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
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Actually, setting nutritional goals sets you up to align your food consumption to meet those goals, not the other way around.0 -
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.
Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect.
There was an editorial a few months ago that went viral. The mother was arguing that she could be a better mother by going for ice cream with her son than by being diet conscious all the time. I wonder, though, if she put to her son the choice of having ice cream with his mom or having her around for longer, which he'd choose. I bet it would bet the latter.
Sounds like an exaggeration? Heart disease kills more people than the various forms of Cancer. And the diet-related risks are extensive. It really isn't just about the calories.0 -
WiseBlueRaven wrote: »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.
Thank you for editing :-)1 -
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.
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.
Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect.
There was an editorial a few months ago that went viral. The mother was arguing that she could be a better mother by going for ice cream with her son than by being diet conscious all the time. I wonder, though, if she put to her son the choice of having ice cream with his mom or having her around for longer, which he'd choose. I bet it would bet the latter.
Sounds like an exaggeration? Heart disease kills more people than the various forms of Cancer. And the diet-related risks are extensive. It really isn't just about the calories.
Are you really saying that having ice cream occasionally is going to shorter your lifespan?12 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Actually, setting nutritional goals sets you up to align your food consumption to meet those goals, not the other way around.
And the measurement for whether or not those goals have been met or what holes remain is...what?
ETA: for instance, my nutritional goals are to eat 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight and .4 grams of fat per pound of lean body mass while staying under 2,200 calories.
Any tips for how I can know whether or not I'm meeting those goals without tracking intake?5 -
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.
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.
Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect.
There was an editorial a few months ago that went viral. The mother was arguing that she could be a better mother by going for ice cream with her son than by being diet conscious all the time. I wonder, though, if she put to her son the choice of having ice cream with his mom or having her around for longer, which he'd choose. I bet it would bet the latter.
Sounds like an exaggeration? Heart disease kills more people than the various forms of Cancer. And the diet-related risks are extensive. It really isn't just about the calories.
Are you really saying that having ice cream occasionally is going to shorter your lifespan?
It makes you wonder what you would really do for a Klondike Bar...9 -
"Are you really saying that having ice cream occasionally is going to shorter your lifespan?"
If truly occasionally, then probably not -- unless one has other health issues. But going back to the over weight/obesity statistics in this country, too often, indulgences like ice cream are not all that occasional. I speak to no particular situation.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Actually, setting nutritional goals sets you up to align your food consumption to meet those goals, not the other way around.
And the measurement for whether or not those goals have been met or what holes remain is...what?
Not sure I understand the question. I've already stated that I use MFP to see where I am relative to my nutritional goals and I've described which particular metrics I track.0 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »"Are you really saying that having ice cream occasionally is going to shorter your lifespan?"
If truly occasionally, then probably not -- unless one has other health issues. But going back to the over weight/obesity statistics in this country, too often, indulgences like ice cream are not all that occasional. I speak to no particular situation.
Because I calorie count, my ice cream consumption need not be occasional.
The problem is obesity, not ice cream.20 -
I don't have a relationship with food. Food does not bring me flowers, or take long walks with me. It does not listen to my bad days.
I eat food. I cook food. I grow food. But I don't have a "relationship" with it.29 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »"Are you really saying that having ice cream occasionally is going to shorter your lifespan?"
If truly occasionally, then probably not -- unless one has other health issues. But going back to the over weight/obesity statistics in this country, too often, indulgences like ice cream are not all that occasional. I speak to no particular situation.
Because I calorie count, my ice cream consumption need not be occasional.
The problem is obesity, not ice cream.
Exactly. The problem is over-consumption of everything.10 -
Which is why CALORIE COUNTING is important. People are obese for one main reason: over consumption. While people may know they eat too much, they have NO IDEA on how many calories they should consume and no way of really knowing if they are past they limit unless they count them.PiperGirl08 wrote: »"Are you really saying that having ice cream occasionally is going to shorter your lifespan?"
If truly occasionally, then probably not -- unless one has other health issues. But going back to the over weight/obesity statistics in this country, too often, indulgences like ice cream are not all that occasional. I speak to no particular situation.
Since I professionally deal with many people from different walks of life and work and health issues, I can emphatically say that just telling people to eat just nutrient dense food isn't going to solve their weight issues. Like all diets, it may work in the short term, but the majority of people who do diets regain because they don't have the desire to eat that way the rest of their life. But counting calories can allow them to lose weight and still leave room to consume foods they ENJOY.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
22 -
I think calorie counting is far better, you can control your weightloss to 1-2lbs and maintain muscle mass, far better then something like slimmingworld where you'll yo yo diet and lose 4lbs one week and gain a few the next...3
-
I didn't calorie count the first time I got into shape. I just ate whole foods 90% of the time and had a couple cheat meals a week. I was also working out and hour to an hour and a half six days a week though.1
-
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?
My own little n1-I don't have a deep dark past with food, nor do I have some sort of angsty relationship with it. I gained the extra weight after having 3 pregnancies close together (my kids are 7, 9 and 11), and not being mindful of portion sizes or what my calorie intake was. I've lost said extra weight one time and have now been maintaining the loss for several years.
I know there's others who have different histories, but for me it was just a matter of learning how many calories my body needed for my goals, and then implementing the correct deficit. Once I figured out the math, the rest has been pretty straightforward.7 -
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?
I disagree.
I think calorie counting makes it easier to eat what I like and make better food choices to nourish my body. Before calorie counting I was not eating enough protein or as many vegetables. I felt I was not eating a lot of food and felt very frustrated often that I was not losing weight. I was not an emotional eater. I was not a good judge of portion sizes appropriate for my size and activity level.
I do not attatch emotion to calorie counting. I am not obsessed, depressed or devastated over my calorie goal. I don't punish myself. I do examine my eating or activity. It is honest math and science. I don't know how you can understand your food if you avoid looking at the facts.
Some people can certainly lose or maintain weight and be healthy without calorie counting. A lot of us can't get there though without some tools and I feel it is pretty terrible for someone in the fitness industry to dismiss the value of this kind of tool.12 -
OP it seems the point you are making and in agreement with Tracy Anderson on, is that calorie counting can cause some stress for folks who tend to obsess over numbers and the need for accuracy. It creates anxiety when entering a situation fraught with unknowns like a restaurant or a potluck.
I think your remedy for that is to try to focus less on the numbers, that if the person is mindful about their choices and what foods they eat, focusing more on whole foods and less on processed foods, then things will sort themselves out. Is that right?
What I usually try to do with people who are concerned about calorie count in a restaurant meal, or overall becoming too obsessive about the logging, is remind them of the numbers and the mathematical concepts. That ALL of this is an estimation to some degree, both on the CI and the CO side of the equation. That it takes 3500 extra calories to gain back a pound, and their cinco de mayo extravaganza will likely not undo all their hard work if they put the numbers in perspective.
For me, the numbers are comforting and help me be rational about the process, not the other way around. Regardless of whether you are using a calorie counting tool and logging or just making mindful choices about your food selection, it all does come down to the numbers... They matter for the energy balance, whether you count them or not...14 -
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/
Wow I am doomed!!! I lift weights and they are way more than 3lbs! I bike....A LOT and I run! I work all muscle groups!!! I am fit, healthy and one strong *kitten*!!!!! I feel FANTASTIC!!!!!!!3 -
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.
Which country was it that you live in again?1 -
I'll actually admit that I don't like going way over my target, especially when it's happening consistently. At that point it's time to think about things and make a change. I find the feedback and short term discomfort useful, for me
Going slightly over often, or going way over occasionally - that's what the weekly average calories histogram is for
But what I definitely do not understand is the point of a never fat girl explaining how this tool is not useful for losing weight. Nope, don't get it. Unless you've linked an article you don't exactly agree with, which strangely enough is happening to me twice in as many weeks...8 -
kimdawnhayden wrote: »I didn't calorie count the first time I got into shape. I just ate whole foods 90% of the time and had a couple cheat meals a week. I was also working out and hour to an hour and a half six days a week though.
This is basically what I did too.
Then, some years later, after maintaining easily for a quite a while, I became largely sedentary for various reasons and didn't realize I needed to adjust my eating (I ate healthy, after all), and started regaining. Learning what my sedentary maintenance is has been an eye-opening experience (although I am no longer sedentary at all).
I'm all for understanding food and nutrition, but personally I did and managed to gain weight anyway. I don't find it that tough to exceed maintenance on food that meets my nutrition goals otherwise (that is, other than the excess calories). I suspect this is so for many of us who have become overweight.
Anyway, I don't care if anyone else counts -- I did when losing this time, am not right now although I may start again to try to meet my ultimate body comp goals -- but I found it to be a useful and not burdensome tool.3 -
Its really this simple - every single person who ever lost weight lost it because they were at a calorie deficit. You don't have to count calories to be at a calorie deficit - you can do weight watchers, or any other diet plan. Unless you eat less calories that you burn you will not lose weight period.6
-
Its really this simple - every single person who ever lost weight lost it because they were at a calorie deficit. You don't have to count calories to be at a calorie deficit - you can do weight watchers, or any other diet plan. Unless you eat less calories that you burn you will not lose weight period.
Exactly.
Which is why OP sees this so-called 'attacking' of people for not counting calories. They're usually the ones posting "help, I eat right but can't lose". So we suggest a way to correct that - on a site primarily dedicated to calorie counting, that suggestion is going to be "accurately track your calories and make sure you eat less than your CO".4 -
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?
Sounds too deep for me. I don't want to analyze my "relationships" with people much less my relationships with tacos. Calorie counting is just easier. I eat what the website tells me based on whether I want to lose or maintain. No thinking involved. If I start agonizing over food choices that is just as detrimental to my "relationships with food" as any emotional eating I've ever done.
Why do we have to think so much?
9 -
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?
What if you've never been a binger or an emotional eater and you're a generally healthy eater who doesn't really overeat all that much, but your metabolism has slowed up a bit due to age or a medical condition?
Then what?1 -
Tracey Anderson advocates green smoothies and 800 calories a day....And that no female should ever lift weights heavier than 3lbs, cause it will make them bulky..... She is an idiot....
When did women stop carrying purses?
Also, Gwenyth Patlrow admits to carrying around her son. She's going to get so bulky. But only with one arm.5 -
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.
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.
Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect.
There was an editorial a few months ago that went viral. The mother was arguing that she could be a better mother by going for ice cream with her son than by being diet conscious all the time. I wonder, though, if she put to her son the choice of having ice cream with his mom or having her around for longer, which he'd choose. I bet it would bet the latter.
Sounds like an exaggeration? Heart disease kills more people than the various forms of Cancer. And the diet-related risks are extensive. It really isn't just about the calories.
TIL 1 potato chip = heart disease10 -
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.
I've been here going on four years and haven't counted or logged in three years...I've never been attacked and in fact, I think most people on this site find me to be a pretty reasonable and knowledgeable person. But then again, I don't go around attacking people for counting calories on a website that is primarily used for that purpose by most people...so therein likely lies your problem.20 -
SingRunTing 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.
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.
Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect.
There was an editorial a few months ago that went viral. The mother was arguing that she could be a better mother by going for ice cream with her son than by being diet conscious all the time. I wonder, though, if she put to her son the choice of having ice cream with his mom or having her around for longer, which he'd choose. I bet it would bet the latter.
Sounds like an exaggeration? Heart disease kills more people than the various forms of Cancer. And the diet-related risks are extensive. It really isn't just about the calories.
TIL 1 potato chip = heart disease
Don't forget that eating ice cream with your kid means you don't care enough about your health to stick around to watch them grow up.12 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »Well, two things here:
1) this is quote from the article, not my statement; and ... (removed irrelevant text for brevity)
So you posted that specific quote because you disagreed with it? I'm trying to understand your motivation here with this.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