Eat everything in Moderation as dietary advice?
Options
Replies
-
Wait, are you suggesting that someone can lose weight by eating more than they burn?
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)?
Explain yourself, please. That is just not so.
0 -
Wait, are you suggesting that someone can lose weight by eating more than they burn?
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)?
Explain yourself, please. That is just not so.
Where did she say that??
Explain yourself.0 -
You can only really say what works for you. Well, some of you may be personal trainers and directly helped others... but the majority have only their own successes and failures. I find it interesting that noone wants to hear another's truth about themself without being argumentative. Hey, I've lost 50lbs since feb. Maybe my approach is best... maybe not. I read Atkins. I am just learning the CICO and move more approaches. Noone wants to give credit for their viewpoints on here. The majority answer is THE only answer. It seems like safety in numbers is the way to go. I think I'll let y'all have the community boards. I hate learning in a hostile environment. OP do what You and YOUR doctor thinks best.
I appreciate hearing other's experiences. I also like reading the studies. Each viewpoint has strengths & weaknesses, and the best understanding is usually somewhere in there between a bunch of not very clear information.
0 -
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/10336790
Thank you! Those are very interesting and explain a couple more things!
0 -
honkytonks85 wrote: »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.
Don't debate CI/CO here please.
0 -
honkytonks85 wrote: »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.
Don't debate CI/CO here please.
There is no debate ... weight loss comes down to CI/CO. If a person chooses to simply moderate their intake or go on some highly restrictive path is up to them but there is no need to take the latter.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »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.
Don't debate CI/CO here please.
There is no debate ... weight loss comes down to CI/CO. If a person chooses to simply moderate their intake or go on some highly restrictive path is up to them but there is no need to take the latter.
I like you...just thought I'd mention it0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »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.
Don't debate CI/CO here please.
There is no debate ... weight loss comes down to CI/CO. If a person chooses to simply moderate their intake or go on some highly restrictive path is up to them but there is no need to take the latter.
This. Because science. I trust science more than someone peddling a "lifestyle" that will get you "fast results", just give me your money for a book/club/calorie eating unicorn and I'll tell you.
0 -
I admit to being a bit confused by the purpose of this thread.
The main point when it comes to weight management both in the losing and maintaining phases is that of compliance.
Compliance is an individual construct.
Someone could find statistics and studies from here to the nearest Jenny Craig franchise on all sorts of methods, but if, at the end of the day, any way of eating AND GROUP OF HABITS WHICH SUSTAINS IT (and the energy balance that makes it manage your weight) is not sustainable for any given individual.
There are myriad issues involved in weight problems. The bottom line is that every individual involved in a weight loss effort needs to address ALL of them if they hope to have any chance of success.
Perhaps some of the people who have found moderation to be key HAVE addressed some of those issues in so doing.
And perhaps some of those restricting in some way or another also have.
Or maybe not.
Time, and ongoing success or failure will tell.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I admit to being a bit confused by the purpose of this thread.
The main point when it comes to weight management both in the losing and maintaining phases is that of compliance.
Compliance is an individual construct.
Someone could find statistics and studies from here to the nearest Jenny Craig franchise on all sorts of methods, but if, at the end of the day, any way of eating AND GROUP OF HABITS WHICH SUSTAINS IT (and the energy balance that makes it manage your weight) is not sustainable for any given individual.
There are myriad issues involved in weight problems. The bottom line is that every individual involved in a weight loss effort needs to address ALL of them if they hope to have any chance of success.
Perhaps some of the people who have found moderation to be key HAVE addressed some of those issues in so doing.
And perhaps some of those restricting in some way or another also have.
Or maybe not.
Time, and ongoing success or failure will tell.
Sounds like a great summary!
0 -
When I revolutionised my diet, I was not overweight. I would even go so far as calling myself "slim".
However, I recognised that my increased eating (mainly high calorie takeaway caused by being lazy at the office) and decreased exercise was very slowly causing me to gain weight.
I protested against my partner's encouragement to join him in his eating plan.
I would tell him, oh I could never do that, I love pizza/chips/lollies etc. too much and would go crazy on just brown rice, broccoli and chicken!
But one day, I was helping with meal prep and decided I'd give it a go.
For two weeks I cut the "bad foods" out, to prove to myself that yes, I could survive without them. I learnt how to say no to cravings and learnt that hey, 99% of the time I actually wasn't hungry and often didn't even WANT the food being offered at work. The foods I was eating satisfied my hunger and I was doing well.
After the two weeks, I was aware of counting calories and how to manage my daily intake. I started to eat back some exercise calories and include the "bad foods" back in. And boy, did it give me back some sanity. If I had a calorie gap and had eaten all my meals for the day, I would portion out some lollies and eat them while watching a movie before bed. I could go out for dinner to celebrate a birthday and be happy with what I ordered.
Today, I am happy, healthier, lighter and have a ton more energy.
The point of my story? (TL;DR)
You can totally cut out all the "bad foods" if that's what you want to do. Especially, if you are still struggling with portion control and will eat the whole bag of chips instead of what will fit into your day.
But.
Once you can say no to cravings, once you can evaluate your food for the day and learn how to work foods in (Aka not sacrifice dinner for a bowl of ice cream and then be starving later) why wouldn't you want to incorporate whatever you like to eat?
One thing I've noticed is that the "eat only X,Y,Z" or the "avoid A,B,C" diets is that people go on them for two weeks then give up and go back to what they were eating before. They didn't make changes that they could do for the rest of their life. I think "eating in moderation" is the best advice (although it is simplified) as it changes the mindset of dieting being a short term chore to drop 20kg to a sustainable, long term change to what you eat to maintain a happy (and sexy) body.
Never eat pizza again? *kitten* you diet, I'd rather be 200kg and be happy with my pizza over never being able to have pizza again. Incorporate pizza into my life AND loose weight? *kitten* yes please.
0 -
lol if you think he's flame bating why do you all return here + post answers identical to every one elses. YOU GUYS LOVE IT -2
-
Wait, are you suggesting that someone can lose weight by eating more than they burn?
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)?
Explain yourself, please. That is just not so.
I thought that was what YOU were saying.
I followed the latter part of this thread because I thought you were going to tell us (this thread's participants) some other way.0 -
How could you think that when I specifically stated otherwise? No way, Jose!strong_curves wrote: »
Wait, are you suggesting that someone can lose weight by eating more than they burn?
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)?
Explain yourself, please. That is just not so.
I thought that was what YOU were saying.
I followed the latter part of this thread because I thought you were going to tell us (this thread's participants) some other way.
If you re-read it, I'm sure you'll see that.
0 -
Health concerns versus health conditions: A health condition may mean not being able to eat a specific food, such as gluten for someone with celiac disease, high sugar foods for someone with UNCONTROLLED diabetes where it is so bad those foods will make it worse, salt for someone with blood pressure or congestive heart problems, and lactose for the severely lactose intolerant. Health concerns is eating for health to avoid developing problems. I do not have to eliminate sugary foods but due to a concern to avoid diabetes that runs in my family I choose to eat most of my carbs as whole grain foods and I limit those. But I also know my areas where I can not control myself. I will easily find myself eating a whole large bag of doritos so I do not let them in the house. Plus with early stage renal disease I need to limit my salt. I don't think it is right to automatically assume the worst for someone with a genuine question....some people lack information. And I have had trolls jump all over me on stuff. When I first started with my fitness pal and put out my definite situation I was depressed and really unmotivated, and many of the replies I got were nasty enough to make me want to quit the site, but some folks were wonderful and supportive. Some people will have to eliminate some foods be it because they do not have the self control around those or "health issues". But the best in those cases is to work with a nutritionist or other professional if you can afford it.0
-
You can eat anything you like and lose weight as long as you keep calories in check, but being healthy long term eating that way is another story. I think what you eat matters, not just how much. Some others on this site disagree quite energetically (I hope they at least burn some calories for as worked up as they sometimes get!!!). But I'll stick with science and common sense instead of mfp group think. To me, healthy trumps anything.0
-
This. I don't even understand the point of asking for studies to show if moderation works. It would be like asking for studies about quitting smoking to prove that cold turkey works or that slowly weaning off of them works. People succeed both (and other) ways... a study isn't gong to tell you which one is best for you, and you don't really need a "study" to provide credibility toward a phenomenon that's already easily observable in everyday reality.galgenstrick 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?
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?
The credibility of energy balance is what matters. How you get there with your diet doesn't matter. You can do keto, Atkins, paleo, low fat, low carb, Twinkie diet, or eating in moderation. All of those will result in weight loss if the person is in a caloric deficit. The only diet which is better than the rest is the one that is sustainable and meets all your nutritional needs, for most, that's flexible dieting or eating in moderation.0 -
Dear Posters,
I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread.
The forum guidelines include this item:2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic within a forum topic. Off-topic or derogatory remarks are disrespectful. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting.This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
In many cases we are able to edit out the posts that violate this guideline, but unfortunately this particular thread has become too volatile to moderate efficiently.
If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.
With respect,
Adam, MyFitnessPal Moderator0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions