Eating what you like vs. clean eating vs. following weight watchers or low carb or other method
Replies
-
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.
There are people who say to eat donuts and Doritos all day every day?
Nope.
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?
Yeaaah but...He said "I eat what I want, when I want."
I just feel like that might be a little unrealistic. I don't think people just conveniently stop wanting food after they've hit certain macros, in his case, calories and protein. lol
I understand the concept of moderation, I just don't believe he stops wanting for food naturally after he's had the correct serving of a certain food every single time .
He also said "My only rule is that it has to fit my calorie and protein goal."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?
Yeaaah but...He said "I eat what I want, when I want."
I just feel like that might be a little unrealistic. I don't think people just conveniently stop wanting food after they've hit certain macros, in his case, calories and protein. lol
I understand the concept of moderation, I just don't believe he stops wanting for food naturally after he's had the correct serving of a certain food every single time .
Maybe I missed something or forgot part of the thread. Who is this "he" that said that?
Disregard, I see it now in the hidden quotes. I thought you were referring to a different thread.
I agree that the qualifier is that it has to fit into their calorie and protein goal is an important, and often misunderstood, distinction.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding, intentional or otherwise, though. Because I know for certain I've never claimed to be able to eat whatever I wanted or to eat lots of "junk" food, and yet my posts consistently get twisted into claims that one can eat KFC or Twinkies only or some such nonsense (ironically, I NEVER eat either, as I don't like either).
I'm beginning to think there was a misunderstanding. My posts had more to do with the original post by Micophilia. He said "I eat what I want, when I want." I was just saying I don't believe that's accurate and my reasons for that.0 -
Mycophilia.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?
Yeaaah but...He said "I eat what I want, when I want."
I just feel like that might be a little unrealistic. I don't think people just conveniently stop wanting food after they've hit certain macros, in his case, calories and protein. lol
I understand the concept of moderation, I just don't believe he stops wanting for food naturally after he's had the correct serving of a certain food every single time .
Maybe I missed something or forgot part of the thread. Who is this "he" that said that?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
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)
How we got there is you mentioned the response to the "looking for 'clean' eaters" threads.
You raised clean eating. And you brought up broccoli and asked if you weren't allowed to discuss broccoli.
If you want to felicitously ask for a definition of clean eating so you can then give them breakfast ideas? GREAT!
Not segregating, just staying on topic.
ps: Broccoli rocks, as do brussels sprouts, which, btw, we're having for dinner with tofu and a soy sauce glaze.
But again I ask: if someone wants NEW low carb ideas. Or wants to meet other low carbers we'll all answer giving them new low carb ideas or links to groups where they can meet other low carbers? Great!
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
There are people who say to eat donuts and Doritos all day every day?
Nope.
Well, that twinkie fellow from this morning's thread ate twinkie like things every three hours.
Doritos all day? My mouth would be the sahara!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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?
Yeaaah but...He said "I eat what I want, when I want."
I just feel like that might be a little unrealistic. I don't think people just conveniently stop wanting food after they've hit certain macros, in his case, calories and protein. lol
I understand the concept of moderation, I just don't believe he stops wanting for food naturally after he's had the correct serving of a certain food every single time .
He also said "My only rule is that it has to fit my calorie and protein goal."
Agreed, he did say that. But I don't think he eats what he wants when he wants. I don't think he conveniently stops wanting for a certain food after he's had the a portion of a certain thing every single time. Maybe most times, maybe sometimes, but all the time? I don't think so. I don't think anyone can just 'eat whatever they want, whenever they want' and lose weight realistically. If I am wording my opinions in a way that doesn't make sense, I apologize.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:
Cheers!0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
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)
How we got there is you mentioned the response to the "looking for 'clean' eaters" threads.
You raised clean eating.
Nope. You posted an analogy about cars: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?
I took that to be about the 7054 threads where someone asks for ideas from "clean" eaters. I think a better analogy is someone says "I am trying to reduce my carbon footprint, can hybrid owners tell me how." Someone who doesn't happen to own a hybrid might just as easily have smart things to say about the carbon footprint, so what's the point of asking only hybrid owners (and at least there's a commonly recognized definition of what a hybrid is).
So my question is what disqualifies me from having something of interest to say about cooking that a so-called "clean" eater wouldn't find valuable? The underlying assumption appears to be that if you don't own a hybrid you must not care about the environment at all and act as wastefully as possible in all relevant areas of life.
(Off-topic, but I actually do own a hybrid, and yet I don't think this means I have the market cornered on how to limit my carbon footprint, which I'm sure is immense.)
I'm also having Brussels sprouts for dinner, I think. Roasted with leftover Easter lamb and sunchokes.
0 -
Mycophilia.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?
Yeaaah but...He said "I eat what I want, when I want."
I just feel like that might be a little unrealistic. I don't think people just conveniently stop wanting food after they've hit certain macros, in his case, calories and protein. lol
I understand the concept of moderation, I just don't believe he stops wanting for food naturally after he's had the correct serving of a certain food every single time .
Maybe I missed something or forgot part of the thread. Who is this "he" that said that?
Yeah, I went and looked at his diary. I'm not sure what most of those foods are. I can't really say for sure if they are the kind of thing you would want to eat more of or not. I wouldn't draw a lot of conclusions from any one posters comments on MFP threads. There are people who comment on here that sound totally reasonable, and when I go out and look at their diary, or we become friends, then I realize they are eating a VLCD or completely restricting food groups in a way that I am not in favor of. Then there are people who sound a little extreme, and if I go check out their diaries, turns out they are eating a balanced, varied diet hitting their micros/macros and making room for treats as well.
Point being that context and dosage is critical with these type of threads.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »No, I can't eat intuitively, you're right. Because any chance of me doing that was broken long ago. I don't come by that skill naturally.
But I don't look at what I'll have to do to maintain a normal healthy weight by eating normal-sized portions as restrictive either.
You are holding two contradictory principles at the same time - you're going to have to let one of those go, eventually.It's as simple as that for me. Not restrictive. Corrective.
Semantics. And if that works for you...fantastic! :drinker:
Nope. I think you're holding onto a skewed viewpoint.
And that's the difference between you and me - I accept your viewpoint as valid for you - you don't accept mine as valid for me.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
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)
How we got there is you mentioned the response to the "looking for 'clean' eaters" threads.
You raised clean eating.
Nope. You posted an analogy about cars: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?
I took that to be about the 7054 threads where someone asks for ideas from "clean" eaters. I think a better analogy is someone says "I am trying to reduce my carbon footprint, can hybrid owners tell me how." Someone who doesn't happen to own a hybrid might just as easily have smart things to say about the carbon footprint, so what's the point of asking only hybrid owners (and at least there's a commonly recognized definition of what a hybrid is).
So my question is what disqualifies me from having something of interest to say about cooking that a so-called "clean" eater wouldn't find valuable? The underlying assumption appears to be that if you don't own a hybrid you must not care about the environment at all and act as wastefully as possible in all relevant areas of life.
(Off-topic, but I actually do own a hybrid, and yet I don't think this means I have the market cornered on how to limit my carbon footprint, which I'm sure is immense.)
I'm also having Brussels sprouts for dinner, I think. Roasted with leftover Easter lamb and sunchokes.
GOOD LORD! Gosh. Wow. Umm. NO. I was NOT thinking of clean eating in the slightest. Sorry if my analogy confused you. I wasn't thinking of clean eating when I posted it. I was actually half pondering low carb. But generally looking for an analogy that would work with EVERY "I eat x way, looking for more Xers" post that is invariably followed by "why eat X way, you should eat Y way" and what not.
As for all the other leaps, given that you misunderstood my intent, the underlying assumptions are invalid as well.
Perhaps: Someone posts on a honda forum asking what the best floor mats are for a honda and everyone replies get a toyota?
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Or wants to meet other low carbers we'll all answer giving them new low carb ideas or links to groups where they can meet other low carbers? Great!
I can't control what others say in low carb threads like that any more than you can control the people who pop up to insist that carbs are evil and bad or that sugar is the devil or the like.
However, I know for a fact that I have consistently recommended that newby low carb people check out the low carb threads, since most of them seem to need better understanding of how low carbing works (lately lots seem to want to be low carb and low fat).
Also, if someone says "aren't carbs bad when you want to lose weight?" or "I was told that it's easier to lose weight when low carbing" I DO say that that's not so, IME, but that people vary and if they are interested in low carb to check it out. I've also been know to suggest that when someone seems not to even understand what carbs are or how to low carb that they start by just exchanging some carbs for fat or protein foods or decreasing some portions and increasing others (which they can see how to do by looking at their diaries). AND when people ask for examples of low carb foods I've reeled some off from time to time (usually meat, which seems obvious, but again lots of people seem to decide to low carb without even knowing what carbs are and what foods contain them).
Maybe the only answer that I'm supposed to give in your view is "yes, low carb is an excellent choice, go to the thread," but I don't see what's wrong with any of these.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »No, I can't eat intuitively, you're right. Because any chance of me doing that was broken long ago. I don't come by that skill naturally.
But I don't look at what I'll have to do to maintain a normal healthy weight by eating normal-sized portions as restrictive either.
You are holding two contradictory principles at the same time - you're going to have to let one of those go, eventually.It's as simple as that for me. Not restrictive. Corrective.
Semantics. And if that works for you...fantastic! :drinker:
Nope. I think you're holding onto a skewed viewpoint.
And that's the difference between you and me - I accept your viewpoint as valid for you - you don't accept mine as valid for me.
I accept that yours is valid for you as a general philosophy, but in this case, I don't understand holding onto looking at an unhealthy behavior as a norm that you're deviating from as an ongoing strategy.
So, it's cool that you prefer to think that way... can you shed some light on your thinking behind it for me, though.
I'm just fascinated by the different thought process, honestly. Not really picking a nit at this point, I'm truly interested.
0 -
I eat what I want. I don't do well restricting certain foods or food groups. If I want a piece of cake or a cookie, I eat a lighter dinner to free up my calories.0
-
Indeed. I can't control what others say, nor the assumptions they make.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Or wants to meet other low carbers we'll all answer giving them new low carb ideas or links to groups where they can meet other low carbers? Great!
I can't control what others say in low carb threads like that any more than you can control the people who pop up to insist that carbs are evil and bad or that sugar is the devil or the like.
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?
I've also used ice cream to meet my goals. Meeting your fat and carbs from a "healthy" food source doesn't give you extra life points than if you chose to do it with a bowl of ice cream
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
You seem to be forever confused about the notion of reduced intake and moderation vs elimination. But it only seems to pop up when the topic of "bad" food is brought up, and not for things like fruits and veggies (which I've had to moderate as well) or cheese or PB or meat or fish...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 love eating broccoli with melted cheese, especially if I throw some pasta and meat in there.... am I negating the benefits of broccoli by eating pasta with it or am I in the clear? Or maybe it's the cheese that erases the broccoli intake?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions