Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why are some WOE more acceptable than others?
Options
Replies
-
KWinoGelato wrote: »fuzzylop72 wrote: »Is this generally true? I get the feeling most keto practitioners do intend on eating that way permanently, although I'll admit my knowledge of keto is pretty limited.
And most "diets" fail in maintenance because the lifestyle limitations aren't sustainable for the long haul. They may well intend to eat that way permanently - good luck to them with that.
All the people flooding the gyms this month intend to keep exercising forever, and almost all of them will be gone by end of next month.
But isn’t sustainablility an individual thing, not one size fits all?
I’ll get the woo storm for this but daily calorie restriction to a CICO determined level was not sustainable for me. It meant less than 1500 calories a day as maintenance and constant hangry. So I explored some WOE’s to see what might make a sustainable lifetime eating plan for me that would not have me gain weight but also would not turn me into Ms. Hangry.
I found a WOE that works for me. I don’t evangelize it, nor do I expect it would work for the next person. I do think it is worth trying. And it isn’t Keto, I like my potatoes too much
but I sure think those looking for their individual sustainable path should try Keto if it sounds like a match for them. And I hope experienced Keto-ers see their threads with questions and help.
Because I do not think that a drive by reply along the lines of “you don’t need to do ‘x’ to lose weight” helps anyone. Or is supportive. Or even is common courtesy. IM(worthless)O it is mocking, ridiculing, shaming etc type of response.
YMMV.
Are you saying that the way you've chosen to eat enables you to eat more than the 1500 calories you've determined as your maintenance level, and still lose weight?
I now eat approx 1800 most days maintenance. But I do two 500 days to make up the caloric difference. Not denying cico. Just saying eating a DAILY calorie allotment determined by CICO without something more (WOE) was a quick road to not sustainable for me personally. Less than 1500 calories everyday makes for an awful Ms. Hangry for me.
Obviously what I find sustainable may not be for the next person and vise versa.
3 -
The answer is simple: it's not that there is push back against certain diets (vegan threads that make outrageous claims get the exact same pushback), it's that certain diets and approaches are so trendy right now that people think that's the only way to lose weight even if they are struggling with it. Telling people they have other options if they aren't aware of it is just an attempt at helping people make choices that feel easier for them and achieve the same results.
On vegan threads that don't push claims, people often assume that way of eating to be a conscious choice for reasons other than weight loss (think like people eating kosher).
Bottom line: eat any way you want as long as it's what you want to do, not what you think you need to do because you don't know any better. People being afraid of food rarely ends well in terms of weight loss.6 -
Ah, I just found it [the xmas dilemma thread] too, but [prior poster] beat me to linking it (and I'm also not right after her post, as it turns out!).
OP wasn't clear about what his problem was, he seemed to be handling it fine.
First post -- "give them away" -- good advice, IMO.
Second post -- "why is this a dilemma" -- genuine question because he was not clear.
Third and fourth posts, sympathetic.
Fifth -- regift.
Several more sympathetic.
OP explains the dilemma (temptation). That was (again) not clear from the first post, which seemed less about a problem, as it seemed handled.
Next post (10th) suggested that calling foods "bad" was not helpful (but agreed that food gifts are not a great idea).
A couple more sympathetic posts.
One person saying he or she likes cookie gifts but giving some advice from what seems to be a T2D perspective (carb exchanges).
A few more sympathetic responses.
And then Ryenday (the person who brought up the thread as a typical example of what she is complaining about) picking out the ONE (1) person who made a comment about calling foods bad being unhelpful and complaining about it in the thread.
Absolutely no one (not even the person who mentioned calling foods "bad" -- who I am pretty sure doesn't eat a lot of junk food herself, but has found that not making them offlimits but tempting has helped her with that as a strategy -- suggested that the poster should consume the sweets.29 -
fuzzylop72 wrote: »Is this generally true? I get the feeling most keto practitioners do intend on eating that way permanently, although I'll admit my knowledge of keto is pretty limited.
And most "diets" fail in maintenance because the lifestyle limitations aren't sustainable for the long haul. They may well intend to eat that way permanently - good luck to them with that.
All the people flooding the gyms this month intend to keep exercising forever, and almost all of them will be gone by end of next month.
But isn’t sustainablility an individual thing, not one size fits all?
I’ll get the woo storm for this but daily calorie restriction to a CICO determined level was not sustainable for me. It meant less than 1500 calories a day as maintenance and constant hangry. So I explored some WOE’s to see what might make a sustainable lifetime eating plan for me that would not have me gain weight but also would not turn me into Ms. Hangry.
I found a WOE that works for me. I don’t evangelize it, nor do I expect it would work for the next person. I do think it is worth trying. And it isn’t Keto, I like my potatoes too much but I sure think those looking for their individual sustainable path should try Keto if it sounds like a match for them. And I hope experienced Keto-ers see their threads with questions and help.
Because I do not think that a drive by reply along the lines of “you don’t need to do ‘x’ to lose weight” helps anyone. Or is supportive. Or even is common courtesy. IM(worthless)O it is mocking, ridiculing, shaming etc type of response.
YMMV.
I very frequently suggest that if people think a particular strategy for limiting calories more sustainably for them sounds appealing that they try it. I've said this about IF and keto and low carb. No one has ever given me a hard time for saying that (or for saying that low carb for me helps with appetite control -- I now think it's a little more complicated, but low carbing with lots of vegetables is one strategy that DOES help me have lower calories).
So I think you are wrong in claiming that people have problems with others trying and finding help with low carb or keto or IF, so on. (Many of the people in this thread have done things like IF and found it helpful, whether or not they use the term.)2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Ah, I just found it [the xmas dilemma thread] too, but [prior poster] beat me to linking it (and I'm also not right after her post, as it turns out!).
OP wasn't clear about what his problem was, he seemed to be handling it fine.
First post -- "give them away" -- good advice, IMO.
Second post -- "why is this a dilemma" -- genuine question because he was not clear.
Third and fourth posts, sympathetic.
Fifth -- regift.
Several more sympathetic.
OP explains the dilemma (temptation). That was (again) not clear from the first post, which seemed less about a problem, as it seemed handled.
Next post (10th) suggested that calling foods "bad" was not helpful (but agreed that food gifts are not a great idea).
A couple more sympathetic posts.
One person saying he or she likes cookie gifts but giving some advice from what seems to be a T2D perspective (carb exchanges).
A few more sympathetic responses.
And then Ryenday (the person who brought up the thread as a typical example of what she is complaining about) picking out the ONE (1) person who made a comment about calling foods bad being unhelpful and complaining about it in the thread.
Absolutely no one (not even the person who mentioned calling foods "bad" -- who I am pretty sure doesn't eat a lot of junk food herself, but has found that not making them offlimits but tempting has helped her with that as a strategy -- suggested that the poster should consume the sweets.
Well, you read that thread (and others) very differently than I do. No bridging our opinions, so have a nice day, I'll be shutting up rather than engage in futility.20 -
I invite others to read the thread and tell me what I am missing.10
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I invite others to read the thread and tell me what I am missing.
Why? You interpreted it differently. Isn't that enough said?15 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I invite others to read the thread and tell me what I am missing.
I read through it too, and couldn't see the issue. It's hard to tell context over text on a screen. What is considered rude or short, isn't usually the case. But people read (and read into) things differently.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I invite others to read the thread and tell me what I am missing.
Nothing.
This reminds me of a programming class I had back in school. The directions for this one assignment were very specific and clear. There were a couple of students that were "reading it differently" and couldn't figure out why they couldn't make their code do what was asked. I tried helping for a while, but when they would repeat the words, but wanted to do something different, it was obvious that I couldn't help.11 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I invite others to read the thread and tell me what I am missing.
Yeah, I only saw the one post talking about not demonizing sugar...all the rest seemed to be sympathetic or offer strategies to deal with the temptation.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I invite others to read the thread and tell me what I am missing.
I'm missing what you're missing too.
Edit: I also don't think the "poor fellow" was forced fleeing from the boards. They have 6 posts. They posted in what was a short and uneventful thread twice, once being the OP and second for clarification. I don't think mountain out of a molehill is an adequate analogy, that was a really nothing thread.11 -
notreallychris wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I invite others to read the thread and tell me what I am missing.
I read through it too, and couldn't see the issue. It's hard to tell context over text on a screen. What is considered rude or short, isn't usually the case. But people read (and read into) things differently.
I think it's really informative to see this is an example of what people are finding so offensive, as I don't see how anyone can read that thread and see lots of people telling OP to eat sweets and ignoring his T2D.7 -
Right now there's another thread that I think may be informative.
OP asked for help staying in the fat burning zone. Lots of people questioned the need to stay in the fat burning zone, assuming -- I suspect correctly -- that OP was worried about fat loss and buying into the myth that exercise is only useful for fat loss if you hit the fat burning zone and don't go over.
IMO, those are informative posts, and OP would be less served if people ignored that possible misunderstanding and just told her how to stay in the fat burning zone.
I mentioned that there are ways to monitor that and (for some) training reasons to do so, but also tried to be clear that it's not about fat loss. That's similar to how I try to answer the questions from someone struggling with some diet thing that people are often told they must do (like going low carb or eating lots of mini meals).5 -
Here's a dilemma. Someone is trying to go Keto on a vegetarian diet, and is having trouble finding protein sources and keeps going over on carbs. Yeah, that's going to happen. Do we explain to the person WHY trying to do both will be a struggle?3
-
KWinoGelato wrote: »fuzzylop72 wrote: »Is this generally true? I get the feeling most keto practitioners do intend on eating that way permanently, although I'll admit my knowledge of keto is pretty limited.
And most "diets" fail in maintenance because the lifestyle limitations aren't sustainable for the long haul. They may well intend to eat that way permanently - good luck to them with that.
All the people flooding the gyms this month intend to keep exercising forever, and almost all of them will be gone by end of next month.
But isn’t sustainablility an individual thing, not one size fits all?
I’ll get the woo storm for this but daily calorie restriction to a CICO determined level was not sustainable for me. It meant less than 1500 calories a day as maintenance and constant hangry. So I explored some WOE’s to see what might make a sustainable lifetime eating plan for me that would not have me gain weight but also would not turn me into Ms. Hangry.
I found a WOE that works for me. I don’t evangelize it, nor do I expect it would work for the next person. I do think it is worth trying. And it isn’t Keto, I like my potatoes too much but I sure think those looking for their individual sustainable path should try Keto if it sounds like a match for them. And I hope experienced Keto-ers see their threads with questions and help.
Because I do not think that a drive by reply along the lines of “you don’t need to do ‘x’ to lose weight” helps anyone. Or is supportive. Or even is common courtesy. IM(worthless)O it is mocking, ridiculing, shaming etc type of response.
YMMV.
Are you saying that the way you've chosen to eat enables you to eat more than the 1500 calories you've determined as your maintenance level, and still lose weight?
I now eat approx 1800 most days maintenance. But I do two 500 days to make up the caloric difference. Not denying cico. Just saying eating a DAILY calorie allotment determined by CICO without something more (WOE) was a quick road to not sustainable for me personally. Less than 1500 calories everyday makes for an awful Ms. Hangry for me.
Obviously what I find sustainable may not be for the next person and vise versa.
But how is that inconsistent with the advice that is given time and again on these boards? A calorie deficit is required for all. How you choose to achieve that calorie deficit, ie what "diet" or "WOE" you choose to follow (I put both in quotes because I really despise both of those words in this context) is largely individualized and can depend on what a person enjoys, what they find satiating, what medical issues they may have, etc.
You seem to be presenting the approach you're taking as something radical or controversial, but in fact, that's what most successful people on these boards do.
10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Ah, I just found it [the xmas dilemma thread] too, but [prior poster] beat me to linking it (and I'm also not right after her post, as it turns out!).
OP wasn't clear about what his problem was, he seemed to be handling it fine.
First post -- "give them away" -- good advice, IMO.
Second post -- "why is this a dilemma" -- genuine question because he was not clear.
Third and fourth posts, sympathetic.
Fifth -- regift.
Several more sympathetic.
OP explains the dilemma (temptation). That was (again) not clear from the first post, which seemed less about a problem, as it seemed handled.
Next post (10th) suggested that calling foods "bad" was not helpful (but agreed that food gifts are not a great idea).
A couple more sympathetic posts.
One person saying he or she likes cookie gifts but giving some advice from what seems to be a T2D perspective (carb exchanges).
A few more sympathetic responses.
And then Ryenday (the person who brought up the thread as a typical example of what she is complaining about) picking out the ONE (1) person who made a comment about calling foods bad being unhelpful and complaining about it in the thread.
Absolutely no one (not even the person who mentioned calling foods "bad" -- who I am pretty sure doesn't eat a lot of junk food herself, but has found that not making them offlimits but tempting has helped her with that as a strategy -- suggested that the poster should consume the sweets.
Especially confusing because the strategy that Ryenday explains in the post is to "eat a small amount of the food after a full meal".9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I invite others to read the thread and tell me what I am missing.
^^^Ditto. I thought your summary was spot on.6 -
Here's a dilemma. Someone is trying to go Keto on a vegetarian diet, and is having trouble finding protein sources and keeps going over on carbs. Yeah, that's going to happen. Do we explain to the person WHY trying to do both will be a struggle?
Those threads - I tend to just clickety out of them.
I mean if someone is going to "do" a WOE that has a name, at least for all that is holy, do some research and don't expect the forums to be it.8 -
KWinoGelato wrote: »fuzzylop72 wrote: »Is this generally true? I get the feeling most keto practitioners do intend on eating that way permanently, although I'll admit my knowledge of keto is pretty limited.
And most "diets" fail in maintenance because the lifestyle limitations aren't sustainable for the long haul. They may well intend to eat that way permanently - good luck to them with that.
All the people flooding the gyms this month intend to keep exercising forever, and almost all of them will be gone by end of next month.
But isn’t sustainablility an individual thing, not one size fits all?
I’ll get the woo storm for this but daily calorie restriction to a CICO determined level was not sustainable for me. It meant less than 1500 calories a day as maintenance and constant hangry. So I explored some WOE’s to see what might make a sustainable lifetime eating plan for me that would not have me gain weight but also would not turn me into Ms. Hangry.
I found a WOE that works for me. I don’t evangelize it, nor do I expect it would work for the next person. I do think it is worth trying. And it isn’t Keto, I like my potatoes too much but I sure think those looking for their individual sustainable path should try Keto if it sounds like a match for them. And I hope experienced Keto-ers see their threads with questions and help.
Because I do not think that a drive by reply along the lines of “you don’t need to do ‘x’ to lose weight” helps anyone. Or is supportive. Or even is common courtesy. IM(worthless)O it is mocking, ridiculing, shaming etc type of response.
YMMV.
Are you saying that the way you've chosen to eat enables you to eat more than the 1500 calories you've determined as your maintenance level, and still lose weight?
I now eat approx 1800 most days maintenance. But I do two 500 days to make up the caloric difference. Not denying cico. Just saying eating a DAILY calorie allotment determined by CICO without something more (WOE) was a quick road to not sustainable for me personally. Less than 1500 calories everyday makes for an awful Ms. Hangry for me.
Obviously what I find sustainable may not be for the next person and vise versa.
Less than 1500 makes you awefully hangry... so you go WAY below 1500 for two days?9 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I invite others to read the thread and tell me what I am missing.
Why? You interpreted it differently. Isn't that enough said?
A forum thread really isn't a piece of abstract art that can be interpreted differently and everyone is right because there's no right or wrong interpretations. You could just ask Kommodevaran what she meant and that's reality.13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions