Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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
What does that even mean?
which part0 -
This content has been removed.
-
emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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
What does that even mean?
which part
Both
The poster said she doesn't consider any foods to be healthful versus not healthful. I question whether that approach will work for the long run as an approach.
Cherry picking: doesn't that speak for itself on an internet forum?0 -
Again, we aren't talking about you.
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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?
So are we totally ignoring the fact that cutting the size of your portions down is not elimination?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm not singling out any particular post but if people like me were good at eating in moderation I would never have gotten to 400 lbs. sometimes giving up something for an extended period of time shows a level of commitment and belief in ones self.
Then there are things like giving up carbs to break through a plateau or shaking things up. BTW I equate carbs to sugar for me it's the same thing. I've lost weight eating 120-160 carbs a day but once I hit a long plateau (months) I felt it was important to eliminate some of the things I had reintroduced into my diet in moderation because I can see I was slipping.
The number one benefit I have seen thus far is my nightly cravings for crap has completely disappeared. The only thing I can attribute this to is my reduction of carb intake (5% or 24g a day) because that is the only thing that has changed. In my case I still have 90-100lbs to lose so it's more important that I reach my goal then worrying about what I can't have for now. For some of us carbs/sugar are trigger foods that knock us off track.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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
What does that even mean?
which part
Both
The poster said she doesn't consider any foods to be healthful versus not healthful. I question whether that approach will work for the long run as an approach.
Cherry picking: doesn't that speak for itself on an internet forum?
I fail to see why looking at food in terms of nutrients (macros, etc) instead of viewing certain foods as good or bad would not be a sustainable approach.
Why do you question that approach? A concrete answer.
Choosing foods simply based on macros and deeming all foods as "good for you"? (if none are bad for you), no. I don't think it is.
It's not "demonizing" but no. IMHO, McDonalds isn't "good for you" other than meeting some magical arbitrary macros. Not fear mongering. Not demonizing. It's just barely food.
Im out. The dogs need walking. cheers0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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
What does that even mean?
which part
Both
The poster said she doesn't consider any foods to be healthful versus not healthful. I question whether that approach will work for the long run as an approach.
Cherry picking: doesn't that speak for itself on an internet forum?
Yes, it is sustainable, because I don't eat donuts all day. In order to meet my macros, while also feeling satisfied, I eat a variety of foods that are considered to be healthy by most people. Not demonizing food and labeling something as inherently healthy or not healthy =/= being ignorant to eating nutritiously.0 -
That's up to ana. It could go either way. Maybe 1/2 of a muffin means it is included, maybe we will eat the other half another day.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Again, we aren't talking about you.
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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?
So are we totally ignoring the fact that cutting the size of your portions down is not elimination?
I just don't know how this works. All I know is nothing needs to be eliminated for this year.
I just don't know how it gets worked in.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Again, we aren't talking about you.
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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?
So are we totally ignoring the fact that cutting the size of your portions down is not elimination?
I think the issue is that people don't look up these words in the dictionary. Both moderation and elimination are pretty self-explanatory but I did have to post their definitions in here for some posters.0 -
What this thread has taught me:
Acquire even more LBM so I don't have to eat 1200 calories per day and struggle to eat donuts, pizza, and lattes all in one day.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »What this thread has taught me:
Acquire even more LBM so I don't have to eat 1200 calories per day and struggle to eat donuts, pizza, and lattes all in one day.
preach. I'm looking to give "reverse dieting" a try as well after I finish this cut to see how high I can get my calories before I start gaining. Or to see if it works at all.0 -
As I eat my 200g serving of Santa's Cookies Ice Cream with mixed in micronutrient dense foods all throughout my day.0
-
That's up to ana. It could go either way. Maybe 1/2 of a muffin means it is included, maybe we will eat the other half another day.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Again, we aren't talking about you.
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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?
So are we totally ignoring the fact that cutting the size of your portions down is not elimination?
I just don't know how this works. All I know is nothing needs to be eliminated for this year.
I just don't know how it gets worked in.
Push off you calories until later in the day or finish calories earlier in the day.
Increase activity on that day.
Increase activity overall moving forward.0 -
My two cents...sugar is possibly the HARDEST thing for me to cut. I backslide HARD. I've learned I'm quite happy eating sugar and carbs at and even over my macros for them. I can even *GASP* lose weight eating like this too! When I cut calories I cut them from all over, but I will not give up my pasta and chocolate!0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Someone makes a comment about 200.calories in candy or chocolate and she takes it as someone saying 300 different treats. Lol
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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.
