"You can eat whaver you want, as long as you eat at a deficit" is true, but it's garbage advice.

1161719212232

Replies

  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    LOL. Refreshed the page, and it was flagged already.
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,871 Member
    Preserving backyard fruit with.........wait for it...................SUGAR. Yay!

    It's marmalade, if any one cares.

    Oh yum! My grandmother used to make fresh fruit preserves. I can cook a lot of things but I never got the knack for that. Or for her homemade peanut brittle :disappointed:
  • prattiger65
    prattiger65 Posts: 1,657 Member
    I wonder if Mike Judge knew it was a documentary and not a comedy?
  • southernoregongrape
    southernoregongrape Posts: 117 Member
    Marmalade, yum been a long time since I thought of that. A funny story you might enjoy. Mama made apple butter one year and she set the apples on the kitchen counter, back then most people had linoleum on their counters, and it would wear through leaving the black backing exposed. The apples picked up that taste and I would never again eat apple butter becaue "it tasted like linoleum".
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    edited March 2017
    storyjorie wrote: »
    I think what the OP--and me, for that matter--are reacting to are the many responses you see on here when someone new asks something like, "Am I allowed to eat carbs?" or they freak out because they had a donut. The responses often come across as if the person who asked the question is completely clueless and you see a humorous string about all of the many unconventionally "diet-friendly" foods people here eat and still lose weight. It's not always obvious from those responses that the people offering them meant "on occasion" OR can lose on a very high calorie level. I think the truth is, we all need to find foods that fill us up, and for many of us, that's primarily going to entail the kinds of foods found in many diet books: high protein, vegetables and fruits. Not to the exclusion of splurges, but as the primary staples.

    I get what you are saying and there is certainly some of that, but that does not mean that a person who doesn't understand that donuts and carbs can be part of a healthy balanced diet isn't clueless re: nutrition.

    Personally I don't find many vegetables or fruits filling. Nutritious and delicious, but not filling. The only vegetables that are filling to me are beans and root vegetables.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    pinuplove wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Thumbs up on the Snorlax picture, I love Pokemon.

    I do think that a lot of the cheerful talk about how "you can eat ANYTHING and lose weight!" needs a footnote: "You can eat anything, but if it's high in calories you can only have a tiny bit."

    Now personally, if I order a pizza I don't want to eat just one slice, hold the breadsticks. Sure, cold pizza is a great snack the next morning, but there's something especially delightful about a piping hot pizza with the cheese still gooey (and breadsticks on the side.)

    What I do is I have days where I eat over my "normal" calories without worrying about it, and then I eat under the normal calories the next day. (This works best if the pig-out meal was dinner, since you usually still feel pretty full the next morning.) I don't consider that to be "a cheat day". It's not cheating, it's just moving the calories around so I can get what satisfies me--tons of pizza. :)

    To the bolded... don't you think that sort of caution is unnecessary (and maybe presumes ignorance) on a site where people are logging and tracking calories? A person who is entering the foods they eat in their diary would know that 2 pieces of Dominos chicken, spinach and roasted red pepper pizza (my latest go to on pizza night) is 560 calories and 4 pieces of Parmesan bites are 150 which leaves me 190 calories to keep this meal under 800 which is what I aim for for splurge dinners. So another piece of pizza, or a salad, or some dessert or a glass of wine.

    Caveating every post with information that posters should already know or be able to figure out themselves, seems redundant and insulting to me. I feel the same way about you the disclaimer, , even though I and many others do explicitly state, "but nutrition is also important"when someone asks if calories are all that matter for weight loss. My 5 year old knows that nutrition is important. Do I really have to add that to every post for grown adults so that my comments are not misinterpreted by people like the OP?

    YES...you should add this to every post. Anyone new to this forum would believe... based on the abundance of ridiculous comments that you can just eat whatever you want as long as it fits in your calorie goals. This is irresponsible and I've actually taken the liberty to look at people's diary's who advocate this and alot of them are actually eating healthy! So why advocate to others that you can eat whatever you want instead of promoting a healthy, balanced lifestyle with moderated indulgences. The fact that you have an issue with someone throwing nutrition in the mix is absolutely ridiculous. A reminder about nutrition is definitely needed on a forum such as this one.

    Why would you assume "Eat whatever you want" means "Eat nothing but junk food"?

    Again, for all the threads criticizing this advice, I have NEVER seen someone post that they actually did take this advice to mean "Go ahead and eat all junk food" and now are struggling or failing because they're full of Twinkies and Big Macs by noon and have no calories left. Yet I see time and time again people respond by saying, "You mean I can have a treat every once and awhile and still lose weight? Thank goodness!".

    And again again, for every post that just says, "You can eat whatever you want" there are two that follow that say "You can eat whatever you want to lose weight, but obviously you want to eat enough nutritious food for your health". And then someone will chime in to make sure you get enough fiber and protein. And then someone will post that if you eat Keto you'll never get hungry and your skin will glow. And then another will say that cutting out processed food was the only way they could lose weight.

    I seriously wonder if there is an alternate MFP universe with all of these threads where newbies are given no info but to stuff their pieholes with poptarts to lose weight and I am just too dense to find it. :confused:

    WHATEVER implies whatever. People are not providing enough context to that statement and are not being responsible. I have posted several times on various forums and have been met with angry comments...well I eat pizza everyday, or I eat Macdonald's everyday nobody can tell me otherwise! I completely advocate treats from time to time...we're human and what would life be without them...but people tend not to display their true story. I would like to re-highlight the fact that I mentioned previously in this thread that I have taken the liberty of looking at peoples diaries that advocate that you can eat WHATEVER you want and they actually eat a fairly decent diet so why not clarify that I eat healthy most of the time but I indulge as well instead of implying I eat WHATEVER I want. This is all that I am saying...

    Maybe because eating 'whatever' they want includes a wide variety of foods, including both 'good' and 'bad' (if you want to think of it that way) so by saying they eat whatever they want, they aren't misrepresenting anything. Obviously these people have open diaries, and everyone is welcome to do as you did and see for themselves what these self-proclaimed 'eat whatever you want!' people are, in fact, actually eating. And maybe they're just tired of qualifying every.single.statement they make here. My diary is open, and I eat whatever I want. Some days are better than others, but I log them all.

    I was going to say pretty much exactly this. I enjoy eating well and I typically crave highly nutritional foods. I take great pleasure in a large garden salad on a hot summer day...I look forward to a nice grilled salmon filet which I eat a couple nights per week...or a nice pan fried filet of cod with some lemon and dill...I love vegetables and some perfectly roasted asparagus makes my mouth water.

    I actually don't like a lot of things that people seem to love for whatever reason...like fast food and prepackaged foods, etc. I prefer my food to be as fresh as possible...even our Friday night pizzas are high quality from a local pizzeria.
  • AntoinetteAngus
    AntoinetteAngus Posts: 58 Member
    savithny wrote: »

    Preservatives are chemicals to make your food last longer. This is not natural. Food should spoil when it spoils. You should not be injecting it with stuff to make it last longer.

    So glad you clarified the following because most people tend to leave it at 'you can eat WHATEVER you want' - 'telling someone they can eat what they want and still lose does not mean that they should eat nothing but junk food'

    So your definition of bad is "anything non-natural"?

    Because the question is how do preservatives make food "bad" -- if the argument is that the non-natural is bad, what is the justification for that?

    And does this apply just to food or to everything else in our lives as well?

    The most common, oldest food preservative? Is just plain salt.

    Also, the oldest form of food preservation? Is controlled spoilage. Using salt.

    (says the person with the basement full of all-natural, organic veggies being carefully curated while they selectively spoil in jars full of saltwater. I love pickling things).

    Yep, pickling, salting, drying, freezing, fermenting -- all ways to preserve food. All are non-natural (well--fermentation happens in nature, but we do a more controlled version).

    Using "non-natural" as an argument that something is bad doesn't make sense to me.

    what? Wow.

    I take it you disagree, but these are all human innovations to make food last longer, something you said above wasn't natural.

    Food should spoil when it spoils, right?

    Food preservation techniques are nearly as old as humans. It is only in our present modern society that we can go to the store and buy nothing but fresh foods if we so desire. And I don't. I prefer to buy local, in-season produce and canned/frozen if not in season.

    Food preservation techniques work by inactivating the enzymes naturally found in food, thus slowing down degradation of the food. This is done by chemical (salt, vinegar, other chemical preservatives) or mechanical (freezing, canning, drying) means. It does NOT change the original chemical makeup of the food other than extracting water and, in some cases, degradation of water-soluble vitamins.

    Simply not true...I think in the beginning of time we used to use natural forms of preservation but one only needs to look at their pantry to find an abundance of chemical ones.

    Harmful effect of preservatives; There are certain harmful
    effects of using chemicals for preservation such as ;Sulfites are
    common preservatives used in various fruits,may have side
    effects in form of headaches, palpitations, allergies, and even
    cancer.

    Nitrates and Nitrites: These additives are used as curing
    agents in meat products.it gets converted into nitrous acid when
    consumed and is suspected of causing stomach cancer

    Benzoates are used in foods as antimicrobial preservatives,
    and have been suspected to cause allergies, asthma and skin
    rashes.

    Sorbates/sorbic acid are added to foods as antimicrobial
    preservatives. Reactions to sorbates are rare, but have included
    reports of urticaria and contact dermatitis [7].

    http://www.ijsrp.org/research-paper-0415/ijsrp-p4014.pdf
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,011 Member
    I wonder if Mike Judge knew it was a documentary and not a comedy?

    I'd :lol: if it wasn't sadly so true.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Right here! I would rather have a lot of food than a little bit. If I have some teensy-weensy, tee-niney, pigmy sized pea shaped piece of something magically delicious I will not be satisfied. I save the junk for when I REALLY want it. I may blow my calories that day but man is it ever worth it when I do! Some people really are content with two Oreos or a half-cup of ice cream. I I eat that and it's gonna be on like Donkey-Kong.

    I consider this a form of moderation too, though.

    One form is eat a serving (or whatever amount regularly fits in your calories) more regularly. For example, I went through a stage where I had about 200 calories for dessert every night. I'd have ice cream or cheese usually, or else a more indulgent dinner.

    Another is a rare blow out. There are some things I'm not interested in eating in moderation or are hard to fit -- a Mexican restaurant, Indian restaurant, Ethiopian restaurant, rare multi-course tasting menu at a new place, maybe. So I do them more rarely (at maintenance it doesn't have to be that rarely, as I tend to do a weekend long run and long bike, but depends), but when I do them I don't try to fit a calorie goal or skip the naan and get the tandoori chicken and so on. I eat what I want and without really worrying about it and since it's not something I do weekly regardless of workout it doesn't matter. It's a form of moderation. If I felt like that about ice cream or cake (I really don't, I'd rather just have a sensible amount and not overdo), then I'd follow a similar schedule there. But I wouldn't claim that meant "eat what you want within your calories" didn't work, since that would still be what I was doing.

    I love pie, I have it basically on holidays only anymore, because baking it is a bad idea unless I have other people to eat it, and because if I bake it I will want more than a piece. I haven't cut out pie and wouldn't tell anyone else you need to cut out pie. 'Cause that's not so, even though I don't eat much pie anymore.

    Moderation comes in many forms. I choose to abstain more often. However the kind of moderation most often referred to around here is the "make it fit on a daily basis" moderation.

    Then why do so many posts advocating for moderation say "sure, you can have X just maybe not every day?"

    Because there are so many thousands of comments on these boards you will easily find "so many" of almost anything if you look for it. Many push making it fit daily, many advocate a cheat day, many advocate saving it for one when you just want it so bad you don't want to resist. You tell me why so many different views, opinions and ways of eating exist. There are many different types of people on these boards is the likely answer.

    You're projecting when you say what other people mean by "moderation."
    As a strong supporter of moderating, I would tell you that moderation entails controlling portion sizes on some foods and frequency of intake on others. Which foods fall into which category varies by individual. Also, moderation via control of frequency could mean only having one a day vs three a day or it could mean only having that item once a week or it could mean only having that food on holidays/special occasions.

    Considering that you feel so strongly that the majority of moderation proponents on MFP think of moderation only as fitting treats into each and every day, I challenge you to find 3 frequent posters who support the concept of moderation but disagree with my definition above.
  • AntoinetteAngus
    AntoinetteAngus Posts: 58 Member
    pinuplove wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    Thumbs up on the Snorlax picture, I love Pokemon.

    I do think that a lot of the cheerful talk about how "you can eat ANYTHING and lose weight!" needs a footnote: "You can eat anything, but if it's high in calories you can only have a tiny bit."

    Now personally, if I order a pizza I don't want to eat just one slice, hold the breadsticks. Sure, cold pizza is a great snack the next morning, but there's something especially delightful about a piping hot pizza with the cheese still gooey (and breadsticks on the side.)

    What I do is I have days where I eat over my "normal" calories without worrying about it, and then I eat under the normal calories the next day. (This works best if the pig-out meal was dinner, since you usually still feel pretty full the next morning.) I don't consider that to be "a cheat day". It's not cheating, it's just moving the calories around so I can get what satisfies me--tons of pizza. :)

    To the bolded... don't you think that sort of caution is unnecessary (and maybe presumes ignorance) on a site where people are logging and tracking calories? A person who is entering the foods they eat in their diary would know that 2 pieces of Dominos chicken, spinach and roasted red pepper pizza (my latest go to on pizza night) is 560 calories and 4 pieces of Parmesan bites are 150 which leaves me 190 calories to keep this meal under 800 which is what I aim for for splurge dinners. So another piece of pizza, or a salad, or some dessert or a glass of wine.

    Caveating every post with information that posters should already know or be able to figure out themselves, seems redundant and insulting to me. I feel the same way about you the disclaimer, , even though I and many others do explicitly state, "but nutrition is also important"when someone asks if calories are all that matter for weight loss. My 5 year old knows that nutrition is important. Do I really have to add that to every post for grown adults so that my comments are not misinterpreted by people like the OP?

    YES...you should add this to every post. Anyone new to this forum would believe... based on the abundance of ridiculous comments that you can just eat whatever you want as long as it fits in your calorie goals. This is irresponsible and I've actually taken the liberty to look at people's diary's who advocate this and alot of them are actually eating healthy! So why advocate to others that you can eat whatever you want instead of promoting a healthy, balanced lifestyle with moderated indulgences. The fact that you have an issue with someone throwing nutrition in the mix is absolutely ridiculous. A reminder about nutrition is definitely needed on a forum such as this one.

    Why would you assume "Eat whatever you want" means "Eat nothing but junk food"?

    Again, for all the threads criticizing this advice, I have NEVER seen someone post that they actually did take this advice to mean "Go ahead and eat all junk food" and now are struggling or failing because they're full of Twinkies and Big Macs by noon and have no calories left. Yet I see time and time again people respond by saying, "You mean I can have a treat every once and awhile and still lose weight? Thank goodness!".

    And again again, for every post that just says, "You can eat whatever you want" there are two that follow that say "You can eat whatever you want to lose weight, but obviously you want to eat enough nutritious food for your health". And then someone will chime in to make sure you get enough fiber and protein. And then someone will post that if you eat Keto you'll never get hungry and your skin will glow. And then another will say that cutting out processed food was the only way they could lose weight.

    I seriously wonder if there is an alternate MFP universe with all of these threads where newbies are given no info but to stuff their pieholes with poptarts to lose weight and I am just too dense to find it. :confused:

    WHATEVER implies whatever. People are not providing enough context to that statement and are not being responsible. I have posted several times on various forums and have been met with angry comments...well I eat pizza everyday, or I eat Macdonald's everyday nobody can tell me otherwise! I completely advocate treats from time to time...we're human and what would life be without them...but people tend not to display their true story. I would like to re-highlight the fact that I mentioned previously in this thread that I have taken the liberty of looking at peoples diaries that advocate that you can eat WHATEVER you want and they actually eat a fairly decent diet so why not clarify that I eat healthy most of the time but I indulge as well instead of implying I eat WHATEVER I want. This is all that I am saying...

    Maybe because eating 'whatever' they want includes a wide variety of foods, including both 'good' and 'bad' (if you want to think of it that way) so by saying they eat whatever they want, they aren't misrepresenting anything. Obviously these people have open diaries, and everyone is welcome to do as you did and see for themselves what these self-proclaimed 'eat whatever you want!' people are, in fact, actually eating. And maybe they're just tired of qualifying every.single.statement they make here. My diary is open, and I eat whatever I want. Some days are better than others, but I log them all.

    'Maybe because eating 'whatever' they want includes a wide variety of foods, including both 'good' and 'bad'

    If this is the case then people should SAY THAT. This is my point...The word WHATEVER does not provide people with adequate information. It is misleading.
  • CynthiasChoice
    CynthiasChoice Posts: 1,047 Member
    I agree with OP. The goal shouldn't be centered around getting skinny. It should be eating for health, to nourish your body. Weight loss is very helpful, but skinny people have heart attacks and diabetes.

    I agree, and I would add something that often gets left out of the equation. The OP says, "(These people) seem to have forgotten what it was like to ACTUALLY live as a fat person."

    What I glean from this comment is that there is a mental component that very often needs to be addressed simultaneously with choosing specific foods as you begin calorie reduction. That is what makes "eat whatever you want at a calorie deficit" incomplete advice (not altogether bad advice.) A conscientious poster would state that it is incomplete advice.

    There are foods and nutrients that support brain health, and good decision making, and there are foods that negatively impact brain health and derail good decision making. I cannot link a particular study, but I can recommend the book "The Brain Warrior's Way" by Daniel Amen, MD and Tana Amen, BSN, RN

    There are also food choices and habits that can improve metabolism, so in relying just on calorie deficit, you are missing out on an opportunity for better progress. For instance, an Icelandic study on fish oil consumption (International Journal of Obesity 2007) involving 324 overweight young men proved that fish oil boosts weight loss. All the men were on a 1600 calorie nutritionally balanced diet for one month. Those taking fish oil lost an average of 10.9 pounds, while the placebo group lost an average of 7.8 pounds.
  • ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken
    ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken Posts: 1,530 Member
    edited March 2017
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Right here! I would rather have a lot of food than a little bit. If I have some teensy-weensy, tee-niney, pigmy sized pea shaped piece of something magically delicious I will not be satisfied. I save the junk for when I REALLY want it. I may blow my calories that day but man is it ever worth it when I do! Some people really are content with two Oreos or a half-cup of ice cream. I I eat that and it's gonna be on like Donkey-Kong.

    I consider this a form of moderation too, though.

    One form is eat a serving (or whatever amount regularly fits in your calories) more regularly. For example, I went through a stage where I had about 200 calories for dessert every night. I'd have ice cream or cheese usually, or else a more indulgent dinner.

    Another is a rare blow out. There are some things I'm not interested in eating in moderation or are hard to fit -- a Mexican restaurant, Indian restaurant, Ethiopian restaurant, rare multi-course tasting menu at a new place, maybe. So I do them more rarely (at maintenance it doesn't have to be that rarely, as I tend to do a weekend long run and long bike, but depends), but when I do them I don't try to fit a calorie goal or skip the naan and get the tandoori chicken and so on. I eat what I want and without really worrying about it and since it's not something I do weekly regardless of workout it doesn't matter. It's a form of moderation. If I felt like that about ice cream or cake (I really don't, I'd rather just have a sensible amount and not overdo), then I'd follow a similar schedule there. But I wouldn't claim that meant "eat what you want within your calories" didn't work, since that would still be what I was doing.

    I love pie, I have it basically on holidays only anymore, because baking it is a bad idea unless I have other people to eat it, and because if I bake it I will want more than a piece. I haven't cut out pie and wouldn't tell anyone else you need to cut out pie. 'Cause that's not so, even though I don't eat much pie anymore.

    Moderation comes in many forms. I choose to abstain more often. However the kind of moderation most often referred to around here is the "make it fit on a daily basis" moderation.

    Then why do so many posts advocating for moderation say "sure, you can have X just maybe not every day?"

    Because there are so many thousands of comments on these boards you will easily find "so many" of almost anything if you look for it. Many push making it fit daily, many advocate a cheat day, many advocate saving it for one when you just want it so bad you don't want to resist. You tell me why so many different views, opinions and ways of eating exist. There are many different types of people on these boards is the likely answer.

    You're projecting when you say what other people mean by "moderation."
    As a strong supporter of moderating, I would tell you that moderation entails controlling portion sizes on some foods and frequency of intake on others. Which foods fall into which category varies by individual. Also, moderation via control of frequency could mean only having one a day vs three a day or it could mean only having that item once a week or it could mean only having that food on holidays/special occasions.

    Considering that you feel so strongly that the majority of moderation proponents on MFP think of moderation only as fitting treats into each and every day, I challenge you to find 3 frequent posters who support the concept of moderation but disagree with my definition above.

    When a person says what they mean, and they say it a LOT around here I am repeating not projecting. I speak on what I see. You don't even have to like it.
This discussion has been closed.