Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Replies
-
Iwishyouwell wrote: »
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.
It's not just semantics for me. I genuinely want to educate myself about how nutrition works so that I can have long-term success this time.
I lost 75 pounds by eliminating dessert foods and following a food plan, but regained 40 of those pounds after six surgeries in five years.
I didn't know, when my activity level dropped dramatically (from training for a mini triathalon to having surgery), that I would have to adjust my food plan. I thought my food plan was the adjustment that caused me to lose the weight, and my exercise was just something fun I was doing because I was finally thin for the first time in my life.
I had no idea, until 3 months ago, that tracking carbs, protein, and fat was actually a thing. I knew the USDA did it, but I didn't know why.
So, it might look like semantics, but I've learned a lot in these 40 pages.
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.
Beautifully put.
I had around 6 months of self-enforced elimination before I was confident I could moderate. It didn't stem from a fear of a macro or deep down psychological pain. Just uncovering years of collective bad habits/behaviours. It brought peace and freedom.
0 -
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
I'm not quite sure I understand your comment. I'm restricting 500 calories because I want to lose a pound a week.
I chose 1 pound a week because it seemed reasonable when I first came to MFP (knowing nothing about TDEE, macros,. etc. Consider me your average uneducated American who has 20 pounds to lose but doesn't quite know how to go about it.) 2 pounds seemed ludicrous (I did know that 1 pounds = 3500 calories) .5 pounds seemed too little.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "even though it means you'll then tell us your calories are too few"? My calories aren't too few for me. I don't eat desserts, which are typically the high calories low nutrition food that people want to fit into their diet. At 1390, I'm still eating like a pig. I do eat a lot of low-cal, nutrient dense food (4 servings of veg at a time, for instance) but I also eat pizza at least once a week.
I'm at 161, down from 180. I came to MFP to get to 150. However, even at 150, I'm considered overweight (5'4", 48 years old). I started thinking that I might want to try for 130 (the last time I weighed 130 I was in 7th grade).
While 1390 calories are fine for me now, I'm wondering what 1300, 1250, and 1200 are going to look like. They sure as hell aren't going to look like "eat whatever you want, just in moderation."
Unless I also start exercising, of course.
I don't think the choices I'm making are unique to me -- I think everyone in the 160s who want to get down to 150 or 130 or 112 are going to be faced with the same questions I am faced with.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
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.
Oh man. How silly of me!
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
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
I don't think I understand your comment. I'm restricting 500 calories because I want to lose a pound a week.
I chose 1 pound a week because it seemed reasonable when I first came to MFP (knowing nothing about TDEE, macros,. etc. Consider me your average uneducated American who has 20 pounds to lose but doesn't quite know how to go about it.) 2 pounds seemed ludicrous (I did know that 1 pounds = 3500 calories) .5 pounds seemed too little.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say "even though it means you'll then tell us your calories are too few"? My calories aren't too few for me. I don't eat desserts, which are typically the high calories low nutrition food that people want to fit into their diet. At 1390, I'm still eating like a pig.
I'm at 161 and I came to MFP to get to 150. However, even at 150, I'm considered overweight (5'4", 48 years old). I started thinking that I might want to try for 130 (the last time I weighed 130 I was in 7th grade).
While 1390 calories are fine for me now, I'm wondering what 1300, 1250, and 1200 are going to look like. They sure as hell aren't going to look like "eat whatever you want, just in moderation."
Unless I also start exercising, of course.
I meant by choosing at this time to not take advantage of additional calories available to you, it appears to me that you're restricting an additional ~500 calories by choice, which you don't need to
If you exercised, I'm estimating you could burn a daily average of an extra ~250 cals per day
If your weekly weight loss rate changed to 1/2 lb per week rather than 1, that's an additional 250 calories, though a slower rate of weight loss
Sample menu 2 would then have a much better chance of working
If you're eating everything you want to eat and feel no deprivation whatsoever, then I'm not really sure what the goal of the conversation is. Why modify the generic advice for everyone when most people would indeed like methods to continue eating as much of what they like as possible?
0 -
I meant by choosing at this time to not take advantage of additional calories available to you, it appears to me that you're restricting an additional ~500 calories by choice, which you don't need to
If you exercised, I'm estimating you could burn a daily average of an extra ~250 cals per day
If your weekly weight loss rate changed to 1/2 lb per week rather than 1, that's an additional 250 calories, though a slower rate of weight loss
Sample menu 2 would then have a much better chance of working
If you're eating everything you want to eat and feel no deprivation whatsoever, then I'm not really sure what the goal of the conversation is. Why modify the generic advice for everyone when most people would indeed like methods to continue eating as much of what they like as possible?
Ah -- I see. Exercise is the source of the additional calories. Yes, I agree. If I adopted a more active lifestyle, I could eat back my exercise calories.
The goal of the conversation -- the original one about "telling people what to eat, just in moderation" -- not just yours and mine -- was to call BS on that advice, because it seemed like terrible advice to me.
Now, 40 pages on and with all the nuances fleshed out, I can see in what circumstances that advice works.
The next time someone gives the advice "eat what you want, just in moderation," I'll be sure to tack on the addendum "go read this 40 page thread that explains in dribs and drabs when and how that advice works." lol0 -
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 "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.
80% nutrient dense foods, and 20% discretionary calories. That way, you've more than likely met your micro needs and such; still with some calories left over to use on less nutrient dense options.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I meant by choosing at this time to not take advantage of additional calories available to you, it appears to me that you're restricting an additional ~500 calories by choice, which you don't need to
If you exercised, I'm estimating you could burn a daily average of an extra ~250 cals per day
If your weekly weight loss rate changed to 1/2 lb per week rather than 1, that's an additional 250 calories, though a slower rate of weight loss
Sample menu 2 would then have a much better chance of working
If you're eating everything you want to eat and feel no deprivation whatsoever, then I'm not really sure what the goal of the conversation is. Why modify the generic advice for everyone when most people would indeed like methods to continue eating as much of what they like as possible?
Ah -- I see. Exercise is the source of the additional calories. Yes, I agree. If I adopted a more active lifestyle, I could eat back my exercise calories.
The goal of the conversation -- the original one about "telling people what to eat, just in moderation" -- not just yours and mine -- was to call BS on that advice, because it seemed like terrible advice to me.
Now, 40 pages on and with all the nuances fleshed out, I can see in what circumstances that advice works.
The next time someone gives the advice "eat what you want, just in moderation," I'll be sure to tack on the addendum "go read this 40 page thread that explains in dribs and drabs when and how that advice works." lol
:laugh: I think that's the point they'll ask, can I just eat battery acid instead?
0 -
38 pages?? LOL, got to be something better then sugar is the devil!!
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Wow. Just. Wow. I don't even....Sorry but if that's moderation... Wow. "all of that in a month". wow. then, well alright then. You ate part of a donut on the 4th and 2 ounces of booze on the 3rd and *A* tootsie pop....and....Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Not a lot of donuts in that "clean" logSabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Except for the part where she thinks donuts are a good way to meet ones macros lol.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
Oh jeez. I feel like it'd just be easier to teach people how to understand caloric values of food types so they can make better choices to meet their caloric intake needs.
All those little portion sizing tips and tricks only got me so far 4-5 years ago, and I was spinning my wheels trying to lose another 10-15lbs that I never lost.
But I also knew nothing of proper macro balance or calories at the time, and was trying to get out of my skinny-fatness. Never happened!
Ana, you are exactly right. Teaching people how to make good food choices is excellent advice. All those tips and tricks that let people eat what they want, but in little portions, only gets you so far. Learning about proper macro balance and calories is much more valuable information.
You could have just agreed with me 20 pages and and saved us all a lot of trouble.
They definitely are if that's what you are craving or if you are also in need of more sugar in your system. Or if you are in a position where you need to eat to your goals but you aren't starving, or perhaps you are eating late at night and want something low volume so as not to upset your stomach.
eating a donut in these situations is a great way to meet my carb and fat macros. It will be a great way to meet my carb and fat macros when I'm in maintenance and when I start my first bulk some time next year, and since I do not plan on eating any differently in any of these situations other than with respect to caloric intake, there is no need for me to not utilize donuts to fulfill macro needs if it's what I'm desiring on that day. That's the beauty of moderation and eating a balanced diet: you don't see anything wrong or bad about eating something you want to eat.
Of yours.
Of course not, because I don't eat clean (anymore). I also practice moderation, which means I eat things that fit into my goals when I feel like eating them. We haven't bought donuts in a while, as I don't do the grocery shopping and I never remember to ask for them - probably because at hte time I don't crave them. I have at times eaten junk many days in a row, sometimes rarely, because I eat foods I enjoy and foods I feel like eating at that time in moderation and to fit my goals.
Moderation doesn't mean eating "crap" every day just because you can. It means eating what you desire eating, within your caloric goals, and potentially within your macro targets if this is of concern to you. I didn't realize that I failed to meet some donut-eating criteria based on the position I hold, since donuts are not the only "crap" I eat. I ate chocolate yesterday. Ate a muffin and half a mars bar (one that I had started on weeks ago and forgot about) on the 12th. Ate potato pancakes (which I'm sure some would consider to be junky) on the 8th, skittles nad a tootsie pop on the 7th (as well as banana bread, homemade with protein powder but I'm sure some people would still consider banana bread to be less than ideal), pizza (takeout) at breakfast and lunch on the 6th, pizza before that on the 5th along with two tootsie pops, a few chips and probably my last remaining donut on the 4th, a 2oz acloholic drink at a restaurant on the 3rd, and on Dec 1st I ate a muffin and a donut (and two carby bars if people consider those junk - Dole and Enjoy Life brands). This is all for December so far. I've also made meals like butter chicken adn sloppy joes with jarred sauces/mixes, which I'm sure some people would not consider to be okay in one's diet.
I ate all of this in a month because moderation and because I felt like eating them. I don't just eat something for the sake of eating it, unless it's protein when I'm needing to reach my protein needs.
okay then. Have a good evening folks, and Ana, best of luck on that journey. And let's pretend my involvement in this entire thread never happened. yowsa.
Walking away, because. Wow.
Yes, this is moderation. Out of 1900-2400 calories, each of those things took up no more than about 10% of my caloric intake on average (my intake today comprised only 6% of my total intake). I successfully met my macro goals while also eating a variety of other food. I know that Lis for instance will make room for a treat every day (I believe it was chocolate?). That's basically what I've done in the last 2 weeks, with some days having no "treats" at all because I wasn't craving them.
And my weekly treat intake comprised of 4% of my total weekly calories. Which seems pretty reasonable and in no way excessive.
So you've "cut back" on sugar. A LOT probably.
/end thread. Tennis dude nailed it.
Thanks pals, this has been enlightening.0 -
Why would a person looking to lose weight need to cut back on sugar? As you say in your post here, it's not the sugar causing the weight gain.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.
The reason people debate is because some people think sugar is the poison, the devil, and the cause of weight gain, and other people believe it's overall consumption of food that causes weight gain.
I'm believe the latter, but for years I believe the former. That is, until I learned how to moderate foods and stop mindlessly grabbing for something just because it was a sweet. For me, it was about self control and learning how not to medicate my feelings with food (not just sweets, all food).
0 -
It's a TV show. You wouldn't like it. They have the idea that some food is healthy and some should be limited or eliminated.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.
Well I mean, unless you add butter to it or something.
As I understand it, the "full fat" thing in reference to soda is common across the pond. You'll hear it used all over those "Secret Eater" shows on YouTube for example
Wait, do European pops have fat in thejm? Or are Europeans adding fat to their pop? I have no idea what "Secret Eater" is
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. And if they try to teach people to incorporate nutritious food into their diet, while still eating non-nutritious food with it, then that's awesome. Because that's what moderation is all about. Otherwise you could be right and I'd dislike the show, because to promote only eating nutritious foods and eliminating non-nutritious food is really not an ideal message for sustainable long-term weight management if the people like those non-nutritious foods. It'd be like telling someone they can read, but they can no longer read comic books and can only read non-fiction educational books. I'd probably last on that reading regimen for a few weeks before caving.
The trouble with this very flawed assumption is that while it sounds so sustainable in theory, it has no actual evidence to back it up.
All weight loss approaches have abysmal long term failure rates. Every single one. That includes moderation/IIFYM. Eventually most people grow tired even of counting, logging and basic moderation.
This is a much larger conversation about the difficulties human beings have in enacting long term, sustainable change, even when said changes are the height of sensible.
The common denominator in all of these approaches is long term failure. We all seem to be fighting to be the exceptions, no matter what road we take to success.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »
It's a TV show. You wouldn't like it. They have the idea that some food is healthy and some should be limited or eliminated.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.
Well I mean, unless you add butter to it or something.
As I understand it, the "full fat" thing in reference to soda is common across the pond. You'll hear it used all over those "Secret Eater" shows on YouTube for example
Wait, do European pops have fat in thejm? Or are Europeans adding fat to their pop? I have no idea what "Secret Eater" is
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. And if they try to teach people to incorporate nutritious food into their diet, while still eating non-nutritious food with it, then that's awesome. Because that's what moderation is all about. Otherwise you could be right and I'd dislike the show, because to promote only eating nutritious foods and eliminating non-nutritious food is really not an ideal message for sustainable long-term weight management if the people like those non-nutritious foods. It'd be like telling someone they can read, but they can no longer read comic books and can only read non-fiction educational books. I'd probably last on that reading regimen for a few weeks before caving.
The trouble with this very flawed assumption is that while it sounds so sustainable in theory, it has no actual evidence to back it up.
All weight loss approaches have abysmal long term failure rates. Every single one. That includes moderation/IIFYM. Eventually most people grow tired even of counting, logging and basic moderation.
This is a much larger conversation about the difficulties human beings have in enacting long term, sustainable change, even when said changes are the height of sensible.
The common denominator in all of these approaches is long term failure. We all seem to be fighting to be the exceptions, no matter what road we take to success.
There are studies which indicate more success with flexible dieting approaches when compared to restrictive approaches. Yes, they are over a shorter duration and not many years.0 -
Why would a person looking to lose weight need to cut back on sugar? As you say in your post here, it's not the sugar causing the weight gain.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.
The reason people debate is because some people think sugar is the poison, the devil, and the cause of weight gain, and other people believe it's overall consumption of food that causes weight gain.
I'm believe the latter, but for years I believe the former. That is, until I learned how to moderate foods and stop mindlessly grabbing for something just because it was a sweet. For me, it was about self control and learning how not to medicate my feelings with food (not just sweets, all food).
Because they want to, maybe. Want being the key word. Who am I to tell someone else what foods they should and shouldn't be eating?
Who cares if people think sugar is bad? Sugar is bad..for me personally (hypoglycemia); so, I have no problem with other people thinking the same. Some people find it harder to eat sugar in moderation than others, maybe?
Different things work for different people. Just because something is ok for you doesn't make it ok for others. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Just eat your donut (or sugary snack of choice) and don't worry about the people who have an issue with it. More for you!
*none of my statements include people who are completely ignorant about the subject of weight loss.. I'm talking people who have an understanding of how it works and choose to get rid of sugar anyway*0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »
Why would a person looking to lose weight need to cut back on sugar? As you say in your post here, it's not the sugar causing the weight gain.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.
The reason people debate is because some people think sugar is the poison, the devil, and the cause of weight gain, and other people believe it's overall consumption of food that causes weight gain.
I'm believe the latter, but for years I believe the former. That is, until I learned how to moderate foods and stop mindlessly grabbing for something just because it was a sweet. For me, it was about self control and learning how not to medicate my feelings with food (not just sweets, all food).
Because they want to, maybe. Want being the key word. Who am I to tell someone else what foods they should and shouldn't be eating?
Who cares if people think sugar is bad? Sugar is bad..for me personally (hypoglycemia); so, I have no problem with other people thinking the same. Some people find it harder to eat sugar in moderation than others, maybe?
Different things work for different people. Just because something is ok for you doesn't make it ok for others. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Just eat your donut (or sugary snack of choice) and don't worry about the people who have an issue with it. More for you!
*none of my statements include people who are completely ignorant about the subject of weight loss.. I'm talking people who have an understanding of how it works and choose to get rid of sugar anyway*
What is the best way to distinguish between those who are researching their next step and looking for Input on what to do next, vs those who have exhaustively researched sugar and wouldn't benefit from any sort of "you don't have to eliminate" feedback? How do we know who has made a choice on a properly informed basis and who hasn't?
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).
You're not very good at this, are you?0 -
Yes, your Brits are a wild and wacky bunch. Never know what outlandish thing I'm going to hear next.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 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »Who cares if people think sugar is bad?
I care if someone thinks the ONLY way to succeed is by eliminating any part of their diet...
0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »
Why would a person looking to lose weight need to cut back on sugar? As you say in your post here, it's not the sugar causing the weight gain.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.
The reason people debate is because some people think sugar is the poison, the devil, and the cause of weight gain, and other people believe it's overall consumption of food that causes weight gain.
I'm believe the latter, but for years I believe the former. That is, until I learned how to moderate foods and stop mindlessly grabbing for something just because it was a sweet. For me, it was about self control and learning how not to medicate my feelings with food (not just sweets, all food).
Because they want to, maybe. Want being the key word. Who am I to tell someone else what foods they should and shouldn't be eating?
Who cares if people think sugar is bad? Sugar is bad..for me personally (hypoglycemia); so, I have no problem with other people thinking the same. Some people find it harder to eat sugar in moderation than others, maybe?
Different things work for different people. Just because something is ok for you doesn't make it ok for others. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Just eat your donut (or sugary snack of choice) and don't worry about the people who have an issue with it. More for you!
*none of my statements include people who are completely ignorant about the subject of weight loss.. I'm talking people who have an understanding of how it works and choose to get rid of sugar anyway*
What is the best way to distinguish between those who are researching their next step and looking for Input on what to do next, vs those who have exhaustively researched sugar and wouldn't benefit from any sort of "you don't have to eliminate" feedback? How do we know who has made a choice on a properly informed basis and who hasn't?
Look for the people who think cutting it is the only way to lose weight. Usually people who have done their research and know what they're talking about are more descriptive about the why when asking for advice.0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »Who cares if people think sugar is bad?
I care if someone thinks the ONLY way to succeed is by eliminating any part of their diet...
That's valid. My point was referring to people who aren't ignorant. You can usually tell who's cutting with the right knowledge and who's cutting because they think that's only the way to do it.0 -
[/quote]
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.
Make a low calorie muffin? [/quote]
It does not take hard work, but it does take some planning and a willingness to adjust and to balance things.
I see too many people who not only want their 400-calorie muffin, but also bacon, ice cream and other treats, because " I deserve them and don't want to deprive myself, because it's not sustainable ". If it fits into the calories of those lucky or dedicated enough to be able to eat a lot, great. However most of us have to make choices on a daily basis to be successful in weight loss or maintenance.
I would never eat a 400-calorie muffin ( I have almost no sweet tooth and eat baked goods only in smallish portions, but have other weak points when it comes to food, namely creamy & spicy ), but if you check my food log today you will find a Sarah Lee pecan roll, two Godiva truffels, rice, but also lean meat ( chicken ) and chop suey ( 70 % sprouts, the rest broccoli, mushrooms and red peppers), stir fried bean sprouts with garlic & chile, pickled veggies and two mandarins.....all for just under 1200 calories ( which I eat because I am past 65 and under five feet tall ).
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »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 "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.
80% nutrient dense foods, and 20% discretionary calories. That way, you've more than likely met your micro needs and such; still with some calories left over to use on less nutrient dense options.
I think the 8:2 ratio, or similar, is as damn near universal a piece of dieting advice as you're likely to ever see.
Eat at a deficit the good majority of your calories from filling, nutrient dense sources, while giving yourself good breathing room for everything else.
It can be successfully used no matter what your macro ratios are, health needs, your dietary-religious beliefs, your meal timing, logging, and whatever other quirks, preferences or obsessions you have.
There is no such thing as perfect adherence to anything. That should be neither a requirement nor an expectation.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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 "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.
80% nutrient dense foods, and 20% discretionary calories. That way, you've more than likely met your micro needs and such; still with some calories left over to use on less nutrient dense options.
I think the 8:2 ratio, or similar, is as damn near universal a piece of dieting advice as you're likely to ever see.
Eat at a deficit the good majority of your calories from filling, nutrient dense sources, while giving yourself good breathing room for everything else.
It can be successfully used no matter what your macro ratios are, health needs, your dietary-religious beliefs, your meal timing, logging, and whatever other quirks, preferences or obsessions you have.
There is no such thing as perfect adherence to anything. That should be neither a requirement nor an expectation.
So... are you agreeing with me, disagreeing with me? I don't follow.
I'm not stating my opinion on the matter. I was clarifying what was meant by 80/20.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »There are studies which indicate more success with flexible dieting approaches when compared to restrictive approaches. Yes, they are over a shorter duration and not many years.
I'm pretty sure I've read one of them before. You recall any off the top of your head?
I'm an odds man. I like to know the statistics. I'm not daunted by tough odds. And all of the long term statistics about weight loss are, indeed, terrible. And even the way the define the "successes" leaves a hell of a lot to be desired in my world. I find knowing what I'm up against to be an asset for the battle.LolBroScience wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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 "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.
80% nutrient dense foods, and 20% discretionary calories. That way, you've more than likely met your micro needs and such; still with some calories left over to use on less nutrient dense options.
I think the 8:2 ratio, or similar, is as damn near universal a piece of dieting advice as you're likely to ever see.
Eat at a deficit the good majority of your calories from filling, nutrient dense sources, while giving yourself good breathing room for everything else.
It can be successfully used no matter what your macro ratios are, health needs, your dietary-religious beliefs, your meal timing, logging, and whatever other quirks, preferences or obsessions you have.
There is no such thing as perfect adherence to anything. That should be neither a requirement nor an expectation.
So... are you agreeing with me, disagreeing with me? I don't follow.
I'm not stating my opinion on the matter. I was clarifying what was meant by 80/20.
I was championing the 80/20 approach. Whether you personally adhere to that, or not.0 -
I have a handful of them bookmarked on my at home computer but not at work. You can PubMed "Flexible Dieting" and many will come up I believe.
I don't put a particular percentage on it in my own approach. I tend to gravitate more towards whole foods anyway, so it's never really a problem for me.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I have a handful of them bookmarked on my at home computer but not at work. You can PubMed "Flexible Dieting" and many will come up I believe.
Thanks, will definitely do.LolBroScience wrote: »I don't put a particular percentage on it in my own approach. I tend to gravitate more towards whole foods anyway, so it's never really a problem for me.
Same here. I actually genuinely enjoy and desire many of the foods that end up in the "you don't HAVE to eat this to lose weight" pile during these debates. The much maligned chicken breast/broccoli meal actually always makes my mouth water a little, but that might have to do with the fact that I know how to cook well.
But I have battled for a short lifetime with a wicked sweet tooth that I use to have much lament and demonize. Unlike many, that is the largest root of my weight problems as I have little issue regulating everything else. The major difference is that I no longer demonise it, but rather celebrate it. I'm loving my sweet tooth.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I didn't even read this entire post because you took the person's post completely out of context. She said food that helps you meet your micro/macro needs and any food, "healthy" or not, can do that for you.
Do not twist someone's words to fit your own agenda.
Ana, I think you missed the first sentence of my post, so I'll post it here again, and bold the bit that might help you out:DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
stealth -- the first two sentences address you directly. The "you" in the rest of the sentences refer to "those of you who hold this position."
I'm not sure how I twisted stealth's words. Was it when I said I agreed entirely with stealth's post?
Or maybe this is what is tripping you up:
stealthq wrote: »
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets.
Maybe when you read stealth's post, you only saw the first sentence and didn't see the second sentence, where stealth clearly makes a distinction between foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet targets and foods that are treats.
Unless you want to argue that stealth didn't really mean two different kinds of foods, but that some people can fit McBurgers into their meals all day long while for someone else, a McBurger needs to be saved up for, so treats aren't really a special category but simply a shifting category based on the needs of the individual person. I'd agree with that, if that's what you meant. In fact, that would be the start of another very interesting and productive conversation.
But it's not the start of another interesting and productive conversation, because you didn't really explain yourself, you simply quoted something stealth said then accused me of twisting words to fit an agenda.
*ninja edit, sry
I realize I am coming back to this entirely too late, but, just to set the record straight:
No. I did not mean two different kinds of foods. Not in the way you're implying.
There are foods that you choose out of consideration for reaching your macros/micros. Maybe you pick fish rather than beef because you need more protein but don't have many calories left. Or another day, you're low on fat but pretty good for proteins and calories so you go for macaroni and cheese, or cheese pizza, or a cream based soup rather than grilled chicken.
And then there are foods you eat just because you want some, no initial consideration for macros/micros involved. So you figure out a way to fit it in.
Any food item could potentially be a member of either group. Some foods are more commonly in one group than the other, but it's truly dependent on your individual tastes, what you've eaten that day, and your state of mind at the time.
For example, I've eaten marshmallows because I needed a fat-free, easily portable, simple carb on a long run. It was definitely not because I enjoy marshmallows before breakfast. So that was a non-treat.
On the other hand, I've eaten roasted brussels sprouts in a mustard and blue cheese sauce just because they were really good. I'd already hit the macros and micros that dish would have helped me with that day. Those were a treat.0 -
I realize I am coming back to this entirely too late, but, just to set the record straight:
No. I did not mean two different kinds of foods. Not in the way you're implying.
There are foods that you choose out of consideration for reaching your macros/micros. Maybe you pick fish rather than beef because you need more protein but don't have many calories left. Or another day, you're low on fat but pretty good for proteins and calories so you go for macaroni and cheese, or cheese pizza, or a cream based soup rather than grilled chicken.
And then there are foods you eat just because you want some, no initial consideration for macros/micros involved. So you figure out a way to fit it in.
Any food item could potentially be a member of either group. Some foods are more commonly in one group than the other, but it's truly dependent on your individual tastes, what you've eaten that day, and your state of mind at the time.
For example, I've eaten marshmallows because I needed a fat-free, easily portable, simple carb on a long run. It was definitely not because I enjoy marshmallows before breakfast. So that was a non-treat.
On the other hand, I've eaten roasted brussels sprouts in a mustard and blue cheese sauce just because they were really good. I'd already hit the macros and micros that dish would have helped me with that day. Those were a treat.
Welcome back, stealthq!
Thank you for the clarification! Thankfully, the whole matter has been put to rest, for me anyway.
But I did want to ask, how do you track your micros? My food diary shows calories and macros. Is there a setting that will show the micros also?
Thanks!
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I realize I am coming back to this entirely too late, but, just to set the record straight:
No. I did not mean two different kinds of foods. Not in the way you're implying.
There are foods that you choose out of consideration for reaching your macros/micros. Maybe you pick fish rather than beef because you need more protein but don't have many calories left. Or another day, you're low on fat but pretty good for proteins and calories so you go for macaroni and cheese, or cheese pizza, or a cream based soup rather than grilled chicken.
And then there are foods you eat just because you want some, no initial consideration for macros/micros involved. So you figure out a way to fit it in.
Any food item could potentially be a member of either group. Some foods are more commonly in one group than the other, but it's truly dependent on your individual tastes, what you've eaten that day, and your state of mind at the time.
For example, I've eaten marshmallows because I needed a fat-free, easily portable, simple carb on a long run. It was definitely not because I enjoy marshmallows before breakfast. So that was a non-treat.
On the other hand, I've eaten roasted brussels sprouts in a mustard and blue cheese sauce just because they were really good. I'd already hit the macros and micros that dish would have helped me with that day. Those were a treat.
Welcome back, stealthq!
The whole matter has been put to rest, for me anyway.
But I did want to ask, how do you track your micros? My food diary shows calories and macros. Is there a setting that will show the micros also?
Thanks!
You can do this in the report section. It's far easier to go to "nutrition" tab on the app though.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »But I did want to ask, how do you track your micros? My food diary shows calories and macros. Is there a setting that will show the micros also?
In theory, but not really. There are a lot of nutrition facts you can look at (or see more easily on the app), like iron and calcium and Vitamin A and potassium, but it's by no means complete and the information is inaccurate anyway since a huge portion of the entries don't contain that information (it's not required).
Thus, what I do is just try to get a wide variety of fruits and vegetables and oily fish and other foods that I know have good things like potassium and pay attention to that. Doing more is in theory possible if you go nuts with the logging, but that's too much for me.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions