Healthy does not mean calorie free
Options
Replies
-
JustinAnimal wrote: »I don't think they believe it's calorie free, but they assume eating "healthy" is all that's required for weight loss
I hate to say it, but it does certainly work that way for me. I suppose we'd have to define healthy, but when my diet consists of: eggs (no more than three a day), raw veggies, raw fruits, steamed oats, and cooked veggies with a small protein for dinner... that's pretty much all I have to do.
That said, there are a million other factors that determine whether or not this will work. Me being a 240-lb. man probably makes this true for me.
When you include things like "no more than three" and "small protein" it seems clear this is part of an overall way of eating with more structure than just eating as much as you want of anything so long as it's "healthy" (however the person defines it).
I also think it's possible to lose with just a structured, largely healthful diet, no counting (and easier when you have more calories to play with), but I think we are talking about something different -- people who assume that if they stick to what they define as healthful they are good, which can easily end up with overeating since plenty of foods with lots of micronutrients or protein are delicious and can be overeaten, even if someone hearing a list of foods consumed would say "wow, what a healthy diet."3 -
All of this reminds me of how I was running from doctor to doctor insisting I had hormonal issues keeping me from losing weight despite working out religiously. That and constantly buying the latest book, dvd, or magazine for answers. It had to be my metabolism, not my daily diet of:
Dunkin Donuts for breakfast
Chinese or Mc Donald combo for lunch
Cheezits or snack cakes for snacks or dessert
Double helpings of meat with buttered rice and veggies for dinner
Cut all that way down or out and amazingly lost weight. Guess I didn't have a problem but my food intake.
14 -
This thread reminds me of a former coworker who would occasionally lament that she ate healthy, but could never lose weight because she had a "naturally slow metabolism".
I've been told this before. It wasn't my hard work and persistence that helped me lose weight. It was my "metabolism". If you question those people a little bit, you'll find that they'll readily admit they're not willing to count calories or eat less. They complain about not wanting to "starve" themselves by eating fewer calories. They're just not ready yet.8 -
RachelElser wrote: »or Sugar free or Fat free means it's okay to eat several portions of!
Hahahaha oh yeah. My mom's very obese boyfriend always eat 'sugar free' cookies, I guess it makes him feel better when he eats the whole box? I think I compared labels once too and the difference in calories was actually pretty small...
So, if he eats lots of those cookies, he adds no sugar to his daily numbers, but he certainly adds the calories multiplied by the number of cookies he eats.0 -
DomesticKat wrote: »This thread reminds me of a former coworker who would occasionally lament that she ate healthy, but could never lose weight because she had a "naturally slow metabolism".
I've been told this before. It wasn't my hard work and persistence that helped me lose weight. It was my "metabolism". If you question those people a little bit, you'll find that they'll readily admit they're not willing to count calories or eat less. They complain about not wanting to "starve" themselves by eating fewer calories. They're just not ready yet.
I get that alot from my coworkers, they also use the excuse "Wait till your older at my age, your metabolism will drop badly". The only reason people have a *kitten* metabolism as they age is because they're less active than they were when they were younger. I am confident that if I continue doing what I am doing, my metabolism won't suffer much in my 50's. But like many have mentioned here, people wish to lose weight, but they are not serious about losing. Someone who really wants to lose weight will not have a defeatist attitude, they will do everything to succeed regardless of the obstacle.
In my case, I had the opposite problem, I was skinny all my life. I began lifting in my early 20's, but I always had excuses like "I am genetically *kitten*, I will never gain muscles". So with that attitude, it wasn't a surprise for me to quit going to the gym. It wasn't until I hit 30 years old and I really hated the way I looked, I told myself enough is enough, I promised myself to go to the gym and promised myself to go at the gym even when I didn't feel like it. Basically I was at a point where enough is enough and it's time to prove myself wrong. Luckily I did that, the results today show that I was wrong to think that genetically I was *kitten*. Sometimes in life you have to put up and shut up every negative thought that comes from within or from other people.3 -
newheavensearth wrote: »All of this reminds me of how I was running from doctor to doctor insisting I had hormonal issues keeping me from losing weight despite working out religiously. That and constantly buying the latest book, dvd, or magazine for answers. It had to be my metabolism, not my daily diet of:
Dunkin Donuts for breakfast
Chinese or Mc Donald combo for lunch
Cheezits or snack cakes for snacks or dessert
Double helpings of meat with buttered rice and veggies for dinner
Cut all that way down or out and amazingly lost weight. Guess I didn't have a problem but my food intake.
I know so many people who complain that they can't lose weight because they eat nothing! (but they drink coffee with milk and sugar, alcohol...).
It really doesn't have to be a big volume to be high calorie. I could eat half a baguette and 4 servings of cheese, which IMO isn't a huge amount of food, and have a coffee drink, and already be at more than 1000 calories...7 -
DomesticKat wrote: »This thread reminds me of a former coworker who would occasionally lament that she ate healthy, but could never lose weight because she had a "naturally slow metabolism".
I've been told this before. It wasn't my hard work and persistence that helped me lose weight. It was my "metabolism". If you question those people a little bit, you'll find that they'll readily admit they're not willing to count calories or eat less. They complain about not wanting to "starve" themselves by eating fewer calories. They're just not ready yet.
I get that alot from my coworkers, they also use the excuse "Wait till your older at my age, your metabolism will drop badly". The only reason people have a *kitten* metabolism as they age is because they're less active than they were when they were younger. I am confident that if I continue doing what I am doing, my metabolism won't suffer much in my 50's. But like many have mentioned here, people wish to lose weight, but they are not serious about losing. Someone who really wants to lose weight will not have a defeatist attitude, they will do everything to succeed regardless of the obstacle.
In my case, I had the opposite problem, I was skinny all my life. I began lifting in my early 20's, but I always had excuses like "I am genetically *kitten*, I will never gain muscles". So with that attitude, it wasn't a surprise for me to quit going to the gym. It wasn't until I hit 30 years old and I really hated the way I looked, I told myself enough is enough, I promised myself to go to the gym and promised myself to go at the gym even when I didn't feel like it. Basically I was at a point where enough is enough and it's time to prove myself wrong. Luckily I did that, the results today show that I was wrong to think that genetically I was *kitten*. Sometimes in life you have to put up and shut up every negative thought that comes from within or from other people.
I don't know how accurate my activity tracker is, but I suspect it's fairly precise. As I get older I've noticed that my activity tracker gives me fewer calories for the same amount of exercise. If I run at 3.5 mph for an hour (typical for me) I used to get ~345 calories added to my mfp calorie "budget." Now, a couple of years later, it's only ~325 calories. It's not much but it's noticeable; I'm certainly not starving for those extra 20 calories! I think it's because as I age I don't burn calories as efficiently. I'm losing weight so I guess I'm doing something right.
ETA: I have a friend who eats Einstein bagels, doughnuts, chips, cake, etc. all morning long and then "offsets" all the junk with a salad at lunch time (she's always quite smug about the salad!) Then she complains because she's gained 20 lbs!
1 -
DomesticKat wrote: »This thread reminds me of a former coworker who would occasionally lament that she ate healthy, but could never lose weight because she had a "naturally slow metabolism".
I've been told this before. It wasn't my hard work and persistence that helped me lose weight. It was my "metabolism". If you question those people a little bit, you'll find that they'll readily admit they're not willing to count calories or eat less. They complain about not wanting to "starve" themselves by eating fewer calories. They're just not ready yet.
Yep; this is my family, especially my sister. She tells me I "suck" because I've lost 100 lbs and dropped 5 clothing sizes and am now flirting with getting into 20W's, and she'll lament that she needs to lose weight (I think its hitting her hard that I now weigh the same or less than she does for the first time in our lives). However, when I tell her how I did it, she claims the same thing - she's not willing to "starve" herself. In truth, she's not willing to practice portion control, and instead, she falls back on the whole "I'm fat because its my genetics" thing.4 -
positivepowers wrote: »DomesticKat wrote: »This thread reminds me of a former coworker who would occasionally lament that she ate healthy, but could never lose weight because she had a "naturally slow metabolism".
I've been told this before. It wasn't my hard work and persistence that helped me lose weight. It was my "metabolism". If you question those people a little bit, you'll find that they'll readily admit they're not willing to count calories or eat less. They complain about not wanting to "starve" themselves by eating fewer calories. They're just not ready yet.
I get that alot from my coworkers, they also use the excuse "Wait till your older at my age, your metabolism will drop badly". The only reason people have a *kitten* metabolism as they age is because they're less active than they were when they were younger. I am confident that if I continue doing what I am doing, my metabolism won't suffer much in my 50's. But like many have mentioned here, people wish to lose weight, but they are not serious about losing. Someone who really wants to lose weight will not have a defeatist attitude, they will do everything to succeed regardless of the obstacle.
In my case, I had the opposite problem, I was skinny all my life. I began lifting in my early 20's, but I always had excuses like "I am genetically *kitten*, I will never gain muscles". So with that attitude, it wasn't a surprise for me to quit going to the gym. It wasn't until I hit 30 years old and I really hated the way I looked, I told myself enough is enough, I promised myself to go to the gym and promised myself to go at the gym even when I didn't feel like it. Basically I was at a point where enough is enough and it's time to prove myself wrong. Luckily I did that, the results today show that I was wrong to think that genetically I was *kitten*. Sometimes in life you have to put up and shut up every negative thought that comes from within or from other people.
I don't know how accurate this is, but as I get older I've noticed that my activity tracker gives me fewer calories for the same amount of exercise. If I run at 3.5 mph for an hour (typical for me) I used to get ~345 calories added to my mfp calorie "budget." Now, a couple of years later, it's only ~325 calories. It's not much but it's noticeable and I'm not starving for those extra ~20 calories. I think it's because as I'm aging I really don't burn calories as efficiently.
I had a friend who would eat Einstein bagels, doughnuts, chips, cake, etc. all morning long and then would "offset" all the junk with a salad at lunch time. Then she would complain because she'd gained 20 lbs!
The metabolism may slow down a bit, but I don't think it will be as dramatic as they make it out to be. The way they say it is like if my current TDEE of 3100 calories will be at 1800 in 20 years if my current activity level doesn't change.0 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »Yep; this is my family, especially my sister. She tells me I "suck" because I've lost 100 lbs and dropped 5 clothing sizes and am now flirting with getting into 20W's, and she'll lament that she needs to lose weight (I think its hitting her hard that I now weigh the same or less than she does for the first time in our lives). However, when I tell her how I did it, she claims the same thing - she's not willing to "starve" herself. In truth, she's not willing to practice portion control, and instead, she falls back on the whole "I'm fat because its my genetics" thing.
You DO NOT suck. You have much to be proud of. When people tell me they have to starve to lose weight, I tell them they're losing weight the wrong way. Then I usually show them what I eat every day and my recipe logs on MFP for how many calories it is, and then they join MFP lol. It requires perseverance and experimentation with food to find what works best, but definitely not starving.2 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »DomesticKat wrote: »This thread reminds me of a former coworker who would occasionally lament that she ate healthy, but could never lose weight because she had a "naturally slow metabolism".
I've been told this before. It wasn't my hard work and persistence that helped me lose weight. It was my "metabolism". If you question those people a little bit, you'll find that they'll readily admit they're not willing to count calories or eat less. They complain about not wanting to "starve" themselves by eating fewer calories. They're just not ready yet.
Yep; this is my family, especially my sister. She tells me I "suck" because I've lost 100 lbs and dropped 5 clothing sizes and am now flirting with getting into 20W's, and she'll lament that she needs to lose weight (I think its hitting her hard that I now weigh the same or less than she does for the first time in our lives). However, when I tell her how I did it, she claims the same thing - she's not willing to "starve" herself. In truth, she's not willing to practice portion control, and instead, she falls back on the whole "I'm fat because its my genetics" thing.
I have to comment on this though.
I went to see a dietitian when I was 20, and she convinced me that my metabolism did indeed suck and that I would have to starve myself to lose the weight (I did lose weight - with a weird program that was absolutely impossible to follow through, which is why I gained the weight back). I remember their fancy scale saying that my BMR was 1300 (for an overweight 5'5" 20yo)... they never explained anything to me so I assumed I'd have to eat 1300 calories forever if I wanted to lose the weight. Probably why it took me 15 years and finding out about MFP to actually lose weight again.
So I see where your sister is coming from. There really needs to be more done to actually EDUCATE people, emphasize 'healthier' foods but focus on calories (instead of fat or sugar or whatever the food demon is at the moment).1 -
positivepowers wrote: »DomesticKat wrote: »This thread reminds me of a former coworker who would occasionally lament that she ate healthy, but could never lose weight because she had a "naturally slow metabolism".
I've been told this before. It wasn't my hard work and persistence that helped me lose weight. It was my "metabolism". If you question those people a little bit, you'll find that they'll readily admit they're not willing to count calories or eat less. They complain about not wanting to "starve" themselves by eating fewer calories. They're just not ready yet.
I get that alot from my coworkers, they also use the excuse "Wait till your older at my age, your metabolism will drop badly". The only reason people have a *kitten* metabolism as they age is because they're less active than they were when they were younger. I am confident that if I continue doing what I am doing, my metabolism won't suffer much in my 50's. But like many have mentioned here, people wish to lose weight, but they are not serious about losing. Someone who really wants to lose weight will not have a defeatist attitude, they will do everything to succeed regardless of the obstacle.
In my case, I had the opposite problem, I was skinny all my life. I began lifting in my early 20's, but I always had excuses like "I am genetically *kitten*, I will never gain muscles". So with that attitude, it wasn't a surprise for me to quit going to the gym. It wasn't until I hit 30 years old and I really hated the way I looked, I told myself enough is enough, I promised myself to go to the gym and promised myself to go at the gym even when I didn't feel like it. Basically I was at a point where enough is enough and it's time to prove myself wrong. Luckily I did that, the results today show that I was wrong to think that genetically I was *kitten*. Sometimes in life you have to put up and shut up every negative thought that comes from within or from other people.
I don't know how accurate my activity tracker is, but I suspect it's fairly precise. As I get older I've noticed that my activity tracker gives me fewer calories for the same amount of exercise. If I run at 3.5 mph for an hour (typical for me) I used to get ~345 calories added to my mfp calorie "budget." Now, a couple of years later, it's only ~325 calories. It's not much but it's noticeable; I'm certainly not starving for those extra 20 calories! I think it's because as I age I don't burn calories as efficiently. I'm losing weight so I guess I'm doing something right.
ETA: I have a friend who eats Einstein bagels, doughnuts, chips, cake, etc. all morning long and then "offsets" all the junk with a salad at lunch time (she's always quite smug about the salad!) Then she complains because she's gained 20 lbs!
Keep in mind that your activity tracker isn't actually measuring your calorie burn, it's measuring some things that generally correlate with calorie burn (movements, heart rate). It uses that, plus whatever other user data you gave it (age, weight, height, sex, whatever) to run some algorithms that estimate your calorie burn.
If the developers taught the algorithm that older people burn fewer calories for the same movements, it'll give you a lower calorie estimate for the same exercise as you age. It isn't necessarily true.
My HRM gives me a higher calorie estimate for the same exercise (speed, distance, location) when it's really hot weather. It lies. Heart rate increases in hot weather vs. cool, but heat doesn't mean extra calorie burn.
Signed,
62-year old former software developer who burns roughly 30% more calories than calorie calculators say I should (keep working out, aging is not Calorie Doom
) 10 -
positivepowers wrote: »DomesticKat wrote: »This thread reminds me of a former coworker who would occasionally lament that she ate healthy, but could never lose weight because she had a "naturally slow metabolism".
I've been told this before. It wasn't my hard work and persistence that helped me lose weight. It was my "metabolism". If you question those people a little bit, you'll find that they'll readily admit they're not willing to count calories or eat less. They complain about not wanting to "starve" themselves by eating fewer calories. They're just not ready yet.
I get that alot from my coworkers, they also use the excuse "Wait till your older at my age, your metabolism will drop badly". The only reason people have a *kitten* metabolism as they age is because they're less active than they were when they were younger. I am confident that if I continue doing what I am doing, my metabolism won't suffer much in my 50's. But like many have mentioned here, people wish to lose weight, but they are not serious about losing. Someone who really wants to lose weight will not have a defeatist attitude, they will do everything to succeed regardless of the obstacle.
In my case, I had the opposite problem, I was skinny all my life. I began lifting in my early 20's, but I always had excuses like "I am genetically *kitten*, I will never gain muscles". So with that attitude, it wasn't a surprise for me to quit going to the gym. It wasn't until I hit 30 years old and I really hated the way I looked, I told myself enough is enough, I promised myself to go to the gym and promised myself to go at the gym even when I didn't feel like it. Basically I was at a point where enough is enough and it's time to prove myself wrong. Luckily I did that, the results today show that I was wrong to think that genetically I was *kitten*. Sometimes in life you have to put up and shut up every negative thought that comes from within or from other people.
I don't know how accurate my activity tracker is, but I suspect it's fairly precise. As I get older I've noticed that my activity tracker gives me fewer calories for the same amount of exercise. If I run at 3.5 mph for an hour (typical for me) I used to get ~345 calories added to my mfp calorie "budget." Now, a couple of years later, it's only ~325 calories. It's not much but it's noticeable; I'm certainly not starving for those extra 20 calories! I think it's because as I age I don't burn calories as efficiently. I'm losing weight so I guess I'm doing something right.
ETA: I have a friend who eats Einstein bagels, doughnuts, chips, cake, etc. all morning long and then "offsets" all the junk with a salad at lunch time (she's always quite smug about the salad!) Then she complains because she's gained 20 lbs!
Keep in mind that your activity tracker isn't actually measuring your calorie burn, it's measuring some things that generally correlate with calorie burn (movements, heart rate). It uses that, plus whatever other user data you gave it (age, weight, height, sex, whatever) to run some algorithms that estimate your calorie burn.
If the developers taught the algorithm that older people burn fewer calories for the same movements, it'll give you a lower calorie estimate for the same exercise as you age. It isn't necessarily true.
My HRM gives me a higher calorie estimate for the same exercise (speed, distance, location) when it's really hot weather. It lies. Heart rate increases in hot weather vs. cool, but heat doesn't mean extra calorie burn.
Signed,
62-year old former software developer who burns roughly 30% more calories than calorie calculators say I should (keep working out, aging is not Calorie Doom )
^^Thanks. I was going to try to explain this, but you did a much better job than I would have.
Signed,
55-year-old with no professional tech background, who works a desk job and has to set her activity level to "active" for MFP to estimate pre-work-out calorie burns that are close to (but still slightly below) actual calorie burns1 -
DomesticKat wrote: »This thread reminds me of a former coworker who would occasionally lament that she ate healthy, but could never lose weight because she had a "naturally slow metabolism".
I've been told this before. It wasn't my hard work and persistence that helped me lose weight. It was my "metabolism". If you question those people a little bit, you'll find that they'll readily admit they're not willing to count calories or eat less. They complain about not wanting to "starve" themselves by eating fewer calories. They're just not ready yet.
I get that alot from my coworkers, they also use the excuse "Wait till your older at my age, your metabolism will drop badly". The only reason people have a *kitten* metabolism as they age is because they're less active than they were when they were younger.
Well -- speaking as a 57 year old, your metabolism does slow down as you age. Keeping active is one factor, but Time is a monster that eats you slowly, one bite at a time.
5 -
JustinAnimal wrote: »I don't think they believe it's calorie free, but they assume eating "healthy" is all that's required for weight loss
I hate to say it, but it does certainly work that way for me. I suppose we'd have to define healthy, but when my diet consists of: eggs (no more than three a day), raw veggies, raw fruits, steamed oats, and cooked veggies with a small protein for dinner... that's pretty much all I have to do.
That said, there are a million other factors that determine whether or not this will work. Me being a 240-lb. man probably makes this true for me.
i dont think your example shows you can eat anything healthy in any portions and still lose weight.
If you are eating without counting calories and losing, what it shows is that you can acheive a calorie deficit without counting calories - as many people can, of course.
The " I'm eating healthy but still not losing" folks obviously cannot.
1 -
A lot of people who have talked to me about my loss seem to think you have to workout like a beast 7 days a week in order to lose weight. Well I guess it's true if you want to keep your eating habits 100% unchanged.
I have learned not to pull out my MFP app and show/explain what I am doing. They think it's too time consuming and obsessive. It Is ok though. You do you, I will do me.1 -
bmeadows380 wrote: »DomesticKat wrote: »This thread reminds me of a former coworker who would occasionally lament that she ate healthy, but could never lose weight because she had a "naturally slow metabolism".
I've been told this before. It wasn't my hard work and persistence that helped me lose weight. It was my "metabolism". If you question those people a little bit, you'll find that they'll readily admit they're not willing to count calories or eat less. They complain about not wanting to "starve" themselves by eating fewer calories. They're just not ready yet.
Yep; this is my family, especially my sister. She tells me I "suck" because I've lost 100 lbs and dropped 5 clothing sizes and am now flirting with getting into 20W's, and she'll lament that she needs to lose weight (I think its hitting her hard that I now weigh the same or less than she does for the first time in our lives). However, when I tell her how I did it, she claims the same thing - she's not willing to "starve" herself. In truth, she's not willing to practice portion control, and instead, she falls back on the whole "I'm fat because its my genetics" thing.
I have to comment on this though.
I went to see a dietitian when I was 20, and she convinced me that my metabolism did indeed suck and that I would have to starve myself to lose the weight (I did lose weight - with a weird program that was absolutely impossible to follow through, which is why I gained the weight back). I remember their fancy scale saying that my BMR was 1300 (for an overweight 5'5" 20yo)... they never explained anything to me so I assumed I'd have to eat 1300 calories forever if I wanted to lose the weight. Probably why it took me 15 years and finding out about MFP to actually lose weight again.
So I see where your sister is coming from. There really needs to be more done to actually EDUCATE people, emphasize 'healthier' foods but focus on calories (instead of fat or sugar or whatever the food demon is at the moment).
there is a lot of misinformation out there, definitely, and some of that my sister clings to as an excuse. She wants an easy way to lose weight - she's tried several things, including the apple cider vinegar thing, but she refuses to reign in what she eats or her portion sizes. I've tried to tell her that all she needs to do is cut down on how much she eats - she doesn't have to exercise if she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to completely change her diet; all she has to do is start controlling how much she eats - but she doesn't want to listen. Basically, trying to educate her isn't working because she doesn't want to listen, and I think in many cases, that's a lot of the problem with the obesity issues in 1st world nations - tons of misinformation and folks who don't want to hear common sense and who want a quick fix instead.1 -
I find it difficult to explain to some people why it's just the same to eat a Snickers bar and a Diet Energy Whatever-Brand Bar. Carb, sugar, protein and fat contents are roughly equivalent. Maybe the fiber content is different, but eating on top of that wonder-bar about 1.5 kgs of apples because „they're healthy” more than makes up for that.
The lies we tell ourselves...1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions