Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
Can't believe this thread is still so active!DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I think eating in moderation is a great idea. But I also use a single serving of food* as my definition of a moderate amount of food. For instance, I eat Cheerios in moderation. I have 28 g (1 serving) for breakfast and 28 g (1 serving) for snack. I don't eat veg in moderation. I eat 332 g (four servings) of veg at lunch.
And I don't think it has a thing to do with serving sizes. It has to do (for me) with eating a mostly nutrient-dense diet, although a tasty one that doesn't involve "diet" foods (as I define them), and including treats or more indulgent foods (like ribs) as they fit, and not in excessive quantities that would mean eating in quantities that would cause you specifically to gain weight.
Serving sizes have nothing to do with it, because people are different sizes and have different levels of activity.Other people think moderation means eating a tiny portion of a single serving of food. One example that was presented was buying a Hershey's chocolate bar, breaking off 1/7th of it, and eating it. Then, tomorrow, you get to eat another 1/7th, and etc.
I'd call that limiting or restricting food, but to each his own.
I don't see any conflict between eating in moderation and limiting foods. What I dislike is the idea that some foods are "bad" and eating them makes you "bad" or that they must be eliminated. But on the other hand, there are foods I don't eat, because they don't fit into my lifestyle. I just never really want to eat them, given everything else. If for some reason it's easier for you to call that elimination, I think that's fine. For me, since if something happened that meant I wanted to eat the food (road trip, fast food is the only real option, seems strangely appealing in context) I wouldn't be violating any rules or promises to myself, so that means it's not been eliminated, it's just something I rarely eat, because I don't want to, just like I never eat cold cereal, because I dislike it.
Part of this is that I see so many women (including my mother) place moral value on food choices--"oh, I'm being bad and having this cookie" and I think that's not good for lots of reasons, so I resist it, and the talk about "clean eating" and "elimination" and so on seems too much like it.
But in that I think it's easier to do something positive than negative, I do think it's easier to eat better when it's part of a switched lifestyle that focuses on health and not just eating less. It's just, again, I see no real benefits to calling this elimination or restriction. It's a positive thing--eating healthy.Other people think moderation means "eat what you want as long as it fits within your numbers" but when presented with a menu of junk food that fits within my numbers, they say "that's not moderation."
IMO, eating all junk food isn't moderation and everyone knows that. You seem to have this idea of the new poster who has no idea that KFC and donuts 24/7 isn't a health conscious way to eat, and I reject that idea as a straw man (some people eat that way, sure, but they know why they are gaining weight and that it's not healthy and they know it's not moderation).
But the other problem, of course, is that your hypothetical menu didn't fit your numbers--it was about double your calories. [Edit: I'd forgotten you had the second menu with less food. But that illustrates my point, since if you see that you can't eat enough food eating a particular way, you modify. It's common sense. I always tell people who say they are hungry to look at what they are eating and when they are getting hungry and change things around.] I think where we are differing on this (really not that significantly, IMO) is that you assume a new poster has to be told that they should eat a certain way, whereas I believe that people are smart enough or have sufficient common sense to figure it out--to pay attention to the effects changes have on them and eat accordingly. IMO, that's the only respectful way to approach people, don't tell them they must eat less sugar (when you don't even know how much sugar they are eating) or assume that because they are fat they eat in some stereotypical way or that they don't understand a thing about nutrition.
But then I know some people apparently want to be told what to do. I really don't understand the people who come here and want a meal plan. It seems infantilizing to me.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »A new dieter needs to understand what moderation is, and, imho, should understand what healthy eating is. Many don't.
Yeah, this is where we are disagreeing. I think people do. Many don't want to, and whatever, that's their choice, but I don't think it's that complicated.I see many here who recommend "moderation" who never eat vegetables in moderation, in fact, they never eat them. Their diets are sorely lacking nutritious foods.
I don't look at diaries that much, but when the moderation folks talk about what they eat I typically hear stuff like "mostly nutrient dense food, veggies and fruits, protein" so I don't think this is true.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.
