Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
Assume one needs to spend a year losing weight. This person needs to eat 1200/day because they are "a special snowflake." They cannot work all of the hundreds of yummy things into their diet in that year because even once a week makes it hard to "meet their macros and micros." So, they obviously will not be eating all those hundreds of yummy foods and will be eliminating some, at least while they lose weight.
Can you agree that it would be reasonable for them to eliminate some of those foods?
Yes.
0 -
Assume one needs to spend a year losing weight. This person needs to eat 1200/day because they are "a special snowflake." They cannot work all of the hundreds of yummy things into their diet in that year because even once a week makes it hard to "meet their macros and micros." So, they obviously will not be eating all those hundreds of yummy foods and will be eliminating some, at least while they lose weight.
Can you agree that it would be reasonable for them to eliminate some of those foods?
Yes.
I have to re-heat my potatoes and peppers. They're leftover from yesterday, so I guess I risk gaining weight by eating them.
I live on the edge.
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
That's what "in moderation" means.
You might see, now, how it would be difficult to not eliminate anything...and how some people might have to save things for special occasions.
Except this is not eliminating anything.
"completely remove or get rid of (something)."
I am not completely removing KFC (although I actually did, because I have been gluten-free for almost 5 years to resolve my painful digestive issues). If I want to eat KFC, then I either make room for it ahead of time or I will eat what I can on that day and then eat more another day. I made baked oatmeal today,and it wasn't great but it was good enough that I wanted to eat it again at dinner. But I didn't have the calories for it so instead I'll be eating more of it tomorrow. Have I eliminated it? No. Do I have to save it for a special occasion? No, unless tomorrow is a special occasion that I'm unaware of.
Assume one needs to spend a year losing weight. This person needs to eat 1200/day because they are "a special snowflake." They cannot work all of the hundreds of yummy things into their diet in that year because even once a week makes it hard to "meet their macros and micros." So, they obviously will not be eating all those hundreds of yummy foods and will be eliminating some, at least while they lose weight.
Can you agree that it would be reasonable for them to eliminate some of those foods?
If they want to, sure. Do they need to? No. Because it's highly unlikely that eating like 200 calories of candy and chocolate in a week will prevent them from meeting their macro and micronutrient goals.0 -
Assume one needs to spend a year losing weight. This person needs to eat 1200/day because they are "a special snowflake." They cannot work all of the hundreds of yummy things into their diet in that year because even once a week makes it hard to "meet their macros and micros." So, they obviously will not be eating all those hundreds of yummy foods and will be eliminating some, at least while they lose weight.
Can you agree that it would be reasonable for them to eliminate some of those foods?
Yes.
I have to re-heat my potatoes and peppers. They're leftover from yesterday, so I guess I risk gaining weight by eating them.
I live on the edge.
Your leftover comment has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.0 -
Assume one needs to spend a year losing weight. This person needs to eat 1200/day because they are "a special snowflake." They cannot work all of the hundreds of yummy things into their diet in that year because even once a week makes it hard to "meet their macros and micros." So, they obviously will not be eating all those hundreds of yummy foods and will be eliminating some, at least while they lose weight.
Can you agree that it would be reasonable for them to eliminate some of those foods?
Yes.
I have to re-heat my potatoes and peppers. They're leftover from yesterday, so I guess I risk gaining weight by eating them.
I live on the edge.
Your leftover comment has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation.
I believe it's a humorous reference to another currently debacle-ing MFP thread.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Eating in moderation isn't all that simple, is it? It takes planning and forethought. It takes tweaking and figuring. It takes following limits, just like every other food plan.
No one said it didn't
It was merely a clarification on the discussion that has been going on for several pages now. Some people indeed implied that there weren't limits.
If you'll look back you will see pics from a food journal and some absurdity that ensued about definitions of moderation. My comment is entirely relevant.0 -
baconslave wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Eating in moderation isn't all that simple, is it? It takes planning and forethought. It takes tweaking and figuring. It takes following limits, just like every other food plan.
No one said it didn't
It was merely a clarification on the discussion that has been going on for several pages now. Some people indeed implied that there weren't limits.
If you'll look back you will see pics from a food journal and some absurdity that ensued about definitions of moderation. My comment is entirely relevant.
no one implied there weren't limits, other than the people who don't know what moderation means, I guess.0 -
Baconslave, why did you get flagged for that comment?? Apparently, your comment is Spam???
I feel very sorry for the people who volunteer as moderators having to wade through this thread just because someone disliked what you said. By the way, I certainly don't see a problem with your post on any level.
To those who flag - have the courage to say why.-1 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I am calling BS on "eat what you want, just in moderation, and you'll lose weight."
Here's a daily menu of the foods I want in moderation:
Donut, latte.
2 slices pizza, green salad with Ranch dressing.
KFC chicken breast, side of mashed potatoes with gravy, green beans, biscuit.
1/2 cup vanilla ice cream.
All food eaten in moderation. Am I'm supposed to exercise off 1,300 calories each day?
This is NOT what I consider moderation.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
baconslave wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Eating in moderation isn't all that simple, is it? It takes planning and forethought. It takes tweaking and figuring. It takes following limits, just like every other food plan.
No one said it didn't
It was merely a clarification on the discussion that has been going on for several pages now. Some people indeed implied that there weren't limits.
If you'll look back you will see pics from a food journal and some absurdity that ensued about definitions of moderation. My comment is entirely relevant.
no one implied there weren't limits, other than the people who don't know what moderation means, I guess.
Which was exactly what I was addressing.0 -
baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Eating in moderation isn't all that simple, is it? It takes planning and forethought. It takes tweaking and figuring. It takes following limits, just like every other food plan.
No one said it didn't
It was merely a clarification on the discussion that has been going on for several pages now. Some people indeed implied that there weren't limits.
If you'll look back you will see pics from a food journal and some absurdity that ensued about definitions of moderation. My comment is entirely relevant.
no one implied there weren't limits, other than the people who don't know what moderation means, I guess.
Which was exactly what I was addressing.
oh, okay. Well yeah definitely, there are always limitations. Even if you don't track your weight, you can only eat so much. And whether you cut out foods or don't, you will always have a limit if you are trying to lose, maintain, or gain. Moderation just allows you to eat things you enjoy when it can fit into your daily allotment, which I thought was kind of self explanatory lol.0 -
baconslave wrote: »baconslave wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Eating in moderation isn't all that simple, is it? It takes planning and forethought. It takes tweaking and figuring. It takes following limits, just like every other food plan.
No one said it didn't
It was merely a clarification on the discussion that has been going on for several pages now. Some people indeed implied that there weren't limits.
If you'll look back you will see pics from a food journal and some absurdity that ensued about definitions of moderation. My comment is entirely relevant.
no one implied there weren't limits, other than the people who don't know what moderation means, I guess.
Which was exactly what I was addressing.
oh, okay. Well yeah definitely, there are always limitations. Even if you don't track your weight, you can only eat so much. And whether you cut out foods or don't, you will always have a limit if you are trying to lose, maintain, or gain. Moderation just allows you to eat things you enjoy when it can fit into your daily allotment, which I thought was kind of self explanatory lol.
And I thought so too but apparently people some people don't get it and some just want to be obtuse about it.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
That's what "in moderation" means.
You might see, now, how it would be difficult to not eliminate anything...and how some people might have to save things for special occasions.
Except this is not eliminating anything.
"completely remove or get rid of (something)."
I am not completely removing KFC (although I actually did, because I have been gluten-free for almost 5 years to resolve my painful digestive issues). If I want to eat KFC, then I either make room for it ahead of time or I will eat what I can on that day and then eat more another day. I made baked oatmeal today,and it wasn't great but it was good enough that I wanted to eat it again at dinner. But I didn't have the calories for it so instead I'll be eating more of it tomorrow. Have I eliminated it? No. Do I have to save it for a special occasion? No, unless tomorrow is a special occasion that I'm unaware of.
Assume one needs to spend a year losing weight. This person needs to eat 1200/day because they are "a special snowflake." They cannot work all of the hundreds of yummy things into their diet in that year because even once a week makes it hard to "meet their macros and micros." So, they obviously will not be eating all those hundreds of yummy foods and will be eliminating some, at least while they lose weight.
Can you agree that it would be reasonable for them to eliminate some of those foods?
If they want to, sure. Do they need to? No. Because it's highly unlikely that eating like 200 calories of candy and chocolate in a week will prevent them from meeting their macro and micronutrient goals.
200 calories is 1/2 of a blueberry muffin, so that's one week. It takes that Blueberry Muffin Day down to 1000 other calories, but that's one week.
Now we have 299.5 things left for the other 51 weeks, unless we are just throwing the other half of the muffin away, in which case it's 299.
I really, really want to know how you have this worked out - that nothing needs to be eliminated, all things are included, in moderation.
I just "can't grasp" how that works. Please do enlighten me.0 -
We keep hearing "Don't eliminate food, eat what you like in moderation as long as you stay within your daily limit"
So in real life - meet your friend for breakfast and have a latte and donut, go to lunch with hubby and have 2 slices of pizza, take the kids to KFC and watch them eat. Nothing for you as you are already over your calories for the day. Oh hey, I went for a walk today I can bum a couple of chips off the kids.
Yeah sure - I don't feel deprived.
You feel deprived because you can't eat out three times in one day?
Moderation isn't a per-meal thing, IMO. It's a per-day thing. If there's something heavy in calories I want, I work my day around that. If I can't fit it in, I try again another day.
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
That's what "in moderation" means.
That's what moderation means? lol
Moderation is restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
ok.
0 -
baconslave wrote: »Eating in moderation isn't all that simple, is it? It takes planning and forethought. It takes tweaking and figuring. It takes following limits, just like every other food plan.
Actually it is pretty simple. I log something I feel like eating. If it doesn't fit my macros, I remove it from my log and log something else I feel like eating instead. And hten I will eat the original thing the next day.
wow
to me this is not a sustainable way to be for the long term.
again, different strokes, since you KNOW what works for you for a lifetime.0 -
obscuremusicreference wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
Would it help you to consider the entire category of calorie-dense foods as one? That's what I do. As in, I can have pizza OR fried chicken in one day, not both.
To me it would be easier (than "moderation" as defined above) to have a few great favorites, be it pizza, or nachos or wings, or whatever and build those into a natural, normal lifestyle (as they naturally occur) and otherwise to eat a nutrient dense, and tasty whole foods diet.
Rather than saying ANYTHING (as long as it fits my 1500 hypothetical calories, and the rest of my day, and I worked out, or will work out, and it fits my macros), I'd much more easily say: I eat a few key tasty-assed calorie bombs, when they naturally occur in life, and otherwise I try to fuel my body with great tasting nutrient dense foods.
Dunno. But that's basically what I do already. All these years. I build my diet around great tasting and healthful foods, with the occasional indulgence in something I wouldn't normally eat regularly because it's so calorically dense, and nutrient light.
And then yes, I'll keep limiting added sugars, and highly processed convenience foods. Works for me.0 -
baconslave wrote: »Eating in moderation isn't all that simple, is it? It takes planning and forethought. It takes tweaking and figuring. It takes following limits, just like every other food plan.
DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
That's what "in moderation" means.
You might see, now, how it would be difficult to not eliminate anything...and how some people might have to save things for special occasions.
Except this is not eliminating anything.
"completely remove or get rid of (something)."
I am not completely removing KFC (although I actually did, because I have been gluten-free for almost 5 years to resolve my painful digestive issues). If I want to eat KFC, then I either make room for it ahead of time or I will eat what I can on that day and then eat more another day. I made baked oatmeal today,and it wasn't great but it was good enough that I wanted to eat it again at dinner. But I didn't have the calories for it so instead I'll be eating more of it tomorrow. Have I eliminated it? No. Do I have to save it for a special occasion? No, unless tomorrow is a special occasion that I'm unaware of.
Assume one needs to spend a year losing weight. This person needs to eat 1200/day because they are "a special snowflake." They cannot work all of the hundreds of yummy things into their diet in that year because even once a week makes it hard to "meet their macros and micros." So, they obviously will not be eating all those hundreds of yummy foods and will be eliminating some, at least while they lose weight.
Can you agree that it would be reasonable for them to eliminate some of those foods?
If they want to, sure. Do they need to? No. Because it's highly unlikely that eating like 200 calories of candy and chocolate in a week will prevent them from meeting their macro and micronutrient goals.
200 calories is 1/2 of a blueberry muffin, so that's one week. It takes that Blueberry Muffin Day down to 1000 other calories, but that's one week.
Now we have 299.5 things left for the other 51 weeks, unless we are just throwing the other half of the muffin away, in which case it's 299.
I really, really want to know how you have this worked out - that nothing needs to be eliminated, all things are included, in moderation.
I just "can't grasp" how that works. Please do enlighten me.
Who eats 300 different pieces of sweets in a week? If you want to eat half a muffin, go ahead. Then you can eat the other half the next day.
Everything I ate when I was overweight, if I still like its taste (which is pretty much everything, and I've now included peanut butter. especially chocolate peanut butter), I still eat now. I eat about 630 calories per meal atm. So normally for breakfast I'd eat an omelet, and then figure out the rest of my meal based on what I feel like eating. I might feel like eating potato pancakes. But I can't eat 4 of them like I'd want to because then I'll not be able to get in a good protein:carb:fat ratio, which for me is important at breakfast to help with satiety during the day (while I can eat most of my carbs in the evening and not get hungry). So instead of 4, I eat 2, and make some bacon and idk, add some PB. Then the next day I may eat those other 2 pancakes, or I will maket hem for lunch.
Your logic against moderation basically makes no sense. No food needs to be eliminated for weight loss, and if someone wants to eat a piece of chocolate every day then they can. If they find that after a few months they start getting tired of that daily chocolate, or they are not getting in enough veggies or something because of it, they might choose to scale it back to every other day or to 5x a week.
That's moderation. you eat anything you want, within your caloric and macro and micro (if you monitor those - I don't because I eat a variety of foods already) needs.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Eating in moderation isn't all that simple, is it? It takes planning and forethought. It takes tweaking and figuring. It takes following limits, just like every other food plan.
Actually it is pretty simple. I log something I feel like eating. If it doesn't fit my macros, I remove it from my log and log something else I feel like eating instead. And hten I will eat the original thing the next day.
wow
to me this is not a sustainable way to be for the long term.
again, different strokes, since you KNOW what works for you for a lifetime.
Not really sure how eating something you crave a day later, or simply working it into your day as someone else noted above, it not sustainable. You know what wasn't sustainable? Putting limits on when I could eat "bad" food. Actually, just having categories for good and bad food wasn't sustainable, and then I regained most of the weight I lost because I wasn't able to sustain it. So being mindful of one's eating habits while eating things one loves is pretty sustainable. I can't fit in a donut last minute? Not a huge deal, I'll just have a sucker or something else with a similar flavour instead, and then eat the donut for breakfast the next day if I really really want it. Much easier than saying I am allowed to eat chips twice a year, at which point I'd likely wind up eating the whole bag. Plus 2 other bags.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
That's what "in moderation" means.
That's what moderation means? lol
Moderation is restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
ok.
Yep.
I can't speak for others, but I certainly never claimed it would be a particularly easy thing to do....
But then I also don't think anyone can claim to have made a "lifestyle" change until they're actually dead, so what do I know?
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »baconslave wrote: »Eating in moderation isn't all that simple, is it? It takes planning and forethought. It takes tweaking and figuring. It takes following limits, just like every other food plan.
Actually it is pretty simple. I log something I feel like eating. If it doesn't fit my macros, I remove it from my log and log something else I feel like eating instead. And hten I will eat the original thing the next day.
wow
to me this is not a sustainable way to be for the long term.
again, different strokes, since you KNOW what works for you for a lifetime.
Not really sure how eating something you crave a day later, or simply working it into your day as someone else noted above, it not sustainable. You know what wasn't sustainable? Putting limits on when I could eat "bad" food. Actually, just having categories for good and bad food wasn't sustainable, and then I regained most of the weight I lost because I wasn't able to sustain it. So being mindful of one's eating habits while eating things one loves is pretty sustainable. I can't fit in a donut last minute? Not a huge deal, I'll just have a sucker or something else with a similar flavour instead, and then eat the donut for breakfast the next day if I really really want it. Much easier than saying I am allowed to eat chips twice a year, at which point I'd likely wind up eating the whole bag. Plus 2 other bags.
Great. I'm mindful my way, you're mindful your way. The difference is, you think your way is the only way. cheers :drinker:0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
Would it help you to consider the entire category of calorie-dense foods as one? That's what I do. As in, I can have pizza OR fried chicken in one day, not both.
To me it would be easier (than "moderation" as defined above) to have a few great favorites, be it pizza, or nachos or wings, or whatever and build those into a natural, normal lifestyle (as they naturally occur) and otherwise to eat a nutrient dense, and tasty whole foods diet.
Rather than saying ANYTHING (as long as it fits my 1500 hypothetical calories, and the rest of my day, and I worked out, or will work out, and it fits my macros), I'd much more easily say: I eat a few key tasty-assed calorie bombs, when they naturally occur in life, and otherwise I try to fuel my body with great tasting nutrient dense foods.
Dunno. But that's basically what I do already. All these years. I build my diet around great tasting and healthful foods, with the occasional indulgence in something I wouldn't normally eat regularly because it's so calorically dense, and nutrient light.
And then yes, I'll keep limiting added sugars, and highly processed convenience foods. Works for me.
Calorie-dense foods occur in my life pretty much daily. I don't indulge in anything, because everything can be very easily worked into my caloric intake. Whether that means eating to maintenance or even a bit above maintenance if needed, doesn't matter. Most of the time it fits into my deficit. The times I've eaten to maintenance I had no problems fitting things into my macros. But then again I don't consider any foods to be healthful vs not healthful. It's all food, and I just see it as sources of a) tastiness, b) calories, c) macros.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
That's what "in moderation" means.
That's what moderation means? lol
Moderation is restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
ok.
Yep.
I can't speak for others, but I certainly never claimed it would be a particularly easy thing to do....
But then I also don't think anyone can claim to have made a "lifestyle" change until they're actually dead, so what do I know?
That's an EXCELLENT point about a lifestyle change. So often we see folks who've been doing something for a few days, weeks, months.... declaring what they know.
We don't really know, do we.
And yes, moderation is bandied about as "easy". Glad to see you don't.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
That's what "in moderation" means.
You might see, now, how it would be difficult to not eliminate anything...and how some people might have to save things for special occasions.
Except this is not eliminating anything.
"completely remove or get rid of (something)."
I am not completely removing KFC (although I actually did, because I have been gluten-free for almost 5 years to resolve my painful digestive issues). If I want to eat KFC, then I either make room for it ahead of time or I will eat what I can on that day and then eat more another day. I made baked oatmeal today,and it wasn't great but it was good enough that I wanted to eat it again at dinner. But I didn't have the calories for it so instead I'll be eating more of it tomorrow. Have I eliminated it? No. Do I have to save it for a special occasion? No, unless tomorrow is a special occasion that I'm unaware of.
Assume one needs to spend a year losing weight. This person needs to eat 1200/day because they are "a special snowflake." They cannot work all of the hundreds of yummy things into their diet in that year because even once a week makes it hard to "meet their macros and micros." So, they obviously will not be eating all those hundreds of yummy foods and will be eliminating some, at least while they lose weight.
Can you agree that it would be reasonable for them to eliminate some of those foods?
If they want to, sure. Do they need to? No. Because it's highly unlikely that eating like 200 calories of candy and chocolate in a week will prevent them from meeting their macro and micronutrient goals.
200 calories is 1/2 of a blueberry muffin, so that's one week. It takes that Blueberry Muffin Day down to 1000 other calories, but that's one week.
Now we have 299.5 things left for the other 51 weeks, unless we are just throwing the other half of the muffin away, in which case it's 299.
I really, really want to know how you have this worked out - that nothing needs to be eliminated, all things are included, in moderation.
I just "can't grasp" how that works. Please do enlighten me.
Who eats 300 different pieces of sweets in a week? If you want to eat half a muffin, go ahead. Then you can eat the other half the next day.
Your logic against moderation basically makes no sense. No food needs to be eliminated for weight loss, and if someone wants to eat a piece of chocolate every day then they can. If they find that after a few months they start getting tired of that daily chocolate, or they are not getting in enough veggies or something because of it, they might choose to scale it back to every other day or to 5x a week.
That's moderation. you eat anything you want, within your caloric and macro and micro (if you monitor those - I don't because I eat a variety of foods already) needs.
I'm not arguing against moderation. I'm try "to grasp" how you propose it will work without eliminating anything.
It's not 300 things in a week, remember? We have a year here. This person has eliminated those 300 things, but going on your recommendation of not eliminating anything, we have to work those 300 things into this year of weight loss.
Week One is 1/2 of a blueberry muffin, leaving 299.5 things for the next 51 weeks, or 299 if they must throw out the other half of the muffin.
How are we going to work those 299.5 (or 299) things into the next 51 weeks?
0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »We keep hearing "Don't eliminate food, eat what you like in moderation as long as you stay within your daily limit"
So in real life - meet your friend for breakfast and have a latte and donut, go to lunch with hubby and have 2 slices of pizza, take the kids to KFC and watch them eat. Nothing for you as you are already over your calories for the day. Oh hey, I went for a walk today I can bum a couple of chips off the kids.
Yeah sure - I don't feel deprived.
You feel deprived because you can't eat out three times in one day?
Moderation isn't a per-meal thing, IMO. It's a per-day thing. If there's something heavy in calories I want, I work my day around that. If I can't fit it in, I try again another day.
Mhm. Or if I were unwise enough to eat out at every single meal (who does that?) then I'd either just eat to maintenance, have a big calorie day, or I'd be smart and figure out ahead of time what I can order to fit within my calories. I would not wind up without dinner in this scenario. I've had impromptu meals out and been able to fit it within my calories or within maintenance needs. Takes a few minutes to Google the menu and figure out what will work for macros. Or if I can't, then I just say "meh" and eat what looks good, because one day above my needs won't make me turn into a whale.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »obscuremusicreference wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
Would it help you to consider the entire category of calorie-dense foods as one? That's what I do. As in, I can have pizza OR fried chicken in one day, not both.
To me it would be easier (than "moderation" as defined above) to have a few great favorites, be it pizza, or nachos or wings, or whatever and build those into a natural, normal lifestyle (as they naturally occur) and otherwise to eat a nutrient dense, and tasty whole foods diet.
Rather than saying ANYTHING (as long as it fits my 1500 hypothetical calories, and the rest of my day, and I worked out, or will work out, and it fits my macros), I'd much more easily say: I eat a few key tasty-assed calorie bombs, when they naturally occur in life, and otherwise I try to fuel my body with great tasting nutrient dense foods.
Dunno. But that's basically what I do already. All these years. I build my diet around great tasting and healthful foods, with the occasional indulgence in something I wouldn't normally eat regularly because it's so calorically dense, and nutrient light.
And then yes, I'll keep limiting added sugars, and highly processed convenience foods. Works for me.
Calorie-dense foods occur in my life pretty much daily. I don't indulge in anything, because everything can be very easily worked into my caloric intake. Whether that means eating to maintenance or even a bit above maintenance if needed, doesn't matter. Most of the time it fits into my deficit. The times I've eaten to maintenance I had no problems fitting things into my macros. But then again I don't consider any foods to be healthful vs not healthful. It's all food, and I just see it as sources of a) tastiness, b) calories, c) macros.
Well, time will tell if macros are enough for a lifetime.
and cherry picking. cheers
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions