eat right and no need to count calories
Options
Replies
-
You're not consuming 2000 cal of apples (4 cal/g), you're consuming 2000 cal of alcohol (7 cal/g), or maybe part of alcohol and part of sugar from the apple juice.SergeantSausage wrote:I'm an amateur orchardist (80-ish trees), ferment my own cider and find it quite easy to consume 2000 calories of apples in Apple Jack or Hard Cider form, if I'm not careful.
(And I love hard cider!!! Yum.)
So you don't have to count calories if you count calories??lemurcat wrote:You can prevent this without counting if you internalize ways to keep track of how much you are eating
Point is you don't have to log or know the exact number if you find it burdensome, as some do. I log because I find it interesting and like to tweak, but I never have to rely on the logs to stay under, as the foods I choose come to roughly the calories I am aiming for just because at this point I have a good sense of the right amounts and mixes of foods, for me.
The idea is that it can be a learning experience not a requirement forever, for those who say they couldn't do it. You can do it even without knowing the calories if you focus on food choice and portion size. I lost weight and maintained it for years doing that and didn't know my calories at all. But the fact is that that's still different than just eating healthy, or just eating whole foods, of course, both of which can be low cal or not, depending.
0 -
Straw man is routinely done on this board. It starts with "So..." or "So you're saying..."
You'll see it done here all the time. Look for replies that begin with the word "So." Read the rest of that sentence and then compare it to what was actually said, lol. It's almost never the same thing.
Haha, yes! It feels like MFP is full of clever but annoying teen boys sometimes (even though they look like middle aged men and women). Lots of distortions, lots of extremes, insistence on impossible-to-meet standards, yup yup.
You mean the people who respond to eat what you want in moderation with "so what you are saying is it's healthy to eat Twinkies 24/7?"
What irritates me is that it's the "clean" people who insist they care so much more about health than the rest of us because they don't eat "processed" foods. Of course they do, but I think their claim entitles me to ask if they are living by their standards and actually eating a healthier diet than me and if so, how? How are the more processed foods I eat (and I typically give examples) hurting my health such that I should cut them out if I care about health. Because I do, that's why I have opinions about it, so I'd like to know.
You seem to be saying (but correct me if I'm wrong) that it's not hypocritical or absurd for some to define eating clean as mostly trying not to eat high calorie boxed meals, lots of pop tarts and Oreo, or fast food, but if they slip up occasionally that's life. If so, great, but then it's total ridiculousness to pretend they are eating in some special extra healthy way. The whole thing seems based on this idea that it's super hard to cook normally and eat regular meals, that everyone else should be presumed not to do it, and they deserve some kind of extra credit for just doing what most of us do.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
You're not consuming 2000 cal of apples (4 cal/g), you're consuming 2000 cal of alcohol (7 cal/g), or maybe part of alcohol and part of sugar from the apple juice.SergeantSausage wrote:I'm an amateur orchardist (80-ish trees), ferment my own cider and find it quite easy to consume 2000 calories of apples in Apple Jack or Hard Cider form, if I'm not careful.
(And I love hard cider!!! Yum.)
So you don't have to count calories if you count calories??lemurcat wrote:You can prevent this without counting if you internalize ways to keep track of how much you are eating
Point is you don't have to log or know the exact number if you find it burdensome, as some do. I log because I find it interesting and like to tweak, but I never have to rely on the logs to stay under, as the foods I choose come to roughly the calories I am aiming for just because at this point I have a good sense of the right amounts and mixes of foods, for me.
The idea is that it can be a learning experience not a requirement forever, for those who say they couldn't do it. You can do it even without knowing the calories if you focus on food choice and portion size. I lost weight and maintained it for years doing that and didn't know my calories at all. But the fact is that that's still different than just eating healthy, or just eating whole foods, of course, both of which can be low cal or not, depending.
The fact that you (/or I, not a personal attack) regained the weight and then some puts to question any method used for maintenance. Some introspection when we fail and restart should result in "well, whatever I did, didn't really work in the long term."
I have no dog in the fight, I can see when calorie counting works and when it doesn't. But I think a little self criticism is necessary when people say this worked for years and then they find that in fact, it didn't. They got back to the starting point or worse.
"But it worked great until it didn't!!"
I'm right there. I think it is important, at least to me, to look at whatever method I was using and be critical of why it failed to create long term adherence.
In this sense, again for me, the whole calorie counting debate is sterile. It's like debating about using a nail gun or manually hammering in the nails to build a house. It's a tool that you chose of not to use. You still need a solid foundation, a plan and so many other things to build for the long term.
0 -
if you replace the word "healthy" with "low calorie dense" foods such as comparing eating pasta with steamed spinach would people agree it's harder to eat 1000 calories on spinach than 1000 calories on pasta because they would get full on less?
If people truly don't agree with this, I think they are trolling.
-1 -
since nobody can agree on what's considered healthy and have extended healthy to mean chips and cupcakes *rollseyes*-5 -
if you replace the word "healthy" with "low calorie dense" foods such as comparing eating pasta with steamed spinach would people agree it's harder to eat 1000 calories on spinach than 1000 calories on pasta because they would get full on less?
If people truly don't agree with this, I think they are trolling.
What you are failing to see is that feeling full isn't the only objective to eating. Either pasta or spinach can make sense in a diet based on context - if I am planning a long hard ride in the next days - a plate of pasta might make more sense than the calorie equivalent plate of spinach. Both are healthy, both are good.
If the only interest was to eat "low calorie dense food" we'd all be eating only cauliflower. So no, a "healthy diet" isn't eating only "low calorie dense" food.
Not trolling at all - just believe that healthy depends on contextual elements - some things are evident - variety to assure micronutrient needs, balance in macro nutrients, freshness, etc... But it doesn't necessarily exclude x or y foods. And personally, I like to commit to things like low packaging, proximity sourcing, low environment impact as part of "healthy" (socially) eating. But in terms of weight loss - given that adherence is one of the most important barriers and that the actual extra weight is the unhealthiest thing you can have then "healthy" eating is whatever brings to best adherence, IMHO. It is a personal context.
0 -
So, you're saying low carb foods are healthy and pasta is not healthy, or as healthy?
I say it's difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time and you say it isn't.
It isn't my definition, lol. I take advice from experts.
Your definition of healthy includes sticking to lean, white, meats. That's not everyone's definition of healthy. I happen to think eating salmon, mackerel, steak, lamb, avocado, almonds, etc is perfectly healthy. This is an inherent problem with trying to "eat healthy". There is no definition of what "healthy" is. I also find no reason to pay much attention to sodium. I do not have hypertension or kidney disease and until I do, I find no problems with eating twice the RDA for sodium some days. Someone who has moderate to severe hypertension really aught to watching their sodium. While it's not necessarily "unhealthy" for me to eat a lot of sodium, it can be quite "unhealthy" for someone else too. This is why it is an exercise in futility to classify individual foods as clean and dirty, or healthy and unhealthy. It's completely subjective and in the end, it's how those foods fit together in a total diet and how that total diet complements the individuals needs that matter.
Healthy eating includes watchingcholesterol, sodium, fat content and sticking to lean, white meats. You won't be able to eat too many of those eggs sticking to All Healthy, All The Time.
I completely disagree with this. There are too many high calorie choices that could be considered "healthy". If I ate grass fed steak, eggs, almonds/almond butter, milk, avocados, coconut oil, bananas, natural peanut butter, oats, granola, etc I could easily eat above my maintenance, and my maintenance is over 3000 calories. Someone with a smaller maintenance could do it even easier.When I began, I was advised to eat healthy, exercise and not worry about anything else. I had special restrictions in addition to that, but could eat all the fruits and veggies my little heart desired.
Without logging, counting, weighing myself or doing any of the things that are so common for weight loss, I lost my first forty pounds. I was shocked when I found out how much I'd lost. Since my clothes got bigger and too big, I knew I'd lost, but was FLOORED by forty pounds. I literally got off and back on the scale and considered that I might've been weighed wrong in the first place, but it would've required like a dozen people doing it wrong in six or eight different places, so there was no error.
If you eat only the healthiest of foods - all healthy, all the time - it's really hard to overeat. You'll see people here asking about how to get to 1200 eating only the healthiest of food. While it's theoretically possible, it would be very difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time.
I'm not saying you couldn't gain weight eating whatever you choose to eat, just that people sometimes have a really hard time hitting 1200 when doing All Healthy, All The Time.
But I respect your opinion and think the boards are better when there are multiple opinions posted. Not trying to start a big fight, just clarify.
I know many MFP people do not trust:
Doctors, because they're not smart
CDC, because government lies
Health associations, like Amercian Heart, because they have an agenda
Etc.
I do trust all those people when they all say that eating healthy (as they define it) may help me avoid illness. Avoiding illness is something I'm in favor of doing!
For various reasons, they suggest avoiding certain foods and keeping the salt lower than most Americans do.
If you stick to their recommendations and only their recommendations - All Healthy, All The Time - it's hard to gain weight.
If you add a bunch of stuff that they don't recommend and call it "healthy," that's a different ball game.
If you overdo it on the sodium, you may end up regretting it later. I'm not sure where you got the info that it's cool to eat "a lot" of sodium until it causes cardiovascular problems and then cut back, but I know it is said here a lot. You may end up wishing you'd done it differently.
I don't personally care how much sodium you eat. Eat only salt all day, every day. I don't care. I'm not trying to be Right On The Internet because then I feel smarter and more confident. Just a heads up. For whatever it's worth.
I'm posting this as FYI and not attempting to begin a Link Duel. I'm not suggesting it makes me smarter or right about anything. Just in case you're interested in reading what some people - people who you may or may not trust! People you may or may not wish to hear out! - have to say:
http://sodiumbreakup.heart.org/sodium-411/sodium-and-your-health/
Sigh more nonsense
Truly so, especially about it being difficult to gain weight if you eat "all healthy all the time."
Kalikel,
...
It's easy to overeat on any type of food.
Were you expecting me to say, "Yuh huh! Is too!"
I'm not. You disagree. Big deal.
What? Why the attitude?
It's no more difficult to gain on "all healthy all the time," as you call it then it is to gain on any other diet.
it's certainly more difficult to gain on a healthy diet than on a diet of junk food for me. i simply do not consume as many calories if i eat low carb foods rather than eating pasta every day like i used to.
I disgree.
I gained lots of weight eating what I perceived as healthy- no refined sugar, low fat, lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, lots of other foods on my avoid list.
I lost 44 pound seating foods I love, including plenty of carbs, and have been maintaining for a year.
I found it easy to lose, and easy to maintain, because I don't feel deprived.
no, that isn't what i'm saying. if you disagree with me, you disagree that eating 2000 calories in pasta for lunch every day is bad? good to know. *rollseyes*
do people even read my posts when they disagree with them?
Yeah, I read your post. 2000 calories of pasta is an extreme. How about 200 calories, maybe 300?
200 calories in pasta would be tiny and would not be filling.
I can eat 200 cals worth of pasta, which is probably what I usually eat now anyways for servings. I'm just smart and pair it with other food, because a 200 calorie meal itself is not filling unless it's all protein. Even that only lasts so long for me.0 -
Seriously?
Who is in charge of what is eating right (or whatever you want to call it)
You become overweight by eating more calories than you burn, consequently, you lose weight by eating less calories than you burn.
Do what is sustainable and RIGHT for you.0 -
elbaldwin0525 wrote: »I see we have a lot of IIFYMers in here. But I say, youre absolutely right. I have lost over 80lbs and have not counted not one calorie. I just eat whole foods....which are pretty hard to over eat because they feel you up....and I continue to lose weight. Some people can fight cravings and some cant. Long as you throw in a cheat day then you should be good
Depends on the person. I don't do well with "cheats." I do better eating what I feel like eating when it fits into my day or when I feel like eating it. I also lost weight eating as you are right now, but it also wasn't sustainable for me. As someone mentioned above, not counting cals led me to losing really fast - 50-60lbs in 6 months. For some that wouldn't be that fast, but considering I wasn't obese... that is a lot. And I was unable to lean out as I wanted. Then I gained the weight back over time as I switched from cardio lover to (albeit poor) weight training.
So my biggest issue with restrictive dieting is that a) it's restricting potential foods I enjoy eating nad would like to eat without delegating it to once a week only, b) it's much harder for me to estimate proper protein minimum intake without tracking it because I instinctively prefer carby and fatty foods, c) not tracking leads me to easily eat too much or not eat enough. I had to exercise 6+ hrs a week to lose weight on your diet, whenever I'd slack on the exercise I still ate the same and gained.
Definitely YMMV. Choose the diet approach that doesn't feel like a diet to you. Be as lenient or as strict as works for you. I discovered that I need to be very lenient; outside of tracking cals and macros (protein), it's all just winged throughout the day now. Otherwise it causes mental blocks.0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »JustinAnimal wrote: »While it's hard to argue when people say you gain weight from oreos or carrots, I will say this from personal experience: it is effing hard to overindulge on raw veggies (like eat 1500 calories over my goal); it is the easiest thing in the world to overindulge in buffalo wings and beer. So while it's true you can gain from anything, you'd be working pretty goddamn hard to gain serious weight chomping on balanced amounts of chicken breast, egg whites, raw veggies and fruits. Not saying it's impossible, but much more difficult.
Exactly why if you are serious about weight loss you should keep all crap (chips, cookies, pretzels, cake, ice cream) out of your kitchen. One can argue that you will lose weight because you will eat fewer calories, or one can argue that cutting junk carbs and sugar results in weight loss. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, there are some people with incredible self control (apparently most of the posters here), who can manage to indulge in two Oreos, five pretzels and three potato chips at the end of the evening to reach their calorie limit. But most people can't, and end up eating the entire bag of potato chips. That is why most people fail at dieting, whether it is CICO or other diets.
Keep the temptations out of your house. If you want a donut, go to Dunkin Donuts and get one. Don't buy a dozen and bring them home.
Cutting calories and removing high-calorie foods are basically the exact same this with different words being used. Both result in caloric deficit. One simply means that you are reducing calories from any food, the other means that you are restricting what you are allowed to eat. This only worked for me for a few years last time. I've lost more than 25lbs still eating "junk," because I've been monitoring my caloric intake.
To the person quoted before this, eating only chicken breast, egg whites (dude, where the frack are your whole eggs? I only use egg whites to beef up a whole-egg omelet or when recipes call for them), raw veggies, and fruit would be sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo boring, tedious, I'd hate it. I've done it, I eventually hated it. Yes, it's a bit less work, but it's also in some ways more work because I had to decide what foods were "safe" so to speak for my eating patterns. Now it's just about figuring out what portion size will fit into my needs for any food.
I also will gladly eat "junk" in the day to get towards my macro goals, or if I just feel like eating a cookie wth lunch just cuz. I have almost a dozen donuts, maybe 4 muffins, 2 cinnamon buns, and lots of chocolate (christmas, mostly) in my house. Some of this stuff I've had for at least a month, other stuff (like some of the chocolate) even longer. Now that I know it's not off limits, I don't feel the urge to stuff my face with it. But I guess it's also because I know and care about my overall macro goals, so I'm willing to say no to a donut if it means fulfilling the last 20g of protein I need that day. I think I might pack a donut for lunch now
So personally, I find it rude to say that unless you cut out x foods from your life/house that you are not serious about weight loss. I don't tell others who cut out foods that they are not being serious about weightloss, although I usually point out that their approach will likely not be sustainable for life - this is based both on things I've heard from others and from my own experience.0 -
if you replace the word "healthy" with "low calorie dense" foods such as comparing eating pasta with steamed spinach would people agree it's harder to eat 1000 calories on spinach than 1000 calories on pasta because they would get full on less?
If people truly don't agree with this, I think they are trolling.
Aside from people (men) who are bulking and/or extremely active, who would be eating 1000 calories of spinach or pasta for a meal? I can eat a loot of pasta if calories aren't concerned, but even I never ate 1000 calories of it in a sitting. Most people don't, they eat a combination of foods, which will of course change how the calories play out for the total meal.0 -
"White Knight." It's name-calling.
You disagree. I get it.
I say it's difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time and you say it isn't.
It isn't my definition, lol. I take advice from experts.
Your definition of healthy includes sticking to lean, white, meats. That's not everyone's definition of healthy. I happen to think eating salmon, mackerel, steak, lamb, avocado, almonds, etc is perfectly healthy. This is an inherent problem with trying to "eat healthy". There is no definition of what "healthy" is. I also find no reason to pay much attention to sodium. I do not have hypertension or kidney disease and until I do, I find no problems with eating twice the RDA for sodium some days. Someone who has moderate to severe hypertension really aught to watching their sodium. While it's not necessarily "unhealthy" for me to eat a lot of sodium, it can be quite "unhealthy" for someone else too. This is why it is an exercise in futility to classify individual foods as clean and dirty, or healthy and unhealthy. It's completely subjective and in the end, it's how those foods fit together in a total diet and how that total diet complements the individuals needs that matter.
Healthy eating includes watchingcholesterol, sodium, fat content and sticking to lean, white meats. You won't be able to eat too many of those eggs sticking to All Healthy, All The Time.
I completely disagree with this. There are too many high calorie choices that could be considered "healthy". If I ate grass fed steak, eggs, almonds/almond butter, milk, avocados, coconut oil, bananas, natural peanut butter, oats, granola, etc I could easily eat above my maintenance, and my maintenance is over 3000 calories. Someone with a smaller maintenance could do it even easier.When I began, I was advised to eat healthy, exercise and not worry about anything else. I had special restrictions in addition to that, but could eat all the fruits and veggies my little heart desired.
Without logging, counting, weighing myself or doing any of the things that are so common for weight loss, I lost my first forty pounds. I was shocked when I found out how much I'd lost. Since my clothes got bigger and too big, I knew I'd lost, but was FLOORED by forty pounds. I literally got off and back on the scale and considered that I might've been weighed wrong in the first place, but it would've required like a dozen people doing it wrong in six or eight different places, so there was no error.
If you eat only the healthiest of foods - all healthy, all the time - it's really hard to overeat. You'll see people here asking about how to get to 1200 eating only the healthiest of food. While it's theoretically possible, it would be very difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time.
I'm not saying you couldn't gain weight eating whatever you choose to eat, just that people sometimes have a really hard time hitting 1200 when doing All Healthy, All The Time.
But I respect your opinion and think the boards are better when there are multiple opinions posted. Not trying to start a big fight, just clarify.
I know many MFP people do not trust:
Doctors, because they're not smart
CDC, because government lies
Health associations, like Amercian Heart, because they have an agenda
Etc.
I do trust all those people when they all say that eating healthy (as they define it) may help me avoid illness. Avoiding illness is something I'm in favor of doing!
For various reasons, they suggest avoiding certain foods and keeping the salt lower than most Americans do.
If you stick to their recommendations and only their recommendations - All Healthy, All The Time - it's hard to gain weight.
If you add a bunch of stuff that they don't recommend and call it "healthy," that's a different ball game.
If you overdo it on the sodium, you may end up regretting it later. I'm not sure where you got the info that it's cool to eat "a lot" of sodium until it causes cardiovascular problems and then cut back, but I know it is said here a lot. You may end up wishing you'd done it differently.
I don't personally care how much sodium you eat. Eat only salt all day, every day. I don't care. I'm not trying to be Right On The Internet because then I feel smarter and more confident. Just a heads up. For whatever it's worth.
I'm posting this as FYI and not attempting to begin a Link Duel. I'm not suggesting it makes me smarter or right about anything. Just in case you're interested in reading what some people - people who you may or may not trust! People you may or may not wish to hear out! - have to say:
http://sodiumbreakup.heart.org/sodium-411/sodium-and-your-health/
Sigh more nonsense
Truly so, especially about it being difficult to gain weight if you eat "all healthy all the time."
Kalikel,
...
It's easy to overeat on any type of food.
Were you expecting me to say, "Yuh huh! Is too!"
I'm not. You disagree. Big deal.
What? Why the attitude?
It's no more difficult to gain on "all healthy all the time," as you call it then it is to gain on any other diet.
You can quote me and say it a third time, but I'm not going to fight about it then, either. It's just not that big a deal.
Wow. I thought we were all discussing. "Fight" is in your perception.
Looks like you're WK outnumbered. Also debating with her will never get y out anywhere. She'll just keep running in circles.
what is WK?
I'd rather be the white knight than the villain and have never considered it an insult.
You don't know what the WK term means, do you?
0 -
if you replace the word "healthy" with "low calorie dense" foods such as comparing eating pasta with steamed spinach would people agree it's harder to eat 1000 calories on spinach than 1000 calories on pasta because they would get full on less?
If people truly don't agree with this, I think they are trolling.
Aside from people (men) who are bulking and/or extremely active, who would be eating 1000 calories of spinach or pasta for a meal? I can eat a loot of pasta if calories aren't concerned, but even I never ate 1000 calories of it in a sitting. Most people don't, they eat a combination of foods, which will of course change how the calories play out for the total meal.
1 serving or 50 grams of dry pasta is 200 calories. That's a lot of cooked pasta in my opinion. With add ins, you can get a big 300 to 400 calorie meal. 2000 calories of prepared pasta would kill my stomach0 -
if you replace the word "healthy" with "low calorie dense" foods such as comparing eating pasta with steamed spinach would people agree it's harder to eat 1000 calories on spinach than 1000 calories on pasta because they would get full on less?
If people truly don't agree with this, I think they are trolling.
I think you're missing the point, as well as being presumptuous calling someone a troll if they don't agree with your statement. Those two foods are so vastly different in calories that the comparison is ludicrous. I couldn't eat 1000 calories in either food, and I wouldn't even want to try. Moderation in all foods.
Why all the extremes?0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »Seriously?
Who is in charge of what is eating right (or whatever you want to call it)
You become overweight by eating more calories than you burn, consequently, you lose weight by eating less calories than you burn.
Do what is sustainable and RIGHT for you.
This.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »if you replace the word "healthy" with "low calorie dense" foods such as comparing eating pasta with steamed spinach would people agree it's harder to eat 1000 calories on spinach than 1000 calories on pasta because they would get full on less?
If people truly don't agree with this, I think they are trolling.
What you are failing to see is that feeling full isn't the only objective to eating. Either pasta or spinach can make sense in a diet based on context - if I am planning a long hard ride in the next days - a plate of pasta might make more sense than the calorie equivalent plate of spinach. Both are healthy, both are good.
If the only interest was to eat "low calorie dense food" we'd all be eating only cauliflower. So no, a "healthy diet" isn't eating only "low calorie dense" food.
Not trolling at all - just believe that healthy depends on contextual elements - some things are evident - variety to assure micronutrient needs, balance in macro nutrients, freshness, etc... But it doesn't necessarily exclude x or y foods. And personally, I like to commit to things like low packaging, proximity sourcing, low environment impact as part of "healthy" (socially) eating. But in terms of weight loss - given that adherence is one of the most important barriers and that the actual extra weight is the unhealthiest thing you can have then "healthy" eating is whatever brings to best adherence, IMHO. It is a personal context.
I specifically said I was not talking about the word "healthy" anymore. does anyone read my posts prior to responding?
I'm talking purely about weight loss. With weight loss, low calorie dense foods makes it easier to lose weight.0 -
So, you're saying low carb foods are healthy and pasta is not healthy, or as healthy?
I say it's difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time and you say it isn't.
It isn't my definition, lol. I take advice from experts.
Your definition of healthy includes sticking to lean, white, meats. That's not everyone's definition of healthy. I happen to think eating salmon, mackerel, steak, lamb, avocado, almonds, etc is perfectly healthy. This is an inherent problem with trying to "eat healthy". There is no definition of what "healthy" is. I also find no reason to pay much attention to sodium. I do not have hypertension or kidney disease and until I do, I find no problems with eating twice the RDA for sodium some days. Someone who has moderate to severe hypertension really aught to watching their sodium. While it's not necessarily "unhealthy" for me to eat a lot of sodium, it can be quite "unhealthy" for someone else too. This is why it is an exercise in futility to classify individual foods as clean and dirty, or healthy and unhealthy. It's completely subjective and in the end, it's how those foods fit together in a total diet and how that total diet complements the individuals needs that matter.
Healthy eating includes watchingcholesterol, sodium, fat content and sticking to lean, white meats. You won't be able to eat too many of those eggs sticking to All Healthy, All The Time.
I completely disagree with this. There are too many high calorie choices that could be considered "healthy". If I ate grass fed steak, eggs, almonds/almond butter, milk, avocados, coconut oil, bananas, natural peanut butter, oats, granola, etc I could easily eat above my maintenance, and my maintenance is over 3000 calories. Someone with a smaller maintenance could do it even easier.When I began, I was advised to eat healthy, exercise and not worry about anything else. I had special restrictions in addition to that, but could eat all the fruits and veggies my little heart desired.
Without logging, counting, weighing myself or doing any of the things that are so common for weight loss, I lost my first forty pounds. I was shocked when I found out how much I'd lost. Since my clothes got bigger and too big, I knew I'd lost, but was FLOORED by forty pounds. I literally got off and back on the scale and considered that I might've been weighed wrong in the first place, but it would've required like a dozen people doing it wrong in six or eight different places, so there was no error.
If you eat only the healthiest of foods - all healthy, all the time - it's really hard to overeat. You'll see people here asking about how to get to 1200 eating only the healthiest of food. While it's theoretically possible, it would be very difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time.
I'm not saying you couldn't gain weight eating whatever you choose to eat, just that people sometimes have a really hard time hitting 1200 when doing All Healthy, All The Time.
But I respect your opinion and think the boards are better when there are multiple opinions posted. Not trying to start a big fight, just clarify.
I know many MFP people do not trust:
Doctors, because they're not smart
CDC, because government lies
Health associations, like Amercian Heart, because they have an agenda
Etc.
I do trust all those people when they all say that eating healthy (as they define it) may help me avoid illness. Avoiding illness is something I'm in favor of doing!
For various reasons, they suggest avoiding certain foods and keeping the salt lower than most Americans do.
If you stick to their recommendations and only their recommendations - All Healthy, All The Time - it's hard to gain weight.
If you add a bunch of stuff that they don't recommend and call it "healthy," that's a different ball game.
If you overdo it on the sodium, you may end up regretting it later. I'm not sure where you got the info that it's cool to eat "a lot" of sodium until it causes cardiovascular problems and then cut back, but I know it is said here a lot. You may end up wishing you'd done it differently.
I don't personally care how much sodium you eat. Eat only salt all day, every day. I don't care. I'm not trying to be Right On The Internet because then I feel smarter and more confident. Just a heads up. For whatever it's worth.
I'm posting this as FYI and not attempting to begin a Link Duel. I'm not suggesting it makes me smarter or right about anything. Just in case you're interested in reading what some people - people who you may or may not trust! People you may or may not wish to hear out! - have to say:
http://sodiumbreakup.heart.org/sodium-411/sodium-and-your-health/
Sigh more nonsense
Truly so, especially about it being difficult to gain weight if you eat "all healthy all the time."
Kalikel,
...
It's easy to overeat on any type of food.
Were you expecting me to say, "Yuh huh! Is too!"
I'm not. You disagree. Big deal.
What? Why the attitude?
It's no more difficult to gain on "all healthy all the time," as you call it then it is to gain on any other diet.
it's certainly more difficult to gain on a healthy diet than on a diet of junk food for me. i simply do not consume as many calories if i eat low carb foods rather than eating pasta every day like i used to.
I disgree.
I gained lots of weight eating what I perceived as healthy- no refined sugar, low fat, lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, lots of other foods on my avoid list.
I lost 44 pound seating foods I love, including plenty of carbs, and have been maintaining for a year.
I found it easy to lose, and easy to maintain, because I don't feel deprived.
no, that isn't what i'm saying. if you disagree with me, you disagree that eating 2000 calories in pasta for lunch every day is bad? good to know. *rollseyes*
do people even read my posts when they disagree with them?
Yeah, I read your post. 2000 calories of pasta is an extreme. How about 200 calories, maybe 300?
200 calories in pasta would be tiny and would not be filling.
I can eat 200 cals worth of pasta, which is probably what I usually eat now anyways for servings. I'm just smart and pair it with other food, because a 200 calorie meal itself is not filling unless it's all protein. Even that only lasts so long for me.
pasta is a meal all by itself where i'm from. nothing to do with being "smart".0 -
if you replace the word "healthy" with "low calorie dense" foods such as comparing eating pasta with steamed spinach would people agree it's harder to eat 1000 calories on spinach than 1000 calories on pasta because they would get full on less?
If people truly don't agree with this, I think they are trolling.
Aside from people (men) who are bulking and/or extremely active, who would be eating 1000 calories of spinach or pasta for a meal? I can eat a loot of pasta if calories aren't concerned, but even I never ate 1000 calories of it in a sitting. Most people don't, they eat a combination of foods, which will of course change how the calories play out for the total meal.
it was a simplification. my point is, if you load up more on foods that aren't calorie dense it's easier to lose weight.0 -
if you replace the word "healthy" with "low calorie dense" foods such as comparing eating pasta with steamed spinach would people agree it's harder to eat 1000 calories on spinach than 1000 calories on pasta because they would get full on less?
If people truly don't agree with this, I think they are trolling.
I think you're missing the point, as well as being presumptuous calling someone a troll if they don't agree with your statement. Those two foods are so vastly different in calories that the comparison is ludicrous. I couldn't eat 1000 calories in either food, and I wouldn't even want to try. Moderation in all foods.
Why all the extremes?
i'm not missing the point at all. you are. it was a simplification to illustrate my point.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions