Under the Hood

troylfullerton

People say it's hard to lose weight--I beg to differ. I think it IS hard to lose weight if you're relying on some restrictive "eat what you want of this--severely restrict that" regime or some fad diet that nearly takes about half the food groups off the menu. But when you "get under the hood" and just look at how many calories are in the food you're eating, you REALLY CAN have anything you want and still lose weight---you just have to work it into your quota. Was anybody else surprised at just how little impact some foods that you previously scarcely touched have on your weight loss? I will NEVER AGAIN let someone (or some organization) put me on a program that tells me what to eat in the interest of losing weight. If I choose to cut back on sugar, saturated fat, whatever...that's going to be MY decision.

I am about to cross back into Oneder-land again--I was 201.6 this morning--I'm down from 225, on my way back to my goal weight of 178. And it's not hard. I had an apple fritter today--I dutifully tracked the calories--and I also had a satisfying breakfast. I'm still not used to being able to pick up a menu at a restaurant and pick out what I want, without restricting myself to grilled chicken, salads, or "point-free" vegetables--"hold the oil". Now, I just make sensible choices based on calories, track what I eat, and adjust accordingly for the rest of the day. It simply amazes me that I can eat like this and still lose weight. ONWARD AND DOWNWARD!

steve0mania

Congratulations on your renewed success!

I'd be a little careful about making too large a pronouncement about the ability to eat anything and just manage caloric intake. Yes, for sure, that can be done. At the same time, there are some of us who truly believe that it is easier for us to manage our food choices in different ways.

When I first started WW, I remember that I received these little booklets about how to "work the program." One of the lessons that they taught was to try to choose food with lower caloric density, so that you can streeeeetch the physical amount of food you can eat. This was reinforced for me when I read the Volumetrics book. I have come to appreciate that this approach is a better approach for me.

I am not a "foodie" in any way, shape, or form. Instead, I find that I am more of a texture/volume eater. I am much happier stuffing my face full of broccoli than cutting off a tiny sliver of an apple fritter because I'd rather not burn 500 calories to eat the entire thing (more than 1/3 of my daily intake!).

Of course, this all needs to fit into one's larger food plan, both for losing phase and beyond. I've managed to maintain my weight below my WW goal for >10 years now. A lot of that has happened because I am happier focusing my intake on foods that I can be "lax" with, and not have to measure and count calories. That really seems to work for me. One thing I know is that I generally dislike having to track.

So, the overarching point is to figure out what works for YOU, and to let everyone else worry about what works for THEM.

podkey

Congratulations on finding something that works for yu on your way back to onderland. It really is all about oneself and what works for us.

troylfullerton

I agree, you have to do what works for YOU--what fits your lifestyle, your satisfaction triggers--nobody is going to put up with being forced into a pigeon hole that they don't want to be in for the long haul. Just for perspective, that one apple fritter I ate was about a fourth of my calories for the day-I was well-able to make my calories come out "in the black" with what I had left. But that one fritter would have been TWENTY WW points--that's what I had for the entire day on the Purple Plan--every other thing that day would have had to be zero-point or would have had to come out of weeklies.

For me, eating more doesn't necessarily satisfy me...but eating certain things does. If I can have a little of the things that used to jack the points off the chart (ESPECIALLY fat), I find I don't need to eat as much to feel satisfied. And it's more than just a fluke--it has happened over and over. Sometimes I'm amazed at how long I can go on just one satisfying meal. Extra fiber and high protein just wouldn't cut it--that doesn't work for me.

At any rate, I think that the moral of the story is that sometimes we have to experiment and explore a little to find that "sweet spot" (pun intended) between "healthy" and satisfying--as long as we're losing weight and can sustain it over the long haul, it's right for us.

linmueller

troylfullerton wrote: »

At any rate, I think that the moral of the story is that sometimes we have to experiment and explore a little to find that "sweet spot" (pun intended) between "healthy" and satisfying--as long as we're losing weight and can sustain it over the long haul, it's right for us.

I totally agree, with sustaining the loss being key! That's the piece of the puzzle I haven't gotten down.

Good luck as you work towards goal, and especially as you work to sustain it (the point of lowest calories required)! 💪💪💪

Flintwinch

While there are some general principles that apply to weight loss, the real question is how to individualize the principles in a way that works for me. I'm interested in health and weight management is a part of that. Since I've learned I have heart disease, not uncommon as we age, I've been interested in the nutritional quality of the food I eat and whether it is heart healthy. I find that the American Heart Association diet guidelines work for me and are a sustainable way of eating. ( I also follow their exercise recommendations.) Can I eat anything I want? Strictly speaking yes, but I tend to avoid heart-attack-on-a-plate options.

Experimenting is a great way to find tune our individual approach to food and to health. I used to be a regular ice cream eater, but through experimentation have discovered that Greek or European yogurt mixed with frozen fruit is very satisfying and healthy. The same goes for eating vegetables: I've found ways to enjoy them and prepare them in healthy ways. I dislike being a virtucrat and dispensing advice to other people. This is what works for me; your mileage may vary.

troylfullerton

@Flintwinch: That's great that your focus on healthy eating following AHA advice works well for you. Healthy eating has got to be an individual choice. When I was up to 285 lbs., I was a heart attack waiting to happen. At 268, when I really got serious, the version of Weight Watchers (at the time) was the Momentum plan--and it was fantastic for me. I was not hungry, I could eat whatever I wanted to as long as I responsibly worked it in (i.e., one cookie, if I wanted one--not a half dozen cookies every other day), and healthier eating became natural to me.

As the pounds came off, my health improved SO much-I shed diabetes, high blood pressure, sky-high triglycerides, bad cholesterol -- it was so nice! I got down to 178, became a WW leader, and enthusiastically embraced the healthier lifestyle. But gradually, as the plans changed and somebody else's definition of "healthy eating" got stricter and stricter (and further away from what I could reasonably live with over the long haul), it just didn't work for me anymore--and I was far from the only one. And here's the real crux of the issue---at ANY point along the continuum, any one of those ever-changing plans would have accommodated a personal decision to reduce saturated fat, reduce sugar--but it would have been a personal choice, made when people were ready to make it. All I asked for was a program on which I could lose weight. I mean, nudging me toward healthier choices was one thing--calling a small hot chocolate from McDonald's 18 points (when my daily points target was 20) was something else, entirely.

So the upshot is this: we DO need to do what works for us, yes, but we also need to be willing to experiment and find exactly what that is. For example, when I was strictly avoiding fat (to keep my points down), I had a chronic dry skin rash problem that my doctor couldn't help with (I went several times, tried prescription ointments, different soap,etc.)--and I was hungry all the time, regardless of how much fiber or protein I consumed. Both problems fell to the wayside when I started tracking calories and added some fat (instead of trying to live mainly on chicken breast, fish, eggs, and fruits/vegetables). It's a journey--we all have to find our way.

Flintwinch

@troyfullerton Thanks for sharing your inspiring story! It's helpful to remember that each person must find their own way. Many so-called diet/weight-loss plans are like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It may work for the short run, but we are unable to sustain it. The good thing about the GOADS is that they are in for the long haul.

It is interesting what you write about your experience with chronic dry skin rash. I've had the same issue on and off for years, and have relied primarily on a dermatological solution. I may try eating more fat, as you have, as long as I keep artery-clogging saturated fat to 10%.