Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
I Don't Believe in Calorie Counting
Replies
-
OP, and you're here because...?3
-
WiseBlueRaven wrote: »calorie counting vs. food understanding
¿Por qué no los dos?
Well, those years of French didn't help me here, but according to Google, the translation reads, "Why not both?"
Yes, why not?1 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »WiseBlueRaven wrote: »calorie counting vs. food understanding
¿Por qué no los dos?
Well, those years of French didn't help me here, but according to Google, the translation reads, "Why not both?"
Yes, why not?
I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but you are the one who titled the thread, "I don't believe in calorie counting". Shouldn't you explain why we have to choose one approach instead of using both together?
ETA: if you don't want to count, that's fine; but nothing in your article convinces me that it's harmful and no one should count.2 -
OP, and you're here because...?
Because "here" is called, "MyFitnessPal." You do realize it is not called "MyCalorieCountingPal" right?
And also you do realize that "here" is owned by UnderArmor and is not a Calorie counting co-op. You do know this, yes? Comments like this make me worry that people don't know this.2 -
WiseBlueRaven wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »WiseBlueRaven wrote: »calorie counting vs. food understanding
¿Por qué no los dos?
Well, those years of French didn't help me here, but according to Google, the translation reads, "Why not both?"
Yes, why not?
I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but you are the one who titled the thread, "I don't believe in calorie counting". Shouldn't you explain why we have to choose one approach instead of using both together?
ETA: if you don't want to count, that's fine; but nothing in your article convinces me that it's harmful and no one should count.
Actually, the thread title is that of the article. Also, do recall that this is the debate forum.
Also, the spanish language poster asked why not both. And given that this *is* the debate forum...0 -
The main reason people use this site is to track CICO. You have to see why this thread is a bad idea? No? Carry on.6
-
"Shouldn't you explain why we have to choose one approach instead of using both together?"
You don't have to choose one or the other. You don't have to choose, either. Free will is a beautiful thing.1 -
The main reason people use this site is to track CICO. You have to see why this thread is a bad idea? No? Carry on.
Well, given that this is the debate forum, no, I don't see why this thread is bad idea. Calorie counting enthusiasts should continue to count. No one should be threatened by a topic that presents an alternative viewpoint. Accept it, reject it. What else is there?1 -
I don't go to the extent of weighting everything, but I would not be where I was, if I did not track my calories.4
-
PiperGirl08 wrote: »WiseBlueRaven wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »WiseBlueRaven wrote: »calorie counting vs. food understanding
¿Por qué no los dos?
Well, those years of French didn't help me here, but according to Google, the translation reads, "Why not both?"
Yes, why not?
I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, but you are the one who titled the thread, "I don't believe in calorie counting". Shouldn't you explain why we have to choose one approach instead of using both together?
ETA: if you don't want to count, that's fine; but nothing in your article convinces me that it's harmful and no one should count.
Actually, the thread title is that of the article. Also, do recall that this is the debate forum.
Also, the spanish language poster asked why not both. And given that this *is* the debate forum...
I am the one who posted in Spanish. I meant to lighten the mood and I'm sorry if I came across poorly. I did read the article. You asked for thoughts, and mine is that counting calories and being aware of what you are eating and why are not mutually exclusive. Not that anyone is obliged to use both techniques, of course. And I know this is the debate section; that's why I'm debating the idea that it has to be calorie counting vs. food understanding, as you stated. I don't believe we must choose one over the other.6 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »"Shouldn't you explain why we have to choose one approach instead of using both together?"
You don't have to choose one or the other. You don't have to choose, either. Free will is a beautiful thing.
I just now see your reply and that we're on the same page. So what was the debate again?3 -
I think the reason most of us need to count is because we did not develop healthy habits as children. We grew up with parents who had no idea about good nutrition and told us to eat everything on our plates, etc. Now, if we try to eat by eyeballing or until we are content, we over eat. It's something we grew up with, so it becomes habit when we are not tracking.
Sorry if I sound like I am speaking for everyone. It's my opinion on why there is a struggle with obesity in this world. Ignorance.3 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Tracey "no woman should lift more than 3lb ever" Anderson?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyvbm6qpQw4
Why is she still even a thing?
I don't know her. Which one is she -- the lithe blonde, the tall, thinner woman behind or the chunky one with the ponytail near the door?
She's the one who isn't Gwyneth Paltrow or the lady with the ponytail...
Ha ha, not sure which one is Paltrow, either, but neither of these closer women is hideous.
You do realize that someone can be "hideous" in attitude, not just physical attribute?
This is true, though I'm not sure that taking an approach besides counting calories qualifies someone as hideous.
No, it's the fact she's selling her philosophy and says so many very bad things that make her hideous.
Bad things like what? That calories counting isn't necessary, but rather food understanding is? Oh, the horror.
Yeah, the horror. I understand that eating more nutritious food is better for me. Eating 3000 calories of it is not.
Someone could lose weight eating deep fried twinkies every day if they kept in deficit. That is scientifically proven. What is not scientifically proven? That understanding deep fried twinkies on an emotional and spiritual level will cause you to lose weight.8 -
So, we have these options, eat boring foods, get on an elimination diet, or count calories. I prefer the latter.
6 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Don't see what this approach has to do with whether you calorie count or not.
Why does calorie counting prevent a person from reflecting on why they want to overeat? I'd think keeping that kind of food diary would be helpful for just that. I'd think logging in advance of eating would help with emotional eating. It gives you one more chance to distance yourself from the emotion before digging in, at least.
I can tell you that if I cut out all the times I ate for reasons other than 'I'm hungry' I would probably still gain weight. Why? Because if I'm not aware, I'm reaching for higher calorie items than I should be. I'm eating more of lower calorie items than I should be. And I'm doing it because I have a sedentary job and very little margin for error.
Exercise helps with that, but if I don't track it, I'll more than compensate for my activity.
All that being said, obviously people are also successful without calorie counting. I just don't see where others' success without counting invalidates the success of everyone who did count.
Thank you for the well-thought out reply. I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real.
Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated.
Personally, apart from holidays and special occasions, I simply don't have "bad" food in the house. Only whole foods -- no chips, no crackers, no cakes, no pies, no cookies, no packaged meals. What I eat is filling and satisfying and I have to work hard to exceed my caloric range. To the degree that I log in MFP, is to get a look at the nutritional makeup of what I consume (Iron, Protein, Cholestrol and Potassium). Consequently, I don't need to count calories, and I've don't have and have never had a weight problem.
Calorie counting does work for those who need it. But at the end of the day, we'd probably see fewer problems with weight gain afterwards if people learned how to eat to live, rather than lived to eat, which is what get folks in the position of needing to count calories in the first place.
Personally, I strive to not 'live to eat'' or '"eat to live", but to have a healthy balance between the two. I believe food is for fuel and enjoyment, and I would be miserable not enjoying the so called bad foods that I love.
13 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »The main reason people use this site is to track CICO. You have to see why this thread is a bad idea? No? Carry on.
Well, given that this is the debate forum, no, I don't see why this thread is bad idea. Calorie counting enthusiasts should continue to count. No one should be threatened by a topic that presents an alternative viewpoint. Accept it, reject it. What else is there?
Kind of an intellectually "lite" article for the debate section. It probably belongs more in Chit Chat. Although good to know we can find her food products at Target.2 -
WiseBlueRaven wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »"Shouldn't you explain why we have to choose one approach instead of using both together?"
You don't have to choose one or the other. You don't have to choose, either. Free will is a beautiful thing.
I just now see your reply and that we're on the same page. So what was the debate again?
Ha ha, I'm not sure I remember anymore... :-)1 -
I think the reason most of us need to count is because we did not develop healthy habits as children. We grew up with parents who had no idea about good nutrition and told us to eat everything on our plates, etc. Now, if we try to eat by eyeballing or until we are content, we over eat. It's something we grew up with, so it becomes habit when we are not tracking.
Sorry if I sound like I am speaking for everyone. It's my opinion on why there is a struggle with obesity in this world. Ignorance.
I read that the average American woman used to consume 1600 calories a day in 1960 and now consumes 1900. I wonder if that's not because we are more comfortable then we were coming out of the war years. The American standard of living has increased considerable since that time, so there is more food on the plate to force kids to consume. Just thinking as I type.1 -
MissusMoon wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Tracey "no woman should lift more than 3lb ever" Anderson?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyvbm6qpQw4
Why is she still even a thing?
I don't know her. Which one is she -- the lithe blonde, the tall, thinner woman behind or the chunky one with the ponytail near the door?
She's the one who isn't Gwyneth Paltrow or the lady with the ponytail...
Ha ha, not sure which one is Paltrow, either, but neither of these closer women is hideous.
You do realize that someone can be "hideous" in attitude, not just physical attribute?
This is true, though I'm not sure that taking an approach besides counting calories qualifies someone as hideous.
No, it's the fact she's selling her philosophy and says so many very bad things that make her hideous.
Bad things like what? That calories counting isn't necessary, but rather food understanding is? Oh, the horror.
Yeah, the horror. I understand that eating more nutritious food is better for me. Eating 3000 calories of it is not.
Someone could lose weight eating deep fried twinkies every day if they kept in deficit. That is scientifically proven. What is not scientifically proven? That understanding deep fried twinkies on an emotional and spiritual level will cause you to lose weight.
Of course the real underlying question is what would lead anyone who hasn't burned 3000 calories in a day to feel the need to consume that many or how having that much food in one's stomach could even be comfortable, regularly. But if counting helps, count away. But attacking people who don't count, also a problem.1 -
I've been trying to understand your position and even went back and reread all your posts here to see if I'd missed something. And I did-- you stated early on that "I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real. Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated." I am totally on board with this and see better where you are coming from. I don't know the author of the article but if the other posters are right about her I'd be careful about taking all of her advice--but I can see this viewpoint of yours.
*tips hat to @PiperGirl08*2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »"People need to have the courage and the determination to understand food and to really reflect on their past relationships with food. It’s more about the awareness of the kinds of food people are eating, the amounts they’re eating...
If your goal is to understand the amount you're eating, how can you possibly be AGAINST calorie counting?
And does it really take "courage" and "determination" to avoid logging your choices? I'd think it takes more courage to be accountable, but that's just me.
Well, two things here:
1) this is quote from the article, not my statement; and
2) my personal goal is not to understand the amount I'm eating, but rather "what" I am eating and how it impacts my nutritional goals.
Also, I don't think it takes courage to log foods. Just a computer and a decision to do so.0 -
hello just showed up here, in my younger days I used to lift a lot of weights, and never bulked up, I firmed up really well but never bulk up. This whoever she is Anderson is a total Fraud, I am now 54 years old, I have about 30 lbs to lose, and I do 60 t0 90 mins of cycling everyday, and my butt and legs are getting smaller, this person is a total idiot where did she get her nutrition style0
-
WiseBlueRaven wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Don't see what this approach has to do with whether you calorie count or not.
Why does calorie counting prevent a person from reflecting on why they want to overeat? I'd think keeping that kind of food diary would be helpful for just that. I'd think logging in advance of eating would help with emotional eating. It gives you one more chance to distance yourself from the emotion before digging in, at least.
I can tell you that if I cut out all the times I ate for reasons other than 'I'm hungry' I would probably still gain weight. Why? Because if I'm not aware, I'm reaching for higher calorie items than I should be. I'm eating more of lower calorie items than I should be. And I'm doing it because I have a sedentary job and very little margin for error.
Exercise helps with that, but if I don't track it, I'll more than compensate for my activity.
All that being said, obviously people are also successful without calorie counting. I just don't see where others' success without counting invalidates the success of everyone who did count.
Thank you for the well-thought out reply. I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real.
Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated.
Personally, apart from holidays and special occasions, I simply don't have "bad" food in the house. Only whole foods -- no chips, no crackers, no cakes, no pies, no cookies, no packaged meals. What I eat is filling and satisfying and I have to work hard to exceed my caloric range. To the degree that I log in MFP, is to get a look at the nutritional makeup of what I consume (Iron, Protein, Cholestrol and Potassium). Consequently, I don't need to count calories, and I've don't have and have never had a weight problem.
Calorie counting does work for those who need it. But at the end of the day, we'd probably see fewer problems with weight gain afterwards if people learned how to eat to live, rather than lived to eat, which is what get folks in the position of needing to count calories in the first place.
Seriously, she talks about a bad relationship with food and you just talked about "bad" foods you don't keep in your house. If you were that aware of your food habits, and talk to yourself regularly, then you'd be able to have that "bad" food in your house and eat it in moderation when you'd like to. I have chips in my house but I don't always have them. I count my calories and look at my nutrition for that day and sometimes I've met everything with leftover calories, and I'd like some ice cream or chips. I think that's a healthy relationship with food and I got this way by counting calories. Before I started I really didn't have an idea of what my macros should be or even if I was meeting them. It made me more aware of the nutritional value of different foods so I could even think of better choices.
I don't want to eat bad foods in moderation. I don't want to eat them at all. They are "bad" after all. They cause heart disease and a whole host of health issues, not the least of which is undesirable fat. Choosing my well-being over some sort of tasty, but detrimental delight, is the only healthy choice. Not being able to say no to a potato chip? Now that's the stuff of Biggest Loser contenders. Oh, and keep in mind that only one of us needs a web site for weight control. Just sayin'.
I've been trying to understand your position and even went back and reread all your posts here to see if I'd missed something. And I did-- you stated early on that "I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real. Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated." I am totally on board with this and see better where you are coming from. I don't know the author of the article but if the other posters are right about her I'd be careful about taking all of her advice--but I can see this viewpoint of yours.
However, I have to say in defense of Bronty that the bolded section above is a low blow. With all respect, maybe you could edit your post while you can?
Yeah, I know it was a low blow -- didn't appreciate his/her personal reference directed my way.0 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Tracey "no woman should lift more than 3lb ever" Anderson?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyvbm6qpQw4
Why is she still even a thing?
I don't know her. Which one is she -- the lithe blonde, the tall, thinner woman behind or the chunky one with the ponytail near the door?
She's the one who isn't Gwyneth Paltrow or the lady with the ponytail...
Ha ha, not sure which one is Paltrow, either, but neither of these closer women is hideous.
You do realize that someone can be "hideous" in attitude, not just physical attribute?
This is true, though I'm not sure that taking an approach besides counting calories qualifies someone as hideous.
No, it's the fact she's selling her philosophy and says so many very bad things that make her hideous.
Bad things like what? That calories counting isn't necessary, but rather food understanding is? Oh, the horror.
Yeah, the horror. I understand that eating more nutritious food is better for me. Eating 3000 calories of it is not.
Someone could lose weight eating deep fried twinkies every day if they kept in deficit. That is scientifically proven. What is not scientifically proven? That understanding deep fried twinkies on an emotional and spiritual level will cause you to lose weight.
Of course the real underlying question is what would lead anyone who hasn't burned 3000 calories in a day to feel the need to consume that many or how having that much food in one's stomach could even be comfortable, regularly. But if counting helps, count away. But attacking people who don't count, also a problem.
3k would be on the low end for me. my current average is 3.7k and I am losing. It's really easy for me to eat that much, lol!1 -
DanyellMcGinnis wrote: »I pretty much don't believe anything Tracy Anderson says, ever. Among some of the gems:
- women shouldn't lift weights over 3 pounds because they'll get bulky
- running and biking will make women develop bulky man-looking rear ends
- only work small muscle groups (no, really, she says this)
Also she has lied about her qualifications (said she studied at Juilliard but they have no record of her enrollment, taught Pilates without any certification), etc., etc. Recommends diets that are unsafe because they are below 1000 calories (I realize that some people go that low with medical supervision but she is NOT a doctor). Has been sued as a result of some shady stuff she did running a fitness center in Indiana.
Considering the source, I can't get behind anything she says, ever. (Also, MFP and counting calories are working for me.)
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/09/tracy-anderson-and-the-myth-behind-celebrity-trainers-and-diets/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/10/21/madonnas-trainer-fights-back.html
https://loseweightnobullshit.wordpress.com/2013/01/12/tracy-andersons-methods-are-dangerous-damaging-and-anti-feminist/
This2 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »by Tracey Anderson,
http://motto.time.com/4315473/tracy-anderson-calorie-counting/?xid=newsletter-brief
"People need to have the courage and the determination to understand food and to really reflect on their past relationships with food. It’s more about the awareness of the kinds of food people are eating, the amounts they’re eating...so much of our hunger is not even rooted in a real biological need to eat; a lot of it is rooted in emotion.
"I think it’s just about having an ongoing dialogue with yourself where you try as often as possible to say, “How can I show up for myself and my body today through my food choices?”"
I agree. Thoughts?
The bolded is the kind of touchy feely mumbo jumbo that makes me throw up in my mouth.
Actually, I ask myself with everything I eat whether it will help or harm me. Most athletes do the same. As do people who don't wind up on message boards having to count calories and needing to be encouraged to do the same, I would imagine.
It really is all about one's relationship with food. Why we eat and how much control we have over what we consume.
Oh, trust me, I eat deliberately. I get that. I make decisions about food based on my goals and dietary needs and have an excellent relationship with food (we finish each other's sandwiches).
It's the hokey, touchy feely way of saying "how can I show up for my body today" that makes me queasy.4 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »WiseBlueRaven wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Don't see what this approach has to do with whether you calorie count or not.
Why does calorie counting prevent a person from reflecting on why they want to overeat? I'd think keeping that kind of food diary would be helpful for just that. I'd think logging in advance of eating would help with emotional eating. It gives you one more chance to distance yourself from the emotion before digging in, at least.
I can tell you that if I cut out all the times I ate for reasons other than 'I'm hungry' I would probably still gain weight. Why? Because if I'm not aware, I'm reaching for higher calorie items than I should be. I'm eating more of lower calorie items than I should be. And I'm doing it because I have a sedentary job and very little margin for error.
Exercise helps with that, but if I don't track it, I'll more than compensate for my activity.
All that being said, obviously people are also successful without calorie counting. I just don't see where others' success without counting invalidates the success of everyone who did count.
Thank you for the well-thought out reply. I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real.
Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated.
Personally, apart from holidays and special occasions, I simply don't have "bad" food in the house. Only whole foods -- no chips, no crackers, no cakes, no pies, no cookies, no packaged meals. What I eat is filling and satisfying and I have to work hard to exceed my caloric range. To the degree that I log in MFP, is to get a look at the nutritional makeup of what I consume (Iron, Protein, Cholestrol and Potassium). Consequently, I don't need to count calories, and I've don't have and have never had a weight problem.
Calorie counting does work for those who need it. But at the end of the day, we'd probably see fewer problems with weight gain afterwards if people learned how to eat to live, rather than lived to eat, which is what get folks in the position of needing to count calories in the first place.
Seriously, she talks about a bad relationship with food and you just talked about "bad" foods you don't keep in your house. If you were that aware of your food habits, and talk to yourself regularly, then you'd be able to have that "bad" food in your house and eat it in moderation when you'd like to. I have chips in my house but I don't always have them. I count my calories and look at my nutrition for that day and sometimes I've met everything with leftover calories, and I'd like some ice cream or chips. I think that's a healthy relationship with food and I got this way by counting calories. Before I started I really didn't have an idea of what my macros should be or even if I was meeting them. It made me more aware of the nutritional value of different foods so I could even think of better choices.
I don't want to eat bad foods in moderation. I don't want to eat them at all. They are "bad" after all. They cause heart disease and a whole host of health issues, not the least of which is undesirable fat. Choosing my well-being over some sort of tasty, but detrimental delight, is the only healthy choice. Not being able to say no to a potato chip? Now that's the stuff of Biggest Loser contenders. Oh, and keep in mind that only one of us needs a web site for weight control. Just sayin'.
I've been trying to understand your position and even went back and reread all your posts here to see if I'd missed something. And I did-- you stated early on that "I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real. Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated." I am totally on board with this and see better where you are coming from. I don't know the author of the article but if the other posters are right about her I'd be careful about taking all of her advice--but I can see this viewpoint of yours.
However, I have to say in defense of Bronty that the bolded section above is a low blow. With all respect, maybe you could edit your post while you can?
Yeah, I know it was a low blow -- didn't appreciate his/her personal reference directed my way.
I edited my post too. Went back and looked, I wouldn't have appreciated that reference either.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »by Tracey Anderson,
http://motto.time.com/4315473/tracy-anderson-calorie-counting/?xid=newsletter-brief
"People need to have the courage and the determination to understand food and to really reflect on their past relationships with food. It’s more about the awareness of the kinds of food people are eating, the amounts they’re eating...so much of our hunger is not even rooted in a real biological need to eat; a lot of it is rooted in emotion.
"I think it’s just about having an ongoing dialogue with yourself where you try as often as possible to say, “How can I show up for myself and my body today through my food choices?”"
I agree. Thoughts?
The bolded is the kind of touchy feely mumbo jumbo that makes me throw up in my mouth.
I don't even know what that sentence is supposed to mean.
I think it means that if you have an out of body experience, you should try to be back in time for supper.7 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »"People need to have the courage and the determination to understand food and to really reflect on their past relationships with food. It’s more about the awareness of the kinds of food people are eating, the amounts they’re eating...
If your goal is to understand the amount you're eating, how can you possibly be AGAINST calorie counting?
And does it really take "courage" and "determination" to avoid logging your choices? I'd think it takes more courage to be accountable, but that's just me.
Well, two things here:
1) this is quote from the article, not my statement; and
2) my personal goal is not to understand the amount I'm eating, but rather "what" I am eating and how it impacts my nutritional goals.
Also, I don't think it takes courage to log foods. Just a computer and a decision to do so.
It's kind of tough to know how the "what" you're eating affects your nutritional goals if you don't know the "how much" you're eating.6 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Tracey "no woman should lift more than 3lb ever" Anderson?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vyvbm6qpQw4
Why is she still even a thing?
I don't know her. Which one is she -- the lithe blonde, the tall, thinner woman behind or the chunky one with the ponytail near the door?
She's the one who isn't Gwyneth Paltrow or the lady with the ponytail...
Ha ha, not sure which one is Paltrow, either, but neither of these closer women is hideous.
You do realize that someone can be "hideous" in attitude, not just physical attribute?
This is true, though I'm not sure that taking an approach besides counting calories qualifies someone as hideous.
No, it's the fact she's selling her philosophy and says so many very bad things that make her hideous.
Bad things like what? That calories counting isn't necessary, but rather food understanding is? Oh, the horror.
Yeah, the horror. I understand that eating more nutritious food is better for me. Eating 3000 calories of it is not.
Someone could lose weight eating deep fried twinkies every day if they kept in deficit. That is scientifically proven. What is not scientifically proven? That understanding deep fried twinkies on an emotional and spiritual level will cause you to lose weight.
Of course the real underlying question is what would lead anyone who hasn't burned 3000 calories in a day to feel the need to consume that many or how having that much food in one's stomach could even be comfortable, regularly. But if counting helps, count away. But attacking people who don't count, also a problem.
3k would be on the low end for me. my current average is 3.7k and I am losing. It's really easy for me to eat that much, lol!
I could eat crazy amounts like that back in the days when I was a competitive athlete. But no more <sigh>.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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