Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
I am just going toss this out as well ok you are watching your intake of added sugars but be careful what you subsitute it with. I love raw coconut water it's good its healhly right? Yes but it also carries 12 grams of sugar ( I not going into the breakdown). Does my body know or care that I made the healhier choice? H#$@ NO all my body knows is that its 12 grams 112 calories for the whole bottle. Same with a banana 12 grams of very healthly stuff, 110 calories but if I am limiting my sugar intake to 24 grams for the day as some of the current all sugars intake diets suggest I am at my target with only the two items. So as others have suggested that is a pretty hard limit to keep under. Its so much easier to do a CI CO I can have my coconut water as a treat and try and stay below my calories for the day.
Yeah, CICO (when it involves counting, or counting, weighing, measuring) is NOT easier for me. But glad you've found what works for you.
My approach is surely depending on the concept of CICO too, yes?
0 -
I believe for most references for added sugar they're basically implying to cut back on calorific food sources.....not necessarily foods from natural sources. When replacing those refined sugar sources with more natural foods with sugar health markers are going to improve, hence why they are referred to as healthier for you. And of course CICO always needs to be in place.I am just going toss this out as well ok you are watching your intake of added sugars but be careful what you subsitute it with. I love raw coconut water it's good its healhly right? Yes but it also carries 12 grams of sugar ( I not going into the breakdown). Does my body know or care that I made the healhier choice? H#$@ NO all my body knows is that its 12 grams 112 calories for the whole bottle. Same with a banana 12 grams of very healthly stuff, 110 calories but if I am limiting my sugar intake to 24 grams for the day as some of the current all sugars intake diets suggest I am at my target with only the two items. So as others have suggested that is a pretty hard limit to keep under. Its so much easier to do a CI CO I can have my coconut water as a treat and try and stay below my calories for the day.
0 -
NHANES data for the first one, at least that has shown to be remotely accurate. Oh wait it's shown to be essentially worthless due to it's inaccuracy
Your next link is the Avena rat study? Are humans now rodents? Is the 12on/12off feeding protocol remotely similar to human eating behavior?
Drinking soda is associated with obesity? Also really weird sugar consumption peaked around '99, what happened to obesity rates since?
"But some people do, and there is scientific evidence backing up their experience."
LOL
Try again
(reposted so my reply would show. I couldn't get it to post with all the quotes)
If people need double-blind studies to know something, they can google it. They come to MFP threads for the personal experiences of people who have successfully lost weight and maintained that loss (hence the name of this thread "..for weight loss". Note the thread is not aimed at recompers. If you find the assertion that sugar is easily eliminated, and that elimination can lead to weight loss offensive, there is no reason at all for you to be in this thread, so you can avoid all the aggravation).
And millions of people have successfully lost weight by limiting sugars. Not your experience, I understand, but please understand that other people can experience different things than you. That does not make it ok to belittle and LOL them.
I'm concerned about your need to belittle and dismiss the experiences of others. You may want to talk to a specialist about that. Good luck with your recomp journey
LOL
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/0002-8223(94)90155-4/abstract?cc=y
Done on humans. Amount of total sugar in diet did not predict obesity, amount of added sugar did.
Again, that is a correlation and it is based on a food diary and food frequency questionnaire, how accurate have those been found to be? And do we need the pirates and global warming graph again?
http://ucdirc.ucdavis.edu/people/papers/pelchat_johnson_etal_NI2004.pdf
Human subjects. Images showing changes in the brain related to craving food. Scientific proof that food cravings exist.
No one denied that cravings exist, does it force the food into your mouth as well?
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/19/5160.short
Human subjects. MRIs showing brain differences in responses to images of food (i.e. chocolate cake). Cravings - different people respond to the reward pathways different
"Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we report that individual variation in trait reward sensitivity (as measured by the Behavioral Activation Scale) is highly correlatedwith activation to images of appetizing foods (e.g., chocolate cake, pizza) in a fronto–striatal–amygdala–midbrain network"
Pan A, Hu FB. Effects of carbohydrates on satiety: differences between liquid and solid food. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2011;14:385-90.
Sugar-added drinks in paticular add calories, but do not affect hunger. Drinking a sugary drink will not lower the rest of the day's calories. Conversely, replacing that soda with water in one's diet does not increase the rest of the day's calories. The sucrose adds calories, not nutrition, and 0 satisfaction.
Ok go on, how this has any bearing on what we've been talking about. Might also want to check the satiety index, what scores the highest? High carb/sugar laden food, hmmmm
http://www.banpac.org/pdfs/sfs/2011/sodas_cont_obesity_2_01_11.pdf
"All lines of evidence consistently support the conclusion that the consumption of sweetened beverages has contributed to the obesity epidemic. It is estimated that sweetened beverages account for at least one-fifth of the weight gained between 1977 and 2007 in the US population."
"Numerous well-designed observational studies
have found positive associations between
sweetened beverage intake and obesity or
adiposity"
LOL
"Most importantly, two randomized controlled trials
showed that successful reduction of sweetened beverage
intake resulted in reductions in adiposity among children.
Similarly, four trials to increase intake of sweetened
beverages consistently showed weight gain among freeliving
adults. Two additional trials that failed to detect a
significant impact on adiposity were less appropriately
designed to address this hypothesis."
How was activity and other intake controlled for, did they rely on self reported intake?
"There is substantial scientific evidence that added sugar causes weight gain based on how it affects metabolism and saiety. Added sugars can be safely reduced without getting rid of neccesary nutrients, and without an inevitable binge. Reducing added sugars for a period of time will retrain a dieter's tastes, so that it will be easier to resist sweets in the future, in the "real world". OP wins."
Actually there is not and you have not presented any. Where are the studies that show in a deficit the evil added sugars are causing fat gain? Anything eaten in a surplus will result in some sort of gain, if you want to single out added sugars as causing fat gain then show it. Can you tell me the difference between added sugars and natural sugars, sucrose from apples vs added sucrose for example? OP did not call for reducing added sugars, he called for reducing sugars, strong reading comprehension
Difference of sucrose in pop from sucrose in an apple. 10 oz Dr. Pepper 125 calories, 32g high fructose corn syrup (mix of fructose and glucose, like sucrose); 100g apple 50 calories,10 g sugars, less than 1 gram of which is sucrose. Having most of the sugar come from the sweeter fructose, containing protein, and containing fiber, the apple is more satisfying than the Dr. Pepper despite having fewer calories. It would also keep the dieter full for longer, keeping the dieter from needing other snacks before the next meal, unlike the Dr. Pepper. Having the apple, a glass of water, and a tablespoon of peanut butter would be a decent snack. The 10 ounces of Dr. Pepper would not be a decent, nutritious snack despite having the same number of calories. This is the difference between added sugar and naturally occurring sugar 1 - there is generally more added sugar than the naturally occurring sugar it is being compared to (I especially appreciated how in your post you implied that insoluble fiber acts the same a sucrose inside the body. LOL) 2 - The naturally occurring sugar occurs with buffers (fiber, protein) that slow it's absorbtion into the body, lessening the impact to the system, allowing it to give energy for longer than the boom-crash you get with some sugar added foods (M&Ms, sodas, fruit bears, etc.) Bringing up fruit, fiber, and complex carbs, and claiming they are the same as sugar-added foods is flimsy, an argument as empty as sucrose's calories.
Most people understand that when someone calls for reducing sugars, they mean added sugars, not the naturally occurring sugars in healthy foods, like vegetables and fruits. I have proven that consuming added sugars does not satisfy hunger, and so can lead to a dietary excess of calories, which would lead to weight gain. Sugars (added, as you seem to require the distinction), are, however, easy to remove, (OP's point), letting the dieter get rid of calories in order to be in a deficit without getting rid of foods with essential nutrients (like calcium, potassium, vitamin C, a variety of antioxidants, pectin, lutein and zeaxanthin, vitamin E, B vitamins, vitamin A etc., etc.). Removing added sugars by not drinking as much sugary pop has been shown to not result in an increase of calorie consumption, as you would expect if you simply remove any calorie-containing food from someone's diet. So, back to topic, (added) sugars are easy to remove from the diet, and removing them may make it easier (fewer cravings, less hunger) for dieters to have a caloric deficit without a nutritional defict.
That being said, I don't think sucrose is evil, and I believe in having the occassional treat. Pair the sucrose with some protein to make it less boom/crashy, and train tastebuds to enjoy lower levels of sweet when it works. Unfortunately, on a 1200 calorie/day diet, those treats can seem very occassional.
You seem to have let the entire argument go right over your head. The reason naturally occurring sugars are brought up in comparison to added sugars, esp when dealing with the exact same compound was in response to the poster who claimed added sugars were the sole culprit in their binging, also for the delusional sugar addicts, that say the tiniest bit of sugar causes binges, but yet we find out they are actually lying in that regard as they all can seemingly eat all manner of sugar in moderation.
I also appreciate how we went from added sugars right to sugar sweetened beverages standing in as a proxy for all added sugar product and you made the terrific leap in logic that some studies have shown consuming sugar sweetened beverages, therefore added sugars do not satisfy hunger. You have not presented anything of the sort to back that up.
Once again the OP made no distinction between added and natural. And then compounded that with saying they are good for nothing but a quick energy fix which is total ignorance.0 -
nicely putneanderthin wrote: »
I believe for most references for added sugar they're basically implying to cut back on calorific food sources.....not necessarily foods from natural sources. When replacing those refined sugar sources with more natural foods with sugar health markers are going to improve, hence why they are referred to as healthier for you. And of course CICO always needs to be in place.I am just going toss this out as well ok you are watching your intake of added sugars but be careful what you subsitute it with. I love raw coconut water it's good its healhly right? Yes but it also carries 12 grams of sugar ( I not going into the breakdown). Does my body know or care that I made the healhier choice? H#$@ NO all my body knows is that its 12 grams 112 calories for the whole bottle. Same with a banana 12 grams of very healthly stuff, 110 calories but if I am limiting my sugar intake to 24 grams for the day as some of the current all sugars intake diets suggest I am at my target with only the two items. So as others have suggested that is a pretty hard limit to keep under. Its so much easier to do a CI CO I can have my coconut water as a treat and try and stay below my calories for the day.
0 -
Well it works for me some days not all and if I have had a stressful day forget itSabine_Stroehm wrote: »I am just going toss this out as well ok you are watching your intake of added sugars but be careful what you subsitute it with. I love raw coconut water it's good its healhly right? Yes but it also carries 12 grams of sugar ( I not going into the breakdown). Does my body know or care that I made the healhier choice? H#$@ NO all my body knows is that its 12 grams 112 calories for the whole bottle. Same with a banana 12 grams of very healthly stuff, 110 calories but if I am limiting my sugar intake to 24 grams for the day as some of the current all sugars intake diets suggest I am at my target with only the two items. So as others have suggested that is a pretty hard limit to keep under. Its so much easier to do a CI CO I can have my coconut water as a treat and try and stay below my calories for the day.
Yeah, CICO (when it involves counting, or counting, weighing, measuring) is NOT easier for me. But glad you've found what works for you.
My approach is surely depending on the concept of CICO too, yes? I sense here that as much as we are trying to guide people gently into what will help its meet with a lot of whining of why that won't work a lot of resistance to proven methods. Did not several of us point out you have to tweek and find what works for you? If its not working then you try again you have to keep at this then hopefully you will find success.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Good lord deidre how many flags have you gotten on this thread alone?
I don't know -- I do know that some one is flagging my posts as spam as soon as I post them. I think they wrote a spam bot and sent it after me.
Will the flags do something for me in the long run? If I collect enough of them, do I get a warning or a prize?Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »I think it would be super helpful FOR THE LONG RUN if folks learned to build a diet around nutrient dense foods, then, if they can easily and readily incorporate sweet treats, or salty treats, or fatty treats, or whatever into their diets, go for it.
You bring up another great point. Are we offering advice for sustainable lifestyle changes or are we offering advice for weight loss?
Cause if it's just weight loss, I have a great diet. It involves going to the local elementary school and catching the flu.
-2 -
gently?
Well it works for me some days not all and if I have had a stressful day forget itSabine_Stroehm wrote: »I am just going toss this out as well ok you are watching your intake of added sugars but be careful what you subsitute it with. I love raw coconut water it's good its healhly right? Yes but it also carries 12 grams of sugar ( I not going into the breakdown). Does my body know or care that I made the healhier choice? H#$@ NO all my body knows is that its 12 grams 112 calories for the whole bottle. Same with a banana 12 grams of very healthly stuff, 110 calories but if I am limiting my sugar intake to 24 grams for the day as some of the current all sugars intake diets suggest I am at my target with only the two items. So as others have suggested that is a pretty hard limit to keep under. Its so much easier to do a CI CO I can have my coconut water as a treat and try and stay below my calories for the day.
Yeah, CICO (when it involves counting, or counting, weighing, measuring) is NOT easier for me. But glad you've found what works for you.
My approach is surely depending on the concept of CICO too, yes? I sense here that as much as we are trying to guide people gently into what will help its meet with a lot of whining of why that won't work a lot of resistance to proven methods. Did not several of us point out you have to tweek and find what works for you? If its not working then you try again you have to keep at this then hopefully you will find success.
I think weight loss relies on CICO. I also think there are many ways to create a deficit.
What's easiest and most sustainable for one person is not necessarily what's easiest and most sustainable for another.
In maintenance, there are many ways to create equilibrium. What is easiest and most sustainable for one person is not necessarily what's easiest and most sustainable for another.
THAT is reality.
(yes, I know this is a predominantly calorie counting bunch, being a calorie counting website, despite the name of the site/app.)0 -
OHC. IIFYM is for body-builders.
Ok, all you "eat what you want, just in moderation" people -- I totally agree with you. If you are a body builder, eat what you want, just in moderation.
You could have popped that little bit of information in there, that you are a BODY BUILDER.
0 -
The philosophy is not just for body builders and the site IIFYM is not the actual source of IIFYM, just someone that had the initiative to make a website and cash in, smart person. Oh, and eat anything you want in moderation is not what IIFYM refers to, it means after all your macro and micro nutrients have been met, then eat what you want....very different thing.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »OHC. IIFYM is for body-builders.
Ok, all you "eat what you want, just in moderation" people -- I totally agree with you. If you are a body builder, eat what you want, just in moderation.
You could have popped that little bit of information in there, that you are a BODY BUILDER.
0 -
can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.
direct from Deirdere's post on page 25:
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
so yes, someone did say that.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.
Right. NO ONE said that.
once again you have failed on reading go back to page 25:
"Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice."0 -
Are you agreeing with the idea of eliminating something or is this another "It's not really elimination if" things?Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
0 -
NHANES data for the first one, at least that has shown to be remotely accurate. Oh wait it's shown to be essentially worthless due to it's inaccuracy
Your next link is the Avena rat study? Are humans now rodents? Is the 12on/12off feeding protocol remotely similar to human eating behavior?
Drinking soda is associated with obesity? Also really weird sugar consumption peaked around '99, what happened to obesity rates since?
"But some people do, and there is scientific evidence backing up their experience."
LOL
Try again
(reposted so my reply would show. I couldn't get it to post with all the quotes)
If people need double-blind studies to know something, they can google it. They come to MFP threads for the personal experiences of people who have successfully lost weight and maintained that loss (hence the name of this thread "..for weight loss". Note the thread is not aimed at recompers. If you find the assertion that sugar is easily eliminated, and that elimination can lead to weight loss offensive, there is no reason at all for you to be in this thread, so you can avoid all the aggravation).
And millions of people have successfully lost weight by limiting sugars. Not your experience, I understand, but please understand that other people can experience different things than you. That does not make it ok to belittle and LOL them.
However, if you need studies to believe that some people who are trying to lose weight have an easier time when they limit added sugar:
http://www.andjrnl.org/article/0002-8223(94)90155-4/abstract?cc=y
Done on humans. Amount of total sugar in diet did not predict obesity, amount of added sugar did.
http://ucdirc.ucdavis.edu/people/papers/pelchat_johnson_etal_NI2004.pdf
Human subjects. Images showing changes in the brain related to craving food. Scientific proof that food cravings exist.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/26/19/5160.short
Human subjects. MRIs showing brain differences in responses to images of food (i.e. chocolate cake). Cravings - different people respond to the reward pathways differently
Pan A, Hu FB. Effects of carbohydrates on satiety: differences between liquid and solid food. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2011;14:385-90.
Sugar-added drinks in paticular add calories, but do not affect hunger. Drinking a sugary drink will not lower the rest of the day's calories. Conversely, replacing that soda with water in one's diet does not increase the rest of the day's calories. The sucrose adds calories, not nutrition, and 0 satisfaction.
http://www.banpac.org/pdfs/sfs/2011/sodas_cont_obesity_2_01_11.pdf
"All lines of evidence consistently support the conclusion that the consumption of sweetened beverages has contributed to the obesity epidemic. It is estimated that sweetened beverages account for at least one-fifth of the weight gained between 1977 and 2007 in the US population."
Don't worry that people who limit their added sugar during a diet won't be able to keep it up long-term. A dieter's sense of taste adapts. When someone regularly eats a lot of sweetened food, they will prefer sweet. After experiencing some time with less sucrose in their diet, their taste changes to less sweet. This is one reason eliminating and reducing sugar, even if it is temporary, can lead to better diet habits in the long run.
Sweet and sour preferences in young children and adults: role of repeated exposure.
Liem DG, de Graaf C
Physiol Behav. 2004 Dec 15; 83(3):421-9.
There is substantial scientific evidence that food cravings exist. There is substantial scientific evidence that added sugar causes weight gain based on how it affects metabolism and saiety. Added sugars can be safely reduced without getting rid of neccesary nutrients, and without an inevitable binge. Reducing added sugars for a period of time will retrain a dieter's tastes, so that it will be easier to resist sweets in the future, in the "real world". OP wins.
Not everyone gets cravings. Those who don't may not be the best positioned to give advise to those that do. They certainly aren't entitled to dismiss the experiences of those who have successfully gotten through cravings and reduced body fat.
I'm concerned about your need to belittle and dismiss the experiences of others. You may want to talk to a specialist about that. Good luck with your recomp journey
at the end of the day it boils down to CICO..
if you drink soda and overeat you will be over weight..
if you drink soda and are in a negative energy balance you will lose weight..
if you eat sugar and are in a surplus you gain weight..
if you eat sugar and are in a deficit then you will lose weight.- CICO is only the beginning, my very young padawan. CICO is great for someone losing less than 20 pounds, and having no issues, but it is not enough for:
- Those with constant hunger during a defict
- Those with hormonal/medical issues
- Those with no idea how to eat in a healthy way
- Those trying to lose weight for more than a few months
- Those with cravings
- Those wanting to preserve lean mass and those wanting to maximize visceral fat loss
- Those wanting the most effective workouts (doesn't cardio burn more calories than strength? So according to CICO you should bother with strength training when trying to lose
You need to go back to jedi school…
In all of the instances you listed, CICO would still apply. Yes, if you want preserve lean mass then macro and micro adherence is important and must be followed. however, no one is going to lose weight/fat in a calorie surplus, just by adhering to macros.
so here is the cliff notes version for you:
CICO for strictly weight loss.
macro/micro adherence for body recomp and overall health; however, CICO still applies.
And yes, CICO still applies to medical conditions the formula is just different on the in side.
I really don't understand your point on cardio and strength training. For strictly losing weight one does not need to exercise. As or cardio vs strength training it would boil down to what ones preference is and goals are. I prefer to lift heavy and do minimal cardio, but that is my choice.
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »OHC. IIFYM is for body-builders.
Ok, all you "eat what you want, just in moderation" people -- I totally agree with you. If you are a body builder, eat what you want, just in moderation.
You could have popped that little bit of information in there, that you are a BODY BUILDER.
you have a really bad habit of making broad assumptions that you do not understand….
-3 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »OHC. IIFYM is for body-builders.
Ok, all you "eat what you want, just in moderation" people -- I totally agree with you. If you are a body builder, eat what you want, just in moderation.
You could have popped that little bit of information in there, that you are a BODY BUILDER.
I'm not a bodybuilder. IIFYM and moderation are for everyone.
Chicken + rice + broccoli is a bro-diet. Guess that means it's only for bodybuilders. Clean eating is for moms who think that bread will poison their child. Junk food is only for fat people.0 -
Are you agreeing with the idea of eliminating something or is this another "It's not really elimination if" things?Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
That person's post was about moderation. And the bolded part was about differentiating betweeing WANTING to work something into your day and thinking you CAN'T. Not elimination.
But seems many of you guys are twisting words and posts around, so clearly the distinction isn't going to matter.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.
Right. NO ONE said that.
once again you have failed on reading go back to page 25:
"Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
And that quoted advice itself is the actual terrible advice.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
gently?
Well it works for me some days not all and if I have had a stressful day forget itSabine_Stroehm wrote: »I am just going toss this out as well ok you are watching your intake of added sugars but be careful what you subsitute it with. I love raw coconut water it's good its healhly right? Yes but it also carries 12 grams of sugar ( I not going into the breakdown). Does my body know or care that I made the healhier choice? H#$@ NO all my body knows is that its 12 grams 112 calories for the whole bottle. Same with a banana 12 grams of very healthly stuff, 110 calories but if I am limiting my sugar intake to 24 grams for the day as some of the current all sugars intake diets suggest I am at my target with only the two items. So as others have suggested that is a pretty hard limit to keep under. Its so much easier to do a CI CO I can have my coconut water as a treat and try and stay below my calories for the day.
Yeah, CICO (when it involves counting, or counting, weighing, measuring) is NOT easier for me. But glad you've found what works for you.
My approach is surely depending on the concept of CICO too, yes? I sense here that as much as we are trying to guide people gently into what will help its meet with a lot of whining of why that won't work a lot of resistance to proven methods. Did not several of us point out you have to tweek and find what works for you? If its not working then you try again you have to keep at this then hopefully you will find success.
I think weight loss relies on CICO. I also think there are many ways to create a deficit.
What's easiest and most sustainable for one person is not necessarily what's easiest and most sustainable for another.
In maintenance, there are many ways to create equilibrium. What is easiest and most sustainable for one person is not necessarily what's easiest and most sustainable for another.
THAT is reality.
(yes, I know this is a predominantly calorie counting bunch, being a calorie counting website, despite the name of the site/app.)
Yes but I think your chances of success are higher and more attainable with exercise along with balancing your intake of food ( notice I did not say sugars) old proven method here many times. That's what I think most of us are trying to convey this isn't easy it takes time and someone else pointed out it takes patience with yourself in getting to a point where everything clicks.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
maybe because it sets people up to have a bad relationship with food. If you view food as "bad" and it is something that you like then you are going to crave it, and eventually you will give in and binge on it and feel guilty and then the cycle just repeats itself < been there done that.
Additionally, people then take it to the extreme and say "well I can't eat anything bad so that means no bread, no pasta, never any fast food, no hot wings, no dessert, no nothing. So all they eat is chicken and vegetables, and then they wonder why they can reach their 1200 per day goal. The reason is that they have restricted themselves to the point where they view so many things as "bad" that they eat nothing. If you do not believe me go ahead and run a search for "can't reach daily calorie goal" or "can't reach 1200"
Rather, if people learned that food is not inherently "bad" and that you can eat what you like, stay in a deficit,and lose weight then thy would have better long term, sustainable success….It also sets people up with a more healthy relationship for food..
0 -
I am very much trying not to twist your words, but to understand what you are saying. You said I was ignorant and couldn't grasp things. So, I'm trying to grasp them.
Are you agreeing with the idea of eliminating something or is this another "It's not really elimination if" things?Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
That person's post was about moderation. And the bolded part was about differentiating betweeing WANTING to work something into your day and thinking you CAN'T. Not elimination.
But seems many of you guys are twisting words and posts around, so clearly the distinction isn't going to matter.
If it is cut out because you want to cut it out, have you eliminated it?
0 -
0
-
here is a thread of an example of what I was talking about above…OP restricted herself to a point where she does not feel like eating and can't reach 1500 a day which I believe is one pound per week loss for her…
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30562832#Comment_305628320 -
neanderthin wrote: »
The philosophy is not just for body builders and the site IIFYM is not the actual source of IIFYM, just someone that had the initiative to make a website and cash in, smart person. Oh, and eat anything you want in moderation is not what IIFYM refers to, it means after all your macro and micro nutrients have been met, then eat what you want....very different thing.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »OHC. IIFYM is for body-builders.
Ok, all you "eat what you want, just in moderation" people -- I totally agree with you. If you are a body builder, eat what you want, just in moderation.
You could have popped that little bit of information in there, that you are a BODY BUILDER.
Lol, no. You just don't get it.
0 -
nice…bookmarked for the next sugar thread….0 -
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.direct from Deirdere's post on page 25:
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
so yes, someone did say that.
eating in moderation
keeping eating what they are eating, just in moderation
two different things, bro.
-1 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »OHC. IIFYM is for body-builders.
Ok, all you "eat what you want, just in moderation" people -- I totally agree with you. If you are a body builder, eat what you want, just in moderation.
You could have popped that little bit of information in there, that you are a BODY BUILDER.
I'm not a bodybuilder. IIFYM and moderation are for everyone.
Chicken + rice + broccoli is a bro-diet. Guess that means it's only for bodybuilders. Clean eating is for moms who think that bread will poison their child. Junk food is only for fat people.
and the train is now headed directly for a tornado. . . . . .
0 -
If that is your actual point, then why don't you just say that? That's a reasonable thing. I don't agree, but it's a reasonable idea.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
maybe because it sets people up to have a bad relationship with food. If you view food as "bad" and it is something that you like then you are going to crave it, and eventually you will give in and binge on it and feel guilty and then the cycle just repeats itself < been there done that.
Additionally, people then take it to the extreme and say "well I can't eat anything bad so that means no bread, no pasta, never any fast food, no hot wings, no dessert, no nothing. So all they eat is chicken and vegetables, and then they wonder why they can reach their 1200 per day goal. The reason is that they have restricted themselves to the point where they view so many things as "bad" that they eat nothing. If you do not believe me go ahead and run a search for "can't reach daily calorie goal" or "can't reach 1200"
Rather, if people learned that food is not inherently "bad" and that you can eat what you like, stay in a deficit,and lose weight then thy would have better long term, sustainable success….It also sets people up with a more healthy relationship for food..
When people hear, "You don't have to change the foods you eat. You can eat them all in moderation," many reasonable people hear that and think you're saying, "You don't have to change the foods you eat. You can eat them all in moderate amounts." So, if their diet is almost all junk food, they can still eat all that and just eat single servings.
As has been demonstrated here, "in moderation" means different things to different people.
I had a hell of a time trying to figure out what "clean" and "in moderation" meant to the users of this site. I'd ask, but get different answers. I figured out that "clean" meant very different things to different people...but most of them mean "healthy". "In moderation" also means different things to different people...but most of them mean "limit the junk."
I really think the "mostly clean" group and the "in moderation" group are saying and doing the same things and may be arguing over diction.
I disagree that cutting things out means there will be some kind of inevitable, inexorable binge (much less subsequent weight gain.) I know that doesn't hold for everyone because it doesn't hold for me. I wouldn't ever suggest that you give my advice because I think mine is better, lol. Different people offer different advice and that's good. That's why the board is so awesome. People can get a variety of ideas.
But this "clean" and "in moderation" stuff doesn't mean anything until the people using it explain what they mean.-1 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.direct from Deirdere's post on page 25:
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
so yes, someone did say that.
eating in moderation
keeping eating what they are eating, just in moderation
two different things, bro.
LOL you can walk it back all you want, that is what you said…
I don't really see the difference between your parsing…but feel free to break it down for me..
eating in moderation = moderating the foods that you currently eat into a calorie deficit
keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation = moderating the foods that you currently eat into a deficit..
but feel free to enlighten me...
and you can hint at name calling by calling me a "bro" but that is just a sign of a small mind and acknowledgement that you have no better comeback than "bro"…pathetic…
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