Eating what you like vs. clean eating vs. following weight watchers or low carb or other method
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.
You however may be different - not everybody is the same.
LOL
a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….
A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.
I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.
Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....
:drinker:
That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad.
Why? I use those 100 calories for something I want more. Yeah, I *love* ice cream - but I have fitness and health goals that are more important to me than a few moments of transitory gastromic pleasure.
To me this a cause for happiness, not sadness.
How big is your deficit if 100 calories of non nutrient dense food is going to offput your fitness and health goals?0 -
I have tried every diet imaginable. I did well on Weight Watchers but for me it became a hassle to count points. Now I am tracking my food intake with MFP and trying to stay within my allotted calories for the day. I am also focusing on eating clean with little to no processed foods.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »LovelyIvy466 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »beachlandia wrote: »I eat "whatever" I want as long as it fits in my calories. But this means I have also cut out or greatly reduced amounts of high calorie foods. Like, I COULD fit a 680-calorie giant chocolate muffin from Costco into my day, and it's not that I don't enjoy those muffins anymore... but I'd much rather use those calories for other things. And I guess that makes me eat "healthier" (which is a subjective term) because I'll eat things like chicken breast and fruit instead of a muffin.
This.
It's not really "whatever you want" if there is a constraint around it.
Agreed.
Folks should be saying: I incorporate treats and favorite foods into my calorie and macro counting routine.
Because when you look at some of their logs (I can think of two "I eat whatever" people in particular) they eat a pretty set routine of proteins and veg. With some chocolate or what not thrown in.
Yeah this is pretty dead on for me- I have a pretty set diet BUT I don't cut anything out entirely, I just eat unhealthy things really rarely. It's not really a reaction to people who say they never eat certain items, I just know that if I were to set a rule for myself that I would never eat something, it would become the one thing I wanted. So nothing is off limits, but my focus is on the good things I can have and feel good about eating rather than the unhealthy things that I eat rarely.
Yep, this is me too. I do much better focusing on positives (eating foods that are good for me and within a particular calorie limit) than on NOT eating things. I probably end up eating a lot of foods about as much as if I cut them out and just "cheated" every once in a while, but that would make me feel worse.
I also think I personally eat better when I make it about actively trying to eat healthy (nutrient dense foods) and not mostly about simply cutting out things. But of course if you fill your diet with nutrient dense foods you end up with only a limited amount of room for other things, so it follows naturally from focusing on eating what I like.
I don't assume that people who eat what they like will want unlimited Twinkies and KFC or whatever, as that just seems odd to me as a way to eat.
^This.
I don't know why it's assumed that the preferred diet, in the absence of "giving things up" is a diet composed of "junk food".
I like nutrient dense foods. I got fat eating them at one point.
At a point in the past, I also had foods in my diet like fast food, much more sugary food, and LARGE quantities of ice cream. I have done diets where I cut things out completely.
The psychology of "cutting things out" wasn't sustainable for me.
Because I'm in a position where my goal weight TDEE is going to be only slightly above what I'm eating now to lose, it's important to me to eat in a way that I can live with for the rest of my life. Because I have a medical condition that means I need to keep weight off my joints for the long haul, it's important to maintain my lost weight. Because I learned that I fail when I "diet" and then go back to a regular way of eating without learning anything about food, I'm not going to do anything NOW that I can't keep doing for good.
That doesn't apply to everyone, but it applies to me.
I don't always want treats. I gave up sugar for a long time, and just don't have the sweet tooth I used to. Menopause killed my chocolate cravings. But I still love ice cream. I'm happy without eating half the carton now, though.
Psychologically, it's more comfortable for me to feel free to think to myself that this or that food is available for me to have, should I wish to have it, as long as I plan for it.
There are a LOT of foods I can't have (celiac disease). That's already enough restriction.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.
You however may be different - not everybody is the same.
LOL
a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….
A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.
I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.
Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....
:drinker:
That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad. And curious about how many calories your daily intake is.
It depends on preferences, though. If I added more cheese or more bread or more less lean meats to my diet I'd be less likely to have room for ice cream. In January I cut out added sugar as an experiment and found myself adding in more cheese and pasta and pork shoulder and some other things just because I had extra calories, so I can see how someone might not find ice cream the thing to prioritize.
I often do make ice cream my extra, but not eating sweets much at all doesn't seem much different to me than the fact I rarely eat baked goods or more than tiny amounts of cheese. (It just happens that I'm reasonably satisfied with tiny amounts of cheese although I could easily eat lots more if my TDEE magically increased by a lot.)0 -
Crystalnp1981 wrote: »I am also focusing on eating clean with little to no processed foods.
How do you define "processed foods"? I never understand why cutting out smoked salmon or boneless skinless chicken breast or Greek yogurt would further someone's diet aims or be considered inherently more healthy. (I personally will strongly support the view that whole chicken is a lot tastier than the boneless skinless stuff, though.)
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.
You however may be different - not everybody is the same.
LOL
a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….
A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.
I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.
Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....
:drinker:
That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad.
Why? I use those 100 calories for something I want more. Yeah, I *love* ice cream - but I have fitness and health goals that are more important to me than a few moments of transitory gastromic pleasure.
To me this a cause for happiness, not sadness.
Do you think you'll ever eat ice cream again? Just curious.
I sort of do understand the serving size thing, some people want what they want, it's a preference thing.
I'm okay with small amounts of things, someone else may not be.
0 -
I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.
You however may be different - not everybody is the same.
Nowhere in this statement does he say a tablespoon equals a serving.
So he can only fit ~20 calories of ice cream into his diet every single time he'd potentially want ice cream?
That's right - unless I want to give something else up.
There's no getting around it - for someone who has eaten themselves into Fatdom, eating a restricting calorie diet REQUIRES giving up consuming a whole lot of somethings we'd rather be eating.He can't eat to maintenance or have a single day eating above maintenance if he really wants a 130 calorie serving of ice cream?
I don't WANT to eat to maintenance. Why should I have to? I don't need it mentally, and my body certainly doesn't need it biologically.
If someone else wants to slow down the trip to their goals by incorporating more treats, they have every right to do so. And for them, maybe, it's even the right choice. But let's be clear about the tradeoff here - it means accepting a longer journey to the destination in exchange for an immediate reward.
So you're going to be eating at a calorie deficit indefinitely? Because your body will eventually need maintenance calories if you like... want to stop losing weight at some point. If you've not been losing weight (for at least 2 months) and you believe you are eating at a calorie deficit, then you're clearly currently eating at maintenance. If you ARE losing weight then once you reach your goals.... you'll have to start eating at maintenance.
Also, I used to be 200lbs at my fattest (154 today). I am still able to fit something calorie dense into my day if I really want to, even if that means removing something or reducing its quantity. I reduced how much salmon I plan to eat tonight so I could have a taco salad for lunch instead of my originally planned ham. I did this so my protein and fat would be more reasonable, and then added some chicken to the salad for more protein. I'm over on fat but that doesn't bother me at all. None of this means, however, that I am unable to eat 130 calories worth of ice cream in the evening if I'd like, particularly since I would have most likely already hit my protein goals and potentially my fat goals (or getting close), meaning I'd have carbs left over. Ice cream would give me more calories and carbs to cap off my day's calorie needs. Would I do this daily? No, but I'm more partial to chocolate and cookies/baked goods, so I'd totally do this with those every day. I even had cookies this morning, and I do that sometimes in general. My macro and micro intake will balance out throughout the rest of the week once I grow tired of eating those particular treats or start craving other nutrient-dense foods in favour of the calorie-dense ones. Althouhg I'll still eat cheese practically daily, which is calorie dense and is something that I consider a staple in my diet, regardless of weight management.
Eating a bowl of ice cream > eating a large piece of salmon if I've already met my protein needs and can reduce the salmon and still get enough protein.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.
You however may be different - not everybody is the same.
LOL
a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….
A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.
I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.
Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....
:drinker:
That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad. And curious about how many calories your daily intake is.
It depends on preferences, though. If I added more cheese or more bread or more less lean meats to my diet I'd be less likely to have room for ice cream. In January I cut out added sugar as an experiment and found myself adding in more cheese and pasta and pork shoulder and some other things just because I had extra calories, so I can see how someone might not find ice cream the thing to prioritize.
I often do make ice cream my extra, but not eating sweets much at all doesn't seem much different to me than the fact I rarely eat baked goods or more than tiny amounts of cheese. (It just happens that I'm reasonably satisfied with tiny amounts of cheese although I could easily eat lots more if my TDEE magically increased by a lot.)
From his last post it sounds like even having 100 calories of ice cream is somehow going to set his goals back considerably. It just sounds weird.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.
You however may be different - not everybody is the same.
LOL
a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….
A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.
I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.
Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....
:drinker:
That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad.
Why? I use those 100 calories for something I want more. Yeah, I *love* ice cream - but I have fitness and health goals that are more important to me than a few moments of transitory gastromic pleasure.
To me this a cause for happiness, not sadness.
How big is your deficit if 100 calories of non nutrient dense food is going to offput your fitness and health goals?
But it's not just 100 calories - because it's not just ice cream. Let's say we bring in the ice cream - what about the other treats? Do I say yes to all of them, just because "it's only 100 calories!"...?
What about the Dorritos? The hot dogs? The Key Lime Pie?
The line has to be drawn somewhere - that's the meaning of "restriction". And where ever that line is drawn, there will be a whole lot of things you have to say "No" to. Even if you don't totally exclude, you most exclude - and it's still a lot of saying "No".
There's no way around it.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.
You however may be different - not everybody is the same.
LOL
a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….
A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.
I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.
Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....
:drinker:
That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad.
Why? I use those 100 calories for something I want more. Yeah, I *love* ice cream - but I have fitness and health goals that are more important to me than a few moments of transitory gastromic pleasure.
To me this a cause for happiness, not sadness.
How big is your deficit if 100 calories of non nutrient dense food is going to offput your fitness and health goals?
But it's not just 100 calories - because it's not just ice cream. Let's say we bring in the ice cream - what about the other treats? Do I say yes to all of them, just because "it's only 100 calories!"...?
What about the Dorritos? The hot dogs? The Key Lime Pie?
The line has to be drawn somewhere - that's the meaning of "restriction". And where ever that line is drawn, there will be a whole lot of things you have to say "No" to. Even if you don't totally exclude, you most exclude - and it's still a lot of saying "No".
There's no way around it.
WT...
Okay, you're back to playing games now I see.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.
You however may be different - not everybody is the same.
LOL
a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….
A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.
I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.
Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....
:drinker:
That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad.
Why? I use those 100 calories for something I want more. Yeah, I *love* ice cream - but I have fitness and health goals that are more important to me than a few moments of transitory gastromic pleasure.
To me this a cause for happiness, not sadness.
How big is your deficit if 100 calories of non nutrient dense food is going to offput your fitness and health goals?
But it's not just 100 calories - because it's not just ice cream. Let's say we bring in the ice cream - what about the other treats? Do I say yes to all of them, just because "it's only 100 calories!"
What about the Dorritos? The hot dogs? The Key Lime Pie?
The line has to be drawn somewhere - that's the meaning of "restriction".
And whatever the restriction, there will be a whole lot of things you have to say "No" to. Even if you don't totally exclude, you most exclude - and it's still a lot of saying "No".
Ok so you have 100 calories to play with. You can choose to fill those 100 calories with whatever you want. Either some of the ice cream, the doritos, the hot dogs, or the key lime pie. Some days you might have more than 100 cals. Some days you may not even have that much. But why do you have to focus on the negative and say that you can't have any of it, when in actuality, you could have any of them, 100 cals of any of them. Or go over your calories by 100 today and have a full serving of the ice cream, then tomorrow, cut something else out.
It's just a very pessimistic view of the process.
0 -
And no one else has hijacked? Please. Yourself included. Personal bias? Again you, me and everyone else.mamapeach910 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
In THAT situation, then by all means, educate them. I would as well, in fact, if they were being inaccurate or overly zealous and imprecise. When someone comes in with the latest Dr. Oz nonsense, sure, we should all carefully correct them.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I guess for part of the discussion I'm back to this:Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Not disagreeing there. But that isn't how it always sounds. Since "eat what I want" is somewhat vague, and neutral with respect to quantities. And it assumes folks also "want" to eat a nutrient dense diet.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »beachlandia wrote: »I eat "whatever" I want as long as it fits in my calories. But this means I have also cut out or greatly reduced amounts of high calorie foods. Like, I COULD fit a 680-calorie giant chocolate muffin from Costco into my day, and it's not that I don't enjoy those muffins anymore... but I'd much rather use those calories for other things. And I guess that makes me eat "healthier" (which is a subjective term) because I'll eat things like chicken breast and fruit instead of a muffin.
This.
It's not really "whatever you want" if there is a constraint around it.
Agreed.
Folks should be saying: I incorporate treats and favorite foods into my calorie and macro counting routine.
Because when you look at some of their logs (I can think of two "I eat whatever" people in particular) they eat a pretty set routine of proteins and veg. With some chocolate or what not thrown in.
Yes but that is the distinction that most people miss. Usually when people say, "I eat whatever" it is in response to people who are posting that they have cut out or severely restricted a food or particular macros in order to lose weight. The "I eat what I want" is meant to explain to the poster that you don't have to cut out entire food groups, you can continue to eat all the foods you like, in moderation.
The strawman assumption then comes out that because these people are saying there is nothing wrong with donuts, that they must be eating nothing but donuts all day long.
For the record, I am firmly in camp moderation. I still eat pizza, donuts, gelato and wine and have lost 30lbs doing so. I don't foresee any issue with maintaining the weight loss and sustaining this lifestyle for the foreseeable future. I don't know if I will be logging when I'm in my 80s, but I don't really see any reason to stop anytime soon.
PS - I've never struggled with binge eating or emotional eating, just wanted to provide that context to the discussion since OP specifically mentioned this.
And the other caveat is: you don't struggle with binge eating. Moderation for binge eaters is much more challenging. And for some, not worth the struggle.
I've never struggled with binge eating either. I just didn't know how to eat or how much I was eating.
I agree that people could be more specific with the way that they respond to the questions or the way that they correct inaccurate understandings about weight loss and that would avoid many of the arguments on here. I often feel that aside from a few zealots on both sides of the debates, if you did a blind comparison of the diaries of some of the "clean eaters" and some of the "IIFYM" folks, you would be hard pressed to say who is who.
I understand that for some binge eaters, moderation is very difficult, but I have also seen many people on here say that moderation was the only thing that helped them overcome their binging tendencies. Knowing that they could have it, even a little bit, each day, made the food have less power over them so that they did not need to binge. Again, just going by what I've seen some folks say, some I think even in this thread. I know there are others who say that that might work for some trigger foods, but then there are still other trigger foods that are not able to be moderated no matter what.
Also, I don't know if there is a difference or not, but I've seen a few people mentioning that they are "volume eaters" which I think Mr_Knight may have mentioned in this thread or another recently. Would that be considered the same as a binge eater? I don't think so, again, maybe semantics but to me, binge eating implies that there is a total lack of control over how much you are going to eat, that you can't stop yourself. To me, volume eating means that in order to be satisfied, you prefer a much larger volume of food, but it doesn't sound like there is the same issue with giving up control completely to the food.
Suppose someone posts on a green car forum and says: looking for other hybrid drivers. Or, I'm looking for hints to get the best mileage out of my hybrid. Wouldn't it be weird and counter productive if EVERY thread immediately had someone posting: you should drive an electric car instead. Followed by long arguments on the pros and cons of electric versus hybrid when all the OP wanted was to talk to other hybrid drivers?
and no, fwiw, I don't think volume eating is the same as binge eating. I volume eat raw and cooked vegetables.
Alright I will play along.
If the poster on the green car forum has done extensive research, read multiple reviews of hybrid vehicles, done a cost benefit analysis of the pros of going hybrid vs electric, and was just looking for other people to discuss ways to optimize their mileage or whatever, then yes, I think it would be unnecessary for people to jump in and try to sway that person. Not saying that people wouldn't do it, but I think it would be less likely if the OP had solid logic and reasoning behind their decision.
If the poster said, "hey, Al Gore said we should do more for the environment so I'm going to switch to a hybrid vehicle" or "Cameron Diaz says '“It gets 52 miles per gallon. In the city. Isn’t that exciting?”or "I heard I can save $10,000/year in gas by driving a hybrid... then I think it is totally reasonable that people who have some experience, done some research, or even just have logical reasons to point out the fallacies in some of those claims, may want to comment on the thread.
I believe much of what you will find on MFP is posters like the latter, where they heard about the latest diet du jour (there's another thread going on about the Military Diet right now) where I think it is reasonable for people to come in and correct misinformation, even if this poster has made up his/her mind there are lots of lurkers who may benefit from counterpoints.
But if they say: I'm low carb and want new low carb breakfast ideas and they get "why not just do a calorie deficit", or pictures of ice cream....
Why are you hijacking a thread about personal experience by wrongly portraying what you perceive happens on other threads through your personal bias? You did this the other day on another thread too.
This thread is all about what's working for individuals.
It's great that you found what works for you.0 -
I don't really log so I do best if I eat pretty healthfully and it suites me. I enjoy eating lots of veg, fruit, lean proteins, and nuts and things of that nature. That's not to say I don't indulge, I do...just not every day. Having pizza night isn't a big deal...taking my kiddos out to eat on the weekend isn't a big deal...indulging a big on vacation isn't a big deal...these things are all pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things, but if I wanted to indulge regularly I'd have to keep a log and I don't log.
For me, logging and keeping a diary was just a training method...I don't view logging as a lifestyle...it was an aid to help me eat more healthfully and teach me about calories, etc...the change in my overall diet is the lifestyle change for me.0 -
ITT I learned that eating the right sized portions for my height and age once I reach goal will be restricting because it's not the "unrestricted" free-for-all my unhealthy relationship with food my past self used to have.
I think I have this straight.0 -
I'll reply to this right after being accused of hijacking. Lol. If someone wants to give that "clean eater" some clean breakfast ideas? Sure!lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I guess for part of the discussion I'm back to this:Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Not disagreeing there. But that isn't how it always sounds. Since "eat what I want" is somewhat vague, and neutral with respect to quantities. And it assumes folks also "want" to eat a nutrient dense diet.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »beachlandia wrote: »I eat "whatever" I want as long as it fits in my calories. But this means I have also cut out or greatly reduced amounts of high calorie foods. Like, I COULD fit a 680-calorie giant chocolate muffin from Costco into my day, and it's not that I don't enjoy those muffins anymore... but I'd much rather use those calories for other things. And I guess that makes me eat "healthier" (which is a subjective term) because I'll eat things like chicken breast and fruit instead of a muffin.
This.
It's not really "whatever you want" if there is a constraint around it.
Agreed.
Folks should be saying: I incorporate treats and favorite foods into my calorie and macro counting routine.
Because when you look at some of their logs (I can think of two "I eat whatever" people in particular) they eat a pretty set routine of proteins and veg. With some chocolate or what not thrown in.
Yes but that is the distinction that most people miss. Usually when people say, "I eat whatever" it is in response to people who are posting that they have cut out or severely restricted a food or particular macros in order to lose weight. The "I eat what I want" is meant to explain to the poster that you don't have to cut out entire food groups, you can continue to eat all the foods you like, in moderation.
The strawman assumption then comes out that because these people are saying there is nothing wrong with donuts, that they must be eating nothing but donuts all day long.
For the record, I am firmly in camp moderation. I still eat pizza, donuts, gelato and wine and have lost 30lbs doing so. I don't foresee any issue with maintaining the weight loss and sustaining this lifestyle for the foreseeable future. I don't know if I will be logging when I'm in my 80s, but I don't really see any reason to stop anytime soon.
PS - I've never struggled with binge eating or emotional eating, just wanted to provide that context to the discussion since OP specifically mentioned this.
And the other caveat is: you don't struggle with binge eating. Moderation for binge eaters is much more challenging. And for some, not worth the struggle.
I've never struggled with binge eating either. I just didn't know how to eat or how much I was eating.
I agree that people could be more specific with the way that they respond to the questions or the way that they correct inaccurate understandings about weight loss and that would avoid many of the arguments on here. I often feel that aside from a few zealots on both sides of the debates, if you did a blind comparison of the diaries of some of the "clean eaters" and some of the "IIFYM" folks, you would be hard pressed to say who is who.
I understand that for some binge eaters, moderation is very difficult, but I have also seen many people on here say that moderation was the only thing that helped them overcome their binging tendencies. Knowing that they could have it, even a little bit, each day, made the food have less power over them so that they did not need to binge. Again, just going by what I've seen some folks say, some I think even in this thread. I know there are others who say that that might work for some trigger foods, but then there are still other trigger foods that are not able to be moderated no matter what.
Also, I don't know if there is a difference or not, but I've seen a few people mentioning that they are "volume eaters" which I think Mr_Knight may have mentioned in this thread or another recently. Would that be considered the same as a binge eater? I don't think so, again, maybe semantics but to me, binge eating implies that there is a total lack of control over how much you are going to eat, that you can't stop yourself. To me, volume eating means that in order to be satisfied, you prefer a much larger volume of food, but it doesn't sound like there is the same issue with giving up control completely to the food.
Suppose someone posts on a green car forum and says: looking for other hybrid drivers. Or, I'm looking for hints to get the best mileage out of my hybrid. Wouldn't it be weird and counter productive if EVERY thread immediately had someone posting: you should drive an electric car instead. Followed by long arguments on the pros and cons of electric versus hybrid when all the OP wanted was to talk to other hybrid drivers?
But the context here is that someone posts "I am looking for clean eaters to share recipes and talk about healthy eating." Why are only "clean" eaters qualified to talk about healthy eating or recipes to that person, especially when what "clean" means varies dramatically from person to person. As I like to say, that I enjoy ice cream doesn't mean that my dinners are "contaminated" with ice cream, so why exclude people like me from the discussion? Many of us who aren't clean eaters have been cooking from whole foods a lot longer than many of the "clean" eaters in these parts and eat plenty of lean meats and veggies and all that.
I find the desire to segregate the discussions weird.
And no, I never encourage anyone to eat foods they don't want to eat. There are lots of foods I don't eat (although not because I cut them out, IMO).
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I'll reply to this right after being accused of hijacking. Lol. If someone wants to give that "clean eater" some clean breakfast ideas? Sure!lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I guess for part of the discussion I'm back to this:Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Not disagreeing there. But that isn't how it always sounds. Since "eat what I want" is somewhat vague, and neutral with respect to quantities. And it assumes folks also "want" to eat a nutrient dense diet.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »beachlandia wrote: »I eat "whatever" I want as long as it fits in my calories. But this means I have also cut out or greatly reduced amounts of high calorie foods. Like, I COULD fit a 680-calorie giant chocolate muffin from Costco into my day, and it's not that I don't enjoy those muffins anymore... but I'd much rather use those calories for other things. And I guess that makes me eat "healthier" (which is a subjective term) because I'll eat things like chicken breast and fruit instead of a muffin.
This.
It's not really "whatever you want" if there is a constraint around it.
Agreed.
Folks should be saying: I incorporate treats and favorite foods into my calorie and macro counting routine.
Because when you look at some of their logs (I can think of two "I eat whatever" people in particular) they eat a pretty set routine of proteins and veg. With some chocolate or what not thrown in.
Yes but that is the distinction that most people miss. Usually when people say, "I eat whatever" it is in response to people who are posting that they have cut out or severely restricted a food or particular macros in order to lose weight. The "I eat what I want" is meant to explain to the poster that you don't have to cut out entire food groups, you can continue to eat all the foods you like, in moderation.
The strawman assumption then comes out that because these people are saying there is nothing wrong with donuts, that they must be eating nothing but donuts all day long.
For the record, I am firmly in camp moderation. I still eat pizza, donuts, gelato and wine and have lost 30lbs doing so. I don't foresee any issue with maintaining the weight loss and sustaining this lifestyle for the foreseeable future. I don't know if I will be logging when I'm in my 80s, but I don't really see any reason to stop anytime soon.
PS - I've never struggled with binge eating or emotional eating, just wanted to provide that context to the discussion since OP specifically mentioned this.
And the other caveat is: you don't struggle with binge eating. Moderation for binge eaters is much more challenging. And for some, not worth the struggle.
I've never struggled with binge eating either. I just didn't know how to eat or how much I was eating.
I agree that people could be more specific with the way that they respond to the questions or the way that they correct inaccurate understandings about weight loss and that would avoid many of the arguments on here. I often feel that aside from a few zealots on both sides of the debates, if you did a blind comparison of the diaries of some of the "clean eaters" and some of the "IIFYM" folks, you would be hard pressed to say who is who.
I understand that for some binge eaters, moderation is very difficult, but I have also seen many people on here say that moderation was the only thing that helped them overcome their binging tendencies. Knowing that they could have it, even a little bit, each day, made the food have less power over them so that they did not need to binge. Again, just going by what I've seen some folks say, some I think even in this thread. I know there are others who say that that might work for some trigger foods, but then there are still other trigger foods that are not able to be moderated no matter what.
Also, I don't know if there is a difference or not, but I've seen a few people mentioning that they are "volume eaters" which I think Mr_Knight may have mentioned in this thread or another recently. Would that be considered the same as a binge eater? I don't think so, again, maybe semantics but to me, binge eating implies that there is a total lack of control over how much you are going to eat, that you can't stop yourself. To me, volume eating means that in order to be satisfied, you prefer a much larger volume of food, but it doesn't sound like there is the same issue with giving up control completely to the food.
Suppose someone posts on a green car forum and says: looking for other hybrid drivers. Or, I'm looking for hints to get the best mileage out of my hybrid. Wouldn't it be weird and counter productive if EVERY thread immediately had someone posting: you should drive an electric car instead. Followed by long arguments on the pros and cons of electric versus hybrid when all the OP wanted was to talk to other hybrid drivers?
But the context here is that someone posts "I am looking for clean eaters to share recipes and talk about healthy eating." Why are only "clean" eaters qualified to talk about healthy eating or recipes to that person, especially when what "clean" means varies dramatically from person to person. As I like to say, that I enjoy ice cream doesn't mean that my dinners are "contaminated" with ice cream, so why exclude people like me from the discussion? Many of us who aren't clean eaters have been cooking from whole foods a lot longer than many of the "clean" eaters in these parts and eat plenty of lean meats and veggies and all that.
I find the desire to segregate the discussions weird.
And no, I never encourage anyone to eat foods they don't want to eat. There are lots of foods I don't eat (although not because I cut them out, IMO).
But that requires explaining that we can't know what the person means by "clean," but some breakfast ideas are X, Y, and Z, which is, in fact, what many of us do.
I am really curious why the request for "clean" eaters in these contexts, though, as if most recipes weren't based on whole foods. But then I didn't understand the request for tomato-free recipes recently, either, as if it were extremely challenging to find food ideas not contaminated by tomatoes.
It seems as if some assume that if you aren't a clean eater you must be eating fast food for every meal and have no idea how to cook or what a vegetable is. It's irritating and I think explains a lot of the unhelpful reaction that you see.
That aside, I'm finding the discussion in this thread quite interesting.0 -
I look at it this way. My calories are my savings account. I have a certain amount to "spend" every day. So each time I eat something I have to decide if I want to "spend" that amount for that food. Is it worth it? Is it not? Most days I'm saving my calories because I have a big expense coming up at the end of the week (dinner out with hubby or friends). So I "save" during that time. But I always, always make sure I have a little put aside so I'm under for the week. (I should note that I log my calories daily but it's the weekly number that I look at the most).
So I guess I could say I eat what I want but I really don't. If I can't afford it, I don't eat it no matter how much I want it. And, no, there's no credit in this little world I've created
0 -
Ok then let's do that. And then an argument goes on and on and on it goes. Ok. Let's do that. It sounds productive lol. Interspersed with photos and jokes about dirt and things.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I'll reply to this right after being accused of hijacking. Lol. If someone wants to give that "clean eater" some clean breakfast ideas? Sure!lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I guess for part of the discussion I'm back to this:Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Not disagreeing there. But that isn't how it always sounds. Since "eat what I want" is somewhat vague, and neutral with respect to quantities. And it assumes folks also "want" to eat a nutrient dense diet.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »beachlandia wrote: »I eat "whatever" I want as long as it fits in my calories. But this means I have also cut out or greatly reduced amounts of high calorie foods. Like, I COULD fit a 680-calorie giant chocolate muffin from Costco into my day, and it's not that I don't enjoy those muffins anymore... but I'd much rather use those calories for other things. And I guess that makes me eat "healthier" (which is a subjective term) because I'll eat things like chicken breast and fruit instead of a muffin.
This.
It's not really "whatever you want" if there is a constraint around it.
Agreed.
Folks should be saying: I incorporate treats and favorite foods into my calorie and macro counting routine.
Because when you look at some of their logs (I can think of two "I eat whatever" people in particular) they eat a pretty set routine of proteins and veg. With some chocolate or what not thrown in.
Yes but that is the distinction that most people miss. Usually when people say, "I eat whatever" it is in response to people who are posting that they have cut out or severely restricted a food or particular macros in order to lose weight. The "I eat what I want" is meant to explain to the poster that you don't have to cut out entire food groups, you can continue to eat all the foods you like, in moderation.
The strawman assumption then comes out that because these people are saying there is nothing wrong with donuts, that they must be eating nothing but donuts all day long.
For the record, I am firmly in camp moderation. I still eat pizza, donuts, gelato and wine and have lost 30lbs doing so. I don't foresee any issue with maintaining the weight loss and sustaining this lifestyle for the foreseeable future. I don't know if I will be logging when I'm in my 80s, but I don't really see any reason to stop anytime soon.
PS - I've never struggled with binge eating or emotional eating, just wanted to provide that context to the discussion since OP specifically mentioned this.
And the other caveat is: you don't struggle with binge eating. Moderation for binge eaters is much more challenging. And for some, not worth the struggle.
I've never struggled with binge eating either. I just didn't know how to eat or how much I was eating.
I agree that people could be more specific with the way that they respond to the questions or the way that they correct inaccurate understandings about weight loss and that would avoid many of the arguments on here. I often feel that aside from a few zealots on both sides of the debates, if you did a blind comparison of the diaries of some of the "clean eaters" and some of the "IIFYM" folks, you would be hard pressed to say who is who.
I understand that for some binge eaters, moderation is very difficult, but I have also seen many people on here say that moderation was the only thing that helped them overcome their binging tendencies. Knowing that they could have it, even a little bit, each day, made the food have less power over them so that they did not need to binge. Again, just going by what I've seen some folks say, some I think even in this thread. I know there are others who say that that might work for some trigger foods, but then there are still other trigger foods that are not able to be moderated no matter what.
Also, I don't know if there is a difference or not, but I've seen a few people mentioning that they are "volume eaters" which I think Mr_Knight may have mentioned in this thread or another recently. Would that be considered the same as a binge eater? I don't think so, again, maybe semantics but to me, binge eating implies that there is a total lack of control over how much you are going to eat, that you can't stop yourself. To me, volume eating means that in order to be satisfied, you prefer a much larger volume of food, but it doesn't sound like there is the same issue with giving up control completely to the food.
Suppose someone posts on a green car forum and says: looking for other hybrid drivers. Or, I'm looking for hints to get the best mileage out of my hybrid. Wouldn't it be weird and counter productive if EVERY thread immediately had someone posting: you should drive an electric car instead. Followed by long arguments on the pros and cons of electric versus hybrid when all the OP wanted was to talk to other hybrid drivers?
But the context here is that someone posts "I am looking for clean eaters to share recipes and talk about healthy eating." Why are only "clean" eaters qualified to talk about healthy eating or recipes to that person, especially when what "clean" means varies dramatically from person to person. As I like to say, that I enjoy ice cream doesn't mean that my dinners are "contaminated" with ice cream, so why exclude people like me from the discussion? Many of us who aren't clean eaters have been cooking from whole foods a lot longer than many of the "clean" eaters in these parts and eat plenty of lean meats and veggies and all that.
I find the desire to segregate the discussions weird.
And no, I never encourage anyone to eat foods they don't want to eat. There are lots of foods I don't eat (although not because I cut them out, IMO).
But that requires explaining that we can't know what the person means by "clean," but some breakfast ideas are X, Y, and Z, which is, in fact, what many of us do.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.
You however may be different - not everybody is the same.
LOL
a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….
A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.
I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.
Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....
:drinker:
That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad.
Why? I use those 100 calories for something I want more. Yeah, I *love* ice cream - but I have fitness and health goals that are more important to me than a few moments of transitory gastromic pleasure.
To me this a cause for happiness, not sadness.
How big is your deficit if 100 calories of non nutrient dense food is going to offput your fitness and health goals?
But it's not just 100 calories - because it's not just ice cream. Let's say we bring in the ice cream - what about the other treats? Do I say yes to all of them, just because "it's only 100 calories!"
What about the Dorritos? The hot dogs? The Key Lime Pie?
The line has to be drawn somewhere - that's the meaning of "restriction".
And whatever the restriction, there will be a whole lot of things you have to say "No" to. Even if you don't totally exclude, you most exclude - and it's still a lot of saying "No".
Ok so you have 100 calories to play with.
No, I don't. Put another way - if I had a 100 calories to play with, I haven't optimized my path.It's just a very pessimistic view of the process.
Not for me, it's not. I'm quite happy and successful with my choices.
If it is for you, that says something about *your* thought process - not mine. And you are of course entitled to your own! :drinker:
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »beachlandia wrote: »I eat "whatever" I want as long as it fits in my calories. But this means I have also cut out or greatly reduced amounts of high calorie foods. Like, I COULD fit a 680-calorie giant chocolate muffin from Costco into my day, and it's not that I don't enjoy those muffins anymore... but I'd much rather use those calories for other things. And I guess that makes me eat "healthier" (which is a subjective term) because I'll eat things like chicken breast and fruit instead of a muffin.
This.
It's not really "whatever you want" if there is a constraint around it.
Agreed.
Folks should be saying: I incorporate treats and favorite foods into my calorie and macro counting routine.
Because when you look at some of their logs (I can think of two "I eat whatever" people in particular) they eat a pretty set routine of proteins and veg. With some chocolate or what not thrown in.
Yes but that is the distinction that most people miss. Usually when people say, "I eat whatever" it is in response to people who are posting that they have cut out or severely restricted a food or particular macros in order to lose weight. The "I eat what I want" is meant to explain to the poster that you don't have to cut out entire food groups, you can continue to eat all the foods you like, in moderation.
The strawman assumption then comes out that because these people are saying there is nothing wrong with donuts, that they must be eating nothing but donuts all day long.
For the record, I am firmly in camp moderation. I still eat pizza, donuts, gelato and wine and have lost 30lbs doing so. I don't foresee any issue with maintaining the weight loss and sustaining this lifestyle for the foreseeable future. I don't know if I will be logging when I'm in my 80s, but I don't really see any reason to stop anytime soon.
PS - I've never struggled with binge eating or emotional eating, just wanted to provide that context to the discussion since OP specifically mentioned this.
As for when people say that your weight loss diet should be one you practice indefinitely, it makes complete sense. .
It makes sense, but that doesn't mean it's the only way. Most will make a user feel like they are wrong for wanting to cut out something. The fact is, there are 1000 ways to skin a cat.
And in most cases, that person says "hey I've cut out x but I haven't lost any weight" or "I'm cutting out x so I can lose weight but I want to eat it so bad!"
So... what would be the purpose of patting them on the back and congratulating them on this choice if they aren't even happy with their dietary intake? Many people falsely assume that in order to lose weight they need to cut out particular foods, even if they like those foods. That's what I thought for years, and it didn't help me maintain long-term nor did it allow for a positive relationship with food. There was even a study about 15 years ago about attitudes towards food, North Americans (particularly women) had the most negative attitude and were the most likely to associate food with words like "fattening." So why categorize particular food as being bad for weight loss if they are totally fine to eat and must just be portioned out accordingly if the person still wants to eat them? Much better to tell people on a calorie-counting website that the only requirement for weight loss is to count calories, such that they don't need to go through hoops to lose weight.
btw: faculty.som.yale.edu/amywrzesniewski/documents/Attitudestofoodandtheroleoffood.pdf
Well, when I started, my diet consisted of probably 80% "junk" food. I needed to cut out some of that...period. Sorry, but I couldn't see myself eating 1/2 of a quarter pounder or 1/2 of an oatmeal cream pie. It was just much easier to cut them out. The issue with someone isn't that they cut it out, it's lack of knowledge. I knew that I could eat those things again eventually because I had learned how it worked, but at that time, they needed to be cut out.
My diet also used to be way more "junk" food than it is now. I didn't cut it out, just reduced the intake. If I had thought that I had to cut it out again like I did 5 years ago, I probably would just keep repeating the same cycle I went through when I first lost weight.
I find it much more enjoyable to still eat "junk" food while losing weight even if it means eating it in a smaller portion. I also had to learn to eat fruit in a smaller portion, just because I used to binge on fruit doesn't mean I wanted to cut it out. So if someone posts about cutting food out because they seemingly think it's the only way they will lose weight (like when people say that you have to "eat clean" to lose weight) then I'll continue to tell them that it's not necessary, they can simply reduce how much of it they eat while monitoring calories. If after trial and error they find that eating ice cream every day just isn't working for their satiety and goals, then they can cut that intake down to a few times a week if they still want to be able to eat it. If they decide to just eat it a few times a month, that is fine. They have still learned that the item can still be consumed, they just need to find a portioning that works for them (and yes, keeping food within one's diet doesn't mean that it has to be consumed daily. I haven't eaten cheese curds in a while because the store that sells the good ones has wonky hours that don't give me a chance to get there when it's open right now, but I still consider them as something that I eat in my diet. I just don't eat it daily).
That's fine. You have your opinion. I understand that physically most people don't have to cut out food to lose weight, but losing weight is also a mental game. If it makes someone feel better to not eat ice cream or whatever, then good on them. I don't see the issue. Like I said already, as long as they aren't demonizing foods, I don't have an issue.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »ITT I learned that eating the right sized portions for my height and age once I reach goal will be restricting because it's not the "unrestricted" free-for-all my unhealthy relationship with food my past self used to have.
I think I have this straight.
Yep, you've got it.
Another way of saying the same thing - once you've reached maintenance, the odds of you maintaining your weight loss by eating "intuitively" are extremely low.
(And by "you" I don't mean just you, I mean most MFPers)0 -
Now 100 calories of wine in that little glass you're sporting I'll take!stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I would much rather have no ice cream than the one tablespoon of ice cream that actually fits in my goals - so no, I don't eat what I want because quantity is a big part of what I want, for some foods.
You however may be different - not everybody is the same.
LOL
a tablespoon of ice cream is .005% of a serving or something ridiculous like that….
A tablespoon is 15ml. A traditional scoop of ice cream is (or at least was) 50ml. A typical ice cream is ~2.5 calories/ml, so it's a difference of roughly 40 calories vs 120 calories.
I don't have 80 extra calories to blow on it, and a tablespoon would just be torturing myself, so....easier to abstain entirely.
Others are free to chose their own "right" answer, even if it involves detached-from-reality hyperbole....
:drinker:
That you say you can't even use 100 calories of your day on ice cream kinda makes me sad.
Why? I use those 100 calories for something I want more. Yeah, I *love* ice cream - but I have fitness and health goals that are more important to me than a few moments of transitory gastromic pleasure.
To me this a cause for happiness, not sadness.
How big is your deficit if 100 calories of non nutrient dense food is going to offput your fitness and health goals?
But it's not just 100 calories - because it's not just ice cream. Let's say we bring in the ice cream - what about the other treats? Do I say yes to all of them, just because "it's only 100 calories!"
What about the Dorritos? The hot dogs? The Key Lime Pie?
The line has to be drawn somewhere - that's the meaning of "restriction".
And whatever the restriction, there will be a whole lot of things you have to say "No" to. Even if you don't totally exclude, you most exclude - and it's still a lot of saying "No".
Ok so you have 100 calories to play with.
No, I don't. Put another way - if I had a 100 calories to play with, I haven't optimized my path.It's just a very pessimistic view of the process.
Not for me, it's not. I'm quite happy and successful with my choices.
If it is for you, that says something about *your* thought process - not mine. And you are of course entitled to your own! :drinker:
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Ok then let's do that. And then an argument goes on and on and on it goes. Ok. Let's do that. It sounds productive lol. Interspersed with photos and jokes about dirt and things.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I'll reply to this right after being accused of hijacking. Lol. If someone wants to give that "clean eater" some clean breakfast ideas? Sure!lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I guess for part of the discussion I'm back to this:Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Not disagreeing there. But that isn't how it always sounds. Since "eat what I want" is somewhat vague, and neutral with respect to quantities. And it assumes folks also "want" to eat a nutrient dense diet.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »beachlandia wrote: »I eat "whatever" I want as long as it fits in my calories. But this means I have also cut out or greatly reduced amounts of high calorie foods. Like, I COULD fit a 680-calorie giant chocolate muffin from Costco into my day, and it's not that I don't enjoy those muffins anymore... but I'd much rather use those calories for other things. And I guess that makes me eat "healthier" (which is a subjective term) because I'll eat things like chicken breast and fruit instead of a muffin.
This.
It's not really "whatever you want" if there is a constraint around it.
Agreed.
Folks should be saying: I incorporate treats and favorite foods into my calorie and macro counting routine.
Because when you look at some of their logs (I can think of two "I eat whatever" people in particular) they eat a pretty set routine of proteins and veg. With some chocolate or what not thrown in.
Yes but that is the distinction that most people miss. Usually when people say, "I eat whatever" it is in response to people who are posting that they have cut out or severely restricted a food or particular macros in order to lose weight. The "I eat what I want" is meant to explain to the poster that you don't have to cut out entire food groups, you can continue to eat all the foods you like, in moderation.
The strawman assumption then comes out that because these people are saying there is nothing wrong with donuts, that they must be eating nothing but donuts all day long.
For the record, I am firmly in camp moderation. I still eat pizza, donuts, gelato and wine and have lost 30lbs doing so. I don't foresee any issue with maintaining the weight loss and sustaining this lifestyle for the foreseeable future. I don't know if I will be logging when I'm in my 80s, but I don't really see any reason to stop anytime soon.
PS - I've never struggled with binge eating or emotional eating, just wanted to provide that context to the discussion since OP specifically mentioned this.
And the other caveat is: you don't struggle with binge eating. Moderation for binge eaters is much more challenging. And for some, not worth the struggle.
I've never struggled with binge eating either. I just didn't know how to eat or how much I was eating.
I agree that people could be more specific with the way that they respond to the questions or the way that they correct inaccurate understandings about weight loss and that would avoid many of the arguments on here. I often feel that aside from a few zealots on both sides of the debates, if you did a blind comparison of the diaries of some of the "clean eaters" and some of the "IIFYM" folks, you would be hard pressed to say who is who.
I understand that for some binge eaters, moderation is very difficult, but I have also seen many people on here say that moderation was the only thing that helped them overcome their binging tendencies. Knowing that they could have it, even a little bit, each day, made the food have less power over them so that they did not need to binge. Again, just going by what I've seen some folks say, some I think even in this thread. I know there are others who say that that might work for some trigger foods, but then there are still other trigger foods that are not able to be moderated no matter what.
Also, I don't know if there is a difference or not, but I've seen a few people mentioning that they are "volume eaters" which I think Mr_Knight may have mentioned in this thread or another recently. Would that be considered the same as a binge eater? I don't think so, again, maybe semantics but to me, binge eating implies that there is a total lack of control over how much you are going to eat, that you can't stop yourself. To me, volume eating means that in order to be satisfied, you prefer a much larger volume of food, but it doesn't sound like there is the same issue with giving up control completely to the food.
Suppose someone posts on a green car forum and says: looking for other hybrid drivers. Or, I'm looking for hints to get the best mileage out of my hybrid. Wouldn't it be weird and counter productive if EVERY thread immediately had someone posting: you should drive an electric car instead. Followed by long arguments on the pros and cons of electric versus hybrid when all the OP wanted was to talk to other hybrid drivers?
But the context here is that someone posts "I am looking for clean eaters to share recipes and talk about healthy eating." Why are only "clean" eaters qualified to talk about healthy eating or recipes to that person, especially when what "clean" means varies dramatically from person to person. As I like to say, that I enjoy ice cream doesn't mean that my dinners are "contaminated" with ice cream, so why exclude people like me from the discussion? Many of us who aren't clean eaters have been cooking from whole foods a lot longer than many of the "clean" eaters in these parts and eat plenty of lean meats and veggies and all that.
I find the desire to segregate the discussions weird.
And no, I never encourage anyone to eat foods they don't want to eat. There are lots of foods I don't eat (although not because I cut them out, IMO).
But that requires explaining that we can't know what the person means by "clean," but some breakfast ideas are X, Y, and Z, which is, in fact, what many of us do.
There's no reason an argument has to go on. Why would it? Again, why the desire to segregate? If I were looking for recipes involving broccoli I'd, well, look on the internet or in one of my cookbooks for ideas, but if I thought to ask on MFP I'd say "hey, does anyone have broccoli ideas"? or "ideas for dinner focusing on lean meat and broccoli"?
It would never cross my mind to say "I need "clean" eaters to help me figure out how to eat broccoli." Why on earth would anyone assume that the rest of us don't eat broccoli? Or eat broccoli only with chocolate sauce or on top of McD's fries?0 -
Well stated.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »beachlandia wrote: »I eat "whatever" I want as long as it fits in my calories. But this means I have also cut out or greatly reduced amounts of high calorie foods. Like, I COULD fit a 680-calorie giant chocolate muffin from Costco into my day, and it's not that I don't enjoy those muffins anymore... but I'd much rather use those calories for other things. And I guess that makes me eat "healthier" (which is a subjective term) because I'll eat things like chicken breast and fruit instead of a muffin.
This.
It's not really "whatever you want" if there is a constraint around it.
Agreed.
Folks should be saying: I incorporate treats and favorite foods into my calorie and macro counting routine.
Because when you look at some of their logs (I can think of two "I eat whatever" people in particular) they eat a pretty set routine of proteins and veg. With some chocolate or what not thrown in.
Yes but that is the distinction that most people miss. Usually when people say, "I eat whatever" it is in response to people who are posting that they have cut out or severely restricted a food or particular macros in order to lose weight. The "I eat what I want" is meant to explain to the poster that you don't have to cut out entire food groups, you can continue to eat all the foods you like, in moderation.
The strawman assumption then comes out that because these people are saying there is nothing wrong with donuts, that they must be eating nothing but donuts all day long.
For the record, I am firmly in camp moderation. I still eat pizza, donuts, gelato and wine and have lost 30lbs doing so. I don't foresee any issue with maintaining the weight loss and sustaining this lifestyle for the foreseeable future. I don't know if I will be logging when I'm in my 80s, but I don't really see any reason to stop anytime soon.
PS - I've never struggled with binge eating or emotional eating, just wanted to provide that context to the discussion since OP specifically mentioned this.
As for when people say that your weight loss diet should be one you practice indefinitely, it makes complete sense. .
It makes sense, but that doesn't mean it's the only way. Most will make a user feel like they are wrong for wanting to cut out something. The fact is, there are 1000 ways to skin a cat.
And in most cases, that person says "hey I've cut out x but I haven't lost any weight" or "I'm cutting out x so I can lose weight but I want to eat it so bad!"
So... what would be the purpose of patting them on the back and congratulating them on this choice if they aren't even happy with their dietary intake? Many people falsely assume that in order to lose weight they need to cut out particular foods, even if they like those foods. That's what I thought for years, and it didn't help me maintain long-term nor did it allow for a positive relationship with food. There was even a study about 15 years ago about attitudes towards food, North Americans (particularly women) had the most negative attitude and were the most likely to associate food with words like "fattening." So why categorize particular food as being bad for weight loss if they are totally fine to eat and must just be portioned out accordingly if the person still wants to eat them? Much better to tell people on a calorie-counting website that the only requirement for weight loss is to count calories, such that they don't need to go through hoops to lose weight.
btw: faculty.som.yale.edu/amywrzesniewski/documents/Attitudestofoodandtheroleoffood.pdf
Well, when I started, my diet consisted of probably 80% "junk" food. I needed to cut out some of that...period. Sorry, but I couldn't see myself eating 1/2 of a quarter pounder or 1/2 of an oatmeal cream pie. It was just much easier to cut them out. The issue with someone isn't that they cut it out, it's lack of knowledge. I knew that I could eat those things again eventually because I had learned how it worked, but at that time, they needed to be cut out.
My diet also used to be way more "junk" food than it is now. I didn't cut it out, just reduced the intake. If I had thought that I had to cut it out again like I did 5 years ago, I probably would just keep repeating the same cycle I went through when I first lost weight.
I find it much more enjoyable to still eat "junk" food while losing weight even if it means eating it in a smaller portion. I also had to learn to eat fruit in a smaller portion, just because I used to binge on fruit doesn't mean I wanted to cut it out. So if someone posts about cutting food out because they seemingly think it's the only way they will lose weight (like when people say that you have to "eat clean" to lose weight) then I'll continue to tell them that it's not necessary, they can simply reduce how much of it they eat while monitoring calories. If after trial and error they find that eating ice cream every day just isn't working for their satiety and goals, then they can cut that intake down to a few times a week if they still want to be able to eat it. If they decide to just eat it a few times a month, that is fine. They have still learned that the item can still be consumed, they just need to find a portioning that works for them (and yes, keeping food within one's diet doesn't mean that it has to be consumed daily. I haven't eaten cheese curds in a while because the store that sells the good ones has wonky hours that don't give me a chance to get there when it's open right now, but I still consider them as something that I eat in my diet. I just don't eat it daily).
That's fine. You have your opinion. I understand that physically most people don't have to cut out food to lose weight, but losing weight is also a mental game. If it makes someone feel better to not eat ice cream or whatever, then good on them. I don't see the issue. Like I said already, as long as they aren't demonizing foods, I don't have an issue.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Well stated.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »beachlandia wrote: »I eat "whatever" I want as long as it fits in my calories. But this means I have also cut out or greatly reduced amounts of high calorie foods. Like, I COULD fit a 680-calorie giant chocolate muffin from Costco into my day, and it's not that I don't enjoy those muffins anymore... but I'd much rather use those calories for other things. And I guess that makes me eat "healthier" (which is a subjective term) because I'll eat things like chicken breast and fruit instead of a muffin.
This.
It's not really "whatever you want" if there is a constraint around it.
Agreed.
Folks should be saying: I incorporate treats and favorite foods into my calorie and macro counting routine.
Because when you look at some of their logs (I can think of two "I eat whatever" people in particular) they eat a pretty set routine of proteins and veg. With some chocolate or what not thrown in.
Yes but that is the distinction that most people miss. Usually when people say, "I eat whatever" it is in response to people who are posting that they have cut out or severely restricted a food or particular macros in order to lose weight. The "I eat what I want" is meant to explain to the poster that you don't have to cut out entire food groups, you can continue to eat all the foods you like, in moderation.
The strawman assumption then comes out that because these people are saying there is nothing wrong with donuts, that they must be eating nothing but donuts all day long.
For the record, I am firmly in camp moderation. I still eat pizza, donuts, gelato and wine and have lost 30lbs doing so. I don't foresee any issue with maintaining the weight loss and sustaining this lifestyle for the foreseeable future. I don't know if I will be logging when I'm in my 80s, but I don't really see any reason to stop anytime soon.
PS - I've never struggled with binge eating or emotional eating, just wanted to provide that context to the discussion since OP specifically mentioned this.
As for when people say that your weight loss diet should be one you practice indefinitely, it makes complete sense. .
It makes sense, but that doesn't mean it's the only way. Most will make a user feel like they are wrong for wanting to cut out something. The fact is, there are 1000 ways to skin a cat.
And in most cases, that person says "hey I've cut out x but I haven't lost any weight" or "I'm cutting out x so I can lose weight but I want to eat it so bad!"
So... what would be the purpose of patting them on the back and congratulating them on this choice if they aren't even happy with their dietary intake? Many people falsely assume that in order to lose weight they need to cut out particular foods, even if they like those foods. That's what I thought for years, and it didn't help me maintain long-term nor did it allow for a positive relationship with food. There was even a study about 15 years ago about attitudes towards food, North Americans (particularly women) had the most negative attitude and were the most likely to associate food with words like "fattening." So why categorize particular food as being bad for weight loss if they are totally fine to eat and must just be portioned out accordingly if the person still wants to eat them? Much better to tell people on a calorie-counting website that the only requirement for weight loss is to count calories, such that they don't need to go through hoops to lose weight.
btw: faculty.som.yale.edu/amywrzesniewski/documents/Attitudestofoodandtheroleoffood.pdf
Well, when I started, my diet consisted of probably 80% "junk" food. I needed to cut out some of that...period. Sorry, but I couldn't see myself eating 1/2 of a quarter pounder or 1/2 of an oatmeal cream pie. It was just much easier to cut them out. The issue with someone isn't that they cut it out, it's lack of knowledge. I knew that I could eat those things again eventually because I had learned how it worked, but at that time, they needed to be cut out.
My diet also used to be way more "junk" food than it is now. I didn't cut it out, just reduced the intake. If I had thought that I had to cut it out again like I did 5 years ago, I probably would just keep repeating the same cycle I went through when I first lost weight.
I find it much more enjoyable to still eat "junk" food while losing weight even if it means eating it in a smaller portion. I also had to learn to eat fruit in a smaller portion, just because I used to binge on fruit doesn't mean I wanted to cut it out. So if someone posts about cutting food out because they seemingly think it's the only way they will lose weight (like when people say that you have to "eat clean" to lose weight) then I'll continue to tell them that it's not necessary, they can simply reduce how much of it they eat while monitoring calories. If after trial and error they find that eating ice cream every day just isn't working for their satiety and goals, then they can cut that intake down to a few times a week if they still want to be able to eat it. If they decide to just eat it a few times a month, that is fine. They have still learned that the item can still be consumed, they just need to find a portioning that works for them (and yes, keeping food within one's diet doesn't mean that it has to be consumed daily. I haven't eaten cheese curds in a while because the store that sells the good ones has wonky hours that don't give me a chance to get there when it's open right now, but I still consider them as something that I eat in my diet. I just don't eat it daily).
That's fine. You have your opinion. I understand that physically most people don't have to cut out food to lose weight, but losing weight is also a mental game. If it makes someone feel better to not eat ice cream or whatever, then good on them. I don't see the issue. Like I said already, as long as they aren't demonizing foods, I don't have an issue.
I'll raise a 100 calorie glass of wine to that!
:drinker:
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Ok then let's do that. And then an argument goes on and on and on it goes. Ok. Let's do that. It sounds productive lol. Interspersed with photos and jokes about dirt and things.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I'll reply to this right after being accused of hijacking. Lol. If someone wants to give that "clean eater" some clean breakfast ideas? Sure!lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I guess for part of the discussion I'm back to this:Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Not disagreeing there. But that isn't how it always sounds. Since "eat what I want" is somewhat vague, and neutral with respect to quantities. And it assumes folks also "want" to eat a nutrient dense diet.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »beachlandia wrote: »I eat "whatever" I want as long as it fits in my calories. But this means I have also cut out or greatly reduced amounts of high calorie foods. Like, I COULD fit a 680-calorie giant chocolate muffin from Costco into my day, and it's not that I don't enjoy those muffins anymore... but I'd much rather use those calories for other things. And I guess that makes me eat "healthier" (which is a subjective term) because I'll eat things like chicken breast and fruit instead of a muffin.
This.
It's not really "whatever you want" if there is a constraint around it.
Agreed.
Folks should be saying: I incorporate treats and favorite foods into my calorie and macro counting routine.
Because when you look at some of their logs (I can think of two "I eat whatever" people in particular) they eat a pretty set routine of proteins and veg. With some chocolate or what not thrown in.
Yes but that is the distinction that most people miss. Usually when people say, "I eat whatever" it is in response to people who are posting that they have cut out or severely restricted a food or particular macros in order to lose weight. The "I eat what I want" is meant to explain to the poster that you don't have to cut out entire food groups, you can continue to eat all the foods you like, in moderation.
The strawman assumption then comes out that because these people are saying there is nothing wrong with donuts, that they must be eating nothing but donuts all day long.
For the record, I am firmly in camp moderation. I still eat pizza, donuts, gelato and wine and have lost 30lbs doing so. I don't foresee any issue with maintaining the weight loss and sustaining this lifestyle for the foreseeable future. I don't know if I will be logging when I'm in my 80s, but I don't really see any reason to stop anytime soon.
PS - I've never struggled with binge eating or emotional eating, just wanted to provide that context to the discussion since OP specifically mentioned this.
And the other caveat is: you don't struggle with binge eating. Moderation for binge eaters is much more challenging. And for some, not worth the struggle.
I've never struggled with binge eating either. I just didn't know how to eat or how much I was eating.
I agree that people could be more specific with the way that they respond to the questions or the way that they correct inaccurate understandings about weight loss and that would avoid many of the arguments on here. I often feel that aside from a few zealots on both sides of the debates, if you did a blind comparison of the diaries of some of the "clean eaters" and some of the "IIFYM" folks, you would be hard pressed to say who is who.
I understand that for some binge eaters, moderation is very difficult, but I have also seen many people on here say that moderation was the only thing that helped them overcome their binging tendencies. Knowing that they could have it, even a little bit, each day, made the food have less power over them so that they did not need to binge. Again, just going by what I've seen some folks say, some I think even in this thread. I know there are others who say that that might work for some trigger foods, but then there are still other trigger foods that are not able to be moderated no matter what.
Also, I don't know if there is a difference or not, but I've seen a few people mentioning that they are "volume eaters" which I think Mr_Knight may have mentioned in this thread or another recently. Would that be considered the same as a binge eater? I don't think so, again, maybe semantics but to me, binge eating implies that there is a total lack of control over how much you are going to eat, that you can't stop yourself. To me, volume eating means that in order to be satisfied, you prefer a much larger volume of food, but it doesn't sound like there is the same issue with giving up control completely to the food.
Suppose someone posts on a green car forum and says: looking for other hybrid drivers. Or, I'm looking for hints to get the best mileage out of my hybrid. Wouldn't it be weird and counter productive if EVERY thread immediately had someone posting: you should drive an electric car instead. Followed by long arguments on the pros and cons of electric versus hybrid when all the OP wanted was to talk to other hybrid drivers?
But the context here is that someone posts "I am looking for clean eaters to share recipes and talk about healthy eating." Why are only "clean" eaters qualified to talk about healthy eating or recipes to that person, especially when what "clean" means varies dramatically from person to person. As I like to say, that I enjoy ice cream doesn't mean that my dinners are "contaminated" with ice cream, so why exclude people like me from the discussion? Many of us who aren't clean eaters have been cooking from whole foods a lot longer than many of the "clean" eaters in these parts and eat plenty of lean meats and veggies and all that.
I find the desire to segregate the discussions weird.
And no, I never encourage anyone to eat foods they don't want to eat. There are lots of foods I don't eat (although not because I cut them out, IMO).
But that requires explaining that we can't know what the person means by "clean," but some breakfast ideas are X, Y, and Z, which is, in fact, what many of us do.
There's no reason an argument has to go on. Why would it? Again, why the desire to segregate? If I were looking for recipes involving broccoli I'd, well, look on the internet or in one of my cookbooks for ideas, but if I thought to ask on MFP I'd say "hey, does anyone have broccoli ideas"? or "ideas for dinner focusing on lean meat and broccoli"?
It would never cross my mind to say "I need "clean" eaters to help me figure out how to eat broccoli." Why on earth would anyone assume that the rest of us don't eat broccoli? Or eat broccoli only with chocolate sauce or on top of McD's fries?
I don't eat broccoli. Please don't ask me.
0 -
I look at it this way. My calories are my savings account. I have a certain amount to "spend" every day. So each time I eat something I have to decide if I want to "spend" that amount for that food. Is it worth it? Is it not? Most days I'm saving my calories because I have a big expense coming up at the end of the week (dinner out with hubby or friends). So I "save" during that time. But I always, always make sure I have a little put aside so I'm under for the week. (I should note that I log my calories daily but it's the weekly number that I look at the most).
So I guess I could say I eat what I want but I really don't. If I can't afford it, I don't eat it no matter how much I want it. And, no, there's no credit in this little world I've created
I agree with this. When I say I don't cut things out I mean that if I really want something I figure out how to fit it in, but everything is a tradeoff, and often sacrificing something else isn't worth it, even if one doesn't find that it throws them off--and it's worth noting that some people do find that adding in a cookie (although not that high in calories, perhaps) might change what they desire for the rest of the day. So when someone posts "cake in the break room, help me resist" and the responses are "why resist, fit it in," I think that's not really fair as there are lots of reasons why cake might not be worth fitting in at a particular time, even if tempting in the moment.0 -
you cannot eat the same way ie whatever you like, and binge foods, and lose weight. you HAVE to change your eating habits.I eat the things I like on cheat days, I try not to binge on those items.being human, of course it happens on occasion, but it's not a regular occurrence.What has helped you most to stick to your calories? How are you losing? Especially: people with binge problems-what has helped you most?
I am currently trying to eat whatever I like and especially to include my binge foods in my normal daily life. We will see how this will go, I just started to put focus on this...
I eat popcorn, a lot.it's low fat,low calorie, and I can eat a lot of it bc it's not full of sugar and fat, and it tastes good.
I try to keep my carbs low, around 100 or less, and I drink a lot of water.
0 -
not sure how you got there butlemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Ok then let's do that. And then an argument goes on and on and on it goes. Ok. Let's do that. It sounds productive lol. Interspersed with photos and jokes about dirt and things.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I'll reply to this right after being accused of hijacking. Lol. If someone wants to give that "clean eater" some clean breakfast ideas? Sure!lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I guess for part of the discussion I'm back to this:Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Not disagreeing there. But that isn't how it always sounds. Since "eat what I want" is somewhat vague, and neutral with respect to quantities. And it assumes folks also "want" to eat a nutrient dense diet.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »beachlandia wrote: »I eat "whatever" I want as long as it fits in my calories. But this means I have also cut out or greatly reduced amounts of high calorie foods. Like, I COULD fit a 680-calorie giant chocolate muffin from Costco into my day, and it's not that I don't enjoy those muffins anymore... but I'd much rather use those calories for other things. And I guess that makes me eat "healthier" (which is a subjective term) because I'll eat things like chicken breast and fruit instead of a muffin.
This.
It's not really "whatever you want" if there is a constraint around it.
Agreed.
Folks should be saying: I incorporate treats and favorite foods into my calorie and macro counting routine.
Because when you look at some of their logs (I can think of two "I eat whatever" people in particular) they eat a pretty set routine of proteins and veg. With some chocolate or what not thrown in.
Yes but that is the distinction that most people miss. Usually when people say, "I eat whatever" it is in response to people who are posting that they have cut out or severely restricted a food or particular macros in order to lose weight. The "I eat what I want" is meant to explain to the poster that you don't have to cut out entire food groups, you can continue to eat all the foods you like, in moderation.
The strawman assumption then comes out that because these people are saying there is nothing wrong with donuts, that they must be eating nothing but donuts all day long.
For the record, I am firmly in camp moderation. I still eat pizza, donuts, gelato and wine and have lost 30lbs doing so. I don't foresee any issue with maintaining the weight loss and sustaining this lifestyle for the foreseeable future. I don't know if I will be logging when I'm in my 80s, but I don't really see any reason to stop anytime soon.
PS - I've never struggled with binge eating or emotional eating, just wanted to provide that context to the discussion since OP specifically mentioned this.
And the other caveat is: you don't struggle with binge eating. Moderation for binge eaters is much more challenging. And for some, not worth the struggle.
I've never struggled with binge eating either. I just didn't know how to eat or how much I was eating.
I agree that people could be more specific with the way that they respond to the questions or the way that they correct inaccurate understandings about weight loss and that would avoid many of the arguments on here. I often feel that aside from a few zealots on both sides of the debates, if you did a blind comparison of the diaries of some of the "clean eaters" and some of the "IIFYM" folks, you would be hard pressed to say who is who.
I understand that for some binge eaters, moderation is very difficult, but I have also seen many people on here say that moderation was the only thing that helped them overcome their binging tendencies. Knowing that they could have it, even a little bit, each day, made the food have less power over them so that they did not need to binge. Again, just going by what I've seen some folks say, some I think even in this thread. I know there are others who say that that might work for some trigger foods, but then there are still other trigger foods that are not able to be moderated no matter what.
Also, I don't know if there is a difference or not, but I've seen a few people mentioning that they are "volume eaters" which I think Mr_Knight may have mentioned in this thread or another recently. Would that be considered the same as a binge eater? I don't think so, again, maybe semantics but to me, binge eating implies that there is a total lack of control over how much you are going to eat, that you can't stop yourself. To me, volume eating means that in order to be satisfied, you prefer a much larger volume of food, but it doesn't sound like there is the same issue with giving up control completely to the food.
Suppose someone posts on a green car forum and says: looking for other hybrid drivers. Or, I'm looking for hints to get the best mileage out of my hybrid. Wouldn't it be weird and counter productive if EVERY thread immediately had someone posting: you should drive an electric car instead. Followed by long arguments on the pros and cons of electric versus hybrid when all the OP wanted was to talk to other hybrid drivers?
But the context here is that someone posts "I am looking for clean eaters to share recipes and talk about healthy eating." Why are only "clean" eaters qualified to talk about healthy eating or recipes to that person, especially when what "clean" means varies dramatically from person to person. As I like to say, that I enjoy ice cream doesn't mean that my dinners are "contaminated" with ice cream, so why exclude people like me from the discussion? Many of us who aren't clean eaters have been cooking from whole foods a lot longer than many of the "clean" eaters in these parts and eat plenty of lean meats and veggies and all that.
I find the desire to segregate the discussions weird.
And no, I never encourage anyone to eat foods they don't want to eat. There are lots of foods I don't eat (although not because I cut them out, IMO).
But that requires explaining that we can't know what the person means by "clean," but some breakfast ideas are X, Y, and Z, which is, in fact, what many of us do.
There's no reason an argument has to go on. Why would it? Again, why the desire to segregate? If I were looking for recipes involving broccoli I'd, well, look on the internet or in one of my cookbooks for ideas, but if I thought to ask on MFP I'd say "hey, does anyone have broccoli ideas"? or "ideas for dinner focusing on lean meat and broccoli"?
It would never cross my mind to say "I need "clean" eaters to help me figure out how to eat broccoli." Why on earth would anyone assume that the rest of us don't eat broccoli? Or eat broccoli only with chocolate sauce or on top of McD's fries?
Ok. So if someone wants low carb recipes everyone will post them or enjoy them. Not tell them what and how they should be eating instead. Great!
Not segregated (on the main boards)
0 -
What do you know, I have 100 calories left for the day lol what to do0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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