Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
No, I wanted you to explain what I asked you to explain, which I went through more than once.
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 about
I'd repeat it, but it's already there to be read, so the point of repeating it? I don't see a point.
Maybe some other time.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
and the little yappy dog in the background is not helping the situation.-3
-
If you won't even bother simply restating the specific question you want answered, then I'm going to guess that at this point, regardless of what you're wanting me to answer, you will simply disagree with me or say "this is not what I wanted to know, this is not about you, blah blah blah"
No, I wanted you to explain what I asked you to explain, which it went through more than once.
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 about
I'd repeat it, but it's already there to be read, so the point of repeating it? I don't see a point.
Maybe some other time.
0 -
It's there to be read, if you'd like to go back and read it.
If you won't even bother simply restating the specific question you want answered, then I'm going to guess that at this point, regardless of what you're wanting me to answer, you will simply disagree with me or say "this is not what I wanted to know, this is not about you, blah blah blah"
No, I wanted you to explain what I asked you to explain, which it went through more than once.
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 about
I'd repeat it, but it's already there to be read, so the point of repeating it? I don't see a point.
Maybe some other time.
0 -
Here is a plethora of gifs to demonstrate the stupidity of this thread.
(this was such a solid episode, omg. Poor Leoben.)
0 -
Mgorham said - "For some of us carbs/sugar are trigger foods that knock us off track".
I am one of those people. The word moderation does not come into eating half a muffin or half a cake. Let's be honest here, I will have the whole thing, eating a stale piece of cake the next day has no appeal whatsoever. GF cakes and muffins are shocking the next day.
This used to be me... when I put restrictions on food.0 -
Lol she wanted her to explain a point ana said when ana never said anything close to that.
Lolollllllooooll
Can you tell me what point i was supposed to explain? because honestly, I don't want to wade through 6 pages to find wherever her random question was, since I Have no idea which question she's referring to now or when it was asked. I don't see what's so hard about restating a specific query when someone asks either. That'd be like if you're in class and you had this exchange:
You: "hey prof, can you explain what we were talking about 30 minutes ago in lecture?"
Prof: "Sure Stacy, could you specify the topic you were wanting clarification on?"
You: ".... No, because we already talked about it 30 minutes ago. Just go back into your lecture notes and figure out which slide would have been discussed 30 minutes ago and then explain it to me."
Prof: "Why not just specify which slide and specify your question?"
You: "Pft, I give up, you're clearly just not going to answer my question because it totally doesn't pertain to you like omg"0 -
Which I did for digestive (medical) purposes, not to lose weight. Those are two very different topics and have two very different purposes.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
0 -
Must admit that one side bowled me as well. Once you eliminate gluten properly, it is a whole new ball game as a lot of food become out of bounds.0
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Yes, because when I eat it I want to fart on everyone every waking minute of the day, my stomach is distended and painful, and I struggle with constipation and diarrhea. But I don't eat this way for weight management, which is what this thread was about - cutting something out for weight management.
So, nice try.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Must admit that one side bowled me as well. Once you eliminate gluten properly, it is a whole new ball game as a lot of food become out of bounds.
So? I haven't eliminated or cut back on any one specific thing for weight loss purposes, and I eat the GF alternatives. donuts, cakes, brownies, soy sauce, pasta, pizza, yuuuuum.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I think that involves a conversation between Ana and someone else and perhaps is best left for them to work out. They don't need a referee.-1
-
Like, how to fit 300 treats into a year's worth of consumption? It's pretty easy to do that, considering not all "treats" will actually be that high in calories. e.g. you can eat half a Mars bar for idk 150 calories or less? I forget what it logged as in my example above. Or you can even make your own version of things; I made protein PB cookies and for the whole recipe I think I was able to eat like... 6 cookies and it was less than 200 calories lol. If you wanted to eat 300 200-calorie treats in a year, that's 60,000 calories in 365 days, or about 164 calories per day averaged out. So.... log the food you want, eat it, and then eat other food without going over your intake needs every time. Going to maintenance or above sometimes is fine, and pretty much no one maintains on 1200 calories, so it's not likely to be an issue for most to accomplish this if they'd like to eat 15g of skittles.Lol she wanted her to explain a point ana said when ana never said anything close to that.
Lolollllllooooll
Can you tell me what point i was supposed to explain? because honestly, I don't want to wade through 6 pages to find wherever her random question was, since I Have no idea which question she's referring to now or when it was asked. I don't see what's so hard about restating a specific query when someone asks either. That'd be like if you're in class and you had this exchange:
You: "hey prof, can you explain what we were talking about 30 minutes ago in lecture?"
