Calorie Counter

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

I Don't Believe in Calorie Counting

1235714

Replies

  • PiperGirl08PiperGirl08 Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member
    "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.
  • nacus2664nacus2664 Member Posts: 17 Member Member Posts: 17 Member
    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 style
  • PiperGirl08PiperGirl08 Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    stealthq 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.
    edited May 2016
  • DvdgzzDvdgzz Member Posts: 430 Member Member Posts: 430 Member
    MissusMoon wrote: »
    MissusMoon wrote: »
    MissusMoon wrote: »
    msf74 wrote: »
    msf74 wrote: »
    Tracey "no woman should lift more than 3lb ever" Anderson?



    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!
  • zoeysasha37zoeysasha37 Member Posts: 7,133 Member Member Posts: 7,133 Member
    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/

    This
  • Carlos_421Carlos_421 Member Posts: 5,083 Member Member Posts: 5,083 Member
    Carlos_421 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.
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Member Posts: 1,282 Member Member Posts: 1,282 Member
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    stealthq 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. :blush:
    edited May 2016
  • PiperGirl08PiperGirl08 Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member
    Dvdgzz wrote: »
    MissusMoon wrote: »
    MissusMoon wrote: »
    MissusMoon wrote: »
    msf74 wrote: »
    msf74 wrote: »
    Tracey "no woman should lift more than 3lb ever" Anderson?



    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>.
  • PiperGirl08PiperGirl08 Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member
    Carlos_421 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.
  • PiperGirl08PiperGirl08 Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member
    mamadon wrote: »
    stealthq 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.
    edited May 2016
  • PiperGirl08PiperGirl08 Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member
    Bronty3 wrote: »
    stealthq 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. :blush:

    Thank you for editing :-)
  • PiperGirl08PiperGirl08 Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member
    "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.
    edited May 2016
  • PiperGirl08PiperGirl08 Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member Member, Premium Posts: 134 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.