Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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 -
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
-
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions