Do you include/count calories from fruits &a veggies?
Options
Replies
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »The problem with calorie counting for life, like a plant-based vegan diet, is that when it is suggested to people trying to lose weight, they will either refuse to do it, or try it and fail. That is the reality, like it or not. Just because most posters here have succeeded (like most posters on a plant-based vegan page have succeeded), doesn't mean you are going to get more than a tiny fraction of the population to try it and/or succeed.
Calorie counting is actually a great concept, because most overweight people have absolutely no clue how many calories they are eating. The lack of awareness is frightening. But again, the idea of counting calories for life is a total turnoff for most.
You could get a lot more people to count calories if it was suggested as a short-term solution. So let's say you count calories for two months and are successful in meeting your goals. But your sick of counting calories. So you just stop counting. Or, if you like counting, you can be a calorie counter for life.
And because you stop counting, it doesn't mean you are going to start eating 1,300-calorie fast-food lunches, and giant pieces of cheesecake for desert at dinner. In those two months, you have learned what you can eat, and what you can't eat to meet your goals.
Make sure you weigh yourself every few days. If for some reason you gain a couple of pounds, you can start counting again.
Stating that they have to count every morsel of food (including lettuce and spinach) they eat for the rest of their lives is not exactly going to bring lots of newbies onto the calorie counting bandwagon, no matter how easy it is to count.
So I am actually pro-calorie counting. But I am also looking at reality.
I'm puzzled by the intention behind your posts. Saying that one weighs and logs fruits and veggies *while actively calorie counting* doesn't mean that person intends to calorie count for life. I completely agree with you that many people would do fine logging for a while and then just watching the scale. I think among active posters here, it's most common to calorie count while maintaining a deficit, then stop while in maintenance, but I've never seen a bunch of people arguing that everyone needs to do this exactly the same way for success. I know that I personally find it easiest to maintain a deficit though calorie counting because the amount I eat varies throughout the week, which can make it hard to know if I'm on track from day to day. But hey, whatever works.
Newbies post here and are told by many posters to log absolutely everything. 100%. I believe that is counterproductive.
Plant based vegans would have much more success with newbies if they told them it's OK not be plant based for let's say four or five times a month (eggs, steak, grilled chicken, fish, etc.). But they never suggest that and in fact, will tell you that eating that food will kill you (see the bestselling book "How Not to Die" by Dr. Greger).
And that is just as counterproductive as telling a newbie to calorie counting to weigh all the veggies in a typical salad.
Just my opinion.
Why do you keep bringing up vegans?
Vegans (plant-based diet) say you can't be healthy unless you eat a 100% plant-based diet. Calorie counters tell newbies that 100% of the food and drink consumed must be counted. Both notions are false.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a plant-based vegan diet, and nothing wrong with counting every calorie. It's just that very few people will even try to do either one.
So vegans should be happy convincing people to be mainly vegan (plant based diet + some animal fats), and calorie counters should be happy convincing people to count most calories, or at least develop an awareness of calories.
I doubt most people having their morning bagel with low-fat cream cheese, a 12-ounce orange juice, and coffee with two or three sugars, have a clue to how many calories they are consuming. They need to know if they want to lose weight.
Continuing to bring up veganism is making your argument weaker, not stronger, especially since you are getting some key concepts wrong.
Here is the concept:
- I started calorie counting. I did it faithfully for about six weeks (other than salad greens). It worked.
- After six weeks, I started to fall of the calorie counting wagon. I continued to lose weight.
- After about ten weeks I totally stopped counting and continued to lose weight.
- Withing nine months I met my goal. I have maintained the weight without counting calories.
My point is that calorie counting can be a short-term exercise. In those first couple of months of calorie counting, you learn what you can and can't eat to meet your goal. After that time (at least for me), there was no longer a need to count. I disliked counting.;
There are too many posts here suggesting that you calorie count for life. That is a complete turnoff to most people. They won't even try.
The correlation to veganism is the similar turnoff. The vast, vast majority of people would NEVER try a 100% plant-based vegan diet. But they might consider a mostly plant-based vegan diet.
There you go.
Once again, there is no such thing as a "mostly plant-based vegan diet." I'm not sure what is failing to connect here, but I recommend you stop using veganism as a way to express your bias against calorie counting until you fully understand what it is.
If you eat a plant-based vegan diet, but you eat fish twice a month, it is a "mostly plant-based vegan diet." How else are you supposed to describe it?
I have no bias against calorie counting. I told you it works.
Pescetarian.8 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »The problem with calorie counting for life, like a plant-based vegan diet, is that when it is suggested to people trying to lose weight, they will either refuse to do it, or try it and fail. That is the reality, like it or not. Just because most posters here have succeeded (like most posters on a plant-based vegan page have succeeded), doesn't mean you are going to get more than a tiny fraction of the population to try it and/or succeed.
Calorie counting is actually a great concept, because most overweight people have absolutely no clue how many calories they are eating. The lack of awareness is frightening. But again, the idea of counting calories for life is a total turnoff for most.
You could get a lot more people to count calories if it was suggested as a short-term solution. So let's say you count calories for two months and are successful in meeting your goals. But your sick of counting calories. So you just stop counting. Or, if you like counting, you can be a calorie counter for life.
And because you stop counting, it doesn't mean you are going to start eating 1,300-calorie fast-food lunches, and giant pieces of cheesecake for desert at dinner. In those two months, you have learned what you can eat, and what you can't eat to meet your goals.
Make sure you weigh yourself every few days. If for some reason you gain a couple of pounds, you can start counting again.
Stating that they have to count every morsel of food (including lettuce and spinach) they eat for the rest of their lives is not exactly going to bring lots of newbies onto the calorie counting bandwagon, no matter how easy it is to count.
So I am actually pro-calorie counting. But I am also looking at reality.
I'm puzzled by the intention behind your posts. Saying that one weighs and logs fruits and veggies *while actively calorie counting* doesn't mean that person intends to calorie count for life. I completely agree with you that many people would do fine logging for a while and then just watching the scale. I think among active posters here, it's most common to calorie count while maintaining a deficit, then stop while in maintenance, but I've never seen a bunch of people arguing that everyone needs to do this exactly the same way for success. I know that I personally find it easiest to maintain a deficit though calorie counting because the amount I eat varies throughout the week, which can make it hard to know if I'm on track from day to day. But hey, whatever works.
Newbies post here and are told by many posters to log absolutely everything. 100%. I believe that is counterproductive.
Plant based vegans would have much more success with newbies if they told them it's OK not be plant based for let's say four or five times a month (eggs, steak, grilled chicken, fish, etc.). But they never suggest that and in fact, will tell you that eating that food will kill you (see the bestselling book "How Not to Die" by Dr. Greger).
And that is just as counterproductive as telling a newbie to calorie counting to weigh all the veggies in a typical salad.
Just my opinion.
Why do you keep bringing up vegans?
Vegans (plant-based diet) say you can't be healthy unless you eat a 100% plant-based diet. Calorie counters tell newbies that 100% of the food and drink consumed must be counted. Both notions are false.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a plant-based vegan diet, and nothing wrong with counting every calorie. It's just that very few people will even try to do either one.
So vegans should be happy convincing people to be mainly vegan (plant based diet + some animal fats), and calorie counters should be happy convincing people to count most calories, or at least develop an awareness of calories.
I doubt most people having their morning bagel with low-fat cream cheese, a 12-ounce orange juice, and coffee with two or three sugars, have a clue to how many calories they are consuming. They need to know if they want to lose weight.
Continuing to bring up veganism is making your argument weaker, not stronger, especially since you are getting some key concepts wrong.
Here is the concept:
- I started calorie counting. I did it faithfully for about six weeks (other than salad greens). It worked.
- After six weeks, I started to fall of the calorie counting wagon. I continued to lose weight.
- After about ten weeks I totally stopped counting and continued to lose weight.
- Withing nine months I met my goal. I have maintained the weight without counting calories.
My point is that calorie counting can be a short-term exercise. In those first couple of months of calorie counting, you learn what you can and can't eat to meet your goal. After that time (at least for me), there was no longer a need to count. I disliked counting.;
There are too many posts here suggesting that you calorie count for life. That is a complete turnoff to most people. They won't even try.
The correlation to veganism is the similar turnoff. The vast, vast majority of people would NEVER try a 100% plant-based vegan diet. But they might consider a mostly plant-based vegan diet.
There you go.
Once again, there is no such thing as a "mostly plant-based vegan diet." I'm not sure what is failing to connect here, but I recommend you stop using veganism as a way to express your bias against calorie counting until you fully understand what it is.
If you eat a plant-based vegan diet, but you eat fish twice a month, it is a "mostly plant-based vegan diet." How else are you supposed to describe it?
I have no bias against calorie counting. I told you it works.
Eating fish once or twice a month is not a vegan diet. Not at all. That's what you aren't getting. Vegans eat and use no animal products. So saying you are vegan if you only eat animal products a few times a month is not correct, ever. Just take the word 'vegan' out. This has nothing to do with veganism. Nothing at all.
I think "mostly" is meant to modify "vegan," here -- as in, "I mostly eat vegan, but not all the time." I think it's a distinction between being a vegan and eating (mostly) vegan food that's getting a little lost in translation.3 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »The problem with calorie counting for life, like a plant-based vegan diet, is that when it is suggested to people trying to lose weight, they will either refuse to do it, or try it and fail. That is the reality, like it or not. Just because most posters here have succeeded (like most posters on a plant-based vegan page have succeeded), doesn't mean you are going to get more than a tiny fraction of the population to try it and/or succeed.
Calorie counting is actually a great concept, because most overweight people have absolutely no clue how many calories they are eating. The lack of awareness is frightening. But again, the idea of counting calories for life is a total turnoff for most.
You could get a lot more people to count calories if it was suggested as a short-term solution. So let's say you count calories for two months and are successful in meeting your goals. But your sick of counting calories. So you just stop counting. Or, if you like counting, you can be a calorie counter for life.
And because you stop counting, it doesn't mean you are going to start eating 1,300-calorie fast-food lunches, and giant pieces of cheesecake for desert at dinner. In those two months, you have learned what you can eat, and what you can't eat to meet your goals.
Make sure you weigh yourself every few days. If for some reason you gain a couple of pounds, you can start counting again.
Stating that they have to count every morsel of food (including lettuce and spinach) they eat for the rest of their lives is not exactly going to bring lots of newbies onto the calorie counting bandwagon, no matter how easy it is to count.
So I am actually pro-calorie counting. But I am also looking at reality.
I'm puzzled by the intention behind your posts. Saying that one weighs and logs fruits and veggies *while actively calorie counting* doesn't mean that person intends to calorie count for life. I completely agree with you that many people would do fine logging for a while and then just watching the scale. I think among active posters here, it's most common to calorie count while maintaining a deficit, then stop while in maintenance, but I've never seen a bunch of people arguing that everyone needs to do this exactly the same way for success. I know that I personally find it easiest to maintain a deficit though calorie counting because the amount I eat varies throughout the week, which can make it hard to know if I'm on track from day to day. But hey, whatever works.
Newbies post here and are told by many posters to log absolutely everything. 100%. I believe that is counterproductive.
Plant based vegans would have much more success with newbies if they told them it's OK not be plant based for let's say four or five times a month (eggs, steak, grilled chicken, fish, etc.). But they never suggest that and in fact, will tell you that eating that food will kill you (see the bestselling book "How Not to Die" by Dr. Greger).
And that is just as counterproductive as telling a newbie to calorie counting to weigh all the veggies in a typical salad.
Just my opinion.
Why do you keep bringing up vegans?
Vegans (plant-based diet) say you can't be healthy unless you eat a 100% plant-based diet. Calorie counters tell newbies that 100% of the food and drink consumed must be counted. Both notions are false.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a plant-based vegan diet, and nothing wrong with counting every calorie. It's just that very few people will even try to do either one.
So vegans should be happy convincing people to be mainly vegan (plant based diet + some animal fats), and calorie counters should be happy convincing people to count most calories, or at least develop an awareness of calories.
I doubt most people having their morning bagel with low-fat cream cheese, a 12-ounce orange juice, and coffee with two or three sugars, have a clue to how many calories they are consuming. They need to know if they want to lose weight.
Continuing to bring up veganism is making your argument weaker, not stronger, especially since you are getting some key concepts wrong.
Here is the concept:
- I started calorie counting. I did it faithfully for about six weeks (other than salad greens). It worked.
- After six weeks, I started to fall of the calorie counting wagon. I continued to lose weight.
- After about ten weeks I totally stopped counting and continued to lose weight.
- Withing nine months I met my goal. I have maintained the weight without counting calories.
My point is that calorie counting can be a short-term exercise. In those first couple of months of calorie counting, you learn what you can and can't eat to meet your goal. After that time (at least for me), there was no longer a need to count. I disliked counting.;
There are too many posts here suggesting that you calorie count for life. That is a complete turnoff to most people. They won't even try.
The correlation to veganism is the similar turnoff. The vast, vast majority of people would NEVER try a 100% plant-based vegan diet. But they might consider a mostly plant-based vegan diet.
There you go.
Once again, there is no such thing as a "mostly plant-based vegan diet." I'm not sure what is failing to connect here, but I recommend you stop using veganism as a way to express your bias against calorie counting until you fully understand what it is.
If you eat a plant-based vegan diet, but you eat fish twice a month, it is a "mostly plant-based vegan diet." How else are you supposed to describe it?
I have no bias against calorie counting. I told you it works.
That's not what veganism is. Someone eating fish twice a month isn't vegan.3 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »The problem with calorie counting for life, like a plant-based vegan diet, is that when it is suggested to people trying to lose weight, they will either refuse to do it, or try it and fail. That is the reality, like it or not. Just because most posters here have succeeded (like most posters on a plant-based vegan page have succeeded), doesn't mean you are going to get more than a tiny fraction of the population to try it and/or succeed.
Calorie counting is actually a great concept, because most overweight people have absolutely no clue how many calories they are eating. The lack of awareness is frightening. But again, the idea of counting calories for life is a total turnoff for most.
You could get a lot more people to count calories if it was suggested as a short-term solution. So let's say you count calories for two months and are successful in meeting your goals. But your sick of counting calories. So you just stop counting. Or, if you like counting, you can be a calorie counter for life.
And because you stop counting, it doesn't mean you are going to start eating 1,300-calorie fast-food lunches, and giant pieces of cheesecake for desert at dinner. In those two months, you have learned what you can eat, and what you can't eat to meet your goals.
Make sure you weigh yourself every few days. If for some reason you gain a couple of pounds, you can start counting again.
Stating that they have to count every morsel of food (including lettuce and spinach) they eat for the rest of their lives is not exactly going to bring lots of newbies onto the calorie counting bandwagon, no matter how easy it is to count.
So I am actually pro-calorie counting. But I am also looking at reality.
I'm puzzled by the intention behind your posts. Saying that one weighs and logs fruits and veggies *while actively calorie counting* doesn't mean that person intends to calorie count for life. I completely agree with you that many people would do fine logging for a while and then just watching the scale. I think among active posters here, it's most common to calorie count while maintaining a deficit, then stop while in maintenance, but I've never seen a bunch of people arguing that everyone needs to do this exactly the same way for success. I know that I personally find it easiest to maintain a deficit though calorie counting because the amount I eat varies throughout the week, which can make it hard to know if I'm on track from day to day. But hey, whatever works.
Newbies post here and are told by many posters to log absolutely everything. 100%. I believe that is counterproductive.
Plant based vegans would have much more success with newbies if they told them it's OK not be plant based for let's say four or five times a month (eggs, steak, grilled chicken, fish, etc.). But they never suggest that and in fact, will tell you that eating that food will kill you (see the bestselling book "How Not to Die" by Dr. Greger).
And that is just as counterproductive as telling a newbie to calorie counting to weigh all the veggies in a typical salad.
Just my opinion.
Why do you keep bringing up vegans?
Vegans (plant-based diet) say you can't be healthy unless you eat a 100% plant-based diet. Calorie counters tell newbies that 100% of the food and drink consumed must be counted. Both notions are false.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a plant-based vegan diet, and nothing wrong with counting every calorie. It's just that very few people will even try to do either one.
So vegans should be happy convincing people to be mainly vegan (plant based diet + some animal fats), and calorie counters should be happy convincing people to count most calories, or at least develop an awareness of calories.
I doubt most people having their morning bagel with low-fat cream cheese, a 12-ounce orange juice, and coffee with two or three sugars, have a clue to how many calories they are consuming. They need to know if they want to lose weight.
Continuing to bring up veganism is making your argument weaker, not stronger, especially since you are getting some key concepts wrong.
Here is the concept:
- I started calorie counting. I did it faithfully for about six weeks (other than salad greens). It worked.
- After six weeks, I started to fall of the calorie counting wagon. I continued to lose weight.
- After about ten weeks I totally stopped counting and continued to lose weight.
- Withing nine months I met my goal. I have maintained the weight without counting calories.
My point is that calorie counting can be a short-term exercise. In those first couple of months of calorie counting, you learn what you can and can't eat to meet your goal. After that time (at least for me), there was no longer a need to count. I disliked counting.;
There are too many posts here suggesting that you calorie count for life. That is a complete turnoff to most people. They won't even try.
The correlation to veganism is the similar turnoff. The vast, vast majority of people would NEVER try a 100% plant-based vegan diet. But they might consider a mostly plant-based vegan diet.
There you go.
Once again, there is no such thing as a "mostly plant-based vegan diet." I'm not sure what is failing to connect here, but I recommend you stop using veganism as a way to express your bias against calorie counting until you fully understand what it is.
If you eat a plant-based vegan diet, but you eat fish twice a month, it is a "mostly plant-based vegan diet." How else are you supposed to describe it?
I have no bias against calorie counting. I told you it works.
What is giving people heartburn here (myself included even tho I am not remotely vegan) is that you keep describing a mostly vegetarian diet and calling it 'mostly plant-based vegan'. Veganism is not a diet - it is a way of life that avoids ALL animal products (not just in your food) as a moral decision based on beliefs about the treatment of animals.5 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »The problem with calorie counting for life, like a plant-based vegan diet, is that when it is suggested to people trying to lose weight, they will either refuse to do it, or try it and fail. That is the reality, like it or not. Just because most posters here have succeeded (like most posters on a plant-based vegan page have succeeded), doesn't mean you are going to get more than a tiny fraction of the population to try it and/or succeed.
Calorie counting is actually a great concept, because most overweight people have absolutely no clue how many calories they are eating. The lack of awareness is frightening. But again, the idea of counting calories for life is a total turnoff for most.
You could get a lot more people to count calories if it was suggested as a short-term solution. So let's say you count calories for two months and are successful in meeting your goals. But your sick of counting calories. So you just stop counting. Or, if you like counting, you can be a calorie counter for life.
And because you stop counting, it doesn't mean you are going to start eating 1,300-calorie fast-food lunches, and giant pieces of cheesecake for desert at dinner. In those two months, you have learned what you can eat, and what you can't eat to meet your goals.
Make sure you weigh yourself every few days. If for some reason you gain a couple of pounds, you can start counting again.
Stating that they have to count every morsel of food (including lettuce and spinach) they eat for the rest of their lives is not exactly going to bring lots of newbies onto the calorie counting bandwagon, no matter how easy it is to count.
So I am actually pro-calorie counting. But I am also looking at reality.
I'm puzzled by the intention behind your posts. Saying that one weighs and logs fruits and veggies *while actively calorie counting* doesn't mean that person intends to calorie count for life. I completely agree with you that many people would do fine logging for a while and then just watching the scale. I think among active posters here, it's most common to calorie count while maintaining a deficit, then stop while in maintenance, but I've never seen a bunch of people arguing that everyone needs to do this exactly the same way for success. I know that I personally find it easiest to maintain a deficit though calorie counting because the amount I eat varies throughout the week, which can make it hard to know if I'm on track from day to day. But hey, whatever works.
Newbies post here and are told by many posters to log absolutely everything. 100%. I believe that is counterproductive.
Plant based vegans would have much more success with newbies if they told them it's OK not be plant based for let's say four or five times a month (eggs, steak, grilled chicken, fish, etc.). But they never suggest that and in fact, will tell you that eating that food will kill you (see the bestselling book "How Not to Die" by Dr. Greger).
And that is just as counterproductive as telling a newbie to calorie counting to weigh all the veggies in a typical salad.
Just my opinion.
Why do you keep bringing up vegans?
Vegans (plant-based diet) say you can't be healthy unless you eat a 100% plant-based diet. Calorie counters tell newbies that 100% of the food and drink consumed must be counted. Both notions are false.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a plant-based vegan diet, and nothing wrong with counting every calorie. It's just that very few people will even try to do either one.
So vegans should be happy convincing people to be mainly vegan (plant based diet + some animal fats), and calorie counters should be happy convincing people to count most calories, or at least develop an awareness of calories.
I doubt most people having their morning bagel with low-fat cream cheese, a 12-ounce orange juice, and coffee with two or three sugars, have a clue to how many calories they are consuming. They need to know if they want to lose weight.
Continuing to bring up veganism is making your argument weaker, not stronger, especially since you are getting some key concepts wrong.
Here is the concept:
- I started calorie counting. I did it faithfully for about six weeks (other than salad greens). It worked.
- After six weeks, I started to fall of the calorie counting wagon. I continued to lose weight.
- After about ten weeks I totally stopped counting and continued to lose weight.
- Withing nine months I met my goal. I have maintained the weight without counting calories.
My point is that calorie counting can be a short-term exercise. In those first couple of months of calorie counting, you learn what you can and can't eat to meet your goal. After that time (at least for me), there was no longer a need to count. I disliked counting.;
There are too many posts here suggesting that you calorie count for life. That is a complete turnoff to most people. They won't even try.
The correlation to veganism is the similar turnoff. The vast, vast majority of people would NEVER try a 100% plant-based vegan diet. But they might consider a mostly plant-based vegan diet.
There you go.
Once again, there is no such thing as a "mostly plant-based vegan diet." I'm not sure what is failing to connect here, but I recommend you stop using veganism as a way to express your bias against calorie counting until you fully understand what it is.
If you eat a plant-based vegan diet, but you eat fish twice a month, it is a "mostly plant-based vegan diet." How else are you supposed to describe it?
I have no bias against calorie counting. I told you it works.
What is giving people heartburn here (myself included even tho I am not remotely vegan) is that you keep describing a mostly vegetarian diet and calling it 'mostly plant-based vegan'. Veganism is not a diet - it is a way of life that avoids ALL animal products (not just in your food) as a moral decision based on beliefs about the treatment of animals.
There are people who eat plant-based diets who are not vegans. They use leather. They choose their diet for health reasons.
All people who call themselves vegans do it for animal welfare. There are plant-based diet vegans, but there are also very unhealthy and overweight junk food diet vegans (most junk food is vegan friendly).
So instead of saying "mostly vegan," I should say "mostly plant based." My apologies.
Everyone else in this thread is aware that a plant-based diet and veganism aren't the same thing. The only issue is you conflating the two and saying that someone who eats fish regularly is on a "mostly plant-based vegan diet" and things like that.4 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »The problem with calorie counting for life, like a plant-based vegan diet, is that when it is suggested to people trying to lose weight, they will either refuse to do it, or try it and fail. That is the reality, like it or not. Just because most posters here have succeeded (like most posters on a plant-based vegan page have succeeded), doesn't mean you are going to get more than a tiny fraction of the population to try it and/or succeed.
Calorie counting is actually a great concept, because most overweight people have absolutely no clue how many calories they are eating. The lack of awareness is frightening. But again, the idea of counting calories for life is a total turnoff for most.
You could get a lot more people to count calories if it was suggested as a short-term solution. So let's say you count calories for two months and are successful in meeting your goals. But your sick of counting calories. So you just stop counting. Or, if you like counting, you can be a calorie counter for life.
And because you stop counting, it doesn't mean you are going to start eating 1,300-calorie fast-food lunches, and giant pieces of cheesecake for desert at dinner. In those two months, you have learned what you can eat, and what you can't eat to meet your goals.
Make sure you weigh yourself every few days. If for some reason you gain a couple of pounds, you can start counting again.
Stating that they have to count every morsel of food (including lettuce and spinach) they eat for the rest of their lives is not exactly going to bring lots of newbies onto the calorie counting bandwagon, no matter how easy it is to count.
So I am actually pro-calorie counting. But I am also looking at reality.
Where did anyone say to count calories for their whole life? I would agree that it's not remotely realistic for the vast majority of people, but I never saw that mentioned.
I haven't counted calories in over 4.5 years.2 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Fruit I weigh, veggies I guesstimate. Unless it's frozen vegetables they have quite a bit of calories.
Is this true? Do Frozen veg "have quite a bit of calories"??
Plain frozen veggies would be the same as non-frozen. The ones that are frozen with sauce or other things added could be where "quite a bit" could come in.0 -
I count, moreso for macros than anything else.
Fruit and veggies are generally very low in calories and nutrient-dense so I don't worry too much about how they impact my day from a calorie perspective, but fruit can definitely hit you hard when you're trying to keep your carbs down. I am, so I watch them.0 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »The problem with calorie counting for life, like a plant-based vegan diet, is that when it is suggested to people trying to lose weight, they will either refuse to do it, or try it and fail. That is the reality, like it or not. Just because most posters here have succeeded (like most posters on a plant-based vegan page have succeeded), doesn't mean you are going to get more than a tiny fraction of the population to try it and/or succeed.
Calorie counting is actually a great concept, because most overweight people have absolutely no clue how many calories they are eating. The lack of awareness is frightening. But again, the idea of counting calories for life is a total turnoff for most.
You could get a lot more people to count calories if it was suggested as a short-term solution. So let's say you count calories for two months and are successful in meeting your goals. But your sick of counting calories. So you just stop counting. Or, if you like counting, you can be a calorie counter for life.
And because you stop counting, it doesn't mean you are going to start eating 1,300-calorie fast-food lunches, and giant pieces of cheesecake for desert at dinner. In those two months, you have learned what you can eat, and what you can't eat to meet your goals.
Make sure you weigh yourself every few days. If for some reason you gain a couple of pounds, you can start counting again.
Stating that they have to count every morsel of food (including lettuce and spinach) they eat for the rest of their lives is not exactly going to bring lots of newbies onto the calorie counting bandwagon, no matter how easy it is to count.
So I am actually pro-calorie counting. But I am also looking at reality.
Where did anyone say to count calories for their whole life? I would agree that it's not remotely realistic for the vast majority of people, but I never saw that mentioned.
I haven't counted calories in over 4.5 years.
The inference from lots of posters here is that you just keep counting calories. Even lettuce.
No it's not. What posters in this thread are saying is - If you are counting, you should count everything. You are the only one who keeps bringing up how long to calorie count.
And I'll be honest, in all my years on the MFP forum, I can't recall seeing anyone say you need to count calories forever. I've seen some people say that they personally feel they will need to do it indefinitely, but not that it is somehow required.
Please quote all the posts in this thread where people told the OP she will have to weigh and log lettuce forever. Thanks.6 -
The inference from lots of posters here is that you just keep counting calories. Even lettuce.
No it's not. What posters in this thread are saying is - If you are counting, you should count everything. You are the only one who keeps bringing up how long to calorie count.
And I'll be honest, in all my years on the MFP forum, I can't recall seeing anyone say you need to count calories forever. I've seen some people say that they personally feel they will need to do it indefinitely, but not that it is somehow required.
Please quote all the posts in this thread where people told the OP she will have to weigh and log lettuce forever. Thanks.
To be fair, it has been said in one of the debate threads by some posters that you need to always count. But most agree with you that it is a personal choice (which I agree with). I still don't know if I will count forever or not. Have to see once I get to my goal and try to maintain.
I log everything except coffee (black, no sugar) and diet drinks. Even the things I don't want to log (Big Mac that didn't fit in my day).
(Edit: I see I've screwed up the quoting in this, sorry).
0 -
Back to the original question. I do count my calories for fruit and for vegetables as well. I remember on ww that the fruits and veggies are a "free food" but as we all know NO food is free- even the so- called "zero calorie foods- I mean they STILL have calories- so I count them1
-
Ready2Rock206 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Fruit I weigh, veggies I guesstimate. Unless it's frozen vegetables they have quite a bit of calories.
Is this true? Do Frozen veg "have quite a bit of calories"??
Plain frozen veggies would be the same as non-frozen. The ones that are frozen with sauce or other things added could be where "quite a bit" could come in.
Ahh, veggies frozen with sauce. I almost forgot there was such a thing.
I was thinking maybe the person who said frozen vegetables have quite a bit of calories meant something like "the types of veggies I buy frozen [e.g., corn, peas, green beans, edamame, winter squash] in the amounts I eat them tend to have more calories than the types of veggies I buy fresh [lettuces, greens, cucumber, summer squash, tomatoes, carrots] in the amounts that I eat them."
Maybe s/he will come back and explain.
ETA: I log pretty much all fruits (save maybe for an odd single berry or grape sampled as a "taste test") and most veggies, although I don't always bother with the odd slice or two of tomato or onion or leaf or two of lettuce on a sandwich.1 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »MegaMooseEsq wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »The problem with calorie counting for life, like a plant-based vegan diet, is that when it is suggested to people trying to lose weight, they will either refuse to do it, or try it and fail. That is the reality, like it or not. Just because most posters here have succeeded (like most posters on a plant-based vegan page have succeeded), doesn't mean you are going to get more than a tiny fraction of the population to try it and/or succeed.
Calorie counting is actually a great concept, because most overweight people have absolutely no clue how many calories they are eating. The lack of awareness is frightening. But again, the idea of counting calories for life is a total turnoff for most.
You could get a lot more people to count calories if it was suggested as a short-term solution. So let's say you count calories for two months and are successful in meeting your goals. But your sick of counting calories. So you just stop counting. Or, if you like counting, you can be a calorie counter for life.
And because you stop counting, it doesn't mean you are going to start eating 1,300-calorie fast-food lunches, and giant pieces of cheesecake for desert at dinner. In those two months, you have learned what you can eat, and what you can't eat to meet your goals.
Make sure you weigh yourself every few days. If for some reason you gain a couple of pounds, you can start counting again.
Stating that they have to count every morsel of food (including lettuce and spinach) they eat for the rest of their lives is not exactly going to bring lots of newbies onto the calorie counting bandwagon, no matter how easy it is to count.
So I am actually pro-calorie counting. But I am also looking at reality.
I'm puzzled by the intention behind your posts. Saying that one weighs and logs fruits and veggies *while actively calorie counting* doesn't mean that person intends to calorie count for life. I completely agree with you that many people would do fine logging for a while and then just watching the scale. I think among active posters here, it's most common to calorie count while maintaining a deficit, then stop while in maintenance, but I've never seen a bunch of people arguing that everyone needs to do this exactly the same way for success. I know that I personally find it easiest to maintain a deficit though calorie counting because the amount I eat varies throughout the week, which can make it hard to know if I'm on track from day to day. But hey, whatever works.
Newbies post here and are told by many posters to log absolutely everything. 100%. I believe that is counterproductive.
Plant based vegans would have much more success with newbies if they told them it's OK not be plant based for let's say four or five times a month (eggs, steak, grilled chicken, fish, etc.). But they never suggest that and in fact, will tell you that eating that food will kill you (see the bestselling book "How Not to Die" by Dr. Greger).
And that is just as counterproductive as telling a newbie to calorie counting to weigh all the veggies in a typical salad.
Just my opinion.
Why do you keep bringing up vegans?
Vegans (plant-based diet) say you can't be healthy unless you eat a 100% plant-based diet. Calorie counters tell newbies that 100% of the food and drink consumed must be counted. Both notions are false.
Having said that, there is nothing wrong with a plant-based vegan diet, and nothing wrong with counting every calorie. It's just that very few people will even try to do either one.
So vegans should be happy convincing people to be mainly vegan (plant based diet + some animal fats), and calorie counters should be happy convincing people to count most calories, or at least develop an awareness of calories.
I doubt most people having their morning bagel with low-fat cream cheese, a 12-ounce orange juice, and coffee with two or three sugars, have a clue to how many calories they are consuming. They need to know if they want to lose weight.
Continuing to bring up veganism is making your argument weaker, not stronger, especially since you are getting some key concepts wrong.
Here is the concept:
- I started calorie counting. I did it faithfully for about six weeks (other than salad greens). It worked.
- After six weeks, I started to fall of the calorie counting wagon. I continued to lose weight.
- After about ten weeks I totally stopped counting and continued to lose weight.
- Withing nine months I met my goal. I have maintained the weight without counting calories.
My point is that calorie counting can be a short-term exercise. In those first couple of months of calorie counting, you learn what you can and can't eat to meet your goal. After that time (at least for me), there was no longer a need to count. I disliked counting.;
There are too many posts here suggesting that you calorie count for life. That is a complete turnoff to most people. They won't even try.
The correlation to veganism is the similar turnoff. The vast, vast majority of people would NEVER try a 100% plant-based vegan diet. But they might consider a mostly plant-based vegan diet.
There you go.
Once again, there is no such thing as a "mostly plant-based vegan diet." I'm not sure what is failing to connect here, but I recommend you stop using veganism as a way to express your bias against calorie counting until you fully understand what it is.
If you eat a plant-based vegan diet, but you eat fish twice a month, it is a "mostly plant-based vegan diet." How else are you supposed to describe it?
I have no bias against calorie counting. I told you it works.
What is giving people heartburn here (myself included even tho I am not remotely vegan) is that you keep describing a mostly vegetarian diet and calling it 'mostly plant-based vegan'. Veganism is not a diet - it is a way of life that avoids ALL animal products (not just in your food) as a moral decision based on beliefs about the treatment of animals.
There are people who eat plant-based diets who are not vegans. They use leather. They choose their diet for health reasons.
All people who call themselves vegans do it for animal welfare. There are plant-based diet vegans, but there are also very unhealthy and overweight junk food diet vegans (most junk food is vegan friendly).
So instead of saying "mostly vegan," I should say "mostly plant based." My apologies.
Basically, it's like saying "I'm mostly a virgin, but I've had sex a couple times". No, you either are, or you aren't. If you eat the way a vegan eats 99% of the time, but voluntarily have the occasional meat product, you are NOT a vegan.8 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »I was thinking maybe the person who said frozen vegetables have quite a bit of calories meant something like "the types of veggies I buy frozen [e.g., corn, peas, green beans, edamame, winter squash] in the amounts I eat them tend to have more calories than the types of veggies I buy fresh [lettuces, greens, cucumber, summer squash, tomatoes, carrots] in the amounts that I eat them."
I was thinking along those lines...
The types of veg that often come frozen because they survive quite well that way are those with somewhat of a more robust cellular structure that can handle the freezing, and those tend to be the ones with more calories (because they're made of STUFF!
).
Agree on things like peas, sweetcorn, cubed sweet potato etc.
Lettuce and cucumber and the other low cal stuff just wouldn't survive freezing well enough IMO.
However, I have been known to resort to frozen diced onions, sliced mushrooms, cubed spinach and sliced peppers, all of which are pretty low cal. I would tend to weigh those though.
Fresh veg, particularly that of a fairly dark green persuasion, I'll tend to eyeball, but then again I'm in maintenance/recomp and not too hung up on a precise deficit.
Fruit is all logged, but I do get lazy with my bananas and assume they all weigh 90g. Mostly because I often eat one on the way to work and can't weigh it without the peel on...
1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Fruit I weigh, veggies I guesstimate. Unless it's frozen vegetables they have quite a bit of calories.
Is this true? Do Frozen veg "have quite a bit of calories"??
Plain frozen veggies would be the same as non-frozen. The ones that are frozen with sauce or other things added could be where "quite a bit" could come in.
Ahh, veggies frozen with sauce. I almost forgot there was such a thing.
I was thinking maybe the person who said frozen vegetables have quite a bit of calories meant something like "the types of veggies I buy frozen [e.g., corn, peas, green beans, edamame, winter squash] in the amounts I eat them tend to have more calories than the types of veggies I buy fresh [lettuces, greens, cucumber, summer squash, tomatoes, carrots] in the amounts that I eat them."
Maybe s/he will come back and explain.
ETA: I log pretty much all fruits (save maybe for an odd single berry or grape sampled as a "taste test") and most veggies, although I don't always bother with the odd slice or two of tomato or onion or leaf or two of lettuce on a sandwich.
Yes sorry lol I didn't bookmark this thread so I had no idea people were calling me out about frozen vegetables. I meant packaged frozen vegetables. Yes corn, peas, green beans etc. I meant mixed frozen vegetables. I buy a bag from walmart and it's about 100calories per cup. That's "quite a bit of calories". Especially when I could easily eat more than a cup.0 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Fruit I weigh, veggies I guesstimate. Unless it's frozen vegetables they have quite a bit of calories.
Is this true? Do Frozen veg "have quite a bit of calories"??
Plain frozen veggies would be the same as non-frozen. The ones that are frozen with sauce or other things added could be where "quite a bit" could come in.
Ahh, veggies frozen with sauce. I almost forgot there was such a thing.
I was thinking maybe the person who said frozen vegetables have quite a bit of calories meant something like "the types of veggies I buy frozen [e.g., corn, peas, green beans, edamame, winter squash] in the amounts I eat them tend to have more calories than the types of veggies I buy fresh [lettuces, greens, cucumber, summer squash, tomatoes, carrots] in the amounts that I eat them."
Maybe s/he will come back and explain.
ETA: I log pretty much all fruits (save maybe for an odd single berry or grape sampled as a "taste test") and most veggies, although I don't always bother with the odd slice or two of tomato or onion or leaf or two of lettuce on a sandwich.
Yes sorry lol I didn't bookmark this thread so I had no idea people were calling me out about frozen vegetables. I meant packaged frozen vegetables. Yes corn, peas, green beans etc. I meant mixed frozen vegetables. I buy a bag from walmart and it's about 100calories per cup. That's "quite a bit of calories".
Corn and peas (whether fresh or frozen) are relatively calorie-dense compared to other vegetables. Green beans, however, have about 31 calories in 100 grams (about a cup). That's also true for fresh or frozen.
It's going to come down to the type of vegetable you're eating, not whether or not it is frozen.2 -
eliciaobrien1 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »Ready2Rock206 wrote: »eliciaobrien1 wrote: »Fruit I weigh, veggies I guesstimate. Unless it's frozen vegetables they have quite a bit of calories.
Is this true? Do Frozen veg "have quite a bit of calories"??
Plain frozen veggies would be the same as non-frozen. The ones that are frozen with sauce or other things added could be where "quite a bit" could come in.
Ahh, veggies frozen with sauce. I almost forgot there was such a thing.
I was thinking maybe the person who said frozen vegetables have quite a bit of calories meant something like "the types of veggies I buy frozen [e.g., corn, peas, green beans, edamame, winter squash] in the amounts I eat them tend to have more calories than the types of veggies I buy fresh [lettuces, greens, cucumber, summer squash, tomatoes, carrots] in the amounts that I eat them."
Maybe s/he will come back and explain.
ETA: I log pretty much all fruits (save maybe for an odd single berry or grape sampled as a "taste test") and most veggies, although I don't always bother with the odd slice or two of tomato or onion or leaf or two of lettuce on a sandwich.
Yes sorry lol I didn't bookmark this thread so I had no idea people were calling me out about frozen vegetables. I meant packaged frozen vegetables. Yes corn, peas, green beans etc. I meant mixed frozen vegetables. I buy a bag from walmart and it's about 100calories per cup. That's "quite a bit of calories". Especially when I could easily eat more than a cup.
Still just depends on the vegetable though...freezing doesn't add calories. The same vegetables fresh would have the same calories as frozen for the same amount.
ETA: woops...saw that @janejellyroll just said the same thing..1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions