Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry dude, but calories and plateaus are not linked together. If you "know" different, feel free to show us the proof.
You do the same thing that people have been doing for decades. You pick a formula and figure it out. Adjust calories up or down to suit your needs.
It's not hard man. Simple ****ing arithmetic.
If you were drinking lots of beer, there is your problem right there most likely. Alcohol in general will inhibit weight loss, ESPECIALLY on low carb diets.
Why is it crazy?
The beer statement had nothing to do with be counting cals... i had stopped for that.
Why would plateaus have nothing to do with calories... Losing LBS is simple arithmetic no? I burn 3,500 more cals then I take in = loss of 1lbs. If I'm hitting plateaus, the only explanation is either I'm eating more cals(which I wasnt), or my body needs less to do what it used to because it has gotten used to my current intake... so, my formula no longer works. I know people have been doing this for decades... and I hate to tell you, the majority of them fail. Also, the same people have been doing it for decades, because they continue to fail.
I agree with you, if you eat fewer cals then your body burns, you will lose weight. I mean, thats simple science. BUT I really really do not think any of us have the full picture of exactly how much our body burns, and why...
Maybe it has to do with the types of cals we eat? maybe it has to do with Cardio VS HIIT types of workouts... Maybe it has to do with a number of other factors. But, some simple formula that groups everyone thats the same weight, height, and age into a magic number of calories is, infact, crazy to me.
Eat when you're hungry, eat the foods that make your body feel good for the activity you have to do (normal life, fats/proteins/veggies/fruits) (High activity sports, some carbs to keep your energy levels up) Thats not to say thats the rule for everyone...
There are many people who fail by just monitoring their cals in vs cals out...
There's actually some data on that - on how much your body burns on average, just by existing. Sedentary people burn calories by breathing, eating, standing to walk to the bathroom, turning pages of the daily newspaper, etc. It's in the hundreds - there's a post here somewhere about it, I keep wanting to say the "average average" (average male with average height at average weight and average bone structure) is around 700+ calories. If you sit on the couch and play nintendo for 16 hours, and eat, and sleep, and get up to pee a few times and maybe get the mail from the mailbox, you'll burn around that much if you were the "average" male.
Find out which is your sedentary calorie expenditure, and add on from there. If you walk a total of 20 minutes a day, at an average speed of 3.0 MPH - that's ALL walking steps - from the car to the door of your office building, to the hallway to your office, down to the lunch counter, to your lunch table, back to the car at the end of the day, a few trips to the bathroom, getting the mail, etc. etc. etc.. you'll burn around 85 calories.
If you weed your garden, it's another "x" calories per hour. Any kind of physical activity has caloric expenditures, and there are charts that spell out the exact caloric expenditures. You can estimate though, no need to get exact.
But if you are moderately active, average height, average bone structure, average weight, you can assume that eating nothing but twinkies and pizza and washing it down with beer is going to make you UNHEALTHY - if not obese.
Everyone is always so obsessed with losing weight, and rarely do I see anyone say they want to get healthy or fit. Personally, I think it's a disservice that this "Diet and Weight Loss" part of CD even exists, because it emphasizes losing weight, but gives no emphasis to getting healthy.
If you get healthy and fit, then the weight will come off as a part of a return to health and fitness. If you're already healthy and fit, then you don't need to lose weight.
There's actually some data on that - on how much your body burns on average, just by existing. Sedentary people burn calories by breathing, eating, standing to walk to the bathroom, turning pages of the daily newspaper, etc. It's in the hundreds - there's a post here somewhere about it, I keep wanting to say the "average average" (average male with average height at average weight and average bone structure) is around 700+ calories. If you sit on the couch and play nintendo for 16 hours, and eat, and sleep, and get up to pee a few times and maybe get the mail from the mailbox, you'll burn around that much if you were the "average" male..
It's actually around 1,600-2,000 depending on your size. Most people should be able to lose weight without any exercise on a 1,500 calorie a day diet. It won't happen as fast of course as if you get moving.
Why would plateaus have nothing to do with calories
Because it doesn't. No known link between plateaus and calorie intake exist.
Quote:
Losing LBS is simple arithmetic no? I burn 3,500 more cals then I take in = loss of 1lbs. If I'm hitting plateaus, the only explanation is either I'm eating more cals(which I wasnt), or my body needs less to do what it used to because it has gotten used to my current intake... so, my formula no longer works.
No, the formula still works, but you must recalculate it as you lose or gain weight. If you weight 300lbs and then drop down to 250 your BMR and the like will see change, sometimes a drastic one.
As for plateaus, temporarily adjusting calorie intake can help break out of smaller ones, but real plateaus usually require more creative methods. One method is to set your calorie level on a weekly level and vary your daily intake to break your body's adaption. Another is to vary workout plans and/or intensity. Neither of those discredits the formulas I've talked about.
Quote:
I know people have been doing this for decades... and I hate to tell you, the majority of them fail. Also, the same people have been doing it for decades, because they continue to fail.
The majority of them fail because they don't know what they are doing, are simply delusional to how much they actually consume, lack the patience and will power to see it through or a combination. That still does not discredit the formulas as evidenced by the success people see when properly using them.
Quote:
BUT I really really do not think any of us have the full picture of exactly how much our body burns, and why...
Actually, science has pretty well figured that one out. We might learn some new things as science advances but all the major discoveries have happened.
Quote:
But, some simple formula that groups everyone thats the same weight, height, and age into a magic number of calories is, infact, crazy to me.
Ok, do you have any scientific basis for calling it crazy?
As for plateaus, temporarily adjusting calorie intake can help break out of smaller ones, but real plateaus usually require more creative methods. One method is to set your calorie level on a weekly level and vary your daily intake to break your body's adaption. Another is to vary workout plans and/or intensity. Neither of those discredits the formulas I've talked about.
I'm not trying to discredit anything, I'm just saying that sure, there is some truth to this formula, but, plateaus included, there are more variables at work day in day out. I think trying to get in between a level of cals a day isnt needed for weight loss, or healthy living. Figure out how your body responds to certain foods, and adjust your diet accordingly.
Quote:
The majority of them fail because they don't know what they are doing, are simply delusional to how much they actually consume, lack the patience and will power to see it through or a combination. That still does not discredit the formulas as evidenced by the success people see when properly using them.
I agree, it doesnt discredit it, and true its impossible to really really understand how many cals you're eating. With my example before, how many people measure the inches of banana they eat to figure out if its medium or large? Sure, most people have a kitchen scale now, but there is still too much eyes testing going on with everyone. I dont think many people accurately calc how much they eat in a day...
Quote:
Actually, science has pretty well figured that one out. We might learn some new things as science advances but all the major discoveries have happened.
To say "all the major discoveries have happened" in ANY science field is pretty ignorant IMO. How can a statement like that ever be tested? Why are people just now telling us that maybe simple carbs are a bad idea? There are advances every year in nutrition... No one knows for sure whats under the next rock...
Quote:
Ok, do you have any scientific basis for calling it crazy?
Metabolism. The simple fact is, it isnt constant either. Just because you see 2 people at the same age/height/weight, you cant assume to know exactly how much their body is burning to maintain life... Sure, a more muscular person will need more cals day to day to maintain themselves, but... thats still not the whole picture.
If one had just had 1000 cals a day for a week, their metabolism will be slower, since the body is worried there isnt enough food around, so its slowed down its rate of burn. Now, if the body is equip to slow down so much to maintain itself at such a low cal consumption... wouldnt it slow down a bit if you drop from 1700 to 1600, and allow that to be the norm?
I dont think we give our body's signals enough credit... If your body is hungry, feed it... if its not dont...
All I'm saying is I really dont think everyone who is the same size and weight burns exactly the same way at exactly the same time. There are too many other variables to successfully test with a simple formula... So, screw worrying about how many cals I consume or expend... Why not just eat when it makes sense, and stop when I'm full?
If one had just had 1000 cals a day for a week, their metabolism will be slower, since the body is worried there isnt enough food around, so its slowed down its rate of burn. Now, if the body is equip to slow down so much to maintain itself at such a low cal consumption... wouldnt it slow down a bit if you drop from 1700 to 1600, and allow that to be the norm?
I dont think we give our body's signals enough credit... If your body is hungry, feed it... if its not dont...?
"Listening to your body" is going to make you fat. It wants you to be a huge pig. I doubt most overweight people are eating that much when they're not hungry. They're just hungry a whole lot or eat too much before their brains catch up with their stomachs. Also, this idea that eating less is going to slow down your metabolism is pretty overblown. If you eat only 1,000 calories a day for a week you will lose weight.
"Listening to your body" is going to make you fat. It wants you to be a huge pig. I doubt most overweight people are eating that much when they're not hungry. They're just hungry a whole lot or eat too much before their brains catch up with their stomachs. Also, this idea that eating less is going to slow down your metabolism is pretty overblown. If you eat only 1,000 calories a day for a week you will lose weight.
Sure you will lose weight, but if you were to increase back to 1800 a day, you'd start to gain.
In my opinion, "listening to your body" hasnt worked, because people arent choosing the correct foods for their body. Listening to your body only works if you're consuming the correct things... and every individual needs to figure out what the correct things are for themselves. Thats what Taubes did for me, he broke me out of the mentality that everyone should be following the diet recommended by the government. Maybe, if you change it up, and figure out which foods really keep you full longer, and cut down on the hunger that causes you to buy a candy bar from the vending machine, your body will give you the correct information for when to eat, and when not to eat. It doesnt need to be some game of numbers... Eating doesnt need to be complicated
My body tells me it wants a plate of cookies and a big glass of milk. My good sense says to eat a peach instead.
lol, well thats what I'm saying. Your body would never tell you to eat a batch of cookies. You body isnt craving the nutrition you'd get from them... Sure you may be salivating over the idea of consuming the soft gooey fresh cookies... BUT, I doubt your enitre body is telling you that you need the nutrition from those cookies...
You need to use common sense, thats important. Now, studying your own body is the next step. Eating a bowl of brown rice or cereal, what does that do to you? Eating a chicken breast, what does that do? Eating a Banana. or broccoli, or steak? What does that do to your body. Then, after you figure out how your body reacts to those things, you'll continue to make educated decisions based on how your body reacts to different nutrients.
If you notice when you eat a cookie, one isnt enough, and you're never full... well, its most likely a bad idea to eat those cookies... same goes for fries or even popcorn... it doesnt matter how many cals it has, if it doesnt fill you up, or give you nutrients your body needs, dont eat them.
Everyone is always so obsessed with losing weight, and rarely do I see anyone say they want to get healthy or fit. Personally, I think it's a disservice that this "Diet and Weight Loss" part of CD even exists, because it emphasizes losing weight, but gives no emphasis to getting healthy.
If you get healthy and fit, then the weight will come off as a part of a return to health and fitness. If you're already healthy and fit, then you don't need to lose weight.
getting healthy, for most folks of normal weight involves issues like smoking, or local pollution, or stress, as much as exercise, and probably MORE than diet. Yeah, there are health issues non-overweight people have with diet - sodium intake, artificial ingredients, and mix of nutrients. But A. Those arent nearly of as much interest to as many people and B. the answers are a whole lot fuzzier (the evidence that artificial ingredients per se are bad for you is a LOT weaker than that being obese is bad for you) - though Im sure you can find a site that takes that approach.
And for many, many of us, other health issues and weight are intertwined. As I have said before, when I went to my doc in December, I had bad cholesterol numbers, and a bad blood sugar number. He gave me this huge list of things to avoid. In almost panic, I decided to just follow WW instead. Thats a weight loss program, but it also includes advice for healthy eating and exercise, and within that I focused on my particular issues - reducing consumption of simple carbs, and improving my sat fat/unsat fat ratio. When I went back to him not only had I lost weight, but I'd improved ALL my blood numbers. To me losing weight WAS to get healthy.
I dont know I could have done that just by general guidelines for health and fitness. Portion control and tracking were part of it.
Right now I am on maintenance. There are many other areas in my life that need changes, far more than any further changes in the health and fitness area. I would like to step up my exercise to be more fit, but its going to have to fit in with other priorities.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
