Eating what you like vs. clean eating vs. following weight watchers or low carb or other method
Replies
-
Why do these threads always degenerate to this? Actually, never mind. If one day a poster asks about something controversial and actually gets answers without a random person derailing the thread I'm pretty sure I will double check the address bar, and if I'm still on the correct website I'll assume I must be hallucinating.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.
Ice cream Monday, Dorritos Tuesday, Hot dogs (these are considered "treats"?) Wednesday, pie on Thursday?
Just eat one slide of pie instead of the whole pie
A slice of key lime pie is ~500 calories.
Shall I pull out my tablespoon-sized serving dish again?
And? I ate three cookies, some chocolate, and a PB-butterscotch thing today because for whatever reason today I was just really craving sweets. Probably got close to 500 calories of treats. It fits my calories, and my macros and micros will balance out throughout the week as I eat more nutrient-dense foods. If I went over because of a slice of pie then I would either just not care and call it a maintenance day, or I would eat 100 calories fewer every day for the next 5 days to get back to my weekly average.
You seem to be making things more complicated than they need to be.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Why do these threads always degenerate to this? Actually, never mind. If one day a poster asks about something controversial and actually gets answers without a random person derailing the thread I'm pretty sure I will double check the address bar, and if I'm still on the correct website I'll assume I must be hallucinating.
It's par for the course...
You can't have a discussion without the semantics crew playing word games...
Just embrace it and accept it...it makes thread life a lot easier0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Why do these threads always degenerate to this? Actually, never mind. If one day a poster asks about something controversial and actually gets answers without a random person derailing the thread I'm pretty sure I will double check the address bar, and if I'm still on the correct website I'll assume I must be hallucinating.
I thought it was a good discussion for a while.
And I don't actually understand what was being argued about.0 -
Sure. *I* derailed it.Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
That you find it ironic is, indeed, ironic.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.
Lol the irony in this complaint is hilarious
If you look, you'll find that how you view my approach isn't really compatible with reality.
Lol so you never comment off topic in threads?????? Suuuuuuurrreeeeeee.....
Not quite what I said.
It never is....
But you already semi de railed this one ..so the proof is in the pudding....sugar free of course
LOL.
Enjoy your travels. Work, or pleasure?
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.
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:
I am sorry that you have such an absurdly low calorie goal that you can't fit in a serving of ice cream, or find said serving to be satisfying
Since you have no idea what my goals or targets are, don't know what my personal preferences are, nor what my context is, you're not really in a position to be "sorry" for anything.
But thanks, anyway.
fwiw, I find your posts thoughtful, well considered and clear.
We don't always agree. Actually, we often don't. But your posts are some that I respect consistently.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm 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:
I am sorry that you have such an absurdly low calorie goal that you can't fit in a serving of ice cream, or find said serving to be satisfying
Since you have no idea what my goals or targets are, don't know what my personal preferences are, nor what my context is, you're not really in a position to be "sorry" for anything.
But thanks, anyway.
fwiw, I find your posts thoughtful, well considered and clear.
We don't always agree. Actually, we often don't. But your posts are some that I respect consistently.
I agree with you about his posts.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Mycophilia wrote: »I eat what I want, when I want. My only rule is that it has to fit my calorie and protein goal. Doing great so far.
And what if you have no more calories to consume but you still want more food ? Or do you automatically stop 'wanting' for foods after your calorie/protein macros have been hit?
You learn to stop at that point or you eat low calories foods and deal with going over a bit until you learn to choose better or be satisfied within your calories.
When I first started I wanted foods at times I'd been used to eating. It was habit, not real hunger, so it went away.
What do you think someone should do in that situation?
The point I was trying to get across was basically:
So many people love to say "I ate what I wanted, and when I wanted and lost all the weight."
But if that was the case then you never would have become overweight to begin with. It might be better to just say, "I ate what I wanted and stopped right before I hit my calorie limit." That might mean you still wanted for certain foods, but had to stop, however to achieve the deficit.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone say, "I ate what I wanted, and when I wanted, and lost all the weight". What people usually say is that they fit what they want to eat into their day. That requires a considerable amount of foresight and planning in order to meet their nutritional goals AND leave room for the treats they wanted to eat.
No one ever says, "you should eat donuts and/or doritos all day every day"
Yes, there are such people. I frequent the forums quite a bit, and I have actually seen what I described, maybe not in the exact words I've used, but definitely along those lines.
Then you are clearly not referring to MFP, because this does not occur. And if something like this does, it's someone twisting someone else's words to reflect this asinine notion.
Yeah...I was referring to MFP.0 -
Mycophilia wrote: »I eat what I want, when I want. My only rule is that it has to fit my calorie and protein goal. Doing great so far.
And what if you have no more calories to consume but you still want more food ? Or do you automatically stop 'wanting' for foods after your calorie/protein macros have been hit?
Stop eating or eat some more and go over....is it going to ruin you to go over by 50 or 150 calories in grand scheme of things????
In the grand scheme of things, no it won't ruin you. But this person was saying he eats what he wants when he wants. He also said he stops at his calories goal, not 50 or 150 calories above that.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.
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:
I am sorry that you have such an absurdly low calorie goal that you can't fit in a serving of ice cream, or find said serving to be satisfying
Since you have no idea what my goals or targets are, don't know what my personal preferences are, nor what my context is, you're not really in a position to be "sorry" for anything.
But thanks, anyway.
*Claps*0 -
Sabine_Stroehm 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:
I am sorry that you have such an absurdly low calorie goal that you can't fit in a serving of ice cream, or find said serving to be satisfying
Since you have no idea what my goals or targets are, don't know what my personal preferences are, nor what my context is, you're not really in a position to be "sorry" for anything.
But thanks, anyway.
fwiw, I find your posts thoughtful, well considered and clear.
We don't always agree. Actually, we often don't. But your posts are some that I respect consistently.
I agree with you about his posts.
I'd say it's 50/50. Sometimes he seems like he's bored so he plays those semantics games à la "If I could eat 1000 skittles but choose to eat 20 I'm eliminating 980 skittles."0 -
eat clean, lift heavy and some cardio its been working great for me and has become away of living0
-
Wow...such a discussion after my little question!! This subject really seems to be a personal decision. And I guess might also vary for single persons from time to time...
What I find helpful is to look for lower caloric satisfying alternatives for my "treats". Not as a substitute, but as an addition in order to make it easier to stay within my calorie goal.0 -
Mycophilia wrote: »I eat what I want, when I want. My only rule is that it has to fit my calorie and protein goal. Doing great so far.
And what if you have no more calories to consume but you still want more food ? Or do you automatically stop 'wanting' for foods after your calorie/protein macros have been hit?
Stop eating or eat some more and go over....is it going to ruin you to go over by 50 or 150 calories in grand scheme of things????
In the grand scheme of things, no it won't ruin you. But this person was saying he eats what he wants when he wants. He also said he stops at his calories goal, not 50 or 150 calories above that.
umm stopping at your calorie goal was option one in my reply ...
I am not really sure what your issue is here...0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I'm pretty sure that Atkins was down on tomatoes in his book. At least in the edition I read back in the dark ages. I remember really restricting them to something like a slice here or there because of it.
The tomato phobia might be a hold out from that?
possibly, tomato is a fruit and the carbs are sugar so he wouldn't be keen on them in his ketogenic diet. The glycemic index came along later and it's pretty low for tomato so there are bigger things to worry about.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm 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:
I am sorry that you have such an absurdly low calorie goal that you can't fit in a serving of ice cream, or find said serving to be satisfying
Since you have no idea what my goals or targets are, don't know what my personal preferences are, nor what my context is, you're not really in a position to be "sorry" for anything.
But thanks, anyway.
fwiw, I find your posts thoughtful, well considered and clear.
We don't always agree. Actually, we often don't. But your posts are some that I respect consistently.
I appreciate that, and reciprocate. :drinker:
It doesn't take being here long to realize who is here to discuss and who is here to ankle-bite. 0 -
I used to eat whatever I want whenever and had a bad problem with portion control. I was exercising fairly regularly but wasn't losing weight at all. In January I started Paleo and it was so hard at first but I've lost 36 lbs in only three months so seeing how fast the weight is coming off is really helping me to stay motivated!0
-
Mycophilia wrote: »I eat what I want, when I want. My only rule is that it has to fit my calorie and protein goal. Doing great so far.
And what if you have no more calories to consume but you still want more food ? Or do you automatically stop 'wanting' for foods after your calorie/protein macros have been hit?
Stop eating or eat some more and go over....is it going to ruin you to go over by 50 or 150 calories in grand scheme of things????
In the grand scheme of things, no it won't ruin you. But this person was saying he eats what he wants when he wants. He also said he stops at his calories goal, not 50 or 150 calories above that.
I think this can be true for lots of people, depending on what you mean by "wants."
I was just talking about this in another thread, but I think lots of people with weight issues (like me) are really bad at or simply lack strong hunger indicators. I will usually eat what's on my plate and feel satisfied, no matter how much food I put on it. This means I have to be careful not to get carried away when piling on the food (and consciously decide at restaurants that I will eat only half or one-third), but it also means that I almost never finish a meal and find myself wanting more. Same with even something like ice cream whereas if I eat it out of the pint I'll naturally eat about half the pint, but if I eat a serving in a bowl I'm perfectly happy with a serving.
Doesn't mean I don't sometimes want to eat something I choose not to (since I want to eat other things, including for their nutritional value, or to lose weight more), but it doesn't seem all that weird to me that he might perceive himself (have we established this person is a he?) as eating what he wants even if less than he'd eat if eating in an unlimited way. It's just different ways of thinking about it. For me, minimizing the perception of deprivation in such a way is actually helpful.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Mycophilia wrote: »I eat what I want, when I want. My only rule is that it has to fit my calorie and protein goal. Doing great so far.
And what if you have no more calories to consume but you still want more food ? Or do you automatically stop 'wanting' for foods after your calorie/protein macros have been hit?
Stop eating or eat some more and go over....is it going to ruin you to go over by 50 or 150 calories in grand scheme of things????
In the grand scheme of things, no it won't ruin you. But this person was saying he eats what he wants when he wants. He also said he stops at his calories goal, not 50 or 150 calories above that.
So what's wrong with that?
If you are specifically talking about @Mycophilia then I'll assume you are interpreting these words in a very skewed manner.... because:Mycophilia wrote: »I eat what I want, when I want. My only rule is that it has to fit my calorie and protein goal. Doing great so far.
This does not mean just eating twinkies and cupcakes all day. It means that within one's calorie and protein needs, any food can be consumed and does not need to be relegated to only special occasions. E.g. yesterday I ate 3 cookies, a piece of chocolate, and some butterscotch dessert thing (logged as separate ingredients because I'm just estimating the calories). Probably upwards of 500 calories of sugary goodness.... but I still met (and exceeded) my protein goals and came in right at my calorie needs. I had to swap out my planned salmon supper for a large salad and some fruit, but by the time I got home from my evening workout I was actually more than pleased to eat something lower calorie but high volume.0 -
I eat what I want within my calories, which means limiting some things obviously so that I don't get hungry too. When I tried to restrict sweets, I ended up binging.
The only times I eat over is Holidays, special events, and PMS pretty much (and I don't even binge, I just get very hungry and need complex carbs to be satiated).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.
Ice cream Monday, Dorritos Tuesday, Hot dogs (these are considered "treats"?) Wednesday, pie on Thursday?
Just eat one slide of pie instead of the whole pie
A slice of key lime pie is ~500 calories.
Shall I pull out my tablespoon-sized serving dish again?
And? I ate three cookies, some chocolate, and a PB-butterscotch thing today because for whatever reason today I was just really craving sweets. Probably got close to 500 calories of treats. It fits my calories, and my macros and micros will balance out throughout the week as I eat more nutrient-dense foods. If I went over because of a slice of pie then I would either just not care and call it a maintenance day, or I would eat 100 calories fewer every day for the next 5 days to get back to my weekly average.
You seem to be making things more complicated than they need to be.
Seriously, I do this frequently. I eat pretty crappy in the overall scheme of things. I just don't understand what the negative aspect of someone not wanting to eat a cookie? It has nothing to do on whether they eat the cookie. It has to do with what their mental relationship with said cookie that determines if they are looking at food negatively and demonizing foods.
Someone who just doesn't eat the cookie cause it's not worth the calories in their mind still most likely has a good relationship with food.
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.
Ice cream Monday, Dorritos Tuesday, Hot dogs (these are considered "treats"?) Wednesday, pie on Thursday?
Just eat one slide of pie instead of the whole pie
A slice of key lime pie is ~500 calories.
Shall I pull out my tablespoon-sized serving dish again?
And? I ate three cookies, some chocolate, and a PB-butterscotch thing today because for whatever reason today I was just really craving sweets. Probably got close to 500 calories of treats. It fits my calories, and my macros and micros will balance out throughout the week as I eat more nutrient-dense foods. If I went over because of a slice of pie then I would either just not care and call it a maintenance day, or I would eat 100 calories fewer every day for the next 5 days to get back to my weekly average.
You seem to be making things more complicated than they need to be.
Seriously, I do this frequently. I eat pretty crappy in the overall scheme of things. I just don't understand what the negative aspect of someone not wanting to eat a cookie? It has nothing to do on whether they eat the cookie. It has to do with what their mental relationship with said cookie that determines if they are looking at food negatively and demonizing foods.
Someone who just doesn't eat the cookie cause it's not worth the calories in their mind still most likely has a good relationship with food.
Well I certainly don't demonize cookies or ice cream. My bent is to the savoury - most of the time I'd rather have a greasy rotiserrie chicken than a cookie or ice cream. That the former is more valuable in terms of meeting macros and satiety is a big plus - I consider myself lucky. :drinker:
If anything, the disordered thinking is with those who view diet choices in such stark terms that they are compelled to demonize someone *voluntarily* making a knowledge- and preference-based *choice* to not eat cookies or ice cream.
Such preoccupation with - and emotional internalizing of - other people's food choices is...not healthy, IMO.
0 -
I started eating mostly clean last week and drinking close to a gallon of water a day and have found my weight dropping. I started my fitness/weight loss plan in Feb. and was losing and gaining the same 2 lbs every week, and I was getting beyond frustrated. Here's my problem, I don't think I was logging accurately and I wasn't aware of whether I was even meeting my macros. I even went on a radical 3-day diet. I lost the weight, but it wasn't a sustainable diet. So I started researching the typical diets (not competition diets) of fitness competitors and put together my daily meal plans. I eat the same thing for every meal, every day. I noticed that my body does NOT react well to a lot of sodium. I had ham on Sunday and on Monday noticed I "gained" 2 lbs. Well, after going back on my "diet", that water weight fell back off. This way of eating has worked well for me, and I'll keep eating this way because I really do love 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.
Ice cream Monday, Dorritos Tuesday, Hot dogs (these are considered "treats"?) Wednesday, pie on Thursday?
Just eat one slide of pie instead of the whole pie
A slice of key lime pie is ~500 calories.
Shall I pull out my tablespoon-sized serving dish again?
And? I ate three cookies, some chocolate, and a PB-butterscotch thing today because for whatever reason today I was just really craving sweets. Probably got close to 500 calories of treats. It fits my calories, and my macros and micros will balance out throughout the week as I eat more nutrient-dense foods. If I went over because of a slice of pie then I would either just not care and call it a maintenance day, or I would eat 100 calories fewer every day for the next 5 days to get back to my weekly average.
You seem to be making things more complicated than they need to be.
Seriously, I do this frequently. I eat pretty crappy in the overall scheme of things. I just don't understand what the negative aspect of someone not wanting to eat a cookie? It has nothing to do on whether they eat the cookie. It has to do with what their mental relationship with said cookie that determines if they are looking at food negatively and demonizing foods.
Someone who just doesn't eat the cookie cause it's not worth the calories in their mind still most likely has a good relationship with food.
This. I actually think we are getting into some kind of semantic discussion of what it means to "want" something and not to eat it. I want stuff and don't eat it all the time, but that doesn't mean I think more than a second about it or suffer any lasting regret for choosing for whatever reason not to eat it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.)
When I say "processed foods" I think of food such as boxed meals, pastas, processed meat like bologna. Foods with additives. I wouldn't necessarily consider boneless skinless chicken breast as processed. Yes it went through a process to remove the skin and bone but typically it does not have additives and preservatives added to it. I try to focus on lean meats and vegetables (fresh or frozen).
0 -
What I also do is to try to find things I like that fill me up at a low calories level. This often results in things like salads or vegetables or nonfat yoghurt. But I eat them because I like them and they help me to feel satisfied and not hungry all the time within my caorie limit. And they allow me to eat the "unhelthier" treats I like as well while still staying within my calorie level. So for me, summing up, it helps most to play around with the "composition" of my days or even the week (I am looking more at my weekly or want to try that-only a beginner so far). This can also mean that I eat mostly chunk one day while focussing more on whole low calorie food the next day. I could also imagine me experimenting with different "diet" forms like clean eating or ww for a week or so in between. And to me, this is the wonderful thing about calorie counting: it leaves you room for variation!0
-
My biggest change is that I've stopped grazing. I have 4-5 'meals' a day, and that is what I eat instead of snacking all day. Because it turns out that eating a little all the time adds up the calories.0
-
Crystalnp1981 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.)
When I say "processed foods" I think of food such as boxed meals, pastas, processed meat like bologna. Foods with additives. I wouldn't necessarily consider boneless skinless chicken breast as processed. Yes it went through a process to remove the skin and bone but typically it does not have additives and preservatives added to it. I try to focus on lean meats and vegetables (fresh or frozen).
So whole wheat pasta = bad because boxed and processed????0 -
Crystalnp1981 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.)
When I say "processed foods" I think of food such as boxed meals, pastas, processed meat like bologna. Foods with additives. I wouldn't necessarily consider boneless skinless chicken breast as processed. Yes it went through a process to remove the skin and bone but typically it does not have additives and preservatives added to it. I try to focus on lean meats and vegetables (fresh or frozen).
So whole wheat pasta = bad because boxed and processed????
0
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