Eat everything in Moderation as dietary advice?
Replies
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm fairly new here, but have been a bit overwhelmed with all the eat everything in modération advice that is despensed regardless of dietary issues.
Are there some studies available to read that give the eat everything/moderation plan some credibility?
Here you go OP:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790I'm fairly new here, but have been a bit overwhelmed with all the eat everything in modération advice that is despensed regardless of dietary issues.
Are there some studies available to read that give the eat everything/moderation plan some credibility?
Have there been any studies or articles posted on the credibility of eating everything in moderation?
If you have not posted verified studies and simply your own opinion or experience, then why would you be so invested someone else's opinion or experience?
I'm trying to find the basis of all the EIM advice. I would like to know what happens to many others (I.e. a study) when EIM is used or not used as a diet or nutritional strategy.
I am reposting Alyssa's post in case you missed it. These two articles might help.
lol I especially liked this bit:
"The second strongest canonical correlation (r=0.59) associated calorie counting and conscious dieting with overeating while alone and increased body mass."
0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »
What is the opposite of EIM? EEYS (Eat Everything You See)?
This has already been addressed multiple times - in MFP-land, the opposite of EIM is to eliminate trigger foods, or avoid entire categories of food altogether as the way to get to a deficit.
0 -
galgenstrick wrote: »
What is the opposite of EIM? EEYS (Eat Everything You See)?
This has already been addressed multiple times - in MFP-land, the opposite of EIM is to eliminate trigger foods, or avoid entire categories of food altogether as the way to get to a deficit.
Hmmm, I guess I missed it. That doesn't exactly seem like an opposite to me.0 -
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
0 -
Right above that was this:AlabasterVerve wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm fairly new here, but have been a bit overwhelmed with all the eat everything in modération advice that is despensed regardless of dietary issues.
Are there some studies available to read that give the eat everything/moderation plan some credibility?
Here you go OP:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790I'm fairly new here, but have been a bit overwhelmed with all the eat everything in modération advice that is despensed regardless of dietary issues.
Are there some studies available to read that give the eat everything/moderation plan some credibility?
Have there been any studies or articles posted on the credibility of eating everything in moderation?
If you have not posted verified studies and simply your own opinion or experience, then why would you be so invested someone else's opinion or experience?
I'm trying to find the basis of all the EIM advice. I would like to know what happens to many others (I.e. a study) when EIM is used or not used as a diet or nutritional strategy.
I am reposting Alyssa's post in case you missed it. These two articles might help.
lol I especially liked this bit:
"The second strongest canonical correlation (r=0.59) associated calorie counting and conscious dieting with overeating while alone and increased body mass."
"The strongest canonical correlation (r=0.65) was the relationship between flexible dieting and the absence of overeating, lower body mass and lower levels of depression and anxiety."
I found it a little odd that they separated out calorie counting from "flexible dieting" like you can't do both at the same time.
I'm basically doing flexible dieting within calorie counting.
0 -
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
0 -
Eating in moderation is the only diet strategy that works. It doesn't matter what diet plan you follow, the only way to lose weight is to moderate the amount of food you eat so that you are eating less than you burn on a daily basis.0
-
To be perfectly honest, EIM to me is a crock. At the very least, it is not for everyone. Having lost 80 pounds, I realize there are certain things I NEED to stay away from. How do I know this? Because I ate everything in moderation all the way up 15 pounds! How? Simply put, some things overweight people eat are never going to be in moderation. I love candy. Particularly Reese's cups and Mike and Ikes. I have an issue eating those and just chilling till my next healthy meal. It triggers me. I know it's a trigger. This is why I choose not to eat them. Additionally, is there a lot of nutritional value in that candy? No, there is not. So why even go there? This is simply MY opinion. I do not believe everyone is like me. But if you are like me, you may want to considerh that there are foods you should avoid.
IMO..."eating in moderation" doesn't mean that you have to eat every food that is out there known to mankind. If there is a food that you struggle with...then don't eat it. There are several foods that I used to eat that I no longer do because I just can't seem to moderate them. I did however replace them other foods that I could.
My definition of "eating in moderation" is not eliminating any food group. Also "eating in moderation" doesn't mean that you have to eat them every day/week/month. I like ice cream bars...I only eat them a couple of times a month. Love pizza...I stick to 2 slices twice a month. Reduced fat Cheezits...I have to leave on the shelf...I eat the whole box. Just because I leave them on the shelf doesn't mean that I can't center my diet around "eating in moderation".
and This ^.
The dietary point is up to the op to disclose. diabetic, hp, allergies, etc
Many advise with disclaimer... "except if you have a medical condition"..
0 -
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.0 -
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
How else would you lose weight?0 -
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
It all boils down to burning more calories than you take in for weight loss.
Doesn't matter how you get there, that depends on the person and works for them( low carb, IIFYM, high carb and so on)
Are you saying there is another way?0 -
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
CICO is what it boils down to. If you're not in a caloric deficit you won't lose weight (fat or LBM). There is no other way short of amputation0 -
No, of course not. Well, you could have liposuction, I guess, but of course you have to burn more than you take in. Everyone knows that.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
It all boils down to burning more calories than you take in for weight loss.
Doesn't matter how you get there, that depends on the person and works for them( low carb, IIFYM, high carb and so on)
Are you saying there is another way?
That's not even what the thread is about. It's about different diet strategies and whether one way of eating less than you burn is better than another.
0 -
No, of course not. Well, you could have liposuction, I guess, but of course you have to burn more than you take in. Everyone knows that.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
It all boils down to burning more calories than you take in for weight loss.
Doesn't matter how you get there, that depends on the person and works for them( low carb, IIFYM, high carb and so on)
Are you saying there is another way?
That's not even what the thread is about. It's about different diet strategies and whether one way of eating less than you burn is better than another.
Your last post seemed very skeptical of Sereh87, which is what made me question.0 -
Right above that was this:AlabasterVerve wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »I'm fairly new here, but have been a bit overwhelmed with all the eat everything in modération advice that is despensed regardless of dietary issues.
Are there some studies available to read that give the eat everything/moderation plan some credibility?
Here you go OP:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11883916
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10336790I'm fairly new here, but have been a bit overwhelmed with all the eat everything in modération advice that is despensed regardless of dietary issues.
Are there some studies available to read that give the eat everything/moderation plan some credibility?
Have there been any studies or articles posted on the credibility of eating everything in moderation?
If you have not posted verified studies and simply your own opinion or experience, then why would you be so invested someone else's opinion or experience?
I'm trying to find the basis of all the EIM advice. I would like to know what happens to many others (I.e. a study) when EIM is used or not used as a diet or nutritional strategy.
I am reposting Alyssa's post in case you missed it. These two articles might help.
lol I especially liked this bit:
"The second strongest canonical correlation (r=0.59) associated calorie counting and conscious dieting with overeating while alone and increased body mass."
"The strongest canonical correlation (r=0.65) was the relationship between flexible dieting and the absence of overeating, lower body mass and lower levels of depression and anxiety."
I found it a little odd that they separated out calorie counting from "flexible dieting" like you can't do both at the same time. I'm basically doing flexible dieting within calorie counting.
In a broader sense these associations might have value for further research but, in my opinion, it's all a bunch of tosh. People who count calories are fatter? People who don't overeat are thinner? You don't say...
This stuff might be good enough for a newspaper headline but it would be foolish to give it any credence.0 -
No, of course not. Well, you could have liposuction, I guess, but of course you have to burn more than you take in. Everyone knows that.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
It all boils down to burning more calories than you take in for weight loss.
Doesn't matter how you get there, that depends on the person and works for them( low carb, IIFYM, high carb and so on)
Are you saying there is another way?
That's not even what the thread is about. It's about different diet strategies and whether one way of eating less than you burn is better than another.
The only reason I brought it up is because you stated and quoted, "There is no One True Path to weight loss."
And that's not true.
0 -
It really is as simple as CICO, despite what the very lucrative diet industry would have you believe.
The hard part is untangling the psychology of your own personal relationship with food and how to control that by developing effective sustainable strategies in order to achieve the above long term.0 -
You mean besides gaining? Or maintaining?
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
How else would you lose weight?
I'll go with losing. And there many, many ways to do it.
0 -
There are many studies that support CICO for weight loss and not a single study that proves eating a gluten free/GMO free/low carb (or whatever the latest fad is) you will lose weight in a caloric surplus.0
-
galgenstrick wrote: »
What is the opposite of EIM? EEYS (Eat Everything You See)?
Actually, P & FIM, minimizing C
0 -
You mean besides gaining? Or maintaining?
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
How else would you lose weight?
I'll go with losing. And there many, many ways to do it.
Other than ci/co?0 -
You mean besides gaining? Or maintaining?
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
How else would you lose weight?
I'll go with losing. And there many, many ways to do it.
Nope, still one way, CI/CO. 0 -
Nobody is disputing that. The thread is/was about different approaches to weight loss.galgenstrick wrote: »
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
CICO is what it boils down to. If you're not in a caloric deficit you won't lose weight (fat or LBM). There is no other way short of amputation
0 -
Yes, there are. There are many, many different ways to lose weight.
No, of course not. Well, you could have liposuction, I guess, but of course you have to burn more than you take in. Everyone knows that.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
It all boils down to burning more calories than you take in for weight loss.
Doesn't matter how you get there, that depends on the person and works for them( low carb, IIFYM, high carb and so on)
Are you saying there is another way?
That's not even what the thread is about. It's about different diet strategies and whether one way of eating less than you burn is better than another.
The only reason I brought it up is because you stated and quoted, "There is no One True Path to weight loss."
And that's not true.
Your way is not better than anyone else's.
0 -
Yes, there are. There are many, many different ways to lose weight.
No, of course not. Well, you could have liposuction, I guess, but of course you have to burn more than you take in. Everyone knows that.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
It all boils down to burning more calories than you take in for weight loss.
Doesn't matter how you get there, that depends on the person and works for them( low carb, IIFYM, high carb and so on)
Are you saying there is another way?
That's not even what the thread is about. It's about different diet strategies and whether one way of eating less than you burn is better than another.
The only reason I brought it up is because you stated and quoted, "There is no One True Path to weight loss."
And that's not true.
Your way is not better than anyone else's.
How are there any other ways to lose weight other than CI/CO?0 -
Yes, there are. There are many, many different ways to lose weight.
No, of course not. Well, you could have liposuction, I guess, but of course you have to burn more than you take in. Everyone knows that.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
It all boils down to burning more calories than you take in for weight loss.
Doesn't matter how you get there, that depends on the person and works for them( low carb, IIFYM, high carb and so on)
Are you saying there is another way?
That's not even what the thread is about. It's about different diet strategies and whether one way of eating less than you burn is better than another.
The only reason I brought it up is because you stated and quoted, "There is no One True Path to weight loss."
And that's not true.
Nope, nope, nope. 1 way only.0 -
Thanks for you input.
Yes, there are. There are many, many different ways to lose weight.
No, of course not. Well, you could have liposuction, I guess, but of course you have to burn more than you take in. Everyone knows that.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
It all boils down to burning more calories than you take in for weight loss.
Doesn't matter how you get there, that depends on the person and works for them( low carb, IIFYM, high carb and so on)
Are you saying there is another way?
That's not even what the thread is about. It's about different diet strategies and whether one way of eating less than you burn is better than another.
The only reason I brought it up is because you stated and quoted, "There is no One True Path to weight loss."
And that's not true.
Nope, nope, nope. 1 way only.
0 -
Yes, there are. There are many, many different ways to lose weight.
No, of course not. Well, you could have liposuction, I guess, but of course you have to burn more than you take in. Everyone knows that.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
It all boils down to burning more calories than you take in for weight loss.
Doesn't matter how you get there, that depends on the person and works for them( low carb, IIFYM, high carb and so on)
Are you saying there is another way?
That's not even what the thread is about. It's about different diet strategies and whether one way of eating less than you burn is better than another.
The only reason I brought it up is because you stated and quoted, "There is no One True Path to weight loss."
And that's not true.
Your way is not better than anyone else's.
So what other ways are there to lose weight that do not involve CICO? Are you speaking about surgical means (removing body parts)?0 -
No, of course not. Well, you could have liposuction, I guess, but of course you have to burn more than you take in. Everyone knows that.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
It all boils down to burning more calories than you take in for weight loss.
Doesn't matter how you get there, that depends on the person and works for them( low carb, IIFYM, high carb and so on)
Are you saying there is another way?
That's not even what the thread is about. It's about different diet strategies and whether one way of eating less than you burn is better than another.
I'm a little confused. Can you please clarify. Before you said there isn't any other way to lose weight than ci/co and now you say there are many other ways. Please clarify. I'm confused.
Yes, there are. There are many, many different ways to lose weight.
No, of course not. Well, you could have liposuction, I guess, but of course you have to burn more than you take in. Everyone knows that.
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that "CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain" is the One True Path to weight loss?
Just do what works for you. There is no One True Path to weight loss. If it works for you, that's what you do. And if the whole rest of the world screams that it's wrong, then let them scream. Just keep losing your weight.
They can't lose your weight. Only you can lose your weight.
Yes there is: CI/CO = weight loss/maintaining/weight gain (medical issues might make it little harder, but it's still CI/CO)
Wouldn't want to misquote.
It all boils down to burning more calories than you take in for weight loss.
Doesn't matter how you get there, that depends on the person and works for them( low carb, IIFYM, high carb and so on)
Are you saying there is another way?
That's not even what the thread is about. It's about different diet strategies and whether one way of eating less than you burn is better than another.
The only reason I brought it up is because you stated and quoted, "There is no One True Path to weight loss."
And that's not true.
Your way is not better than anyone else's.
0 -
Perhaps they meant there are many many ways to reach a deficit?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