Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
0 -
So, elimination?Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
0 -
stealth -- the first two sentences address you directly. The "you" in the rest of the sentences refer to "those of you who hold this position."
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets.
I completely agree with your post. That is eating in moderation. But it's not "eat what you want in moderation."
People say all the time on these boards "eat what you want, just in moderation" or "eat what you are currently eating, just in moderation." And the corollaries -- "there are no good or bad foods," "all food is equal -- none is garbage or crap."
Just to clarify, I know the menu I posted was in fact NOT moderation, even though all nine foods were a single serving size, and the second menu I posted was also NOT moderation, even though I met all my numbers.
It was not moderation because it was all treat foods, not foods designed to help us.
If some foods are treats, then other foods are something other than treats. Some people call that food "healthy choices" or "clean eating" or "good food." I personally call it "regular food."
And since we all agree we should limit treats, and we all agree that we should eat food that is designed to help us, then we all agree that there are different kinds of food choices -- regular food and treats.
Most of our diet should consist of regular food, and some of our diet should consist of treats -- and here, within the context of treats, I am totally willing to concede that you can eat whatever you want. You want to eat a Big Mac, go for it. Deep-fried stick of butter? Have at it.
I am focusing on this issue this because I didn't get to 213 pounds by overeating regular food. I got there by eating a diet that looked a lot like a donut, a latte, and an egg and cheese croissant in the morning, a Subway sub, chips and two cookies for lunch, and a large pizza for dinner, washed down with milk and a sleeve of Oreos.
If I came on MFP and wrote "I need help losing weight" and the response was "just keep eating what you are eating, just in moderation," I'd be happy as a clam to do that! Keep eating what I eat but in moderation means "Keep eating what you are eating, just less of it." It does not mean "Change your diet drastically and save the treats for once in a while."
And after I try to eat what I'm eating but only less of it, and I fail spectacularly because the food I'm eating doesn't last long in my system so I am hungry all the time, my next MFP post would be "You told me what to do and I did it and it didn't work. I keep overeating even when I try not to! I must be addicted to sugar."
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Much better advice would be "You need to cut out the crap on a daily basis and save it for a treat once or twice a week" or perhaps the slightly softer "You are eating treats instead of nutritious food. You have to change your diet to low calorie, highly nutritious foods in order to feel full all day long. You can continue to eat treats, but on a very limited basis, when you can fit them into your numbers. If you don't follow our advice, chances are very high that you will spend your diet days hungry and miserable, and you will just fail again at losing weight."
Categorizing people as lazy or lacking willpower when they can't control their overeating because they are basically following the advice to "eat what they want, just in moderation" and end up with hunger pangs and cravings is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
And just to bring this back to the original point, since we all agree that limiting treats is necessary for weight loss, and there are at least five grocery aisles devoted to treat foods packed with sugar (the donut and muffin aisle, the cookies and crackers aisle, the soda aisle, the frozen desserts aisle, and the cakes and cookie mixes aisle), then by god we all agree that sugar is possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss.-2 -
I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.0
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »stealth -- the first two sentences address you directly. The "you" in the rest of the sentences refer to "those of you who hold this position."
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets.
I completely agree with your post. That is eating in moderation. But it's not "eat what you want in moderation."
People say all the time on these boards "eat what you want, just in moderation" or "eat what you are currently eating, just in moderation." And the corollaries -- "there are no good or bad foods," "all food is equal -- none is garbage or crap."
Just to clarify, I know the menu I posted was in fact NOT moderation, even though all nine foods were a single serving size, and the second menu I posted was also NOT moderation, even though I met all my numbers.
It was not moderation because it was all treat foods, not foods designed to help us.
If some foods are treats, then other foods are something other than treats. Some people call that food "healthy choices" or "clean eating" or "good food." I personally call it "regular food."
And since we all agree we should limit treats, and we all agree that we should eat food that is designed to help us, then we all agree that there are different kinds of food choices -- regular food and treats.
Most of our diet should consist of regular food, and some of our diet should consist of treats -- and here, within the context of treats, I am totally willing to concede that you can eat whatever you want. You want to eat a Big Mac, go for it. Deep-fried stick of butter? Have at it.
I am focusing on this issue this because I didn't get to 213 pounds by overeating regular food. I got there by eating a diet that looked a lot like a donut, a latte, and an egg and cheese croissant in the morning, a Subway sub, chips and two cookies for lunch, and a large pizza for dinner, washed down with milk and a sleeve of Oreos.
If I came on MFP and wrote "I need help losing weight" and the response was "just keep eating what you are eating, just in moderation," I'd be happy as a clam to do that! Keep eating what I eat but in moderation means "Keep eating what you are eating, just less of it." It does not mean "Change your diet drastically and save the treats for once in a while."
And after I try to eat what I'm eating but only less of it, and I fail spectacularly because the food I'm eating doesn't last long in my system so I am hungry all the time, my next MFP post would be "You told me what to do and I did it and it didn't work. I keep overeating even when I try not to! I must be addicted to sugar."
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Much better advice would be "You need to cut out the crap on a daily basis and save it for a treat once or twice a week" or perhaps the slightly softer "You are eating treats instead of nutritious food. You have to change your diet to low calorie, highly nutritious foods in order to feel full all day long. You can continue to eat treats, but on a very limited basis, when you can fit them into your numbers. If you don't follow our advice, chances are very high that you will spend your diet days hungry and miserable, and you will just fail again at losing weight."
Categorizing people as lazy or lacking willpower when they can't control their overeating because they are basically following the advice to "eat what they want, just in moderation" and end up with hunger pangs and cravings is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
And just to bring this back to the original point, since we all agree that limiting treats is necessary for weight loss, and there are at least five grocery aisles devoted to treat foods packed with sugar (the donut and muffin aisle, the cookies and crackers aisle, the soda aisle, the frozen desserts aisle, and the cakes and cookie mixes aisle), then by god we all agree that sugar is possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss.
Makes complete and total sense. They'll never approve or agree with that though.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
It doesn't0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
It doesn't
Sabine, ROFL. Thank you! Also, I haven't had time to comment on some of your earlier posts but I did want to tell you I appreciate what you have to say.
Cheers!
0 -
thanks!DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
It doesn't
Sabine, ROFL. Thank you! Also, I haven't had time to comment on some of your earlier posts but I did want to tell you I appreciate what you have to say.
Cheers!
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
Spam flags are used by petty people to put the mark on someone's profile and try to hurt their feels. They are supposed to be used on people selling things so the mods can get it gone ASAP.
-1 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »stealth -- the first two sentences address you directly. The "you" in the rest of the sentences refer to "those of you who hold this position."
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets.
I completely agree with your post. That is eating in moderation. But it's not "eat what you want in moderation."
People say all the time on these boards "eat what you want, just in moderation" or "eat what you are currently eating, just in moderation." And the corollaries -- "there are no good or bad foods," "all food is equal -- none is garbage or crap."
Just to clarify, I know the menu I posted was in fact NOT moderation, even though all nine foods were a single serving size, and the second menu I posted was also NOT moderation, even though I met all my numbers.
It was not moderation because it was all treat foods, not foods designed to help us.
If some foods are treats, then other foods are something other than treats. Some people call that food "healthy choices" or "clean eating" or "good food." I personally call it "regular food."
And since we all agree we should limit treats, and we all agree that we should eat food that is designed to help us, then we all agree that there are different kinds of food choices -- regular food and treats.
Most of our diet should consist of regular food, and some of our diet should consist of treats -- and here, within the context of treats, I am totally willing to concede that you can eat whatever you want. You want to eat a Big Mac, go for it. Deep-fried stick of butter? Have at it.
I am focusing on this issue this because I didn't get to 213 pounds by overeating regular food. I got there by eating a diet that looked a lot like a donut, a latte, and an egg and cheese croissant in the morning, a Subway sub, chips and two cookies for lunch, and a large pizza for dinner, washed down with milk and a sleeve of Oreos.
If I came on MFP and wrote "I need help losing weight" and the response was "just keep eating what you are eating, just in moderation," I'd be happy as a clam to do that! Keep eating what I eat but in moderation means "Keep eating what you are eating, just less of it." It does not mean "Change your diet drastically and save the treats for once in a while."
And after I try to eat what I'm eating but only less of it, and I fail spectacularly because the food I'm eating doesn't last long in my system so I am hungry all the time, my next MFP post would be "You told me what to do and I did it and it didn't work. I keep overeating even when I try not to! I must be addicted to sugar."
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
Much better advice would be "You need to cut out the crap on a daily basis and save it for a treat once or twice a week" or perhaps the slightly softer "You are eating treats instead of nutritious food. You have to change your diet to low calorie, highly nutritious foods in order to feel full all day long. You can continue to eat treats, but on a very limited basis, when you can fit them into your numbers. If you don't follow our advice, chances are very high that you will spend your diet days hungry and miserable, and you will just fail again at losing weight."
Categorizing people as lazy or lacking willpower when they can't control their overeating because they are basically following the advice to "eat what they want, just in moderation" and end up with hunger pangs and cravings is the absolute height of hypocrisy.
And just to bring this back to the original point, since we all agree that limiting treats is necessary for weight loss, and there are at least five grocery aisles devoted to treat foods packed with sugar (the donut and muffin aisle, the cookies and crackers aisle, the soda aisle, the frozen desserts aisle, and the cakes and cookie mixes aisle), then by god we all agree that sugar is possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss.
why, it works for the majority of people?
i am curious who this "we" that you speak of is….
-1 -
[/quote]
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
[/quote]
^^THIS is the only post I read besides the first one because I love Supernatural and Dean is my hollywood man crush.
My personal opinion of all this as far as limiting foods and weightloss is this : when you stress too much over what you should/should not be eating it creates even more needless anxiety than is even worth it.
First off, sugar does have it's place in the human body. Maybe not candy canes and lollipop sugars, but the nervous system feeds off of pure glucose.. which you know can also be found from carbs. But most people who low carb diet talk about a brain fog or lack of energy that's why it's so hard to stick to.... so lol at the title "the easiest thing" because that's just not true. BUT I'm going to out on a limb and *hope* you meant the quickest way to know what to cut down on when you are on a weightloss goal is to cut down on excess sugars. Yes easy to find where you are eating excess sugars and stop doing that- that's true. Focusing on cutting out "liquid calories" and sugar added foods WILL jump start you to your weigtloss goals, but that will only last so long before you feel kind of crummy. Which is the moderation part-- maybe 2 days a week you allow yourself to indulge in those drinks/foods for a meal or 2 to help you stay on track. You should try to invest in a routine SLOWLY that will help you stay consistent. Thinking one day you're going to cut excess sugars and drinks cold turkey forever is just lieing to yourself.
I remember my sugar filled addiction days and it took me 4 years of try again, fail again, fail better method in order to finally get to a point where my brain doesn't CRAVE sugar filled items to for quick energy (although I do take an appetite suppressant/fat burner called Liporidex.. that probably helped a lot too) BUT HECK i still drink a regular soda now and again and sweet tea . .. it doesn't taste as good anymore, but I do grab for one every now and again.
The truth is- the quickest way to weightloss is to 1) Hire someone who can help you figure out your nutritional macros, so you can see what the portion sizes for you even look like 2) if you can't afford someone there are great example diets you can start with as a basline on bodybuilding.com that are FREE 3) Once one of the above happens BE CONSISTENT with your nutritional intake and get out there and get moving for 30-40 minutes 2-3 times a week.
Don't stress yourself out with what type of exercise or whatever-- just do something that gets you moving! Go out dancing, go skiing, walk on a treadmill, walk outside-- you don't have to be doing MAX effort cardio in order to see results. Weightloss takes time - a weight loss goal of 1-2lbs a week is a realistic weightloss goal.. if you lose less than that you need to lower your calories by 500 calories/day if you lose more than that you can probably increase your calories by 500/day and still see a weight loss.
As as I'm concerned if you are steadily losing 1-2llbs a week whatever you are doing IS WORKING!!!! Who cares what others think? If it's working stick to it, when you see yourself plateau look at what other changes you can make, do it and keep going.
If you read something in a forum that sounds completely absurd or not logical for you to be able to follow- you're not there yet and don't stress about it! There are 23223687890109328913 ways to weightloss and the best way for YOU is the one you can stick to!
This message brought to you by an IFBB Professional Athlete.
Keep Moving Forward. 0 -
why, it works for the majority of people?
i am curious who this "we" that you speak of is….
The "we" are the people who are reading the posts, thinking about the content, then contributing to one side of the conversation, or the other, in meaningful and thoughtful ways.
And just for my own benefit, since apparently you disagree with my argument, I'm curious to know what part you disagree with.
Do you disagree that people should limit treats?
Do you disagree that the majority of people's diet should come from low-calorie, high nutrient foods?
Do you disagree that deep-fried butter would be considered a treat, and thus eaten sparingly?
Do you disagree that when people eat a diet full of treats instead of regular food, they suffer from hunger pangs more often than people who eat a diet of regular food and limit the treats?
Or do you agree with all of the statements and just randomly disagree with the conclusion?
-1 -
The post is correct - if you cut back on processed sugars. I agree that eating fruit-based sugar is okay in moderation - like anything else, moderation is important. I lost 50 pounds over the past year completely changing my diet and not considering what I do as temporary. What I have done is permanent. I eat fruits and veggies, lean meats (emphasis on seafood), and I don't eat any kind of bread or pasta. I eat whole nuts - 1-3 oz per day. I workout regularly and I feel fantastic.
I don't miss processed sugar and foods one bit. I don't drink caffeine whatsoever. I have so much energy I feel like I am manufacturing it!0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »
I have so much energy I feel like I am manufacturing it!
LOL -- good for you.
I need to eat more seafood. I'm not really comfortable cooking fish because I don't have experience doing it, so I tend to forgo fish when I'm looking at my proteins. But I love fish. I need just jump in and cook some and see how it turns out.
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I got a spam flag right away. Is that good? I really don't know how the flag system works.
No it's a petty thing that idiots use who don't agree with your post!
If I was a moderator here I would be kicking off the people who abuse the flagging system for their own selfish kicks.
-2 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
why, it works for the majority of people?
i am curious who this "we" that you speak of is….
The "we" are the people who are reading the posts, thinking about the content, then contributing to one side of the conversation, or the other, in meaningful and thoughtful ways.
And just for my own benefit, since apparently you disagree with my argument, I'm curious to know what part you disagree with.
Do you disagree that people should limit treats?
Do you disagree that the majority of people's diet should come from low-calorie, high nutrient foods?
Do you disagree that deep-fried butter would be considered a treat, and thus eaten sparingly?
Do you disagree that when people eat a diet full of treats instead of regular food, they suffer from hunger pangs more often than people who eat a diet of regular food and limit the treats?
Or do you agree with all of the statements and just randomly disagree with the conclusion?
I disagreed with the bolded part…here I cut and pasted it for you..
"Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice"
actually it is not, because learning to eat the foods that you like in moderation is a much better approach then saying restrict a whole food group because one deems it as "bad"…
It just amuses me when people like to use the word "we" as if they speak for everyone and everyone agrees with them, but the rest of us are just unthoughtful louts….it is an easy way to set up a straw man …
0 -
Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
Curious Ana. When you switched to GF did you find yourself better able to moderate? That's been my experience with it (similar symptoms plus sleepiness).
0 -
Telling people they should do something most people find difficult isn't good advice - you have to tell them how to actually accomplish it for it to be good advice.0
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
why, it works for the majority of people?
i am curious who this "we" that you speak of is….
The "we" are the people who are reading the posts, thinking about the content, then contributing to one side of the conversation, or the other, in meaningful and thoughtful ways.
And just for my own benefit, since apparently you disagree with my argument, I'm curious to know what part you disagree with.
Do you disagree that people should limit treats?
Do you disagree that the majority of people's diet should come from low-calorie, high nutrient foods?
Do you disagree that deep-fried butter would be considered a treat, and thus eaten sparingly?
Do you disagree that when people eat a diet full of treats instead of regular food, they suffer from hunger pangs more often than people who eat a diet of regular food and limit the treats?
Or do you agree with all of the statements and just randomly disagree with the conclusion?
I disagreed with the bolded part…here I cut and pasted it for you..
"Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice"
actually it is not, because learning to eat the foods that you like in moderation is a much better approach then saying restrict a whole food group because one deems it as "bad"…
It just amuses me when people like to use the word "we" as if they speak for everyone and everyone agrees with them, but the rest of us are just unthoughtful louts….it is an easy way to set up a straw man …
My answer to someone saying "I cut out sugar because it's toxic and evil according to the latest woman's magazine" would be different than my answer to someone who says "when I eat sugar/fats/carbs I can't seem to stop"....the answer for that may include a period of elimination (for adherence and self-confidence) whereas the former would be along the lines of moderation.
0 -
girlviernes wrote: »I dunno... maybe that should be the next diet craze... raw fat.
You mean like....say....downing spoonfuls of coconut oil?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions