Eat whatever you want AND Lose Weight!!

124»

Replies

  • tmoneyag99
    tmoneyag99 Posts: 480 Member
    Your statement about the okinawans actually supports my position that it is entirely possible for a whole society to "cut out" or significantly reduce their dietary consumption of a "whole food group" without much effort. It also supports my position that dietary and nutritonal choices are more often externally influenced.

    "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."

    I addressed your arguments directly with factual evidence and science that refute them.



    I'm pretty sure I didn't rant.

    Just because you are making false assumptions about my temperament does not make it so.

    Just like making false assumptions (or failing to consider other details) does not make one weight loss philosophy correct or incorrect. It just makes your postion/argument incorrect unless you can provide further evidence that your position is correct. This is called debate and discussion. Emotion does not have to make an appearance.

    Although I do see a trend. :) Long posts =/= rant. Just lots of thoughts about a subject with little time to do the typical professional editing. Frankly, I do not care about your eyes as much as I do nutrition and I tend to use a lot of words because I am so detailed oriented. My apologies if that offends you. Most people just scroll past rather than getting offended and getting their drawers in a wad.

    Hope this helps! :smile:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naleynXS7yo

  • endlessfall16
    endlessfall16 Posts: 932 Member
    tmoneyag99 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    What @skyblu263 said was 100% right on the mark. Well said. Too bad so many people twisted it into something it's not.

    She figured out what works for her. Her post is incredibly simplistic and ignores the idea that other people can and successfully succeed in long term weight loss differently than she. That is my beef. I'm glad she figured out what works for her. But because there are so many variations in approaches, it is unlikely that one approach and mental consideration will work for all others.

    I know what you are saying.


    This "cico" debate always highlights two major mindsets. One that argues the technicality of CICO, which isn't wrong, and the other that focuses on the whole picture/approach and practicality of a complete diet approach. If the OP indeed only talked about the underlining principle of cico, which I don't think she was, what with excluding sweet, etc., that would be as interesting and topic worthy as watching paint dry. Such conversation is akin to claiming "eat less, move more", which you never see anyone talk about.

    Anyway, don't get worked up too much. You and others are just talking on different tangents.
  • tmoneyag99
    tmoneyag99 Posts: 480 Member
    endlessfall16 wrote: »
    tmoneyag99 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    What @skyblu263 said was 100% right on the mark. Well said. Too bad so many people twisted it into something it's not.

    She figured out what works for her. Her post is incredibly simplistic and ignores the idea that other people can and successfully succeed in long term weight loss differently than she. That is my beef. I'm glad she figured out what works for her. But because there are so many variations in approaches, it is unlikely that one approach and mental consideration will work for all others.

    I know what you are saying.


    This "cico" debate always highlights two major mindsets. One that argues the technicality of CICO, which isn't wrong, and the other that focuses on the whole picture/approach and practicality of a complete diet approach. If the OP indeed only talked about the underlining principle of cico, which I don't think she was, what with excluding sweet, etc., that would be as interesting and topic worthy as watching paint dry. Such conversation is akin to claiming "eat less, move more", which you never see anyone talk about.

    Anyway, don't get worked up too much. You and others are just talking on different tangents.

    I'm not worked up. Apparently everyone else is. Lesson learned: Long posts on MFP P!$$es folks off.

    :D
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    kgeyser wrote: »
    skyblu263 wrote: »
    @Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.

    Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.

    Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.

    But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.

    The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.

    While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.

    Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.

    For some people, moderation is something they would have to learn while for others it comes naturally with being confronted by what they're eating. Some of those some people don't want to do that, fine, let them, there's other approaches that work. But really, if everyone was deterred by "but it isn't easy", we would still be in the stone age.

    We had a thread about this a while back and the conclusion was that 'moderation' really varies from one person to another too... For some it's a little bit of something regularly, for others it's the whole slice/box once in a while.

    The bottom line is to find the right balance for a diet that will keep us satisfied physically and emotionally... and in the end it's really different for everyone. Some people just cut out some foods and don't feel deprived at all, but for others it just leads to binging down the road... So it's a lot of trial and error for people to find what works for them, but I think that OP's message is that you don't have to eat rabbit food or bland food to lose weight (and maintain the weight loss).

    Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.

    Only a tiny percentage of people who lose weight, regardless of method, keep it off for any substantial amount of time. Period. (Oh, and by the by, low carb has been around well over 100 years, longer than calorie counting, in fact, but I digress.)

    To me it ends up as a 'which would you rather' question - would you rather eat whatever you want, just not as much as you might want, or eat as much as you want, but have to limit your options as far as what you get to eat? We all have to limit something. What, how much, or both. Pick your restriction. There is no right answer, there is only what is right for you.

    Yes, high carb has been around lot longer too, what's your point? I was talking about weight loss diet prominence since 100 years ago not too many people were all that worried about obesity and low fat, low protein, and low carb were often used for medical reasons not weight loss.

    Your second point is just a myth that is pushed by diet gurus. You cannot eat everything you want just because you restrict one macro or another. You will always need to be in a caloric deficit but by going low carb or low fat you and up with pretty much the same restrictions in different ways. The high calorie foods that humans tend to overeat are all high in fat, carbs and also salt. What you really mean is HOW you get into a caloric deficit is what's best for you.

    Oh, and btw, if you do some research people who change lifestyle and learn proper eating, rather than guru prescriptions, do far better in the long run.

    The fact is, simply, that low carb has been around longer than the 25 years that was postulated. Try not to read too much into that ;). My point was that ALL attempts at weight loss, regardless of method, have abysmal long term success rates. IOW no one method is superior on a population level, which is why it is stupid to pooh pooh what other people are doing, especially if it is working for them. There is no "one true way".

    The second point is true for me. If I eliminate/strictly limit certain foods, I can eat as much as I want of others. I can't eat "everything" I want, no. But I can eat as much of certain foods as I want because those foods are self limiting for me. I would have to deliberately stuff myself to the point of discomfort every day in order for me to get fat on a LCHF diet. I would find that unpleasant, to say the least, so I don't *want* to do that. I eat to satiety (IOW "as much as I want") and maintain a healthy weight. I lost 50 lbs and have kept it off for three years eating as much as I want (never going hungry). The catch? I couldn't eat whatever I wanted; I did have to give up certain foods. For me (and bear in mind I'm only speaking for myself here, YMMV), it is easier and more pleasant to give up certain foods, but never go hungry, than it would be to eat whatever I want, but have to either go hungry to keep from going over calories for the day/week, or do tons of additional exercise to try to burn off those foods. For me, going LC has been a "lifestyle change". I would never want to go back to my hangry high carb days.

    What is "proper eating"? Please define that for me.



    Now when you say that you are self-regulating those foods then I will agree because this IS the whole idea of those elimination diets. You can't possibly eat enough whole, low-fat foods, to over-eat because of volumetrics (now the highly processed low-fat foods you can, which defeats the low-fat concept) and high-fat foods tend to make you just want to stop eating much so appetite suppression is a major feature.

    What I mean by proper eating is developing eating habits that keep you within your energy and nutrient requirements and not constantly over-eating or being deficient in certain nutrients. If you watch those documentaries on the super obese one thing you tend to find is that they have very poor eating habits and eat a "gray" diet that often leaves them malnourished despite their high calorific diets.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited November 2016
    tmoneyag99 wrote: »
    Your statement about the okinawans actually supports my position that it is entirely possible for a whole society to "cut out" or significantly reduce their dietary consumption of a "whole food group" without much effort. It also supports my position that dietary and nutritonal choices are more often externally influenced.

    "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent."

    I addressed your arguments directly with factual evidence and science that refute them.



    I'm pretty sure I didn't rant.

    Just because you are making false assumptions about my temperament does not make it so.

    Just like making false assumptions (or failing to consider other details) does not make one weight loss philosophy correct or incorrect. It just makes your postion/argument incorrect unless you can provide further evidence that your position is correct. This is called debate and discussion. Emotion does not have to make an appearance.

    Although I do see a trend. :) Long posts =/= rant. Just lots of thoughts about a subject with little time to do the typical professional editing. Frankly, I do not care about your eyes as much as I do nutrition and I tend to use a lot of words because I am so detailed oriented. My apologies if that offends you. Most people just scroll past rather than getting offended and getting their drawers in a wad.

    Hope this helps! :smile:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naleynXS7yo

    I love K&P but my point was that you missed my point and argued something completely different. This is why I mentioned the Okanawans because they are at the opposite end of the carb/fat ratios -- and no they do not cut out any food groups they just eat very low fat and they are doing it because, like the Inuit, they have a specific food environment. Again, you just missed the point and that is you don't need those diets just the underlying energy balance that they help foster. If you don't adjust your lifestyle then the diet ends and you are no further ahead than before AND you start to yo-yo, which is worse, and never really get to the real lifestyle changes you need. No diet para-dime, high carb, low carb, high fat, low fat or whatever has managed to fix the obesity issue or everyone would be thin. What we need to do is teach people the principles of weight loss and maintenance and then those tools make more sense.

    Now here was my original post:
    Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.

    As far as your evidence I wasn't stating anything that was incorrect so not sure what you refuted but it wasn't my statements, it's easy enough to find the stats on obesity rising and to check when certain diets became popular and how long people tend to stay on those diets. Also, the high failure rate of diets is very well documented but if you would like to refute the actual points that I just reiterated please do. :)

  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    tmoneyag99 wrote: »
    endlessfall16 wrote: »
    tmoneyag99 wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    What @skyblu263 said was 100% right on the mark. Well said. Too bad so many people twisted it into something it's not.

    She figured out what works for her. Her post is incredibly simplistic and ignores the idea that other people can and successfully succeed in long term weight loss differently than she. That is my beef. I'm glad she figured out what works for her. But because there are so many variations in approaches, it is unlikely that one approach and mental consideration will work for all others.

    I know what you are saying.


    This "cico" debate always highlights two major mindsets. One that argues the technicality of CICO, which isn't wrong, and the other that focuses on the whole picture/approach and practicality of a complete diet approach. If the OP indeed only talked about the underlining principle of cico, which I don't think she was, what with excluding sweet, etc., that would be as interesting and topic worthy as watching paint dry. Such conversation is akin to claiming "eat less, move more", which you never see anyone talk about.

    Anyway, don't get worked up too much. You and others are just talking on different tangents.

    I'm not worked up. Apparently everyone else is. Lesson learned: Long posts on MFP P!$$es folks off.

    :D

    I remember a good joke in the student paper that said please keep your submissions below 500 words because no one wants to read anything longer unless they are being marked. ;)
  • tlflag1620
    tlflag1620 Posts: 1,358 Member
    edited November 2016
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    kgeyser wrote: »
    skyblu263 wrote: »
    @Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.

    Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.

    Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.

    But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.

    The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.

    While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.

    Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.

    For some people, moderation is something they would have to learn while for others it comes naturally with being confronted by what they're eating. Some of those some people don't want to do that, fine, let them, there's other approaches that work. But really, if everyone was deterred by "but it isn't easy", we would still be in the stone age.

    We had a thread about this a while back and the conclusion was that 'moderation' really varies from one person to another too... For some it's a little bit of something regularly, for others it's the whole slice/box once in a while.

    The bottom line is to find the right balance for a diet that will keep us satisfied physically and emotionally... and in the end it's really different for everyone. Some people just cut out some foods and don't feel deprived at all, but for others it just leads to binging down the road... So it's a lot of trial and error for people to find what works for them, but I think that OP's message is that you don't have to eat rabbit food or bland food to lose weight (and maintain the weight loss).

    Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.

    Only a tiny percentage of people who lose weight, regardless of method, keep it off for any substantial amount of time. Period. (Oh, and by the by, low carb has been around well over 100 years, longer than calorie counting, in fact, but I digress.)

    To me it ends up as a 'which would you rather' question - would you rather eat whatever you want, just not as much as you might want, or eat as much as you want, but have to limit your options as far as what you get to eat? We all have to limit something. What, how much, or both. Pick your restriction. There is no right answer, there is only what is right for you.

    Yes, high carb has been around lot longer too, what's your point? I was talking about weight loss diet prominence since 100 years ago not too many people were all that worried about obesity and low fat, low protein, and low carb were often used for medical reasons not weight loss.

    Your second point is just a myth that is pushed by diet gurus. You cannot eat everything you want just because you restrict one macro or another. You will always need to be in a caloric deficit but by going low carb or low fat you and up with pretty much the same restrictions in different ways. The high calorie foods that humans tend to overeat are all high in fat, carbs and also salt. What you really mean is HOW you get into a caloric deficit is what's best for you.

    Oh, and btw, if you do some research people who change lifestyle and learn proper eating, rather than guru prescriptions, do far better in the long run.

    The fact is, simply, that low carb has been around longer than the 25 years that was postulated. Try not to read too much into that ;). My point was that ALL attempts at weight loss, regardless of method, have abysmal long term success rates. IOW no one method is superior on a population level, which is why it is stupid to pooh pooh what other people are doing, especially if it is working for them. There is no "one true way".

    The second point is true for me. If I eliminate/strictly limit certain foods, I can eat as much as I want of others. I can't eat "everything" I want, no. But I can eat as much of certain foods as I want because those foods are self limiting for me. I would have to deliberately stuff myself to the point of discomfort every day in order for me to get fat on a LCHF diet. I would find that unpleasant, to say the least, so I don't *want* to do that. I eat to satiety (IOW "as much as I want") and maintain a healthy weight. I lost 50 lbs and have kept it off for three years eating as much as I want (never going hungry). The catch? I couldn't eat whatever I wanted; I did have to give up certain foods. For me (and bear in mind I'm only speaking for myself here, YMMV), it is easier and more pleasant to give up certain foods, but never go hungry, than it would be to eat whatever I want, but have to either go hungry to keep from going over calories for the day/week, or do tons of additional exercise to try to burn off those foods. For me, going LC has been a "lifestyle change". I would never want to go back to my hangry high carb days.

    What is "proper eating"? Please define that for me.



    Now when you say that you are self-regulating those foods then I will agree because this IS the whole idea of those elimination diets. You can't possibly eat enough whole, low-fat foods, to over-eat because of volumetrics (now the highly processed low-fat foods you can, which defeats the low-fat concept) and high-fat foods tend to make you just want to stop eating much so appetite suppression is a major feature.

    What I mean by proper eating is developing eating habits that keep you within your energy and nutrient requirements and not constantly over-eating or being deficient in certain nutrients. If you watch those documentaries on the super obese one thing you tend to find is that they have very poor eating habits and eat a "gray" diet that often leaves them malnourished despite their high calorific diets.

    I eat high fat foods... But keep the carbs low. It won't work for everyone, I recognize that. Some are, as you point out, "volume eaters". So high fat, low carb won't typically work for them. They need to feel physically full to be sated. I, otoh, do better with high fat foods (fatty cuts of meat, whole eggs, butter, cream, other full fat dairy, seeds and nuts, avocados, etc). I find the fat satiating, even with less volume. I used to employ the volume eating strategy, but despite feeling physically "full" I still felt "hungry". I suppose it's hard to explain if it's not something you have actually experienced. But yes, as you point out the high fat foods effectively suppress my appetite so I can "trust" my hunger cues (so I don't need to count calories). If I stick with those high fat foods (predominantly; I throw some vegetation in for micros), then I can eat as much as I want. And to me being able to eat "as much as I want" is way more important than being able to eat "whatever I want". But I think that boils down to personal preference.

    As for proper eating - seems like your definition encompasses a pretty broad range of diets, including low fat, low carb, paleo, vegan, etc. proper eating would basically be meating macro and micro nutrient needs, without overdoing calories? I think a lot of diets could be considered "proper" by those standards.

    Interesting aside - I recently started trying to gain weight (I'm new to lifting and working on a slow bulk). I have found it necessary to up my carbs in order to have enough of an appetite to be able to eat enough calories to gain. It really is a mind *kitten* to switch gears and try to overeat. Until I added back some carbs I struggled to eat enough (a problem I never dreamed I would have back in my higher carb days). As it turns out, bananas, rice, and potatoes really do make me more hungry, lol. It wasn't just my imagination. Satiety is an odd thing....
  • TOXUTHAT
    TOXUTHAT Posts: 38 Member
    I tell people I have discovered a guaranteed way to loose weight, it works every time. Eat less calories and exercise.
    Of coarse you want to make healthy choices but long as you stay under a certain amount of calories, you could really eat what ever you want.
  • Merrysix
    Merrysix Posts: 336 Member
    for me its also about satiation so that I can stick to my formula for calories in/calories out. If I eat certain foods they don't satisfy me, and then I eat over my calorie goal -- so I have experimented and I know what foods work for me to stick with my calorie (and exercise) goals. If I just ate fast food (which I have done) I feel hungry and horrible and like I don't want to exercise. So for me while the mathematics are CICO it does matter what I eat.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    Just here to find out what I need to do with my nutrition to change my genetics and give me a thigh gap........
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    tlflag1620 wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    Francl27 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    kgeyser wrote: »
    skyblu263 wrote: »
    @Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.

    Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.

    Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.

    But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.

    The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.

    While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.

    Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.

    For some people, moderation is something they would have to learn while for others it comes naturally with being confronted by what they're eating. Some of those some people don't want to do that, fine, let them, there's other approaches that work. But really, if everyone was deterred by "but it isn't easy", we would still be in the stone age.

    We had a thread about this a while back and the conclusion was that 'moderation' really varies from one person to another too... For some it's a little bit of something regularly, for others it's the whole slice/box once in a while.

    The bottom line is to find the right balance for a diet that will keep us satisfied physically and emotionally... and in the end it's really different for everyone. Some people just cut out some foods and don't feel deprived at all, but for others it just leads to binging down the road... So it's a lot of trial and error for people to find what works for them, but I think that OP's message is that you don't have to eat rabbit food or bland food to lose weight (and maintain the weight loss).

    Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.

    Only a tiny percentage of people who lose weight, regardless of method, keep it off for any substantial amount of time. Period. (Oh, and by the by, low carb has been around well over 100 years, longer than calorie counting, in fact, but I digress.)

    To me it ends up as a 'which would you rather' question - would you rather eat whatever you want, just not as much as you might want, or eat as much as you want, but have to limit your options as far as what you get to eat? We all have to limit something. What, how much, or both. Pick your restriction. There is no right answer, there is only what is right for you.

    Yes, high carb has been around lot longer too, what's your point? I was talking about weight loss diet prominence since 100 years ago not too many people were all that worried about obesity and low fat, low protein, and low carb were often used for medical reasons not weight loss.

    Your second point is just a myth that is pushed by diet gurus. You cannot eat everything you want just because you restrict one macro or another. You will always need to be in a caloric deficit but by going low carb or low fat you and up with pretty much the same restrictions in different ways. The high calorie foods that humans tend to overeat are all high in fat, carbs and also salt. What you really mean is HOW you get into a caloric deficit is what's best for you.

    Oh, and btw, if you do some research people who change lifestyle and learn proper eating, rather than guru prescriptions, do far better in the long run.

    The fact is, simply, that low carb has been around longer than the 25 years that was postulated. Try not to read too much into that ;). My point was that ALL attempts at weight loss, regardless of method, have abysmal long term success rates. IOW no one method is superior on a population level, which is why it is stupid to pooh pooh what other people are doing, especially if it is working for them. There is no "one true way".

    The second point is true for me. If I eliminate/strictly limit certain foods, I can eat as much as I want of others. I can't eat "everything" I want, no. But I can eat as much of certain foods as I want because those foods are self limiting for me. I would have to deliberately stuff myself to the point of discomfort every day in order for me to get fat on a LCHF diet. I would find that unpleasant, to say the least, so I don't *want* to do that. I eat to satiety (IOW "as much as I want") and maintain a healthy weight. I lost 50 lbs and have kept it off for three years eating as much as I want (never going hungry). The catch? I couldn't eat whatever I wanted; I did have to give up certain foods. For me (and bear in mind I'm only speaking for myself here, YMMV), it is easier and more pleasant to give up certain foods, but never go hungry, than it would be to eat whatever I want, but have to either go hungry to keep from going over calories for the day/week, or do tons of additional exercise to try to burn off those foods. For me, going LC has been a "lifestyle change". I would never want to go back to my hangry high carb days.

    What is "proper eating"? Please define that for me.



    Now when you say that you are self-regulating those foods then I will agree because this IS the whole idea of those elimination diets. You can't possibly eat enough whole, low-fat foods, to over-eat because of volumetrics (now the highly processed low-fat foods you can, which defeats the low-fat concept) and high-fat foods tend to make you just want to stop eating much so appetite suppression is a major feature.

    What I mean by proper eating is developing eating habits that keep you within your energy and nutrient requirements and not constantly over-eating or being deficient in certain nutrients. If you watch those documentaries on the super obese one thing you tend to find is that they have very poor eating habits and eat a "gray" diet that often leaves them malnourished despite their high calorific diets.

    I eat high fat foods... But keep the carbs low. It won't work for everyone, I recognize that. Some are, as you point out, "volume eaters". So high fat, low carb won't typically work for them. They need to feel physically full to be sated. I, otoh, do better with high fat foods (fatty cuts of meat, whole eggs, butter, cream, other full fat dairy, seeds and nuts, avocados, etc). I find the fat satiating, even with less volume. I used to employ the volume eating strategy, but despite feeling physically "full" I still felt "hungry". I suppose it's hard to explain if it's not something you have actually experienced. But yes, as you point out the high fat foods effectively suppress my appetite so I can "trust" my hunger cues (so I don't need to count calories). If I stick with those high fat foods (predominantly; I throw some vegetation in for micros), then I can eat as much as I want. And to me being able to eat "as much as I want" is way more important than being able to eat "whatever I want". But I think that boils down to personal preference.

    As for proper eating - seems like your definition encompasses a pretty broad range of diets, including low fat, low carb, paleo, vegan, etc. proper eating would basically be meating macro and micro nutrient needs, without overdoing calories? I think a lot of diets could be considered "proper" by those standards.

    Interesting aside - I recently started trying to gain weight (I'm new to lifting and working on a slow bulk). I have found it necessary to up my carbs in order to have enough of an appetite to be able to eat enough calories to gain. It really is a mind *kitten* to switch gears and try to overeat. Until I added back some carbs I struggled to eat enough (a problem I never dreamed I would have back in my higher carb days). As it turns out, bananas, rice, and potatoes really do make me more hungry, lol. It wasn't just my imagination. Satiety is an odd thing....

    Yes, my definition does cover a lot because I'm diet agnostic as long as it works for you and is sustainable. I have no issues with how people choose to feed themselves but I advocate that people understand the basics of nutrition and diet so that they can make an informed choice rather than go by dogmatic dieting.

    Lifting should also make you hungry too; squat hunger is real lol.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    edited November 2016
    I agree with eat whatever you want and still lose weight. The sticking point with me is 'how much'.. There are certain things, eg cheerios, peanut butter cups, Chinese food, that yes I can still eat, but not in the amounts I want and still keep under my calories.
    There are a few foods that i turn into a insatiable glutton around, and for me it is easier to abstain than it is to moderate them. Sure, i still eat them every now and then, but on those days i either have to accept that i will go over my calories or exercise myself in to exhaustion. My willpower definitely needs working on :wink:

Categories