Thoughts on the "potato diet"?

Options
12357…10

Replies

  • esfoster5
    esfoster5 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    paperpudding wrote: »
    So. Much silliness. And contradiction - if you are drinking beer and eating pizza, you are not eating only potatoes.

    No, everyone is not getting fat and sick - I know many people who are neither.
    Nor does everyone who doesn't eat 'real food' whatever food you mean by that, die a slow and horrible death.
    And, sure, heart disease and cancer are killing people. Something has to kill them - nobody lives forever.
    Eating healthily and being a healthy weight will help you stay healthy and alive for longer - but it won't stop something killing you eventually. And it probably won't stop cancer killing you at all - most cancers are not related to dietary intake.


    Sure, you lost weight eating mainly potatoes. You could equally have lost weight eating any other food, or combination of foods - as long as in calorie deficit. It's not the potatoes being special, it is the total calorie intake.

    So much hyperbole.

    I think you missed my first post. I didn't eat only potatoes. I only did that for a few days as an experiment after reading Penn Jillette's book.

    My diet is mostly grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables. There's nothing really extreme about it. I even drink beer and eat oil-free crackers. It became totally normal for me after about a week. Restaurants are the only difficulty, and I've even become fine just drinking water while everyone else eats.

    So obviously, no, potatoes aren't a cure-all. I'm just pointing out that they are nutritionally complete so you hypothetically could survive on them if you had to.

    And yes, it is the calorie intake. We're not in disagreement there. The only thing that's ever been shown to consistently prolong life in animal studies is calorie restriction.

    And yes "everyone" is hyperbole. But compare the percentage of fat and sick people on the American diet to the percentage of fat and sick people on, say, the traditional Okinawan diet of 90% sweet potatoes and rice. The food is the problem.
  • esfoster5
    esfoster5 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    esfoster5 wrote: »
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    I believe moderation is for people who want the exact opposite...

    What do you mean? Honestly. I've never seen anyone do moderation in any way that isn't just low-level deprivation.

    I can't understand how cutting out entire food groups is less deprivational than eating what you want in amounts which fit your needs.


    Just anecdotally, I think it's harder for most people to eat small amounts of something than to just not eat it at all. It's easier to say "I don't eat that" than to say "Oh, I'll just have couple."

    Take nuts for example. Nuts aren't bad for you at all. But you can scarf down 1000 calories in a few handfuls if you're not paying attention, and after you're done you still won't be full.

    So "no nuts" could be an easier rule than "no more than a 1/4 cup of nuts a day".

    For me it's shrimp. I occasionally have some seafood because it's tasty, but if you put a plate of shrimp in front of me, I'm going to eat the whole thing. So no shrimp, not "I'll just have a couple."

    Works for me. Maybe moderation works better for you. I've just never seen anyone make a dramatic change with moderation.
  • esfoster5
    esfoster5 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    Therealobi1 wrote: »
    esfoster5 wrote: »
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    I believe moderation is for people who want the exact opposite...

    What do you mean? Honestly. I've never seen anyone do moderation in any way that isn't just low-level deprivation.

    Can I ask you to clarify what you think eating in moderation is please

    Sure. Let's see...

    Counting calories.
    Smaller portions.
    Conscious effort.

    There might be more, but I think most of us could agree that at least one of those things define a typical weight loss diet.

    The difference for me now is I don't even think about any of that. I just eat when I'm hungry. Calories? More is better. Portions? More is better. Effort? As little as possible.
  • esfoster5
    esfoster5 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    paperpudding wrote: »
    esfoster5 wrote: »
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    I believe moderation is for people who want the exact opposite...

    What do you mean? Honestly. I've never seen anyone do moderation in any way that isn't just low-level deprivation.

    You haven't seen me then.

    I eat a variety of foods and I lost weight and then maintained at current weight for last 3 years, doing nothing other than eating to a right calorie amount.
    I feel far less deprived doing than I would eating only potatoes.
    Far far less.

    Serious question. This is honest curiousity. I really don't mean to be rude.

    You lost weight and maintained the weight loss for 3 years. Why are you still here?
  • janicelo1971
    janicelo1971 Posts: 823 Member
    Options
    never heard of it? you just eat plain, cold potato's? kinda like the egg or cabbage diet? not sure i can restrict to just one food item, but do what works for you:) Best of luck
  • esfoster5
    esfoster5 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    janicelo1971 wrote: »
    never heard of it? you just eat plain, cold potato's? kinda like the egg or cabbage diet? not sure i can restrict to just one food item, but do what works for you:) Best of luck

    No, they don't have to be cold. Cook them, season them, bake them, mash them, just do whatever you can with a simple potato.

    I guess it's kind of like the egg or cabbage diet, but you could actually survive off only potatoes indefinitely if you had to.
  • goldthistime
    goldthistime Posts: 3,214 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    esfoster5 wrote: »
    janicelo1971 wrote: »
    never heard of it? you just eat plain, cold potato's? kinda like the egg or cabbage diet? not sure i can restrict to just one food item, but do what works for you:) Best of luck
    ...you could actually survive off only potatoes indefinitely if you had to.

    Have a look at the link Lemurcat posted. Potatoes fare better nutritionally than I might have guessed but you can't survive solely off them indefinitely.

    Also, check out Success Stories. There are many many many dramatic changes with just moderation. It's a learnable skill.

    PS I wish you success and good health no matter how you choose to proceed.
  • Gallowmere1984
    Gallowmere1984 Posts: 6,626 Member
    Options
    esfoster5 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    esfoster5 wrote: »
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    I believe moderation is for people who want the exact opposite...

    What do you mean? Honestly. I've never seen anyone do moderation in any way that isn't just low-level deprivation.

    You haven't seen me then.

    I eat a variety of foods and I lost weight and then maintained at current weight for last 3 years, doing nothing other than eating to a right calorie amount.
    I feel far less deprived doing than I would eating only potatoes.
    Far far less.

    Serious question. This is honest curiousity. I really don't mean to be rude.

    You lost weight and maintained the weight loss for 3 years. Why are you still here?

    From a former fatty: I started at 265, cut to 185 in six months (high-protein, low carb, mid-fat intake), maintained betwenn 180 and 190 for three years. Cut from 195 to 150 in eight months (high-fat, low-carb, mid-protein). Bulked from 150 to 177 in 2 months (hflc again). Cut from 177 to 161 in a month (psmf). Currently bulking from 169 to 180 by March using 50p/25c/25f.

    The point to that tangent? I have a pretty diverse amount of dietary experience going in both directions, utilizing all manner of macro ratios and food types. Therefore, I stick around to share the knowledge that I have accumulated through reading and self-experimentation, and to learn new things everyday.

    Nutrition is an ever evolving field, and as soon as you stop learning and experimenting, your body will throw you an age induced curveball that you weren't ready for.
  • esfoster5
    esfoster5 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You really should stick around and peruse the boards, particularly the success stories section. There are countless people on this site who have lost weight using a moderation approach, and who have kept the weight off. There are also many people who find moderation challenging so they follow a particular way of eating that restricts certain foods/food groups - whether it be sugar, or LCHF, or paleo, or Low fat, etc. You seem to be of the impression that moderation means only eating smaller quantities of the same foods as before, even if those foods are not particularly satiating. There are some people who take that approach but what I did and what I advocate for on these boards is not specifically restricting a food but rather:
    1. Set a reasonable calorie target based on an appropriate goal.
    2. Eat a variety of foods within that target that provide nutrition (macro and micro nutrients), satiety, and enjoyment.

    This enables me to still enjoy things like pizza, wine, caramel popcorn in addition to lean protein, whole grains, fruits and vegetables, healthy fats, etc.

    I came to this site nearly four years ago, lost the weight I set out to lose and am currently maintaining. I'm still here (though the question wasn't addressed to me) because:
    1. I still log my foods in the MFP database and plan to do so for the foreseeable future even though I'm no longer eating in a calorie deficit. I think that is a critical component to keeping weight off and why so many fail because they look at it as a temporary diet, not a life long habit.
    2. I have a network of friends that I've built here over the years that I enjoy interacting with, that support me and that I try to support as well
    3. I enjoy participating in these boards (most of the time) and trying to help people understand how to be successful the way so many helped me when I first started out.

    Thanks for responding, even though the question wasn't addressed to you.

    I'd say your definition of moderation fits at least two of the three things I wrote in another post: calorie counting, smaller portions, and conscious effort. If that works for you, great. But I don't think we're in any fundamental disagreement about what "moderation" means.

    The only reason I'm so evangelical about my no-meat, no-dairy, no-oil diet is that I haven't had to think about food in months, and I've still been losing obscene amounts of weight. And, unexpectedly, after a few weeks, there is NOTHING you could tempt me with that would make me change the way I'm eating for more than a couple bites. I'm sure it sounds too extreme for most people, but it doesn't feel extreme at all.

    I can totally see using MFP to log foods. I did off and on for years on failed diets, but after tracking for a few weeks on this diet to get a baseline, I realized it wasn't necessary.

    I guess I find building friends and community here long-term to be a little weird, but I find church weird and AA weird, so maybe I'm just anti-friends and community.

    Glad to hear you found something that works for you. Thanks again for the detailed response.
  • bbell1985
    bbell1985 Posts: 4,572 Member
    Options
    Potatoes are supposed to be filling. They just tick me off because for ME they are not. There is something to be said for not seasoning them for satiety but I forget what it is. I'm helpful I know.
  • esfoster5
    esfoster5 Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    Gallowmere1984 wrote: »
    From a former fatty: I started at 265, cut to 185 in six months (high-protein, low carb, mid-fat intake), maintained betwenn 180 and 190 for three years. Cut from 195 to 150 in eight months (high-fat, low-carb, mid-protein). Bulked from 150 to 177 in 2 months (hflc again). Cut from 177 to 161 in a month (psmf). Currently bulking from 169 to 180 by March using 50p/25c/25f.

    The point to that tangent? I have a pretty diverse amount of dietary experience going in both directions, utilizing all manner of macro ratios and food types. Therefore, I stick around to share the knowledge that I have accumulated through reading and self-experimentation, and to learn new things everyday.

    Nutrition is an ever evolving field, and as soon as you stop learning and experimenting, your body will throw you an age induced curveball that you weren't ready for.

    Thanks for responding. Congrats on that transformation.

    And I agree, always keep learning and experimenting. An open mind is probably more important then getting it "right."
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    crzycatlady1 wrote: »
    esfoster5 wrote: »
    Therealobi1 wrote: »
    And I can vouch eating in moderation won't kill you and will help lose weight
    Not everyone can stick to eating one plain item each day

    P.s eating in moderation doesn't equal eating 3 cheese pizza each day

    Well, I said you probably shouldn't stick to one thing.

    But I've seen people do moderation. Moderation is for people who want to spend years and years and years "on a diet."

    But if moderation has worked for you, I'm glad you've found something that helps you get healthier.

    I've done the potato hack before and have nothing bad to say about it, but I've also been maintaining a 50lb loss going on 4 years now by eating all the foods I like in moderation. I also reversed the progression of pre-diabetes eating whatever I want, just in smaller calorie amounts.

    The potato hack was a fun little experiment but it didn't do anything magical for me -CICO while continuing to eat all the foods I like is what improved all my health markers and got my bmi down to a 21 :)

    I could do it... if I could do potatoes and cottage cheese. I need protein.
  • Savagedistraction
    Savagedistraction Posts: 312 Member
    Options
    As long as you eat less calories than you burn this diet will "work". Same goes for pizza, donuts and burgers.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    esfoster5 wrote: »
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    esfoster5 wrote: »
    Alatariel75 wrote: »
    I believe moderation is for people who want the exact opposite...

    What do you mean? Honestly. I've never seen anyone do moderation in any way that isn't just low-level deprivation.

    I can't understand how cutting out entire food groups is less deprivational than eating what you want in amounts which fit your needs.


    Just anecdotally, I think it's harder for most people to eat small amounts of something than to just not eat it at all. It's easier to say "I don't eat that" than to say "Oh, I'll just have couple."

    Take nuts for example. Nuts aren't bad for you at all. But you can scarf down 1000 calories in a few handfuls if you're not paying attention, and after you're done you still won't be full.

    So "no nuts" could be an easier rule than "no more than a 1/4 cup of nuts a day".

    For me it's shrimp. I occasionally have some seafood because it's tasty, but if you put a plate of shrimp in front of me, I'm going to eat the whole thing. So no shrimp, not "I'll just have a couple."

    Works for me. Maybe moderation works better for you. I've just never seen anyone make a dramatic change with moderation.

    Funnily enough, nuts are one of the easiest things for me to moderate. I weigh out 10 grams and sprinkle them on something and I'm done with them.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    esfoster5 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You really should stick around and peruse the boards, particularly the success stories section. There are countless people on this site who have lost weight using a moderation approach, and who have kept the weight off. There are also many people who find moderation challenging so they follow a particular way of eating that restricts certain foods/food groups - whether it be sugar, or LCHF, or paleo, or Low fat, etc. You seem to be of the impression that moderation means only eating smaller quantities of the same foods as before, even if those foods are not particularly satiating. There are some people who take that approach but what I did and what I advocate for on these boards is not specifically restricting a food but rather:
    1. Set a reasonable calorie target based on an appropriate goal.
    2. Eat a variety of foods within that target that provide nutrition (macro and micro nutrients), satiety, and enjoyment.

    This enables me to still enjoy things like pizza, wine, caramel popcorn in addition to lean protein, whole grains, fruits and vegetables, healthy fats, etc.

    I came to this site nearly four years ago, lost the weight I set out to lose and am currently maintaining. I'm still here (though the question wasn't addressed to me) because:
    1. I still log my foods in the MFP database and plan to do so for the foreseeable future even though I'm no longer eating in a calorie deficit. I think that is a critical component to keeping weight off and why so many fail because they look at it as a temporary diet, not a life long habit.
    2. I have a network of friends that I've built here over the years that I enjoy interacting with, that support me and that I try to support as well
    3. I enjoy participating in these boards (most of the time) and trying to help people understand how to be successful the way so many helped me when I first started out.

    Thanks for responding, even though the question wasn't addressed to you.

    I'd say your definition of moderation fits at least two of the three things I wrote in another post: calorie counting, smaller portions, and conscious effort. If that works for you, great. But I don't think we're in any fundamental disagreement about what "moderation" means.

    The only reason I'm so evangelical about my no-meat, no-dairy, no-oil diet is that I haven't had to think about food in months, and I've still been losing obscene amounts of weight. And, unexpectedly, after a few weeks, there is NOTHING you could tempt me with that would make me change the way I'm eating for more than a couple bites. I'm sure it sounds too extreme for most people, but it doesn't feel extreme at all.

    I can totally see using MFP to log foods. I did off and on for years on failed diets, but after tracking for a few weeks on this diet to get a baseline, I realized it wasn't necessary.

    I guess I find building friends and community here long-term to be a little weird, but I find church weird and AA weird, so maybe I'm just anti-friends and community.

    Glad to hear you found something that works for you. Thanks again for the detailed response.

    Let me ask you, how lean are you?

    I'm not meaning to be rude, but there's certain fine-tuning that often needs to occur if you have goals that go beyond wanting to just no longer be overweight.

    Your approach is sounding like it's working because it sounds like you have a lot of weight to lose.

    What I'm trying to do here is show you that there's nothing inherently wrong with other approaches because other people have different goals and that tracking is a way to obtain them.

    I'm personally looking to get quite lean because I have systemic autoimmune arthritis, and the less pressure on my joints, the better. I'm a small person and my calorie budget is tight. I can only create a small deficit. Having a devil-may-care attitude about calories wouldn't work for me because I don't have a lot of body fat to lose.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    bbell1985 wrote: »
    Potatoes are supposed to be filling. They just tick me off because for ME they are not. There is something to be said for not seasoning them for satiety but I forget what it is. I'm helpful I know.

    Do you remember Jose and Patrick's videos about that? They did that whole day without seasoning anything.

Categories