How can I lose weight without physical activity? I hate sports and gyms and also a vegetarian. Is there hope for me(can do hard diets) or should I just start puking my guts off
start by tracking your eating in myfitnesspal. then look at where most of your calories are going and see if there are some easy places to save calories, such as quitting alcohol or fizzy drinks
then look at everything else you normally eat and see if you can save calories there too, such as using less oil, or having a smaller portion of pizza with a salad, instead of just pizza
don't follow some random diet someone made as it won't have the foods you like so you will be more likely to fail. you will also gain the weight back when you go off of it
instead you have to learn to slowly change all your habits
well by definition you have to be in calorie deficit (which is why sport helps…) so yeah, eat less, avoid shitty food and at least have light daily exercise such as walking. Btw we need much less than what we eat nowadays so eat light, just be sure that you eat quality food (whole foods!), this way you wont go hungry too fast. I sometimes eat just one meal per day, first it was hard but now the hunger doesnt affect me at all, especially considering how i dont exercise much. it sucks that youre vegetarian tho.
Losing weight is literally just calories in, calories out.
A 16:8 fast is pretty easy once you get used to it.
Do you drink soda? I have lost 4 kg stopping drinking full sugar soda. If you don't well as previous posters said start counting your calories and develop self-control so you won't go over your limit.
You should still do some light workouts though.
No it’s not and I wish this dumb simplistic view would go away. You also need to consider whether your meals will prevent cravings and leave you full
Nope, all you need to consider is how many calories are in what you’re eating, fatass.
nta, you're not wrong per say but anon also isn't wrong that ultimately it comes down to how many calories you shove down your throat vs how many you burn. Even if you have cravings (often confused with thirst cues anyway) or your meal didn't fill you up, eating (more) is still a choice as brute as it sounds.
…So, in other words you need to consider whether or not you'll overeat, therefore leading to taking in more calories in than you can burn out through a resting state?
on paper, it's calories in vs calories out for sure but in reality there are other factors
if it was that simple, no one would be overweight ever
according to CICO you could just eat a cup and half of pure sugar each day and lose weight. does really think that is going to work? people aren't robots
Well if a person asks purely about how to lose weight, not about how to also keep your body fit and healthy then it's fair to say it's CICO. Op already said they hate workin out so it fits well if all she needs is to lose weight and it doesn't matter how fit/healthy she looks/feels. Just syain.
It IS that simple. You can eat pure junk food and lose weight as long as you aren’t eating too many calories. The reason why people are overweight is because sugar is addictive and food can be used as a coping mechanism.
Eh, I still think it's a bad way of framing it.
Why? People put the emphasis on eating less instead of eating the right things and good, tasty recipes. People aren't going to be doing good if they intake certain things (even if it's not laden with sugars) and are effectively setting themselves up to fail; some foods in particular even make the body feel hungrier than others per-calorie as well because the context of calories isn't created all equal. It's like that study about how prisoners given a tiny bit of fruit or something like that actually went nuts from hunger and stole packs of gum to eat while…idk, the no-food control group or something fared way better (and let me note that there's a point in fasting where a person ceases feeling hungry and feels pretty good). Who do you think was starving the most in this situation?
Most people that do the "oh, calories in and out is all that matters" and eats junk food are usually setting themselves up to fail on a physiological level.
Look. I was born fat. I stayed fat until college when I first became independent. What helped was intermittent fasting and avoiding certain refined foods. I also avoid snacking altogether because it trains ghrelin to spike during different periods where it shouldn't otherwise.
Before then I tried the "just eat less" method and I tanked hard. That's pretty much it.
You would definitely lose weight if you only ate half a cup of sugar everyday. In fact, you can eat a Big Mac every day and still lose weight if you burn more calories than you eat.
CICO explains all weight variations, the thing is that you have to consider protein, sugar, vitamins, minerals, ions, etc for overall health. Eating only crap in small quantities isn't viable for a long time.
Puking is unnecessary if you don’t eat to begin with.
>>15048>instead of eating the right things and good, tasty recipes.
Nta but it's so easy maintaining or gaining while eating healthy. I agree with eating healthy BUT at the core, at the very basis of every weightloss is undeniably CICO. Putting emphasis on eating healthy before eating at a deficit is how people end up eating lots of nuts and avocados or ~6 "small" meals a day~ and then have to ask themselves why they're not losing weight.
I was mostly referring to satiety. CICO often entails literally counting calories which imo isn't very healthy.
also, I wasn't arguing that cico was wrong but more that it's extremely redundant in nature and sometimes ends with the "well people lose weight while eating junk food" thing. that's what I repeatedly have seen in these discussions–maybe to prove a point? idk.
Sure, but if we're being really pedantic, which I see CICO as being, then dehydration is also technically a form of weight loss yet it has nothing to do with calories in/out in any way since water has zero.
Also, if I'm not mistaken, for diabetics it's possible to burn almost no fat despite eating 0 calories, since their bodies will just burn muscle for energy instead, so yes, you could be losing weight, but you'd also be slowly wasting away.
How is the simple phrase "calories in, calories out" pedantic? It's so simple to understand and yet fatasses like to pretend it's complicated. Also, we're talking about the general population, not diabetics. You're like a tranny who brings up intersex people in their arguments.>then dehydration is also technically a form of weight loss yet it has nothing to do with calories
Literally what… this argument makes no sense.
I studied public health in undergrad, so I have some actual background here.
Really, the biggest driver of weight gain is chronic stress. It makes your body go into energy-conservation mode, and it can make you comfort eat. Diets and all can be good if they cut back on carbs (noodles, rice, bread, sugary foods) and encourage gut bacteria health (yogurt, fresh peas, probiotic supplements [Spring Valley brand is cheap]), but really focus on relaxing, nona. Meditation works, too, actually. Maybe look into that?
(same poster) Also consider sweetening foods with noncaloric alternatives like stevia, or prebiotic sugars like in oligo syrup. Absolutely avoid high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated fats (like margarine or shortening), and vegetable oils (like canola oil, terrible for cellular health – but fattier oils like olive oil are good!). Fats don't make you fat (and fats are necessary for endocrine health), sugars do!
Hmm… you're right, it's not really pedantic. Maybe I was thinking more of something like "reductionist", because I really don't think it's all that simple. Yes, it's calories in calories out at the most basic level, but as another poster pointed out, then nobody would be fat. Or at least it would be super easy to fix the moment that person heard of CICO. Yet there's a whole industry around dieting. Saying there's nothing more to it than CICO isn't good advice because it's ignoring a whole dimension, that being the psychological aspect. For a lot of people I would argue that's the more troublesome one when it comes to weight loss.
>Also, we're talking about the general population, not diabetics.
In that case, sure, but I think it's still relevant to a lot of people trying to lose weight. Like over a third of the US is diabetic or pre-diabetic.
>Literally what… this argument makes no sense.
Weigh yourself, then avoid drinking water for the whole day, then weigh yourself again. You will have lost weight, without changing your calories in/out (assuming you did everything else the same way you do on any normal day). That's being really pedantic though, I know it's not an argument.
great point. that's basically what I try getting across when people insist on focusing on one part of it, mindlessly repeating CICO pretty much helps anyone as that was already assumed, so it comes across as patronizing.
>>15076>nobody would be fat
Wrong. People are fat because sugar is addictive and food brings seratonin. I’m slightly overweight and I know CICO is true, I just use food as a coping mechanism and eat too much.>You will have lost weight
Oh my gooooood. We are talking about losing fat, not water weight. I can’t believe you actually thought this was a good argument.
>>15081>sugar is addictive and food brings seratonin.
That's… going beyond CICO and into other factors, though, isn't it? Which is my whole point, that there are other factors that are more important than CICO.
>I can’t believe you actually thought this was a good argument.
lol I can't believe it either, I don't know why I ever wrote that. That was really silly of me.
anon im sorry for my harsh posts. i am taking out my dissatisfaction with life on an internet stranger. sorry
It's okay! I didn't find your posts to be harsh. And I myself was being pedantic because I'm not exactly in a great place in life either, haha. Taking out your frustration is what the Internet is best suited for anyways.
I had a lot of success by cutting out small things like soda, eating out, or higher calorie alcohols. It would have been ideal to cut out alcohol altogether, but I couldn't deal with the insomnia that came with it. Dry, sparkling wines, pinot grigios, and skinny bitches were just fine with me. As for eating out, a lot of places have a la carte options that let me order with more control over what I was getting. Two small items that satisfied me for $8 turned out to be far better than the $10 economy meal that made me feel disgusted and bulimic.
For home food, I would eat a lot of peacans, avocados, and learned to make Indian food. An avocado may be expensive, but, like, one could feed me for a day. I shopped at Ingles for the longest time specifically for the olive bar.
I'd also do the odd fast. One or two would just be small, 500 calories a day fasts, and I would do a 48 to 72 hour one every month or so. It wasn't physically hard, but I found out just how much eating and drinking was an ingrained habit. It would nag at me mentally even if I was fine.
I didn't like most exercises either, but I did find I liked swimming. Maybe you can find something. Jogging and lifting weights repetitively just sucks. My sister got a lot out of yoga. I got a bit jealous seeing her doing some Bruce Lee finger pushup bullshit.
Good luck, OP
Eat more healthy and walk more in your city. Why take the bus if you can walk? Walking does not feel as exhausting as straight up sports but it's enough to actually make a difference. Walk home, walk to work. If you have friends irl absolutely spend all days walking together in the city. Unless you live in a car dependant city you should ABSOLUTELY give walking a go. Walking is so fucking based and lots of people forget that!!! i LOVE walking
Don't eat sugar & if you crave it eat fruit. Most importantly eat less. I accidentally lost 2kg recently because I'm too lazy to cook myself dinner.
Myfitnesspal. Cut out proccessed food if you can. Laern to cook if you don't know how. Try to eat protein-rich foods like beans, chickpeas, tofu, etc. Don't dribk calories. Take a multivitamin to male sure you're getting the nutrients you need.