fast_eddie_72 Member

I see your point. It all depends on how you look at it I guess. 40 calories a day is 14,600 a year. Divided by 3,500, that's just over 4 lbs. per year. Over ten years, that's 40 lbs. I do think that's exactly how a lot of people end up 40 lbs. over weight, and just getting older does explain it. Interestingly, that's about…

Depends on how long you've been stuck, I think. Everyone seems to agree that weight loss isn't linear. So it's normal to have weeks where nothing happens. It seems like, for me, I'll have a week with nothing, or even seem like I gained a pound (just due to daily fluctuation) then the next week I'll lose a couple or three.…

Awesome, thank you. I have a feeling I'd do better to get fiber from food, but I'm not sure about that. Do you have any thoughts specifically on using supplements to get there?

Weight loss or gain is the result of taking in fewer or greater calories than you burn. If you're trying to lose weight, it takes about 3,500 calories to lose one pound. So you figure out how many calories you use just being alive, how many more you burn exercising, then come up with an eating plan that creates a calorie…

No worries. When I joined this site I thought "starvation mode" was a thing too. That's why we're here. Share info and learn along the way. It turns out this is a lot simpler (simple, not easy) than it is sometimes made out to be. Burn 3,500 calories more than you take in and you lose a pound. Knowing that you don't have…

This isn't really true. Eating fewer calories can not make more fat. Starving is a horrible thing. It does all kinds of terrible things to your body. As a technique for healthy weight loss, it is an unspeakably poor and dangerous choice. However, when people starve, they do lose weight. They never gain weight. There is a…

Oooooh good. Another semantic argument. Guess it depends on what you mean by "hard". To me, running 7 miles is harder than watching TV. As you say, I'm burning less (at rest). The question was, is it a factor? Burning fewer calories is a factor in weight loss. So the answer is, yes - it is a factor. Is it an excuse? No it…

My weight fluctuates about 3 lbs. over the course of the day. Trying to measure a 1.5 lb. loss over such a short period would be difficult to do accurately. I'd chalk it up to daily fluctuation. Keep doing what you're doing. If the scale moves in a dramatic fashion, you're either eating less than you realize or burning…

Fiddle with your age setting on MFP and see what it does to your numbers. Anything that makes it more difficult to maintain a calorie deficit, by definition makes it more difficult to lose weight. And, at least according to MFP, it is different at 20 than 50. If I change my birth date to make myself appear to be 20, it…

There's no question it's harder for me now at 46 than it was even 5 years ago. I never had to count calories before. Training for running events always had a dramatic effect. This last time, it just didn't. I lost 10 lbs and that was it. But, I started eating less and exercising more often and it's coming off now.…

He. He he. "...constant measuring of oneself."

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Hey there. How ya doin'?

Yeah, I was actually thinking that I'm pretty happy to look as good as those guys after dropping almost 20 lbs. Sure not what this "real man" looked like not too long ago.

I've been using it like that. If it's the end of the day and I'm no where close, I'll use protein powder to at least get me in the ball park. If I'm there, or almost there, I don't.

Most people mean well. Is the profile pic what you look like now? Meh. Don't look too skinny to me. You look great.

lol That could work. If you can see your doc, they might give you a diuretic if they're sympathetic to your cause. They might be if they give you proper direction for how to use it and you promise to hydrate right after. Dunno. Worth the ask. And doesn't come with the hangover. But that's a creative solution!

Yeah, the "do you need to keep it off" question is probably good. If you can get in, might see your doctor for some advice. I think that's kind of beyond the pail of most of the folks here. Trying to lose that much so fast could have some health consequences. Might google what the high school wrestling guys do to make…

lol It just got too annoying to, once a day, see that you had each completed your food and exercise log and came in under your calorie goal? "I refuse to like that!"

Amen. And well said. Only took 18 pages of nonsense for someone to post both sides of the coin. "Clean eating" as some use the term is kind of silly and can be misleading. But the massive over-swing that implies there is no benefit to eating foods that fall into the conventional definition of "healthy" is every bit as…

Are you just fighting with him, or do you want an answer? See my post, top of the previous page. It's very hard to do anything about your genetics. Your diet, by comparison is easy. I'm sorry that didn't satisfy your desire to trade jabs with someone else. But it makes no difference which supersedes which. One is…

I think the reason people focus on food related illness risk is because it's one of the variables that you have the most control over. (edit) The above to that point. If genetics can be addressed at all, it is a very difficult and sometimes extreme solution. Some women with a very high family risk of breast cancer opt to…

When I run on a treadmill, I end up with three sources that have a huge variation. I go with the Runner's World calculator, which I believe to be the most accurate and always the lowest number, and I never eat back all those calories. I can tell you than I'm hitting my 1 lb. per week goal that way.

No. Way.

Popcorn is the best I've done. Regular old popcorn. A little vegetable oil, popped on the stove and just a little salt. Not many calories and tastes great. Not a chip though. Just have to save up some calories and have chips from time to time.

I'll apologize for my over-sensitivity. I will point out, you're the only one in this thread to mention "metabolism" at all. But I do think you meant well. I just get frustrated with every question on this forum leading to some never-ending fight about some perceived psudo-science even if no one mentions it. But you do…

lol This stopped being a discussion about clean eating a long time ago. You're arguing about a story where cancer knocks on the door like a traveling salesman.

What if it decreases your risk of cancer 70%, but increases your risk of heart disease 4% and makes you more attractive to the ladies, but gives you erectile dysfunction?

No one has added anything in 10 pages. That's kind of the point.

Um. That's kind of over-looking the BIG detail. You know. The part where cancer doesn't really knock on your door.