Don't read this if brutal honesty (or profanity) offends you..
Replies
-
The article is preaching to the choir, but it's not going to reach those who actually "need" it. While some of it does ring true (e.g. #6), he makes it seem like it's either his way or you'll be a fat*** with a victim mentality all your life. That approach lacks balance and is helpful to no one.
Everyone has their own journey and there are different ways to be successful in achieving a caloric deficit for weight loss. It's a bit dismissive of people with real obstacles to weight loss that aren't necessarily in the "bedridden, paraplegic, or living in a war-torn country" category. There were various factors that led me to the point where I decided once and for all to lose weight - they were not "excuses," but they were reasons. Yet the choice to make the best of the hand I was dealt and work hard to lose weight was still my own. It took me getting my mind right, so to speak, and then discovering the right tools that actually worked for me so I could have success at weight loss. Knowing what has held you back, dealing with it, then making a change is not the same thing as having a victim mentality and being an ultimate failure at weight loss.
I still eat pizza, wings, donuts, nachos, etc. (not all the time mind you, but occasionally), but 1. they fit in my calorie goals, 2. I have found that to actually feel full, I have to eat less of those foods and more protein and veggies, and 3. the more I'm on this journey, the less I desire most of those foods anyway. I approach my daily nutritional allowance like game of Tetris - what do I really want, and what are the smarter choices that will actually fit in my daily allowance and allow me to feel satisfied? The lower my caloric target gets, the better my choices need to be, but it's about making permanent lifestyle changes, not just making abrupt and drastic changes cold turkey - human nature simply doesn't work like that.0 -
Well I agree on the guy's take on what a treat is and that it's not to be consumed often. I wish more people on here did actually understand that rather than advocating regular consumption of junk and fast food "because you can fit it in your calories" (which many of us can NOT, if we plan to eat more than once a day.... not that I want to in the first place. I cook better than the McD's.)
I completely agree with you. I tried to fit it in. Doesn't work for me. Back to a "zero tolerance" attitude.
So because it doesn't work for YOU, nobody should do it?
I'm sorry but I fail to see how a 50 calorie piece of chocolate is a big deal in a 1200 calorie diet (or heck 200 calories of ice cream if someone has a 2000 calories diet). That guy is an idiot. Some people ONLY succeed BECAUSE of those treats. I wouldn't have lasted longer than his 8 weeks otherwise.
I don't think the poster is saying no one should do it. He/she is saying that there is a large group of members that seem to scour each newbie post/question about "junk food", pizza, "treats", etc. with the same answer: Just fit it in, they say. Why be miserable, they ask? You are probably going to fail if you deprive yourself, they quirp. Same ish everyday. Meanwhile, most of them are already in maintenance where their calories targets are MUCH higher than people in weight loss mode. And also, many of US who are striving to lose weight, gained it from eating such calorie dense items in the first place. The answer is that it should be up to the individual. If you can and want to eat that stuff, go ahead. If not, you don't have to and it's OK. No one should act as though they have the answer to others problems. People can say what has worked for them. But to ridicule and admonish others because they choose not to eat chocolate or pie or pizza (or whatever) is ridiculous. To each his own.
I was talking about the author of that article, not the posters. People can do what they want. I just think the author is wrong to demonize food and say that treats should be a once in a while thing, because there is NOTHING wrong with a 50 calorie piece of chocolate even in a 1200 calorie diet. Heck, chocolate is good for you. Yet he calls them '*kitten*' and say that people fail because they have them every day. No. People fail because they eat too many of them every day. If I signed up with him and he expected me to have chocolate or cookies once a month, I'd be out of there way faster than the 30 seconds it would take him to judge me.0 -
Well I agree on the guy's take on what a treat is and that it's not to be consumed often. I wish more people on here did actually understand that rather than advocating regular consumption of junk and fast food "because you can fit it in your calories" (which many of us can NOT, if we plan to eat more than once a day.... not that I want to in the first place. I cook better than the McD's.)
OMG, this^^^^
Agreed0 -
Most people who are into "treating" themselves constantly are not having 50 calorie servings of chocolate.
0 -
When does ultimately happen herrspoons? I've lost 42lb over 14 months with around 20 lb to go. I wouldn't have found that article very helpful if I'd read it on Day 1, and I don't find it very helpful now. Some people need kindness, encouragement, fun. I'm going to carry on as I have been, grumbling, complaining, bemoaning my health issues, commiserating with others, having the odd cry about it into a pint of wine, failing on many days but picking up and carrying on. I don't need that kind of silly rhetoric. Maybe that's the British spirit. And we are - just about - still a thinner nation.
I wouldn't have found it helpful when I started changing things and losing weight, but I find it helpful now. When I started and had over 100 pounds to lose, I might have cried when I left after our first meeting. I don't agree with the treating myself once a month if the 50 calorie piece of chocolate is a treat, but I sure could cut down on the treats now. I lost 100 plus pounds plus almost 5 years ago now, but still haven't hit my goal. Hearing these things now is helpful to me because I have gotten comfortable and need to stop treating myself so much and not giving up the things that get in my way.
I don't think I will ever just treat myself once a month though. I like my beer too much and life is too short...I have to keep some sort of balance.0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »Most people who are into "treating" themselves constantly are not having 50 calorie servings of chocolate.
A lot have 200 calorie treats, sure, but with a goal of even 1800 calories, what's wrong with that? The guy is assuming that people who eat too many 'treats' are doomed to fail. Yet most of the people you see here who talk about having treats most days have healthy weights.
It's funny too... I mean, who is he to categorize things as treats? What's a 'treat' anyway? Some people will consider a PB&J sandwich a treat. Is it? And wine... seriously? He's talking about how people ate 100 years ago, well where I come from, I'm quite sure they drank wine quite regularly. And ate cake (or at least muffins, but heck, what's the difference?). And cookies. But according to him, those are 'treats'? Totally ridiculous argument. Basically, if it tastes good, we shouldn't have it? Sorry but F that *kitten*.
0 -
He wasn't nearly as harsh as I expected from the title.0
-
I am talking about the kind of people who insist on eating several very unheathy meals out (places like CPK, Cheesecake factory) every week because they feel like they somehow deserve it or NEED it. If it works for you, that's one thing...but if you can't lose or can't keep the weight off, the ridiculous indulgences have to go at some point.
I don't eat anything that doesn't taste good, but I don't eat crap either. It doesn't work for my weight loss and it doesn't fit in with my long-term health goals. I don't need to be able to eat junk in order to be social or enjoy my life. There are all kinds of rewards and things you can do to be nice to yourself which don't involve food at all.
0 -
Well I agree on the guy's take on what a treat is and that it's not to be consumed often. I wish more people on here did actually understand that rather than advocating regular consumption of junk and fast food "because you can fit it in your calories" (which many of us can NOT, if we plan to eat more than once a day.... not that I want to in the first place. I cook better than the McD's.)
Oh and btw - I'm laughing at the irony here. Are people really that offended that some people can actually eat what they want in moderation and still lose weight, that they applaud anyone saying that people shouldn't have treats regularly? Is it jealousy or something?
I mean, I sure can't fit most fast food meals in my calories either (mostly because I'm never going to be satisfied with a small 1000 calorie serving, and because I don't always have moderation under control either), but I'm not going to tell people that they shouldn't eat that stuff, if it's working out for them. And I'm sure not going to quote people and say that I agree with them when they said that people shouldn't have treats within their calories.
0 -
Well I agree on the guy's take on what a treat is and that it's not to be consumed often. I wish more people on here did actually understand that rather than advocating regular consumption of junk and fast food "because you can fit it in your calories" (which many of us can NOT, if we plan to eat more than once a day.... not that I want to in the first place. I cook better than the McD's.)
Oh and btw - I'm laughing at the irony here. Are people really that offended that some people can actually eat what they want in moderation and still lose weight, that they applaud anyone saying that people shouldn't have treats regularly? Is it jealousy or something?
I mean, I sure can't fit most fast food meals in my calories either (mostly because I'm never going to be satisfied with a small 1000 calorie serving, and because I don't always have moderation under control either), but I'm not going to tell people that they shouldn't eat that stuff, if it's working out for them. And I'm sure not going to quote people and say that I agree with them when they said that people shouldn't have treats within their calories.
Yep, their envious passive aggressive posts are a dead giveaway.0 -
On the other hand, if you want sot get motivated with great advice commit it to memory.
I have been on this site for about 4 years. I have lost about 70 pounds and at 63 I am in the best shape of my life.
Just wish I had found this when I started because I agree with every single syllable:
http://strengthcoachtaylor.ca/uncategorized/the-brutally-honest-6-reasons-you-are-still-overfat/
I loved it!
0 -
Love it!0
-
mojohowitz wrote: »He is a correct, obnoxious, self-righteous assbag. Unfortunately, his tone speaks much louder than his words.
Best summary so far.0 -
I've read it before and it's not something that would have helped me at all. Like many people, I was eating good, healthy home-cooked food. All through the article he keeps mentioning foods that he assumes fat people are overeating on - pizza, icecream, donuts, chocolate, wine, nachos, wings, milkshakes, etc. If this isn't the way you eat, then it's not going to strike a chord with you. .
This is fair enough, it's true, some have gained on home-cooked food, and I can see why they might take issue with the suggestion fast food got them there. But I've got a bridge to sell to anyone trying to tell me that the obesity rate has nothing to do with this stuff:
- e.g. "The US potato chips market had total revenues of $9,041.6m in 2013 "
- (nb old) Of all restaurant visits in the United States, fast-food outlets account for 78% of the total. The "limited-service" total is projected at $225.4 billion when snack bars, cafeterias and buffets are counted.
- http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/fast-food-facts-blow-mind-215644960.html
- https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/us-restaurant-traffic-holds-steady-in-first-quarter-2013-and-spending-increases-reports-npd/
I don't think it's wackadoodle to suggest that a good number of those customers are included in the 33.8% of US adults who are obese.
http://ajhpcontents.org/doi/abs/10.4278/0890-1171-19.2.137
http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/3/1/2
(mind you I enjoy a quarter pounder every now and then like a lot of people. but i feel better and weigh less when it's every now and then.)0 -
A lot have 200 calorie treats, sure, but with a goal of even 1800 calories, what's wrong with that? The guy is assuming that people who eat too many 'treats' are doomed to fail. Yet most of the people you see here who talk about having treats most days have healthy weights.
Yep.
I eat fish tacos, potato chips, pizza, tater tots, and cheeseburgers every week. I have one or two beers every week, and sometimes three or four. I eat out at least three times for lunch every week, and at least once for dinner every week.
I do it on 1390 calories (not one of which is a salad calorie). I'm down 20 pounds.
WINNER!
What I don't do is eat without forethought. If I want to have 500 extra calories, I know I'm doing it, and I log it beforehand.
0 -
I eat "treats" everyday and I love it.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
With regards to the treats thing...that's assuming isn't it that he has his all clients counting calories? A lot of people hate counting calories.0
-
Well I agree on the guy's take on what a treat is and that it's not to be consumed often. I wish more people on here did actually understand that rather than advocating regular consumption of junk and fast food "because you can fit it in your calories" (which many of us can NOT, if we plan to eat more than once a day.... not that I want to in the first place. I cook better than the McD's.)
Oh and btw - I'm laughing at the irony here. Are people really that offended that some people can actually eat what they want in moderation and still lose weight, that they applaud anyone saying that people shouldn't have treats regularly? Is it jealousy or something?
I mean, I sure can't fit most fast food meals in my calories either (mostly because I'm never going to be satisfied with a small 1000 calorie serving, and because I don't always have moderation under control either), but I'm not going to tell people that they shouldn't eat that stuff, if it's working out for them. And I'm sure not going to quote people and say that I agree with them when they said that people shouldn't have treats within their calories.
Yep, their envious passive aggressive posts are a dead giveaway.
Yup, and as always, the people that are taking an issue with an article like this are not successful or can show success. Maybe that's what has some people be so sensitive.
It's funny because it seems to be quite the opposite actually, well at least when it comes to #3.0 -
Yup, and as always, the people that are taking an issue with an article like this are not successful or can show success. Maybe that's what has some people be so sensitive.
I'm successful. I've been successful for 10 years (have kept 40 pounds off). I did it through woo woo science (sugar addition!) and elimination (no desserts for nearly 10 years). I did it with people who held my hand and let me cry and let me find my own path. These same people gave me strength by telling me about their own weaknesses rather than berating me for mine.
Even today, now that I've added desserts back into my diet and have a genuine interest in strength training for the first time in my life, I still wouldn't go to this trainer. His control issues are not my style.
eta: His control issues would get in the way of my control issues. lol
0 -
GREAT article... loved it, thanks for posting!0
-
Uh.. my "zero tolerance" towards gluten is due to it causing my physical discomfort, not because I think it's evil. I have eaten it in the recent past as a 2 month trial, and by the end of that two months I felt horrible.
I feel great, however, eating the GF alternatives.
Seriously, you need to learn how to properly compare examples.
0 -
emily_stew wrote: »
What are you talking about? I'm pretty sure she has a gluten allergy/insensitivity. That's not even the same thing.
She has brought this up sooo many times in the past in an attempt to win a point/argument, and she never uses proper logic, i.e. thinking that omitting something from one's diet for medical purposes is the same as eliminating something because you think it's "bad" for you and will hinder progress/make you fat. My response to this reasoning is:
AAAAH best gif for MFP purposes EVER. I've used it like 5 times now. It's going to be my go-to forever now. It's always been one of my fave Buffy lines anyways!0 -
OOPS wrong quote0
-
Well I agree on the guy's take on what a treat is and that it's not to be consumed often. I wish more people on here did actually understand that rather than advocating regular consumption of junk and fast food "because you can fit it in your calories" (which many of us can NOT, if we plan to eat more than once a day.... not that I want to in the first place. I cook better than the McD's.)
I completely agree with you. I tried to fit it in. Doesn't work for me. Back to a "zero tolerance" attitude.
So because it doesn't work for YOU, nobody should do it?
I'm sorry but I fail to see how a 50 calorie piece of chocolate is a big deal in a 1200 calorie diet (or heck 200 calories of ice cream if someone has a 2000 calories diet). That guy is an idiot. Some people ONLY succeed BECAUSE of those treats. I wouldn't have lasted longer than his 8 weeks otherwise.
I don't think the poster is saying no one should do it. He/she is saying that there is a large group of members that seem to scour each newbie post/question about "junk food", pizza, "treats", etc. with the same answer: Just fit it in, they say. Why be miserable, they ask? You are probably going to fail if you deprive yourself, they quirp. Same ish everyday. Meanwhile, most of them are already in maintenance where their calories targets are MUCH higher than people in weight loss mode. And also, many of US who are striving to lose weight, gained it from eating such calorie dense items in the first place. The answer is that it should be up to the individual. If you can and want to eat that stuff, go ahead. If not, you don't have to and it's OK. No one should act as though they have the answer to others problems. People can say what has worked for them. But to ridicule and admonish others because they choose not to eat chocolate or pie or pizza (or whatever) is ridiculous. To each his own.
A LOT of the people who post those threads talk about how much they are craving something, or that they binged because they've been "so good" and have avoided those foods. So we suggest that they simply try to moderate the intake by eating things that they enjoy whenever they want as long as they still meet calorie/macro goals.
I am not in maintenance. I was not in maintenance when I adopted this mindset. I have never been in maintenance when suggesting this approach. I simply have a reasonable goal, and even in cases when I didn't have a reasonable goal (relative to my own needs), I still advocated and practiced this mindset.
You gained from eating too many calories, not because you ate calorie-dense foods. Calorie-dense foods help you meet calorie goals faster, yes, but they do not cause weight gain. Which is why it's very reasonable to suggest that people still eat them if they are foods they enjoy eating and foods they would like to eat while in maintenance. Weight loss should be your normal dietary intake that you plan to adopt for life, only at a slightly lower calorie allotment. Not a punishment.0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »Most people who are into "treating" themselves constantly are not having 50 calorie servings of chocolate.
My treats range from around this number up to 300 or so. Some days all I'm craving is a single piece of chocolate. some days I don't crave any "treats," or the treat I crave is actually something like grapes. Which are quite calorie dense, btw. Sometimes I will go days or weeks without any "treats" and then I will splurge, if you will, for a day or two eating a greater quantity.
But yes, I can easily eat just 50ish cals of chocolate a day if I wanted to. Because I don't have much low-calorie chocolate on hand (I have some Christmas chocolate that is mostly above 100 cals and I've eaten most of my lower-cal/small items already) I tend to eat more than 50 calories of chocolate rihgt now if I want chocolate.0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »I am talking about the kind of people who insist on eating several very unheathy meals out (places like CPK, Cheesecake factory) every week because they feel like they somehow deserve it or NEED it. If it works for you, that's one thing...but if you can't lose or can't keep the weight off, the ridiculous indulgences have to go at some point.
I don't eat anything that doesn't taste good, but I don't eat crap either. It doesn't work for my weight loss and it doesn't fit in with my long-term health goals. I don't need to be able to eat junk in order to be social or enjoy my life. There are all kinds of rewards and things you can do to be nice to yourself which don't involve food at all.
Except people could easily have a night out once a week and still lose weight. I'm sure some people here, for instance, have a night of heavier drinking weekly and still lose weight.
I eat "crap" and I've lost 27lbs (16lbs or so left to go). Because I plan to eat these things when I'm in maintenance, I eat them now. I do not diet, I simply eat a bit less food than I normally do.
But then again, I also don't classify "junk" food as junk or crap. I only refer to it that way (usually in quotations when I remember to do so) on the forums so people can have a better idea of what general types of food I'm talking about because I'm aware of the classification that people use.0 -
Hmmm... really? A narcissist?
I wouldn't call this guy a narcissist based on this blog post. He's just calling it like it is.
The act of dismissing all criticism with the phrase "I'm just telling it like it is" is a classic characteristic of the narcissist. It's usually the first red flag.
0 -
Meh, I mostly agree. Guy is a pecker head who IRL I would not pay much attention to because of his attitude. Typical Internet badass. Again, I do agree with most of the points.0
-
Well I agree on the guy's take on what a treat is and that it's not to be consumed often. I wish more people on here did actually understand that rather than advocating regular consumption of junk and fast food "because you can fit it in your calories" (which many of us can NOT, if we plan to eat more than once a day.... not that I want to in the first place. I cook better than the McD's.)
I completely agree with you. I tried to fit it in. Doesn't work for me. Back to a "zero tolerance" attitude.
So because it doesn't work for YOU, nobody should do it?
I'm sorry but I fail to see how a 50 calorie piece of chocolate is a big deal in a 1200 calorie diet (or heck 200 calories of ice cream if someone has a 2000 calories diet). That guy is an idiot. Some people ONLY succeed BECAUSE of those treats. I wouldn't have lasted longer than his 8 weeks otherwise.
I don't think the poster is saying no one should do it. He/she is saying that there is a large group of members that seem to scour each newbie post/question about "junk food", pizza, "treats", etc. with the same answer: Just fit it in, they say. Why be miserable, they ask? You are probably going to fail if you deprive yourself, they quirp. Same ish everyday. Meanwhile, most of them are already in maintenance where their calories targets are MUCH higher than people in weight loss mode. And also, many of US who are striving to lose weight, gained it from eating such calorie dense items in the first place. The answer is that it should be up to the individual. If you can and want to eat that stuff, go ahead. If not, you don't have to and it's OK. No one should act as though they have the answer to others problems. People can say what has worked for them. But to ridicule and admonish others because they choose not to eat chocolate or pie or pizza (or whatever) is ridiculous. To each his own.
A LOT of the people who post those threads talk about how much they are craving something, or that they binged because they've been "so good" and have avoided those foods. So we suggest that they simply try to moderate the intake by eating things that they enjoy whenever they want as long as they still meet calorie/macro goals.
Well and good. The reality is that meeting standard calorie / macro goals for weight loss usually means, as others have said, mostly eating healthy foods (and I'm going to insist on a common-sense definition of "healthy", here - your five-a-day, your leaner meats/proteins/dairy, your grains and legumes - the ones that give you a lot of nutritional bang for your calorie buck). The problem, as I see it, is that there's a good number of people who have no idea how to hit macros, eat for satiety within a budget, or moderate intake. A lot of people's tastebuds have been trained on those low-value, high-cal foods. There's nothing wrong with any of those foods in isolation, but the great probability, given what we know from public health research, is that overweight or obese people are not eating those foods in isolation or with moderation. People talk about foods in context - yes, but the larger socioeconomic context is that many, many overweight people are eating too much fast food (for a range of reasons).
"Eat however you want, just hit your targets" is a hard rule for people to apply when they're planning their meals. It requires an intermediate understanding of nutrition. "Eat healthy most of the time, and treat treats as treats" offers rules of thumb that are easier to understand and more likely to help people meet their targets. There are people who really wonder why they're still hungry on 1700 calories, and it's often because they're eating too much of that low-value food.
I eat pretty much anything in moderation, I think everyone should. But I know from experience and observation that for a lot of people, eating "healthy"/"clean"/whatever - just for the first few months - can really help them retrain their palettes, and support their understanding of how to meet their goals.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions