trend analysis perspective over the long-term.
I also have a pretty good idea what can cause fluctuations.
For example, all these things can cause water retention:
- more exercise than usual
- flying, in an airplane
- salty food
- not enough salt
- hot weather
- sunburn
- various female issues
- injury
- surgery
- and probably more
So I weigh myself every day and my daily weight fluctuations are no surprise. Instead, they are confirmations. The important thing is the overall trend.5 -
I agree with you 100%. That's why measurements are more meaningful to me than the number on the scale. The scale can measure water weight, muscle loss, etc.
I also don't care to call my current eating habits "a diet." Diet to me implies deprivation which I'm not experiencing. I occasionally eat pizza, chocolate, etc, I just factor the calories in my total.
Nothing wrong with pizza. I ate it every Saturday while losing 25 kg.
2 -
While I'm with your thinking on it, I believe that using "fat loss" can also be detrimental to the point where people who are at or are below an acceptable weight limit, but still see themselves as fat may continue to go on a journey of trying to lose fat when they may not need to. Anorexia comes to mind which is why I believe that we focus on weight loss since most people won't get down to single digits in fat loss BUT can get underweight still trying to reduce fat.
I get where you're coming from here. It makes sense.
You couldn't use "waist reduction" because for women it mostly starts on the hips and "hip reduction" sounds painful.
Body sculpting brings to mind body building and most people whop want to start being healthy aren't even aiming for that.0 -
-
I agree with you 100%. That's why measurements are more meaningful to me than the number on the scale. The scale can measure water weight, muscle loss, etc.
I also don't care to call my current eating habits "a diet." Diet to me implies deprivation which I'm not experiencing. I occasionally eat pizza, chocolate, etc, I just factor the calories in my total.
I am fundamentally opposed to diets. They are dangerous and they take something you enjoy away from you. They fail because of this.
There's also very little true science that backs them up, in fact when real science is applied to them they often fall apart.
Nope, I'd much rather exercise that pizza off than not have pizza at all.0 -
lowededwookie wrote: »
Weight.
Interestingly enough, when I lose weight, my measurements eventually decease. Funny how that works.
But while I am losing weight, I don't lose weight evenly all over.
First, I lose weight in my face and neck. The face loss is kind of hard to measure. The neck might be a bit easier.
Then it seems to be my limbs, from my hands and feet and working back toward my torso.
I can drop 5 or 6 kg before there's a miniscule hint of the loss in my torso, and it's about 15 kg, before I lose a clothing size.
If I waited around for a hip or waist measurement loss, I would likely get discouraged.1 -
I think I'm more or less with Machka here. I usually call it weight loss. That's mostly because that's what people at large generally call it, and I'm commonly communicating with fellow humans who use common terms.
I know that I preferred to lose fat weight, but it's essentially inevitable to lose some small amount of lean tissue alongside. That doesn't freak me out.
Occasionally, in a specific discussion, it makes sense to me to call it "fat loss", when the discussion needs a distinction about what is being lost in some specific case (such as helping people who are distressed that their weight fluctuated upward for what's perceived as no reason). I do think it's important to understand the actual process, and to help new folks who don't understand it yet.
Sadly, muscle mass gain is so freakin' slow that it's not going to mask any reasonably observable rate of fat loss on the scale. (I wish this were not true - that it were faster and easier!
). Muscle loss is also quite slow, except during certain critical health conditions or very extreme calorie reductions. It's a negligible factor in the common case.
The day to day water weight (and digestive waste) fluctuations of a few pounds up and down are always going to be there, but they happen atop a slow-ish change in body fat (if one is losing/gaining vs. maintaining), and a super-slow change in lean tissue.
To me, it's like hiking down a mountainside: There will be some ups and downs along the way, but they're small and pretty meaningless in context of the overall direction downhill. The small rise doesn't wipe out the overall downhill trend . . . and the multi-week trend is what tells the true story, when it comes to fat loss/weight loss.
Using the term "fat loss" vs. "weight loss" doesn't in itself help people who mistake water/waste fluctuations for changes in body fat, which is quite a common confusion here among new folks.
As far as "diet", that can either mean "weight loss strategy" or "overall way of eating", and sometimes it's necessary to clarify which we mean. Other than that, I'm comfortable with either usage.
If someone's determined to do some extreme or unsustainable thing, or treat weight loss as a temporary project with an end date, I think they're on the wrong track whether they call it "a diet", "a lifestyle change", "a journey", or any other intelligible thing. Maybe some people are biased toward extreme tactics when they use "a diet", but I can't assume that.
I have no real argument with anyone who wants to call either an eating pattern or a less-fat body composition any intelligible thing in their own case. I'd raise an eyebrow at someone wanting us all to call it some term that isn't common usage. Efforts to redefine common usage tend to be quixotic, and to fail.
Communicating amongst humans is a two (or more) way process. If I want to communicate, I take on a responsibility phrase my ideas as clearly as I can manage (which IMO includes using common terms), and to try to understand others' underlying meaning, regardless of the terminology they choose.2 -
lowededwookie wrote: »
Weight.
Interestingly enough, when I lose weight, my measurements eventually decease. Funny how that works.
But while I am losing weight, I don't lose weight evenly all over.
First, I lose weight in my face and neck. The face loss is kind of hard to measure. The neck might be a bit easier.
Then it seems to be my limbs, from my hands and feet and working back toward my torso.
I can drop 5 or 6 kg before there's a miniscule hint of the loss in my torso, and it's about 15 kg, before I lose a clothing size.
If I waited around for a hip or waist measurement loss, I would likely get discouraged.
This is very individual. I've lost 6 pounds (which I don't think is a lot) but one and a half inches off my waist - and I'm post-menopausal thick in the middle with a meno-pot belly. I measure my waist at the naval, which is the thickest part of my waist. Where I'm not losing quickly is my chest (oddly enough, since breasts are mostly fat) and my thighs. But I'm patient, 0 -
lowededwookie wrote: »I agree with you 100%. That's why measurements are more meaningful to me than the number on the scale. The scale can measure water weight, muscle loss, etc.
I also don't care to call my current eating habits "a diet." Diet to me implies deprivation which I'm not experiencing. I occasionally eat pizza, chocolate, etc, I just factor the calories in my total.
I am fundamentally opposed to diets. They are dangerous and they take something you enjoy away from you. They fail because of this.
There's also very little true science that backs them up, in fact when real science is applied to them they often fall apart.
Nope, I'd much rather exercise that pizza off than not have pizza at all.
Why does "a diet" imply "no pizza"? "My diet" (overall way of eating) includes pizza, though probably less of it than when I stayed obese. Even "my diet" (my overall way of eating when I was striving to lose weight) included some pizza, just smaller portions, at lower frequency, than now in maintenance.
Why does "a diet" imply deprivation, danger, unscientific basis, or entirely taking away enjoyable things? Like I said, "a diet" can simply be an overall eating pattern. Everyone has "a diet" in that sense, and people commonly use the term that way, too.
"A weight loss diet" can be any overall eating pattern that reduces calories consumed below calories spent. That some people have (to me) whacky ideas about how to lose weight doesn't change that.
Personally, I prefer to manage my pizza consumption somewhat sensibly, and be active doing fun-to-me things (mostly just for fun, to be honest, but it does let me eat more of any/all yummy foods). I wouldn't like to think of it as a need to exercise off every slice of pizza I eat, either. For me, it's not exactly transactional like that.
That's not to mention that can eat a whole pizza within a hour or so (even now, when thin, and I sometimes do), but it will take many hours of exercise to burn the whole thing off.lowededwookie wrote: »
Now I'm curious. What is "normal weight"? Is there "abnormal weight"?
For clarity, when losing I wanted to lose weight, and I wanted as much as possible of that lost weight to be fat. I chose tactics to minimize loss of lean mass.
But I recognized that no matter what I did, some portion of what was lost would be lean tissue. My obese body needed more of certain lean tissue than my thin one does, just to move that big body through the world. My obese body also tended to hold more water weight, and probably usually had more waste in digestive transit, because I ate more food.
4 -
lowededwookie wrote: »I agree with you 100%. That's why measurements are more meaningful to me than the number on the scale. The scale can measure water weight, muscle loss, etc.
I also don't care to call my current eating habits "a diet." Diet to me implies deprivation which I'm not experiencing. I occasionally eat pizza, chocolate, etc, I just factor the calories in my total.
I am fundamentally opposed to diets. They are dangerous and they take something you enjoy away from you. They fail because of this.
There's also very little true science that backs them up, in fact when real science is applied to them they often fall apart.
Nope, I'd much rather exercise that pizza off than not have pizza at all.
Why does "a diet" imply "no pizza"? "My diet" (overall way of eating) includes pizza, though probably less of it than when I stayed obese. Even "my diet" (my overall way of eating when I was striving to lose weight) included some pizza, just smaller portions, at lower frequency, than now in maintenance.
Why does "a diet" imply deprivation, danger, unscientific basis, or entirely taking away enjoyable things? Like I said, "a diet" can simply be an overall eating pattern. Everyone has "a diet" in that sense, and people commonly use the term that way, too.
"A weight loss diet" can be any overall eating pattern that reduces calories consumed below calories spent. That some people have (to me) whacky ideas about how to lose weight doesn't change that.
Personally, I prefer to manage my pizza consumption somewhat sensibly, and be active doing fun-to-me things (mostly just for fun, to be honest, but it does let me eat more of any/all yummy foods). I wouldn't like to think of it as a need to exercise off every slice of pizza I eat, either. For me, it's not exactly transactional like that.
That's not to mention that can eat a whole pizza within a hour or so (even now, when thin, and I sometimes do), but it will take many hours of exercise to burn the whole thing off.lowededwookie wrote: »
Now I'm curious. What is "normal weight"? Is there "abnormal weight"?
For clarity, when losing I wanted to lose weight, and I wanted as much as possible of that lost weight to be fat. I chose tactics to minimize loss of lean mass.
But I recognized that no matter what I did, some portion of what was lost would be lean tissue. My obese body needed more of certain lean tissue than my thin one does, just to move that big body through the world. My obese body also tended to hold more water weight, and probably usually had more waste in digestive transit, because I ate more food.
Yes, I wondered about "normal weight" too.
And when I actively pursue weight loss, I have a rule. I have to like everything I eat. Yes, I will eat fewer calories than I burn, but I am not wasting calories on foods I don't like.
So my weight loss diet and my non-weight loss diet are pretty much the same, but one is slightly less than the other.
And both include things like pizza and ice cream. 2 -
lowededwookie wrote: »
Weight.
Interestingly enough, when I lose weight, my measurements eventually decease. Funny how that works.
But while I am losing weight, I don't lose weight evenly all over.
First, I lose weight in my face and neck. The face loss is kind of hard to measure. The neck might be a bit easier.
Then it seems to be my limbs, from my hands and feet and working back toward my torso.
I can drop 5 or 6 kg before there's a miniscule hint of the loss in my torso, and it's about 15 kg, before I lose a clothing size.
If I waited around for a hip or waist measurement loss, I would likely get discouraged.
This is very individual. I've lost 6 pounds (which I don't think is a lot) but one and a half inches off my waist - and I'm post-menopausal thick in the middle with a meno-pot belly. I measure my waist at the naval, which is the thickest part of my waist. Where I'm not losing quickly is my chest (oddly enough, since breasts are mostly fat) and my thighs. But I'm patient,
I can gain or lose an inch or two around my waist depending on what I have eaten. If I have a curry or eat too many snowpeas on a Friday, I'll look like I'm about halfway through a pregnancy. Wake up on a Saturday morning after sleeping in, and I'll appear to have given birth during the night.
I cannot wear pants without a stretchy elastic waist.
But it takes a lot of weight loss before I'll see a real measurement decrease.
I'm also post-menopausal.
0 -
Call it whatever you want it's a free country!
0 -
I cannot wear pants without a stretchy elastic waist.
Same here, since I've got that belly. When I'm able to transition from elastic waist to button up/zip up pants, I know I've made real progress. It will happen!
0 -
2
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