So you think you know about dieting (small quiz)

1940sGal

Mr_helpful wrote: »

So according to your logic you have restricted / fasted / starved your body to between 3500 and 7000 less calories per week ie in one form or another instead of 14000 calories per week you are now resticting yourself to between 7000 and 10500. per week. To lose 2lbs by your logic you need to eat 50% od the recommended daily amout every day for a whole week.:eek:
i dont think it quite qorks like that.

I thought you weren't suggesting I was starving myself? I wish you'd make your mind up. And no, by my logic I'm not starving myself.

My tdee for my body is 2200. I eat between that and 2000 calories on non fast days. On fast days I eat 500. I go to the gym 3 days a week, my work can be pretty heavy going at times so I get some exercise from that.

Doing all that I have lost almost 3 stone. You can do all the calculations you want, go ahead and knock yourself out. I know what I've lost. I know I'm not starving. I know I'm fit and healthy.

1940sGal

Mr_helpful wrote: »

So according to your logic you have restricted / fasted / starved your body to between 3500 and 7000 less calories per week ie in one form or another instead of 14000 calories per week you are now resticting yourself to between 7000 and 10500. per week. To lose 2lbs by your logic you need to eat 50% od the recommended daily amout every day for a whole week.:eek:
i dont think it quite qorks like that.

And besides which why doesn't it work out like that? People who want to lose weight know they have to cut between 3500 and 7000 calories a week from their diet. That's simple logic that any tom !!!!!! or harry can find online or via their doctor.

If I've cut more that's up to me. It's working for me. Why do you find that so hard to grasp/understand/accept?

Mr_helpful

1940sGal wrote: »

And besides which why doesn't it work out like that? People who want to lose weight know they have to cut between 3500 and 7000 calories a week from their diet. That's simple logic that any tom !!!!!! or harry can find online or via their doctor.

If I've cut more that's up to me. It's working for me. Why do you find that so hard to grasp/understand/accept?

So on the 27th of july this year you posted a 3lb loss which by your logic is 10500 calories out of a recommended 14000 for the week so are you really telling us you survived on just 3500 cals for a week? And if you did that isnt starving yourself to have just a quarter of the RDA eevery day for a week.?
As I said it doesnt work like that.

stir_crazy

Mr_helpful wrote: »

So on the 27th of july this year you posted a 3lb loss which by your logic is 10500 calories out of a recommended 14000 for the week so are you really telling us you survived on just 3500 cals for a week? And if you did that isnt starving yourself to have just a quarter of the RDA eevery day for a week.?
As I said it doesnt work like that.

Have you never been on a diet? Dieters regularly have times when they have a slightly larger or smaller weight loss in a week. That 3lb weight loss might be down to any number of reasons, it also might have preceded a couple of weeks where there is no loss despite eating and drinking exactly the same and doing the same exercise. If losing weight was an exact science then everyone would be at their ideal weight.

I love an OP who is ridiculously condescending.

Mr_helpful

stir_crazy wrote: »

Have you never been on a diet? Dieters regularly have times when they have a slightly larger or smaller weight loss in a week. That 3lb weight loss might be down to any number of reasons, it also might have preceded a couple of weeks where there is no loss despite eating and drinking exactly the same and doing the same exercise. If losing weight was an exact science then everyone would be at their ideal weight.

I love an OP who is ridiculously condescending.

Im not disputing a 3lb weight loss. just the rather simplistic method that was given as a reason. If it was that simple that 3.500 Calories equals a pound of weight then yes it would be an exact science and very simple. You seem to agree with me that it doesnt work that way. which was actually the whole point of the poll

stir_crazy

Mr_helpful wrote: »

Im not disputing a 3lb weight loss. just the rather simplistic method that was given as a reason. If it was that simple that 3.500 Calories equals a pound of weight then yes it would be an exact science and very simple. You seem to agree with me that it doesnt work that way. which was actually the whole point of the poll

As you pointed out in your second (I think) post, people are following a few different diets on here. But the majority of people who are on here (if not all) could only give you a simplistic reason for why their diet works, myself included. I lose weight if I follow a low carb diet, so for me, the diet bar would be a no no. I could tell you the simple reasons that I have gleaned from an adulthood spent reading up on an being on diets and health kicks, but unless I was a trained dietician with a good knowledge of how the body breaks down food, I couldn't give you an in depth explanation.

closed

neither as they are both 200 Calories.

1940sGal wrote: »

Because there's such a huge difference, isn't there.

A significant difference as it completely changes the context of the question.

Calories do make you fat, if you consume too many - if someone eats 200 calories of fruit (or anything) 50 times a day every day, they will get fat and fatter.

1940sGal

Mr_helpful wrote: »

So on the 27th of july this year you posted a 3lb loss which by your logic is 10500 calories out of a recommended 14000 for the week so are you really telling us you survived on just 3500 cals for a week? And if you did that isnt starving yourself to have just a quarter of the RDA eevery day for a week.?
As I said it doesnt work like that.

God you actually went though my various posts to look and see what my weight loss was? If you're that desperate to prove your point then you need to get a grip, or a life. Either one will do.

But what can I say? Yes, I lost 3lbs, no I did not eat only 3500 calories that week. I don't keep track of every single calorie but since I've been on this diet I've become much more aware of what contains what so I know I never go over the 2200/day on non fast days just like i know I don't go over 500 on fast days.

Get a grip. If someone wants to stuff their face it's their choice, if someone wants to do a diet you don't agree with, it's nothing whatsoever to do with you. And obsessing over it to the point that you've actually sat and calculated what someone ate over the course of the week is not just sad, it's pathetic and more than a bit pityful.

1940sGal

closed wrote: »

A significant difference as it completely changes the context of the question.

Calories do make you fat, if you consume too many - if someone eats 200 calories of fruit (or anything) 50 times a day every day, they will get fat and fatter.

You and Mr Helpful should get together, you're both as pedantic and ridiculous as each other.

If I get fat then I am automatically getting fatter than what I was before I got fat, no difference.

closed

neither as they are both 200 Calories.

Well i happen to agree with most of post 12, but the last line (and some other posts) are sending the thread in a direction clearly not intended by the original question. It's a comparison between a and b, the arbitrary number 200 chosen by the op is not relevant, as it appears in both options, could be 1000, 2000, or 3000, or 4000, X, or any other figure. Similar to which weighs more a pound of lead, or a pound of feathers

Calories do make people fat if they consume too many compared to time and exercise.