A calorie is a calorie ...
Replies
-
KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »If you think nutrients are so important, eat nothing but broccoli for 6 months vs. someone who eats a diet consisting of the foods they like within their calorie needs.
Eating just one single thing can't possible provide with enough nutrients, your example is flawed there.
You just made his point
.
Hum, i don't see anyone saying one must eat one single thing, I think we all can do as we please and be happy about it, seems easier
EDIT I saw what the other person posted and got the memo :P sorry folks!
3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »If you think nutrients are so important, eat nothing but broccoli for 6 months vs. someone who eats a diet consisting of the foods they like within their calorie needs.
Eating just one single thing can't possible provide with enough nutrients, your example is flawed there.
That's the point. When the straw men examples are raised, it usually goes like:
"Sure a calorie is a calorie and you may lose weight but you won't be healthy. Try eating nothing but (insert demonized food here) and see what happens"
Upthread someone said that exact thing and the chosen food was butter and sugar. @stevencloser is pointing out that any diet that restricts to a single food, even a "healthy" food like broccoli isn't a healthy diet...
Ahhhh, I did not read all of that, I understand now, I apologize if I sounded silly, I get the point now.6 -
KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »If you think nutrients are so important, eat nothing but broccoli for 6 months vs. someone who eats a diet consisting of the foods they like within their calorie needs.
Eating just one single thing can't possible provide with enough nutrients, your example is flawed there.
That's the point. When the straw men examples are raised, it usually goes like:
"Sure a calorie is a calorie and you may lose weight but you won't be healthy. Try eating nothing but (insert demonized food here) and see what happens"
Upthread someone said that exact thing and the chosen food was butter and sugar. @stevencloser is pointing out that any diet that restricts to a single food, even a "healthy" food like broccoli isn't a healthy diet...
Ahhhh, I did not read all of that, I understand now, I apologize if I sounded silly, I get the point now.
Don't worry. You don't sound silly. The people who make that argument in seriousness sound silly...5 -
Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.1 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.
I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.5 -
A calorie is a calorie. That's from a physics perspective. But food we eat is different as we are a bucket of biochemistry so different foods create different responses. Labelling them as "healthy" or "junk" I think that is less helpful for advice. What you eat determines how much you eat, and as trying to manage ones appetite is probably the biggest challenge for those who are trying to lose weight; it makes sense to eat foods that dampen appetite. I.e avoid simple carbs (especially sugars) substituting fat.3
-
Wynterbourne wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.
I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.
See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.
You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.
They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »If you think nutrients are so important, eat nothing but broccoli for 6 months vs. someone who eats a diet consisting of the foods they like within their calorie needs.
To make this comparison it would need to be eat just x food vs eat just y food.
Say, all calories from broccoli vs all calories from coke. Surely you recognise that both proposals would not address nutritional needs.
I think you have entirely missed the point.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »If you think nutrients are so important, eat nothing but broccoli for 6 months vs. someone who eats a diet consisting of the foods they like within their calorie needs.
To make this comparison it would need to be eat just x food vs eat just y food.
Say, all calories from broccoli vs all calories from coke. Surely you recognise that both proposals would not address nutritional needs.
I think you have entirely missed the point.
I think he was responding to the poster who suggested that if people think a calorie is just a calorie, they should eat nothing but butter and sugar for 6 months and see what happens. He was matching one ridiculously biased one sided straw man argument with another....
9 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.
I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.
See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.
You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.
They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.
I find eating like that much simpler, but I can see why many people would. I like it cos I'm never hungry and fits my day
0 -
Fairlieboy wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. That's from a physics perspective. But food we eat is different as we are a bucket of biochemistry so different foods create different responses. Labelling them as "healthy" or "junk" I think that is less helpful for advice. What you eat determines how much you eat, and as trying to manage ones appetite is probably the biggest challenge for those who are trying to lose weight; it makes sense to eat foods that dampen appetite. I.e avoid simple carbs (especially sugars) substituting fat.
Fat doesn't dampen everyone's appetite. I don't find it satiating at all.
Simple carbs, like those found in fruit dampen some people's appetites. People like me. An apple is a nice filling snack for me.
I appreciate what you're trying to convey here, but sweeping statements about satiety don't hold to be universally true. It's a very individual thing.11 -
KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.
I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.
See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.
You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.
They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.
I find eating like that much simpler, but I can see why many people would. I like it cos I'm never hungry and fits my day
You find eating like what simpler?0 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.
I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.
See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.
You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.
They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.
I find eating like that much simpler, but I can see why many people would. I like it cos I'm never hungry and fits my day
You find eating like what simpler?
Several meals, someone said they don't like having 3 meals and snacks andnokanjaijo wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.
I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.
See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.
You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.
They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.
3 meals and 3 snacks is way simpler for me, eating like that. I said that cos I do that all the time. But I guess most people don't.
0 -
I get the graphic's point and all, but to maintain my weight I eat around 2100 to 2500 calories per day. Eating 260 grams of carbs and only 50 grams of protein would make me feel pretty crappy. I know it's just a suggestion, but that is just so low to me.2
-
KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.
I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.
See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.
You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.
They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.
I find eating like that much simpler, but I can see why many people would. I like it cos I'm never hungry and fits my day
You find eating like what simpler?
Several meals, someone said they don't like having 3 meals and snacks andnokanjaijo wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.
I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.
See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.
You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.
They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.
3 meals and 3 snacks is way simpler for me, eating like that. I said that cos I do that all the time. But I guess most people don't.
Okay, I think a great many people do that. I bet it's very common.
What i don't think many people do is have 6 meals, eat almost half the day's calories in one meal then spread the other half over the remaining 5 meals. That's what I'm calling odd. It would be pretty uncommon, I think.
It seems to me like the author of this article was having a difficult time getting the two menus to come to the same calorie count and look like roughly the same amount of food. So they had to cram a bunch of calories into the dinner meal to force it.3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »If you think nutrients are so important, eat nothing but broccoli for 6 months vs. someone who eats a diet consisting of the foods they like within their calorie needs.
To make this comparison it would need to be eat just x food vs eat just y food.
Say, all calories from broccoli vs all calories from coke. Surely you recognise that both proposals would not address nutritional needs.
I think you have entirely missed the point.
I think he was responding to the poster who suggested that if people think a calorie is just a calorie, they should eat nothing but butter and sugar for 6 months and see what happens. He was matching one ridiculously biased one sided straw man argument with another....
It's fun.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »As for the original link and thought from @lizery I personally think it gives a really good visual representation of how calories are only equal in the energy measurement sense.
So one food is not the same as another food. Everyone knows that, I think. No one disagrees about that, which is why I think the idea that we need to be told it is so odd.
Some people use "calories" as a synonym for food and therefore think that when someone says "a calorie is a calorie" they are saying all foods are the same, food choice doesn't matter. But no one thinks that, really. Those who say "a calorie is a calorie" don't think it is helpful to confuse a unit of measurement and the food that provides that unit of measurement.
Let's say my TDEE is 2200. A calorie is a calorie means that if I regularly eat about 2500 calories I will gain weight, no matter how nutrient dense my diet is, or even if I avoid added sugar or whatever else people think is a "bad food." It also means I would maintain my weight eating 2200 calories, whether made up of those nutrient dense food choices or mostly fries and cake (not that it makes sense to assume that I would).
Am I thereby saying that eating a nutrient-dense balanced diet is the same as eating the same number of calories from only fries and cake? Obviously not! So the question is why would any think they need to correct this misapprehension that no one has. I find it quite puzzling and rather presumptuous, insulting to my intelligence, in fact.
I find many things stated here odd, yet rather than take offense to them I accept that within the semantics of the discussion people view things from different angles. As example, on this forum I don't see why anyone chooses to isolate the unit of measure from the food. Nobody here is taking in energy in other than food form, so all calories in impact the nutrition side in some way. If calories could be absorbed into the human body without nutrients of some sort, it would to me make more sense to isolate the terms. But in either case it's the simple semantics of a persons view.
The energy balance statement in your post is a good example. Many if not most here probably understand energy balance, but those that don't have something to learn from the statement. The original post was simply pointing out something that would help some of the people here on the forum. If we all took offense to the basic information, the people seeking the basic information might not ever find it.3 -
You can lose weight eating nothing but twinkies. You shouldn't do that because twinkies are not nutritious. Losing weight eating healthy foods is the better choice. /post0
-
nokanjaijo wrote: »KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.
I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.
See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.
You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.
They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.
I find eating like that much simpler, but I can see why many people would. I like it cos I'm never hungry and fits my day
You find eating like what simpler?
Several meals, someone said they don't like having 3 meals and snacks andnokanjaijo wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.
I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.
See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.
You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.
They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.
3 meals and 3 snacks is way simpler for me, eating like that. I said that cos I do that all the time. But I guess most people don't.
Okay, I think a great many people do that. I bet it's very common.
What i don't think many people do is have 6 meals, eat almost half the day's calories in one meal then spread the other half over the remaining 5 meals. That's what I'm calling odd. It would be pretty uncommon, I think.
It seems to me like the author of this article was having a difficult time getting the two menus to come to the same calorie count and look like roughly the same amount of food. So they had to cram a bunch of calories into the dinner meal to force it.
Ahh I totally hear you, yes it seems they had to try really hard on the dinner
0 -
RemoteOutpost wrote: »You can lose weight eating nothing but twinkies. You shouldn't do that because twinkies are not nutritious. Losing weight eating healthy foods as well as twinkles (or whatever treats you like) in moderation as part of a balanced diet is the better choice. /post
Fixed it for you.
9 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »As for the original link and thought from @lizery I personally think it gives a really good visual representation of how calories are only equal in the energy measurement sense.
So one food is not the same as another food. Everyone knows that, I think. No one disagrees about that, which is why I think the idea that we need to be told it is so odd.
Some people use "calories" as a synonym for food and therefore think that when someone says "a calorie is a calorie" they are saying all foods are the same, food choice doesn't matter. But no one thinks that, really. Those who say "a calorie is a calorie" don't think it is helpful to confuse a unit of measurement and the food that provides that unit of measurement.
Let's say my TDEE is 2200. A calorie is a calorie means that if I regularly eat about 2500 calories I will gain weight, no matter how nutrient dense my diet is, or even if I avoid added sugar or whatever else people think is a "bad food." It also means I would maintain my weight eating 2200 calories, whether made up of those nutrient dense food choices or mostly fries and cake (not that it makes sense to assume that I would).
Am I thereby saying that eating a nutrient-dense balanced diet is the same as eating the same number of calories from only fries and cake? Obviously not! So the question is why would any think they need to correct this misapprehension that no one has. I find it quite puzzling and rather presumptuous, insulting to my intelligence, in fact.
I find many things stated here odd, yet rather than take offense to them I accept that within the semantics of the discussion people view things from different angles.
The reason I take offense is that even in a thread where people have explained at length that they don't consider foods the same for nutrient purposes and that is not what "a calorie is a calorie" means, we have people coming in claiming that we do, that "a calorie is a calorie" means we don't pay attention to nutrition.
OP has been in multiple threads where I know this has been explained, yet titled this thread "a calorie is a calorie" and when asked how that related to the (extremely obvious) point being made by the linked article/photos went off about people saying that nutrition does not matter, which I think is NOT what is meant by "a calorie is a calorie," if one actually pays attention to what is said.
I of course understand that to you thinking of calories as an abstract ideas separate from food may not make sense (though it does to me). I am not asking you to say "a calorie is a calorie." I am asking that people stop pretending like someone who does find that idea valuable and makes that point is thereby saying that nutrition does not matter. That's what is a strawman and insulting. (See, e.g., the post above about how we probably all eat badly and butter and sugar and rotting teeth.)As example, on this forum I don't see why anyone chooses to isolate the unit of measure from the food. Nobody here is taking in energy in other than food form, so all calories in impact the nutrition side in some way.
I find it helpful because it is useful for me to keep in mind that eating healthful food (or a diet that is healthful in all but total calories) is not healthful, regardless of calories, because it will still make you fat. There is so much nonsense about how the right foods can't make you fat that I think understanding that a calorie is a calorie and too many calories make you fat (and fewer than you need will lead to weight loss) is a helpful message for many. Not you, I get that, that's great.
Using "calories" as a synonym for food is, IMO, not useful, and assuming people are doing that or arguing with them as if they were even when they explicitly explain that they are not, that is what I think is rude. If you want to say "foods are different," no one will disagree with you, though, which I suppose makes it less interesting?The energy balance statement in your post is a good example. Many if not most here probably understand energy balance, but those that don't have something to learn from the statement. The original post was simply pointing out something that would help some of the people here on the forum. If we all took offense to the basic information, the people seeking the basic information might not ever find it.
I doubt there's even one person on MFP who thinks that food choice makes no difference at all, for nutrition, satiety, satisfaction, whatever. So I think assuming that there are masses ignorant of this and need it explained to them with pictures is pretty presumptuous, yeah.
I note that some have jumped in to say "thanks for explaining this to the dummies on MFP who say 'a calorie is a calorie' and therefore are gross pigs who care nothing about nutrition and will probably end up with meth mouth" (I paraphrase and exaggerate, of course, but not by that much). No one has jumped in to say "jeez, I assumed that it made absolutely no difference what foods I chose and that vegetables and cake are exactly the same, including in the volume I could eat, but you have educated me now!" But sure, maybe those people are out there. I'm beginning to believe anything after this past year (and also my time on MFP).
With respect to the article, neither of the days would appeal to me at all or be particularly satisfying, which is why I always encourage a broader discussion of nutrition (again, contrary to the idea that we are objecting because we think nutrition does not matter).14 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »As for the original link and thought from @lizery I personally think it gives a really good visual representation of how calories are only equal in the energy measurement sense.
So one food is not the same as another food. Everyone knows that, I think. No one disagrees about that, which is why I think the idea that we need to be told it is so odd.
Some people use "calories" as a synonym for food and therefore think that when someone says "a calorie is a calorie" they are saying all foods are the same, food choice doesn't matter. But no one thinks that, really. Those who say "a calorie is a calorie" don't think it is helpful to confuse a unit of measurement and the food that provides that unit of measurement.
Let's say my TDEE is 2200. A calorie is a calorie means that if I regularly eat about 2500 calories I will gain weight, no matter how nutrient dense my diet is, or even if I avoid added sugar or whatever else people think is a "bad food." It also means I would maintain my weight eating 2200 calories, whether made up of those nutrient dense food choices or mostly fries and cake (not that it makes sense to assume that I would).
Am I thereby saying that eating a nutrient-dense balanced diet is the same as eating the same number of calories from only fries and cake? Obviously not! So the question is why would any think they need to correct this misapprehension that no one has. I find it quite puzzling and rather presumptuous, insulting to my intelligence, in fact.
Nobody here is taking in energy in other than food form, so all calories in impact the nutrition side in some way. If calories could be absorbed into the human body without nutrients of some sort, it would to me make more sense to isolate the terms. But in either case it's the simple semantics of a persons view.
The idea is not that food needs to be broken down into isolated components, but that the purposes behind pursuing these components can be achieved both synergistically and independently. Tying the purpose of wanting to control energy intake (calories) and the purpose of wanting to avoid nutrient deficiencies (nutrients) with a strict "iff" is inaccurate (it's a fact that you can get adequate nutrients without the energy side of food going in the direction you want and vice versa), and it may introduce a rigid fear-driven system that may not be sustainable or even effective.
I don't know how to better explain this so I will give an example:
Eating as a social ritual provides energy, so we are not really isolating energy here, but the purpose of social connection is a stand alone idea and is not seen as a strict necessity for the purpose of weight management. In my mind, food as a source of nutrients (health) is the same, a stand alone concept that happens to share a source.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »As for the original link and thought from @lizery I personally think it gives a really good visual representation of how calories are only equal in the energy measurement sense.
So one food is not the same as another food. Everyone knows that, I think. No one disagrees about that, which is why I think the idea that we need to be told it is so odd.
Some people use "calories" as a synonym for food and therefore think that when someone says "a calorie is a calorie" they are saying all foods are the same, food choice doesn't matter. But no one thinks that, really. Those who say "a calorie is a calorie" don't think it is helpful to confuse a unit of measurement and the food that provides that unit of measurement.
Let's say my TDEE is 2200. A calorie is a calorie means that if I regularly eat about 2500 calories I will gain weight, no matter how nutrient dense my diet is, or even if I avoid added sugar or whatever else people think is a "bad food." It also means I would maintain my weight eating 2200 calories, whether made up of those nutrient dense food choices or mostly fries and cake (not that it makes sense to assume that I would).
Am I thereby saying that eating a nutrient-dense balanced diet is the same as eating the same number of calories from only fries and cake? Obviously not! So the question is why would any think they need to correct this misapprehension that no one has. I find it quite puzzling and rather presumptuous, insulting to my intelligence, in fact.
I find many things stated here odd, yet rather than take offense to them I accept that within the semantics of the discussion people view things from different angles. As example, on this forum I don't see why anyone chooses to isolate the unit of measure from the food. Nobody here is taking in energy in other than food form, so all calories in impact the nutrition side in some way. If calories could be absorbed into the human body without nutrients of some sort, it would to me make more sense to isolate the terms. But in either case it's the simple semantics of a persons view.
The energy balance statement in your post is a good example. Many if not most here probably understand energy balance, but those that don't have something to learn from the statement. The original post was simply pointing out something that would help some of the people here on the forum. If we all took offense to the basic information, the people seeking the basic information might not ever find it.
I disagree that users here necessarily understand energy balance, particularly new users.
There is a generalized misunderstanding out there that eating "right" is the path to weight loss.
There are many posts that have been posted from new users along the lines of "Help! I've been exercising and eating right for four weeks and the scale hasn't budged!"
In other words, if you don't isolate calorie content from nutrition, weight loss won't be achieved. They are two separate issues, and pretending they aren't is denying the "healhism" that exists in popular diet culture.15 -
^^^^ I second this.
I DID NOT know about energy balance.
Its embarrassing, I admit. I'm 50 how did I miss it?
4 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »^^^^ I second this.
I DID NOT know about energy balance.
Its embarrassing, I admit. I'm 50 how did I miss it?
I didn't really understand it in an "under the hood" way. I thought "eating healthy" would take care of the issue automatically. All of the gurus promised me it would.
Actually, I thought eating in certain other ways would automatically take care of things for me at different times over the years.8 -
I was in my 30s before I learned what it meant. I grew up surrounded by overweight family members who jumped from one fad diet to the next one, but there was never any understanding of how CICO actually works. Now I'm the only one in my family who does calorie tracking for weight control and I'm the only one who's successfully maintaining weight loss. I'm also the only one who's reversed the progression of pre-diabetes (family tree is full of type 2 diabetics).leanjogreen18 wrote: »^^^^ I second this.
I DID NOT know about energy balance.
Its embarrassing, I admit. I'm 50 how did I miss it?2 -
I knew all about energy balance, I learned it in 9th grade health class. I actually found MFP by googling for a calorie counting excel sheet -- it being modern times and all I figured there was probably an easier way of counting calories than a notebook and pen.
I'd never been on a "fad" diet in my life but here I am eating LCHF because calorie counting wasn't sustainable.
I'm grateful I started off knowing how to count calories and what a healthy diet looks like though. I never realized how fortunate I was to be "forced" to cook and eat proper food growing up. Threads asking things like how to drink water, eat vegetables or what's a healthy dinner drive home how much harder my experience could have been.5 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I'm grateful I started off knowing how to count calories and what a healthy diet looks like though. I never realized how fortunate I was to be "forced" to cook and eat proper food growing up. Threads asking things like how to drink water, eat vegetables or what's a healthy dinner drive home how much harder my experience could have been.
I second this. I was pretty sheltered in some ways, as some of those things have been pretty shocking to me, as our normal, boring meals were pretty nutritionally-sound, looking back, and my parents insisted that we eat vegetables, which meant I learned to like them. (I liked them much more when I learned to cook them for myself as an adult and didn't have to have as many from a can, but part of that was geography and what was available and reasonably priced back then.) When I was first living alone as a young adult in the big city I was overwhelmed and excited by all the order in/take out options (not just pizza or Chinese, whee!), and also had a social life and job that allowed for lots of dining out in good restaurants, but when I realized that it would be better for lots of reasons to do more home cooking it was nice to have it be not totally intimidating, even though learning to do it nightly and with minimal time available was something that took a bit of effort and practice.
I think I knew theoretically about calories, but hadn't really learned about them or thought about it, and I did think in terms of eating healthy (meaning low cal) foods and that I'd have to be really restrictive and eat only tiny amounts. When I realized I could save lots of calories and eat healthfully and low cal enough to lose while eating basically what I'd grown up thinking of as normal (and could make that even more tasty by getting into cooking and seasonable vegetables and so on), well, it seemed amazing and exciting. Before that, educated as I was about some things, my assumption really was that I'd have to follow one of those diets from a magazine or eat only vegetables or some such. Seems goofy now, but important to remember when I get frustrated.2 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I knew all about energy balance, I learned it in 9th grade health class. I actually found MFP by googling for a calorie counting excel sheet -- it being modern times and all I figured there was probably an easier way of counting calories than a notebook and pen. I'd never been on a "fad" diet in my life but here I am eating LCHF because calorie counting wasn't sustainable.
I'm grateful I started off knowing how to count calories and what a healthy diet looks like though. I never realized how fortunate I was to be "forced" to cook and eat proper food growing up. Threads asking things like how to drink water, eat vegetables or what's a healthy dinner drive home how much harder my experience could have been.
I was homeschooled-my obese mother, who's been a yo-yo dieter since she was a kid and also struggles with binge eating, neglected to include nutrition classes into the curriculum 1 -
I love that we can all acknowledge that a kilogram is a kilogram or a pound is a pound, in the literal sense that they are each units of measurement (mass) and have civilised discussion regarding illustrative images such as this:
(not my picture, Internet image for demonstrative purposes only)
... however the same sort of exploration of the value of a calorie beyond being a unit of energy and how it applies to weight loss and health turns to chaos.
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions