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.
Soo... it seems even WW doesnt think its all Cals in vs Cals out...
Seriously though, congrats on finding something that worked so well for you. My mother did WW a few times, and was just too strict on it, she could never succeed.
as ive said numerous times, WW is modified Cals in/cals out.
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.
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...
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...
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?
You know, I'm really starting to feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. For a guy who spent the early part of this thread talking about how he cared about science, you've brought exactly zero science to this debate and you entire stance on this subject can be broken down to little more than blind contrarianism. Of course the real absurdity in all this is that you're making unsupported arguments against using the formulas created after years of scientific studies...because they might be off by 5% or so...in favor of the completely unscientific method of "listening to your body". That's a total disconnect of logic there.
Edit: I just realized you're a paleo guy. It's all very clear to me now.
Soo... it seems even WW doesnt think its all Cals in vs Cals out...
Seriously though, congrats on finding something that worked so well for you. My mother did WW a few times, and was just too strict on it, she could never succeed.
Annnnnnd once again, you're missing the point.
Weight Watchers is NOT JUST FOR LOSING WEIGHT. It is a plan for healthy eating. The calories in/calories out DO count for losing weight, that is the "losing weight" part of the "healthy eating" system.
NUTRITION is also an essential part of the Weight Watcher's system, and so, the TYPES of calories you're putting into your system, matter - in terms of health. They do not matter in terms of losing weight.
If the ONLY thing you want to accomplish is weight loss, and don't care about your health, then STOP EATING.
If you care about your health, then you MUST find an eating regimen that fills your nutritional needs. If you eat healthy, the weight will come off.
Weight Watchers is NOT JUST FOR LOSING WEIGHT. It is a plan for healthy eating. The calories in/calories out DO count for losing weight, that is the "losing weight" part of the "healthy eating" system.
NUTRITION is also an essential part of the Weight Watcher's system, and so, the TYPES of calories you're putting into your system, matter - in terms of health. They do not matter in terms of losing weight.
If the ONLY thing you want to accomplish is weight loss, and don't care about your health, then STOP EATING.
If you care about your health, then you MUST find an eating regimen that fills your nutritional needs. If you eat healthy, the weight will come off.
actually YOU are missing the point too Anon. While WW DOES encourage healthy eating, and they do lean on some of the points calculations to do that (like fruit being zero points) the adjustment for type of macronutrient in the Points Plus (TM) plan IS about weight loss, and WW has said so explicitly. They are reflecting the calorie burn to process each macronutrient, higher for proteins than for carbs and fats (pardon if i only said carbs earlier)
"* Protein is now considered because "when your body digests protein, it doesn't have the same thermic effect that it does when your body burns carbohydrates and fat." Foods higher in protein will have lower Points Plus values than those high in fats."
Huh. Well maybe that Points Plus program is a specific weight loss program within Weight Watchers. But the Weight Watchers' philosophy is that a healthy body results from a healthy lifestyle. And in fact, losing weight is only one specific part of their program. Once you have lost the weight, you can continue with Weight Watchers to maintain your existing weight. You can continue to go to meetings for community support, even though you're not trying to lose weight anymore.
Weight Watchers is a lifestyle choice, and NOT a diet, which means, it is not -only- for losing weight. It is for learning how to eat healthy, and continue eating healthy, long after you have achieved healthy eating. It is ALSO a product that is sold, it is ALSO an exercise regime it is ALSO a for-profit service industry that supports physical, mental, and emotional health.
When you refer to Weight Watchers, remember not everyone here follows the Points Plus diet. There are probably lots and lots of people who are active participants of Weight Watchers, who have never used Points Plus, and have no interest in it, because the systems they've used in the past have worked for them just fine and they only want to maintain their success, and not lose another pound.
It's not Weight Losers. It's Weight Watchers. Weight loss is only one part of it. Eating HEALTHY is another part of it. If it was exclusively weight loss, then I repeat - you'd only need to stop eating. The point of Weight Watchers is to eat healthy. Read their website and the "About Us" page some time.
You know, I'm really starting to feel like I'm talking to a brick wall here. For a guy who spent the early part of this thread talking about how he cared about science, you've brought exactly zero science to this debate and you entire stance on this subject can be broken down to little more than blind contrarianism. Of course the real absurdity in all this is that you're making unsupported arguments against using the formulas created after years of scientific studies...because they might be off by 5% or so...in favor of the completely unscientific method of "listening to your body". That's a total disconnect of logic there.
Edit: I just realized you're a paleo guy. It's all very clear to me now.
I wouldnt say I do anything as restrictive as paleo... I dont really paint myself into any corner... Whats wrong with the paleo outlook of eating organic foods? Not eveyone in the paleo community cuts out dairy, and the majority dont eat all raw... so what is so horrible about paleo in general? But whatever, thats another topic.
But what have you really brought to the table? A random formula that everyone has used to try to figure out how much they should eat?
Dude, all I'm saying is even what WW is accounting for. Weight loss and healthy eating isnt just about calories, its the type of calories you eat too. It is more important to eat the correct foods then the correct amount of cals. Thats my main point, thats the only point I'm trying to make. Even WW is saying, feel free to over eat the foods that are good for you, the amount of cals isnt important, its more important to train yourself to eat the correct foods more often.
No need to lump me into that group... I feel its important to eat organically, and to figure out what foods work best for you... I dont know whats so outlandish about that.
My point about cals in vs out is simply that at the end of the day, its figuring out how much food your body needs to work correctly... I dont think a certain number of cals should be a goal... If you use common sense and dont have an addiction, you should be able to listen to your body, and decide when to eat and when to stop based on that. Nobody wants to count calories for the rest of their lives... I think its a bit more important to figure out your body's signals and go from there.
Sounds like a self professed Paleo dieter to me. Of course you actually admit to breaking a major rule of Paleo diets and yet still claim to be one, producing maximum lolz, but the point still stands.
Quote:
Not eveyone in the paleo community cuts out dairy
Ahh yes, the Paleo dieters who aren't really Paleo. Isn't that kinda like being a Christian but then praying to Satan?
If you're eating dairy (and you are) then you are not actually doing Paleo, but yet you will chock up your gains to a Paleo diet.
The failed logic is strong in this one.
Quote:
so what is so horrible about paleo in general? But whatever, thats another topic.
Oh it's definitely another topic. I could write a small book on why the paleo diet is retarded but since we're on the topic maybe you can explain to me why a diet based entirely off the assumptions of our prehistoric brethren's diet (which was really "eat whatever the **** we can find) is even remotely logical when you consider that their average life expectancy was about 25-50% of current humans?
Quote:
But what have you really brought to the table?
I'd say post 34 brought a pretty substantial amount of science, all of which completely blew Taubes' claims out of the water despite you apparently believing in and following his diet. That was a pretty good start.
Quote:
A random formula that everyone has used to try to figure out how much they should eat?
Oh, now it's a "random" formula? I'd love to hear that explanation.
Quote:
Dude, all I'm saying is even what WW is accounting for. Weight loss and healthy eating isnt just about calories, its the type of calories you eat too. It is more important to eat the correct foods then the correct amount of cals.
You are meshing two different ideas here when they shouldn't be meshed. The type of calories (fat/protein/carbs) are important in setting a macro nutrient ratios which...surprise!...requires calorie counting. You have to set your macros within a set calorie limit.
Real simple stuff here dude.
Quote:
feel free to over eat the foods that are good for you
Throw away the books by Taubes and forget everything you read in his book, because absolutely NOTHING in there is grounded in real science. In fact, Taubes has no formal education in nutrition or human physiology.
How can you say that? You must not have read it. I've looked up the studies he sites and he is spot on!
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.
