Check out this "expert" advise! "Counting calories is bad!"
Replies
-
4legsRbetterthan2 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I read Cynthia Sass' book and liked it. I do think calorie counting is not ideal for long term weight maintenance, for many. You don't have to look far to see people all over this site with disordered relationships with food and the numbers.
correlation is not causation - CICO is a very usefull method for alot of people. I also think it is very attractive to people who have compulsive restriction type disorders, but that does not mean it caused them. They most likely came here with that mentality already.
CICO is valid for everyone. Tracking those calories however, is not necessarily the correct or ideal method for everyone.
I couldn't agree more. With this post, and the one above it.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I read Cynthia Sass' book and liked it. I do think calorie counting is not ideal for long term weight maintenance, for many. You don't have to look far to see people all over this site with disordered relationships with food and the numbers.
wait, so calorie counting = disordered relationship with foods?
0 -
Not what she said, but ok.WalkingAlong wrote: »I read Cynthia Sass' book and liked it. I do think calorie counting is not ideal for long term weight maintenance, for many. You don't have to look far to see people all over this site with disordered relationships with food and the numbers.
wait, so calorie counting = disordered relationship with foods?
0 -
sigh ..whyis there always one person that believes that the regular rules of math and physics do not apply to them…?
so you are saying you can eat in a 500 per day calorie surplus and you will lose weight? Because it not as simple as CICO..right, right, right????
Coming from a biologist, it is as simple as CICO, BUT the calories that go into your mouth do NOT always equal the calories that are available to your body for energy: even cooking something will change the amount of energy available to your cells (DOI: 10.1002, doi: 10.1073). Not to mention the individual differences in intestinal microbiota: micro-organisms that live in your gut help you to digest foods and therefore get more energy than others. To put it simply, some are better at it than others and this may be implicated in weight loss and gain (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2006.tb00173.x). One of the interesting clinical implications of this is faecal transplant as a treatment for obesity. Would you swallow a 'poo pill' to lose weight?
0 -
holzeeg123 wrote: »
sigh ..whyis there always one person that believes that the regular rules of math and physics do not apply to them…?
so you are saying you can eat in a 500 per day calorie surplus and you will lose weight? Because it not as simple as CICO..right, right, right????
Coming from a biologist, it is as simple as CICO, BUT the calories that go into your mouth do NOT always equal the calories that are available to your body for energy: even cooking something will change the amount of energy available to your cells (DOI: 10.1002, doi: 10.1073). Not to mention the individual differences in intestinal microbiota: micro-organisms that live in your gut help you to digest foods and therefore get more energy than others. To put it simply, some are better at it than others and this may be implicated in weight loss and gain (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2006.tb00173.x). One of the interesting clinical implications of this is faecal transplant as a treatment for obesity. Would you swallow a 'poo pill' to lose weight?
I agree with you that there are some internal things that will affect CICO like TEF, and what not; however, that does not invalidate that at end of the day it boils down to calories in vs calories out. Now, will that equation always be perfect, no; but, if one follows it will work.
No, I would not swallow a "poo pill"....LOL unless I can take that with a tablespoon of added sugar...but then would that be "bad"???
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Not what she said, but ok.WalkingAlong wrote: »I read Cynthia Sass' book and liked it. I do think calorie counting is not ideal for long term weight maintenance, for many. You don't have to look far to see people all over this site with disordered relationships with food and the numbers.
wait, so calorie counting = disordered relationship with foods?
ok, then go ahead and clarify it for me..0 -
I agree with you that there are some internal things that will affect CICO like TEF, and what not; however, that does not invalidate that at end of the day it boils down to calories in vs calories out. Now, will that equation always be perfect, no; but, if one follows it will work.
No, I would not swallow a "poo pill"....LOL unless I can take that with a tablespoon of added sugar...but then would that be "bad"???
Hmm yeah I think we are on the same page. I guess my response to that would be that's all well and good as long as people know that there may be other factors, and they will never be able to calculate "I had a 3600 deficit this week. WHY AREN'T I A POUND LIGHTER AGGGGHHH" which is exactly how someone who gets obsessive with calories may think.
Would you swallow a "poo pill" for a C. diff infection or are you averse to it all?
(rest of the post not a direct reply)
I also think there is a difference between someone using MFP to understand what they eat and learn about nutrition, and using it every day for the rest of their life. I'm sure people on this site will fit into both categories, and there's nothing wrong with that. IMO people need to work out what's right for them. No generalisations, no "right way" just try something for a few months and see. If you really want a lifestyle change, using the first few months to figure out if something is making you miserable or plain not working is nothing in the long term.0 -
The article says 7 eating habits you should drop now. It's not an article posed as showing a variety of ways people can lose weight effectively. If you look at the other "habits," they're negatively oriented. They're literally posing calorie counting as a negative method and then throw in a "oh it's not meaningless" to clean it up a bit.
Does calorie counting cause stress for some people? Sure. Anything can do that. That doesn't mean it's a negative method. Clean eating can stress people out. Moderation can stress people out. Simply existing can stress people out.
Counting calories can be highly effective. The article is indeed BS for suggesting a legitimate strategy is just going to make you gain weight due to stress.
Many people, like myself, find it to be a stress free method. Without counting calories, I feel like I just guessing and THAT is stressful for me. I under eat because I want to be "safe." The idea of eating clean for life would be stressful for me. Counting calories and realizing I can have a bowl of ice cream and still be on track for losing...that's the exact opposite of stressful.
Also, any "diet" is stressful to begin with. You're making a major adjustment in the way you typically go about your life. Once you adapt to the basic habits, it gets easier. After using MFP for a little while, unless you have a very random diet or don't group foods, logging becomes literal minutes of your day. The hardest part about logging is when I decide to eat under a serving and have to do the math
0 -
This has been one of the more interesting conversations on MFP! I think there is so much that goes into what will work for one individual vs. another and I especially appreciate holzeeg's insights about CICO. It is more complicated than some make it out to be. It's not a "simple math" equation but rather a more complicated equation--there are mediating and moderating factors (including hunger influencing hormones, gut bacteria, etc.). But you can still use the simple counting method to get a decent approximation of if you're on track or off. It's just important to not get too hung up on the simple math and base your expectations on it.
For some, paying attention to hunger and satiety will work without counting. For others, paying attention to types of food will work without counting. For me, I need both of those things AND counting to lose weight and some calorie counting to even maintain. I think that's because my body wants me to be heavier than I want to be, so I could gain weight on eating "clean" foods to satiety. This goes back to the "other factors" (including genetic tendencies) that will influence what works for one person vs. another.
So, in sum, live and let live. What works for one person may not work for another! The trick is to understand what works for you most of the time.0 -
If there is no value judgment that can be attached to methods, there is no point in discussing methods or discussing articles that do so.mamapeach910 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
So your argument is that calorie counting IS ideal for everyone for long term maintenance? All I said was that it's not ideal for everyone.mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I read Cynthia Sass' book and liked it. I do think calorie counting is not ideal for long term weight maintenance, for many. You don't have to look far to see people all over this site with disordered relationships with food and the numbers.
What would you call a disordered relationship with food and the numbers and why is calorie counting long term not ideal?
Speaking from personal experience I got to a point where I started selecting foods strictly based on numbers and not based on other factors related to typical food selection processes (nutrient needs, palatability, etc). I started viewing foods as strings of numbers and not as food themselves. Furthermore, I disliked the amount of attention I needed to pay to energy values and I developed the feeling of severe restriction.
It's really not all that different from someone deciding to eliminate entire categories of foods and how, in SOME of those cases those people end up developing a less than ideal relationship with food (orthorexic type behaviors) because of their methods.
I've also had clients who have had issues with the relationships in their life because of their tracking behaviors.
I don't direct this at you (person I am quoting) but it baffles my mind how many people believe that since an issue or problem doesn't exist in their world, then it must not exist.
Ultimately, with any behavior you select you need to determine how that behavior effects the quality of your life. For SOME people, tracking intake is a net negative.
For many people it's perfectly fine, and for those who don't have issues with it, it's a powerful tool.
Oh, I don't question that it's problematic for some at all. I question that the site is rife with people with disordered relationships with food and numbers as the other poster asserted.
I also question the other poster's premise that for some people, long-term tracking is less than "ideal", whatever that is. "Ideal" maintenance is pretty much going to be an individual thing, who gets to do decide what works best for anyone? Why have a concept of what is and isn't ideal?
No, my argument is over your use of the word "ideal". Calorie counting is just a tool. It's neutral. It's neither "ideal" or not if someone chooses to use it. There's no value judgment to be made regarding its use or lack thereof.0 -
holzeeg123 wrote: »
I agree with you that there are some internal things that will affect CICO like TEF, and what not; however, that does not invalidate that at end of the day it boils down to calories in vs calories out. Now, will that equation always be perfect, no; but, if one follows it will work.
No, I would not swallow a "poo pill"....LOL unless I can take that with a tablespoon of added sugar...but then would that be "bad"???
Hmm yeah I think we are on the same page. I guess my response to that would be that's all well and good as long as people know that there may be other factors, and they will never be able to calculate "I had a 3600 deficit this week. WHY AREN'T I A POUND LIGHTER AGGGGHHH" which is exactly how someone who gets obsessive with calories may think.
Would you swallow a "poo pill" for a C. diff infection or are you averse to it all?
(rest of the post not a direct reply)
I also think there is a difference between someone using MFP to understand what they eat and learn about nutrition, and using it every day for the rest of their life. I'm sure people on this site will fit into both categories, and there's nothing wrong with that. IMO people need to work out what's right for them. No generalisations, no "right way" just try something for a few months and see. If you really want a lifestyle change, using the first few months to figure out if something is making you miserable or plain not working is nothing in the long term.
If I did not know it was a poo pill then sure...but if they told me that it was..well IDK, I just have an issue with swallowing something that is supposed to come out my nether regions..if you get my drift??
To the CICO point, IMO if people are accurate and honest with their logging then they will be able to identify the number at which they lose/maintain/gain, even taking into account the outside factors.
I actually lose most of my weight by just eating less and NOT using a calorie counter. However, I found that when I wanted to achieve a lower body fat% that I needed to use MFP to be more accurate; on the flip side, I have also found that it useful for when I want to bullk. A lot of time I would be entered food during my bulk and think "wow, this is a lot" and then when it was all logged it was only 2700 and I needed four hundred more calories to get to a surplus!
So counting calories has really taught me a lot about portion sizes and the number that I lose/gain/maintain at....and I am somewhat of a data freak, so I like looking at the numbers...
0 -
holzeeg123 wrote: »
I agree with you that there are some internal things that will affect CICO like TEF, and what not; however, that does not invalidate that at end of the day it boils down to calories in vs calories out. Now, will that equation always be perfect, no; but, if one follows it will work.
No, I would not swallow a "poo pill"....LOL unless I can take that with a tablespoon of added sugar...but then would that be "bad"???
Hmm yeah I think we are on the same page. I guess my response to that would be that's all well and good as long as people know that there may be other factors, and they will never be able to calculate "I had a 3600 deficit this week. WHY AREN'T I A POUND LIGHTER AGGGGHHH" which is exactly how someone who gets obsessive with calories may think.
Would you swallow a "poo pill" for a C. diff infection or are you averse to it all?
(rest of the post not a direct reply)
I also think there is a difference between someone using MFP to understand what they eat and learn about nutrition, and using it every day for the rest of their life. I'm sure people on this site will fit into both categories, and there's nothing wrong with that. IMO people need to work out what's right for them. No generalisations, no "right way" just try something for a few months and see. If you really want a lifestyle change, using the first few months to figure out if something is making you miserable or plain not working is nothing in the long term.
If I did not know it was a poo pill then sure...but if they told me that it was..well IDK, I just have an issue with swallowing something that is supposed to come out my nether regions..if you get my drift??
To the CICO point, IMO if people are accurate and honest with their logging then they will be able to identify the number at which they lose/maintain/gain, even taking into account the outside factors.
I actually lose most of my weight by just eating less and NOT using a calorie counter. However, I found that when I wanted to achieve a lower body fat% that I needed to use MFP to be more accurate; on the flip side, I have also found that it useful for when I want to bullk. A lot of time I would be entered food during my bulk and think "wow, this is a lot" and then when it was all logged it was only 2700 and I needed four hundred more calories to get to a surplus!
So counting calories has really taught me a lot about portion sizes and the number that I lose/gain/maintain at....and I am somewhat of a data freak, so I like looking at the numbers...
Fiber is good for you though. Since it comes out the other end.0 -
The first time I tried to lose weight was 11 years ago. I was getting married and wanted to lose 12 lbs for my wedding. I started going to Curves (which meant I was exercising when I hadn't been before) and I cut back on extra portions and pop. No problem. Lost about a half a pound to a pound a week and was successful. I lost weight because I ate less and moved more. I consumed less calories then I expended. Even though I wasn't explicitly counting calories, CICO still applied.
Fast forward 5 years and a kid later, I had stopped exercising as much and began matching my husbands portion of food. Not to mention sometimes finishing my toddlers leftovers. I gained back the 12 lbs and then some. I was solidly overweight. A little was still baby weight, but for the most part, just a lack in mindfulness as to how much I was eating. I joined a gym and entered into a summer slim down challenge and had a meal plan that had me eating measured portions in cups and serving size (1 med apple for example). I started walking with the group and again being more aware of what I was eating. Lost weight, won the contest and again, CICO prevails.
Which brings us to now. 5 years and another kid later, I fell into old habits and began eating more than I should and not taking the time I needed to keep myself moving with purpose. Now, I have always eaten a well balances diet and good healthy whole mostly unprocessed foods, but it LOVE to eat when it tastes good. At this point, I really don't drink pop, so unlike the first time, I don't have any "junk" to cut back on. My husband and 2 boys are bottomless pits and I REALLY can't keep up with their pace at consuming food, so I haven't been. The portion thing was nice, but made it difficult to measure some of the homemade food favorites that I make.
I wanted something that would work without gimmicks or fads. Without eliminating and super hunger. I didn't want to waste my time on a method that didn't work and spin my wheels so to speak. I needed something foolproof. Something that would absolutely work as long as I followed the plan or rules. I remembered my past successes and realized that CICO was what made me successful. That's when I found mfp and haven't looked back. CICO works. Every instance that I have lost weight, it is the one factor that was constant. Even if I wasn't directly measuring it through calorie counting, it was still happening. YEAH SCIENCE!
I feel good counting calories because I know it will work. It has worked even if the calorie count isn't 100% accurate because of how our bodies work or errors in packaging info, it is close enough. Close enough to for me to be consistently losing weight.
Ps. Went back to that old portion control diet and added up some of the days. I was eating between 1300-1600 per day. My current eating is at 1400-1600 and I am losing. Go figure.
0 -
I think its worth noting that the author of the first article in the OP is a regular contributor to Health.com. Here is the link to the original, only referenced by Foxnews, not created by Foxnews: http://news.health.com/2014/12/12/7-eating-habits-you-should-drop-now/
In that article are many links to other articles she's written and those articles also contain links to studies she references, in case anyone is interested in drilling down more.
To me, it appears that much of the data is gathered from studies that involve participants who are doing things because they are asked to because of the study, rather than because they set out to change their lives, like most of us who use MFP do. What I mean is, I think its likely that you may be more stressed if you are forced to follow an "X" calorie diet because you are a study participant than if you are making a change because you are fired up and want to.
I didn't read the second article referenced in the OP.
0 -
Counting calories is the only way to know how much you are eating. Setting and reaching macro and micro goals is really helpful to make sure you are getting the proper nutrition.
There are ways to do it to reduce stress. What worked for me is to set my weekly goal to lose 1 lb. I then eat back anywhere from none to almost all of my exercise calories depending on how hungry I am. Having this wiggle room keeps me from stressing if I don't get the numbers perfect or if I have a bit of a binge and it has resulted in me losing 93 lb. so far at a weekly average of 1.4 lb.0 -
I love Fox News......said no one ever0
-
IMO one can eat intuitively AND count calories at the same time. BOTH of these things are tools and do not have to be (nor should they be) mutually exclusive of each other.0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »
If there is no value judgment that can be attached to methods, there is no point in discussing methods or discussing articles that do so.mamapeach910 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
So your argument is that calorie counting IS ideal for everyone for long term maintenance? All I said was that it's not ideal for everyone.mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I read Cynthia Sass' book and liked it. I do think calorie counting is not ideal for long term weight maintenance, for many. You don't have to look far to see people all over this site with disordered relationships with food and the numbers.
What would you call a disordered relationship with food and the numbers and why is calorie counting long term not ideal?
Speaking from personal experience I got to a point where I started selecting foods strictly based on numbers and not based on other factors related to typical food selection processes (nutrient needs, palatability, etc). I started viewing foods as strings of numbers and not as food themselves. Furthermore, I disliked the amount of attention I needed to pay to energy values and I developed the feeling of severe restriction.
It's really not all that different from someone deciding to eliminate entire categories of foods and how, in SOME of those cases those people end up developing a less than ideal relationship with food (orthorexic type behaviors) because of their methods.
I've also had clients who have had issues with the relationships in their life because of their tracking behaviors.
I don't direct this at you (person I am quoting) but it baffles my mind how many people believe that since an issue or problem doesn't exist in their world, then it must not exist.
Ultimately, with any behavior you select you need to determine how that behavior effects the quality of your life. For SOME people, tracking intake is a net negative.
For many people it's perfectly fine, and for those who don't have issues with it, it's a powerful tool.
Oh, I don't question that it's problematic for some at all. I question that the site is rife with people with disordered relationships with food and numbers as the other poster asserted.
I also question the other poster's premise that for some people, long-term tracking is less than "ideal", whatever that is. "Ideal" maintenance is pretty much going to be an individual thing, who gets to do decide what works best for anyone? Why have a concept of what is and isn't ideal?
No, my argument is over your use of the word "ideal". Calorie counting is just a tool. It's neutral. It's neither "ideal" or not if someone chooses to use it. There's no value judgment to be made regarding its use or lack thereof.
That's not logic that follows at all.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I tried eating intuitively. Unfortunately my intuition is as greedy as me, and I got fat.
Same here. Recommending intuitive eating exclusively discounts the very real problem of the subset of people who have messed up their hunger signals with chronic overeating.
There's nothing wrong if intuitive eating WORKS for for someone, but then again, there's nothing wrong if calorie counting works either. As someone else said above, why can't we have both? Obviously, a different method might be a better for a different individual depending on their own issues and personality type.
Articles containing sweeping generalizations are just crap sensationalism.
Agreed, except I don't even think you have to have actively "messed up" your hunger signals to have a problem with intuitive eating. Even thinking back to before I ever had weight issues (until my mid 20s), I never had particularly good hunger signals. I ate a proper amount for me because I was really active and because I ate on a schedule and had general ideas about what meals should contain. I started gaining weight in my mid and late 20s because I got less active, but for off and on efforts, and started getting lots of work-paid-for restaurant meals that substituted for the fact I'd never really learned to cook regularly (and had tons of calories).
I lost that weight basically by getting active again and going back to schedule-based eating and mostly home-cooked. But I don't fool myself that I could ever just eat to hunger--I'd snack all day or over-indulge at restaurants or even by cooking indulgently for myself REALLY easily, since the number of calories I consume don't seem to be a huge driver in whether I need to stop eating.
Given how volume cues (smaller plates) and simply eating more volume tend to fill people up (more veggies) vs. just more calories (I understand some claim putting butter in their coffee makes them full, but adding butter to something has never made much difference in whether I wanted to eat or not later), I suspect my issues are not uncommon. Also, given human history with scarcity being common and cultural restrictions on eating being common (eating to schedule, cultural ideas of what meals should contain), I find those who think human beings should "naturally" eat intuitively puzzling. We mostly haven't, so that most or many people don't do it well is not remotely surprising.
(Not arguing--I suspect we mostly agree--I just think all this is interesting.)
Oh, and I agree with the person who said calorie counting isn't bad, just bad for the diet industry. I think it's great and not stressful at all. But if someone wants to do what is in essence a different form of calorie counting (eat balanced meals and be careful with serving size and eat a bit less of the higher calorie items if that doesn't work at first), that's great too.
I think understanding how to eat to lose weight if one wants to lose weight (which essentially is what calorie counting is) is basic human responsibility, and yes of course women are perfectly capable of doing that without it stressing us out.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Maybe if you get stressed by counting/using simple maths you need to do something with your life so you can see what stress really is.
I hate this statement. I'm not an idiot. I work full-time in a busy office and I'm a full-time college student finishing up my last year of my bachelor's degree in marketing and I already have an associate's degree in financial services...so I've experienced stress. Please understand that people don't get stressed out by the MATH of counting calories, they get stressed out with the idea of staying within a certain calorie range. I count calories and it stresses me out. Why? Not because I can't do simple math (because I can) but because I have an obsessive/addictive personality and there is always a fine line for me between counting those calories and developing an eating disorder. Please don't assume that people are too lazy or too dumb to count calories. Understand that there is an emotional struggle going on. I try not to over think the whole process..but sometimes the idea of going over my calorie allotment makes me want to jump off a cliff (figuratively speaking). The stress is sometimes too much for those of us who teeter on the edge of developing an eating disorder and I believe that was the emphasis of the particular stress referenced which is induced by counting calories..not the math involved.
For those of us who are extremely petite (I'm 5 feet even) it is difficult to stay level headed because we aren't allowed to eat very many calories. My maintenance is around 1400-1500 calories and it is tough when everything is marketed and produced for the FDA's idea that we all fit into this 2000 calorie diet.
0 -
SomeGirlSomewhere wrote: »IMO one can eat intuitively AND count calories at the same time. BOTH of these things are tools and do not have to be (nor should they be) mutually exclusive of each other.
I agree. Same thing with any food plan. CICO works with any way you choose to make your food choices: "clean", paleo, low carb, high carb, intuitive, Mediterranean, South Beach, intermittent fasting, IIFYM, etc.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I read Cynthia Sass' book and liked it. I do think calorie counting is not ideal for long term weight maintenance, for many. You don't have to look far to see people all over this site with disordered relationships with food and the numbers.
What would you call a disordered relationship with food and the numbers and why is calorie counting long term not ideal?
Speaking from personal experience I got to a point where I started selecting foods strictly based on numbers and not based on other factors related to typical food selection processes (nutrient needs, palatability, etc). I started viewing foods as strings of numbers and not as food themselves. Furthermore, I disliked the amount of attention I needed to pay to energy values and I developed the feeling of severe restriction.
It's really not all that different from someone deciding to eliminate entire categories of foods and how, in SOME of those cases those people end up developing a less than ideal relationship with food (orthorexic type behaviors) because of their methods.
I've also had clients who have had issues with the relationships in their life because of their tracking behaviors.
I don't direct this at you (person I am quoting) but it baffles my mind how many people believe that since an issue or problem doesn't exist in their world, then it must not exist.
Ultimately, with any behavior you select you need to determine how that behavior effects the quality of your life. For SOME people, tracking intake is a net negative.
For many people it's perfectly fine, and for those who don't have issues with it, it's a powerful tool.
Oh, I don't question that it's problematic for some at all. I question that the site is rife with people with disordered relationships with food and numbers as the other poster asserted.
I also question the other poster's premise that for some people, long-term tracking is less than "ideal", whatever that is. "Ideal" maintenance is pretty much going to be an individual thing, who gets to do decide what works best for anyone? Why have a concept of what is and isn't ideal?
I see.
I agree that regardless of the prevalence of disordered eating on this site (I make no claims about it) you can't say that it was caused by tracking.
I do think that long term tracking probably isn't a great idea for many people. Most people are going to be better off using calorie tracking in the short term while they develop food habits that allow them to sustain a reasonable calorie intake so that the tracking piece can eventually (at some point) go away.
It baffles me how people believe that they will be 90 years old in a nursing home and logging the jello they eat through a straw.
Now, if someone enjoys calorie tracking then doing it long term is fine. I suspect most people aren't in this position.
I don't really think of calorie counting as limited to logging. I don't intend to log long term, and already log more as a check on myself rather than as a way to make food selections (that is I eat what I think I should eat/want to eat and then log to confirm that it's at the calories I expect/want). As mentioned in my other post, I think watching portion size and making sure you eat a balanced meal is consistent with calorie counting (it's essentially why I know my general calories or that my meal will fit fine in my day even before logging a meal, but you could achieve that without knowing the calories, of course--that's how I lost weight once before).
I can certainly see how logging could become bothersome to some, although I enjoy it most of the time and find it non burdensome and reasonably interesting--and a tool to meet nutritional needs and focus on trying to get a good range of foods, not just about calories.
However, to go off on a bit of a tangent based on ideas I've seen earlier in this topic and on MFP generally, the idea that humans should ideally learn to eat intuitively and that non intuitive eating is something unnatural or that intuitive eating only doesn't work since we live in a "toxic" society or some such nonsense (I do not live in a toxic society and I DO NOT believe that anyone overeats in reality because of social pressure or because of some food triggered response that one can blame on the food, people overeat because food tastes good and because food can easily become an emotional crutch) is one I don't buy. I see no evidence that there ever was a time when people had abundant food and complete freedom to eat whatever they wanted at whatever time they wanted (as we kind of do now) and yet were able to stay slim through "intuitive eating." That so many people (though I suspect a minority) seem to be okay at it seems to me the surprise, not that many are not.0 -
While I believe that there are people who might not benefit from calorie counting because they are prone to anxiety and obsessive behaviour I do find the emphasis on women insulting. No men out there with anxiety disorders? I would compare calorie counting with tracking your spending with a budget app. A budget app can be a useful tool to achieve a reward (downpayment for a house) or help avoid disaster (eviction) but if you are going to stay awake at night worrying about whether your coffee cost $1.25 or $1.26 you should step away from the computer. People do have other methods for weight loss available to them but that doesn't mean the rest of us need to abandon a tried and true tool. Generally speaking women don't get stressed out doing math and using technology and many of us love our gadgets. Most men and women also have life experiences that have given us perspective (sick child, job loss, death in family, college exams etc.) that makes stressing about calorie counting seem down right bizarre. Of course internet journalist certainly enjoy their blanket statements.0
-
littleaudrey85 wrote: »Maybe if you get stressed by counting/using simple maths you need to do something with your life so you can see what stress really is.
I hate this statement. I'm not an idiot. I work full-time in a busy office and I'm a full-time college student finishing up my last year of my bachelor's degree in marketing and I already have an associate's degree in financial services...so I've experienced stress. Please understand that people don't get stressed out by the MATH of counting calories, they get stressed out with the idea of staying within a certain calorie range. I count calories and it stresses me out. Why? Not because I can't do simple math (because I can) but because I have an obsessive/addictive personality and there is always a fine line for me between counting those calories and developing an eating disorder. Please don't assume that people are too lazy or too dumb to count calories. Understand that there is an emotional struggle going on. I try not to over think the whole process..but sometimes the idea of going over my calorie allotment makes me want to jump off a cliff (figuratively speaking). The stress is sometimes too much for those of us who teeter on the edge of developing an eating disorder and I believe that was the emphasis of the particular stress referenced which is induced by counting calories..not the math involved.
Q.E.D.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
If there is no value judgment that can be attached to methods, there is no point in discussing methods or discussing articles that do so.mamapeach910 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
So your argument is that calorie counting IS ideal for everyone for long term maintenance? All I said was that it's not ideal for everyone.mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I read Cynthia Sass' book and liked it. I do think calorie counting is not ideal for long term weight maintenance, for many. You don't have to look far to see people all over this site with disordered relationships with food and the numbers.
What would you call a disordered relationship with food and the numbers and why is calorie counting long term not ideal?
Speaking from personal experience I got to a point where I started selecting foods strictly based on numbers and not based on other factors related to typical food selection processes (nutrient needs, palatability, etc). I started viewing foods as strings of numbers and not as food themselves. Furthermore, I disliked the amount of attention I needed to pay to energy values and I developed the feeling of severe restriction.
It's really not all that different from someone deciding to eliminate entire categories of foods and how, in SOME of those cases those people end up developing a less than ideal relationship with food (orthorexic type behaviors) because of their methods.
I've also had clients who have had issues with the relationships in their life because of their tracking behaviors.
I don't direct this at you (person I am quoting) but it baffles my mind how many people believe that since an issue or problem doesn't exist in their world, then it must not exist.
Ultimately, with any behavior you select you need to determine how that behavior effects the quality of your life. For SOME people, tracking intake is a net negative.
For many people it's perfectly fine, and for those who don't have issues with it, it's a powerful tool.
Oh, I don't question that it's problematic for some at all. I question that the site is rife with people with disordered relationships with food and numbers as the other poster asserted.
I also question the other poster's premise that for some people, long-term tracking is less than "ideal", whatever that is. "Ideal" maintenance is pretty much going to be an individual thing, who gets to do decide what works best for anyone? Why have a concept of what is and isn't ideal?
No, my argument is over your use of the word "ideal". Calorie counting is just a tool. It's neutral. It's neither "ideal" or not if someone chooses to use it. There's no value judgment to be made regarding its use or lack thereof.
To be more precise, the value of the tool is variable by the person using it. We could view the tool then as having no inherent value of its own (relying on the user's behaviors and attitudes to determine value), or the tool could simultaneously holds many possibly points of value.
For my own two cents, it's not really that complex. Articles that attempt to steer people away from possible methods based on generalizations are silly. Because there's nothing inherently wrong with calorie counting, there's no point in not trying it. If it works, continue to use it until it doesn't work anymore. If/When it stops working figure something else out.
Maybe I'm just weird, but just as my tastes in foods change over time, so do my preferences in eating behaviors (e.g. tracking, counting calories). That's not indication that I haven't found the "right method." There may be many right methods over time.
0 -
You know what stresses me out more than counting calories? Not being able to zip my pants.
I don't particularly enjoy counting calories, but I look at it like a game or a puzzle. Let's see how much yum I can pack in a day! I'm not so restrictive that it's depressing or stressful. I can become obsessive about it, so I take steps to prevent that.
But you want to talk stressful? Paying. Bills. I guess I shouldn't worry about trying to stay within budget, since that will just make me stressed.0 -
holzeeg123 wrote: »
sigh ..whyis there always one person that believes that the regular rules of math and physics do not apply to them…?
so you are saying you can eat in a 500 per day calorie surplus and you will lose weight? Because it not as simple as CICO..right, right, right????
Coming from a biologist, it is as simple as CICO, BUT the calories that go into your mouth do NOT always equal the calories that are available to your body for energy: even cooking something will change the amount of energy available to your cells (DOI: 10.1002, doi: 10.1073). Not to mention the individual differences in intestinal microbiota: micro-organisms that live in your gut help you to digest foods and therefore get more energy than others. To put it simply, some are better at it than others and this may be implicated in weight loss and gain (http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2006.tb00173.x). One of the interesting clinical implications of this is faecal transplant as a treatment for obesity. Would you swallow a 'poo pill' to lose weight?
I agree with you that there are some internal things that will affect CICO like TEF, and what not; however, that does not invalidate that at end of the day it boils down to calories in vs calories out. Now, will that equation always be perfect, no; but, if one follows it will work.
No, I would not swallow a "poo pill"....LOL unless I can take that with a tablespoon of added sugar...but then would that be "bad"???
Besides, even with those differences, you can't ever get more energy than actually was in the food to begin with.
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
- 422 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