Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »russelljam08 wrote: »russelljam08 wrote: »It is 2017 and people still pine on about GI. LOL
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v71/n3/abs/ejcn2016230a.html?foxtrotcallback=true#abs
"Diet-induced hyperinsulinemia may lead to a higher fat storage only at a positive energy balance"
QFT! How else? A magic insulin fairy puts fat seeds in your butt if you eat a carb??
Brilliant!
I need to alter this for hypothyroid - "Hypothyroidism does not open a rift in the space-time continuum to magically move fat from a parallel universe to your belly."
No it does not. But it really does make a difference.
True. Approximately 5%.7 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Skinny fat describes someone who has a relatively high body fat comparative to size/BMI. So you could be a size 0 but 30% body fat and all the increased health risks that come with it. The under-muscled thing that comes with it is also an issue as explained above for ageing well and injury prevention into old age.
But can you really? Can someone really be 30% BF and wear a size 0? I doubt it. You don't have to have much muscle to have a healthy BF% if you are a size 0 because you don't have much fat either.
To be in the healthy BMI range and unhealthy BF% range it's much more likely they'd be at the very upper end of healthy BMI.
It was just an extreme example but there are many people within a healthy BMI who are over fat. I know someone personally who is a healthy BMI, same height as me but no muscle to speak of and a propensity to carry their weight in their middle. They are most definitely visually and clinically over fat. And yes, she's at the upper end of the BMI scale (might actually have tipped over now but at one point was a good 5-6lbs under).
I'm not arguing that people can be skinny fat (healthy BMI, BF% over the healthy range). Just wondering if there is evidence that it is inherently unhealthy. As if that factor and that factor alone increases risk of disease.
Waist to hip ratios have been shown to be a more reliable indicator of future health/morbidity than BMI.
Doesn't answer my question, but okay.
The waist to hip may better identify excess fat, especially the most dangerous kind of excess fat, so it is related yto your question. Here's something: http://healthland.time.com/2012/04/03/americans-may-be-much-fatter-than-we-think-study-says/ Note the comment that excess fat is the problem, not excess weight. The BMI is not inherently healthy or not (although few women above a healthy BMI aren't overfat); it's a rough way to estimate BF% given the difficulty of determining it.
I realize this is not a great source; don't have time to look for a study now, but I'd honestly not heard it seriously suggested that so long as you are a normal BMI excess fat does not matter before, so don't have anything on hand.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I realize this is not a great source; don't have time to look for a study now, but I'd honestly not heard it seriously suggested that so long as you are a normal BMI excess fat does not matter before, so don't have anything on hand.
I've seen the opposite suggested. That if you are at a decent fat percentage, but have a greater muscle mass and therefore are into the overweight BMI, it carries greater risk.
I disagreed with it and did not really see any backup to the idea.
1 -
Overfat is overfat. Too high a BF% is too high a BF%. Predisposition to gaining round the middle is always a risk factor. BMI, to my understanding, has no impact on any of those things as it's just a guide to healthy/unhealthy weight ranges but BF% rules all, it's just not a very practical way to monitor individual weight, thus, BMI.8
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Overfat is overfat. Too high a BF% is too high a BF%. Predisposition to gaining round the middle is always a risk factor. BMI, to my understanding, has no impact on any of those things as it's just a guide to healthy/unhealthy weight ranges but BF% rules all, it's just not a very practical way to monitor individual weight, thus, BMI.
Maybe it's just me but this seems to be self evident and not really need explaining. It's obvious not matter what your BMI or total body weight might be.3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
Got it. You find it bothersome and you don't want to do it. I don't think there is any lack of clarity around that at this point. It's your life, do what you prefer. Just as I found it odd when people kept countering your desire not to measure, I find it odd that you keep restating it. If you don't want to do what Lemurcat does, don't. Simple
Why is it odd than I keep responding with my preferences but not that others keep responding to me with theirs?
As I said, if you reread my post more closely, I find both odd. Also, every other response is not necessarily directed to you. It is people just giving their point of view.
Need2 seems to think that people are trying to convince her to weigh or not to find it burdensome, and that certainly is not my intent or what I perceive others to be doing. I imagine HOW we cook determines what seems burdensome or not, as well as personality, so there will be differences. (But sometimes there is a temptation to clarify why what you are talking about is not as portrayed if it seems someone else is misunderstanding. I cop to this.)
Yeah, I think that how we cook thing might make a difference.
Like you, I'm a mis en place person since I find that makes cooking easier. Weighing food and jotting it down when you prep like that isn't really bothersome.
Mise in place is definitely not how I cook.
Mise en place is completely antithetical to my entire personality and lifestyle, let alone how I cook.
ETA: I'm an enthusiastic food scale user & logger for pretty close to everything I eat at home, though. Go figure.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
Got it. You find it bothersome and you don't want to do it. I don't think there is any lack of clarity around that at this point. It's your life, do what you prefer. Just as I found it odd when people kept countering your desire not to measure, I find it odd that you keep restating it. If you don't want to do what Lemurcat does, don't. Simple
Why is it odd than I keep responding with my preferences but not that others keep responding to me with theirs?
As I said, if you reread my post more closely, I find both odd. Also, every other response is not necessarily directed to you. It is people just giving their point of view.
Need2 seems to think that people are trying to convince her to weigh or not to find it burdensome, and that certainly is not my intent or what I perceive others to be doing. I imagine HOW we cook determines what seems burdensome or not, as well as personality, so there will be differences. (But sometimes there is a temptation to clarify why what you are talking about is not as portrayed if it seems someone else is misunderstanding. I cop to this.)
Yeah, I think that how we cook thing might make a difference.
Like you, I'm a mis en place person since I find that makes cooking easier. Weighing food and jotting it down when you prep like that isn't really bothersome.
Mise in place is definitely not how I cook.
Mise en place is completely antithetical to my entire personality and lifestyle, let alone how I cook.
Side note: I used to work with a head chef whose daily mise en place included a tub of frozen breadrolls on the right-hand side of the pass. They were solely for throwing at wait-staff who pissed her off.11 -
JillianRumrill wrote: »Don't tell me you exercise every day when you got a front-butt bigger than mine...and I have an exquisite front-butt. It puts my real butt to shame. My real butt is flat like Mick Foley's. In fact, I bet if I wore a mankind costume for Halloween, people would actually think I'm him and challenge me to a hell in a cell match. "HAvE a nICe DaY!"
I was a recreational masters athlete (short endurance), training regularly and competing, for over 10 years while obese, mostly midsection fat. I wasn't great, but I wasn't terrible either: My rowing machine 2K time was usually somewhere around the 75-percentile area for my age group in openweight. For sure I was working out frequently, regularly and intensely.
Front butt quality? Dunno. That's subjective. Visibly overfat, though.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
That's what the dishwasher is for.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Skinny-fat is not a state most aspire to, nor is it healthy.
Is there evidence to back up saying skinny-fat is not healthy?
Google high levels of bodyfat. Spoiler, yes skinny fat is not healthy.
Sample
“This is a wake-up call,” says Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, past president of the American College of Physicians and an internist in Atlanta, explaining that it shows person with a high body-fat percentage can be at risk even “if what you weigh is fine.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/high-body-fat-can-be-dangerous-even-with-normal-bmi-new-study-says/2016/03/09/ac26fbfe-e583-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?utm_term=.c6811991848d
Another sample:
https://www.prevention.com/health/health-concerns/can-you-be-skinny-and-fat2 -
JillianRumrill wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You can have considerate excess weight and still exercise. Again, they aren't mutually exclusive states.
eh, you're right. I'm not thinking about beginners. I'm thinking more along the lines of ppl who've straight up lied to me like they're jack lalane but they look like jabba the hut.
To jane's point though, you don't have to be a beginner...gym veterans can be fat too.
Weight is lost when you burn more than you eat. If you eat more than you burn while going to the gym everyday, you still get/stay fat, even if you keep going for years.6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Skinny-fat is not a state most aspire to, nor is it healthy.
Is there evidence to back up saying skinny-fat is not healthy?
Google high levels of bodyfat. Spoiler, yes skinny fat is not healthy.
Sample
“This is a wake-up call,” says Sandra Adamson Fryhofer, past president of the American College of Physicians and an internist in Atlanta, explaining that it shows person with a high body-fat percentage can be at risk even “if what you weigh is fine.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/high-body-fat-can-be-dangerous-even-with-normal-bmi-new-study-says/2016/03/09/ac26fbfe-e583-11e5-a6f3-21ccdbc5f74e_story.html?utm_term=.c6811991848d
Another sample:
https://www.prevention.com/health/health-concerns/can-you-be-skinny-and-fat
Thanks! I wish it had more details re: numbers.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »JillianRumrill wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
You can have considerate excess weight and still exercise. Again, they aren't mutually exclusive states.
eh, you're right. I'm not thinking about beginners. I'm thinking more along the lines of ppl who've straight up lied to me like they're jack lalane but they look like jabba the hut.
To jane's point though, you don't have to be a beginner...gym veterans can be fat too.
Weight is lost when you burn more than you eat. If you eat more than you burn while going to the gym everyday, you still get/stay fat, even if you keep going for years.
Yep, in my running group there are a handful of people who are significantly overweight and have been for the 3 odd years I've known them. In the end, it comes down to an energy balance. You can be very active and still consume more than you burn, just like you can be very inactive and still be very slender.4 -
Cross fit is stupid13
-
birdiepeeps88 wrote: »Cross fit is stupid
Compared to what? Sitting on one's *kitten* only to get food and use the loo?7 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
That's what the dishwasher is for.
The dishwasher is for one extra dirty bowl? Clearly I've been using mine incorrectly for years.5 -
clicketykeys wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
That's what the dishwasher is for.
The dishwasher is for one extra dirty bowl? Clearly I've been using mine incorrectly for years.
For anyone that needs instruction. You put the one extra bowl in the machine with all the rest of the items you collect to wash. Wait until you have close to a full load then run it.
It's not that hard, most people can figure it out.12 -
Packerjohn wrote: »birdiepeeps88 wrote: »Cross fit is stupid
Compared to what? Sitting on one's *kitten* only to get food and use the loo?
I’d like an answer to this as well2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
That's what the dishwasher is for.
The dishwasher is for one extra dirty bowl? Clearly I've been using mine incorrectly for years.
For anyone that needs instruction. You put the one extra bowl in the machine with all the rest of the items you collect to wash. Wait until you have close to a full load then run it.
It's not that hard, most people can figure it out.
It's not hard to not use the bowl either. It's quite simple and easy.1 -
People here will hate me for saying it, but I know I didn't get into the worst shape of my life because I was too easy on myself. It was because I was way too hard on myself.
I've only ever improved by being as gentle to myself as I am with others. Then I've been able to do what I need to do to take care of myself and work on my own goals.7 -
AintTooProudToMeg wrote: »People here will hate me for saying it, but I know I didn't get into the worst shape of my life because I was too easy on myself. It was because I was way too hard on myself.
I've only ever improved by being as gentle to myself as I am with others. Then I've been able to do what I need to do to take care of myself and work on my own goals.
When I'm too hard on myself I set myself up for failure (never good enough) and end up binging or quiting. When I'm being less hard on myself I accept setbacks as part of life and don't beat myself up over it and don't give up.3 -
AintTooProudToMeg wrote: »People here will hate me for saying it, but I know I didn't get into the worst shape of my life because I was too easy on myself. It was because I was way too hard on myself.
I've only ever improved by being as gentle to myself as I am with others. Then I've been able to do what I need to do to take care of myself and work on my own goals.
I don't think so. That's what separates MFP is understanding the underlying root cause of the issue at hand. It's less an issue of easy vs. hard and simply a matter of prioritization. Unfortunately prioritizing short term gains typically leads to long term losses.
There's a common theme in the fad diet industry that you must hate your current self or love the "new you". Any change requires investment. You never invest time and energy in things you hate, so self improvement is always an act of love.7 -
singingflutelady wrote: »AintTooProudToMeg wrote: »People here will hate me for saying it, but I know I didn't get into the worst shape of my life because I was too easy on myself. It was because I was way too hard on myself.
I've only ever improved by being as gentle to myself as I am with others. Then I've been able to do what I need to do to take care of myself and work on my own goals.
When I'm too hard on myself I set myself up for failure (never good enough) and end up binging or quiting. When I'm being less hard on myself I accept setbacks as part of life and don't beat myself up over it and don't give up.
Totally agree. This is how it works with me too.3 -
AintTooProudToMeg wrote: »People here will hate me for saying it, but I know I didn't get into the worst shape of my life because I was too easy on myself. It was because I was way too hard on myself.
I've only ever improved by being as gentle to myself as I am with others. Then I've been able to do what I need to do to take care of myself and work on my own goals.
I don't think many would be in opposition to this thinking. I say it quite a lot to newcomers, that you can't hate yourself to be who you want to be. Those are the people who lose 200lbs and are still miserable, in fact more miserable because they thought that's what would make them happy and it wasn't the magical fix everything panacea they were convinced it would be.5 -
AintTooProudToMeg wrote: »People here will hate me for saying it, but I know I didn't get into the worst shape of my life because I was too easy on myself. It was because I was way too hard on myself.
I've only ever improved by being as gentle to myself as I am with others. Then I've been able to do what I need to do to take care of myself and work on my own goals.
Without disagreeing with your core point in the slightest, that's not how I feel personally.
One's starting point - personality, temperament, personal orientation - really matters. The psychology can be pretty individual.
Some of us got into bad shape by being too hard on ourselves, some by being too easy on ourselves, and some for reasons not between those poles at all.
I think my excess weight had more to do with having a hedonist streak a mile wide, and a tendency to give more decision-making priority to current-self vs. future-self. I ate all the yummy things, all the time.
Some health issues finally got my attention and got me to lose weight. Now, it's blatantly obvious to me that current thin self feels consistently and persistently so much better physically than past fat self! Consequently, the hedonist streak is firmly on the side of maintaining a healthy weight. I'm kicking myself that I was blind to this for all those decades.
But I'm not even a tiny bit psychologically deep.
3 -
AintTooProudToMeg wrote: »People here will hate me for saying it, but I know I didn't get into the worst shape of my life because I was too easy on myself. It was because I was way too hard on myself.
I've only ever improved by being as gentle to myself as I am with others. Then I've been able to do what I need to do to take care of myself and work on my own goals.
Without disagreeing with your core point in the slightest, that's not how I feel personally.
One's starting point - personality, temperament, personal orientation - really matters. The psychology can be pretty individual.
Some of us got into bad shape by being too hard on ourselves, some by being too easy on ourselves, and some for reasons not between those poles at all.
I think my excess weight had more to do with having a hedonist streak a mile wide, and a tendency to give more decision-making priority to current-self vs. future-self. I ate all the yummy things, all the time.
Some health issues finally got my attention and got me to lose weight. Now, it's blatantly obvious to me that current thin self feels consistently and persistently so much better physically than past fat self! Consequently, the hedonist streak is firmly on the side of maintaining a healthy weight. I'm kicking myself that I was blind to this for all those decades.
But I'm not even a tiny bit psychologically deep.
Yeah I definitely think it can be completely unrelated to being too hard on yourself.
My opinion might not be unpopular to the majority of people here but there are some vocal bully types in the minority who are tired of newbie questions but always answer them anyway, but they are rude and condescending to people who don't know the storm their innocent question will unleash. Those people are happy to point out how a person was lazy and complacent before. The assumption might be true even the majority of the time, but the presumption irks me.4 -
I'm watching my grandfather do that to himself right now. He's just not getting enough protein or iron and that one bad fall on the horizon will be his curtain call. Super hard to get someone in their 90's to change life long patterns tho.
@Fyreside
A lot of people that age have the “doctor worship” mentality. If that is the case for your Grandfather, use it to your advantage. I once accompanied a client to a MD appt and had her write several “prescriptions.” Among them were, “Shower twice a week” and “Drink one chocolate ensure at bedtime.” It might be worth a try.8 -
Ok. I’ll play. I love reading differing opinions.
I believe it’s not as simple as CICO. I believe body chemistry and makeup and hormones all play a part in weight loss.
I do believe aspertame is the devil. It makes me crave sugar and eat more. But then again, my body chemistry may be different than yours and it may affect me differently.
I prefer consistent daily activity over a heavy session at the gym.
I estimate calories in my fruit and dont even count my vegetables. These didn’t make me fat.
I wish people would understand the difference between lose and loose.
22 -
Ok. I’ll play. I love reading differing opinions.
I believe it’s not as simple as CICO. I believe body chemistry and makeup and hormones all play a part in weight loss.
I do believe aspertame is the devil. It makes me crave sugar and eat more. But then again, my body chemistry may be different than yours and it may affect me differently.
I prefer consistent daily activity over a heavy session at the gym.
I estimate calories in my fruit and dont even count my vegetables. These didn’t make me fat.
I wish people would understand the difference between lose and loose.
Do you know the definition of CICO? A lot of people here are not English speakers, so be nice.2 -
Ok. I’ll play. I love reading differing opinions.
I believe it’s not as simple as CICO. I believe body chemistry and makeup and hormones all play a part in weight loss.
I do believe aspertame is the devil. It makes me crave sugar and eat more. But then again, my body chemistry may be different than yours and it may affect me differently.
I prefer consistent daily activity over a heavy session at the gym.
I estimate calories in my fruit and dont even count my vegetables. These didn’t make me fat.
I wish people would understand the difference between lose and loose.
Please tell the class how "body chemistry and makeup and hormones" can create energy from nothing and/or make ingested energy disappear.10
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions