Is counting calories disordered eating? Shouldn’t we be able to not overeat?
Replies
-
I don't think binging is likely relevant to what is different between now and the long ago past.
I think most people who become overweight and even obese probably don't binge in any clinical kind of way. I think they just find it easy to overeat -- without external strictures they eat more calories than they need for an extended period of time.
Why is that?
Partly, sure, that food tends to be both more processed (less fiber, etc.) and higher cal on average, such that it takes less time to eat beyond your needs and is easier to do that before you feel overful.
Probably that highly palatable foods (whether homemade and delicious foods with fat and salt or fat and sugar or any number of other combinations) or the knock-offs that are so easily available now (even if less good!) are easier to overeat as they tend to override any satiety signals (and also tend to be highly caloric, and for reasons that make sense if looked at evolutionally, of course we tend to be attracted to more calorie-dense foods).
Food scarcity (in terms of scarcity of overall calories) is not as common now, in 1st world countries especially, as it was regularly through much or most of human history.
External cultural restrictions on food consumption are basically gone -- more and more eating throughout the day seems the norm and options are available.
Food availability requires no work (if I just decide I will only eat foods I make, that makes it much harder to overeat, although of course I still can).
Add to this all the changes in necessary activity level.
In my mid 20s I was naturally pretty active on a daily basis, and I only ate at mealtimes, since that was my habit, and I was a healthy weight without thinking about it. In my early 30s I was less active, stress ate some, and ate high cal food related to my job on a regular basis, and my weight crept up to the point that I was obese. I'm obviously someone who can gain easily and whose natural inclinations aren't sufficient to prevent it (if taking no steps to prevent it and in the current food environment), but in my 20s I would have said I was naturally the weight I was with no effort.
I agree with this. Though, when I say binge, I "think" many of us obese in recovery have had the similar experiences of just wanting to eat a few chips and then wondering where the bag went. DAMN companies making the bags smaller! 😁 If we look at weight gain across age in western countries / developed, we see the "average" weight gain is 1lb or .5 kilos a year. That would be roughly 10 cals a day over tdee. Though, we know it does not work like this. Ad librium eating can vary day to day. So someone might compensate for eating 1000 cals over one day by eating 900 less than tdee the next. I, and others far smarter than me, think that some people's compensation mechanisms might be stronger than others. Allowing them not to get obese in our current environment. Also, as we gain weight, our tdee increases.2 -
I think evolutionary pressures/advantages would have not made it any advantage to be able to self regulate to prevent overeating when food was available over most of human history, and it might well have been an advantage to be able to do so. So it doesn't surprise me that most people don't naturally self regulate well during a permanent time of abundance (where even cultural checks have been removed).
I would agree that SOME people probably do tend to have an off switch (no, don't want more) that works better than others (and some studies seem to suggest that with basically whole foods (or the mashed up equivalent) toddlers or young kids have that, although I'm not sure how totally reliable those are). I'd argue that the cap on "natural off switch that works well" is about the third or less not overweight in the US, and that since some portion of those do use strategies to regulate their eating (my sister is assumed to be naturally thin and has never been overweight but does not just eat whatever she feels like but eats mindfully and is intentionally active).3 -
I think evolutionary pressures/advantages would have not made it any advantage to be able to self regulate to prevent overeating when food was available over most of human history, and it might well have been an advantage to be able to do so. So it doesn't surprise me that most people don't naturally self regulate well during a permanent time of abundance (where even cultural checks have been removed).
I would agree that SOME people probably do tend to have an off switch (no, don't want more) that works better than others (and some studies seem to suggest that with basically whole foods (or the mashed up equivalent) toddlers or young kids have that, although I'm not sure how totally reliable those are). I'd argue that the cap on "natural off switch that works well" is about the third or less not overweight in the US, and that since some portion of those do use strategies to regulate their eating (my sister is assumed to be naturally thin and has never been overweight but does not just eat whatever she feels like but eats mindfully and is intentionally active).
ITA. For like 99% of the history of the human species, feasting whenever food was available meant survival, because you might be stuck in a tree for days with nothing to eat waiting for the damn jackals to back off. The only necessary regulation for over-eating was I'd guess just being physically capable to climb. As over time we have become less and less active and food calories become more and more readily available, rates of overweight and obesity have risen. I honestly don't think it's any more complicated than that, and if we will as a species evolve to develop common natural regulation of over consumption, it will take many generations.
This would also be why I don't think counting calories, or any other trick to make you mindful of how much you are eating, is "disordered". We are fighting instincts developed over thousands of years, while existing in an environment that makes those instincts harmful.7 -
I think evolutionary pressures/advantages would have not made it any advantage to be able to self regulate to prevent overeating when food was available over most of human history, and it might well have been an advantage to be able to do so. So it doesn't surprise me that most people don't naturally self regulate well during a permanent time of abundance (where even cultural checks have been removed).
I would agree that SOME people probably do tend to have an off switch (no, don't want more) that works better than others (and some studies seem to suggest that with basically whole foods (or the mashed up equivalent) toddlers or young kids have that, although I'm not sure how totally reliable those are). I'd argue that the cap on "natural off switch that works well" is about the third or less not overweight in the US, and that since some portion of those do use strategies to regulate their eating (my sister is assumed to be naturally thin and has never been overweight but does not just eat whatever she feels like but eats mindfully and is intentionally active).
@lemurcat2 ... why are we not friends? Lol yes, agree with this, but I will also state that too much weight gain is not evolutionary advantageous. If we can't run from cave bears, or mate, what good is having more weight? I was just proposing some ideas folks who dont want to count can leverage (protein)... lol ....diet geek joke... to stay weight stable or lose weight.2 -
I would challenge that at some level, normal weight, or at least thin, people do count "calories". It might not be that they explicitly use calories as a measure, but people who maintain a lighter weight and people who are formerly overweight have both been studied with fMRI to note what parts of the brain they use before, during, and after eating. For both the naturally thin and formerly overweight, their is an increased dorsolateral striatum activation - the area generally associated in judgement and executive planning.
That suggests that people maintaining a thin weight are making some kind of mental effort that involves figuratively weighing what they've ate and possibly considering what they will eat. Given these judgements are turning into eating an amount that keeps them thin, I think it is fair to say their judgements have some level of correspondence with calories, even if they don't have an exact numerical value attached to these judgements in their brain.
Perhaps being normal isn't being free of thinking about how much you're eating at some level, but just feeling that's what is normal.7 -
What is your definition of normal?1
-
Jossy_star wrote: »What is your definition of normal?
I would define normal as what the vast majority of the general population does. As a weight management strategy I'd say calorie counting is fairly abnormal...I'm the only one I know in real life who's ever done it. Even for weight loss, this or that diet is far more common than calorie counting.
4 -
I think evolutionary pressures/advantages would have not made it any advantage to be able to self regulate to prevent overeating when food was available over most of human history, and it might well have been an advantage to be able to do so. So it doesn't surprise me that most people don't naturally self regulate well during a permanent time of abundance (where even cultural checks have been removed).
I would agree that SOME people probably do tend to have an off switch (no, don't want more) that works better than others (and some studies seem to suggest that with basically whole foods (or the mashed up equivalent) toddlers or young kids have that, although I'm not sure how totally reliable those are). I'd argue that the cap on "natural off switch that works well" is about the third or less not overweight in the US, and that since some portion of those do use strategies to regulate their eating (my sister is assumed to be naturally thin and has never been overweight but does not just eat whatever she feels like but eats mindfully and is intentionally active).
ITA. For like 99% of the history of the human species, feasting whenever food was available meant survival, because you might be stuck in a tree for days with nothing to eat waiting for the damn jackals to back off. The only necessary regulation for over-eating was I'd guess just being physically capable to climb. As over time we have become less and less active and food calories become more and more readily available, rates of overweight and obesity have risen. I honestly don't think it's any more complicated than that, and if we will as a species evolve to develop common natural regulation of over consumption, it will take many generations.
This would also be why I don't think counting calories, or any other trick to make you mindful of how much you are eating, is "disordered". We are fighting instincts developed over thousands of years, while existing in an environment that makes those instincts harmful.
I agree. Nothing wrong with calorie counting. It is just a construct people can use as a barrier to overeating. Much like many societies have done. I.E. the "French Paradox." Is calorie the most sustainable construct for the "average" person in terms of weight management? Uh... I dont think so.magnusthenerd wrote: »I would challenge that at some level, normal weight, or at least thin, people do count "calories". It might not be that they explicitly use calories as a measure, but people who maintain a lighter weight and people who are formerly overweight have both been studied with fMRI to note what parts of the brain they use before, during, and after eating. For both the naturally thin and formerly overweight, their is an increased dorsolateral striatum activation - the area generally associated in judgement and executive planning.
That suggests that people maintaining a thin weight are making some kind of mental effort that involves figuratively weighing what they've ate and possibly considering what they will eat. Given these judgements are turning into eating an amount that keeps them thin, I think it is fair to say their judgements have some level of correspondence with calories, even if they don't have an exact numerical value attached to these judgements in their brain.
Perhaps being normal isn't being free of thinking about how much you're eating at some level, but just feeling that's what is normal.
Yes, more executive control, but... there are also studies that show a greater activation in the Ventral Striatum in obese and post obese vs normally lean. That area of the brain as been linked to the reward and learning pathways in the brain. May be why some people have a hard time stopping with certain foods.2 -
psychod787 wrote: »I think evolutionary pressures/advantages would have not made it any advantage to be able to self regulate to prevent overeating when food was available over most of human history, and it might well have been an advantage to be able to do so. So it doesn't surprise me that most people don't naturally self regulate well during a permanent time of abundance (where even cultural checks have been removed).
I would agree that SOME people probably do tend to have an off switch (no, don't want more) that works better than others (and some studies seem to suggest that with basically whole foods (or the mashed up equivalent) toddlers or young kids have that, although I'm not sure how totally reliable those are). I'd argue that the cap on "natural off switch that works well" is about the third or less not overweight in the US, and that since some portion of those do use strategies to regulate their eating (my sister is assumed to be naturally thin and has never been overweight but does not just eat whatever she feels like but eats mindfully and is intentionally active).
@lemurcat2 ... why are we not friends? Lol yes, agree with this, but I will also state that too much weight gain is not evolutionary advantageous. If we can't run from cave bears, or mate, what good is having more weight? I was just proposing some ideas folks who dont want to count can leverage (protein)... lol ....diet geek joke... to stay weight stable or lose weight.
Probably because I'm a terrible MFP friend, but I'd friend you any time.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »I think evolutionary pressures/advantages would have not made it any advantage to be able to self regulate to prevent overeating when food was available over most of human history, and it might well have been an advantage to be able to do so. So it doesn't surprise me that most people don't naturally self regulate well during a permanent time of abundance (where even cultural checks have been removed).
I would agree that SOME people probably do tend to have an off switch (no, don't want more) that works better than others (and some studies seem to suggest that with basically whole foods (or the mashed up equivalent) toddlers or young kids have that, although I'm not sure how totally reliable those are). I'd argue that the cap on "natural off switch that works well" is about the third or less not overweight in the US, and that since some portion of those do use strategies to regulate their eating (my sister is assumed to be naturally thin and has never been overweight but does not just eat whatever she feels like but eats mindfully and is intentionally active).
ITA. For like 99% of the history of the human species, feasting whenever food was available meant survival, because you might be stuck in a tree for days with nothing to eat waiting for the damn jackals to back off. The only necessary regulation for over-eating was I'd guess just being physically capable to climb. As over time we have become less and less active and food calories become more and more readily available, rates of overweight and obesity have risen. I honestly don't think it's any more complicated than that, and if we will as a species evolve to develop common natural regulation of over consumption, it will take many generations.
This would also be why I don't think counting calories, or any other trick to make you mindful of how much you are eating, is "disordered". We are fighting instincts developed over thousands of years, while existing in an environment that makes those instincts harmful.
I agree. Nothing wrong with calorie counting. It is just a construct people can use as a barrier to overeating. Much like many societies have done. I.E. the "French Paradox." Is calorie the most sustainable construct for the "average" person in terms of weight management? Uh... I dont think so.magnusthenerd wrote: »I would challenge that at some level, normal weight, or at least thin, people do count "calories". It might not be that they explicitly use calories as a measure, but people who maintain a lighter weight and people who are formerly overweight have both been studied with fMRI to note what parts of the brain they use before, during, and after eating. For both the naturally thin and formerly overweight, their is an increased dorsolateral striatum activation - the area generally associated in judgement and executive planning.
That suggests that people maintaining a thin weight are making some kind of mental effort that involves figuratively weighing what they've ate and possibly considering what they will eat. Given these judgements are turning into eating an amount that keeps them thin, I think it is fair to say their judgements have some level of correspondence with calories, even if they don't have an exact numerical value attached to these judgements in their brain.
Perhaps being normal isn't being free of thinking about how much you're eating at some level, but just feeling that's what is normal.
Yes, more executive control, but... there are also studies that show a greater activation in the Ventral Striatum in obese and post obese vs normally lean. That area of the brain as been linked to the reward and learning pathways in the brain. May be why some people have a hard time stopping with certain foods.
Might depend on how long post obese. I believe low leptin changes the rewards signals, definitely increases attention to food cues on people in a diet. It might sadly reflect a lifetime learning.
And sure, both probably explain obesity. Just to make it clear if it wasn't was about how it is true in naturally lean people - they're doing some kind of accounting even if it isn't actual calorie counting. Just like someone who had never heard of the term miles before could have an idea of their stride length and can estimate how far something is by walking it or having walked a visually similar distance before, while someone else could find out the measurement using GPS or laser range finder. On some level, they're doing a similar kind of math with different units.2 -
psychod787 wrote: »I think evolutionary pressures/advantages would have not made it any advantage to be able to self regulate to prevent overeating when food was available over most of human history, and it might well have been an advantage to be able to do so. So it doesn't surprise me that most people don't naturally self regulate well during a permanent time of abundance (where even cultural checks have been removed).
I would agree that SOME people probably do tend to have an off switch (no, don't want more) that works better than others (and some studies seem to suggest that with basically whole foods (or the mashed up equivalent) toddlers or young kids have that, although I'm not sure how totally reliable those are). I'd argue that the cap on "natural off switch that works well" is about the third or less not overweight in the US, and that since some portion of those do use strategies to regulate their eating (my sister is assumed to be naturally thin and has never been overweight but does not just eat whatever she feels like but eats mindfully and is intentionally active).
@lemurcat2 ... why are we not friends? Lol yes, agree with this, but I will also state that too much weight gain is not evolutionary advantageous. If we can't run from cave bears, or mate, what good is having more weight? I was just proposing some ideas folks who dont want to count can leverage (protein)... lol ....diet geek joke... to stay weight stable or lose weight.
Yes, too much weight gain is not advantageous, but the mechanism of evolving that off switch was to adapt to conditions that changed only recently. People required way more calories to overeat back then, given the physical nature of their daily lives, and high calorie density food was not perpetually available like it is now.4 -
I think 2 big things have changed over the last, say, 50 years. In the western world, at least.
- Availability of food,and more readily available high calorie foods
- Activity levels in everyday life.
so, when you look at a person like my father and why they do not conciously have to control their weight.
They eat less high calorie foods and they are are everyday active ie higher NEAT
Nearly all of us have computers and smartphones - instantly creates non active time.
Breaking this down further: most people in days past could not afford a lot of food, Food coupons rationed your amount,as well as money reasons.
Takeaway and going out to dinner were treats,not regular occurences.
and most people didnt have cars - even catching the bus or train involves more activity than driving a car - unless the bus stop is literally on your doorstep. and of course walking and bicyling does.
Elevators vs stairs, desk jobs vs physical jobs etc, automatic washing machines vs wringers, dryers vs hanging clothes on the line, ensuite vs walking to toilet down the stairs or at bottom of the garden, it all adds up....
I would venture to say even desk jobs are getting more sedentary - you email your colleague, you dont get up to talk to them, nobody goes out to post the letters.
and we spend time on Facebook, forums etc.
The human body hasnt changed - the environmental factors have. You could say our lifestyle is disordered.
Some of you may know Henry 8th - became very obese in his latter years.
500 ish years ago
Unlike most people of the era he had access to unlimited food, including many high calorie foods ( cakes, sweetmeats etc) and he could survive being inactive.
nearly everyone else had very limited food and had to be active. nobody would carry them around or bring things to them or from them, certainly not for long enough for them to become obese.
I guess you could say we are now all kings and so same risk applies to us.
TLDR -paperpudding rambled on.
9 -
My take on it is that portion sizes have grown with waistlines. I see this in Italy where portions are smaller and soft drinks are not refillable. Just to name a few differences.2
-
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Breaking my 10 day no post celibacy... I think humans do have a natural ability to control calories. Now, I think it is stronger in some people. Genetics might play a role. Our genetics have not changed that much in the last 100 years. What has changed? The food environment. People now consume more energy dense/hyper palatable foods. These foods I think overload this satiety center. Now, one can gain weight eating any kind of foods. Though, I think certain properties of certain foods help trigger satiety quicker and longer. When most people binge, it's not on plain fruits, vegetables, leaner meats, it's usually very energy dense foods like ice cream. By lowering the energy density of one's diet, they may be able to eat more "normally" without counting calories. If you want to eat like a "normal" person, you will most likely gain weight. It's the norm not the exception it used to be. There have been studies on the diets of more traditional hunter and gatherer cultures. They seem to have a total caloric density of 1-1.2. If we look at the Kevin Hall less processed vs more processed diet study. We see the average calorie density of the "eaten" food of the less processed group was 1.08 vs 1.31 of the more processed. Correlation? Yes. Possible inside into the satiety center of the human brain... Maybe..
...so let me tell you about the time I binged on satsumas. Oh, and the time I binged on carrots. And apples. And pineapple (and OW my poor mouth and stomach hurt after that one).
Oh I did on peaches once.... but as a caveat i was sub 9% bf coming from over 50%... so... I probably would have binged on dirt. 😉 I will REPHRASE my statement. People in general are LESS likely to binge on them. The fact that your belly was yelling at you says something to the potential satiation ability of them.
**edit** The calorie density of carrots is 200 cals a pound or so. Fruit roughly 300 cals a pound. Ben and Jerry's is roughly 1200 calories a pound. How much would have you eaten of the ben and Jerry's vs apples?
I've pigged out on some ridiculous stuff as I don't keep temptations in the house. If craving something sweet I've eaten a big bag of frozen blueberries, a butternut squash, and Honeycrisp apples. Recently it was vegetables wrapped in low calorie tortillas with salsa. I tried to moderate Fiber One bars and ate the box in a day, talk about never wanting again after that experience! I've started eating at the table with no distractions and it's helped a lot. Luckily I rarely do this but the calories aren't big enough to hurt the bottom line, it's the behavior that bugs me.
My therapist doesn't like calorie counting, she thinks it's a slippery slope though I agree counting in itself isn't the problem. It's worked very well for me, I've lost 105lbs total.3 -
I'm not a big fan of counting/measuring out calories over the long haul when it comes to lifestyle changes. I think in the beginning of a weight loss journey it's important to measure everything out and learn serving sizes of the foods you eat on a consistent basis and the amount of calories in those servings. But after a month or two you will be able to better guesstimate calories and portions having gone through the educational/enlightening process of measuring everything out. I'm a big believer in making any weight loss/lifestyle change as simple as possible because the more simple and less variables there are the more likely you are to stick it out for the long run. Changing up your nutrition after months or even years of poor eating habits/choices is hard enough as it is. Obsessing about calories and macros to the point that it makes you a nervous wreck is essentially trading a physical health concern for a mental/psychological one. What is doubly concerning about this is for many people overeating/poor food choices came as some from of coping mechanism to deal with stress and mental health issues so it's just another way to get stuck in a vicious cycle.1
-
asellitti6523 wrote: »I'm not a big fan of counting/measuring out calories over the long haul when it comes to lifestyle changes. I think in the beginning of a weight loss journey it's important to measure everything out and learn serving sizes of the foods you eat on a consistent basis and the amount of calories in those servings. But after a month or two you will be able to better guesstimate calories and portions having gone through the educational/enlightening process of measuring everything out. I'm a big believer in making any weight loss/lifestyle change as simple as possible because the more simple and less variables there are the more likely you are to stick it out for the long run. Changing up your nutrition after months or even years of poor eating habits/choices is hard enough as it is. Obsessing about calories and macros to the point that it makes you a nervous wreck is essentially trading a physical health concern for a mental/psychological one. What is doubly concerning about this is for many people overeating/poor food choices came as some from of coping mechanism to deal with stress and mental health issues so it's just another way to get stuck in a vicious cycle.
That is precisely why I've been counting for 7 years and don't see myself stopping in the foreseeable future. I find counting simpler than having to obsess about what I can or cannot eat. I tend to restrict more "just in case" when I'm not counting and I find that exhausting. Everything is fair game if the numbers are right, and it requires fewer rules/less rigid rules. The only decision I have to make is "is this food worth the calories today?" when I feel like having a high calorie food, and the rest of the processes is self-driving.12 -
asellitti6523 wrote: »I'm not a big fan of counting/measuring out calories over the long haul when it comes to lifestyle changes. I think in the beginning of a weight loss journey it's important to measure everything out and learn serving sizes of the foods you eat on a consistent basis and the amount of calories in those servings. But after a month or two you will be able to better guesstimate calories and portions having gone through the educational/enlightening process of measuring everything out. I'm a big believer in making any weight loss/lifestyle change as simple as possible because the more simple and less variables there are the more likely you are to stick it out for the long run. Changing up your nutrition after months or even years of poor eating habits/choices is hard enough as it is. Obsessing about calories and macros to the point that it makes you a nervous wreck is essentially trading a physical health concern for a mental/psychological one. What is doubly concerning about this is for many people overeating/poor food choices came as some from of coping mechanism to deal with stress and mental health issues so it's just another way to get stuck in a vicious cycle.
Counting calories does not equal obsessing about calories. If we could all just eyeball everything accurately enough after a couple of months there would be nobody but newbies on here. I developed binge eating disorder and like many have a propensity to overeat when left to my own devices. Three years in to lifestyle changes and working towards better health and the only way I can stay in control of my diet in a non disordered manner is by meal planning and calorie counting.8 -
asellitti6523 wrote: »I'm not a big fan of counting/measuring out calories over the long haul when it comes to lifestyle changes. I think in the beginning of a weight loss journey it's important to measure everything out and learn serving sizes of the foods you eat on a consistent basis and the amount of calories in those servings. But after a month or two you will be able to better guesstimate calories and portions having gone through the educational/enlightening process of measuring everything out. I'm a big believer in making any weight loss/lifestyle change as simple as possible because the more simple and less variables there are the more likely you are to stick it out for the long run. Changing up your nutrition after months or even years of poor eating habits/choices is hard enough as it is. Obsessing about calories and macros to the point that it makes you a nervous wreck is essentially trading a physical health concern for a mental/psychological one. What is doubly concerning about this is for many people overeating/poor food choices came as some from of coping mechanism to deal with stress and mental health issues so it's just another way to get stuck in a vicious cycle.
I think everyone agrees obsessing to the point if becoming a nervous wreck is not good.
And if you want to wean yourself off calorie counting after a few months or whenever and that works for you - good.
But for many of us, me included, some measure of calorie counting is something we have stuck at for the long run, and we find that quite simple and long term workable.
There is no universal Should or it's important to do or not do for everyone
7 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »asellitti6523 wrote: »I'm not a big fan of counting/measuring out calories over the long haul when it comes to lifestyle changes. I think in the beginning of a weight loss journey it's important to measure everything out and learn serving sizes of the foods you eat on a consistent basis and the amount of calories in those servings. But after a month or two you will be able to better guesstimate calories and portions having gone through the educational/enlightening process of measuring everything out. I'm a big believer in making any weight loss/lifestyle change as simple as possible because the more simple and less variables there are the more likely you are to stick it out for the long run. Changing up your nutrition after months or even years of poor eating habits/choices is hard enough as it is. Obsessing about calories and macros to the point that it makes you a nervous wreck is essentially trading a physical health concern for a mental/psychological one. What is doubly concerning about this is for many people overeating/poor food choices came as some from of coping mechanism to deal with stress and mental health issues so it's just another way to get stuck in a vicious cycle.
That is precisely why I've been counting for 7 years and don't see myself stopping in the foreseeable future. I find counting simpler than having to obsess about what I can or cannot eat. I tend to restrict more "just in case" when I'm not counting and I find that exhausting. Everything is fair game if the numbers are right, and it requires fewer rules/less rigid rules. The only decision I have to make is "is this food worth the calories today?" when I feel like having a high calorie food, and the rest of the processes is self-driving.
Maybe I believe in oversimplification but I just think doing things like eating more whole foods and avoiding processed foods, not drinking calories often, and reducing the intake of refined sugar and simple carbs will naturally put the vast majority of people trying to lose weight at a caloric deficit without having to track every single day. The reason I don't worry about overeating taking this approach is because eating more whole foods and less processed foods loaded with sugar is going to keep me satisfied with a lower volume of food consumed. This is not to say I never have an alcoholic beverage or occasionally eat sweets or processed foods but I don't obsess about it because I know the majority of the time I am eating relatively clean. Your point about why you track calories to keep yourself accountable and to not obsess about what you eat is well taken and I fully subscribe to the notion that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to a healthy lifestyle. Thank you for your thought provoking reply.
2 -
asellitti6523 wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »asellitti6523 wrote: »I'm not a big fan of counting/measuring out calories over the long haul when it comes to lifestyle changes. I think in the beginning of a weight loss journey it's important to measure everything out and learn serving sizes of the foods you eat on a consistent basis and the amount of calories in those servings. But after a month or two you will be able to better guesstimate calories and portions having gone through the educational/enlightening process of measuring everything out. I'm a big believer in making any weight loss/lifestyle change as simple as possible because the more simple and less variables there are the more likely you are to stick it out for the long run. Changing up your nutrition after months or even years of poor eating habits/choices is hard enough as it is. Obsessing about calories and macros to the point that it makes you a nervous wreck is essentially trading a physical health concern for a mental/psychological one. What is doubly concerning about this is for many people overeating/poor food choices came as some from of coping mechanism to deal with stress and mental health issues so it's just another way to get stuck in a vicious cycle.
That is precisely why I've been counting for 7 years and don't see myself stopping in the foreseeable future. I find counting simpler than having to obsess about what I can or cannot eat. I tend to restrict more "just in case" when I'm not counting and I find that exhausting. Everything is fair game if the numbers are right, and it requires fewer rules/less rigid rules. The only decision I have to make is "is this food worth the calories today?" when I feel like having a high calorie food, and the rest of the processes is self-driving.
Maybe I believe in oversimplification but I just think doing things like eating more whole foods and avoiding processed foods, not drinking calories often, and reducing the intake of refined sugar and simple carbs will naturally put the vast majority of people trying to lose weight at a caloric deficit without having to track every single day. The reason I don't worry about overeating taking this approach is because eating more whole foods and less processed foods loaded with sugar is going to keep me satisfied with a lower volume of food consumed. This is not to say I never have an alcoholic beverage or occasionally eat sweets or processed foods but I don't obsess about it because I know the majority of the time I am eating relatively clean. Your point about why you track calories to keep yourself accountable and to not obsess about what you eat is well taken and I fully subscribe to the notion that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to a healthy lifestyle. Thank you for your thought provoking reply.
That's not oversimplification in my mind. That's too many rules and mental hurdles. My diet is mostly whole foods out of preference, but that didn't stop me from getting obese. It's just the way my mind works. I like being able to eat whatever I want and I like the social eating freedom of it.
We order pizza maybe once every 2-5 months, and instead of thinking of it as "breaking the rules" I like the peace of mind of it feeling like a normal day of eating, except with pizza that fits into my calories. I go a couple of months without eating any chocolate, then I have a week or two of wanting chocolate every day. I like thinking of those times as "the days I want chocolate and willing to fit it in" instead of "the days I'm eating bad". Occasionally I'll go out with friends and I like that my food choices don't stand out and that I'm able to eat and enjoy my food without overanalyzing choices or stressing out if they choose a fast food restaurant.
On the flip side, I also like being aware that whole foods can be calorific too, and many of our homecooked meals are. Just because something is minimally processed with no added sugar doesn't mean I won't overeat it.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions