NO MORE CALORIE COUNTING
Replies
-
lbsansouci wrote: »If I let my body be in charge, I'd eat two pizzas a week and wake up with strangers in my bed.
I think I'll keep counting calories and enjoy my clean sheets.
This has created way more questions than answers...11 -
Calorie counting isn't for everyone. Its like balancing the checkbook. Some people see it as an odious chore, some get satisfaction in knowing everything is ok. Or doing the laundry. It may not matter, science-wise, but I would never in a million years wash my kids stanky pubic hair underwear with kitchen towels or face towels. Yet, many people do. Makes me want to vomit just thinking about it.
I like counting. I weigh everything that can be weighed. And, log everything that can be logged.1 -
paperpudding wrote: »and one of the big changes - many more of us have cars.
People drive to places they would of walked to years ago.
Most days I walk to work and leave my car at home - a 15 minute walk.
Never ceases to amaze me how many people find this an astounding and unusual thing.
(or as I put it last time I posted this comment - one of the reasons we are overweight is we have more cats.)
#queenofstupidtypos
Sooner or later, somebody blames it on the cats. It's not like they're serving up food for you to eat.
12 -
sunfastrose wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
100 years ago, sure, nobody was calorie counting - but their bodies still gained or lost weight according to CICO, they just didn't have a method of counting and measuring that.
But like 100 years ago, nobody had fitbits - but they still took steps and had a heart rate and whatever else those things measure - they just didnt have a way of measuring them.
Or 1000 years ago they didn't have clocks - but time still passed, it just wasn't measured.
Calorie counting is only a tool to measure and control something that is happening naturally.
First commercial diet was developed in 1863, so they might not have been counting calories but they were dieting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting
Good find supporting Low Carb WOE.16 -
sunfastrose wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
100 years ago, sure, nobody was calorie counting - but their bodies still gained or lost weight according to CICO, they just didn't have a method of counting and measuring that.
But like 100 years ago, nobody had fitbits - but they still took steps and had a heart rate and whatever else those things measure - they just didnt have a way of measuring them.
Or 1000 years ago they didn't have clocks - but time still passed, it just wasn't measured.
Calorie counting is only a tool to measure and control something that is happening naturally.
First commercial diet was developed in 1863, so they might not have been counting calories but they were dieting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting
Well, ok, change it to 150 years ago then.
Or 155 to be exact.
The general point about CICO still happening whether we measure it or not still stands regardless of exact time frame.
7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »sunfastrose wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
100 years ago, sure, nobody was calorie counting - but their bodies still gained or lost weight according to CICO, they just didn't have a method of counting and measuring that.
But like 100 years ago, nobody had fitbits - but they still took steps and had a heart rate and whatever else those things measure - they just didnt have a way of measuring them.
Or 1000 years ago they didn't have clocks - but time still passed, it just wasn't measured.
Calorie counting is only a tool to measure and control something that is happening naturally.
First commercial diet was developed in 1863, so they might not have been counting calories but they were dieting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting
Good find supporting Low Carb WOE.
He also avoided butter, but ate plenty of fruits and vegetables (I have gone over a typical keto carb level with vegetables alone) and drank wine. People read "avoiding added sugar and starch" and automatically assume that it's low carb although it may not be. This isn't supporting low carb, this is supporting the main principle in almost all fad diets: limit variety and overeating could become harder.14 -
When I was growing up, my mum cooked from scratch, we didnt have desserts,, didnt have fizzy drinks,, didnt have ultra processed foods and I have always been overweight. I just like eating a lot of food. Im a good cook, I prefer my home cooking to ready foods or meals so I got fatter and fatter eating home cooked wholesome food.
I wish I could rely on my body to natural regulate itself but unfortunately I have no self control and will eat most things until Im bursting in order to feel full. In fact I have to have a certain type of food to feel full, mostly fatty. I cant eat for example a lovely full salad and feel 'full', it leaves me feeling 'empty', I cant really explain it,, so I have to regulate the calories coming in.9 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »lbsansouci wrote: »If I let my body be in charge, I'd eat two pizzas a week and wake up with strangers in my bed.
I think I'll keep counting calories and enjoy my clean sheets.
This has created way more questions than answers...
Yeah well, I was just kidding about the pizza.
5 -
.1
-
lbsansouci wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »lbsansouci wrote: »If I let my body be in charge, I'd eat two pizzas a week and wake up with strangers in my bed.
I think I'll keep counting calories and enjoy my clean sheets.
This has created way more questions than answers...
Yeah well, I was just kidding about the pizza.
:laugh:1 -
lbsansouci wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »lbsansouci wrote: »If I let my body be in charge, I'd eat two pizzas a week and wake up with strangers in my bed.
I think I'll keep counting calories and enjoy my clean sheets.
This has created way more questions than answers...
Yeah well, I was just kidding about the pizza.
Two pizzas a week is barely sufficient.4 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »sunfastrose wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
100 years ago, sure, nobody was calorie counting - but their bodies still gained or lost weight according to CICO, they just didn't have a method of counting and measuring that.
But like 100 years ago, nobody had fitbits - but they still took steps and had a heart rate and whatever else those things measure - they just didnt have a way of measuring them.
Or 1000 years ago they didn't have clocks - but time still passed, it just wasn't measured.
Calorie counting is only a tool to measure and control something that is happening naturally.
First commercial diet was developed in 1863, so they might not have been counting calories but they were dieting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting
Good find supporting Low Carb WOE.
He also avoided butter, but ate plenty of fruits and vegetables (I have gone over a typical keto carb level with vegetables alone) and drank wine. People read "avoiding added sugar and starch" and automatically assume that it's low carb although it may not be. This isn't supporting low carb, this is supporting the main principle in almost all fad diets: limit variety and overeating could become harder.
True about butter and milk not being being popular with the guy considered the father of the Low Carb High Fat WOE His writings were back when the Civil War was in progress in the USA when disease killed more than bullets. Banting is considered by some health professionals as the beginning of what we call Keto today. He lived in a time before processed food was eaten daily my many.
" In 1863, Banting wrote a booklet called Letter on Corpulence, Addressed to the Public[6] which contained the particular plan for the diet he followed. It was written as an open letter in the form of a personal testimonial. Banting accounted all of his unsuccessful fasts, diets, spa and exercise regimens in his past. His previously unsuccessful attempts had been on the advice of various medical experts. He then described the dietary change which finally had worked for him, following the advice of another medical expert. "My kind and valued medical adviser is not a doctor for obesity, but stands on the pinnacle of fame in the treatment of another malady, which, as he well knows, is frequently induced by [corpulence]." (p24) His own diet was four meals per day, consisting of meat, greens, fruits, and dry wine. The emphasis was on avoiding sugar, saccharine matter, starch, beer, milk and butter. Banting’s pamphlet was popular for years to come, and would be used as a model for modern diets.[4] "8 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »sunfastrose wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
100 years ago, sure, nobody was calorie counting - but their bodies still gained or lost weight according to CICO, they just didn't have a method of counting and measuring that.
But like 100 years ago, nobody had fitbits - but they still took steps and had a heart rate and whatever else those things measure - they just didnt have a way of measuring them.
Or 1000 years ago they didn't have clocks - but time still passed, it just wasn't measured.
Calorie counting is only a tool to measure and control something that is happening naturally.
First commercial diet was developed in 1863, so they might not have been counting calories but they were dieting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting
Good find supporting Low Carb WOE.
He also avoided butter, but ate plenty of fruits and vegetables (I have gone over a typical keto carb level with vegetables alone) and drank wine. People read "avoiding added sugar and starch" and automatically assume that it's low carb although it may not be. This isn't supporting low carb, this is supporting the main principle in almost all fad diets: limit variety and overeating could become harder.amusedmonkey wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »sunfastrose wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
100 years ago, sure, nobody was calorie counting - but their bodies still gained or lost weight according to CICO, they just didn't have a method of counting and measuring that.
But like 100 years ago, nobody had fitbits - but they still took steps and had a heart rate and whatever else those things measure - they just didnt have a way of measuring them.
Or 1000 years ago they didn't have clocks - but time still passed, it just wasn't measured.
Calorie counting is only a tool to measure and control something that is happening naturally.
First commercial diet was developed in 1863, so they might not have been counting calories but they were dieting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting
Good find supporting Low Carb WOE.
He also avoided butter, but ate plenty of fruits and vegetables (I have gone over a typical keto carb level with vegetables alone) and drank wine. People read "avoiding added sugar and starch" and automatically assume that it's low carb although it may not be. This isn't supporting low carb, this is supporting the main principle in almost all fad diets: limit variety and overeating could become harder.
Here is a little more history behind the 150 year history of low carb dieting for weight management before the calorie counting craze era. I learned a lot about Kings funerals in England as well in this article.
https://theweek.com/articles/844685/portly-victorian-undertaker-who-started-lowcarb-craze?fbclid=IwAR3LVd0MnZgM-j3iZW8LYoQTO27SFADEIKeQcQkdPCzysOWcp5ft0ursOGo
The portly Victorian undertaker who started the low-carb craze
I went low carb for pain management so counting calories were never of interest but a side effect was that I lost weight and have kept it off for 4 years now. Counting calories is fine but I just never found a need for it after cutting out all added sweeteners and all forms of all grains.8 -
...everything you’re quoting just keeps confirming amusedmonkey’s statement that it wasn’t a low carb diet. Why...?2
-
...everything you’re quoting just keeps confirming amusedmonkey’s statement that it wasn’t a low carb diet. Why...?
That's why I'm not engaging. I've always wondered how they knew for sure it was low carb. If "no added sugar" can be interpreted as low carb why can't we interpret "no butter" as low fat? If he ate fruits, wouldn't that mean there is no way of knowing if it really was a low carb diet depending on how much he ate? Fruits that were common in the late 1800s were the sugary type (apples, peaches, grapes, pears..etc), and they ate dried fruits in the winter which is a double whammy for carbs and sugar.
The only thing we can know for sure is that it was a food restriction diet, so he basically was the father of food group restriction diets, not necessarily low carb, unless there are more detailed accounts that prove it was low carb that I'm not aware of (I admit I haven't really looked that deeply into it, but it just made me wonder).
ETA: my suspicions were confirmed. From the article linked, his meal plan included biscuits, dry toast, and fruits, plus fruits for snacks, and occasionally, crackers. Reminds me of those 90s written diet plans.9 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »...everything you’re quoting just keeps confirming amusedmonkey’s statement that it wasn’t a low carb diet. Why...?
That's why I'm not engaging. I've always wondered how they knew for sure it was low carb. If "no added sugar" can be interpreted as low carb why can't we interpret "no butter" as low fat? If he ate fruits, wouldn't that mean there is no way of knowing if it really was a low carb diet depending on how much he ate? Fruits that were common in the late 1800s were the sugary type (apples, peaches, grapes, pears..etc), and they ate dried fruits in the winter which is a double whammy for carbs and sugar.
The only thing we can know for sure is that it was a food restriction diet, so he basically was the father of food group restriction diets, not necessarily low carb, unless there are more detailed accounts that prove it was low carb that I'm not aware of (I admit I haven't really looked that deeply into it, but it just made me wonder).
ETA: my suspicions were confirmed. From the article linked, his meal plan included biscuits, dry toast, and fruits, plus fruits for snacks, and occasionally, crackers. Reminds me of those 90s written diet plans.
Did you pick up on why no butter in his case from the last article that clearly links Banting as the father of the 150 year old low carb trend that has not been a fad diet in a medical sense for over 100 years.8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »...everything you’re quoting just keeps confirming amusedmonkey’s statement that it wasn’t a low carb diet. Why...?
That's why I'm not engaging. I've always wondered how they knew for sure it was low carb. If "no added sugar" can be interpreted as low carb why can't we interpret "no butter" as low fat? If he ate fruits, wouldn't that mean there is no way of knowing if it really was a low carb diet depending on how much he ate? Fruits that were common in the late 1800s were the sugary type (apples, peaches, grapes, pears..etc), and they ate dried fruits in the winter which is a double whammy for carbs and sugar.
The only thing we can know for sure is that it was a food restriction diet, so he basically was the father of food group restriction diets, not necessarily low carb, unless there are more detailed accounts that prove it was low carb that I'm not aware of (I admit I haven't really looked that deeply into it, but it just made me wonder).
ETA: my suspicions were confirmed. From the article linked, his meal plan included biscuits, dry toast, and fruits, plus fruits for snacks, and occasionally, crackers. Reminds me of those 90s written diet plans.
Did you pick up on why no butter in his case from the last article that clearly links Banting as the father of the 150 year old low carb trend that has not been a fad diet in a medical sense for over 100 years.
The only part of that article that links Banting to low carb is the title.
Still waiting for you to explain how toast, crackers, rusks, and fruit are low carb.10 -
Food group restriction diets fulfill the psychological need for overweight persons to be punished. Sometimes these diets work. But, this is a deeply subconscious force. Applied to calorie counting, it may cause dieters to substitute otherwise retched ingredients for very small reductions in calorie count.
Like gamblers are addicted to losing. They just don't know it consciously.4 -
It was certainly my experience that most of the dieting I did in the past was out of the belief that I needed to be dieting in order to be socially acceptable as a fat person. Not to actually lose weight.2
-
@wilson10102018 Absolutely. Food group restriction diets are the recipe for eating it all back. They only work for those those who actually like to restrict their food to keep their weights down. For many, it can result in more disordered eating and maybe an exercise addiction thrown in there, too.1
-
Diatonic12 wrote: »@wilson10102018 Absolutely. Food group restriction diets are the recipe for eating it all back. They only work for those those who actually like to restrict their food to keep their weights down. For many, it can result in more disordered eating and maybe an exercise addiction thrown in there, too.
Not sure if anyone actually likes to restrict their food...4 -
sweetangelkitten wrote: »I do suggest you stay diligent on however you measure your weight. I see nothing wrong with an experiment like this and I hope you will be fine but, if not, know when to pull the plug.
Funny enough, I threw the scale away XD This is the only health forum that I know of that is steadily active >,< I've decided I can't weigh myself anymore and should leave my body alone
let it do it's thing. Our bodies know what they need and guide us 
When left to my own devices my body tends to lead me to chocolate and ice cream. I’m unfortunately past the age where I can just let my body do its own thing anymore. It doesn’t make the best decisions and bad decisions equals weight gain.8 -
Diatonic12 wrote: »@wilson10102018 Absolutely. Food group restriction diets are the recipe for eating it all back. They only work for those those who actually like to restrict their food to keep their weights down. For many, it can result in more disordered eating and maybe an exercise addiction thrown in there, too.
Not sure if anyone actually likes to restrict their food...
That is the point of subconscious behavior. We are motivated to do things consciously that our subconscious mind wants. I could give a lot of examples, but they are mostly unpleasant to think about.1 -
Diatonic12 wrote: »@wilson10102018 Absolutely. Food group restriction diets are the recipe for eating it all back. They only work for those those who actually like to restrict their food to keep their weights down. For many, it can result in more disordered eating and maybe an exercise addiction thrown in there, too.
Not sure if anyone actually likes to restrict their food...
There are some people who actually do have to eat more - I mean there's a bunch of them here at MFP. So they do exist.
Humans are pre-disposed to doing certain things. One of them is eating. And having sex and so on.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions