Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Options
Replies
-
LolBroScience wrote: »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.
I mentioned that it needs to scale to individual TDEE back on like page 5.
I think... they're saying that if your calorie target is super low, you'd want to spend them making sure your hunger pangs don't bore a hole through your stomach and there would be little to no room left for sugary treats. Just nutritious, possibly great tasting, lower calorie, high volume hunger satisfying food
Now accepting this obviously means one has agreed that the calories must be set that low...
Yes, and I understand that with the lower calorie number that it would be more wise to eat more nutrient dense foods (more bang for your buck) for greater satiation. It was still a poor example because it doesn't scale appropriately anyway. You can still eat in moderation even on 1200 calories (select one of the items as opposed to all of them per the examples, even if they were smaller portions). Whereas, someone like myself could select 2-3 and still have a good portion of calories left for the day since my needs are greater.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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.
I mentioned that it needs to scale to individual TDEE back on like page 5.
I think... they're saying that if your calorie target is super low, you'd want to spend them making sure your hunger pangs don't bore a hole through your stomach and there would be little to no room left for sugary treats. Just nutritious, possibly great tasting, lower calorie, high volume hunger satisfying food
Now accepting this obviously means one has agreed that the calories must be set that low...
Yes, and I understand that with the lower calorie number that it would be more wise to eat more nutrient dense foods (more bang for your buck) for greater satiation. It was still a poor example because it doesn't scale appropriately anyway. You can still eat in moderation even on 1200 calories (select one of the items as opposed to all of them per the examples, even if they were smaller portions). Whereas someone like myself could select 2-3 and still have a good portion of calories left for the day since my needs are greater.
You could be 100% right on the scaling idea for all we know, but since you'll never ever have to deal with such a reduced calorie diet, it's all theory and does not yet demonstrably pass the practicality bar. What's 1200 calories, like a bite for you? :laugh:
0 -
Yeah, he's a peach.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Right. You and your friend MrM are just friends having fun with no nastiness intended because there is no nastiness on the boards. Any perceived nastiness is done to help others.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
I gave you the benefit of the doubt before. My mistake.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Edited.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Silly me, offering congratulations when the pictures were posted to be nasty.
Should've known, since MrM was involved. I couldn't figure it out, why the posting of pics for no obvious reason, but thought it seemed appropriate to congratulate when congratulations seemed in order.
You got me, I guess, lol. I fell for it.
I didn't post my photos to be nasty. Photos were asked for, so I (obviously stupidly) posted them, because I'm proud of how much I've accomplished.
It feels crappier than I would have thought to be accused otherwise.
Some might believe you're an unwitting pawn in MrM's nastiness. Not me.
I'm not sure what I've done to bring you to that conclusion. I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I'm not a cruel person, nor am I a pawn.
Best of luck to you.
Go sing it to someone else. I've heard the tune before.
Let me make myself crystal clear.
Unless I'm directly quoting you, my post(s) have nothing to do with you. I don't do passive aggression. I much prefer aggression.
MrM and I barely speak and when we do, it's on the public forums - for all to see. We've never, ever had a private message exchange, nor do we make nefarious plans together revolving around you in some other mythical place. In fact, most of the time when we do post to each other, we're disagreeing. Much like you and I. The difference is he doesn't make character judgements against me when I disagree with him. Nor does he assume that a totally innocuous post is all part of a plan to make him feel bad/stupid/insert word here.
I wasn't having fun when I posted my pictures, I was feeling pride (yesterday marked the date I made it into the 160's). So you can think whatever you wish of me, but the only thing I'm guilty of here is, perhaps, being egotistical. Which I'll gladly own.
I think we're done here.
There is no nastiness on the boards. Just friends having fun. Anything that appears rude or nasty is just people trying to help others.
And this was just a big coincidence. #2. You were unwittingly drawn into his little game with absolutely no knowledge. I'll believe that.
But all the same, there won't be a #3.-2 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »SORRY TO EVERYONE ELSE FOR REHASHING THIS DEAD HORSE[
Except 20 pages ago you were saying that it is poor advice to eat junk food in moderation, when it isn't. Making good food choices does not simply mean eatng veggies and chicken, it means understanding your caloric and nutrient intake, and about how to eat things you enjoy instead of making yourself miserable by cutting out things you enjoy eating. And to understand how junk food can be used to help you reach your macronutrient goals as well, and how macros benefit body composition along with lifting weights.
So teaching someone to make good choices is not "here's some broccoli and turkey."
I think you missed a couple of posts:DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
I agree with you wholeheartedly -- to lose weight, know your numbers then meet them by eating less of most foods, eating rarely of some foods, and planning for the higher calories foods.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »I don't think of any food as bad food. I think some foods are better choices for daily long-term fullness, but hell, I just had 2 slices of pizza last night for dinner and a muffin and latte for breakfast, and I'm still down two pounds. CICO works.
You are absolutely right that when people think they have to restrict, they get pissed off and act out through overeating .
I also agree with you that if people learn that food is not bad, and they learn to stay in a deficit, then they will have better long term sustainable success.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
[If your position is that] some people can fit McBurgers into their meals all day long while for someone else, a McBurger needs to be saved up for[,] I'd agree with that[.]
So.
Based on this exchange, I can see where we got sidetracked 20 pages ago. My argument is not, and has never been, that people have to eliminate junk food from their diet. I've never argued the position that people have to limit their food to chicken, vegetables, turkey and broccoli.
My position is that when told to eat what they want, just in moderation, many people will follow that advice and continue eating what they want -- high calorie low nutrition food -- just in moderation. In order to meet their numbers, they'll have so little food available to them that they will end up hungry and overeat on calories.***
Much better advice would be to educate them about making good food choices that helps them understand their caloric and nutrient intake, and to educate them about eating things they enjoy while meeting their macronutrient goals.
*** several other posters have made excellent points that I agree with. Lemurcat said that many people already eat a good diet, just too much, so "eat what you want, just in moderation" is good advice for them. I agree.
Someone else said (sorry I can't remember who) that I haven't allowed for the fact that many (most?) people aren't so stupid as to just eat junk food all day -- that they would start making better food choices without being told. I'm on the fence about that one. Some would, for sure. Some wouldn't.
I'm sure I'm not the only one, but I said the second thing too. I think it's how the app works.
When I did this the first time, 12 years ago, I started by getting a handle on my eating. If apps like MFP existed (or apps), I didn't know about it and I didn't count calories, but I wrote down what I recalled of the past week of my eating and looked at it and I figured out what was wrong and how to change it.
It took a little thought and learning, much of which an app like MFP would have made easier. That's why I always tell people to pre log and to pay attention to their logs and how they feel and don't think it's a good idea to copy some preset plan. It's about figuring it out. It's really not that complicated. If someone does fit the stereotype of KFC and donuts, 24/7, that person shouldn't really even have to work to figure out the issue, he or she knows. I mostly agree with your points here, but no rational person thinks that's moderation. If they say so they are lying, perhaps to themself, but if so its thought, not being told what to do, that is necessary.
I think everyone has to figure out a plan for themselves, based on their own self knowledge.
Now, clearly, I managed to regain (won't go into my own excuses, but I did maintain for some time and knowledge wasn't the issue, nor was sugar), but it was pretty easy once I finally decided to care to get back to my old lifestyle. The app has allowed me to see even more than before and play around with stuff, and I highly advise experimenting.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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.
I mentioned that it needs to scale to individual TDEE back on like page 5.
I think... they're saying that if your calorie target is super low, you'd want to spend them making sure your hunger pangs don't bore a hole through your stomach and there would be little to no room left for sugary treats. Just nutritious, possibly great tasting, lower calorie, high volume hunger satisfying food
Now accepting this obviously means one has agreed that the calories must be set that low...
Yes, and I understand that with the lower calorie number that it would be more wise to eat more nutrient dense foods (more bang for your buck) for greater satiation. It was still a poor example because it doesn't scale appropriately anyway. You can still eat in moderation even on 1200 calories (select one of the items as opposed to all of them per the examples, even if they were smaller portions). Whereas someone like myself could select 2-3 and still have a good portion of calories left for the day since my needs are greater.
You could be 100% right on the scaling idea for all we know, but since you'll never ever have to deal with such a reduced calorie diet, it's all theory and does not yet demonstrably pass the practicality bar. What's 1200 calories, like a bite for you? :laugh:
That's not necessarily true. Natural bodybuilders can get quite low with calories when contest prepping. Do I compete currently? No. Is it out of the question? No.
It's still a percentage of calories though when it comes to scaling.
6 cookies for 600 calories with 1200 calories - 50% of calories (a dumb example)
6 cookies for 600 calories with 3500 calories - 17% of calories (something I could get away with)
2 cookies for 200 calories with 1200 calories - 17% of calories
Might have to cut it down to a single cookie, but you get the point.
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
I mentioned that it needs to scale to individual TDEE back on like page 5.
Yes -- I agree. That's another factor that needs to be taken into consideration when thinking about how much of one's diet can come from high calorie, low nutrition foods.
Isn't this exactly why a lot of people become overweight to begin with? As teenagers, their TDEE is quite high, so they can eat tons of food and not gain weight. But as they age and their activity slows, they don't scale back and start packing on the pounds?LolBroScience wrote: »Yes, and I understand that with the lower calorie number that it would be more wise to eat more nutrient dense foods (more bang for your buck) for greater satiation. It was still a poor example because it doesn't scale appropriately anyway. You can still eat in moderation even on 1200 calories (select one of the items as opposed to all of them per the examples, even if they were smaller portions). Whereas someone like myself could select 2-3 and still have a good portion of calories left for the day since my needs are greater.
Yes, I agree, someone can eat these foods, but they need to fit them in where they can over days or weeks, as opposed to eating them all in one day. I'd never advocate eating that diet in one day or on a daily basis.
For me, I'd rather meet my macros by eating more nutrient dense foods than by being more active than I already am. However, my daily calorie target just ticked down to 1390 and I weigh 162. When I get down to 150, I'll probably be in the 1200 range, and at that point, I'll have to seriously consider upping my activity level. I was considering tyrying to see if I could get to 125 (the last time I weighed that, I was in the seventh grade), but I will have to learn a lot more to get there.
I have much greater respect now for thin people in their 40s and up. They are either eating very little, or exercising a lot.
edited to change "you" to "they"0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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.
I mentioned that it needs to scale to individual TDEE back on like page 5.
I think... they're saying that if your calorie target is super low, you'd want to spend them making sure your hunger pangs don't bore a hole through your stomach and there would be little to no room left for sugary treats. Just nutritious, possibly great tasting, lower calorie, high volume hunger satisfying food
Now accepting this obviously means one has agreed that the calories must be set that low...
Yes, and I understand that with the lower calorie number that it would be more wise to eat more nutrient dense foods (more bang for your buck) for greater satiation. It was still a poor example because it doesn't scale appropriately anyway. You can still eat in moderation even on 1200 calories (select one of the items as opposed to all of them per the examples, even if they were smaller portions). Whereas someone like myself could select 2-3 and still have a good portion of calories left for the day since my needs are greater.
You could be 100% right on the scaling idea for all we know, but since you'll never ever have to deal with such a reduced calorie diet, it's all theory and does not yet demonstrably pass the practicality bar. What's 1200 calories, like a bite for you? :laugh:
That's not necessarily true. Natural bodybuilders can get quite low with calories when contest prepping. Do I compete currently? No. Is it out of the question? No.
It's still a percentage of calories though when it comes to scaling.
6 cookies for 600 calories with 1200 calories - 50% of calories (a dumb example)
6 cookies for 600 calories with 3500 calories - 17% of calories (something I could get away with)
2 cookies for 200 calories with 1200 calories - 17% of calories
Might have to cut it down to a single cookie, but you get the point.
No way, You've done 1200 calories before? When? For how long?
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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.
I mentioned that it needs to scale to individual TDEE back on like page 5.
I think... they're saying that if your calorie target is super low, you'd want to spend them making sure your hunger pangs don't bore a hole through your stomach and there would be little to no room left for sugary treats. Just nutritious, possibly great tasting, lower calorie, high volume hunger satisfying food
Now accepting this obviously means one has agreed that the calories must be set that low...
Yes, and I understand that with the lower calorie number that it would be more wise to eat more nutrient dense foods (more bang for your buck) for greater satiation. It was still a poor example because it doesn't scale appropriately anyway. You can still eat in moderation even on 1200 calories (select one of the items as opposed to all of them per the examples, even if they were smaller portions). Whereas someone like myself could select 2-3 and still have a good portion of calories left for the day since my needs are greater.
You could be 100% right on the scaling idea for all we know, but since you'll never ever have to deal with such a reduced calorie diet, it's all theory and does not yet demonstrably pass the practicality bar. What's 1200 calories, like a bite for you? :laugh:
That's not necessarily true. Natural bodybuilders can get quite low with calories when contest prepping. Do I compete currently? No. Is it out of the question? No.
It's still a percentage of calories though when it comes to scaling.
6 cookies for 600 calories with 1200 calories - 50% of calories (a dumb example)
6 cookies for 600 calories with 3500 calories - 17% of calories (something I could get away with)
2 cookies for 200 calories with 1200 calories - 17% of calories
Might have to cut it down to a single cookie, but you get the point.
No way, You've done 1200 calories before? When? For how long?
I have no need to eat 1200, I've made mistakes of eating 1600 calories though many moons ago though.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
I mentioned that it needs to scale to individual TDEE back on like page 5.
Yes -- I agree. That's another factor that needs to be taken into consideration when thinking about how much of one's diet can come from high calorie, low nutrition foods.
Isn't this exactly why a lot of people become overweight to begin with? As teenagers, their TDEE is quite high, so they can eat tons of food and not gain weight. But as they age and their activity slows, they don't scale back and start packing on the pounds?LolBroScience wrote: »Yes, and I understand that with the lower calorie number that it would be more wise to eat more nutrient dense foods (more bang for your buck) for greater satiation. It was still a poor example because it doesn't scale appropriately anyway. You can still eat in moderation even on 1200 calories (select one of the items as opposed to all of them per the examples, even if they were smaller portions). Whereas someone like myself could select 2-3 and still have a good portion of calories left for the day since my needs are greater.
Yes, you can eat these foods, but you need to fit them in where you can over days or weeks, as opposed to eating them all in one day. I'd never advocate eating that diet in one day or on a daily basis.
For me, I'd rather meet my macros by eating more nutrient dense foods than by being more active than I already am. However, my daily calorie target just ticked down to 1390 and I weigh 162. When I get down to 150, I'll probably be in the 1200 range, and at that point, I'll have to seriously consider upping my activity level. I was considering tyrying to see if I could get to 125 (the last time I weighed that, I was in the seventh grade), but I will have to learn a lot more to get there.
I have much greater respect now for thin people in their 40s and up. They are either eating very little, or exercising a lot.
Yes, I would say so. Reduction in activity while you continue to eat at the same level. I have no problem with people eating nutrient dense foods, especially when their calories are low (it makes perfect sense to me). Personally, I make sure to get a solid base of nutrient dense foods in order to hit my micros as well, even at a higher caloric level.
There are certainly sacrifices that need to be made when dieting down on low calories. However, it doesn't mean that foods need to be eliminated completely... just means you need to be better with budgeting calories.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »It was still a poor example because it doesn't scale appropriately anyway.
I don't know what this sentence means. I thought I understood scaling to mean I get a specific number of calories and you get a different number of calories because of weight and activity level.
As I get smaller but don't change my activity level, I have to eat less of my example menu, which would suck for me. That's why I though it was a good example.
I might be misunderstanding what scaling means.0 -
Yeah, he's a peach.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Right. You and your friend MrM are just friends having fun with no nastiness intended because there is no nastiness on the boards. Any perceived nastiness is done to help others.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
I gave you the benefit of the doubt before. My mistake.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Edited.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Silly me, offering congratulations when the pictures were posted to be nasty.
Should've known, since MrM was involved. I couldn't figure it out, why the posting of pics for no obvious reason, but thought it seemed appropriate to congratulate when congratulations seemed in order.
You got me, I guess, lol. I fell for it.
I didn't post my photos to be nasty. Photos were asked for, so I (obviously stupidly) posted them, because I'm proud of how much I've accomplished.
It feels crappier than I would have thought to be accused otherwise.
Some might believe you're an unwitting pawn in MrM's nastiness. Not me.
I'm not sure what I've done to bring you to that conclusion. I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I'm not a cruel person, nor am I a pawn.
Best of luck to you.
Go sing it to someone else. I've heard the tune before.
Let me make myself crystal clear.
Unless I'm directly quoting you, my post(s) have nothing to do with you. I don't do passive aggression. I much prefer aggression.
MrM and I barely speak and when we do, it's on the public forums - for all to see. We've never, ever had a private message exchange, nor do we make nefarious plans together revolving around you in some other mythical place. In fact, most of the time when we do post to each other, we're disagreeing. Much like you and I. The difference is he doesn't make character judgements against me when I disagree with him. Nor does he assume that a totally innocuous post is all part of a plan to make him feel bad/stupid/insert word here.
I wasn't having fun when I posted my pictures, I was feeling pride (yesterday marked the date I made it into the 160's). So you can think whatever you wish of me, but the only thing I'm guilty of here is, perhaps, being egotistical. Which I'll gladly own.
I think we're done here.
There is no nastiness on the boards. Just friends having fun. Anything that appears rude or nasty is just people trying to help others.
And this was just a big coincidence. #2. You were unwittingly drawn into his little game with absolutely no knowledge. I'll believe that.
But all the same, there won't be a #3.
Would you *please* stop putting words into my mouth? There is plenty of nastiness on the forums. I never said there wasn't.
Where did I say MrM was a peach? Most of the times I disagree with him are times I feel he's overly aggressive towards people. My thoughts on him aren't any of your business though. I'm no more willing to talk about him behind his back than I am to talk about you behind yours.
He said "everyone post progress photos" and so I did - that's not a coincidence - that's me responding directly to a post made in this thread. And I wasn't the only one to post progress photos.
I have no idea what you think #1 is. I'm not sure I care anymore.
If your aim was to make me feel stupid and shameful for posting a photo of my body, then consider it a job well done.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »It was still a poor example because it doesn't scale appropriately anyway.
I don't know what this sentence means. I thought I understood scaling to mean I get a specific number of calories and you get a different number of calories because of weight and activity level.
As I get smaller but don't change my activity level, I have to eat less of my example menu, which would suck for me. That's why I though it was a good example.
I might be misunderstanding what scaling means.
See my example about the cookies.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »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.
I mentioned that it needs to scale to individual TDEE back on like page 5.
I think... they're saying that if your calorie target is super low, you'd want to spend them making sure your hunger pangs don't bore a hole through your stomach and there would be little to no room left for sugary treats. Just nutritious, possibly great tasting, lower calorie, high volume hunger satisfying food
Now accepting this obviously means one has agreed that the calories must be set that low...
Yes, and I understand that with the lower calorie number that it would be more wise to eat more nutrient dense foods (more bang for your buck) for greater satiation. It was still a poor example because it doesn't scale appropriately anyway. You can still eat in moderation even on 1200 calories (select one of the items as opposed to all of them per the examples, even if they were smaller portions). Whereas someone like myself could select 2-3 and still have a good portion of calories left for the day since my needs are greater.
You could be 100% right on the scaling idea for all we know, but since you'll never ever have to deal with such a reduced calorie diet, it's all theory and does not yet demonstrably pass the practicality bar. What's 1200 calories, like a bite for you? :laugh:
That's not necessarily true. Natural bodybuilders can get quite low with calories when contest prepping. Do I compete currently? No. Is it out of the question? No.
It's still a percentage of calories though when it comes to scaling.
6 cookies for 600 calories with 1200 calories - 50% of calories (a dumb example)
6 cookies for 600 calories with 3500 calories - 17% of calories (something I could get away with)
2 cookies for 200 calories with 1200 calories - 17% of calories
Might have to cut it down to a single cookie, but you get the point.
No way, You've done 1200 calories before? When? For how long?
I have no need to eat 1200, I've made mistakes of eating 1600 calories though many moons ago though.
Hmm, well
I also wonder, is it also easier to be successful eating lower calories, treats and all, if you knew that in X weeks you could go back to eating half a pint of icecream per day (example) with no negative ramifications?
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
There are certainly sacrifices that need to be made when dieting down on low calories. However, it doesn't mean that foods need to be eliminated completely... just means you need to be better with budgeting calories.
I agree -- no foods need to be eliminated, just planned for.
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »It was still a poor example because it doesn't scale appropriately anyway.
I don't know what this sentence means. I thought I understood scaling to mean I get a specific number of calories and you get a different number of calories because of weight and activity level.
As I get smaller but don't change my activity level, I have to eat less of my example menu, which would suck for me. That's why I though it was a good example.
I might be misunderstanding what scaling means.
Seems to me you two are basically agreeing.
Fewer cookies to keep a consistent "treat" percentage.
Makes sense to me too, and it's also why activity is very important to me. Not so much for sugar (although I enjoy some desserts) but various savory foods that also happen to have more calories than, say broccoli and boneless skinless chicken breast.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
I mentioned that it needs to scale to individual TDEE back on like page 5.
Yes -- I agree. That's another factor that needs to be taken into consideration when thinking about how much of one's diet can come from high calorie, low nutrition foods.
Isn't this exactly why a lot of people become overweight to begin with? As teenagers, their TDEE is quite high, so they can eat tons of food and not gain weight. But as they age and their activity slows, they don't scale back and start packing on the pounds?LolBroScience wrote: »Yes, and I understand that with the lower calorie number that it would be more wise to eat more nutrient dense foods (more bang for your buck) for greater satiation. It was still a poor example because it doesn't scale appropriately anyway. You can still eat in moderation even on 1200 calories (select one of the items as opposed to all of them per the examples, even if they were smaller portions). Whereas someone like myself could select 2-3 and still have a good portion of calories left for the day since my needs are greater.
Yes, I agree, someone can eat these foods, but they need to fit them in where they can over days or weeks, as opposed to eating them all in one day. I'd never advocate eating that diet in one day or on a daily basis.
For me, I'd rather meet my macros by eating more nutrient dense foods than by being more active than I already am. However, my daily calorie target just ticked down to 1390 and I weigh 162. When I get down to 150, I'll probably be in the 1200 range, and at that point, I'll have to seriously consider upping my activity level. I was considering tyrying to see if I could get to 125 (the last time I weighed that, I was in the seventh grade), but I will have to learn a lot more to get there.
I have much greater respect now for thin people in their 40s and up. They are either eating very little, or exercising a lot.
edited to change "you" to "they"
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!
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
See my example about the cookies.
Nope, still not getting it. I'll go Google it, though, and figure it out.
Cheers!
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »
See my example about the cookies.
Nope, still not getting it. I'll go Google it, though, and figure it out.
Cheers!
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.0 -
STOP talking about donuts!! I love those little suckers but they make me feel sick and I certainly don't have the time to make GF ones.
You don't need to make them, I just buy them. Kinnikinnick is a fantastic GF brand if it's available outside of Canada if it is the glutinous aspect that bothers your stomach.0 -
If you haven't claimed that the boards aren't nasty and didn't say that it was just people having fun, then I owe you an apology. I'm sorry. If that is the case, I have confused you with someone else.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Yeah, he's a peach.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Right. You and your friend MrM are just friends having fun with no nastiness intended because there is no nastiness on the boards. Any perceived nastiness is done to help others.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
I gave you the benefit of the doubt before. My mistake.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Edited.TheVirgoddess wrote: »
Silly me, offering congratulations when the pictures were posted to be nasty.
Should've known, since MrM was involved. I couldn't figure it out, why the posting of pics for no obvious reason, but thought it seemed appropriate to congratulate when congratulations seemed in order.
You got me, I guess, lol. I fell for it.
I didn't post my photos to be nasty. Photos were asked for, so I (obviously stupidly) posted them, because I'm proud of how much I've accomplished.
It feels crappier than I would have thought to be accused otherwise.
Some might believe you're an unwitting pawn in MrM's nastiness. Not me.
I'm not sure what I've done to bring you to that conclusion. I'm sorry you feel the way you do. I'm not a cruel person, nor am I a pawn.
Best of luck to you.
Go sing it to someone else. I've heard the tune before.
Let me make myself crystal clear.
Unless I'm directly quoting you, my post(s) have nothing to do with you. I don't do passive aggression. I much prefer aggression.
MrM and I barely speak and when we do, it's on the public forums - for all to see. We've never, ever had a private message exchange, nor do we make nefarious plans together revolving around you in some other mythical place. In fact, most of the time when we do post to each other, we're disagreeing. Much like you and I. The difference is he doesn't make character judgements against me when I disagree with him. Nor does he assume that a totally innocuous post is all part of a plan to make him feel bad/stupid/insert word here.
I wasn't having fun when I posted my pictures, I was feeling pride (yesterday marked the date I made it into the 160's). So you can think whatever you wish of me, but the only thing I'm guilty of here is, perhaps, being egotistical. Which I'll gladly own.
I think we're done here.
There is no nastiness on the boards. Just friends having fun. Anything that appears rude or nasty is just people trying to help others.
And this was just a big coincidence. #2. You were unwittingly drawn into his little game with absolutely no knowledge. I'll believe that.
But all the same, there won't be a #3.
Would you *please* stop putting words into my mouth? There is plenty of nastiness on the forums. I never said there wasn't.
Where did I say MrM was a peach? Most of the times I disagree with him are times I feel he's overly aggressive towards people. My thoughts on him aren't any of your business though. I'm no more willing to talk about him behind his back than I am to talk about you behind yours.
He said "everyone post progress photos" and so I did - that's not a coincidence - that's me responding directly to a post made in this thread. And I wasn't the only one to post progress photos.
I have no idea what you think #1 is. I'm not sure I care anymore.
If your aim was to make me feel stupid and shameful for posting a photo of my body, then consider it a job well done.
His point of asking for progress photos was to, once again, lash out at me, which he and ana have been doing on quite a regular basis for quite a while, though he's done it for much longer.
On a daily basis, MrM lashes out at the world by attacking people on these boards...a variety of people, but he has especially focused on me. Day after day, for months, he has tried to bait me into fights. I do not participate in it, so that's one more difference between him and me.
If you really were unwittingly drawn into it, I apologize for accusing you of purposely participating.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions