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.
You dont need to calorie count
Replies
-
To clarify a few things from my post that seem to be misinterpreted
Should find/eat foods that are hard to overindulge on does not mean never eating other foods that you may like/love that are calorie dense. It just means this using this tactic makes it easier to not overeat since you aren't tracking every calorie. Then when you are faced with a food you have to be more cautious around, you are aware of that and take whatever steps necessary, probably eating a smaller portion, or limiting frequency.
How do you know if you are eating more/less. Several ways...the scale will trend up or down, your hunger will be higher/lower or you can know look at the foods you eat...a lot of low calorie foods eaten means you're eating less than if you were eating a lot of high calorie foods. If you've been tracking calories you know the high calorie bombs, and you know what's not.
@rybo, @Need2Exerc1se,
I get it. I think the eat more/less strategy works for some people. But it didn't work for me - instructions unclear, got scale stuck in ceiling fan.
I tend to agree with @Tacklewasher. Find what works for you. The eat less strategy worked brilliantly for my wife, but it never worked for me.
I also agree with the OP. I don't like that there's this expectation that you shouldn't count calories forever, that you should be able to get away from that. I'm fairly adamant about this precisely because I was fat all my adult life until I figured out that calorie counting was what worked for me.
15 -
"Eating less" doesn't work for me in more than one way.
I simply have no concept of "less" for some reason. My hunger signals are unreliable, so maybe that plays a role. I have days where I feel like I have barely eaten that clock over 2000 calories, and days that feel like I have eaten a lot that are barely 1200 calories, independent of food choices. I'm supposed to eat less that what, exactly? How do I quantify my "less" without calorie counting when I can't trust my perception? I put roughly the same amount of sandwich spread on my sandwich, at least in my mind. In reality, "the same amount" ends up nearly twice the usual when I'm hungry because my brain makes it look tiny. I can not log, but I cannot not count. I always have a rough tally of calories in my head even if I'm not logging and continue to weigh food.
Another reason I don't have a real concept of less is the way I tend to eat. My eating is kind of "modular". There are a few things that I eat in consistent portions, so I supposed I can eat less of these if I weigh them, but more often than not my portion size depends on what other things I'm having that day and how much a certain thing feels "worth the calories" that day and how many calories I'm willing to spend on it, so many of my foods don't snap together uniformly every day in the same amounts and the same rotation foods. It's more like a Tetris game. Quantifying "less" without a clear numerical indicator is an exercise in futility with my preferred approach.
Having been super morbidly obese and climbing and obese since childhood I think I'm just broken. You don't get to that weight naturally unless something is messed up. People who haven't had to lose much may find it hard to understand. "Eat less" sounds simple to them, almost intuitive, but people need to work with what they have to achieve a weight management experience that is reasonably pleasant. You can't work with what you don't have or adopt an approach that isn't pleasant.11 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »"Eating less" doesn't work for me in more than one way.
I simply have no concept of "less" for some reason. My hunger signals are unreliable, so maybe that plays a role. I have days where I feel like I have barely eaten that clock over 2000 calories, and days that feel like I have eaten a lot that are barely 1200 calories, independent of food choices. I'm supposed to eat less that what, exactly? How do I quantify my "less" without calorie counting when I can't trust my perception? I put roughly the same amount of sandwich spread on my sandwich, at least in my mind. In reality, "the same amount" ends up nearly twice the usual when I'm hungry because my brain makes it look tiny. I can not log, but I cannot not count. I always have a rough tally of calories in my head even if I'm not logging and continue to weigh food.
Another reason I don't have a real concept of less is the way I tend to eat. My eating is kind of "modular". There are a few things that I eat in consistent portions, so I supposed I can eat less of these if I weigh them, but more often than not my portion size depends on what other things I'm having that day and how much a certain thing feels "worth the calories" that day and how many calories I'm willing to spend on it, so many of my foods don't snap together uniformly every day in the same amounts and the same rotation foods. It's more like a Tetris game. Quantifying "less" without a clear numerical indicator is an exercise in futility with my preferred approach.
Having been super morbidly obese and climbing and obese since childhood I think I'm just broken. You don't get to that weight naturally unless something is messed up. People who haven't had to lose much may find it hard to understand. "Eat less" sounds simple to them, almost intuitive, but people need to work with what they have to achieve a weight management experience that is reasonably pleasant. You can't work with what you don't have or adopt an approach that isn't pleasant.
This makes a whole lot of sense.1 -
I'm one who feels people should strive to eat without counting. In some situations and as a learning tool, counting can be invaluable, but I don't understand the accepted reliance on daily calorie counting for life.
If after a period of time counting, surely you understand how much food you need and are ingesting without measuring every gram? If you have a trend up, eat less. If you are trending down, eat more. I know that relying on hunger cues can be dangerous, sometimes you follow your hunger & eat, sometimes you have to know when to ignore it. I also think that individuals should find foods that they enjoy that are difficult to overindulge on.
OK, I'm going to expose why Mrs Jruzer sometimes calls me "Sheldon."
How do you know if you're eating less, or more? How much less? How much more? If you're not measuring, how do you know?
I'm all for developing healthy habits, and I'm much better and thoughtful about what I eat than I used to be. But the whole "less/more" thing is confusing to me.
The scale tells you...
I typically put on about 8-10 Lbs over the winter due in large part to an overall decrease in activity...both NEAT and EAT. I take it off in Spring when I get back on the bike and I give it another nudge with doing things like not having grains or starches with my dinner most nights (not every night)...scaling back a snack...reducing the size of my breakfast, etc.
I don't count calories, as it was pretty bad mentally for me...I still weigh and measure certain things though, particularly if they're calorie dense and particularly if I'm trying to lose weight...maintenance is far less of an issue and I don't have to think about it too much except in winter when my activity dips.
Most of my diet is also whole foods based which is more of a health thing and keeping my blood work in line...but it also helps me not overeat or at least not overeat often enough to change anything...5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »"Eating less" doesn't work for me in more than one way.
I simply have no concept of "less" for some reason. My hunger signals are unreliable, so maybe that plays a role. I have days where I feel like I have barely eaten that clock over 2000 calories, and days that feel like I have eaten a lot that are barely 1200 calories, independent of food choices. I'm supposed to eat less that what, exactly? How do I quantify my "less" without calorie counting when I can't trust my perception? I put roughly the same amount of sandwich spread on my sandwich, at least in my mind. In reality, "the same amount" ends up nearly twice the usual when I'm hungry because my brain makes it look tiny. I can not log, but I cannot not count. I always have a rough tally of calories in my head even if I'm not logging and continue to weigh food.
Another reason I don't have a real concept of less is the way I tend to eat. My eating is kind of "modular". There are a few things that I eat in consistent portions, so I supposed I can eat less of these if I weigh them, but more often than not my portion size depends on what other things I'm having that day and how much a certain thing feels "worth the calories" that day and how many calories I'm willing to spend on it, so many of my foods don't snap together uniformly every day in the same amounts and the same rotation foods. It's more like a Tetris game. Quantifying "less" without a clear numerical indicator is an exercise in futility with my preferred approach.
Having been super morbidly obese and climbing and obese since childhood I think I'm just broken. You don't get to that weight naturally unless something is messed up. People who haven't had to lose much may find it hard to understand. "Eat less" sounds simple to them, almost intuitive, but people need to work with what they have to achieve a weight management experience that is reasonably pleasant. You can't work with what you don't have or adopt an approach that isn't pleasant.
This.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm one who feels people should strive to eat without counting. In some situations and as a learning tool, counting can be invaluable, but I don't understand the accepted reliance on daily calorie counting for life.
If after a period of time counting, surely you understand how much food you need and are ingesting without measuring every gram? If you have a trend up, eat less. If you are trending down, eat more. I know that relying on hunger cues can be dangerous, sometimes you follow your hunger & eat, sometimes you have to know when to ignore it. I also think that individuals should find foods that they enjoy that are difficult to overindulge on.
OK, I'm going to expose why Mrs Jruzer sometimes calls me "Sheldon."
How do you know if you're eating less, or more? How much less? How much more? If you're not measuring, how do you know?
I'm all for developing healthy habits, and I'm much better and thoughtful about what I eat than I used to be. But the whole "less/more" thing is confusing to me.
The scale tells you...
I typically put on about 8-10 Lbs over the winter due in large part to an overall decrease in activity...both NEAT and EAT. I take it off in Spring when I get back on the bike and I give it another nudge with doing things like not having grains or starches with my dinner most nights (not every night)...scaling back a snack...reducing the size of my breakfast, etc.
I don't count calories, as it was pretty bad mentally for me...I still weigh and measure certain things though, particularly if they're calorie dense and particularly if I'm trying to lose weight...maintenance is far less of an issue and I don't have to think about it too much except in winter when my activity dips.
Most of my diet is also whole foods based which is more of a health thing and keeping my blood work in line...but it also helps me not overeat or at least not overeat often enough to change anything...
That works for you. When I do that, it doesn't work for me. For me it is count calories so I can enjoy life. For others calorie counting doesn't put them in a good place, and if they have success intuitively eating, good for them.10 -
rileysowner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm one who feels people should strive to eat without counting. In some situations and as a learning tool, counting can be invaluable, but I don't understand the accepted reliance on daily calorie counting for life.
If after a period of time counting, surely you understand how much food you need and are ingesting without measuring every gram? If you have a trend up, eat less. If you are trending down, eat more. I know that relying on hunger cues can be dangerous, sometimes you follow your hunger & eat, sometimes you have to know when to ignore it. I also think that individuals should find foods that they enjoy that are difficult to overindulge on.
OK, I'm going to expose why Mrs Jruzer sometimes calls me "Sheldon."
How do you know if you're eating less, or more? How much less? How much more? If you're not measuring, how do you know?
I'm all for developing healthy habits, and I'm much better and thoughtful about what I eat than I used to be. But the whole "less/more" thing is confusing to me.
The scale tells you...
I typically put on about 8-10 Lbs over the winter due in large part to an overall decrease in activity...both NEAT and EAT. I take it off in Spring when I get back on the bike and I give it another nudge with doing things like not having grains or starches with my dinner most nights (not every night)...scaling back a snack...reducing the size of my breakfast, etc.
I don't count calories, as it was pretty bad mentally for me...I still weigh and measure certain things though, particularly if they're calorie dense and particularly if I'm trying to lose weight...maintenance is far less of an issue and I don't have to think about it too much except in winter when my activity dips.
Most of my diet is also whole foods based which is more of a health thing and keeping my blood work in line...but it also helps me not overeat or at least not overeat often enough to change anything...
That works for you. When I do that, it doesn't work for me. For me it is count calories so I can enjoy life. For others calorie counting doesn't put them in a good place, and if they have success intuitively eating, good for them.
Yeah, whatever works...I'm just hard pressed to believe the vast majority will actually, realistically count calories into perpetuity. I'm hoping to be around for another 40 - 50 years...the thought of counting every calorie for the next 50 years doesn't seem particularly realistic to me.
I'd wager the number of people who count calories for life are very few...4 -
As a "smaller" person (I'm 5'4" currently 130 lbs) 5-10 extra lbs really weighs me down. And it took me a whole year to lose 15 lbs because I'm only lightly active. Waiting until the scale tells me that extra 10 lbs isn't water weight and is staying and then trying to lose it is like the worst version of Groundhog Day ever. I have to stay on top of it before I see the scale drift upward. I hope to some day be able to use more of a "on and off" plan - count accurately for a couple of weeks, then go a month not worrying about it, then count for a couple of weeks, etc. And as I said, if I can increase my TDEE a bit that will be easier. But for some of us, logging IS the easier, less stress method.7
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm one who feels people should strive to eat without counting. In some situations and as a learning tool, counting can be invaluable, but I don't understand the accepted reliance on daily calorie counting for life.
If after a period of time counting, surely you understand how much food you need and are ingesting without measuring every gram? If you have a trend up, eat less. If you are trending down, eat more. I know that relying on hunger cues can be dangerous, sometimes you follow your hunger & eat, sometimes you have to know when to ignore it. I also think that individuals should find foods that they enjoy that are difficult to overindulge on.
OK, I'm going to expose why Mrs Jruzer sometimes calls me "Sheldon."
How do you know if you're eating less, or more? How much less? How much more? If you're not measuring, how do you know?
I'm all for developing healthy habits, and I'm much better and thoughtful about what I eat than I used to be. But the whole "less/more" thing is confusing to me.
The scale tells you...
I typically put on about 8-10 Lbs over the winter due in large part to an overall decrease in activity...both NEAT and EAT. I take it off in Spring when I get back on the bike and I give it another nudge with doing things like not having grains or starches with my dinner most nights (not every night)...scaling back a snack...reducing the size of my breakfast, etc.
I don't count calories, as it was pretty bad mentally for me...I still weigh and measure certain things though, particularly if they're calorie dense and particularly if I'm trying to lose weight...maintenance is far less of an issue and I don't have to think about it too much except in winter when my activity dips.
Most of my diet is also whole foods based which is more of a health thing and keeping my blood work in line...but it also helps me not overeat or at least not overeat often enough to change anything...
That works for you. When I do that, it doesn't work for me. For me it is count calories so I can enjoy life. For others calorie counting doesn't put them in a good place, and if they have success intuitively eating, good for them.
Yeah, whatever works...I'm just hard pressed to believe the vast majority will actually, realistically count calories into perpetuity. I'm hoping to be around for another 40 - 50 years...the thought of counting every calorie for the next 50 years doesn't seem particularly realistic to me.
I'd wager the number of people who count calories for life are very few...
I tend to agree with this. Especially counting every single calorie / bite. And really, at some point would you not learn what 80 g of rice or a large egg vs. a medium egg looks like? When paying that much attention I just don't get how it wouldn't become obvious after a while.
But a lot o things people do seem crazy to me, so IDK why this should be different. I probably seem crazy to others.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm one who feels people should strive to eat without counting. In some situations and as a learning tool, counting can be invaluable, but I don't understand the accepted reliance on daily calorie counting for life.
If after a period of time counting, surely you understand how much food you need and are ingesting without measuring every gram? If you have a trend up, eat less. If you are trending down, eat more. I know that relying on hunger cues can be dangerous, sometimes you follow your hunger & eat, sometimes you have to know when to ignore it. I also think that individuals should find foods that they enjoy that are difficult to overindulge on.
OK, I'm going to expose why Mrs Jruzer sometimes calls me "Sheldon."
How do you know if you're eating less, or more? How much less? How much more? If you're not measuring, how do you know?
I'm all for developing healthy habits, and I'm much better and thoughtful about what I eat than I used to be. But the whole "less/more" thing is confusing to me.
The scale tells you...
I typically put on about 8-10 Lbs over the winter due in large part to an overall decrease in activity...both NEAT and EAT. I take it off in Spring when I get back on the bike and I give it another nudge with doing things like not having grains or starches with my dinner most nights (not every night)...scaling back a snack...reducing the size of my breakfast, etc.
I don't count calories, as it was pretty bad mentally for me...I still weigh and measure certain things though, particularly if they're calorie dense and particularly if I'm trying to lose weight...maintenance is far less of an issue and I don't have to think about it too much except in winter when my activity dips.
Most of my diet is also whole foods based which is more of a health thing and keeping my blood work in line...but it also helps me not overeat or at least not overeat often enough to change anything...
That works for you. When I do that, it doesn't work for me. For me it is count calories so I can enjoy life. For others calorie counting doesn't put them in a good place, and if they have success intuitively eating, good for them.
Yeah, whatever works...I'm just hard pressed to believe the vast majority will actually, realistically count calories into perpetuity. I'm hoping to be around for another 40 - 50 years...the thought of counting every calorie for the next 50 years doesn't seem particularly realistic to me.
I'd wager the number of people who count calories for life are very few...
I tend to agree with this. Especially counting every single calorie / bite. And really, at some point would you not learn what 80 g of rice or a large egg vs. a medium egg looks like? When paying that much attention I just don't get how it wouldn't become obvious after a while.
But a lot o things people do seem crazy to me, so IDK why this should be different. I probably seem crazy to others.
Whenever I stop paying attention for more than a week or so, my eyeballed portions start to get bigger and bigger. My brain telling me that I've done well today and totally have room for a handful of chocolate covered peanuts becomes harder to argue with. My between meals snacking in general becomes more prominent. Maybe that just means I'm weak or easily deluded by the voices in my head
but it is what it is.
If you asked me right now to pour a serving of cereal into a bowl, I could probably eyeball to within a couple of grams. If you asked me to do the same thing after a month of not logging, it would be substantially more and I would honestly not realize it. I wouldn't be a glutton or anything, but I would eventually end up back at 15 lbs heavier, swearing I hadn't changed a thing.
8 -
As a "smaller" person (I'm 5'4" currently 130 lbs) 5-10 extra lbs really weighs me down. And it took me a whole year to lose 15 lbs because I'm only lightly active. Waiting until the scale tells me that extra 10 lbs isn't water weight and is staying and then trying to lose it is like the worst version of Groundhog Day ever. I have to stay on top of it before I see the scale drift upward. I hope to some day be able to use more of a "on and off" plan - count accurately for a couple of weeks, then go a month not worrying about it, then count for a couple of weeks, etc. And as I said, if I can increase my TDEE a bit that will be easier. But for some of us, logging IS the easier, less stress method.
This is the crux of the issue for me too. Being short, small, and older, there's just not a lot of wiggle room. And weight loss is slow and not fun.
My logging is loose, and I leave exercise calories on the table to account for this. That's my method of having a sustainable logging habit balanced with a need to stay on top of what would likely be inevitable weight creep.
At least that's the plan once I get to goal. I'm still futzing with vanity weight. When I'm not saying... nah, just recomp and eat at maintenance... I keep going back and forth.5 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm one who feels people should strive to eat without counting. In some situations and as a learning tool, counting can be invaluable, but I don't understand the accepted reliance on daily calorie counting for life.
If after a period of time counting, surely you understand how much food you need and are ingesting without measuring every gram? If you have a trend up, eat less. If you are trending down, eat more. I know that relying on hunger cues can be dangerous, sometimes you follow your hunger & eat, sometimes you have to know when to ignore it. I also think that individuals should find foods that they enjoy that are difficult to overindulge on.
OK, I'm going to expose why Mrs Jruzer sometimes calls me "Sheldon."
How do you know if you're eating less, or more? How much less? How much more? If you're not measuring, how do you know?
I'm all for developing healthy habits, and I'm much better and thoughtful about what I eat than I used to be. But the whole "less/more" thing is confusing to me.
The scale tells you...
I typically put on about 8-10 Lbs over the winter due in large part to an overall decrease in activity...both NEAT and EAT. I take it off in Spring when I get back on the bike and I give it another nudge with doing things like not having grains or starches with my dinner most nights (not every night)...scaling back a snack...reducing the size of my breakfast, etc.
I don't count calories, as it was pretty bad mentally for me...I still weigh and measure certain things though, particularly if they're calorie dense and particularly if I'm trying to lose weight...maintenance is far less of an issue and I don't have to think about it too much except in winter when my activity dips.
Most of my diet is also whole foods based which is more of a health thing and keeping my blood work in line...but it also helps me not overeat or at least not overeat often enough to change anything...
That works for you. When I do that, it doesn't work for me. For me it is count calories so I can enjoy life. For others calorie counting doesn't put them in a good place, and if they have success intuitively eating, good for them.
Yeah, whatever works...I'm just hard pressed to believe the vast majority will actually, realistically count calories into perpetuity. I'm hoping to be around for another 40 - 50 years...the thought of counting every calorie for the next 50 years doesn't seem particularly realistic to me.
I'd wager the number of people who count calories for life are very few...
I tend to agree with this. Especially counting every single calorie / bite. And really, at some point would you not learn what 80 g of rice or a large egg vs. a medium egg looks like? When paying that much attention I just don't get how it wouldn't become obvious after a while.
But a lot o things people do seem crazy to me, so IDK why this should be different. I probably seem crazy to others.
Whenever I stop paying attention for more than a week or so, my eyeballed portions start to get bigger and bigger. My brain telling me that I've done well today and totally have room for a handful of chocolate covered peanuts becomes harder to argue with. My between meals snacking in general becomes more prominent. Maybe that just means I'm weak or easily deluded by the voices in my head but it is what it is.
If you asked me right now to pour a serving of cereal into a bowl, I could probably eyeball to within a couple of grams. If you asked me to do the same thing after a month of not logging, it would be substantially more and I would honestly not realize it. I wouldn't be a glutton or anything, but I would eventually end up back at 15 lbs heavier, swearing I hadn't changed a thing.
This is the same for me too, but I also find logging gets burdensome after a while unless I can come up with a new motivation (trying out new macros, testing out a training plan), so what I tend to do is still weigh out a lot of stuff (oats, potatoes, pasta, ice cream, meat, nuts) even if I am not logging. I know what I generally like to eat of those things, so I weigh but don't log. (I don't find weighing burdensome at all and often do it as a game when cooking to see if I can guess, even if not logging. I do find logging less fun and recipe creation on MFP I hate.)
I think it's cool that there are so many different ways people do this, and if I use my food scale for life, I don't mind. It's already a much more useful cooking tool for me than cups, which I never use. (I eyeball a lot too, but being able to make sure two ingredients are about equal in a recipe more easily if that's my desire can be useful.)2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm one who feels people should strive to eat without counting. In some situations and as a learning tool, counting can be invaluable, but I don't understand the accepted reliance on daily calorie counting for life.
If after a period of time counting, surely you understand how much food you need and are ingesting without measuring every gram? If you have a trend up, eat less. If you are trending down, eat more. I know that relying on hunger cues can be dangerous, sometimes you follow your hunger & eat, sometimes you have to know when to ignore it. I also think that individuals should find foods that they enjoy that are difficult to overindulge on.
OK, I'm going to expose why Mrs Jruzer sometimes calls me "Sheldon."
How do you know if you're eating less, or more? How much less? How much more? If you're not measuring, how do you know?
I'm all for developing healthy habits, and I'm much better and thoughtful about what I eat than I used to be. But the whole "less/more" thing is confusing to me.
The scale tells you...
I typically put on about 8-10 Lbs over the winter due in large part to an overall decrease in activity...both NEAT and EAT. I take it off in Spring when I get back on the bike and I give it another nudge with doing things like not having grains or starches with my dinner most nights (not every night)...scaling back a snack...reducing the size of my breakfast, etc.
I don't count calories, as it was pretty bad mentally for me...I still weigh and measure certain things though, particularly if they're calorie dense and particularly if I'm trying to lose weight...maintenance is far less of an issue and I don't have to think about it too much except in winter when my activity dips.
Most of my diet is also whole foods based which is more of a health thing and keeping my blood work in line...but it also helps me not overeat or at least not overeat often enough to change anything...
That works for you. When I do that, it doesn't work for me. For me it is count calories so I can enjoy life. For others calorie counting doesn't put them in a good place, and if they have success intuitively eating, good for them.
Yeah, whatever works...I'm just hard pressed to believe the vast majority will actually, realistically count calories into perpetuity. I'm hoping to be around for another 40 - 50 years...the thought of counting every calorie for the next 50 years doesn't seem particularly realistic to me.
I'd wager the number of people who count calories for life are very few...
I tend to agree with this. Especially counting every single calorie / bite. And really, at some point would you not learn what 80 g of rice or a large egg vs. a medium egg looks like? When paying that much attention I just don't get how it wouldn't become obvious after a while.
But a lot o things people do seem crazy to me, so IDK why this should be different. I probably seem crazy to others.
I think you make a fair point here. There are fine distinctions that we're skipping over. There are shades and degrees of compliance with logging.
I'm a fairly loose logger, to be honest. My concern isn't a large egg vs a medium egg. I tend to log all eggs as the same. I don't weigh bananas or slices of bread, and I do eyeball many things. I guesstimate portion sizes at dinner. This all works for me, so for the most part logging isn't that much of a chore.
So, my concern isn't 10 g of eggs. It's grosser quantities: how many eggs can I have? Can I have 2 or 3 eggs? How much cheese? How much ice cream can I have? If I have a 12 oz bottle of an 8% scotch ale, can I still have that cookie? What if I have the 4% abv Berliner Weisse instead? I went on a 10-mile bike ride - how much more can I / should I eat?
My exercise and diet are pretty lumpy. If I don't track at all, how do I know how much to eat? If today's dinner was 300 kcal, and tomorrow's dinner is 800 kcal, how do I adjust if I'm not, at least in some way, paying attention?6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm one who feels people should strive to eat without counting. In some situations and as a learning tool, counting can be invaluable, but I don't understand the accepted reliance on daily calorie counting for life.
If after a period of time counting, surely you understand how much food you need and are ingesting without measuring every gram? If you have a trend up, eat less. If you are trending down, eat more. I know that relying on hunger cues can be dangerous, sometimes you follow your hunger & eat, sometimes you have to know when to ignore it. I also think that individuals should find foods that they enjoy that are difficult to overindulge on.
OK, I'm going to expose why Mrs Jruzer sometimes calls me "Sheldon."
How do you know if you're eating less, or more? How much less? How much more? If you're not measuring, how do you know?
I'm all for developing healthy habits, and I'm much better and thoughtful about what I eat than I used to be. But the whole "less/more" thing is confusing to me.
The scale tells you...
I typically put on about 8-10 Lbs over the winter due in large part to an overall decrease in activity...both NEAT and EAT. I take it off in Spring when I get back on the bike and I give it another nudge with doing things like not having grains or starches with my dinner most nights (not every night)...scaling back a snack...reducing the size of my breakfast, etc.
I don't count calories, as it was pretty bad mentally for me...I still weigh and measure certain things though, particularly if they're calorie dense and particularly if I'm trying to lose weight...maintenance is far less of an issue and I don't have to think about it too much except in winter when my activity dips.
Most of my diet is also whole foods based which is more of a health thing and keeping my blood work in line...but it also helps me not overeat or at least not overeat often enough to change anything...
That works for you. When I do that, it doesn't work for me. For me it is count calories so I can enjoy life. For others calorie counting doesn't put them in a good place, and if they have success intuitively eating, good for them.
Yeah, whatever works...I'm just hard pressed to believe the vast majority will actually, realistically count calories into perpetuity. I'm hoping to be around for another 40 - 50 years...the thought of counting every calorie for the next 50 years doesn't seem particularly realistic to me.
I'd wager the number of people who count calories for life are very few...
I tend to agree with this. Especially counting every single calorie / bite. And really, at some point would you not learn what 80 g of rice or a large egg vs. a medium egg looks like? When paying that much attention I just don't get how it wouldn't become obvious after a while.
But a lot o things people do seem crazy to me, so IDK why this should be different. I probably seem crazy to others.
I think you make a fair point here. There are fine distinctions that we're skipping over. There are shades and degrees of compliance with logging.
I'm a fairly loose logger, to be honest. My concern isn't a large egg vs a medium egg. I tend to log all eggs as the same. I don't weigh bananas or slices of bread, and I do eyeball many things. I guesstimate portion sizes at dinner. This all works for me, so for the most part logging isn't that much of a chore.
So, my concern isn't 10 g of eggs. It's grosser quantities: how many eggs can I have? Can I have 2 or 3 eggs? How much cheese? How much ice cream can I have? If I have a 12 oz bottle of an 8% scotch ale, can I still have that cookie? What if I have the 4% abv Berliner Weisse instead? I went on a 10-mile bike ride - how much more can I / should I eat?
My exercise and diet are pretty lumpy. If I don't track at all, how do I know how much to eat? If today's dinner was 300 kcal, and tomorrow's dinner is 800 kcal, how do I adjust if I'm not, at least in some way, paying attention?
The shades and degrees was exactly what I was getting at too.
I got burnt out doing the precise logging thing, so I knew that had to go. When I left MFP over my annoyance with all the glitches going on at the time and started logging on another site, I sort of got used to less precise logging and saw that I could still get results. That was eye opening for me, knowing that close enough was good enough with how I was balancing activity calculations and loose logging.
I haven't looked back since, and logging is no longer a chore, so it's something that's easy to manage as a tool to keep an eye on things.
I know we all go on and on about precise logging, but that's more for people who aren't getting the results they want. For experienced losers who are maintaining or people like me who are just messing around with vanity weight, there's some room for play. I know enough about how all this works to adjust things based on results.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »As a "smaller" person (I'm 5'4" currently 130 lbs) 5-10 extra lbs really weighs me down. And it took me a whole year to lose 15 lbs because I'm only lightly active. Waiting until the scale tells me that extra 10 lbs isn't water weight and is staying and then trying to lose it is like the worst version of Groundhog Day ever. I have to stay on top of it before I see the scale drift upward. I hope to some day be able to use more of a "on and off" plan - count accurately for a couple of weeks, then go a month not worrying about it, then count for a couple of weeks, etc. And as I said, if I can increase my TDEE a bit that will be easier. But for some of us, logging IS the easier, less stress method.
At least that's the plan once I get to goal. I'm still futzing with vanity weight. When I'm not saying... nah, just recomp and eat at maintenance... I keep going back and forth.
I'm giving myself whiplash doing the exact same thing!
4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »As a "smaller" person (I'm 5'4" currently 130 lbs) 5-10 extra lbs really weighs me down. And it took me a whole year to lose 15 lbs because I'm only lightly active. Waiting until the scale tells me that extra 10 lbs isn't water weight and is staying and then trying to lose it is like the worst version of Groundhog Day ever. I have to stay on top of it before I see the scale drift upward. I hope to some day be able to use more of a "on and off" plan - count accurately for a couple of weeks, then go a month not worrying about it, then count for a couple of weeks, etc. And as I said, if I can increase my TDEE a bit that will be easier. But for some of us, logging IS the easier, less stress method.
At least that's the plan once I get to goal. I'm still futzing with vanity weight. When I'm not saying... nah, just recomp and eat at maintenance... I keep going back and forth.
I'm giving myself whiplash doing the exact same thing!
It's hard when you look good enough but you know you could look better but dieting is a chore and yada yada. I keep plugging at it.4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »As a "smaller" person (I'm 5'4" currently 130 lbs) 5-10 extra lbs really weighs me down. And it took me a whole year to lose 15 lbs because I'm only lightly active. Waiting until the scale tells me that extra 10 lbs isn't water weight and is staying and then trying to lose it is like the worst version of Groundhog Day ever. I have to stay on top of it before I see the scale drift upward. I hope to some day be able to use more of a "on and off" plan - count accurately for a couple of weeks, then go a month not worrying about it, then count for a couple of weeks, etc. And as I said, if I can increase my TDEE a bit that will be easier. But for some of us, logging IS the easier, less stress method.
This is the crux of the issue for me too. Being short, small, and older, there's just not a lot of wiggle room. And weight loss is slow and not fun.
My logging is loose, and I leave exercise calories on the table to account for this. That's my method of having a sustainable logging habit balanced with a need to stay on top of what would likely be inevitable weight creep.
At least that's the plan once I get to goal. I'm still futzing with vanity weight. When I'm not saying... nah, just recomp and eat at maintenance... I keep going back and forth.
This is where I'm at too. I plan to continue logging, but I've found a balance where I'm more likely to log 1 apple or 1/2 c veg, along with whatever the barcode on packaged food tells me (no I'm not weighing out that slice of cheese to see how many grams over or under it is
), and I just pour half and half into my morning coffee without measuring. I save the exact grams for larger portions of more calorie-dense stuff. I'm just as loose with my exercise, I don't log weight training and basically log everything else in fitbit steps, then eat back some but not all calories. I'm happy with the results and don't see why I couldn't continue this way indefinitely. 2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm one who feels people should strive to eat without counting. In some situations and as a learning tool, counting can be invaluable, but I don't understand the accepted reliance on daily calorie counting for life.
If after a period of time counting, surely you understand how much food you need and are ingesting without measuring every gram? If you have a trend up, eat less. If you are trending down, eat more. I know that relying on hunger cues can be dangerous, sometimes you follow your hunger & eat, sometimes you have to know when to ignore it. I also think that individuals should find foods that they enjoy that are difficult to overindulge on.
OK, I'm going to expose why Mrs Jruzer sometimes calls me "Sheldon."
How do you know if you're eating less, or more? How much less? How much more? If you're not measuring, how do you know?
I'm all for developing healthy habits, and I'm much better and thoughtful about what I eat than I used to be. But the whole "less/more" thing is confusing to me.
The scale tells you...
I typically put on about 8-10 Lbs over the winter due in large part to an overall decrease in activity...both NEAT and EAT. I take it off in Spring when I get back on the bike and I give it another nudge with doing things like not having grains or starches with my dinner most nights (not every night)...scaling back a snack...reducing the size of my breakfast, etc.
I don't count calories, as it was pretty bad mentally for me...I still weigh and measure certain things though, particularly if they're calorie dense and particularly if I'm trying to lose weight...maintenance is far less of an issue and I don't have to think about it too much except in winter when my activity dips.
Most of my diet is also whole foods based which is more of a health thing and keeping my blood work in line...but it also helps me not overeat or at least not overeat often enough to change anything...
That works for you. When I do that, it doesn't work for me. For me it is count calories so I can enjoy life. For others calorie counting doesn't put them in a good place, and if they have success intuitively eating, good for them.
Yeah, whatever works...I'm just hard pressed to believe the vast majority will actually, realistically count calories into perpetuity. I'm hoping to be around for another 40 - 50 years...the thought of counting every calorie for the next 50 years doesn't seem particularly realistic to me.
I'd wager the number of people who count calories for life are very few...
I tend to agree with this. Especially counting every single calorie / bite. And really, at some point would you not learn what 80 g of rice or a large egg vs. a medium egg looks like? When paying that much attention I just don't get how it wouldn't become obvious after a while.
But a lot o things people do seem crazy to me, so IDK why this should be different. I probably seem crazy to others.
Whenever I stop paying attention for more than a week or so, my eyeballed portions start to get bigger and bigger. My brain telling me that I've done well today and totally have room for a handful of chocolate covered peanuts becomes harder to argue with. My between meals snacking in general becomes more prominent. Maybe that just means I'm weak or easily deluded by the voices in my head but it is what it is.
If you asked me right now to pour a serving of cereal into a bowl, I could probably eyeball to within a couple of grams. If you asked me to do the same thing after a month of not logging, it would be substantially more and I would honestly not realize it. I wouldn't be a glutton or anything, but I would eventually end up back at 15 lbs heavier, swearing I hadn't changed a thing.
I'm only really looking at your first sentence here... but not logging does not equal not paying attention...i very much pay attention to my diet and fitness, I just don't need it to be on paper to do so.
It's like at work... my boss or his boss says how much is that going to cost and so we have the budget? I don't exactly have time to break out spread sheets in detail... any answer needs to be now... so I shake it around in my head and come up with something reasonable and put it on paper later as a projection and later reality or not...but I have to have a general idea to begin with which comes namely from experience doing what I do....
then there are other expenses which are no brainer that we can absorb... which is the vast majority of them. Some people think they're biggies, but they're really just ordinary stuff...
I treat all this the same way...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm one who feels people should strive to eat without counting. In some situations and as a learning tool, counting can be invaluable, but I don't understand the accepted reliance on daily calorie counting for life.
If after a period of time counting, surely you understand how much food you need and are ingesting without measuring every gram? If you have a trend up, eat less. If you are trending down, eat more. I know that relying on hunger cues can be dangerous, sometimes you follow your hunger & eat, sometimes you have to know when to ignore it. I also think that individuals should find foods that they enjoy that are difficult to overindulge on.
OK, I'm going to expose why Mrs Jruzer sometimes calls me "Sheldon."
How do you know if you're eating less, or more? How much less? How much more? If you're not measuring, how do you know?
I'm all for developing healthy habits, and I'm much better and thoughtful about what I eat than I used to be. But the whole "less/more" thing is confusing to me.
The scale tells you...
I typically put on about 8-10 Lbs over the winter due in large part to an overall decrease in activity...both NEAT and EAT. I take it off in Spring when I get back on the bike and I give it another nudge with doing things like not having grains or starches with my dinner most nights (not every night)...scaling back a snack...reducing the size of my breakfast, etc.
I don't count calories, as it was pretty bad mentally for me...I still weigh and measure certain things though, particularly if they're calorie dense and particularly if I'm trying to lose weight...maintenance is far less of an issue and I don't have to think about it too much except in winter when my activity dips.
Most of my diet is also whole foods based which is more of a health thing and keeping my blood work in line...but it also helps me not overeat or at least not overeat often enough to change anything...
That works for you. When I do that, it doesn't work for me. For me it is count calories so I can enjoy life. For others calorie counting doesn't put them in a good place, and if they have success intuitively eating, good for them.
Yeah, whatever works...I'm just hard pressed to believe the vast majority will actually, realistically count calories into perpetuity. I'm hoping to be around for another 40 - 50 years...the thought of counting every calorie for the next 50 years doesn't seem particularly realistic to me.
I'd wager the number of people who count calories for life are very few...
I tend to agree with this. Especially counting every single calorie / bite. And really, at some point would you not learn what 80 g of rice or a large egg vs. a medium egg looks like? When paying that much attention I just don't get how it wouldn't become obvious after a while.
But a lot o things people do seem crazy to me, so IDK why this should be different. I probably seem crazy to others.
I think you make a fair point here. There are fine distinctions that we're skipping over. There are shades and degrees of compliance with logging.
I'm a fairly loose logger, to be honest. My concern isn't a large egg vs a medium egg. I tend to log all eggs as the same. I don't weigh bananas or slices of bread, and I do eyeball many things. I guesstimate portion sizes at dinner. This all works for me, so for the most part logging isn't that much of a chore.
So, my concern isn't 10 g of eggs. It's grosser quantities: how many eggs can I have? Can I have 2 or 3 eggs? How much cheese? How much ice cream can I have? If I have a 12 oz bottle of an 8% scotch ale, can I still have that cookie? What if I have the 4% abv Berliner Weisse instead? I went on a 10-mile bike ride - how much more can I / should I eat?
My exercise and diet are pretty lumpy. If I don't track at all, how do I know how much to eat? If today's dinner was 300 kcal, and tomorrow's dinner is 800 kcal, how do I adjust if I'm not, at least in some way, paying attention?
This is exactly what I meant when I said my eating is "modular". I don't eat the same things in the same quantities every day and my activity is not the same every day, so I don't exactly know when I can or cannot have something/have more of something unless I keep a tally. It doesn't have to be logged accurate to the gram, like I said I'm capable of roughly keeping a tally in my head and not logging, but completely disregarding calories and depending on intuitively knowing what's what or just "paying attention to food" does not work for me.
The only other way I found to "eat less" is to have a fast day whenever I find my weight creeping up while maintaining. I do well with fasting, but I love food, so I would rather have fewer fast days by keeping track of calories.4 -
To clarify a few things from my post that seem to be misinterpreted
Should find/eat foods that are hard to overindulge on does not mean never eating other foods that you may like/love that are calorie dense. It just means this using this tactic makes it easier to not overeat since you aren't tracking every calorie. Then when you are faced with a food you have to be more cautious around, you are aware of that and take whatever steps necessary, probably eating a smaller portion, or limiting frequency.
How do you know if you are eating more/less. Several ways...the scale will trend up or down, your hunger will be higher/lower or you can know look at the foods you eat...a lot of low calorie foods eaten means you're eating less than if you were eating a lot of high calorie foods. If you've been tracking calories you know the high calorie bombs, and you know what's not.
Here is the problem. Eating food that are hard to overindulge in mean (to me) eating food I dont like that much. I've tried that twice before. I got bored after 2 months and gave up. If I tend to avoid foods that I'm more likely to eat, like samoosas, how will I know to intuitively eat less when I am faced with them since I have no idea what their nutritional make up is?
Oh use the hunger test you say? As already stated that doesn't work for me either. I'm permanently hungry. To give you idea, I can literally eat entire dish of cream and cheese rich lasagna and still be hungry. So no!
The scale will trend up or down. Yes this is true. However do you have any idea what goes through my head when I get on the scale and I'm 1kg heavier? The feeling of failure and the worthlessnes? Yes, not healthy I know but reality for me.
So, in short. Just because you don't understand something does not make it any less valid for the people who live in that reality.
Calorie counting, long term, gives me a sense of control over what goes into my body that I would not otherwise have. Over the last 4 years I have learned not to be obsess about counting when we go out. I try and eat intuitively but either fail because I'm faced with a situation where I'm the only person who worries about what and how much they eat, or I underestimate how much I eat. Either way, come Monday morning and I'm heavier than I should be.
You might believe in not doing it long term but I have to ... and I'm quite happy with that.
10 -
To clarify a few things from my post that seem to be misinterpreted
Should find/eat foods that are hard to overindulge on does not mean never eating other foods that you may like/love that are calorie dense. It just means this using this tactic makes it easier to not overeat since you aren't tracking every calorie. Then when you are faced with a food you have to be more cautious around, you are aware of that and take whatever steps necessary, probably eating a smaller portion, or limiting frequency.
How do you know if you are eating more/less. Several ways...the scale will trend up or down, your hunger will be higher/lower or you can know look at the foods you eat...a lot of low calorie foods eaten means you're eating less than if you were eating a lot of high calorie foods. If you've been tracking calories you know the high calorie bombs, and you know what's not.
...
So, in short. Just because you don't understand something does not make it any less valid for the people who live that reality.
...
You might believe in not doing it long term but I have to ... and I'm quite happy with that.
Very well said.3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm one who feels people should strive to eat without counting. In some situations and as a learning tool, counting can be invaluable, but I don't understand the accepted reliance on daily calorie counting for life.
If after a period of time counting, surely you understand how much food you need and are ingesting without measuring every gram? If you have a trend up, eat less. If you are trending down, eat more. I know that relying on hunger cues can be dangerous, sometimes you follow your hunger & eat, sometimes you have to know when to ignore it. I also think that individuals should find foods that they enjoy that are difficult to overindulge on.
OK, I'm going to expose why Mrs Jruzer sometimes calls me "Sheldon."
How do you know if you're eating less, or more? How much less? How much more? If you're not measuring, how do you know?
I'm all for developing healthy habits, and I'm much better and thoughtful about what I eat than I used to be. But the whole "less/more" thing is confusing to me.
The scale tells you...
I typically put on about 8-10 Lbs over the winter due in large part to an overall decrease in activity...both NEAT and EAT. I take it off in Spring when I get back on the bike and I give it another nudge with doing things like not having grains or starches with my dinner most nights (not every night)...scaling back a snack...reducing the size of my breakfast, etc.
I don't count calories, as it was pretty bad mentally for me...I still weigh and measure certain things though, particularly if they're calorie dense and particularly if I'm trying to lose weight...maintenance is far less of an issue and I don't have to think about it too much except in winter when my activity dips.
Most of my diet is also whole foods based which is more of a health thing and keeping my blood work in line...but it also helps me not overeat or at least not overeat often enough to change anything...
That works for you. When I do that, it doesn't work for me. For me it is count calories so I can enjoy life. For others calorie counting doesn't put them in a good place, and if they have success intuitively eating, good for them.
I'd wager the number of people who count calories for life are very few...
You may be right about this last point, at least from a historical perspective. But it's a fairly recent development that people can carry the key tool for this process in their pocket.
The number of people who have historically counted calories for life using books and notepads is quite low, I'm sure. The number of people who can count calories for life using a smartphone will probably be much higher.6 -
To clarify a few things from my post that seem to be misinterpreted
Should find/eat foods that are hard to overindulge on does not mean never eating other foods that you may like/love that are calorie dense. It just means this using this tactic makes it easier to not overeat since you aren't tracking every calorie. Then when you are faced with a food you have to be more cautious around, you are aware of that and take whatever steps necessary, probably eating a smaller portion, or limiting frequency.
How do you know if you are eating more/less. Several ways...the scale will trend up or down, your hunger will be higher/lower or you can know look at the foods you eat...a lot of low calorie foods eaten means you're eating less than if you were eating a lot of high calorie foods. If you've been tracking calories you know the high calorie bombs, and you know what's not.
Here is the problem. Eating food that are hard to overindulge in mean (to me) eating food I dont like that much. I've tried that twice before. I got bored after 2 months and gave up. If I tend to avoid foods that I'm more likely to eat, like samoosas, how will I know to intuitively eat less when I am faced with them since I have no idea what their nutritional make up is?
Oh use the hunger test you say? As already stated that doesn't work for me either. I'm permanently hungry. To give you idea, I can literally eat entire dish of cream and cheese rich lasagna and still be hungry. So no!
This part of your post confuses me. How does the scale help you not overindulge? I mean, you know 12 cookies is too much whether you weigh it or not. And calorie/nutrition information will be on the box of cookies. And after the lasagna you will still be hungry whether you measure or not.
I'm not saying you shouldn't log, I'm just not sure how these examples back up the need.2 -
If someone is logging, then they put in the 12 cookies and the calorie count is staring them in the face. If I want to eat 12 cookies one day, and I know how much it is, if Iḿ tracking everything I eat I can plan accordingly. Maybe I just eat a salad for the rest of the day, or two light meals and work out extra, whatever. Without tracking it is easy to just eat the 12 cookies and forget about it.
I plan to log for the rest of my life. Itś easy and I feel that it gives me a sense of control over my diet, and also Iḿ losing from it. There is no guess work involved. I dont use a food scale and my logging is probably not that precise. However, it is a lot more precise than my not logging or trying to keep a tally in my head. I have a job and other responsibilities. I dont have them mental capacity to accurately keep track of all I ate in a day and also run the rest of my life. I have not been obese all my life. My first 30 years I was at normal weight but I was very active and exercised a lot. I never counted calories. Once I started dieting (not calorie counting) but Atkins, low carb, low fat, whatever, I did lose weight but then I´d get tired of the diet and go back to eating as before. With MFP, I feel like I have found a way to lose weight--Iḿ losing 2 lbs. a week--which is much more rapid and consistent than ever before, and like I said, I have more control. I also have learned from being on this site, that I dont have to eat a bunch of food I dont like. I was a vegetlarian/vegan for several years (beyond age 30) and that also probably kept my weight lower. But I am not any longer and want to eat the foods I like. Calorie tracking and logging has helped me with that. I know how many calories I need and I generally pick health foods but I dont have to not eat carbs and I don´t have to avoid meat either. I just have to figure out the best way to put them all together.2 -
I'd agree that 12 cookies are too much. But here's an example from back when I did WW that a leader brought up. In her workplace, biscotti were brought in daily by a co-worker and kept on a table for snacking. The leader looked up biscotti in the WW guide and the entry was something like "Biscotti (1, 1.5 oz) 2 points". So, she happily took a cookie each day and logged it as 2 points. This went on for a few weeks and she noticed that her weight seemed to be creeping up. One day, out of curiosity, she put the biscotti on a scale and discovered that it actually weighed about 7 oz.
I know that if I cube 8 oz of Gouda and nibble on it during the day, it's a calorie bomb. I may not be aware that 2 oz could be putting me over my daily calories unless I weigh it. But once I'm aware of those calories, I can figure out how much I can eat without going over my target and, if I'm still hungry, opt for cherry tomatoes, watermelon, etc., to fill me up without exceeding my goals.7 -
lucerorojo wrote: »If someone is logging, then they put in the 12 cookies and the calorie count is staring them in the face. If I want to eat 12 cookies one day, and I know how much it is, if Iḿ tracking everything I eat I can plan accordingly. Maybe I just eat a salad for the rest of the day, or two light meals and work out extra, whatever. Without tracking it is easy to just eat the 12 cookies and forget about it.
Thanks for that explanation. Eating 12 cookies and forgetting about it is not something I'll ever wrap my head around. But people are different.0 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »I'd agree that 12 cookies are too much. But here's an example from back when I did WW that a leader brought up. In her workplace, biscotti were brought in daily by a co-worker and kept on a table for snacking. The leader looked up biscotti in the WW guide and the entry was something like "Biscotti (1, 1.5 oz) 2 points". So, she happily took a cookie each day and logged it as 2 points. This went on for a few weeks and she noticed that her weight seemed to be creeping up. One day, out of curiosity, she put the biscotti on a scale and discovered that it actually weighed about 7 oz.
I know that if I cube 8 oz of Gouda and nibble on it during the day, it's a calorie bomb. I may not be aware that 2 oz could be putting me over my daily calories unless I weigh it. But once I'm aware of those calories, I can figure out how much I can eat without going over my target and, if I'm still hungry, opt for cherry tomatoes, watermelon, etc., to fill me up without exceeding my goals.
This make more sense, though honestly I would know the difference between 1.5 oz and 7 oz when i picked something up. Not the exact weight, but I'd know that it was certainly more than 1.5.
The cheese example I totally get though.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Don't we all know how to intuitively eat? It's just some of us (me included) choose to ignore that little voice in our heads and that overstuffed feeling in our guts. I intuitively know full well i don't need that whole bag of chips, dessert after dinner every night or that extra scoop of pasta/rice/mashed potato, but i choose to ignore the sensible side of my brain and follow the "I need something tasty even though I'm not hungry" or the "That tastes so good, I'm not going to stop at a normal/sensible portion" side..
Probably not entirely what you're referring to, but no, not everyone does. My small child is developmentally delayed and on the Autism Spectrum, and he will not necessarily eat when he should be hungry (it's been a couple hours and some hard play since his last meal). He has always been like this. Always. When we were in NICU and he was 2 days old, the nurses would tell me that I had to let him tell me when he was hungry. I tried. He never did. He would go over an hour longer past feeding time without 'telling' me he was hungry, then be so worked up that he wouldn't nurse. After a lot of time keeping and analysis, I (and the nurses) determined that if I regulated his food intake, he would be fine. His body and his brain don't communicate the way they're 'supposed' to. As he gets older, he may realise he's hungry, but he may never do.*
This is why we need to teach ourselves good habits: yes, that bag of crisps/chips is very good. It will be very good tomorrow. So I'll save some of it for then. Still eating it, just not all at once.
*This not 'hearing' what the body is telling goes to other things, too. Toilet training? Don't get me started. He has to hurt himself pretty badly to notice. And we had zero problems with teething. All of this is not atypical for individuals on the Spectrum.1 -
I think a lot of what people successfully do are ways to avoid thoughtless or mindless eating (which focusing on how you feel before eating MIGHT help with, but might not). For me, eating according to a regular schedule and not snacking and being mindful about portions -- all of which I consider different from "intuitive eating" -- makes it unnecessary to log for maintenance (for losing too, but losing is easier when I log unless I am quite restrictive). But if I wanted to eat more impulsively or graze or the like -- which I don't, but some do and find not being able to a bigger burden than logging -- then logging would make that possible for me, and without it I think I'd gain under those conditions.0
-
Americans in particular use a lot of visual clues to tell themselves they are done. An empty plate or bowl, rather than a feeling of fullness. That's why for me, I need to portion things out into the correct calorie portion, rather then just eat from a bag or large bowl.
The Bottomless Bowl experiment is interesting research into it.6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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