Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »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.
Now, you are starting to make sense. Look at what you eat, and decide what you should eat. Eat for your condition. None of the knowledgeable people here has ever said less I don't think.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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.
Oh I wasn't excusing either, merely speculating on a reason.0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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.
Oh I wasn't excusing either, merely speculating on a reason.
I know. Cheers :drinker:0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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.
Agree. You have two polar opposites...those that preach only moderation = success and those that preach only elimination. They can be just as rigid as each other yet all the while in between the spectrum there's a whole lot of grey where "it depends".
Understanding moderation is useful.
Understanding addiction vs behavioural response is liberation.
Using elimination as a tool towards success is underrated and overly feared IMO.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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.
Agree. You have two polar opposites...those that preach only moderation = success and those that preach only elimination. They can be just as rigid as each other yet all the while in between the spectrum there's a whole lot of grey where "it depends".
Understanding moderation is useful.
Understanding addiction vs behavioural response is liberation.
Using elimination as a tool towards success is underrated and overly feared IMO.
If I preach anything it's find what works for you. Total avoidance would never work for me, moderation does. I don't know what got anyone but me to the place they were when they decided to make changes, or what changes they needed to make to find success.
I think it's futile and foolish to push a method on people if it won't work for them, however I would never mind spending the time to explain the them how it worked for me. Maybe that's where some of the other's are too, and why it may seem grey.0 -
sheepotato wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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.
Agree. You have two polar opposites...those that preach only moderation = success and those that preach only elimination. They can be just as rigid as each other yet all the while in between the spectrum there's a whole lot of grey where "it depends".
Understanding moderation is useful.
Understanding addiction vs behavioural response is liberation.
Using elimination as a tool towards success is underrated and overly feared IMO.
If I preach anything it's find what works for you. Total avoidance would never work for me, moderation does. I don't know what got anyone but me to the place they were when they decided to make changes, or what changes they needed to make to find success.
I think it's futile and foolish to push a method on people if it won't work for them, however I would never mind spending the time to explain the them how it worked for me. Maybe that's where some of the other's are too, and why it may seem grey.
Yep. I use moderation, because I've never had an emotional tie to food and it works well for me.
I am guilty of asking people in threads why they want to cut out a/b/c - just in case they think they have to to be successful. It's more about encouraging people to find their own path (vs what they've heard on Dr. Oz) rather than insisting they conform to my way of eating.0 -
Agreed. People don't need to be harangued or badgered.sheepotato wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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.
Agree. You have two polar opposites...those that preach only moderation = success and those that preach only elimination. They can be just as rigid as each other yet all the while in between the spectrum there's a whole lot of grey where "it depends".
Understanding moderation is useful.
Understanding addiction vs behavioural response is liberation.
Using elimination as a tool towards success is underrated and overly feared IMO.
If I preach anything it's find what works for you. Total avoidance would never work for me, moderation does. I don't know what got anyone but me to the place they were when they decided to make changes, or what changes they needed to make to find success.
I think it's futile and foolish to push a method on people if it won't work for them, however I would never mind spending the time to explain the them how it worked for me. Maybe that's where some of the other's are too, and why it may seem grey.
It's good to hear all opinions and everyone's story is interesting. Everyone had their own way of gaining and will have their own way of losing.
0 -
TheVirgoddess wrote: »sheepotato wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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.
Agree. You have two polar opposites...those that preach only moderation = success and those that preach only elimination. They can be just as rigid as each other yet all the while in between the spectrum there's a whole lot of grey where "it depends".
Understanding moderation is useful.
Understanding addiction vs behavioural response is liberation.
Using elimination as a tool towards success is underrated and overly feared IMO.
If I preach anything it's find what works for you. Total avoidance would never work for me, moderation does. I don't know what got anyone but me to the place they were when they decided to make changes, or what changes they needed to make to find success.
I think it's futile and foolish to push a method on people if it won't work for them, however I would never mind spending the time to explain the them how it worked for me. Maybe that's where some of the other's are too, and why it may seem grey.
Yep. I use moderation, because I've never had an emotional tie to food and it works well for me.
I am guilty of asking people in threads why they want to cut out a/b/c - just in case they think they have to to be successful. It's more about encouraging people to find their own path (vs what they've heard on Dr. Oz) rather than insisting they conform to my way of eating.
Yes, this.
I say quite often that it can make sense for an individual to cut out foods. I just don't think people should assume you have to eat a bland diet to diet or cut out all treats or think of foods as bad or sinful. If you think cutting stuff out would be helpful, I think you should try it.
I only argue if they then proclaim that elimination is healthier than moderation in general or perhaps use the horrible c word. ;-)
Well, and I also simply don't get why people want to use the term elimination for eating something rarely or on special occasions or for foods they simply don't care for. I haven't had a Twinkie for 35 years and doubt I ever will, why would I claim I eliminated it. I don't like sugary soda, same.
But that's just semantics.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »TheVirgoddess wrote: »sheepotato wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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.
Agree. You have two polar opposites...those that preach only moderation = success and those that preach only elimination. They can be just as rigid as each other yet all the while in between the spectrum there's a whole lot of grey where "it depends".
Understanding moderation is useful.
Understanding addiction vs behavioural response is liberation.
Using elimination as a tool towards success is underrated and overly feared IMO.
If I preach anything it's find what works for you. Total avoidance would never work for me, moderation does. I don't know what got anyone but me to the place they were when they decided to make changes, or what changes they needed to make to find success.
I think it's futile and foolish to push a method on people if it won't work for them, however I would never mind spending the time to explain the them how it worked for me. Maybe that's where some of the other's are too, and why it may seem grey.
Yep. I use moderation, because I've never had an emotional tie to food and it works well for me.
I am guilty of asking people in threads why they want to cut out a/b/c - just in case they think they have to to be successful. It's more about encouraging people to find their own path (vs what they've heard on Dr. Oz) rather than insisting they conform to my way of eating.
Yes, this.
I say quite often that it can make sense for an individual to cut out foods. I just don't think people should assume you have to eat a bland diet to diet or cut out all treats or think of foods as bad or sinful. If you think cutting stuff out would be helpful, I think you should try it.
I only argue if they then proclaim that elimination is healthier than moderation in general or perhaps use the horrible c word. ;-)
Well, and I also simply don't get why people want to use the term elimination for eating something rarely or on special occasions or for foods they simply don't care for. I haven't had a Twinkie for 35 years and doubt I ever will, why would I claim I eliminated it. I don't like sugary soda, same.
But that's just semantics.
Yes, yes and yes!
0 -
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.
How are they different? If someone tells me to "eat in moderation," then automatically that means eat food. And chocolate is food, so if I feel like chocolate I'd eat it.
To say "keep eating what you normally eat but practice moderation" basically is exactly the same as the first, because I already eat chocolate.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
google the twinkie diet. The guy ate twinkies for a month, was in a calorie deficit, lost weight, and had better overall health markers….
i still do not understand why you think this approach is "terrible advice"...
Ok, now I am very clear on your position. If regular Joe wants to lose weight, he can eat any foods at all as long as meets his calories, and he'll lose weight.
I am in complete agreement with you. If someone eats below their TDEE, they'll lose weight, regardless of what foods they are eating.
Why I think that's terrible advice is because I believe in eating as much food as possible within my calories and macros. I think that eating as much food as possible leads sustainable weight loss / lifetime lifestyle changes.
But I could be wrong. I prefer to see my plate loaded with food and my belly stuffed at the end of a meal, but other people might prefer smaller meals. I truly don't know.
I eat treats regularly, and my plate is pretty much always full unless I'm making a calorically dense meal, which still leaves me equally as full. "Healthy" food can also be calorically dense, or at least foods not considered to be junk food can calorically dense - rice and pasta, bananas, nuts and nut butters, eggs, poultry and meat and fish... I eat as much food a possible, but I also choose from any food I like. No food is off-limits from my overall diet, I simply just don't eat ALL food I enjoy every day because that is physically impossible.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 think we already established many times what moderation is: eating whatever you want within your caloric and/or macronutrient goals (the focus here depends on your overall weight loss/body composition goals and general preferences). So for instance I ate some chocolate tonight, but instead of eating 4 pieces (the suggested serving size) I only ate 2 because that's what fit, and I already willingly went over a bit yesterday. Yesterday I also moderated by eating only one orange instead of 2, because if I'd have eaten two (large, btw) then it would have further increased my intake above my set deficit.
And the definition for moderation should make it easy to understand as well: "the avoidance of excess or extremes." So if eating x amount of food puts yuo in a caloric surplus when you want to lose weight, that serving is clearly in excess. Doesn't matter its source, as you can eat any food in excess. I have mentioned many times that I used to eat a number of fruit in excess. I used to make homemade veggie + chicken soup, and I'd eat like 4-5 bowls in one sitting. A HUGE pot of soup would last me maybe a day or two because I did not eat it in moderation.
So yes, people can keep eating whatever they want. Especially when using a calorie counting website. The website/app helps them understand how much of their desired food they can eat while still being within their goals.0 -
How are they different?
Telling people to eat glass, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat pavement, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat fur, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat rancid meat, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat trees, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
and wait for it!
Telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
If you think any one of those sentences is the same as "Telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice," I swear to god I will mail your response to the English department at your college and strong arm them in forcing you to retake English Comp I.-3 -
^^Exactly!!!0
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »How are they different?
Telling people to eat glass, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat pavement, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat fur, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat rancid meat, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Telling people to eat trees, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
and wait for it!
Telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
If you think any one of those sentences is the same as "Telling people to eat in moderation is terrible advice," I swear to god I will mail your response to the English department at your college and strong arm them in forcing you to retake English Comp I.
My question "how are they different" referred to this comparison (which is in your post, which I quoted, which you seem to have not read yourself)
1) eating in moderation
2) keeping eating what they are eating, just in moderation
So, again my question. How is "eat in moderation" and "eat your normal diet in moderation" different? Both are saying "eat food in moderation," the latter simply recommends that you continue eating the same type of foods youi've always been eating while the former does not specify what kind of foods are good to eat, which would thus suggest any food is fine, which goes back to thus eating your normal/regular diet.
You are basically changing your own interpretation of the original thing you wrote.
If someone's regular diet was basically a typical "bro diet" of broccoli, chicken, and rice, would you then say "oh yeah keep eating what you are eating, just in moderation," but it is not okay to recommend the same advice for someone who eats pretty much everything?0 -
Deleted my post because I read it back and it did not really say what I wanted it to say. In my head it was right but in print it said something else. Sorry about that. 0 -
Sorry Ana but the sentences are different.-1
-
After reading page after page, no one will ever convince me that it is healthy to eat "junk" food in moderation as long as you stay within your caloric and/or macronutrient goals.
Yes you will lose weight but I think that is terrible advice because your body will not be receiving the nourishment it deserves.
So because I had 200 calories of ice cream tonight, which I imagine you consider junk food, my body did not receive nourishment, regardless of everything else I ate?
Weird.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »After reading page after page, no one will ever convince me that it is healthy to eat "junk" food in moderation as long as you stay within your caloric and/or macronutrient goals.
Yes you will lose weight but I think that is terrible advice because your body will not be receiving the nourishment it deserves.
So because I had 200 calories of ice cream tonight, which I imagine you consider junk food, my body did not receive nourishment, regardless of everything else I ate?
Weird.
That logic would be true if ALL you ate was ice cream. Ice cream still contains calcium, and bodies need fat and carbs. And I'm guessing you didn't eat donuts for breakfast and chocolate for lunch and cake for dinner? So of course you'll have met your macronutrient and micronutrient needs!
I don't often have low-nutrient days. When I do it's because I need to eat quick or because I'm just reaaally craving those lower nutrient foods. And then the next day I will "make up" for it by willingly eating more "healthy" food by choice.
So yeah of course it's fine to eat junk food in moderation. It's also likely healthy psychologically to not forcefully deprive yourself of something you love, and we all know how important the psychological aspect of weight management is.0 -
Sorry Ana but the sentences are different.
Can you tell me then how you interpret them to be different? Because I've already written how I interpret them to be very much the same.
Again the sentences are (based on Diedre's post)
eating in moderation
keeping eating what they are eating, just in moderation
So both entail eating food, first and foremost, in moderation. The second one specifies to do so by eating your normal diet, the first does not specify what kind of food to eat (and thus means that all food is fair game).0 -
After reading page after page, no one will ever convince me that it is healthy to eat "junk" food in moderation as long as you stay within your caloric and/or macronutrient goals.
Yes you will lose weight but I think that is terrible advice because your body will not be receiving the nourishment it deserves.
But life is too short, why not have a little enjoyment.0 -
After reading page after page, no one will ever convince me that it is healthy to eat "junk" food in moderation as long as you stay within your caloric and/or macronutrient goals.
Yes you will lose weight but I think that is terrible advice because your body will not be receiving the nourishment it deserves.
Before I get irritated, what do you consider "junk"?0 -
Actually you are all correct - my statement was not well thought out and I am going to delete it until I work out what I do mean. I couldn't sleep last night and spent half the night reading this enormous thread and I am sleep deprived and hungry so I'm off to have lunch - tuna and salad. I consider that healthy food - donuts, dr pepper, those horrible foods that sit in the local deli etc are junk to me.
Now TheVirgoddess - don't get irritated, life is too short for that.
There are a heap of things I consider junk food but honestly how does that effect you in any way. I have eaten this way for most of my life and aren't about to change now. My body lets me know if it is junk as I will lack energy, have a headache, foggy mind, bloated and in general wish to goodness I had never eaten it in the first place because it is JUNK!! 0 -
Actually you are all correct - my statement was not well thought out and I am going to delete it until I work out what I do mean. I couldn't sleep last night and spent half the night reading this enormous thread and I am sleep deprived and hungry so I'm off to have lunch - tuna and salad. I consider that healthy food - donuts, dr pepper, those horrible foods that sit in the local deli etc are junk to me.
Now TheVirgoddess - don't get irritated, life is too short for that. There are a heap of things I consider junk food but honestly how does that effect you in any way. I have eaten this way for most of my life and aren't about to change now. My body lets me know if it is junk as I will lack energy, have a headache, foggy mind, bloated and in general wish to goodness I had never eaten it in the first place because it is JUNK!!
Then I'll refrain from commenting or getting irritated. 0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »After reading page after page, no one will ever convince me that it is healthy to eat "junk" food in moderation as long as you stay within your caloric and/or macronutrient goals.
Yes you will lose weight but I think that is terrible advice because your body will not be receiving the nourishment it deserves.
But life is too short, why not have a little enjoyment.
Yep!!
0 -
Actually you are all correct - my statement was not well thought out and I am going to delete it until I work out what I do mean. I couldn't sleep last night and spent half the night reading this enormous thread and I am sleep deprived and hungry so I'm off to have lunch - tuna and salad. I consider that healthy food - donuts, dr pepper, those horrible foods that sit in the local deli etc are junk to me.
Now TheVirgoddess - don't get irritated, life is too short for that. There are a heap of things I consider junk food but honestly how does that effect you in any way. I have eaten this way for most of my life and aren't about to change now. My body lets me know if it is junk as I will lack energy, have a headache, foggy mind, bloated and in general wish to goodness I had never eaten it in the first place because it is JUNK!!
Yeah, sure. donuts are "junk," but they are also delicious, help me meet my macro goals, and make me pscyhologically pleased. I go through a box of 6 donuts in probably 1-2 months, and then can go months without buying donuts again. That's the nice thing about moderation for me, it's helped me stop binging and just eat these foods in non-ridiculous amounts and only when I actually feel like eating them. I practice moderation wtih all foods (healthy or not healthy).0 -
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.
How are they different? If someone tells me to "eat in moderation," then automatically that means eat food. And chocolate is food, so if I feel like chocolate I'd eat it.
To say "keep eating what you normally eat but practice moderation" basically is exactly the same as the first, because I already eat chocolate.
I already asked..she will never answer..
she will just come up with ten reasons that, that is not what she meant and challenge you to a game of semantics…
I would suggest letting it go..
she said what she said …0 -
Ana, I used to love donuts when they were hot and fresh off the machine. That first mouthful was amazing. Then the indigestion set in and that feeling of "I wish I hadn't eaten that!"
0 -
Ana, I used to love donuts when they were hot and fresh off the machine. That first mouthful was amazing. Then the indigestion set in and that feeling of "I wish I hadn't eaten that!"
That is likely unrelated to donuts themselves being donuts, but simply ingredients in the donuts. I cannot eat gluten without feeling horrible, but I can eat GF donuts and feel just fine unless I like... ate that entire box of 6 donuts in one go. Probably because that'd be half my daily intake right there in one go, ouch. Others may have this issue with dairy or soy or anything. I believe my stomach does not tolerate gelatin very well? I had the HARDEST time finding yogurt brands that don't cause stomach upset. Turns out every time I buy a gelatin-free brand I don't have issues, but as soon as I eat something with gelatin BAM, I feel horrible. But I don't think most people would claim that yogurt is junk food.0 -
...just because
.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