Prof: "Sure Stacy, could you specify the topic you were wanting clarification on?"
You: ".... No, because we already talked about it 30 minutes ago. Just go back into your lecture notes and figure out which slide would have been discussed 30 minutes ago and then explain it to me."
Prof: "Why not just specify which slide and specify your question?"
You: "Pft, I give up, you're clearly just not going to answer my question because it totally doesn't pertain to you like omg"
I think what she wants is for you to explain the 300 treats thing you made up and said you said. Her debating style has no sense.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »It sure as **** doesn't mean "eat as many different foods in a day as you like, as long as you only have one serving size of each".
Did you even look at the original menu?
One donut, one latte.
Two slices of pizza, salad, drink.
Chicken, mashed potatoes, biscuit, green beans, drink.
Ice cream.
That's all it is. I don't know why you think that's a billion servings.
It's not rocket science, or are you just arguing for the sake of it.
You can have donuts and lattes. Have one or the other on different days.
You want pizza? Have one slice. If you can't fit ice cream in every day, don't.
Have it when it fits...There. You can eat whatever foods you like in moderation. Anyone can set up a ridiculous menu that won't work. Too bad that's a strawman argument since no one ever claimed that's what moderation means. You can do the same thing with a meal that contains no sugar or "processed" foods.
One slice of pizza? No thanks
It's an example. You're being as obtuse and pedantic as the other one.
Obtuse and pedantic. You said it Fred. This whole thread reminds me of an English dept meeting. Yak yak yak and nothing is really changed. Of course, I was very entertained until ...well, everything gets old, and all good things must come to an end. Until the next 'sugar thread.'0 -
I think that involves a conversation between Ana and someone else and perhaps is best left for them to work out. They don't need a referee.
Considering she isn't willing to simply repost the specific question she wanted me to address, it does appear that we need someone to try and help me figure out what the frack this is all about. Unless you want to go through the last 6 pages to find the specific question that she asked that has yet to be answered? because I'd much rather just be told than to have to sift through dozens of posts.0 -
oh well, someday I'll learn how to post a gif
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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?
I'm jumping ahead tons of posts, so maybe this gets resolved, but I kind of think the argument is whether you think what you do should be called elimination or not.
In my mind I haven't eliminated anything for weight loss reasons. Some foods I don't eat because they aren't how I care to eat or I don't like them (most fast food, pre packaged meals, stuff like Twinkies or pop tarts, cold cereal, whatever). I haven't eliminated these because I simply don't want to eat them. Other foods I eat lots less than I used to because the calories aren't worth the trade off or they don't fit my goals as well as some other foods. Pasta is an example of this--I used to make pasta with a veggie based sauce (home made) and cheese quite often, because I love fast dinners and it is, and I like vegetarian dinners. Now, it is hard to fit in my macro goals bc of protein and I like other options that do just as well and it has lots of calories (depending on the cheese and olive oil and how much pasta) so I almost never have such a meal now, but if I wanted it I easily could. Other foods--pie, my favorite Chicago style pizza--I almost never have because I consider them special treats, but I certainly haven't eliminated them. I look forward to them as a special occasion food.
I don't see how it benefits me to focus on declaring things off limits (elimination) vs on what I do try to eat and if I want some pasta I will experiment with ways to have it that better fit my overall diet (not too hard) or eat a bit lighter the rest of the day. One thing that is important to me is being able to go out to my favorite restaurants and interesting new ones regularly, so I do make that fit. If baking pie were my thing more than restaurants, I'd probably make different choices.0 -
Nup, I'm exhausted, I'm going for a nap as I have to work tonight.
Good luck to all of you but you may have to agree to disagree. xx0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm jumping ahead tons of posts, so maybe this gets resolved, but I kind of think the argument is whether you think what you do should be called elimination or not.
Some foods I don't eat because they aren't how I care to eat or I don't like them . . .
Other foods I eat lots less than I used to because the calories aren't worth the trade off or they don't fit my goals as well as some other foods . . .
Other foods I almost never have because I consider them special treats, but I certainly haven't eliminated them. I look forward to them as a special occasion food . . .
This is MFP -- nothing gets resolved.
I believe these are the basic issues in this thread:
1. reduce sugar to lose weight, (page 1)
2. no, eat everything in moderation, (page 1 - 6)
3. well, here's a menu in moderation and it's way over calories and macros (page 7)
4. that's not moderation (page 7 - now)
So you are right on target!
I agree with you wholeheartedly -- to lose weight, know your numbers then meet them by eating less of most foods, eating rarely of some foods, and planning for the higher calories foods.
I would like to think that we can all agree on that formula.0 -
I don't understand why we are splitting hairs here, or why people are against elimination. If it works for someone (for various reasons) who are we to tell them it should be otherwise?
I completely eliminated quite a few things, like doughnuts, because they were things I used to eat for the mere act of chewing and swallowing. I don't like them, I don't crave them, and I don't need them. How would removing something I don't care for set back my diet?
I cut way back on some things, like peanut butter, because they're simply not important enough to spend a lot of calories on. I eat just enough of it to satisfy my desire for eating said item, and it just happens to be not as often or as much as I used to mindlessly eat. How would cutting back on things that I don't crave often set back my diet?
I replaced some items, like bread or soda, with lower calorie alternatives. I buy soy and bran bread, for example, because it has the same texture as conventional bread for half the calories and serves the exact purpose I used bread for. How would replacing something set back my diet if the alternative tasted just as good to me as the original and doesn't leave me deprived?
For some things moderation doesn't work for me. If I want a whole bag of chips I will still eat a whole bag of chips, and I can do that guilt free BECAUSE I have eliminated/cut back/replaced enough things that aren't too important to me to make room for things that are more important and enjoyable to me, and if I go over by a lot, nothing a quick 500 calorie fast day can't solve.
How exactly is trying to make the dieting process easier for yourself, using whatever tools you have available (including elimination) setting back your diet, when the whole point and definition of a sustainable diet is choosing the easiest route that still gets results and can last long term?0 -
lemurcat12 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?
I'm jumping ahead tons of posts, so maybe this gets resolved...
This is MFP. Nothing, ever, gets resolved.
0 -
They're not all 200 calorie treats. But that doesn't matter. It's the process of How On Earth we are supposed to work these things into our diets that I was curious about.
Like, how to fit 300 treats into a year's worth of consumption? It's pretty easy to do that, considering not all "treats" will actually be that high in calories. e.g. you can eat half a Mars bar for idk 150 calories or less? I forget what it logged as in my example above. Or you can even make your own version of things; I made protein PB cookies and for the whole recipe I think I was able to eat like... 6 cookies and it was less than 200 calories lol. If you wanted to eat 300 200-calorie treats in a year, that's 60,000 calories in 365 days, or about 164 calories per day averaged out. So.... log the food you want, eat it, and then eat other food without going over your intake needs every time. Going to maintenance or above sometimes is fine, and pretty much no one maintains on 1200 calories, so it's not likely to be an issue for most to accomplish this if they'd like to eat 15g of skittles.Lol she wanted her to explain a point ana said when ana never said anything close to that.
Lolollllllooooll
Can you tell me what point i was supposed to explain? because honestly, I don't want to wade through 6 pages to find wherever her random question was, since I Have no idea which question she's referring to now or when it was asked. I don't see what's so hard about restating a specific query when someone asks either. That'd be like if you're in class and you had this exchange:
You: "hey prof, can you explain what we were talking about 30 minutes ago in lecture?"
Prof: "Sure Stacy, could you specify the topic you were wanting clarification on?"
You: ".... No, because we already talked about it 30 minutes ago. Just go back into your lecture notes and figure out which slide would have been discussed 30 minutes ago and then explain it to me."
Prof: "Why not just specify which slide and specify your question?"
You: "Pft, I give up, you're clearly just not going to answer my question because it totally doesn't pertain to you like omg"
I think what she wants is for you to explain the 300 treats thing you made up and said you said. Her debating style has no sense.
I think have this correct, for a yearly thing:
-Count the number of treats we have eliminated
-Figure out the total calories of said treats
-Divide the calories by 365 (or 366 in a leap year)
-eat that number of calories of one of those treats per day
In that way, we can diet for a year and not eliminate anything,
It would be very difficult on McDonald's Shake Day. Also Edwards Frozen Pie Days. And Dairy Queen blizzard day. Heck, it would be very hard on many days.
It would also be a little expensive, buying the 300 (in our example) treats and only eating 164 calories of each. Since we didn't establish whether it was feasible, we must assume that money isn't an issue. (Even at a low estimate of $2 each, that's a good chunk of change on food we won't be eating.)
I'm not sure that backing out 164 calories will leave room for meeting the macros, but if you say it can be done, then I'll have to agree to it.
For me, personally, it will probably be easier to just eliminate some treats and have others in moderation (which will be on special occasions, but is "in moderation" and not to be confused with saving them for special occasions.)
I am very glad to hear that you've been able to eliminate gluten products without gaining weight. Next time someone suggests that eliminating food will lead to some kind of inevitable binge and consequent weight gain, you can tell them how you've been able to do it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions