South Beach Diet - 10 reasons you're not losing weight




uscarchie
08-21-2008, 12:48 PM
Some of us feel like we've stalled out a bit (I only do 1/2 of the time, and most of that is associated with TOM), but here's a link to an article on MSN:

http://health.msn.com/weight-loss/slideshow.aspx?cp-documentid=100213228&imageindex=1

The one I thought was pretty silly was the claim that we should be aiming to be a size 2 rather than a size 6.... That's a long way off from where I'm at right now, and I don't even think a size 2 is physically possible for me... damn my curvy sexy hips.

Also, I think the starting all your life changing goals at one time is a good idea. It can be really challenging, but you're more motivated to work hard.

Food for thought.


Schmoodle
08-21-2008, 01:27 PM
According to them I am okay!
I am not an early riser, drink some wine weekly, don't have central AC in my house, hate to exercise, eat 1 oz dark chocolate every week, am practically perfect in every way other than weight, eat my fruit and veggies, get plenty of potassium. that sarcopenial thing, well, guess I gotta work on it.

JulieJ08
08-21-2008, 01:32 PM
LOL, was gonna check it out, but was not going to page through one by one by one. Something about we should aim for a size 2 sounds like utter BS though.


grneyedmustang
08-21-2008, 01:37 PM
According to this formula and approach in their article:

Detour: If you try the diet-only approach, you need a clear idea of how much you should be eating. Multiply your weight by 10, then add your weight again to that sum: That gives you the number of calories you need to maintain your current weight without activity. For example, 135 pounds x 10 = 1,350 + 135 = 1,485 calories.

I should be eating less than 2761 calories in order to lose weight. If it were only that easy!

And I will NEVER be a size two. I was aiming for a size 12, I think I might go a little more optimistic and aim for a size 10.

Loriann7
08-21-2008, 01:53 PM
According to this formula and approach in their article:

Detour: If you try the diet-only approach, you need a clear idea of how much you should be eating. Multiply your weight by 10, then add your weight again to that sum: That gives you the number of calories you need to maintain your current weight without activity. For example, 135 pounds x 10 = 1,350 + 135 = 1,485 calories.


I agree, I should eat less than 2002 calories! hhmmm, doing that, and maintaining (yet once again) at 182!

uscarchie
08-21-2008, 01:57 PM
Ever get the idea that this article was written by a very skinny person?

Fat Melanie
08-21-2008, 02:06 PM
I am nearly 5'9 and I have a small waist but curvy hips as well, and I will also never be a size 2, nor do I want to be.

Why in the WORLD should we all strive to be cookie cut-outs of eachother, everyone a size 2, no matter what frame or height or sort of shape you naturally have? So me at 5'9, at a size 2, would be ANOREXIC, whereas perhaps a 5'1 person with a smaller frame could look fantastic at size 2. Or size 6. Or 8! And of course, there are probably 5'9 women who have smaller frames and would look great at a size 2. But we're all different!

Why is that article saying that? God, it's just another damn way to make us women with weight problems feel like crap!

I'm gonna go read the article beside although I'm ranting, I haven't read it yet.

Schmoodle
08-21-2008, 02:15 PM
My impression was, what they were suggesting was that you would not make your goal, so if you shot for a size 10, then you would probably end up a 12, so by shooting for a size 2, you might end up an 8. I don't think this approach would work for me, I would just get frustrated that I could never get to goal! I'm not shooting for any particular size, and the weight I picked is pretty random. I figure when I get that close, my body is going to let me know where we are comfortable for maintenance, whatever size that is, so be it. Although, if they keep up with the vanity sizing, and making the sizes bigger, we might all be able to end up a size 2!

kaplods
08-21-2008, 02:23 PM
The problem with some of these, I suppose begs the question "is weight loss all there is?" If weight loss is your only goal, then maybe it makes sense to set unrealisticly low goals that may allow you to lose more weight, but may also lead you to feel crappier about yourself. Or to tolerate being uncomfortably warm in order to lose a little more a little faster.

I don't drink, not because I'm intentionally depriving myself, but because I never did care for alcohols effects, much. And now I'm on medications that aren't really alcohol compatible (my pharmacist says I can have one drink now and again safely) as one drink makes it "beddie bye" time for me). And I'm not going to start, just becaue it might help me lose a few pounds.

I think this is typical "chick-lit" magazine advice. Light, interesting, and of little to no practical value whatsoever.

prepping
08-21-2008, 02:26 PM
I read the article and understood their "size 2" comment as just an exaggerated example. It's directly related to how much *umph* you put into reaching your goals.

If I was to apply it to myself, I had to constantly adjust my goal weight as I was losing. First I thought 180 would be just right and anything else would be too skinny. Then I got to 180 and found that I could probably be happy at 170. Once I got to 170 I figured I'd aim for 160 -- but if I find a happy place in between now and then I'll stick with it. It's just seeing that end goal means that it's not yet time to quit and I just have to keep striving.

I am not aiming to be a size 2 - but I understand the mentality to which this statement was applied. I suggest anyone who questions it could read the article and identify how they want to interpret it. No cookie cutter scenarios, just an example used.

JulieJ08
08-21-2008, 02:29 PM
My impression was, what they were suggesting was that you would not make your goal, so if you shot for a size 10, then you would probably end up a 12, so by shooting for a size 2, you might end up an 8.

Now if that's what was meant, it bothers me too. Because I think maintenance is only possible by becoming more honest with yourself, and living more in reality, not less.

Sounds like the games a person plays to try to keep up with unrealistic pressures.

prepping
08-21-2008, 02:31 PM
Schmoodle, that would be something if we all ended up a size 2 eh! LOL I'm still trying to figure out how "00" girls continue to exist. I'd say once you hit size 0, it's like you become your own black hole. (nothing against small women, just peculiar sizing methods)

Maybe sizes will start going into the negatives? or maybe fractions... hmmm, something to think about indeed. ;)

Thin4Good
08-21-2008, 02:35 PM
My impression was, what they were suggesting was that you would not make your goal, so if you shot for a size 10, then you would probably end up a 12, so by shooting for a size 2, you might end up an 8. I don't think this approach would work for me, I would just get frustrated that I could never get to goal! I'm not shooting for any particular size, and the weight I picked is pretty random. I figure when I get that close, my body is going to let me know where we are comfortable for maintenance, whatever size that is, so be it. !

this was my understanding too - and I had the same reaction. I can see where they are coming from but that doesn't mean the theory is correct! They may be able to say that z follows x and y but I don't think they have enough evidence to say whether it was caused by x OR y if that makes any sense. - Ever since I read Freakonomics my view on statements like that has been a little different. - there can always be less obvious causes for the end result.

That (what Schmoodle said) is also pretty much how I feel about my "goal" weight. I think when I get close to there, (whenever that is!) I will have a better idea of what I need to do, how I feel, etc... right now I really have no idea what I should eventually weigh or what size I should be. I just know that I should not weigh this much or be this big. - I am not comfortable with myself as I am so I am trying to change it.

Fat Melanie
08-21-2008, 02:38 PM
I am not aiming to be a size 2 - but I understand the mentality to which this statement was applied. I suggest anyone who questions it could read the article and identify how they want to interpret it. No cookie cutter scenarios, just an example used.

Well, I went and read it after my cookie cutter comment. And I can now see how it was meant to be interpreted.

HOWEVER, I still don't agree with it, at least, not as a weight-loss-plan that I myself would personally implement. If I told myself to think 'size 2' rather than size '8', then I would become discouraged and feel like a fat bloated whale because I don't care how skinny I get, I will never, EVER in a billion years be a size 2 and telling myself to 'shoot for size 2' won't get me there any quicker. I understand the article doesn't mean LITERALLY shoot for a size 2 or that you even have to use size 2 as the size (for example, I could shoot for size 6 when really wanting to be a size 10 or something, if I were to use their technique). But however their technique could be used, it wouldn't work for me. It would only serve to discourage me. Because after awhile, say for example that I did get to that size 8/10... then I'd feel like, well wait a minute, I was shooting for a 6, so that's not good enough! Even if I looked fantastic as an 8.

It could potentially work for some. Just not for me.

Fat Melanie
08-21-2008, 02:41 PM
I'm shooting for 150 lbs.... to me, in their scenario, I should probably strive to acheive an emaciated 115 lbs because if I don't, I won't actually ever make it to 150... but sorry, I just don't buy that. I'll make it to 150 and that's that and I refuse to be unrealistic and shoot for an unrealistic goal just because some magazine article claims that if I do, I'll lose more weight.

uscarchie
08-21-2008, 02:42 PM
That's kind of how I picked my goal weight. My mom weighs 175 and she's pretty healthy looking, so I figure it's a good weight to aim for. When I get there, I'll re-evaluate.

yoyonomoreinvegas
08-21-2008, 02:43 PM
I understand what they are talking about with the "shoot for a 2" thing - I've kind of been doing that anyway (not a size 2 but my goal weight) I'm pretty sure I'll be perfectly happy about 10 lbs higher than what I have on my ticker but I'm leaving it where it is just to keep myself focused when I get to a point where I want to transition to maintenance. I know from past experience that I have a tendency to reach goal then sort of go "whew, I'm done. Now I can eat" (kind of like not holding your stomach in any more after the cute guy has gone past :D ). So I'm using that lower "goal" to trick myself into thinking I'm still working on losing.

But, I agree that this info was compiled and interpreted by a statistition who never struggled with their weight. I'm shooting for a lower goal because I am aware I may never really get there. Someone who is either trying to lose for the first time or has "failed" in the past (especially if they lean toward disordered eating) could really push themselves off the edge if they were to set an unattainable goal.

Other than that, looks like I"m doing most other things right - maybe I do need to go ahead and add that chocolate to my plan though :yes:

Fat Melanie
08-21-2008, 02:45 PM
Yes, I agree with Schmoodle and Thin4Good. My goal weight is 150... and then I will re-evaluate and see how I feel at said weight. If I feel too heavy still at that weight, I'll lose more until I feel healthy. If I feel too thin at 150, I'll adjust accordingly.

mamaspank
08-21-2008, 02:55 PM
Thanks for the article! Offered some new and different advice.

Mommysince21505
08-21-2008, 04:16 PM
I think they are saying that people that shoot for the small goals usually don't succeed so you must shoot for bigger to accomplish more. Of course that is my opinion of what it is saying... Anyway, I don't believe that at all, and I agree, I bet a skinny person did write the article.

kaplods
08-21-2008, 04:29 PM
I also question what their measurement of success is. How long are they "following" people (there's not alot of hard evidence on what "studies" they are using to support their claims). Most research doesn't follow people very long, so it very well may be that initially those with unrealistic goals lose faster (because they've got that "I must be thin, or I'm worthless" type of motivation) whereas people with modest goals may lose more slowly, or even may lose less weight overall, but may keep it off longer.

There's no evidence that this writer knows what he/she is talking about at all. So "evidence shows," especially in these "fluff" pieces has to be taken with a huge grain (boulder) of salt.

Belle Mer
08-21-2008, 05:23 PM
We're all individuals. Lumping everyone together like that is simply ridiculous.

CyndiM
08-21-2008, 05:37 PM
Detour: If you try the diet-only approach, you need a clear idea of how much you should be eating. Multiply your weight by 10, then add your weight again to that sum: That gives you the number of calories you need to maintain your current weight without activity. For example, 135 pounds x 10 = 1,350 + 135 = 1,485 calories.

Okay, I am such a geek. I'm reading everyone's thoughtful comments and all I keep thinking is - do the authors think we are too dumb to just multiply by 11?!

Thin4Good
08-21-2008, 05:41 PM
Okay, I am such a geek. I'm reading everyone's thoughtful comments and all I keep thinking is - do the authors think we are too dumb to just multiply by 11?!

lol!!!

Schmoodle
08-21-2008, 05:42 PM
:rofl:

yoyonomoreinvegas
08-21-2008, 05:54 PM
Okay, I am such a geek. I'm reading everyone's thoughtful comments and all I keep thinking is - do the authors think we are too dumb to just multiply by 11?!

OMG! Apparently I am just that dumb because I never saw it until you said it :rofl:

grneyedmustang
08-21-2008, 06:04 PM
Okay, I am such a geek. I'm reading everyone's thoughtful comments and all I keep thinking is - do the authors think we are too dumb to just multiply by 11?!

:rofl:

I thought about that too. ;)

Fat Melanie
08-21-2008, 06:21 PM
I was wondering where the author came up with their crazy formula.