Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »image
This thread has over 1 thousand posts! Is that very unusual? I keep posting mostly because we seem to be at a point now where the lightweights have drifted off and a more serious and less naming-calling conversation can actually take place without being hijacked by a bunch of "yes you did no you didn't" posts (some of which I know I'm responsible for
)
Personally I partly blame the MFP forums update. You can't really tell who's set in their ways and just having a discussion, vs who maybe started out rather recently and is really just exploring and asking questions. The join date used to be prominently displayed below each user's profile photo...
And I gather from MrM27's comments that a lot of people who are posting aren't even losing weight? Not that he or any of us could truly know whether or not people are losing weight, but is that commonly accepted knowledge, that some or a lot of people are just talking the talk without walking the walk?
I mostly took advice from those with demonstrable progress, or those whose posts made sense to me. I can't say that for me this claim of advice givers not losing weight is a standard assumption or that I've given it much thought.
Edited to clarify "this claim"
0 -
Yes Deirdre, I just had a quick look and it does appear relatively unusual. I only checked out December posts. However, there is another thread which has been going since January 2012 and has over 6 thousand posts - The 40+ Club - Where The Cool Kids Are
(apparently)
I might to have to check it out but you young ones will have to stay here or get your fake IDs ready.
0 -
It's the new setup. Threads used to be automatically locked after 500 posts. So it would roll to a new thread automatically. The new forums don't do that.0
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »image
This thread has over 1 thousand posts! Is that very unusual? I keep posting mostly because we seem to be at a point now where the lightweights have drifted off and a more serious and less naming-calling conversation can actually take place without being hijacked by a bunch of "yes you did no you didn't" posts (some of which I know I'm responsible for )
Personally I partly blame the MFP forums update. You can't really tell who's set in their ways and just having a discussion, vs who maybe started out rather recently and is really just exploring and asking questions. The join date used to be prominently displayed below each user's profile photo...
And I gather from MrM27's comments that a lot of people who are posting aren't even losing weight? Not that he or any of us could truly know whether or not people are losing weight, but is that commonly accepted knowledge, that some or a lot of people are just talking the talk without walking the walk?
It's the internet. Just assume everybody you're interacting with is an idiot, it's the safest course of action.
0 -
It's much like saying the pop is "fattening." Makes you fat. That kind of thing. They're not anti-Pepsi or anything.
Yep. When I go somewhere to eat and I want non diet Coke I ask for "full fat" or "red" coke (because of the can colour innit?).
There's this weird idea over here that sugary food items are correlated with fatness. You know British people. We're just bonkers us
0 -
If they are promoting the idea that eliminating food one likes/loves in order to be able to lose weight, then I definitely would not like it. If htey promote eliminating allergens or food for medical purposes, then that's fine.
Would your position still be the same if they were promoting the idea of eliminating food a person likes / loves in order to be able to lose weight because they had adverse and deeply ingrained negative psychological and behavioural associations with certain foods?
Say I have an allergy to a certain component found in food. Eating food containing it triggers and an adverse physical reaction (severe bloating, queasiness or so on.) Would anyone bat an eyelid if I said "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel physically unwell so I am getting rid of them. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Why then do we seem to have so much difficulty in accepting that for some people these adverse reactions may be psychological / behavioural and therefore elimination can actually be a superior technique (in the short term in more likelihood before foods are gradually reintroduced to assess reaction to them.) In other words "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel psychologically unwell (having even just one cookie makes me feel like my control is slipping, irritable, preoccupied) so I am getting rid of them for now. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Some people have a lot to take on board even when simply counting calories (let alone macros.) Insisting they also learn how to moderate their intake of particular foods they have psychological / behavioural issues with at the same time may put them off entirely. It is not a co-incidence that many diets have an induction phase. Part of this is certainly to prompt quick weight loss to secure adherence. Part of it is to avoid overload until other techniques are introduced.
Finally, I think much of the issue is people simply don't have any real idea to help people with deeper issues than just bland platitudes along the lines of "no foods are bad." Sure, giving yourself mental permission that no food is off the table is a good technique but it is not the only technique.0 -
Some people just feel the need to preach....it's an opiate thing, it's like sugar to them.
If they are promoting the idea that eliminating food one likes/loves in order to be able to lose weight, then I definitely would not like it. If htey promote eliminating allergens or food for medical purposes, then that's fine.
Would your position still be the same if they were promoting the idea of eliminating food a person likes / loves in order to be able to lose weight because they had adverse and deeply ingrained negative psychological and behavioural associations with certain foods?
Say I have an allergy to a certain component found in food. Eating food containing it triggers and an adverse physical reaction (severe bloating, queasiness or so on.) Would anyone bat an eyelid if I said "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel physically unwell so I am getting rid of them. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Why then do we seem to have so much difficulty in accepting that for some people these adverse reactions may be psychological / behavioural and therefore elimination can actually be a superior technique (in the short term in more likelihood before foods are gradually reintroduced to assess reaction to them.) In other words "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel psychologically unwell (having even just one cookie makes me feel like my control is slipping, irritable, preoccupied) so I am getting rid of them for now. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Some people have a lot to take on board even when simply counting calories (let alone macros.) Insisting they also learn how to moderate their intake of particular foods they have psychological / behavioural issues with at the same time may put them off entirely. It is not a co-incidence that many diets have an induction phase. Part of this is certainly to prompt quick weight loss to secure adherence. Part of it is to avoid overload until other techniques are introduced.
Finally, I think much of the issue is people simply don't have any real idea to help people with deeper issues than just bland platitudes along the lines of "no foods are bad." Sure, giving yourself mental permission that no food is off the table is a good technique but it is not the only technique.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Some people just feel the need to preach....it's an opiate thing, it's like sugar to them.
If they are promoting the idea that eliminating food one likes/loves in order to be able to lose weight, then I definitely would not like it. If htey promote eliminating allergens or food for medical purposes, then that's fine.
Would your position still be the same if they were promoting the idea of eliminating food a person likes / loves in order to be able to lose weight because they had adverse and deeply ingrained negative psychological and behavioural associations with certain foods?
Say I have an allergy to a certain component found in food. Eating food containing it triggers and an adverse physical reaction (severe bloating, queasiness or so on.) Would anyone bat an eyelid if I said "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel physically unwell so I am getting rid of them. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Why then do we seem to have so much difficulty in accepting that for some people these adverse reactions may be psychological / behavioural and therefore elimination can actually be a superior technique (in the short term in more likelihood before foods are gradually reintroduced to assess reaction to them.) In other words "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel psychologically unwell (having even just one cookie makes me feel like my control is slipping, irritable, preoccupied) so I am getting rid of them for now. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Some people have a lot to take on board even when simply counting calories (let alone macros.) Insisting they also learn how to moderate their intake of particular foods they have psychological / behavioural issues with at the same time may put them off entirely. It is not a co-incidence that many diets have an induction phase. Part of this is certainly to prompt quick weight loss to secure adherence. Part of it is to avoid overload until other techniques are introduced.
Finally, I think much of the issue is people simply don't have any real idea to help people with deeper issues than just bland platitudes along the lines of "no foods are bad." Sure, giving yourself mental permission that no food is off the table is a good technique but it is not the only technique.
Lol - well I know when I have a great meal it is a quasi-religious experience...
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »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).
Donuts help you meet your macro goals. heh.
Actually donuts will help you meet your macros goal. They're mainly carbs so they will count against your carb macros.
That's why just focusing on calories and macro's for a healthy diet is so flawed!
Not really. I focus on calories and macros (I really only focus on protein and having a good macro ratio for breakfast and lunch, though), and this enables me to eat pretty much anything. If I eat a late dinner and I see that I have to fill out 100g of carbs, I'm probably going to opt for a donut because I'd rather calorically dense intake that late at night so as to minimize stomach upset.
Donuts are great for carb macro needs. THey are not going to help you meet your protein needs, though. So clearly, one will need to eat other things like meat or fish or poultry. And fat intake? Well I can eat fatty meat or I can add butter or peanut butter. And do I want to only eat donuts all day? No, because I enjoy fruits and vegetables as well.
Moderation means one can eat any food, and that generally doesn't result in only eating donuts.
It's flawed because if I eat what i want, but in moderation then how am I making sure I'm getting all the micro nutrients I need.
My food choice may be - breakfast McDonalds: Sausage and egg mcmuffin with a hash brown (sticking to one hash, because I'm eating in moderation) and drink of choice full fat coke! Lunch at pizza hut (not a whole pizza, because I'm eating in moderation and for dinner something with chicken in a sweet sauce (maybe sweet & sour) and rice!
Now I may meet my macros and calories eating those things, I will eat them all in moderation because I have will power, so I stay in a calorie deficit.
But I'm a creature of habit and eat this everyday, because this is the food i WANT! I think before long I may be suffering the effects of some vitamin deficiencies.
So yes - for a healthy diet, it does matter what you eat and not just meeting you cals and Macros.
For a healthy diet it's important that we hit our micros. Any cals left after that can be used up eating anything we WANT!
I lol'ed because Coke has no fat.
Also, to be fair.. your OP was about weight loss, not eating for health.
I feel I need to give you a high five - I knew someone would pick up on that, I'm just glad it was one of you guys!
You are correct, my original OP was about the easiest thing and least important on a nutrient level, food stuff to cut back on (Not eliminate, or cut out) to get into a calorie deficit.
But to be fair, this thread stopped being about that from the first page!
0 -
I've reduced my sugar intake since September and its contributed to a double rate weight loss compared to a year ago when I actually had a slightly lower net calorie intake but didn't really track sugar.
Nothing dramatic, just cut the basic target to 60g ( 1750 calories target ) and made sure most of that comes from natural sources ie fruit. I can now eat more fat ( ~40% of calories ) without breaking my calorie target, which is nice.
And sure, I have the odd treat at the weekend especially if I've had a long run, or whatever. You have to live a little.
But in conclusion, whatever people say, the make-up of your calories does have an effect, IMHO.0 -
tigersword wrote: »
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.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/healthy-kitchen-11/10-missing-nutrients?page=1
https://www.cag-acg.org/uploads/cddw2014/sunday/diet_gi_health_nutrition_in_canada_gramlich.pdf
28% - 76% of patients admitted to hospitals were malnourished in US, UK. Malnourised patients had poorer outcomes and were more difficult to treat.
http://www.health.com/health/gallery/0,,20553010,00.html average person gets just 15 grams of fiber a day
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2013003/article/11773-eng.htm
34% of Canadian seniors at risk of (or actively) nutritional deficiency
http://www.rebeccablood.net/domestic/wheat.html
How whole wheat stacks up to white flour and white enriched flour. Whole wheat had more of 9 out of 10 minerals (including selenium, magnesium, and potassium), more of all amino acids, and more fiber.
http://www.livestrong.com/article/487412-malnutrition-in-america/
According to the CDC 2000-3000 elderly die in the US each year due to malnutrition
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2012/p0402_vitamins_nutrients.html
CDC reports women of childbearing years borderline iodine deficient (reduced table salt consumption?) 30% of black men vitamin D deficient, 11-13% children, women of child bearing age of certain ethnic groups iron deficient
Where were the links to your studies, again?
I know a lot of people who are fiber deficient, and generally am a bit low myself. It is difficult, and takes planning to get good macros and micros, especially on 1200 calories a day.
Processed foods almost never include green leafy vegetables, which are a huge source of a lot of micronutrients.
I think there are a few reasons women are more likely to be osteoporotic. First of all, they live long enough to get that way. Even though average dairy intake is good these days, someone with osteoporosis may have lived through times when it wasn't (depression, food rationing during WW2). I think women have more pressure to look good, and bodies that put on more fat, and cycling hormones, and pregnancy, and so are also more likely to do weird fad diets that are nutrient poor. Osteoporosis occurs after a lifetime of eating, and everything we do for or against our bones in those years counts. The fact that suppemental calcium can help people with osteoporosis shows that they are deficient, even if they were already eating the CDC recommended amount.
It is possible to get all your protein from processed meat, all carbs from processed grains, and no balance in fats, leading to nutritional deficiencies (and almost no fiber). Some people cut out entire food groups (dairy, fruits), but can still meet macros, putting themselves at risk for malnutrition, even as they become obese (general population, not those eating at a deficit).
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I was under the impression that you would be looking to eat all of the items listed on the menu (in both examples) on the same day.
Menu 1 doesn't work because you're over total calories.
Menu 2 doesn't work because while you're at calories you'd be more apt to overeat due to lack of satiation, adherence issues etc.
So, when I say moderation must scale to your TDEE. It means, select one or two of the items instead of all of that. That way, you still have 80% of your calories to utilize towards more nutrient dense foods.
Someone with my activity level could eat all of Menu example 1 with calories left over and lose at a rate of over 1/lb a week.. Or, I could eat all of Menu 2 and have even more food left to consume.
Yes, those menus were intended to be eaten all in one day. I used my food diary to make the menus, but I don't actually want to eat that way. I was using them to call bs on the oft repeated advice "to lose weight, eat what you want, just in moderation."
I wanted to show that if someone followed that advice and ate what they wanted -- high calorie, low nutrient foods -- they would wind up overeating due to lack of satiation, etc., as you have pointed out.
Based on what you and Tigger a couple of posts ago and other people have pointed out, "eat what you want, just in moderation" is actually doable for people whose calorie goal and macros are much larger than mine -- the vast majority of men and women who are taller and / or more active than me, for example. And as Lemurcat pointed out, many people who are overweight do already eat a well balanced menu, just too much of it, so the advice would work as well for the men and women who aren't already covered by the first category.
So, now that the mantra has been fully clarified for me, I'm happy to change my original position. "Eat what you want, only in moderation" is perfectly fine advice for many people.
Someone many pages ago said they thought I must be joking because someone couldn't be that obtuse. No, I wasn't joking -- I really was bothered by the advice. Now that I've had the chance to have a proper conversation about it, I can see why the advice is given. That's all I was ever after in the first place.
I would go on to say "so long as you are still within a caloric deficit at the end of the day" (which should be a given) as well. Sure, you won't be able to eat ALL items while on that low of calories, but one or two provided it doesn't make up a huge percentage of total calories. Also, the satiation thing will impact everyone differently as well, but for you it may be a larger factor and bigger piece to the overall puzzle.
- quick edit.
This is really the problem with the 'bs' statement; someone earlier in this thread and other threads understood what was meant. In moderation as long as you meet your caloric needs and are still in a deficit. If you are going to use the site for your calorie counting then go back and check you input numbers. If the math doesn't work (see your wine input for starters) go back and learn how the calories of certain items are mostly or completely one MACRO. If I drank 220 calories of wine my diary ought to indicate those calories in my MACROS. So, if my wine entry is 220 calories, how much is Fat, Protein, or Carbs? If it is all Carbs, then it would have more then 4 grams of Carbs. The number of Carbs would be closer to 55. Over time your accuracy will get better and your eye will see where their holes in your MACRO make-up which leads to avoiding posts like "My numbers do not add up" or "I am still hungry and I've had all my calories for the day"
If you use the site to understand your MACRO breakdown then accurate logging is a really good idea. Round 39 of Good Luck.
0 -
If they are promoting the idea that eliminating food one likes/loves in order to be able to lose weight, then I definitely would not like it. If htey promote eliminating allergens or food for medical purposes, then that's fine.
Would your position still be the same if they were promoting the idea of eliminating food a person likes / loves in order to be able to lose weight because they had adverse and deeply ingrained negative psychological and behavioural associations with certain foods?
Say I have an allergy to a certain component found in food. Eating food containing it triggers and an adverse physical reaction (severe bloating, queasiness or so on.) Would anyone bat an eyelid if I said "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel physically unwell so I am getting rid of them. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Why then do we seem to have so much difficulty in accepting that for some people these adverse reactions may be psychological / behavioural and therefore elimination can actually be a superior technique (in the short term in more likelihood before foods are gradually reintroduced to assess reaction to them.) In other words "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel psychologically unwell (having even just one cookie makes me feel like my control is slipping, irritable, preoccupied) so I am getting rid of them for now. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Some people have a lot to take on board even when simply counting calories (let alone macros.) Insisting they also learn how to moderate their intake of particular foods they have psychological / behavioural issues with at the same time may put them off entirely. It is not a co-incidence that many diets have an induction phase. Part of this is certainly to prompt quick weight loss to secure adherence. Part of it is to avoid overload until other techniques are introduced.
Finally, I think much of the issue is people simply don't have any real idea to help people with deeper issues than just bland platitudes along the lines of "no foods are bad." Sure, giving yourself mental permission that no food is off the table is a good technique but it is not the only technique.
I'm not that gung ho about it, but I am indeed against elimination diets and tend to agree with those who state so. At the very least, this is my position until digging into the situation (if the target is willing) proves other approaches may be better:
a) I'm not sure what alternatives have been tried. Did they jump straight to elimination before giving some techniques a shot because some random magazine article told them they had to? Purchasing single servings, portioning out the food, keeping the item out of the house but having it once in a while knowing occasional exposure won't completely derail their diets, cooking a fixed amount from scratch because when it's gone, it's GONE and you won't feel like making more? Etc etc. I would be curious if any of these have been tried, just because MFP supposedly has millions of members. Where's the link to their MFP help thread seeking moderation help and what was their response to the suggestions? Who knows how many people are reading this stuff and assuming from posts they read that they need to take this or that Overly restrictive approach? I believe it would be a disservice to the readers to accept an elimination diet without question
b) Kind of alluded to this in a) above but there's too much derp on the Internet. I came to MFP when I wanted to get away from all the derp. MFP delivered. Can MFP PLEASE remain a derp free zone?
c) Speaking of elimination and other derp, a lot of us tried this crap and it didn't work. This is the General Weight loss HELP forum. Most participants are going to give whatever help they feel is best, not what the reader wants to hear or whatever it is they've come looking for (please help me with my raspberry ketones or garcinia cambordia diet or some such). The post stating that it was disrespectful to do this actually made sense to me somewhat, but where do we draw the line? At what point do we say, "Ma'am, just No"? Well we can't agree on this point so many just put it down from the beginning
Now if the user has psychological issues, then they need to be talking with a professional or are already working with one. Input from readers on an interwebs forum would therefore be completely irrelevant and they wouldn't even be seeking advice or interacting with us on these kinds of threads to begin with. It's the one fairly constant pass you'll receive on here for a weirdo diet. "Oh your doctor prescribed it for you and you follow up with them regularly? Carry on, but obviously that doesn't make it the diet standard advice for everyone that most likely doesn't have your identical set of medical issues"
0 -
Diedre: Only 3 ways the body burns fuel(calories): BMR(being alive), TEF(thermic effect of foods consumed) and TEA(exercise) When people start to understand as they lose weight and lower there caloric intake exercise was their 'friend' all along it is a beautiful day. It allows for consumption of more fuel. . . .who knew?!? So the 80/20 ratio is a little larger due to an increase in calories and provides for both more nutrient dense foods and foods deemed treats. Better?DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
After doing some light reading on MFP forums, one of the first things I did when I started logging seriously was to change my weekly loss target from 1 lb per week to .5. I needed those extra 250 calories. Bad. At the minimum it bought me time to figure out more nutrition options. I hope you're not set that low already!
I'm set at 1 pound per week. I've been doing it for three months and have lost 19 pounds. Every time I update my weight, my calories decrease the next day (lol so I don't update my weight very often).
I started at 1460 and now I'm at 1390. In about 10 pounds, I'll be close to 1300 and will have to seriously consider adding exercise.
Yep. Exercise or adjusting weekly weight loss targets are pretty much standard methods for getting more calories and ultimately not feeling so restricted. With exercise and changing to 0.5 lb per week, You could be at 1390+500 calories per day which I assume would be quite a bit more food. But I understand if you'd want to ease into things
Personally I partly blame the MFP forums update. You can't really tell who's set in their ways and just having a discussion, vs who maybe started out rather recently and is really just exploring and asking questions. The join date used to be prominently displayed below each user's profile photo...
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…Apparently DeirdreWoodward said it.
I said "telling people to eat what they want, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
Jdj either types too quickly or doesn't realize that words serve a purpose since he cut some out when he wrote "apparently eating in moderation is a 'terrible' idea".
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.
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.
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." I don't know why they say both "moderation is eat what you want as long as it fits within your numbers" and simultaneously "while that fits within your numbers, it is not moderation." They haven't explained themselves.
Point is, we all use the word moderation to mean different things, then we argue.
*Moe's Southwestern Grill has a single serving of nachos that logs in at 1700 calories. That ain't a moderate amount of food, so my definition definitely has exceptions. And it also turns out that the USDA's definition of "single serving" is based on a survey of regular folks who reported what they thought a single serving size of X food should be, so there's no science, just opinion, behind what a single serving size is.
I believe the "eat whatever you want, in moderation" that is bandied about is pretty meaningless, just as last years "eat more to weigh less" was.
A new dieter needs to understand what moderation is, and, imho, should understand what healthy eating is. Many don't. 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. Sure, they "meet their macros", but not with nutrient dense foods.
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.
But then, I agree with the OP that it's much easier for the long haul, to limit foods with added sugars. But I also lost weight without logging and find logging for the long haul unsustainable. Sure, some can "eat all the foods in moderation" without logging, but I'm betting the average woman my age, with my lifestyle would find it more challenging than simply limiting sugary junk foods.
Again: my goal was get to a healthy weight, with good health and fitness, and keep that healthy weight, while either improving or maintaining fitness. Perhaps others have different goals.
Since you don't log, I feel like I should clarify something in response to the statement in bold for other readers. I actually saw someone mention that ultimately she set her diary to private because she got tired of explaining the recipe function to people. You could be the most veg loving person, but if these items are included in recipe names like "chicken and biscuits", for example, the casual diary browser would have no way of knowing whether or not it contains veg. I prefer the recipe function for items I made from scratch since I can either just use it the same way each time, or tweak the quantities of one or two ingredients and I'm all set. It also results in a diary with fewer items overall so visually I kind of like that
Now if the items are listed individually it's quite a bit more likely (though frankly, still not guaranteed) that there are no additional items you can't see
0 -
If they are promoting the idea that eliminating food one likes/loves in order to be able to lose weight, then I definitely would not like it. If htey promote eliminating allergens or food for medical purposes, then that's fine.
Would your position still be the same if they were promoting the idea of eliminating food a person likes / loves in order to be able to lose weight because they had adverse and deeply ingrained negative psychological and behavioural associations with certain foods?
Say I have an allergy to a certain component found in food. Eating food containing it triggers and an adverse physical reaction (severe bloating, queasiness or so on.) Would anyone bat an eyelid if I said "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel physically unwell so I am getting rid of them. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Why then do we seem to have so much difficulty in accepting that for some people these adverse reactions may be psychological / behavioural and therefore elimination can actually be a superior technique (in the short term in more likelihood before foods are gradually reintroduced to assess reaction to them.) In other words "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel psychologically unwell (having even just one cookie makes me feel like my control is slipping, irritable, preoccupied) so I am getting rid of them for now. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Some people have a lot to take on board even when simply counting calories (let alone macros.) Insisting they also learn how to moderate their intake of particular foods they have psychological / behavioural issues with at the same time may put them off entirely. It is not a co-incidence that many diets have an induction phase. Part of this is certainly to prompt quick weight loss to secure adherence. Part of it is to avoid overload until other techniques are introduced.
Finally, I think much of the issue is people simply don't have any real idea to help people with deeper issues than just bland platitudes along the lines of "no foods are bad." Sure, giving yourself mental permission that no food is off the table is a good technique but it is not the only technique.
I'm not that gung ho about it, but I am indeed against elimination diets and tend to agree with those who state so. At the very least, this is my position until digging into the situation (if the target is willing) proves other approaches may be better:
a) I'm not sure what alternatives have been tried. Did they jump straight to elimination before giving some techniques a shot because some random magazine article told them they had to? Purchasing single servings, portioning out the food, keeping the item out of the house but having it once in a while knowing occasional exposure won't completely derail their diets, cooking a fixed amount from scratch because when it's gone, it's GONE and you won't feel like making more? Etc etc. I would be curious if any of these have been tried, just because MFP supposedly has millions of members. Where's the link to their MFP help thread seeking moderation help and what was their response to the suggestions? Who knows how many people are reading this stuff and assuming from posts they read that they need to take this or that Overly restrictive approach? I believe it would be a disservice to the readers to accept an elimination diet without question
b) Kind of alluded to this in a) above but there's too much derp on the Internet. I came to MFP when I wanted to get away from all the derp. MFP delivered. Can MFP PLEASE remain a derp free zone?
c) Speaking of elimination and other derp, a lot of us tried this crap and it didn't work. This is the General Weight loss HELP forum. Most participants are going to give whatever help they feel is best, not what the reader wants to hear or whatever it is they've come looking for (please help me with my raspberry ketones or garcinia cambordia diet or some such). The post stating that it was disrespectful to do this actually made sense to me somewhat, but where do we draw the line? At what point do we say, "Ma'am, just No"? Well we can't agree on this point so many just put it down from the beginning
Now if the user has psychological issues, then they need to be talking with a professional or are already working with one. Input from readers on an interwebs forum would therefore be completely irrelevant and they wouldn't even be seeking advice or interacting with us on these kinds of threads to begin with. It's the one fairly constant pass you'll receive on here for a weirdo diet. "Oh your doctor prescribed it for you and you follow up with them regularly? Carry on, but obviously that doesn't make it the diet standard advice for everyone that most likely doesn't have your identical set of medical issues"
I don't have any issue with any of what you say except for the last paragraph (which I will come to in a minute.) In fact I share your views by and large.
Moderation, elimination, restriction, squat bro!, cardio and so on are tools that in some circumstances are appropriate and in some are not. It depends on the individual. Some may be far more generally applicable than others (moderation for example) but that does not mean one can simply blunder into a thread and when they have feedback from the individual concerned insist that they must adopt an approach when it is clear it may not be the best approach in the given circumstances (bearing in mind physiology and psychology.)
Psychological issues in dieting are a spectrum ranging from mild over eating problems which can be solved with simple techniques to a disorder on the other end which will probably need professional intervention. People who sit somewhere in the middle of this spectrum do not necessarily need to relegated from the forums with "you need professional advice" because the reality may well be they don't. They just need people who understand and are understanding and who can help them rather than "you go sit in the corner with all the other crazy people."
I think we need more openness and more engagement with mental health / psychological issues in general (in fact I believe there will always be interplay between psychology and physiology in dieting although the focus and associated advice will for the foreseeable drastically focus on the physical.)
0 -
If they are promoting the idea that eliminating food one likes/loves in order to be able to lose weight, then I definitely would not like it. If htey promote eliminating allergens or food for medical purposes, then that's fine.
Would your position still be the same if they were promoting the idea of eliminating food a person likes / loves in order to be able to lose weight because they had adverse and deeply ingrained negative psychological and behavioural associations with certain foods?
Say I have an allergy to a certain component found in food. Eating food containing it triggers and an adverse physical reaction (severe bloating, queasiness or so on.) Would anyone bat an eyelid if I said "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel physically unwell so I am getting rid of them. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Why then do we seem to have so much difficulty in accepting that for some people these adverse reactions may be psychological / behavioural and therefore elimination can actually be a superior technique (in the short term in more likelihood before foods are gradually reintroduced to assess reaction to them.) In other words "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel psychologically unwell (having even just one cookie makes me feel like my control is slipping, irritable, preoccupied) so I am getting rid of them for now. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Some people have a lot to take on board even when simply counting calories (let alone macros.) Insisting they also learn how to moderate their intake of particular foods they have psychological / behavioural issues with at the same time may put them off entirely. It is not a co-incidence that many diets have an induction phase. Part of this is certainly to prompt quick weight loss to secure adherence. Part of it is to avoid overload until other techniques are introduced.
Finally, I think much of the issue is people simply don't have any real idea to help people with deeper issues than just bland platitudes along the lines of "no foods are bad." Sure, giving yourself mental permission that no food is off the table is a good technique but it is not the only technique.
I'm not that gung ho about it, but I am indeed against elimination diets and tend to agree with those who state so. At the very least, this is my position until digging into the situation (if the target is willing) proves other approaches may be better:
a) I'm not sure what alternatives have been tried. Did they jump straight to elimination before giving some techniques a shot because some random magazine article told them they had to? Purchasing single servings, portioning out the food, keeping the item out of the house but having it once in a while knowing occasional exposure won't completely derail their diets, cooking a fixed amount from scratch because when it's gone, it's GONE and you won't feel like making more? Etc etc. I would be curious if any of these have been tried, just because MFP supposedly has millions of members. Where's the link to their MFP help thread seeking moderation help and what was their response to the suggestions? Who knows how many people are reading this stuff and assuming from posts they read that they need to take this or that Overly restrictive approach? I believe it would be a disservice to the readers to accept an elimination diet without question
b) Kind of alluded to this in a) above but there's too much derp on the Internet. I came to MFP when I wanted to get away from all the derp. MFP delivered. Can MFP PLEASE remain a derp free zone?
c) Speaking of elimination and other derp, a lot of us tried this crap and it didn't work. This is the General Weight loss HELP forum. Most participants are going to give whatever help they feel is best, not what the reader wants to hear or whatever it is they've come looking for (please help me with my raspberry ketones or garcinia cambordia diet or some such). The post stating that it was disrespectful to do this actually made sense to me somewhat, but where do we draw the line? At what point do we say, "Ma'am, just No"? Well we can't agree on this point so many just put it down from the beginning
Now if the user has psychological issues, then they need to be talking with a professional or are already working with one. Input from readers on an interwebs forum would therefore be completely irrelevant and they wouldn't even be seeking advice or interacting with us on these kinds of threads to begin with. It's the one fairly constant pass you'll receive on here for a weirdo diet. "Oh your doctor prescribed it for you and you follow up with them regularly? Carry on, but obviously that doesn't make it the diet standard advice for everyone that most likely doesn't have your identical set of medical issues"
I don't have any issue with any of what you say except for the last paragraph (which I will come to in a minute.) In fact I share your views by and large.
Moderation, elimination, restriction, squat bro!, cardio and so on are tools that in some circumstances are appropriate and in some are not. It depends on the individual. Some may be far more generally applicable than others (moderation for example) but that does not mean one can simply blunder into a thread and when they have feedback from the individual concerned insist that they must adopt an approach when it is clear it may not be the best approach in the given circumstances (bearing in mind physiology and psychology.)
Psychological issues in dieting are a spectrum ranging from mild over eating problems which can be solved with simple techniques to a disorder on the other end which will probably need professional intervention. People who sit somewhere in the middle of this spectrum do not necessarily need to relegated from the forums with "you need professional advice" because the reality may well be they don't. They just need people who understand and are understanding and who can help them rather than "you go sit in the corner with all the other crazy people."
I think we need more openness and more engagement with mental health / psychological issues in general (in fact I believe there will always be interplay between psychology and physiology in dieting although the focus and associated advice will for the foreseeable drastically focus on the physical.)
I feel like that's stepping into the murky waters of asking everyone to be pseudo-professionals whereas in fact MFP used to have a standard disclaimer that posts from mods and admins - and presumably all regular members - were not to be considered medical advice. That said, it's up to the original poster seeking help to disclose any medical conditions such as eating disorders if it's relevant to their topic. Generally speaking I would not assume that someone had any physical or psychological limitations unless they explicitly stated this. Now if you feel you're more sensitive to the kinds of issues you described, by all means stick around and offer your empathy, understanding and advice to those you feel need it in the future
0 -
If they are promoting the idea that eliminating food one likes/loves in order to be able to lose weight, then I definitely would not like it. If htey promote eliminating allergens or food for medical purposes, then that's fine.
Would your position still be the same if they were promoting the idea of eliminating food a person likes / loves in order to be able to lose weight because they had adverse and deeply ingrained negative psychological and behavioural associations with certain foods?
Say I have an allergy to a certain component found in food. Eating food containing it triggers and an adverse physical reaction (severe bloating, queasiness or so on.) Would anyone bat an eyelid if I said "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel physically unwell so I am getting rid of them. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Why then do we seem to have so much difficulty in accepting that for some people these adverse reactions may be psychological / behavioural and therefore elimination can actually be a superior technique (in the short term in more likelihood before foods are gradually reintroduced to assess reaction to them.) In other words "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel psychologically unwell (having even just one cookie makes me feel like my control is slipping, irritable, preoccupied) so I am getting rid of them for now. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Some people have a lot to take on board even when simply counting calories (let alone macros.) Insisting they also learn how to moderate their intake of particular foods they have psychological / behavioural issues with at the same time may put them off entirely. It is not a co-incidence that many diets have an induction phase. Part of this is certainly to prompt quick weight loss to secure adherence. Part of it is to avoid overload until other techniques are introduced.
Finally, I think much of the issue is people simply don't have any real idea to help people with deeper issues than just bland platitudes along the lines of "no foods are bad." Sure, giving yourself mental permission that no food is off the table is a good technique but it is not the only technique.
I'm not that gung ho about it, but I am indeed against elimination diets and tend to agree with those who state so. At the very least, this is my position until digging into the situation (if the target is willing) proves other approaches may be better:
a) I'm not sure what alternatives have been tried. Did they jump straight to elimination before giving some techniques a shot because some random magazine article told them they had to? Purchasing single servings, portioning out the food, keeping the item out of the house but having it once in a while knowing occasional exposure won't completely derail their diets, cooking a fixed amount from scratch because when it's gone, it's GONE and you won't feel like making more? Etc etc. I would be curious if any of these have been tried, just because MFP supposedly has millions of members. Where's the link to their MFP help thread seeking moderation help and what was their response to the suggestions? Who knows how many people are reading this stuff and assuming from posts they read that they need to take this or that Overly restrictive approach? I believe it would be a disservice to the readers to accept an elimination diet without question
b) Kind of alluded to this in a) above but there's too much derp on the Internet. I came to MFP when I wanted to get away from all the derp. MFP delivered. Can MFP PLEASE remain a derp free zone?
c) Speaking of elimination and other derp, a lot of us tried this crap and it didn't work. This is the General Weight loss HELP forum. Most participants are going to give whatever help they feel is best, not what the reader wants to hear or whatever it is they've come looking for (please help me with my raspberry ketones or garcinia cambordia diet or some such). The post stating that it was disrespectful to do this actually made sense to me somewhat, but where do we draw the line? At what point do we say, "Ma'am, just No"? Well we can't agree on this point so many just put it down from the beginning
Now if the user has psychological issues, then they need to be talking with a professional or are already working with one. Input from readers on an interwebs forum would therefore be completely irrelevant and they wouldn't even be seeking advice or interacting with us on these kinds of threads to begin with. It's the one fairly constant pass you'll receive on here for a weirdo diet. "Oh your doctor prescribed it for you and you follow up with them regularly? Carry on, but obviously that doesn't make it the diet standard advice for everyone that most likely doesn't have your identical set of medical issues"
I don't have any issue with any of what you say except for the last paragraph (which I will come to in a minute.) In fact I share your views by and large.
Moderation, elimination, restriction, squat bro!, cardio and so on are tools that in some circumstances are appropriate and in some are not. It depends on the individual. Some may be far more generally applicable than others (moderation for example) but that does not mean one can simply blunder into a thread and when they have feedback from the individual concerned insist that they must adopt an approach when it is clear it may not be the best approach in the given circumstances (bearing in mind physiology and psychology.)
Psychological issues in dieting are a spectrum ranging from mild over eating problems which can be solved with simple techniques to a disorder on the other end which will probably need professional intervention. People who sit somewhere in the middle of this spectrum do not necessarily need to relegated from the forums with "you need professional advice" because the reality may well be they don't. They just need people who understand and are understanding and who can help them rather than "you go sit in the corner with all the other crazy people."
I think we need more openness and more engagement with mental health / psychological issues in general (in fact I believe there will always be interplay between psychology and physiology in dieting although the focus and associated advice will for the foreseeable drastically focus on the physical.)
I feel like that's stepping into the murky waters of asking everyone to be pseudo-professionals whereas in fact MFP used to have a standard disclaimer that posts from mods and admins - and presumably all regular members - were not to be considered medical advice. That said, it's up to the original poster seeking help to disclose any medical conditions such as eating disorders if it's relevant to their topic. Generally speaking I would not assume that someone had any physical or psychological limitations unless they explicitly stated this. Now if you feel you're more sensitive to the kinds of issues you described, by all means stick around and offer your empathy, understanding and advice to those you feel need it in the future
Really? I don't think that for myself as posters seem to have no problem giving advice on basic physiology ("have you tried a calorie deficit?") When it comes to basic psychology why would the position be any different? It simply needs people to be open to it or consider it.
What goes on in the mind isn't somehow more difficult to comprehend than what goes on in the body which can be terrifically complex but rather our collective focus seems more at ease with considering the physical. Hence my viewpoint on more openness and understanding in this regard.
And thanks. I hope I have done that in the past and continue to do so in the future.0 -
If they are promoting the idea that eliminating food one likes/loves in order to be able to lose weight, then I definitely would not like it. If htey promote eliminating allergens or food for medical purposes, then that's fine.
Would your position still be the same if they were promoting the idea of eliminating food a person likes / loves in order to be able to lose weight because they had adverse and deeply ingrained negative psychological and behavioural associations with certain foods?
Say I have an allergy to a certain component found in food. Eating food containing it triggers and an adverse physical reaction (severe bloating, queasiness or so on.) Would anyone bat an eyelid if I said "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel physically unwell so I am getting rid of them. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Why then do we seem to have so much difficulty in accepting that for some people these adverse reactions may be psychological / behavioural and therefore elimination can actually be a superior technique (in the short term in more likelihood before foods are gradually reintroduced to assess reaction to them.) In other words "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel psychologically unwell (having even just one cookie makes me feel like my control is slipping, irritable, preoccupied) so I am getting rid of them for now. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Some people have a lot to take on board even when simply counting calories (let alone macros.) Insisting they also learn how to moderate their intake of particular foods they have psychological / behavioural issues with at the same time may put them off entirely. It is not a co-incidence that many diets have an induction phase. Part of this is certainly to prompt quick weight loss to secure adherence. Part of it is to avoid overload until other techniques are introduced.
Finally, I think much of the issue is people simply don't have any real idea to help people with deeper issues than just bland platitudes along the lines of "no foods are bad." Sure, giving yourself mental permission that no food is off the table is a good technique but it is not the only technique.
I'm not that gung ho about it, but I am indeed against elimination diets and tend to agree with those who state so. At the very least, this is my position until digging into the situation (if the target is willing) proves other approaches may be better:
a) I'm not sure what alternatives have been tried. Did they jump straight to elimination before giving some techniques a shot because some random magazine article told them they had to? Purchasing single servings, portioning out the food, keeping the item out of the house but having it once in a while knowing occasional exposure won't completely derail their diets, cooking a fixed amount from scratch because when it's gone, it's GONE and you won't feel like making more? Etc etc. I would be curious if any of these have been tried, just because MFP supposedly has millions of members. Where's the link to their MFP help thread seeking moderation help and what was their response to the suggestions? Who knows how many people are reading this stuff and assuming from posts they read that they need to take this or that Overly restrictive approach? I believe it would be a disservice to the readers to accept an elimination diet without question
b) Kind of alluded to this in a) above but there's too much derp on the Internet. I came to MFP when I wanted to get away from all the derp. MFP delivered. Can MFP PLEASE remain a derp free zone?
c) Speaking of elimination and other derp, a lot of us tried this crap and it didn't work. This is the General Weight loss HELP forum. Most participants are going to give whatever help they feel is best, not what the reader wants to hear or whatever it is they've come looking for (please help me with my raspberry ketones or garcinia cambordia diet or some such). The post stating that it was disrespectful to do this actually made sense to me somewhat, but where do we draw the line? At what point do we say, "Ma'am, just No"? Well we can't agree on this point so many just put it down from the beginning
Now if the user has psychological issues, then they need to be talking with a professional or are already working with one. Input from readers on an interwebs forum would therefore be completely irrelevant and they wouldn't even be seeking advice or interacting with us on these kinds of threads to begin with. It's the one fairly constant pass you'll receive on here for a weirdo diet. "Oh your doctor prescribed it for you and you follow up with them regularly? Carry on, but obviously that doesn't make it the diet standard advice for everyone that most likely doesn't have your identical set of medical issues"
I don't have any issue with any of what you say except for the last paragraph (which I will come to in a minute.) In fact I share your views by and large.
Moderation, elimination, restriction, squat bro!, cardio and so on are tools that in some circumstances are appropriate and in some are not. It depends on the individual. Some may be far more generally applicable than others (moderation for example) but that does not mean one can simply blunder into a thread and when they have feedback from the individual concerned insist that they must adopt an approach when it is clear it may not be the best approach in the given circumstances (bearing in mind physiology and psychology.)
Psychological issues in dieting are a spectrum ranging from mild over eating problems which can be solved with simple techniques to a disorder on the other end which will probably need professional intervention. People who sit somewhere in the middle of this spectrum do not necessarily need to relegated from the forums with "you need professional advice" because the reality may well be they don't. They just need people who understand and are understanding and who can help them rather than "you go sit in the corner with all the other crazy people."
I think we need more openness and more engagement with mental health / psychological issues in general (in fact I believe there will always be interplay between psychology and physiology in dieting although the focus and associated advice will for the foreseeable drastically focus on the physical.)
I feel like that's stepping into the murky waters of asking everyone to be pseudo-professionals whereas in fact MFP used to have a standard disclaimer that posts from mods and admins - and presumably all regular members - were not to be considered medical advice. That said, it's up to the original poster seeking help to disclose any medical conditions such as eating disorders if it's relevant to their topic. Generally speaking I would not assume that someone had any physical or psychological limitations unless they explicitly stated this. Now if you feel you're more sensitive to the kinds of issues you described, by all means stick around and offer your empathy, understanding and advice to those you feel need it in the future
Really? I don't think that for myself as posters seem to have no problem giving advice on basic physiology ("have you tried a calorie deficit?") When it comes to basic psychology why would the position be any different? It simply needs people to be open to it or consider it.
What goes on in the mind isn't somehow more difficult to comprehend than what goes on in the body which can be terrifically complex but rather our collective focus seems more at ease with considering the physical. Hence my viewpoint on more openness and understanding in this regard.
And thanks. I hope I have done that in the past and continue to do so in the future.
Yes, really! It's a calorie counting website, absolutely that's what people would say first. On the Calorie Counting 101 Stickie post the guy basically prefaces it with, look, I'm writing my stickie on the basis that if you eat less than you burn, you'll lose weight. He even asks those who would prefer to argue this point to pick another forum post to do so. All the tools in the entire site are built around this concept, and you can also see here and there, where they've created boundaries to protect themselves a little - warnings when calories logged for the day dip below 1200/1500, the "not medical advice" message previously displayed, etc. I just don't see psychological issues falling into the same category at all on this site
0 -
They just need people who understand and are understanding and who can help them rather than "you go sit in the corner with all the other crazy people."
I should state here that this sentence is meant to be a reflection of society's broader perception of mental health issues (that somehow people who experience the same should be segregated or are somehow "different".)
Clearly, if a person is working with a mental health professional I applaud them for taking positive steps to move forward just as I would applaud someone who works with a fitness professional to address a physical issue.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
This entire argument is semantics. Most of the people going back and forth for nearly 40 pages agree on the overwhelming majority and are sniping and bickering over minutiae.
But I do find one of the largest pieces missing in this conversation is what can happen after elimination.
It's almost always "eliminate food you like/crave it until you binge". Except, well, no that's not the forgone conclusion for everyone. I've had extraordinary success through the years eliminating foods I once loved. For example, in my early 20s, I eliminated soda/kool aid/juice from my diet, after growing up on a steady, endless stream of that. I became an exclusive water drinker. Tough transition at first, but eventually water drinking became a habit. A little over ten years later and I don't have to actively work to restrict any of those drinks; I just never crave them. They aren't "bad" drinks, but they were drinks that once took up a lot of calories for me, which I certainly did enjoy immensely, but decided to eliminate. I've had similar success with other things.
The human body is extraordinarily adaptable. Which is something I find oddly left out of this conversation. Eliminating ALL things you enjoy isn't a good idea, and it will always vary from person to person, but to suggest that elimination can't be successful, that it always leads to misery, binging, and rebounding is disingenuous. You absolutely can retrain what your body craves. And for people who do have trouble moderating even foods they love, this can be a viable avenue to long term success. To dismiss that is taking a potentially powerful tool out of your arsenal.
0 -
If they are promoting the idea that eliminating food one likes/loves in order to be able to lose weight, then I definitely would not like it. If htey promote eliminating allergens or food for medical purposes, then that's fine.
Would your position still be the same if they were promoting the idea of eliminating food a person likes / loves in order to be able to lose weight because they had adverse and deeply ingrained negative psychological and behavioural associations with certain foods?
Say I have an allergy to a certain component found in food. Eating food containing it triggers and an adverse physical reaction (severe bloating, queasiness or so on.) Would anyone bat an eyelid if I said "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel physically unwell so I am getting rid of them. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Why then do we seem to have so much difficulty in accepting that for some people these adverse reactions may be psychological / behavioural and therefore elimination can actually be a superior technique (in the short term in more likelihood before foods are gradually reintroduced to assess reaction to them.) In other words "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel psychologically unwell (having even just one cookie makes me feel like my control is slipping, irritable, preoccupied) so I am getting rid of them for now. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Some people have a lot to take on board even when simply counting calories (let alone macros.) Insisting they also learn how to moderate their intake of particular foods they have psychological / behavioural issues with at the same time may put them off entirely. It is not a co-incidence that many diets have an induction phase. Part of this is certainly to prompt quick weight loss to secure adherence. Part of it is to avoid overload until other techniques are introduced.
Finally, I think much of the issue is people simply don't have any real idea to help people with deeper issues than just bland platitudes along the lines of "no foods are bad." Sure, giving yourself mental permission that no food is off the table is a good technique but it is not the only technique.
I'm not that gung ho about it, but I am indeed against elimination diets and tend to agree with those who state so. At the very least, this is my position until digging into the situation (if the target is willing) proves other approaches may be better:
a) I'm not sure what alternatives have been tried. Did they jump straight to elimination before giving some techniques a shot because some random magazine article told them they had to? Purchasing single servings, portioning out the food, keeping the item out of the house but having it once in a while knowing occasional exposure won't completely derail their diets, cooking a fixed amount from scratch because when it's gone, it's GONE and you won't feel like making more? Etc etc. I would be curious if any of these have been tried, just because MFP supposedly has millions of members. Where's the link to their MFP help thread seeking moderation help and what was their response to the suggestions? Who knows how many people are reading this stuff and assuming from posts they read that they need to take this or that Overly restrictive approach? I believe it would be a disservice to the readers to accept an elimination diet without question
b) Kind of alluded to this in a) above but there's too much derp on the Internet. I came to MFP when I wanted to get away from all the derp. MFP delivered. Can MFP PLEASE remain a derp free zone?
c) Speaking of elimination and other derp, a lot of us tried this crap and it didn't work. This is the General Weight loss HELP forum. Most participants are going to give whatever help they feel is best, not what the reader wants to hear or whatever it is they've come looking for (please help me with my raspberry ketones or garcinia cambordia diet or some such). The post stating that it was disrespectful to do this actually made sense to me somewhat, but where do we draw the line? At what point do we say, "Ma'am, just No"? Well we can't agree on this point so many just put it down from the beginning
Now if the user has psychological issues, then they need to be talking with a professional or are already working with one. Input from readers on an interwebs forum would therefore be completely irrelevant and they wouldn't even be seeking advice or interacting with us on these kinds of threads to begin with. It's the one fairly constant pass you'll receive on here for a weirdo diet. "Oh your doctor prescribed it for you and you follow up with them regularly? Carry on, but obviously that doesn't make it the diet standard advice for everyone that most likely doesn't have your identical set of medical issues"
I don't have any issue with any of what you say except for the last paragraph (which I will come to in a minute.) In fact I share your views by and large.
Moderation, elimination, restriction, squat bro!, cardio and so on are tools that in some circumstances are appropriate and in some are not. It depends on the individual. Some may be far more generally applicable than others (moderation for example) but that does not mean one can simply blunder into a thread and when they have feedback from the individual concerned insist that they must adopt an approach when it is clear it may not be the best approach in the given circumstances (bearing in mind physiology and psychology.)
Psychological issues in dieting are a spectrum ranging from mild over eating problems which can be solved with simple techniques to a disorder on the other end which will probably need professional intervention. People who sit somewhere in the middle of this spectrum do not necessarily need to relegated from the forums with "you need professional advice" because the reality may well be they don't. They just need people who understand and are understanding and who can help them rather than "you go sit in the corner with all the other crazy people."
I think we need more openness and more engagement with mental health / psychological issues in general (in fact I believe there will always be interplay between psychology and physiology in dieting although the focus and associated advice will for the foreseeable drastically focus on the physical.)
I feel like that's stepping into the murky waters of asking everyone to be pseudo-professionals whereas in fact MFP used to have a standard disclaimer that posts from mods and admins - and presumably all regular members - were not to be considered medical advice. That said, it's up to the original poster seeking help to disclose any medical conditions such as eating disorders if it's relevant to their topic. Generally speaking I would not assume that someone had any physical or psychological limitations unless they explicitly stated this. Now if you feel you're more sensitive to the kinds of issues you described, by all means stick around and offer your empathy, understanding and advice to those you feel need it in the future
Really? I don't think that for myself as posters seem to have no problem giving advice on basic physiology ("have you tried a calorie deficit?") When it comes to basic psychology why would the position be any different? It simply needs people to be open to it or consider it.
What goes on in the mind isn't somehow more difficult to comprehend than what goes on in the body which can be terrifically complex but rather our collective focus seems more at ease with considering the physical. Hence my viewpoint on more openness and understanding in this regard.
And thanks. I hope I have done that in the past and continue to do so in the future.
Yes, really! It's a calorie counting website, absolutely that's what people would say first. On the Calorie Counting 101 Stickie post the guy basically prefaces it with, look, I'm writing my stickie on the basis that if you eat less than you burn, you'll lose weight. He even asks those who would prefer to argue this point to pick another forum post to do so. All the tools in the entire site are built around this concept, and you can also see here and there, where they've created boundaries to protect themselves a little - warnings when calories logged for the day dip below 1200/1500, the "not medical advice" message previously displayed, etc. I just don't see psychological issues falling into the same category at all on this site
Ha! Well, there is that...
I think though that looking at weight issues merely through a physiological lens is largely redundant as psychology always comes into play. I don't think we can separate the mind and body in such a way. We are seeing more and more influential obesity commentators (like Dr Yoni Freedhoff) focusing in on a "bundled" approach which looks at both aspects.
Maybe MFP would have a "Focus On Mental Health" week?
Anyway, I'm not sure if this is my mind or body (or both) but I have to go and get something to eat
Have a good one.0 -
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »Diedre: Only 3 ways the body burns fuel(calories): BMR(being alive), TEF(thermic effect of foods consumed) and TEA(exercise) When people start to understand as they lose weight and lower there caloric intake exercise was their 'friend' all along it is a beautiful day. It allows for consumption of more fuel. . . .who knew?!? So the 80/20 ratio is a little larger due to an increase in calories and provides for both more nutrient dense foods and foods deemed treats. Better?
In an earlier post, I credited Tigger, but I meant Terrapin, when I was agreeing with your comments about macros. What's an 80/20 ratio?
Here's what I understand and agree with:
Everyone has a set number of calories, carbs, protein, and fat that they need to meet on regular daily basis (not every day, but over the course of several days -- let's say a week) in order to lose weight and be healthy.
It is quite possible for some people to eat high calorie, low nutrient foods as the bulk of their food (donuts, fast food, candy bars, deep fried butter sticks, fried foods, all the cake!) and still meet their numbers. They may be big people or they may exercise like a demon or they may be sticking 3 pounds of broccoli into their cupcake recipes.
But "eat what you want, just in moderation" is not great advice for all of us. I would love a donut and latte for breakfast, a Subway sub for lunch, and a slice of pizza for dinner. It's all tasty food that I want to eat, I don't have to buy groceries, I don't have to cook, I don't have to clean the kitchen. It's convenient and fits my lifestyle! But if I ate like that, on my 1390 diet, I would eat so little that I would be hungry, overeat, and diet fail.
For those of us who want to feel full throughout the day (and my assumption here is that feeling full throughout the day will lead to dieting success and permanent lifestyle changes, which is my goal and I would assume the goal of many people on this website), better advice would be: eat lower calorie, nutrient dense food so that you can eat as much food as possible. Save the treats for when you can work them in.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I actually think cutting WAY back on added sugars (I'm not a believer in demonizing fruit, though) can be helpful at first for some people.
I agree, and not just for the reason you mentioned.
What I dislike is the idea that one must do that to be able to lose weight successfully or to be healthy, regardless of the specific circumstances, or the focus on eating healthy as an all or nothing thing--either you eliminate "added sugars" (or whatever else is supposed to be a bad food) or you are eating badly, no middle ground. I think that kind of thing causes people who can't imagine giving up all the things they'd have to give up to not even try or to quit quickly, and that's why I think people want to stress that it's not necessary.
(Does the sentiment sometimes go too far the other way when there are reasons for a particular poster to want to try a different kind of approach, like cutting stuff out for a while? Sure, that happens.)
This! There IS middle ground but there are people that demonize anything and everything that isn't 100% natural and even then they demonize those foods too. The fact is I have lost and kept off 100 pounds for the past 8 years by...sit down, are you ready for this...keeping everything in moderation. I can see the shock on your face I know someone actually who I'm going to unfriend on Facebook because I can't take the BS that she and her boyfriend spew. They demonize practically every food and the boyfriend is a trainer, something that I find very scary! He tells his clients they MUST give up sugar, carbs, all processed foods and I'm sure there are things that I don't even know about LOL If someone would have said that to me when I first started I can guarantee with 200% certainty that I would not be here 10 years later running marathons and in the best shape of my life. OMG I'm so tired of specific foods being demonized. Rant over
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »Diedre: Only 3 ways the body burns fuel(calories): BMR(being alive), TEF(thermic effect of foods consumed) and TEA(exercise) When people start to understand as they lose weight and lower there caloric intake exercise was their 'friend' all along it is a beautiful day. It allows for consumption of more fuel. . . .who knew?!? So the 80/20 ratio is a little larger due to an increase in calories and provides for both more nutrient dense foods and foods deemed treats. Better?
In an earlier post, I credited Tigger, but I meant Terrapin, when I was agreeing with your comments about macros. What's an 80/20 ratio?
Here's what I understand and agree with:
Everyone has a set number of calories, carbs, protein, and fat that they need to meet on regular daily basis (not every day, but over the course of several days -- let's say a week) in order to lose weight and be healthy.
It is quite possible for some people to eat high calorie, low nutrient foods as the bulk of their food (donuts, fast food, candy bars, deep fried butter sticks, fried foods, all the cake!) and still meet their numbers. They may be big people or they may exercise like a demon or they may be sticking 3 pounds of broccoli into their cupcake recipes.
But it's not great advice for all of us. I would love a donut for breakfast, a Subway sub for lunch, and a slice of pizza for dinner. I don't have to buy groceries, I don't have to cook, I don't have to clean the kitchen. It's convenient and fits my lifestyle! But if I ate like that, on my 1390 diet, I would eat so little that I would be hungry, overeat, and diet fail.
For those of us who want to feel full throughout the day (and my assumption here is that feeling full throughout the day will lead to dieting success and permanent lifestyle changes, which is my goal and I would assume the goal of many people on this website), better advice would be: eat lower calorie, nutrient dense food so that you can eat as much food as possible. Save the treats for when you can work them in.
To me, your case actually proves why the original advice is pretty great. Upon diving into the details, it turns out you are intentionally restricting the better part of an additional ~500 calories available to you because:
You don't want to exercise
You want to lose weight as fast as possible even though it means you'll then tell us your calories are too few to eat in certain ways
These are individual choices you've made for yourself that exclude you from the more generic advice. I don't know all details on why you've made them, but it just goes to prove the original advice should be kept as is, until a good enough reason is provided as to why it wouldn't work
That's my opinion, anyway
0 -
I did not read the entire thread. Ain't nobody got time for that.
I think that because gaining weight is caused by eating above maintenance (and the calories one eats above maintenance are from all foods on the food pyramid...not just sugar) the most logical thing to do would be to educate oneself on proper food portioning and calorie control. This includes, but is not limited to, calculating the amount of calories that should be consumed for weight loss, weighing out solids, measuring liquids, and keeping track of all calories. If the person looking to lose weight eats the majority of their calories from sugar..then yes, cutting back on sugar would help. However, most people who are overeating are doing so across the board. In most cases, just limiting or stopping sugar consumption won't be of much help.
Regardless, what gets reduced from someone's diet is up to them. The only thing that matters is that the new way of eating is sustainable. For some people, cutting sugar is sustainable. Thats ok. For some people cutting sugar is not sustainable and that's ok too. I don't see why there's a debate about personal preference.0 -
Thank you for your advice, Oh Wise and All-Knowing One.
Some of us have to average 1200 calories and exercise to lose weight. Not even lose quickly. Slowly lose!DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
But it's a calorie counting app. Isn't the huge overage in red letters (numbers, actually) a pretty awesome clue? Some things go without saying, or the tool tells you. When you mark your diary complete with a 1,000 calorie overage it will also tell you that if you ate like this everyday, you would weigh 10 lbs more in five weeks. These things are built into the MFP app. Everyone will see it whether or not it is spelled out on the forums... The advice is being given with the assumption and context that the reader is a calorie counting MFP member. Is this not correct?
The first junk food in moderation menu I posted was way over with lots of red numbers.
The second menu I posted was half a dount and a latte, 1/2 a slice of pizza and a salad, 7 oz of KFC chicken, and green beans.
It met my numbers (1400 calories / day). It was actually under by 200 cal, over fat by 11 grams, but very close for carbs, protein, and sugar. I could have added two pats of butter, or a tablespoon of coconut oil and hit my numbers exactly.
My point was and is that by eating junk food in moderation, I'd be really hungry and I'd overeat. On that menu, I'd be hungry.
It might be enough for other people. I don't know. No one stepped up and said they could eat like that every day and be fine.
"Satiety and preference" is a pretty common caveat I've seen attached to calorie counting advice. If your tummy is still grumbling, chances are something could stand to be tweaked. The 1200 calorie menu, for starters :bigsmile: That's the main reason I personally wouldn't implement that sample menu, followed by I don't drink my calories in general (black coffee, anyone?), but I do indeed prefer a sugary breakfast - muffins, donuts, bagels, that sort of thing. I do not practice IIFYM
I'm happy for all the people who get to eat lots and lots and can easily work in yummy treats...well, happy for them until that start bragging about it, lol...but it's just not possible for everyone.
I have the occasional 1400-1500 day and the occasional 900-100 day, but every month averages out to like 1225 or something close to 1200.
It's really hard to work 400 calorie muffins into a 1200 calorie day.
If you were craving a muffin, you could easily either make your own low-cal version (I make my own protein-enhanced versions of baked goods all the time, especially banana bread and pancakes), or simply buy lower calorie versions, or simply not eat the whole muffin. Which is what moderation is about, learning how to work appropriate amounts of food one likes into the diet while meeting overall goals.
I'll be sure to give it all the consideration it is due when making my decisions.
Well you said that it's hard to work in a 400-cal muffin on a 1200 cal diet. So I offered suggestions on how it can be done if you are craving a muffin.
I will just repost this
Make a low calorie muffin?0 -
That's not exact enough, duh. There needs to be rules set by a few individuals that dictate individual preferences because that's how it works, everyone knows that.blktngldhrt wrote: »I did not read the entire thread. Ain't nobody got time for that.
I think that because gaining weight is caused by eating above maintenance (and the calories one eats above maintenance are from all foods on the food pyramid...not just sugar) the most logical thing to do would be to educate oneself on proper food portioning and calorie control. This includes, but is not limited to, calculating the amount of calories that should be consumed for weight loss, weighing out solids, measuring liquids, and keeping track of all calories. If the person looking to lose weight eats the majority of their calories from sugar..then yes, cutting back on sugar would help. However, most people who are overeating are doing so across the board. In most cases, just limiting or stopping sugar consumption won't be of much help.
Regardless, what gets reduced from someone's diet is up to them. The only thing that matters is that the new way of eating is sustainable. For some people, cutting sugar is sustainable. Thats ok. For some people cutting sugar is not sustainable and that's ok too. I don't see why there's a debate about personal preference.
0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »I did not read the entire thread. Ain't nobody got time for that.
I think that because gaining weight is caused by eating above maintenance (and the calories one eats above maintenance are from all foods on the food pyramid...not just sugar) the most logical thing to do would be to educate oneself on proper food portioning and calorie control. This includes, but is not limited to, calculating the amount of calories that should be consumed for weight loss, weighing out solids, measuring liquids, and keeping track of all calories. If the person looking to lose weight eats the majority of their calories from sugar..then yes, cutting back on sugar would help. However, most people who are overeating are doing so across the board. In most cases, just limiting or stopping sugar consumption won't be of much help.
Regardless, what gets reduced from someone's diet is up to them. The only thing that matters is that the new way of eating is sustainable. For some people, cutting sugar is sustainable. Thats ok. For some people cutting sugar is not sustainable and that's ok too. I don't see why there's a debate about personal preference.
Precisely!
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