Let's see 299 treats left, 364 days left. Not that hard.
Ikr? Like now I'm confused where all that came from lol. But if someone gave me 365 of THESE, I'd eat one a day no problem
0 -
That's up to ana. It could go either way. Maybe 1/2 of a muffin means it is included, maybe we will eat the other half another day.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Again, we aren't talking about you.
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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?
So are we totally ignoring the fact that cutting the size of your portions down is not elimination?
I just don't know how this works. All I know is nothing needs to be eliminated for this year.
I just don't know how it gets worked in.
No, it's not up to me. Because I did not invent the meaning of the word "elimination." I will again repost its dictionary definition.
completely remove or get rid of (something).
"a policy that would eliminate inflation"
synonyms: remove, get rid of, put an end to, do away with, end, stop, terminate, eradicate, destroy, annihilate, stamp out, wipe out, extinguish
Included synonyms in case the definition itself wasn't clear.
Eating a muffin over 2 days doesn't eliminate that muffin... because you've eaten it.0 -
You know very well that isn't what happened there.
Someone makes a comment about 200.calories in candy or chocolate and she takes it as someone saying 300 different treats. Lol
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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.
Let's see 299 treats left, 364 days left. Not that hard.
Ikr? Like now I'm confused where all that came from lol. But if someone gave me 365 of THESE, I'd eat one a day no problem
I would think something that you claim is SO EASY would be easily explained.
Guess not.
Maybe one day you will explain it.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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
What does that even mean?
which part
Both
The poster said she doesn't consider any foods to be healthful versus not healthful. I question whether that approach will work for the long run as an approach.
Cherry picking: doesn't that speak for itself on an internet forum?
I fail to see why looking at food in terms of nutrients (macros, etc) instead of viewing certain foods as good or bad would not be a sustainable approach.
Why do you question that approach? A concrete answer.
Choosing foods simply based on macros and deeming all foods as "good for you"? (if none are bad for you), no. I don't think it is.
It's not "demonizing" but no. IMHO, McDonalds isn't "good for you" other than meeting some magical arbitrary macros. Not fear mongering. Not demonizing. It's just barely food.
Im out. The dogs need walking. cheers
That's your own opinion. Mcdonalds is food to me - protein, fat, and carbs. Calcium and iron as well. Would I eat it daily if I weren't GF? No, because I'd get tired of eating it daily and I wouldn't be able to properly meet my macro needs eating only mcdonalds every day.
Yep, I choose all foods based on macros. Ate calorie-dense foods today because I was lazy and it all fit my macros. Does it matter that I ate sloppy joes or went over my sodium? nope, because it's one day out of many and one type of meal out of many. moderation leads to variation.0 -
That's up to ana. It could go either way. Maybe 1/2 of a muffin means it is included, maybe we will eat the other half another day.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Again, we aren't talking about you.
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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?
So are we totally ignoring the fact that cutting the size of your portions down is not elimination?
I just don't know how this works. All I know is nothing needs to be eliminated for this year.
I just don't know how it gets worked in.
No, it's not up to me. Because I did not invent the meaning of the word "elimination." I will again repost its dictionary definition.
completely remove or get rid of (something).
"a policy that would eliminate inflation"
synonyms: remove, get rid of, put an end to, do away with, end, stop, terminate, eradicate, destroy, annihilate, stamp out, wipe out, extinguish
Included synonyms in case the definition itself wasn't clear.
Eating a muffin over 2 days doesn't eliminate that muffin... because you've eaten it.
I invite you to go back, re-read it (I went through it twice) and then explain how it's going to work.0 -
You know very well that isn't what happened there.
Someone makes a comment about 200.calories in candy or chocolate and she takes it as someone saying 300 different treats. Lol
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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.
Let's see 299 treats left, 364 days left. Not that hard.
Ikr? Like now I'm confused where all that came from lol. But if someone gave me 365 of THESE, I'd eat one a day no problem
I would think something that you claim is SO EASY would be easily explained.
Guess not.
Maybe one day you will explain it.
Yes it is. I stated that it's not hard to fit in 200 calories of "junk" in a day if someone really wants to, and you somehow turned that into eating 300 individual items. Do I eat chocolate every day? Sometimes, sure. Most of the time, no. That goes for everything I eat - I don't eat pomegranates every day they are in season because I don't buy enough for daily consumption and because even when I do I eventually tire of them. I love eating omelets for breakfast but even I need to switch it up with protein pancakes or baked oatmeal or whey + greek yogurt and other things.
I and others have also already explained how moderation works. And how it is pretty easy.
Steps:
1) Wake up, log something that you want to eat.
2) Eat the food.
3) Log the rest of your day to fit the rest of your macro and micro needs if you monitor micros (and when I first started here, I did actually use entries with micro information, and I consistently was over in many of my micros despite still eating crappy food a lot)
4) repeat the next day.
Alternate scenario:
1) Log your meals as you go, eat.
2) It's dinner time, you are craving ice cream. Log how much you desire, see if it fits. If you monitor macros and eating 200ml ice cream means you can't get in your last 10g of protein, then lower that ice cream to 100ml and now you can eat that 10g of protein from like... yogurt or something. Or eat 200ml ice cream and eat an additional 10g of protein tomorrow.
3) eat.
4) repeat the next day.
My diary is pretty much a 180+day example of how moderation works.0 -
None of that explains what I asked, which you can go back and read.
You know very well that isn't what happened there.
Someone makes a comment about 200.calories in candy or chocolate and she takes it as someone saying 300 different treats. Lol
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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.
Let's see 299 treats left, 364 days left. Not that hard.
Ikr? Like now I'm confused where all that came from lol. But if someone gave me 365 of THESE, I'd eat one a day no problem
I would think something that you claim is SO EASY would be easily explained.
Guess not.
Maybe one day you will explain it.
Yes it is. I stated that it's not hard to fit in 200 calories of "junk" in a day if someone really wants to, and you somehow turned that into eating 300 individual items. Do I eat chocolate every day? Sometimes, sure. Most of the time, no. That goes for everything I eat - I don't eat pomegranates every day they are in season because I don't buy enough for daily consumption and because even when I do I eventually tire of them. I love eating omelets for breakfast but even I need to switch it up with protein pancakes or baked oatmeal or whey + greek yogurt and other things.
I and others have also already explained how moderation works. And how it is pretty easy.
Steps:
1) Wake up, log something that you want to eat.
2) Eat the food.
3) Log the rest of your day to fit the rest of your macro and micro needs if you monitor micros (and when I first started here, I did actually use entries with micro information, and I consistently was over in many of my micros despite still eating crappy food a lot)
4) repeat the next day.
Alternate scenario:
1) Log your meals as you go, eat.
2) It's dinner time, you are craving ice cream. Log how much you desire, see if it fits. If you monitor macros and eating 200ml ice cream means you can't get in your last 10g of protein, then lower that ice cream to 100ml and now you can eat that 10g of protein from like... yogurt or something. Or eat 200ml ice cream and eat an additional 10g of protein tomorrow.
3) eat.
4) repeat the next day.
My diary is pretty much a 180+day example of how moderation works.
And, again, it has nothing to do with you.
Also, if you go back and read, I'd mentioned the "hundreds" of items before you came up with the first 200 calories in a week. That really doesn't matter, though.
The question remains.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
That's up to ana. It could go either way. Maybe 1/2 of a muffin means it is included, maybe we will eat the other half another day.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Again, we aren't talking about you.
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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?
So are we totally ignoring the fact that cutting the size of your portions down is not elimination?
I just don't know how this works. All I know is nothing needs to be eliminated for this year.
I just don't know how it gets worked in.
No, it's not up to me. Because I did not invent the meaning of the word "elimination." I will again repost its dictionary definition.
completely remove or get rid of (something).
"a policy that would eliminate inflation"
synonyms: remove, get rid of, put an end to, do away with, end, stop, terminate, eradicate, destroy, annihilate, stamp out, wipe out, extinguish
Included synonyms in case the definition itself wasn't clear.
Eating a muffin over 2 days doesn't eliminate that muffin... because you've eaten it.
I invite you to go back, re-read it (I went through it twice) and then explain how it's going to work.
Wow, i'm within my 1200 calorie goal and I was able to eat THREE treats.
0 -
You know very well that isn't what happened there.
Someone makes a comment about 200.calories in candy or chocolate and she takes it as someone saying 300 different treats. Lol
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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.
Let's see 299 treats left, 364 days left. Not that hard.
Ikr? Like now I'm confused where all that came from lol. But if someone gave me 365 of THESE, I'd eat one a day no problem
I would think something that you claim is SO EASY would be easily explained.
Guess not.
Maybe one day you will explain it.
Yes it is. I stated that it's not hard to fit in 200 calories of "junk" in a day if someone really wants to, and you somehow turned that into eating 300 individual items. Do I eat chocolate every day? Sometimes, sure. Most of the time, no. That goes for everything I eat - I don't eat pomegranates every day they are in season because I don't buy enough for daily consumption and because even when I do I eventually tire of them. I love eating omelets for breakfast but even I need to switch it up with protein pancakes or baked oatmeal or whey + greek yogurt and other things.
I and others have also already explained how moderation works. And how it is pretty easy.
Steps:
1) Wake up, log something that you want to eat.
2) Eat the food.
3) Log the rest of your day to fit the rest of your macro and micro needs if you monitor micros (and when I first started here, I did actually use entries with micro information, and I consistently was over in many of my micros despite still eating crappy food a lot)
4) repeat the next day.
Alternate scenario:
1) Log your meals as you go, eat.
2) It's dinner time, you are craving ice cream. Log how much you desire, see if it fits. If you monitor macros and eating 200ml ice cream means you can't get in your last 10g of protein, then lower that ice cream to 100ml and now you can eat that 10g of protein from like... yogurt or something. Or eat 200ml ice cream and eat an additional 10g of protein tomorrow.
3) eat.
4) repeat the next day.
My diary is pretty much a 180+day example of how moderation works.
Why even bother explaining I t to her. She doesn't understand it because she doesn't want to understand it. Somehow she turned 200 calories a day into 300 different treats.
Because ignorance is annoying OKAY, lol.-1 -
Again, for what? The fifth time?
That's up to ana. It could go either way. Maybe 1/2 of a muffin means it is included, maybe we will eat the other half another day.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Again, we aren't talking about you.
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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?
So are we totally ignoring the fact that cutting the size of your portions down is not elimination?
I just don't know how this works. All I know is nothing needs to be eliminated for this year.
I just don't know how it gets worked in.
No, it's not up to me. Because I did not invent the meaning of the word "elimination." I will again repost its dictionary definition.
completely remove or get rid of (something).
"a policy that would eliminate inflation"
synonyms: remove, get rid of, put an end to, do away with, end, stop, terminate, eradicate, destroy, annihilate, stamp out, wipe out, extinguish
Included synonyms in case the definition itself wasn't clear.
Eating a muffin over 2 days doesn't eliminate that muffin... because you've eaten it.
I invite you to go back, re-read it (I went through it twice) and then explain how it's going to work.
Wow, i'm within my 1200 calorie goal and I was able to eat THREE treats.
It has nothing to do with you.
I give up. I don't think you are even going to attempt an explanation and have tired of waiting for one.
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.
No I feel deprived because I'm hungry (grrrrrrr that is my tummy rumbling)
Even if I ate that at home, by dinner time I would hungry.0 -
Again, for what? The fifth time?
That's up to ana. It could go either way. Maybe 1/2 of a muffin means it is included, maybe we will eat the other half another day.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Again, we aren't talking about you.
how does one work in 300 different treat on one a week.
Not asking about what you do.
You are always telling everyone not to eliminate things. Daily, you repeat that foods shouldn't be saved for special occasions.
ugh, yes. Exactly. Moderation doesn't mean "I want to eat KFC all day, so I will have one serving of each item that I want at every meal." it means "you know, I'm really craving some KFC. What can I eat today that will fit my macros? Oh, I can't have the popcorn chicken and the burger? I guess I'll have the burger tomorrow!"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?
So are we totally ignoring the fact that cutting the size of your portions down is not elimination?
I just don't know how this works. All I know is nothing needs to be eliminated for this year.
I just don't know how it gets worked in.
No, it's not up to me. Because I did not invent the meaning of the word "elimination." I will again repost its dictionary definition.
completely remove or get rid of (something).
"a policy that would eliminate inflation"
synonyms: remove, get rid of, put an end to, do away with, end, stop, terminate, eradicate, destroy, annihilate, stamp out, wipe out, extinguish
Included synonyms in case the definition itself wasn't clear.
Eating a muffin over 2 days doesn't eliminate that muffin... because you've eaten it.
I invite you to go back, re-read it (I went through it twice) and then explain how it's going to work.
Wow, i'm within my 1200 calorie goal and I was able to eat THREE treats.
It has nothing to do with you.
I give up. I don't think you are even going to attempt an explanation and have tired of waiting for one.
You wanted me to explain how moderation works. This is an example of moderation and of fitting in treats.
So, this could be Sally's diet. Because god knows I would not only eat 1200 calories. BUt if sally needs to eat 1200 calories then this is what Sally can eat if she wants.
I have explained moderation and how one eats treats if one desires many, many times. And we already established the meaning of moderation and elimination. At this point I have no idea what the flying frack you are confused about0
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