Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Well, and I also simply don't get why people want to use the term elimination for eating something rarely or on special occasions or for foods they simply don't care for. I haven't had a Twinkie for 35 years and doubt I ever will, why would I claim I eliminated it. I don't like sugary soda, same.
But that's just semantics.
This entire argument is semantics. Most of the people going back and forth for nearly 40 pages agree on the overwhelming majority and are sniping and bickering over minutiae.
But I do find one of the largest pieces missing in this conversation is what can happen after elimination.
It's almost always "eliminate food you like/crave it until you binge". Except, well, no that's not the forgone conclusion for everyone. I've had extraordinary success through the years eliminating foods I once loved. For example, in my early 20s, I eliminated soda/kool aid/juice from my diet, after growing up on a steady, endless stream of that. I became an exclusive water drinker. Tough transition at first, but eventually water drinking became a habit. A little over ten years later and I don't have to actively work to restrict any of those drinks; I just never crave them. They aren't "bad" drinks, but they were drinks that once took up a lot of calories for me, which I certainly did enjoy immensely, but decided to eliminate. I've had similar success with other things.
The human body is extraordinarily adaptable. Which is something I find oddly left out of this conversation. Eliminating ALL things you enjoy isn't a good idea, and it will always vary from person to person, but to suggest that elimination can't be successful, that it always leads to misery, binging, and rebounding is disingenuous. You absolutely can retrain what your body craves. And for people who do have trouble moderating even foods they love, this can be a viable avenue to long term success. To dismiss that is taking a potentially powerful tool out of your arsenal.
0 -
If they are promoting the idea that eliminating food one likes/loves in order to be able to lose weight, then I definitely would not like it. If htey promote eliminating allergens or food for medical purposes, then that's fine.
Would your position still be the same if they were promoting the idea of eliminating food a person likes / loves in order to be able to lose weight because they had adverse and deeply ingrained negative psychological and behavioural associations with certain foods?
Say I have an allergy to a certain component found in food. Eating food containing it triggers and an adverse physical reaction (severe bloating, queasiness or so on.) Would anyone bat an eyelid if I said "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel physically unwell so I am getting rid of them. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Why then do we seem to have so much difficulty in accepting that for some people these adverse reactions may be psychological / behavioural and therefore elimination can actually be a superior technique (in the short term in more likelihood before foods are gradually reintroduced to assess reaction to them.) In other words "well I love the taste of those foods but they just make me feel psychologically unwell (having even just one cookie makes me feel like my control is slipping, irritable, preoccupied) so I am getting rid of them for now. I don't want to moderate my intake as it causes me pain."
Some people have a lot to take on board even when simply counting calories (let alone macros.) Insisting they also learn how to moderate their intake of particular foods they have psychological / behavioural issues with at the same time may put them off entirely. It is not a co-incidence that many diets have an induction phase. Part of this is certainly to prompt quick weight loss to secure adherence. Part of it is to avoid overload until other techniques are introduced.
Finally, I think much of the issue is people simply don't have any real idea to help people with deeper issues than just bland platitudes along the lines of "no foods are bad." Sure, giving yourself mental permission that no food is off the table is a good technique but it is not the only technique.
I'm not that gung ho about it, but I am indeed against elimination diets and tend to agree with those who state so. At the very least, this is my position until digging into the situation (if the target is willing) proves other approaches may be better:
a) I'm not sure what alternatives have been tried. Did they jump straight to elimination before giving some techniques a shot because some random magazine article told them they had to? Purchasing single servings, portioning out the food, keeping the item out of the house but having it once in a while knowing occasional exposure won't completely derail their diets, cooking a fixed amount from scratch because when it's gone, it's GONE and you won't feel like making more? Etc etc. I would be curious if any of these have been tried, just because MFP supposedly has millions of members. Where's the link to their MFP help thread seeking moderation help and what was their response to the suggestions? Who knows how many people are reading this stuff and assuming from posts they read that they need to take this or that Overly restrictive approach? I believe it would be a disservice to the readers to accept an elimination diet without question
b) Kind of alluded to this in a) above but there's too much derp on the Internet. I came to MFP when I wanted to get away from all the derp. MFP delivered. Can MFP PLEASE remain a derp free zone?
c) Speaking of elimination and other derp, a lot of us tried this crap and it didn't work. This is the General Weight loss HELP forum. Most participants are going to give whatever help they feel is best, not what the reader wants to hear or whatever it is they've come looking for (please help me with my raspberry ketones or garcinia cambordia diet or some such). The post stating that it was disrespectful to do this actually made sense to me somewhat, but where do we draw the line? At what point do we say, "Ma'am, just No"? Well we can't agree on this point so many just put it down from the beginning
Now if the user has psychological issues, then they need to be talking with a professional or are already working with one. Input from readers on an interwebs forum would therefore be completely irrelevant and they wouldn't even be seeking advice or interacting with us on these kinds of threads to begin with. It's the one fairly constant pass you'll receive on here for a weirdo diet. "Oh your doctor prescribed it for you and you follow up with them regularly? Carry on, but obviously that doesn't make it the diet standard advice for everyone that most likely doesn't have your identical set of medical issues"
I don't have any issue with any of what you say except for the last paragraph (which I will come to in a minute.) In fact I share your views by and large.
Moderation, elimination, restriction, squat bro!, cardio and so on are tools that in some circumstances are appropriate and in some are not. It depends on the individual. Some may be far more generally applicable than others (moderation for example) but that does not mean one can simply blunder into a thread and when they have feedback from the individual concerned insist that they must adopt an approach when it is clear it may not be the best approach in the given circumstances (bearing in mind physiology and psychology.)
Psychological issues in dieting are a spectrum ranging from mild over eating problems which can be solved with simple techniques to a disorder on the other end which will probably need professional intervention. People who sit somewhere in the middle of this spectrum do not necessarily need to relegated from the forums with "you need professional advice" because the reality may well be they don't. They just need people who understand and are understanding and who can help them rather than "you go sit in the corner with all the other crazy people."
I think we need more openness and more engagement with mental health / psychological issues in general (in fact I believe there will always be interplay between psychology and physiology in dieting although the focus and associated advice will for the foreseeable drastically focus on the physical.)
I feel like that's stepping into the murky waters of asking everyone to be pseudo-professionals whereas in fact MFP used to have a standard disclaimer that posts from mods and admins - and presumably all regular members - were not to be considered medical advice. That said, it's up to the original poster seeking help to disclose any medical conditions such as eating disorders if it's relevant to their topic. Generally speaking I would not assume that someone had any physical or psychological limitations unless they explicitly stated this. Now if you feel you're more sensitive to the kinds of issues you described, by all means stick around and offer your empathy, understanding and advice to those you feel need it in the future
Really? I don't think that for myself as posters seem to have no problem giving advice on basic physiology ("have you tried a calorie deficit?") When it comes to basic psychology why would the position be any different? It simply needs people to be open to it or consider it.
What goes on in the mind isn't somehow more difficult to comprehend than what goes on in the body which can be terrifically complex but rather our collective focus seems more at ease with considering the physical. Hence my viewpoint on more openness and understanding in this regard.
And thanks. I hope I have done that in the past and continue to do so in the future.
Yes, really! It's a calorie counting website, absolutely that's what people would say first. On the Calorie Counting 101 Stickie post the guy basically prefaces it with, look, I'm writing my stickie on the basis that if you eat less than you burn, you'll lose weight. He even asks those who would prefer to argue this point to pick another forum post to do so. All the tools in the entire site are built around this concept, and you can also see here and there, where they've created boundaries to protect themselves a little - warnings when calories logged for the day dip below 1200/1500, the "not medical advice" message previously displayed, etc. I just don't see psychological issues falling into the same category at all on this site
Ha! Well, there is that...
I think though that looking at weight issues merely through a physiological lens is largely redundant as psychology always comes into play. I don't think we can separate the mind and body in such a way. We are seeing more and more influential obesity commentators (like Dr Yoni Freedhoff) focusing in on a "bundled" approach which looks at both aspects.
Maybe MFP would have a "Focus On Mental Health" week?
Anyway, I'm not sure if this is my mind or body (or both) but I have to go and get something to eat
Have a good one.0 -
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »Diedre: Only 3 ways the body burns fuel(calories): BMR(being alive), TEF(thermic effect of foods consumed) and TEA(exercise) When people start to understand as they lose weight and lower there caloric intake exercise was their 'friend' all along it is a beautiful day. It allows for consumption of more fuel. . . .who knew?!? So the 80/20 ratio is a little larger due to an increase in calories and provides for both more nutrient dense foods and foods deemed treats. Better?
In an earlier post, I credited Tigger, but I meant Terrapin, when I was agreeing with your comments about macros. What's an 80/20 ratio?
Here's what I understand and agree with:
Everyone has a set number of calories, carbs, protein, and fat that they need to meet on regular daily basis (not every day, but over the course of several days -- let's say a week) in order to lose weight and be healthy.
It is quite possible for some people to eat high calorie, low nutrient foods as the bulk of their food (donuts, fast food, candy bars, deep fried butter sticks, fried foods, all the cake!) and still meet their numbers. They may be big people or they may exercise like a demon or they may be sticking 3 pounds of broccoli into their cupcake recipes.
But "eat what you want, just in moderation" is not great advice for all of us. I would love a donut and latte for breakfast, a Subway sub for lunch, and a slice of pizza for dinner. It's all tasty food that I want to eat, I don't have to buy groceries, I don't have to cook, I don't have to clean the kitchen. It's convenient and fits my lifestyle! But if I ate like that, on my 1390 diet, I would eat so little that I would be hungry, overeat, and diet fail.
For those of us who want to feel full throughout the day (and my assumption here is that feeling full throughout the day will lead to dieting success and permanent lifestyle changes, which is my goal and I would assume the goal of many people on this website), better advice would be: eat lower calorie, nutrient dense food so that you can eat as much food as possible. Save the treats for when you can work them in.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I actually think cutting WAY back on added sugars (I'm not a believer in demonizing fruit, though) can be helpful at first for some people.
I agree, and not just for the reason you mentioned.
What I dislike is the idea that one must do that to be able to lose weight successfully or to be healthy, regardless of the specific circumstances, or the focus on eating healthy as an all or nothing thing--either you eliminate "added sugars" (or whatever else is supposed to be a bad food) or you are eating badly, no middle ground. I think that kind of thing causes people who can't imagine giving up all the things they'd have to give up to not even try or to quit quickly, and that's why I think people want to stress that it's not necessary.
(Does the sentiment sometimes go too far the other way when there are reasons for a particular poster to want to try a different kind of approach, like cutting stuff out for a while? Sure, that happens.)
This! There IS middle ground but there are people that demonize anything and everything that isn't 100% natural and even then they demonize those foods too. The fact is I have lost and kept off 100 pounds for the past 8 years by...sit down, are you ready for this...keeping everything in moderation. I can see the shock on your face
I know someone actually who I'm going to unfriend on Facebook because I can't take the BS that she and her boyfriend spew. They demonize practically every food and the boyfriend is a trainer, something that I find very scary! He tells his clients they MUST give up sugar, carbs, all processed foods and I'm sure there are things that I don't even know about LOL If someone would have said that to me when I first started I can guarantee with 200% certainty that I would not be here 10 years later running marathons and in the best shape of my life. OMG I'm so tired of specific foods being demonized. Rant over 
0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »_Terrapin_ wrote: »Diedre: Only 3 ways the body burns fuel(calories): BMR(being alive), TEF(thermic effect of foods consumed) and TEA(exercise) When people start to understand as they lose weight and lower there caloric intake exercise was their 'friend' all along it is a beautiful day. It allows for consumption of more fuel. . . .who knew?!? So the 80/20 ratio is a little larger due to an increase in calories and provides for both more nutrient dense foods and foods deemed treats. Better?
In an earlier post, I credited Tigger, but I meant Terrapin, when I was agreeing with your comments about macros. What's an 80/20 ratio?
Here's what I understand and agree with:
Everyone has a set number of calories, carbs, protein, and fat that they need to meet on regular daily basis (not every day, but over the course of several days -- let's say a week) in order to lose weight and be healthy.
It is quite possible for some people to eat high calorie, low nutrient foods as the bulk of their food (donuts, fast food, candy bars, deep fried butter sticks, fried foods, all the cake!) and still meet their numbers. They may be big people or they may exercise like a demon or they may be sticking 3 pounds of broccoli into their cupcake recipes.
But it's not great advice for all of us. I would love a donut for breakfast, a Subway sub for lunch, and a slice of pizza for dinner. I don't have to buy groceries, I don't have to cook, I don't have to clean the kitchen. It's convenient and fits my lifestyle! But if I ate like that, on my 1390 diet, I would eat so little that I would be hungry, overeat, and diet fail.
For those of us who want to feel full throughout the day (and my assumption here is that feeling full throughout the day will lead to dieting success and permanent lifestyle changes, which is my goal and I would assume the goal of many people on this website), better advice would be: eat lower calorie, nutrient dense food so that you can eat as much food as possible. Save the treats for when you can work them in.
To me, your case actually proves why the original advice is pretty great. Upon diving into the details, it turns out you are intentionally restricting the better part of an additional ~500 calories available to you because:
You don't want to exercise
You want to lose weight as fast as possible even though it means you'll then tell us your calories are too few to eat in certain ways
These are individual choices you've made for yourself that exclude you from the more generic advice. I don't know all details on why you've made them, but it just goes to prove the original advice should be kept as is, until a good enough reason is provided as to why it wouldn't work
That's my opinion, anyway
0 -
I did not read the entire thread. Ain't nobody got time for that.
I think that because gaining weight is caused by eating above maintenance (and the calories one eats above maintenance are from all foods on the food pyramid...not just sugar) the most logical thing to do would be to educate oneself on proper food portioning and calorie control. This includes, but is not limited to, calculating the amount of calories that should be consumed for weight loss, weighing out solids, measuring liquids, and keeping track of all calories. If the person looking to lose weight eats the majority of their calories from sugar..then yes, cutting back on sugar would help. However, most people who are overeating are doing so across the board. In most cases, just limiting or stopping sugar consumption won't be of much help.
Regardless, what gets reduced from someone's diet is up to them. The only thing that matters is that the new way of eating is sustainable. For some people, cutting sugar is sustainable. Thats ok. For some people cutting sugar is not sustainable and that's ok too. I don't see why there's a debate about personal preference.0 -
Thank you for your advice, Oh Wise and All-Knowing One.
Some of us have to average 1200 calories and exercise to lose weight. Not even lose quickly. Slowly lose!DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
But it's a calorie counting app. Isn't the huge overage in red letters (numbers, actually) a pretty awesome clue? Some things go without saying, or the tool tells you. When you mark your diary complete with a 1,000 calorie overage it will also tell you that if you ate like this everyday, you would weigh 10 lbs more in five weeks. These things are built into the MFP app. Everyone will see it whether or not it is spelled out on the forums... The advice is being given with the assumption and context that the reader is a calorie counting MFP member. Is this not correct?
The first junk food in moderation menu I posted was way over with lots of red numbers.
The second menu I posted was half a dount and a latte, 1/2 a slice of pizza and a salad, 7 oz of KFC chicken, and green beans.
It met my numbers (1400 calories / day). It was actually under by 200 cal, over fat by 11 grams, but very close for carbs, protein, and sugar. I could have added two pats of butter, or a tablespoon of coconut oil and hit my numbers exactly.
My point was and is that by eating junk food in moderation, I'd be really hungry and I'd overeat. On that menu, I'd be hungry.
It might be enough for other people. I don't know. No one stepped up and said they could eat like that every day and be fine.
"Satiety and preference" is a pretty common caveat I've seen attached to calorie counting advice. If your tummy is still grumbling, chances are something could stand to be tweaked. The 1200 calorie menu, for starters :bigsmile: That's the main reason I personally wouldn't implement that sample menu, followed by I don't drink my calories in general (black coffee, anyone?), but I do indeed prefer a sugary breakfast - muffins, donuts, bagels, that sort of thing. I do not practice IIFYM
I'm happy for all the people who get to eat lots and lots and can easily work in yummy treats...well, happy for them until that start bragging about it, lol...but it's just not possible for everyone.
I have the occasional 1400-1500 day and the occasional 900-100 day, but every month averages out to like 1225 or something close to 1200.
It's really hard to work 400 calorie muffins into a 1200 calorie day.
If you were craving a muffin, you could easily either make your own low-cal version (I make my own protein-enhanced versions of baked goods all the time, especially banana bread and pancakes), or simply buy lower calorie versions, or simply not eat the whole muffin. Which is what moderation is about, learning how to work appropriate amounts of food one likes into the diet while meeting overall goals.
I'll be sure to give it all the consideration it is due when making my decisions.
Well you said that it's hard to work in a 400-cal muffin on a 1200 cal diet. So I offered suggestions on how it can be done if you are craving a muffin.
I will just repost this
Make a low calorie muffin?0 -
That's not exact enough, duh. There needs to be rules set by a few individuals that dictate individual preferences because that's how it works, everyone knows that.blktngldhrt wrote: »I did not read the entire thread. Ain't nobody got time for that.
I think that because gaining weight is caused by eating above maintenance (and the calories one eats above maintenance are from all foods on the food pyramid...not just sugar) the most logical thing to do would be to educate oneself on proper food portioning and calorie control. This includes, but is not limited to, calculating the amount of calories that should be consumed for weight loss, weighing out solids, measuring liquids, and keeping track of all calories. If the person looking to lose weight eats the majority of their calories from sugar..then yes, cutting back on sugar would help. However, most people who are overeating are doing so across the board. In most cases, just limiting or stopping sugar consumption won't be of much help.
Regardless, what gets reduced from someone's diet is up to them. The only thing that matters is that the new way of eating is sustainable. For some people, cutting sugar is sustainable. Thats ok. For some people cutting sugar is not sustainable and that's ok too. I don't see why there's a debate about personal preference.
0 -
blktngldhrt wrote: »I did not read the entire thread. Ain't nobody got time for that.
I think that because gaining weight is caused by eating above maintenance (and the calories one eats above maintenance are from all foods on the food pyramid...not just sugar) the most logical thing to do would be to educate oneself on proper food portioning and calorie control. This includes, but is not limited to, calculating the amount of calories that should be consumed for weight loss, weighing out solids, measuring liquids, and keeping track of all calories. If the person looking to lose weight eats the majority of their calories from sugar..then yes, cutting back on sugar would help. However, most people who are overeating are doing so across the board. In most cases, just limiting or stopping sugar consumption won't be of much help.
Regardless, what gets reduced from someone's diet is up to them. The only thing that matters is that the new way of eating is sustainable. For some people, cutting sugar is sustainable. Thats ok. For some people cutting sugar is not sustainable and that's ok too. I don't see why there's a debate about personal preference.
Precisely!
0 -
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
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