Yes, this is what I recommend pretty consistently, I think. I just assume people already know this is what they should do, ideally. Sometimes it's easier to make a radical change, especially if you know how to cook and like the foods you will be cooking. For others it's probably more of a step by step switch, starting with getting a handle on what you are eating and where the extra calories are coming in (which for many people is probably pretty obvious).
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
It's ridiculous and happens to a lot of us. People abuse the flags.
Maybe some people just do not like cats
Well, they should be flagged for that, then!
(Just kidding. I don't flag people or support flagging people, even for anti cat bigotry.)0 -
The first step should always be to log what a person is eating, without changing anything. This gives them an actual base of information to work with. Then things can be changed from there.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.
I did'nt say it. Did you ? I must of missed it also. Still cant find it.
Apparently DeirdreWoodward said it.
Except she didn't say that at all.
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.-1 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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.
Old proven methods? ABSOLUTELY. The modern SAD as the basis for good health? Not so much. At least not for me. Why is it hard to accept that not everyone will do what is currently popular?
I've never said "all the foods you think taste good in moderation" doesn't work for some. I'm saying it's not how *I* approach my health.
Is how I approach my health, and how others who don't do the popular approach to IIFYM some how doing it wrong?
And yes, I did get to a point where everything clicked. About 14 years ago, in fact. It made total sense for me and it worked like a charm. And has continued to do so. Which I think is the ultimate goal.
ETA: I think it also depends on your definition of "success".
I asked what worked for you earlier. I am genuinely curious.
-1 -
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
-1 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it is nowhere to be found in anything I said.
So, eating in moderation is not terrible advice, but TELLING people to eat in moderation is terrible advice? You don't see how those are very similar things, if not identical?
Am I missing something here?
That's like saying "Eat in moderation, but shhhhh, keep it a secret."-1 -
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 shouldn't bother with strength training when trying to lose weight)
Hmmm...it's worked for me...I had 65 lbs to lose when I started and I've been losing for over a year now.
So you've not bothered with trying to meet macros (aside from calories), don't bother trying to meet micros, haven't used any workouts except the ones that burn the most calories (like running and karate), haven't learned anything about nutrition (aside from calories), looked at strategies around eating during holidays, or when family/friends/coworkers are trying to get you to eat something, or tried to figure out times when you are more hungry/cravey (is this a word) ie. after fight with s/o, after stress at work, and eat the exact same foods that you did before dieting every day, except in smaller amounts (ie. if you had M&Ms 3 times a week before diet, you continue to eat it 3 times a week?)
Nothing at all in your diet or fitness has changed except the amount of calories you consume or the calories you burn in exercise (choosing only the most efficient exercises, not what you enjoy)?
Um, what? I don't know what all this ^^crazy is. What does any of that have to do with CICO? You implied CICO only worked for those who had less than 20 lbs to lose, who didn't have cravings, who didn't want to preserve lean muscle, etc, etc. I was responding to your post, maybe you should go back and read what you wrote.
No, I said that CICO is the first step. A lot of people who try to lose weight need more than CICO. "CICO is only the beginning" Beyond CICO, which is still needed, they may also need to learn how to manage hunger and cravings, meet nutritional goals outside of calories, meet food health goals outside of calories (i.e. enough calcium, managing hypertension, maintaining lean mass) learn about normal fluctuations in weight that CICO does not account for (horomones, water retention), find social support, and target visceral fat. CICO is provided by MFP, advise on diet adherence and encouragement can be found on the boards, the wider internet, at the Dr office, with a nutritionist, etc., etc. CICO is ground zero, not the be-all and end-all of weight loss.
You can use a twinkie diet to lose weight, but it isn't healthy, and for most peope it isn't sustainable. That's the limit of CICO.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 shouldn't bother with strength training when trying to lose weight)
Hmmm...it's worked for me...I had 65 lbs to lose when I started and I've been losing for over a year now.
So you've not bothered with trying to meet macros (aside from calories), don't bother trying to meet micros, haven't used any workouts except the ones that burn the most calories (like running and karate), haven't learned anything about nutrition (aside from calories), looked at strategies around eating during holidays, or when family/friends/coworkers are trying to get you to eat something, or tried to figure out times when you are more hungry/cravey (is this a word) ie. after fight with s/o, after stress at work, and eat the exact same foods that you did before dieting every day, except in smaller amounts (ie. if you had M&Ms 3 times a week before diet, you continue to eat it 3 times a week?)
Nothing at all in your diet or fitness has changed except the amount of calories you consume or the calories you burn in exercise (choosing only the most efficient exercises, not what you enjoy)?
Um, what? I don't know what all this ^^crazy is. What does any of that have to do with CICO? You implied CICO only worked for those who had less than 20 lbs to lose, who didn't have cravings, who didn't want to preserve lean muscle, etc, etc. I was responding to your post, maybe you should go back and read what you wrote.
No, I said that CICO is the first step. A lot of people who try to lose weight need more than CICO. "CICO is only the beginning" Beyond CICO, which is still needed, they may also need to learn how to manage hunger and cravings, meet nutritional goals outside of calories, meet food health goals outside of calories (i.e. enough calcium, managing hypertension, maintaining lean mass) learn about normal fluctuations in weight that CICO does not account for (horomones, water retention), find social support, and target visceral fat. CICO is provided by MFP, advise on diet adherence and encouragement can be found on the boards, the wider internet, at the Dr office, with a nutritionist, etc., etc. CICO is ground zero, not the be-all and end-all of weight loss.
You can use a twinkie diet to lose weight, but it isn't healthy, and for most peope it isn't sustainable. That's the limit of CICO.
Well, it's pretty much the only thing that I worry about, and it does work for me. I guess I'm special.
0 -
So, eating in moderation is not terrible advice, but TELLING people to eat in moderation is terrible advice? You don't see how those are very similar things, if not identical?
Am I missing something here?
That's like saying "Eat in moderation, but shhhhh, keep it a secret."
*** edited to remove the snark because that ain't helpful to anyone
Let me write out a very similar sentence:
"Telling people to eat their woolen socks, even in moderation, is terrible advice."
This sentence ^^^^^^^ is clearly not saying "Telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice."-2 -
tigersword wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
My brain tells my bladder what to do all the time. "Hey, we're kinda full down here!" "You have to wait a while, can't do anything right now." "...OK."DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »tigersword wrote: »The brain tells the body what to do, not the other way around.
Tell that to my bladder. heh hehtigersword wrote: »Calories, macros, micros, personal preference. That's all there is to it. And it's extremely difficult to hit appropriate calories and macros without hitting micros.
What are the micros? Vit A and C, Calcium, Iron, Potassium, and Sodium? Or something else?
And yes, micronutrients are vitamins and minerals. In the modern developed world it's pretty difficult to be micronutrient deficient. Most of the scary statistics being listed by the sensationalistic journalism leave out the fact that micronutrient deficiencies are high in places that are still developing, and malnutrition is common, along with starvation. In developed countries (like the US and UK for example) these issues are basically nonexistent according to WHO statistics.
Um...osteoporosis? In Canada 1 in 3 women and 1 in 5 men will suffer an osteoporosis fracture. Breaking a hip in your twilight years can lead to pneumonia and death. There is protein deficiency seen in the children of lower income Americans (and fad dieters) that leads to brain shrinkage in their children? I was advised to give my daughters supplemental D vitamin due to the deficiencies sometimes seen in breast fed infants. There have been numerous studies showing the advantages of nutritional supplementation in various conditions (heart disease, Alzheimers, etc.) The best way to meet nutritional needs without a degree in biochemistry is through a healthy, varied diet. Junk food does not provide this, although it fits nicely into CICO. I've found that when I supplement with more vitamins and minerals I recover faster from workout DOMs and plantar fascitis. We all benefit from a healthy diet.
Sources for your info? I took my information directly from the WHO and CDC. Also, protein is a macronutrient, not a micronutrient.
And osteoporosis? How is that relevant? Let's look into the causes of osteoporosis. Advanced age, estrogen deficiency, testosterone deficiency, excess protein intake, inactivity, excess alcohol, underweight, endurance training, tobacco smoking, genetics, and yes, Vitamin D deficiency is listed. So yeah, probably not a good example to use when trying to pin something on micronutrient deficiency, because it's really not the cause, and most people get osteoporosis without any nutritional deficiencies at all.
http://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/guide/osteoporosis-prevention?page=2
"Cola drinks. Some findings show that colas, more than other carbonated soft drinks, contribute to bone loss. It may be that the extra phosphorus in cola drinks binds with calcium and prevents it from being absorbed in the body. Or it may just be that women are replacing calcium-rich drinks, such as milk, with cola. Getting plenty of calcium every day through diet or supplements is vital to keeping your bones strong."
Do I really need to quote a study? We already know this
http://www.osteoporosis.ca/osteoporosis-and-you/osteoporosis-facts-and-statistics/
80% of fractures over the age of 50 are caused by osteopororsis.
http://www.osteoporosis.ca/osteoporosis-and-you/nutrition/calcium-requirements/
Calcium supplementation can help people with osteoporosis, so long as they are able to absorb calcium
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2649803
But it's better to have been getting adequate micronutrients throughout life, not wait until the body has already started to break down.
It isn't this simple, but any discussion of osteoporosis talks about the importance of calcium for bone health. Keep in mind, calcium needs to be taken with vitamin D and magnesium to be most effectively used by the body. A lot of nutrients are lost in processed foods. Our micronutrient needs are complex, and we don't understand them all yet. That's why a varied, nutrient-rich diet is important.-1 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
you said telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice..that is exactly the same thing…
so you are saying it is OK to eat in moderation, but if you tell someone to eat in moderation it is terrible advice…really? Is that the angle you are going for????
You can play word games all you want, but that is what you said...-1 -
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 shouldn't bother with strength training when trying to lose weight)
Hmmm...it's worked for me...I had 65 lbs to lose when I started and I've been losing for over a year now.
So you've not bothered with trying to meet macros (aside from calories), don't bother trying to meet micros, haven't used any workouts except the ones that burn the most calories (like running and karate), haven't learned anything about nutrition (aside from calories), looked at strategies around eating during holidays, or when family/friends/coworkers are trying to get you to eat something, or tried to figure out times when you are more hungry/cravey (is this a word) ie. after fight with s/o, after stress at work, and eat the exact same foods that you did before dieting every day, except in smaller amounts (ie. if you had M&Ms 3 times a week before diet, you continue to eat it 3 times a week?)
Nothing at all in your diet or fitness has changed except the amount of calories you consume or the calories you burn in exercise (choosing only the most efficient exercises, not what you enjoy)?
Um, what? I don't know what all this ^^crazy is. What does any of that have to do with CICO? You implied CICO only worked for those who had less than 20 lbs to lose, who didn't have cravings, who didn't want to preserve lean muscle, etc, etc. I was responding to your post, maybe you should go back and read what you wrote.
No, I said that CICO is the first step. A lot of people who try to lose weight need more than CICO. "CICO is only the beginning" Beyond CICO, which is still needed, they may also need to learn how to manage hunger and cravings, meet nutritional goals outside of calories, meet food health goals outside of calories (i.e. enough calcium, managing hypertension, maintaining lean mass) learn about normal fluctuations in weight that CICO does not account for (horomones, water retention), find social support, and target visceral fat. CICO is provided by MFP, advise on diet adherence and encouragement can be found on the boards, the wider internet, at the Dr office, with a nutritionist, etc., etc. CICO is ground zero, not the be-all and end-all of weight loss.
You can use a twinkie diet to lose weight, but it isn't healthy, and for most peope it isn't sustainable. That's the limit of CICO.
then how did the guy that did the twinkie diet lose weight AND have better health markers?
and yes you did say/imply that CICO only works for those with 20 pounds less to lose…do I really have to go back and find it for you?
the amount of back tracking in this thread is of an epic proportion ...0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
you said telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice..that is exactly the same thing…
so you are saying it is OK to eat in moderation, but if you tell someone to eat in moderation it is terrible advice…really? Is that the angle you are going for????
You can play word games all you want, but that is what you said...
Telling people to eat their woolen socks, even in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat poop, even in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat glass, even in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat plastic bags, even in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat bugs, even in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat dirt, even in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat diamonds, even in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat other people, even in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat their cell phone, even in moderation, is terrible advice.
If you truly believe that all of those sentences mean "Telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice," then you, sir, are really not bright and I can't even.
-5 -
She's saying that you should stop telling people that they can eat whatever they want.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
you said telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice..that is exactly the same thing…
so you are saying it is OK to eat in moderation, but if you tell someone to eat in moderation it is terrible advice…really? Is that the angle you are going for????
You can play word games all you want, but that is what you said...
The "in moderation" doesn't make any sense because nobody knows what the heck you mean, so it comes across as, "Eat whatever you want, in moderate amounts."
0 -
She's saying that you should stop telling people that they can eat whatever they want.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
you said telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice..that is exactly the same thing…
so you are saying it is OK to eat in moderation, but if you tell someone to eat in moderation it is terrible advice…really? Is that the angle you are going for????
You can play word games all you want, but that is what you said...
The "in moderation" doesn't make any sense because nobody knows what the heck you mean, so it comes across as, "Eat whatever you want, in moderate amounts."
I already explained it to you…
and if you don't know what moderation means then I can't really help you ….
if it does not make sense then why be so defensive about it?0 -
Old proven methods? ABSOLUTELY. The modern SAD as the basis for good health? Not so much. At least not for me. Why is it hard to accept that not everyone will do what is currently popular?
I've never said "all the foods you think taste good in moderation" doesn't work for some. I'm saying it's not how *I* approach my health.
Is how I approach my health, and how others who don't do the popular approach to IIFYM some how doing it wrong?
And yes, I did get to a point where everything clicked. About 14 years ago, in fact. It made total sense for me and it worked like a charm. And has continued to do so. Which I think is the ultimate goal.
ETA: I think it also depends on your definition of "success".[/quote]
It's not hard to accept I agree with you not doing what everyone else is doing is fine. If it works for you great! Instead of saying moderation I like the word balance better. Right now I am not clicking and I can't find my balance that's why I am back here to sort through what may be working for others and decide what I should change. My Yoga girlfriends believe that by dragging me to hot yoga class which is what my everyones are doing currently, so I get so sick all the way home is the way to stay in shape F that I will take the gym over that any day 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.
I did'nt say it. Did you ? I must of missed it also. Still cant find it.
Apparently DeirdreWoodward said it.
Except she didn't say that at all.
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
I found that statement, and I still don't think its what she said. Others agree with me. So whatever.
-1 -
Now I understand what you, personally, mean. I think it's a reasonable suggestion and offered in a reasonable way, even though I don't agree with it.
She's saying that you should stop telling people that they can eat whatever they want.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
you said telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice..that is exactly the same thing…
so you are saying it is OK to eat in moderation, but if you tell someone to eat in moderation it is terrible advice…really? Is that the angle you are going for????
You can play word games all you want, but that is what you said...
The "in moderation" doesn't make any sense because nobody knows what the heck you mean, so it comes across as, "Eat whatever you want, in moderate amounts."
I already explained it to you…
and if you don't know what moderation means then I can't really help you ….
if it does not make sense then why be so defensive about it?
But, since everyone has different definitions of "in moderation" and since they are all using it in a way that most people would not think they were trying to use it, maybe saying what you actually mean would be a better idea.
The "eat whatever you want and you can still lose weight" is the part that comes across clearly. The "in moderation" is murky. Until you explain what you mean, nobody knows wth you are saying.
It is very much like the "I eat clean" statement. They say "I eat" and you get that. The "clean" thing is used differently by different people and you don't know wth they mean until it is explained. You can guess, but you don't really know.
I have no problem with people saying they eat "clean" or "in moderation" and happily use those terms with those who like them. But I don't know exactly what they mean.
You have a definition of "in moderation." So do I. So does Diedre. And so does young ana. They're all different.
Just say what you mean! It's a good suggestion! I don't personally agree with it, but it's good! People should hear it! It should be tossed out as an option.
Nobody gets it if you say, "You don't have to change the foods you eat to lose weight. Just eat whatever you want in moderation."
Seriously. Ask reasonable, non-dieting people you know. Just say, "I'm going to say something and then you tell me what it means." Then repeat the thing about how you don't have to change the foods you're eating to lose weight, just eat them in moderation...and see what they say it means. (You could ask people who are dieting, but they might think you're trying to tell them something, lol.)
They'll probably have different interpretations of what you said. I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that they will not repeat back to you the thing you outlined...which is a good option and which people ought to hear.-1 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
you said telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice..that is exactly the same thing…
No. It is not the same thing.
Telling someone TO accomplish something is not the same as telling someone HOW to accomplish something.
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
you said telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice..that is exactly the same thing…
No. It is not the same thing.
I agree.
Telling someone "eat whatever you want in moderation" is very different than telling someone "eat in moderation".
This is all one huge semantics argument.
We all agree that to eat for weight loss and health, one should aim to meet their marcos.
We agree that if someone *just* wants to lose weight, a calorie deficit is all that's really required.
Some people can eat foods in moderation (meaning, two cookies instead of 25), while still meeting their maco goals.
Some people have a harder time with the above, and should probably avoid those foods completely (either forever, or until they feel more in control of their actions - this is not meant in a negative way).
/end thread (?)0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
you said telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice..that is exactly the same thing…
No. It is not the same thing.
I agree.
Telling someone "eat whatever you want in moderation" is very different than telling someone "eat in moderation".
This is all one huge semantics argument.
We all agree that to eat for weight loss and health, one should aim to meet their marcos.
We agree that if someone *just* wants to lose weight, a calorie deficit is all that's really required.
Some people can eat foods in moderation (meaning, two cookies instead of 25), while still meeting their maco goals.
Some people have a harder time with the above, and should probably avoid those foods completely (either forever, or until they feel more in control of their actions - this is not meant in a negative way).
/end thread (?)
Yup.
0 -
So again, you're pointing to one specific part of a cause for oseoporosis (calcium malabsorption, vitamin d deficiency.) What about the dozen other factors that I pointed out that are also necessary for osteoporosis that have nothing to do with it? Also, you say "a lot of nutrients are lost in processed foods." It's a claim I see on here a lot. Which nutrients? Where are they lost? Are there alternate sources that people are getting them? Again, I see that claim made, but I never see evidence for it, and quite frankly, when I read nutrition labels of various foods, it's not a claim that seems to be true.tigersword wrote: »tigersword wrote: »
My brain tells my bladder what to do all the time. "Hey, we're kinda full down here!" "You have to wait a while, can't do anything right now." "...OK."DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »tigersword wrote: »The brain tells the body what to do, not the other way around.
Tell that to my bladder. heh hehtigersword wrote: »Calories, macros, micros, personal preference. That's all there is to it. And it's extremely difficult to hit appropriate calories and macros without hitting micros.
What are the micros? Vit A and C, Calcium, Iron, Potassium, and Sodium? Or something else?
And yes, micronutrients are vitamins and minerals. In the modern developed world it's pretty difficult to be micronutrient deficient. Most of the scary statistics being listed by the sensationalistic journalism leave out the fact that micronutrient deficiencies are high in places that are still developing, and malnutrition is common, along with starvation. In developed countries (like the US and UK for example) these issues are basically nonexistent according to WHO statistics.
Um...osteoporosis? In Canada 1 in 3 women and 1 in 5 men will suffer an osteoporosis fracture. Breaking a hip in your twilight years can lead to pneumonia and death. There is protein deficiency seen in the children of lower income Americans (and fad dieters) that leads to brain shrinkage in their children? I was advised to give my daughters supplemental D vitamin due to the deficiencies sometimes seen in breast fed infants. There have been numerous studies showing the advantages of nutritional supplementation in various conditions (heart disease, Alzheimers, etc.) The best way to meet nutritional needs without a degree in biochemistry is through a healthy, varied diet. Junk food does not provide this, although it fits nicely into CICO. I've found that when I supplement with more vitamins and minerals I recover faster from workout DOMs and plantar fascitis. We all benefit from a healthy diet.
Sources for your info? I took my information directly from the WHO and CDC. Also, protein is a macronutrient, not a micronutrient.
And osteoporosis? How is that relevant? Let's look into the causes of osteoporosis. Advanced age, estrogen deficiency, testosterone deficiency, excess protein intake, inactivity, excess alcohol, underweight, endurance training, tobacco smoking, genetics, and yes, Vitamin D deficiency is listed. So yeah, probably not a good example to use when trying to pin something on micronutrient deficiency, because it's really not the cause, and most people get osteoporosis without any nutritional deficiencies at all.
http://www.webmd.com/osteoporosis/guide/osteoporosis-prevention?page=2
"Cola drinks. Some findings show that colas, more than other carbonated soft drinks, contribute to bone loss. It may be that the extra phosphorus in cola drinks binds with calcium and prevents it from being absorbed in the body. Or it may just be that women are replacing calcium-rich drinks, such as milk, with cola. Getting plenty of calcium every day through diet or supplements is vital to keeping your bones strong."
Do I really need to quote a study? We already know this
http://www.osteoporosis.ca/osteoporosis-and-you/osteoporosis-facts-and-statistics/
80% of fractures over the age of 50 are caused by osteopororsis.
http://www.osteoporosis.ca/osteoporosis-and-you/nutrition/calcium-requirements/
Calcium supplementation can help people with osteoporosis, so long as they are able to absorb calcium
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2649803
But it's better to have been getting adequate micronutrients throughout life, not wait until the body has already started to break down.
It isn't this simple, but any discussion of osteoporosis talks about the importance of calcium for bone health. Keep in mind, calcium needs to be taken with vitamin D and magnesium to be most effectively used by the body. A lot of nutrients are lost in processed foods. Our micronutrient needs are complex, and we don't understand them all yet. That's why a varied, nutrient-rich diet is important.
No one is disputing eating a variety of foods. The point being, if you eat the foods you like that fit your macro and calorie goals, it's is extremely unlikely that you will be nutrient deficient of any micronutrients.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Weird, because I actually do this every single day. I want to eat donuts and french fries and pizza and a chocolate bar? Okay, cool. can I fit it all into my day while still eating my protein needs? Probably not. So I'll eat the donut and pizza today, the fries and chocolate bar tomorrow.
Oh, I also want to eat 4 pomegranates? Well that would be well over a meal's worth of calories for very little satiety. So I'll have one a day for the next four days.
And this is all with just considering my deficit intake. I actually could eat these amounts at maintenance.
You aren't eating what you want in moderation. You are restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
That's what "in moderation" means.
That's what moderation means? lol
Moderation is restricting what you want and parceling it out to different days so you can meet your numbers.
ok.
Yes. I 100% get what the moderation crew is pushing. It makes perfect sense.
It just also happens to be 100% unpalatable to me as an approach. I can't fathom why I'd be on the piece meal, eat a bit here and there, pick and choose approach that many (not all) have to do in order to eat "in moderation".
Which is the less talked about side of this ongoing debate. That you can get the IIFYM approach, and still think it's unsuitable. I can find the appeal, objectively, but no matter how much it's pushed as the end all, be all approach, it still isn't appealing to me at all.
Just like logging and calorie counting aren't either, even though I totally get why they're considered awesome, and even recommend them for many people.
So, what is your method of choice?
Eat as much of those calorie dense sweets that I want. Without guilt, remorse, or moralizing my choices.
Just don't have it necessarily every day, or every week, or every month.
The idea of parsing out half a muffin here, two cookies, a half a cup of ice cream, a sliver of cake there, etc, a day has zero appeal to me. I'd rather have, to quote someone earlier in the thread who said this was NOT moderation:
Not moderation: Eating a huge bar of chocolate that takes you way over your TDEE.
Except, well, this is moderation for me. Because my deficit is less about the total DAILY energy expenditure, as it is the weekly or even monthly. You can enjoy the "huge bar of chocolate" beyond your TDEE if you're in a caloric cycle of low and high days (which I do because I'm an IFer).0 -
Yup. And some folks just choose not to eat the cookies. If I could use the D word... Why the demonization of limiting sweets?TheVirgoddess wrote: »"Mr_Knight wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
you said telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice..that is exactly the same thing…
No. It is not the same thing.
I agree.
Telling someone "eat whatever you want in moderation" is very different than telling someone "eat in moderation".
This is all one huge semantics argument.
We all agree that to eat for weight loss and health, one should aim to meet their marcos.
We agree that if someone *just* wants to lose weight, a calorie deficit is all that's really required.
Some people can eat foods in moderation (meaning, two cookies instead of 25), while still meeting their maco goals.
Some people have a harder time with the above, and should probably avoid those foods completely (either forever, or until they feel more in control of their actions - this is not meant in a negative way).
/end thread (?)
Yup.
0 -
Primo semantic nonsense.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
-1 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yup. And some folks just choose not to eat the cookies. If I could use the D word... Why the demonization of limiting sweets?TheVirgoddess wrote: »"Mr_Knight wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
you said telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice..that is exactly the same thing…
No. It is not the same thing.
I agree.
Telling someone "eat whatever you want in moderation" is very different than telling someone "eat in moderation".
This is all one huge semantics argument.
We all agree that to eat for weight loss and health, one should aim to meet their marcos.
We agree that if someone *just* wants to lose weight, a calorie deficit is all that's really required.
Some people can eat foods in moderation (meaning, two cookies instead of 25), while still meeting their maco goals.
Some people have a harder time with the above, and should probably avoid those foods completely (either forever, or until they feel more in control of their actions - this is not meant in a negative way).
/end thread (?)
Yup.
I'm guessing it's to counter the demonization of sweets? Not you specifically, just in general? I've seen both happen on here fairly equally.0 -
CICO I have decided after many diets over many years is like knowing how to only use the brakes on a car and thinking one is a professional driver.
CICO like brakes on a car is VERY important but I decided if I did not learn the full picture in managing my health with my diet that I was going to die fat and it was going to be sooner than later.
Until six months ago I thought eating fat made one fat then I learned in my case eating carbs made me fat and eating fat made me thinner. I also learned the successful eating lifestyle of another might be totally wrong for me.
Finally I learned to stop dieting as a goal but adopt an eating lifestyle that does not require a gym membership or other physical activity to achieve and maintain a healthy weight. Our ability to workout will end one day but we may live another 20 years. While I believe in staying active yet I have had friends that things happened that made them immobile for many years before they died.
While there are many factors beyond CICO when it comes to living healthy yet without CICO would be like owning a car with no gas gauge. The knowledge gained by counting calories is required to insure one's macro is being meet when it comes to carbs, fat and protein. Math is important for dieting and balancing one's checkbook.
Research indicates we on average will eat 182,500 calories more a year than we estimate we do when asked our daily calories that we have eaten. That is we under estimate by 500 calories a day on average. Counting is the only way to know.
Now what to eat and when to eat it is a whole other matter and we will learn that by trial and error for the most part because no two people are identical on the outside or the inside.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yup. And some folks just choose not to eat the cookies. If I could use the D word... Why the demonization of limiting sweets?TheVirgoddess wrote: »"Mr_Knight wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
"telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Just pointing it out for you because you said you couldn't find it.
Yes, that is EXACTLY what I said.
What I didn't say was "eating in moderation is terrible advice."
That's why people are saying they can't find it -- it doesn't exist.
you said telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice..that is exactly the same thing…
No. It is not the same thing.
I agree.
Telling someone "eat whatever you want in moderation" is very different than telling someone "eat in moderation".
This is all one huge semantics argument.
We all agree that to eat for weight loss and health, one should aim to meet their marcos.
We agree that if someone *just* wants to lose weight, a calorie deficit is all that's really required.
Some people can eat foods in moderation (meaning, two cookies instead of 25), while still meeting their maco goals.
Some people have a harder time with the above, and should probably avoid those foods completely (either forever, or until they feel more in control of their actions - this is not meant in a negative way).
/end thread (?)
Yup.
I'm guessing it's to counter the demonization of sweets? Not you specifically, just in general? I've seen both happen on here fairly equally.
I've seen both as well. Doesn't make either right.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions