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.
Jack Lalanne's Advice
Options
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
We don't know what he meant. It's just a list. There is no context in the picture to indicate what he was actually saying about the items on the list.
Given what we know he said at other times, he may have been saying "don't eat these things" or he may even have said "these things will cause brain damage."
LaLanne was very fit due to eating a nutritious diet and following a rigorous exercise regimen. However, he was clueless about nutrition (although his fitness made him appear to be an "expert") and his ridiculous claims about the evils of sugar alongside his puritanical views of "clean" eating likely did more harm than good to society by 1) misinforming the masses and 2) making fitness appear near impossible (discouraging many from even trying) due to the unsustainable nature of his methods.
I happened to find this video where he is explaining a sample daily menu plan (actual menu starts about 1:05).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDq-9K9XmSQ
Absent any special medical conditions and reasonable calories for the person, I would propose any dietitian would consider this sustainable and prefer what he is suggesting to the typical American diet.
The point you keep missing is that there is room between what LaLanne is recommending and "the typical American diet" for a world of nuanced customization for making a lot of different choices that would still make for a healthy diet.
This isn't an either/or proposition.
All of the objections brought up in this thread to your original post haven't been saying "oh, he's wrong, so fully embrace the 'standard American diet'".
There's a middle ground between the false dichotomy of extremes here. I don't understand why you seem to want to frame the debate this way.
I'm also confused about the point of this discussion. People have said repeatedly in this thread that of course it is sensible to limit foods that a person tends to overeat, which may be the foods on this list or it may be different foods. OP continues to refer back to the SAD, which had always been a perplexing concept for me, in a country with billions of people of all different walks of life, how is there a Standard American Diet? Put 10 random people in a room and ask them to show you what they ate for breakfast, lunch and dinner and I doubt there would be much significant overlap at all - peoples tastes, cooking habits, economic status and ethnicity all drive what they eat and likely result in varied food choices that make it difficult to standardize. That's why so many find the blanket guidance to cut down this particular list of calorie dense foods not the end all be all solution for every overweight person on the planet - I'm not sure why that's so difficult to grasp.
This post seems to me like an opportunity to look with disdain at all those fat Americans and anyone trying to point out that not everyone gets fat by guzzling 3 super sized cokes and stuffing their face with cake and cookies (and weirdly jam) is seen as promoting these foods and that type of eating.
Consigned. Well said!2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
We don't know what he meant. It's just a list. There is no context in the picture to indicate what he was actually saying about the items on the list.
Given what we know he said at other times, he may have been saying "don't eat these things" or he may even have said "these things will cause brain damage."
LaLanne was very fit due to eating a nutritious diet and following a rigorous exercise regimen. However, he was clueless about nutrition (although his fitness made him appear to be an "expert") and his ridiculous claims about the evils of sugar alongside his puritanical views of "clean" eating likely did more harm than good to society by 1) misinforming the masses and 2) making fitness appear near impossible (discouraging many from even trying) due to the unsustainable nature of his methods.
I happened to find this video where he is explaining a sample daily menu plan (actual menu starts about 1:05).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDq-9K9XmSQ
Absent any special medical conditions and reasonable calories for the person, I would propose any dietitian would consider this sustainable and prefer what he is suggesting to the typical American diet.
The point you keep missing is that there is room between what LaLanne is recommending and "the typical American diet" for a world of nuanced customization for making a lot of different choices that would still make for a healthy diet.
This isn't an either/or proposition.
All of the objections brought up in this thread to your original post haven't been saying "oh, he's wrong, so fully embrace the 'standard American diet'".
There's a middle ground between the false dichotomy of extremes here. I don't understand why you seem to want to frame the debate this way.
I'm also confused about the point of this discussion. People have said repeatedly in this thread that of course it is sensible to limit foods that a person tends to overeat, which may be the foods on this list or it may be different foods. OP continues to refer back to the SAD, which had always been a perplexing concept for me, in a country with billions of people of all different walks of life, how is there a Standard American Diet? Put 10 random people in a room and ask them to show you what they ate for breakfast, lunch and dinner and I doubt there would be much significant overlap at all - peoples tastes, cooking habits, economic status and ethnicity all drive what they eat and likely result in varied food choices that make it difficult to standardize. That's why so many find the blanket guidance to cut down this particular list of calorie dense foods not the end all be all solution for every overweight person on the planet - I'm not sure why that's so difficult to grasp.
This post seems to me like an opportunity to look with disdain at all those fat Americans and anyone trying to point out that not everyone gets fat by guzzling 3 super sized cokes and stuffing their face with cake and cookies (and weirdly jam) is seen as promoting these foods and that type of eating.
This ham fisted one-size fits all approach to dieting advice is a lot of what's wrong with the diet/fitness industry. A lot of the best dieting advice sounds really vague, frankly.
It's hard to hear, but there isn't a quick fix to the obesity problem, because even though you can cite generalized statistics, those statistics are still made up of individuals making individual choices for various reasons and those reasons vary. The approaches each of those people need to modify their behaviors and lifestyles will vary.
This is why there is push-back on a lot of threads like these where a recommendation like this is given. A lot of us are veterans of weight loss attempts and we know that very specific, restrictive advice like this ultimately fails.
9 -
goldthistime wrote: »What hasn't changed since the 60's - the refusal to acknowledge a lot of people simply eat too much, the focus on certain "bad" foods stills masks that basic fact.
"Don't eat less, eat differently". That's such a powerful driver that fat people really want to believe and makes a fortune for the diet industry.
What has changed since the 60's - now diet and fitness gurus are shirtless and standing in front of a whiteboard instead of wearing a tight shirt standing in front of a blackboard. There's half a century of progress for you.
I have never gained weight eating only nutritiously dense foods. I have to eat treats to gain weight. Otherwise satiation takes over and I just stop eating. So for me, eating differently automatically translates to eating less.
Tracking how much I'm eating obviously also works. It's definitely universal in its application.
Because I'm one of the ones for whom eating differently is generally enough, I'm always baffled when I see that advice trashed. For SOME people it may be myopic and wrong headed, but for some of it's not.
I'm the exact opposite. I didn't touch sugar for years thinking I had a problem with it. I still overate and reached my highest weight ever eating a very healthy whole foods diet.
And this makes my point. Everyone's issue with weight is individual to them and this is why specific, restrictive guidance cannot ever be a universal solution.10 -
@goldthistimegoldthistime wrote: »What hasn't changed since the 60's - the refusal to acknowledge a lot of people simply eat too much, the focus on certain "bad" foods stills masks that basic fact.
"Don't eat less, eat differently". That's such a powerful driver that fat people really want to believe and makes a fortune for the diet industry.
What has changed since the 60's - now diet and fitness gurus are shirtless and standing in front of a whiteboard instead of wearing a tight shirt standing in front of a blackboard. There's half a century of progress for you.
I have never gained weight eating only nutritiously dense foods. I have to eat treats to gain weight. Otherwise satiation takes over and I just stop eating. So for me, eating differently automatically translates to eating less.
Tracking how much I'm eating obviously also works. It's definitely universal in its application.
Because I'm one of the ones for whom eating differently is generally enough, I'm always baffled when I see that advice trashed. For SOME people it may be myopic and wrong headed, but for some of it's not.
I have simply pointed out there is a huge flaw in dumbing down a message so it only works for some people. Additionally it also panders to the lack of individual responsibility around over eating - it's not my fault I ate too much, it's the fault of the foods themselves.
The universal way to weight loss has to involve eating less calories I think we agree on.
I have no problem at all in combining eat less and eat better messages, what I do have a problem with is simply eat differently or eat better without mention of reduction in calories. Swap table sugar for honey for example, sheer woo and ignorance as a weight loss technique
Reducing or eliminating the food items listed for you would seem to work, for me the list is an irrelevance as it simply doesn't figure as a major part of my normal diet or even my treats.
A bag of sugar lasts months in my house, most of my cake is eaten while I'm cycling (burning more calories than the cake provides), my soda has zero calories, my fruit isn't canned etc. etc.
Reducing savoury snacks - now that would have an impact for me but they aren't on the list.
6 -
goldthistime wrote: »What hasn't changed since the 60's - the refusal to acknowledge a lot of people simply eat too much, the focus on certain "bad" foods stills masks that basic fact.
"Don't eat less, eat differently". That's such a powerful driver that fat people really want to believe and makes a fortune for the diet industry.
What has changed since the 60's - now diet and fitness gurus are shirtless and standing in front of a whiteboard instead of wearing a tight shirt standing in front of a blackboard. There's half a century of progress for you.
I have never gained weight eating only nutritiously dense foods. I have to eat treats to gain weight. Otherwise satiation takes over and I just stop eating. So for me, eating differently automatically translates to eating less.
Tracking how much I'm eating obviously also works. It's definitely universal in its application.
Because I'm one of the ones for whom eating differently is generally enough, I'm always baffled when I see that advice trashed. For SOME people it may be myopic and wrong headed, but for some of it's not.
I wouldn't trash the advice that one can lose by just changing one's diet, if one wants to do that. Many, many people do not do it successfully, and when I did I also paid attention to things like added fat and portions, but I've lost doing such things (and I've also lost by increasing exercise at a time when I had a pretty consistent diet).
But telling me to cut out pop (which I did not consume) and sweets (when I don't have a huge sweet tooth) would not have made a difference. I needed to eat more sensibly at restaurants (nice restaurants where I ordered food that was "good for you" under the usual definition, but high cal), too much added fat (at home), overly large portions (sometimes more than I wanted, but if I put it on my plate I ate it), some higher fat meats like pulled pork or even cuts of lamb and beef (home-cooked), nuts, and especially cheese (good cheese from specific places and all that). Also, at times, wine.
I don't think all of this was "good for me" and obviously it includes some treats, but focusing on sweets would have missed the point entirely.
And because I ate a bunch of vegetables, among other things, I thought I had a basically healthy diet, and I probably did, except the calories were out of control.
I find it annoying when people seem to assume that if you were ever fat you were eating in a specific way that does not fit me at all. (And apparently not many others here.) Not everyone finds sugar to be their biggest weakness.3 -
Also, to add to that, if someone is motivated to lose weight by improving the quality of their diet (and I support and applaud that), why not give them advice about nutrition and how to create a nutritious diet? Why insist that the best way to do it (as that's what Lalanne apparently did at various times) was to give them a list of foods to avoid (which are mostly foods that everyone already knows are high cal plus some oddballs)? Or (as he apparently did at other times) a very limited diet? Why not actually teach them about nutrition and how to have flexible rules based on an understanding of that that work with their own life?
When I suggested that (which is what MyPlate is basically trying to do), I got all this pushback, and I don't understand why. It seems to me a better overall approach for most.6 -
@goldthistimegoldthistime wrote: »What hasn't changed since the 60's - the refusal to acknowledge a lot of people simply eat too much, the focus on certain "bad" foods stills masks that basic fact.
"Don't eat less, eat differently". That's such a powerful driver that fat people really want to believe and makes a fortune for the diet industry.
What has changed since the 60's - now diet and fitness gurus are shirtless and standing in front of a whiteboard instead of wearing a tight shirt standing in front of a blackboard. There's half a century of progress for you.
I have never gained weight eating only nutritiously dense foods. I have to eat treats to gain weight. Otherwise satiation takes over and I just stop eating. So for me, eating differently automatically translates to eating less.
Tracking how much I'm eating obviously also works. It's definitely universal in its application.
Because I'm one of the ones for whom eating differently is generally enough, I'm always baffled when I see that advice trashed. For SOME people it may be myopic and wrong headed, but for some of it's not.
I have simply pointed out there is a huge flaw in dumbing down a message so it only works for some people. Additionally it also panders to the lack of individual responsibility around over eating - it's not my fault I ate too much, it's the fault of the foods themselves.
The universal way to weight loss has to involve eating less calories I think we agree on.
I have no problem at all in combining eat less and eat better messages, what I do have a problem with is simply eat differently or eat better without mention of reduction in calories. Swap table sugar for honey for example, sheer woo and ignorance as a weight loss technique
Reducing or eliminating the food items listed for you would seem to work, for me the list is an irrelevance as it simply doesn't figure as a major part of my normal diet or even my treats.
A bag of sugar lasts months in my house, most of my cake is eaten while I'm cycling (burning more calories than the cake provides), my soda has zero calories, my fruit isn't canned etc. etc.
Reducing savoury snacks - now that would have an impact for me but they aren't on the list.
Exactly. Very specific advice isn't always helpful for every individual due to varying issues.0 -
Since we've speculated about "normal" eating in the 1950s-60s, I've posted a separate thread with images from a book, "Family Meals and Hospitality", by Lewis/Peckham/Hovey, 1960 edition. It was my high school Home Economics class book.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10625791/mainstream-eating-guidance-19602 -
Since we've speculated about "normal" eating in the 1950s-60s, I've posted a separate thread with images from a book, "Family Meals and Hospitality", by Lewis/Peckham/Hovey, 1960 edition. It was my high school Home Economics class book.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10625791/mainstream-eating-guidance-1960
I added a bit more from the book to the thread. Some of you will enjoy it.2 -
On the pop thing. I can recall one person in my life who drank huge amounts of soda. And he wasn't fat. Had abs in fact. Because context. He was super active and needed the calories. His diet wasn't great overall but he would be just the thing for fitspo fodder these days.
Everyone else, and I literally mean everyone, would at most have a can a day of standard soda. Everyone else would reach for a diet drink. Or there was that whole smoothie phase that has chilled a bit now. But smoothie because fruit and healthy! Not realising that and the coke are similarly calorific and within a diet already in a caloric excess is really not helping matters. They should switch back to the diet soda or coffee.2 -
Oh wait. My opinion is invalid because I'm not American and the standard British diet (not a thing buzzword wise here) must of course be totally different.6
-
I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Oh wait. My opinion is invalid because I'm not American and the standard British diet (not a thing buzzword wise here) must of course be totally different.
To be fair, I think we USAians, statistically speaking, may be more mega-slushie-driven than y'all. But only statistically: I'm another who somehow managed obesity without aid from soda/pop.
SBD just doesn't have the same ring as SAD, does it?
1 -
goldthistime wrote: »I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.
I think a more useful statistic would be proportion of daily items as opposed to calories. Because one coffee and muffin on your way to work/at your desk then an afternoon treat of some sort doesn't appear excessive on the face of it but add it in to the rest of someone's day where their portions are just a bit or a lot too large and those items are actually not the only contributor or even the majority of someone's overall intake if we ignore calories.
It's been shown people don't realise what calorie bombs that big sweet coffee and croissant are.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Oh wait. My opinion is invalid because I'm not American and the standard British diet (not a thing buzzword wise here) must of course be totally different.
To be fair, I think we USAians, statistically speaking, may be more mega-slushie-driven than y'all. But only statistically: I'm another who somehow managed obesity without aid from soda/pop.
SBD just doesn't have the same ring as SAD, does it?
Yeah, I will say this, we don't have giant slushie and soda machines in our gas stations! Or petrol station as we call them. Lots of coffee machines these days though.1 -
goldthistime wrote: »I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.
That's sort of missing the larger point that's being made. The larger point is that dietary advice isn't one size fits all.
Generalized recommendations for eating a well-balanced diet with guidance on how to do that along with instruction regarding caloric intake, energy balance and the like? Well, they aren't sexy, aren't quick to grasp, and aren't sound-bites of information that you can give in bullet-point form, but they are more likely to cater to a broader range of people. For example, the specific guideline "cut out sugary sweets" could be replaced with "track your intake and look for sources of excess calories that can be trimmed". For some people, that would be sugary sweets. For others, that could be cheese, or added oils, or overly large servings of whole grains.
The issue that I (and I suspect others) have with threads like these is that we know that picking on a dietary bogeyman and acting as if that's the answer when it's really only possibly a starting point leaves many people still looking for answers in the long run.
7 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Oh wait. My opinion is invalid because I'm not American and the standard British diet (not a thing buzzword wise here) must of course be totally different.
To be fair, I think we USAians, statistically speaking, may be more mega-slushie-driven than y'all. But only statistically: I'm another who somehow managed obesity without aid from soda/pop.
SBD just doesn't have the same ring as SAD, does it?
I've been drinking diet soda since I was a kid (had a diabetic grandparent, and the bulk of my soda intake was over at my grandparent's house). I managed to get obese without soda as well.1 -
Oh yeah, forgot to say, I am not a soda of any kind drinker beyond the odd can/bottle once in a while. I had orange juice on Christmas day, last time I had fruit juice was possibly in May on holiday. But fruit juice is also a sneaky one. Like smoothies, a "healthier" choice but can soon eat up the calories.1
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.
That's sort of missing the larger point that's being made. The larger point is that dietary advice isn't one size fits all.
Generalized recommendations for eating a well-balanced diet with guidance on how to do that along with instruction regarding caloric intake, energy balance and the like? Well, they aren't sexy, aren't quick to grasp, and aren't sound-bites of information that you can give in bullet-point form, but they are more likely to cater to a broader range of people. For example, the specific guideline "cut out sugary sweets" could be replaced with "track your intake and look for sources of excess calories that can be trimmed". For some people, that would be sugary sweets. For others, that could be cheese, or added oils, or overly large servings of whole grains.
The issue that I (and I suspect others) have with threads like these is that we know that picking on a dietary bogeyman and acting as if that's the answer when it's really only possibly a starting point leaves many people still looking for answers in the long run.
I think it's relevant. Pretend that just cutting down sweet treats (to let's say 10% of your calories), stopped any further weight gain for 90% of overweight/obese people. His advice wouldn't look so bad then would it? If it only worked for 10%, I would have to finally concede that advice to cut down your sugar consumption was not good advice for all but a small group.
I do agree with Lemurcat12 that regardless his advice would be improved by talking about nutrition in general (what should people eat instead of those sweets?) and with everyone else that if he were talking about CICO instead of just sweets he'd get bigger praise from me.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I wonder how "some" is defined, what the stats are among the obese and overweight populations, (in the context of cutting back on sweets as being good advice to lose weight). The fact that this advice has been dispensed so frequently used to have me thinking that a decent percentage of obese and overweight people are like me.
To me, those of you who gained weight WITHOUT overeating pastries and other sweet treats specifically seem like the anomaly. I recognize that my own experiences colour my view though.
That's sort of missing the larger point that's being made. The larger point is that dietary advice isn't one size fits all.
Generalized recommendations for eating a well-balanced diet with guidance on how to do that along with instruction regarding caloric intake, energy balance and the like? Well, they aren't sexy, aren't quick to grasp, and aren't sound-bites of information that you can give in bullet-point form, but they are more likely to cater to a broader range of people. For example, the specific guideline "cut out sugary sweets" could be replaced with "track your intake and look for sources of excess calories that can be trimmed". For some people, that would be sugary sweets. For others, that could be cheese, or added oils, or overly large servings of whole grains.
The issue that I (and I suspect others) have with threads like these is that we know that picking on a dietary bogeyman and acting as if that's the answer when it's really only possibly a starting point leaves many people still looking for answers in the long run.
I think it's relevant. Pretend that just cutting down sweet treats (to let's say 10% of your calories), stopped any further weight gain for 90% of overweight/obese people. His advice wouldn't look so bad then would it?
To be fair, it actually seems as if his advice was quite a bit more than just that list -- more restrictive, but also not so focused on sugar. I quoted his anti dietary fat diatribe above.If it only worked for 10%, I would have to finally concede that advice to cut down your sugar consumption was not good advice for all but a small group.
I very strongly disagree with the notion that just cutting down on sweets would make a difference to the weight of most obese people. The sources of calories in our society are so pervasive and varied. True, it would cut calories for those who consumed them, but would those calories quickly be replaced if the person did not make some other changes (awareness of calories -- which doesn't mean counting them -- or some way of not mindlessly eating or overdoing snacky things (which are hardly only sugary things in the US), just learning to have a controlled diet and what you find satiating if satiety is the issue or how to control hedonic eating)? Given how many people talk about non sweet foods -- overdoing bread, chips, fast food, etc., as well as the specific kinds of things I mentioned above, I think the idea that it must just be about sugar is hard to justify (and Lalanne didn't actually believe that, I recommend looking at the posts where I and others gave more information about what his diet ideas were).
In fact, it seems to me that a lot of people overeat just because tasty food is so convenient, and if it were non sugary tasty food in the same situations, they still would (unless they learned to be more mindful about it). Others overeat because they are hedonic eaters or stress/emotional eaters. Others just because they enjoy food (and not just sugary foods) and can. (I first gained weight due to a combination of lowered activity and a job and lifestyle that let me go to lots of good restaurants. I didn't usually get dessert, but a salad plus entree and maybe some bread on the table, but even if you are ordering things like cassoulet and not a burger and fries, add up FAST when they are restaurant items (and at the time I normally had wine too). And then I might order Indian (or another favorite was salmon kebobs with pita and baba ganoush) to the office when working late (dinners when staying past 7 or 8 were paid for and I commonly worked later than that) -- from a restaurant those things, again, are HIGH cal, even though they aren't sugary.) I originally lost weight when I started cooking most meals at home and thought that was sufficient, but I managed to regain even doing that, when I got more mindless again and started using food for self-comfort again.
Even for those who mostly just have issues with sugary things and don't mindlessly get excess cals in other ways, is it because they don't have a clue those have high cals or that they are overdoing it? I seriously, seriously doubt it. I think many think it's a choice between being fat (and eating what they want) or giving up sweets completely, and they'd rather be fat (at least unless something bad happens as a result). Others have a long history of trying to cut out sweets (or other foods, of course), failing, feeling guilty, etc. Even in these cases I don't think "maybe you should cut out sweets" is actually helpful (as opposed to a focus on building a calorie-appropriate, nutritious diet, which might be, although more might be needed).
Some of you seem to think there's this big group of people who have no idea that cake has lots of calories and that cutting back on cake is obvious if you are trying to lose and happen to eat a whole lot of cake, and I find that puzzling. That people don't know that a diet based on cake isn't great or that cake is quite caloric seems to me to be about the least likely thing to be contributing to the obesity rate. If I told someone that overeating cake is not a good idea or it's high in calories, I'd rather expect a sarcastic "you think?" Because everyone knows. They might not be conscious of how much they consume, but then the same is likely true of a whole bunch of other foods too, so why single out the cake?
Might people be overeating by 100+ calories a day most days and including in their diet very often a 100 cal coffee, 250 cal dessert of some sort, and a bunch of calories that perhaps are kind of mindless like an 800 cal lunch from a fast food place a couple times a week, too liberal a hand with the oil when cooking, maybe twice the standard serving size of the pasta cooked or meat consumed (especially when it's higher fat), or taking a casual handful of nuts (or M&Ms) when walking by a co-workers desk? And could they do all this without even thinking they eat much? IMO, that kind of thing is why some honesty about overall habits are going to be more important than deciding you can never eat a cookie. The person I just described CAN include cookies in her or his diet, if the overall eating becomes more planned and mindful (and it could even without having to log). That's the kind of thing I think can be really valuable to understand.
Deciding to do the Lalanne thing and cut out added sugar (other than juice and honey, which are free sugars according to WHO) and fatty foods and eating a rigid diet such as that he described might work for some, but it is hardly the only approach and would not, IMO, result in a real understanding and for many would not be sustainable.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions