Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Options
Replies
-
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
- 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