You know, there's lots of people who give advice about what works for them. A lot of people say 'you've got to cut out the sugar" or they say "you've gotta create a caloric deficit" or "you're eating way too many carbs" and nobody argues.
I'd much prefer people say "what works for me."
But there's a different between pushing an approach and something like: "you've gotta create a caloric deficit"
This is a weight loss support site. Although some people are here with other priorities (health, exericse, bf%, binge control), the statement was made by BBB in the context of weight loss. I really don't think there's much room for argument on that one. If you want weight loss, "you've gotta create a caloric deficit" (unless you want to lose water weight or surgically remove stuff).
I'd be happy with 2,000-3,000 cals. I have a decent relationship with food, nothing too overboard. My BF is thin but eats pretty bad. Way too many sweets.
But there's a different between pushing an approach and something like: "you've gotta create a caloric deficit"
This is a weight loss support site. Although some people are here with other priorities (health, exericse, bf%, binge control), the statement was made by BBB in the context of weight loss. I really don't think there's much room for argument on that one. If you want weight loss, "you've gotta create a caloric deficit" (unless you want to lose water weight or surgically remove stuff).
I occasionally think about having a breast reduction. I'm sure if I surgically get down to a small C that I'd be taking off at least 20lbs by that alone But I keep holding on to the hope that when I get down to goal weight that my boobs will magically reduce to a normal size lol. Caloric deficit, burn more than you take in, whatever you call it that's the goal of any dieter and we all take different paths to get to that magical place.
Calorie deficits aren't the end all, be all, nor is a calorie just a calorie. That's a huuuuge pet peeve of mine
I highly recommend Bill Lagakos' blog and book, "The Poor, Misunderstood Calorie". Good primer on why some arguments relating to weight management are more accurate than others - it's endocrinology, not religion. Not all diets work equally well for all people, but even in an absolute sense some are just not as effective. There's actual reasons for that besides individual preference, and I think that is one of the things I see missed most often on this particular forum.
On another forum I frequent there is an allergy to calories as a rule, and that's also a pitfall. They aren't irrelevant, they just aren't as simplified as often stated nor are the they whole or even most relevant part of the energy equation in our bodies. Everyone has blind spots and ditches, it's good to be aware of them
Calorie deficits aren't the end all, be all, nor is a calorie just a calorie. That's a huuuuge pet peeve of mine
I would not try to claim that a calorie is a calorie.
I suppose there's more room for interpretation than I thought. When I was supporting BBB's claim that you need a calorie deficit to lose weight, I interpreted that to factor in all the subtleties of the energy ins and outs, including energy required to digest/metabolize/store the specific foods involved, all the specific quirks and reactions of the individual (and gut bacteria/parasites) involved, and any influences of the specific environment, time, etc.
On top of that, I very much believe that the specific calories we choose to eat (and a host of other factors, some of which are part of a given approach) affect how easy or difficult it is to achieve a deficit (and keep it up over the long run, which is what BBB was also arguing).
While a calorie deficit isn't the end all and be all, it is fundamental (at least the way I interpret it) to losing weight.
I would not try to claim that a calorie is a calorie.
I suppose there's more room for interpretation than I thought. When I was supporting BBB's claim that you need a calorie deficit to lose weight, I interpreted that to factor in all the subtleties of the energy ins and outs, including energy required to digest/metabolize/store the specific foods involved, all the specific quirks and reactions of the individual (and gut bacteria/parasites) involved, and any influences of the specific environment, time, etc.
On top of that, I very much believe that the specific calories we choose to eat (and a host of other factors, some of which are part of a given approach) affect how easy or difficult it is to achieve a deficit (which is what BBB was also arguing).
While a calorie deficit isn't the end all and be all, it is fundamental (at least the way I interpret it) to losing weight.
Agreed.
And... the way the weight is WHOOSHING off of me.. faster than ever before in me entire 44 years, I TRULY believe a calorie is not a calorie. But I already knew that.
My husband is one of those whose weight stays steady and he happily eats as much or as little as he wants/needs.
Me? I enjoy food, not so much a high volume but the taste. I have a theory that my sense of taste is heightened like some people have a heightened sense of smell or touch.
I could eat endless amounts of food if it pleased my palate.
The only way I found to to avoid that came from culinary school.
The higher quality food I cook and eat the more refined my palate gets. Now it's not Doritos I want (except occasionally). I find the higher quality meals that brim with flavor fill up my need for taste without my needing to consume large portions.
I've realized my husband doesn't work the same way. After a particularly great meal I will be going on and on about how amazing the food was and he will have a lack luster moment of agreement. And he likes good food. It's just that what amounts to a moment of near nirvana for me equals a nice dinner for him lol.
After a particularly great meal I will be going on and on about how amazing the food was and he will have a lack luster moment of agreement. And he likes good food. It's just that what amounts to a moment of near nirvana for me equals a nice dinner for him lol.
That doesn't necessarily mean he enjoyed it less intensely than you, he let go of it more readily perhaps. It's hard to measure pleasure through the volume of enthusiasm. How we express that pleasure has no bearing on how much we feel it.
That doesn't necessarily mean he enjoyed it less intensely than you, he let go of it more readily perhaps. It's hard to measure pleasure through the volume of enthusiasm. How we express that pleasure has no bearing on how much we feel it.
I've had many discussions with my husband on the topic, I did not reach my conclusion based solely on gauging his outward reaction at one isolated event. It's strange to me that you would assume I had.
I've had many discussions with my husband on the topic, I did not reach my conclusion based solely on gauging his outward reaction at one isolated event. It's strange to me that you would assume I had.
I don't assume that at all! You know your hubby better than anyone . I was speaking in a general sense, like when we observe how a friend deals with grief or pleasure or stress, the way we express it is often different but that has no bearing on the intensity of what we feel internally. It's not easy to judge how someone feels based on how they react to it.
I have realized that not only do I love the taste of food, I love the process of eating. Lots of hand to mouth action makes me happy. Quantity, quantity, quantity. And flavor. All of it.
My husband is the same, so unfortunately we can't really help each other put the breaks on.
But I keep holding on to the hope that when I get down to goal weight that my boobs will magically reduce to a normal size lol. Caloric deficit, burn more than you take in, whatever you call it that's the goal of any dieter and we all take different paths to get to that magical place.
