Do you have to count fruit and veg in your calories
Replies
-
If you didn't have to count fruits and veggies, there would be no overweight vegetarians and vegans.12
-
Someone can give you a jar of quarters or a $50 bill. The effect on your bank account is the same. Ditto with fruits and vegetables in your body ("calorie bank"). I agree with the idea of not logging them if you're getting the results you want. For me, it's 400+ calories/day that I can't consider "free."6
-
nytrifisoul wrote: »If you didn't have to count fruits and veggies, there would be no overweight vegetarians and vegans.
Well, lots of foods are vegan or vegetarian yet not made up solely of what is normally classified fruit and veg.
I do think one should count fruit and veg if calorie counting, but just wanted to point this out.4 -
I count - and measure and weigh - higher calorie counts - things I eat in quantity or that are calorie dense. Potatoes, avocado, a whole grapefruit, an apple, whatever.
I *account for* things that are very lower calorie and I use in sparing amounts. ie: I have a leaf of iceberg lettuce and a single slice of tomato on a sandwich, or 5 chopped up mushrooms in my eggs. I'll track/calorie count the eggs and cheese, or the bread/meat/any condiment on the sandwich, and simply remember that I ate those other things, keep a loose running count and aim to come in 100-200 calories under my calories to account for them.
So, reading this I basically track my food. I do not necessarily closely track what amounts to garnishes that I happen to eat.
But man, treating them as 'free' would only work for me if I were still more than 50lbs into obese territory. I ate close to 300 calories of 'apple' today. Because they were good and I could. Not tracking THAT would be like not tracking a candy bar! That wouldn't even work if I set my calories low intentionally intended not to track produce.5 -
nytrifisoul wrote: »If you didn't have to count fruits and veggies, there would be no overweight vegetarians and vegans.
Well, lots of foods are vegan or vegetarian yet not made up solely of what is normally classified fruit and veg.
I do think one should count fruit and veg if calorie counting, but just wanted to point this out.
Yeah. Oreos are vegan, nobody's out here saying they're a health food.
OP hasn't been back here in a minute, so I hope you're still reading - if you're getting the results you want without tracking fruit and veg, do what you want, but if you stop seeing the results you're aiming for, the first thing to do is to tighten up your logging and track EVERYTHING.1 -
Yes.0
-
nytrifisoul wrote: »If you didn't have to count fruits and veggies, there would be no overweight vegetarians and vegans.
Well, lots of foods are vegan or vegetarian yet not made up solely of what is normally classified fruit and veg.
I do think one should count fruit and veg if calorie counting, but just wanted to point this out.
It was meant as a joke. But seriously, if you are eating a LOT of vegetables they do add up, especially vegetables like corn, or potatoes.0 -
Yes.... because avocados! Nuf said4
-
nytrifisoul wrote: »nytrifisoul wrote: »If you didn't have to count fruits and veggies, there would be no overweight vegetarians and vegans.
Well, lots of foods are vegan or vegetarian yet not made up solely of what is normally classified fruit and veg.
I do think one should count fruit and veg if calorie counting, but just wanted to point this out.
It was meant as a joke. But seriously, if you are eating a LOT of vegetables they do add up, especially vegetables like corn, or potatoes.
Sorry, was probably being overly nitpicky, but usually by just "vegetables" I think people mean non-starchy veg, not grains (like corn) or starchy veg like potatoes (when I was growing up a dinner wouldn't be complete without a non starchy veg in addition to whatever protein and grains or starchy side one had), but I totally agree that even non starchy veg can add up. I am in favor of logging them to make sure one is including plenty of them in the diet, also.
I do think if one wants estimating/eyeballing amounts with non starchy veg and even fruit (but for avocado) vs weighing is unlikely to make that big a difference for most. I also think that one could not log fruit/non starchy veg and just have a lower calorie goal is workable, but I don't see the point of treating particular foods different from others. If someone thinks they would be more likely to eat more fruit/veg if not counting them then I think they might want to work on that and figure out why it is.2 -
Of course...mainstay of my daily intake of calories.0
-
xx1chloe5xx wrote: »But coz there healthy do they matter @L1zardQueen
A calorie is a unit of energy...calories have nothing to do with the healthfulness of a particular food. Fruits and veg have calories. If you're eating 1500 calories of other food and another 300 calories of fruit and veg...you're eating 1800 calories period...
Whether that actually matters or not, I couldn't say...if 1800 calories is a deficit for you, then you would still lose weight...but you're not eating 1500 calories, you're eating 1800.6 -
There are many strategies that work to lose weight. You can do 1200 and ignore fruit/veggies (swag approach), or you can track everything and target 1500. These are effectively the same but one is more precise. I count everything because MFP makes it easy, and it really brings home how low calorie healthy foods really are.6
-
Weight watchers lets you have all fruits and fish free too, not just veggies. I wasn’t kidding when I said it was possible to eat nothing but stuff on their list of “free” foods and still go over calories! A large piece of fruit is 100 calories easy.nytrifisoul wrote: »nytrifisoul wrote: »If you didn't have to count fruits and veggies, there would be no overweight vegetarians and vegans.
Well, lots of foods are vegan or vegetarian yet not made up solely of what is normally classified fruit and veg.
I do think one should count fruit and veg if calorie counting, but just wanted to point this out.
It was meant as a joke. But seriously, if you are eating a LOT of vegetables they do add up, especially vegetables like corn, or potatoes.
Sorry, was probably being overly nitpicky, but usually by just "vegetables" I think people mean non-starchy veg, not grains (like corn) or starchy veg like potatoes (when I was growing up a dinner wouldn't be complete without a non starchy veg in addition to whatever protein and grains or starchy side one had), but I totally agree that even non starchy veg can add up. I am in favor of logging them to make sure one is including plenty of them in the diet, also.
I do think if one wants estimating/eyeballing amounts with non starchy veg and even fruit (but for avocado) vs weighing is unlikely to make that big a difference for most. I also think that one could not log fruit/non starchy veg and just have a lower calorie goal is workable, but I don't see the point of treating particular foods different from others. If someone thinks they would be more likely to eat more fruit/veg if not counting them then I think they might want to work on that and figure out why it is.
4 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Weight watchers lets you have all fruits and fish free too, not just veggies. I wasn’t kidding when I said it was possible to eat nothing but stuff on their list of “free” foods and still go over calories! A large piece of fruit is 100 calories easy.
I never understood that. I belong to a group on Facebook for one of my favorite cookbooks which happens to be used a lot by people on Weight Watchers. They are making whole recipes that are 0 points. Which means they are not taking into account a whole meals worth of calories. Seems like it would be super easy to end up eating too much.5 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Weight watchers lets you have all fruits and fish free too, not just veggies. I wasn’t kidding when I said it was possible to eat nothing but stuff on their list of “free” foods and still go over calories! A large piece of fruit is 100 calories easy.
I never understood that. I belong to a group on Facebook for one of my favorite cookbooks which happens to be used a lot by people on Weight Watchers. They are making whole recipes that are 0 points. Which means they are not taking into account a whole meals worth of calories. Seems like it would be super easy to end up eating too much.
Makes no sense does it? As a vegetarian, I would blimp up if I didn't count veggies, lol. If veggies had no calories I'd take a few days off from work every week to celebrate....with mountains of food. 😂7 -
My lunch the other day - don't count the fruit and veg calories and it's perhaps 90cals, count everything and it's about 500cals.
Guess it depends on what your over-riding goals are: to calorie count for weight management or to encourage a change in food choices?
7 -
rheddmobile wrote: »
Weight watchers lets you have all fruits and fish free too, not just veggies. I wasn’t kidding when I said it was possible to eat nothing but stuff on their list of “free” foods and still go over calories! A large piece of fruit is 100 calories easy.nytrifisoul wrote: »nytrifisoul wrote: »If you didn't have to count fruits and veggies, there would be no overweight vegetarians and vegans.
Well, lots of foods are vegan or vegetarian yet not made up solely of what is normally classified fruit and veg.
I do think one should count fruit and veg if calorie counting, but just wanted to point this out.
It was meant as a joke. But seriously, if you are eating a LOT of vegetables they do add up, especially vegetables like corn, or potatoes.
Sorry, was probably being overly nitpicky, but usually by just "vegetables" I think people mean non-starchy veg, not grains (like corn) or starchy veg like potatoes (when I was growing up a dinner wouldn't be complete without a non starchy veg in addition to whatever protein and grains or starchy side one had), but I totally agree that even non starchy veg can add up. I am in favor of logging them to make sure one is including plenty of them in the diet, also.
I do think if one wants estimating/eyeballing amounts with non starchy veg and even fruit (but for avocado) vs weighing is unlikely to make that big a difference for most. I also think that one could not log fruit/non starchy veg and just have a lower calorie goal is workable, but I don't see the point of treating particular foods different from others. If someone thinks they would be more likely to eat more fruit/veg if not counting them then I think they might want to work on that and figure out why it is.
Yeah, I've heard that. I much prefer the calorie-counting approach for lots of reasons, but it seems like they are relying on the idea that most overweight people eat lots of more calorie dense and less nutrient dense foods so if they shift their diets they will naturally cut cals. I think that's true for plenty of people (certainly not all), but it certainly does not always work. (I gained eating a generally healthy diet and never a lot of sweets or things like chips, but I certainly ate lots of foods that would have high WW points, despite being basically home cooked.)1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Weight watchers lets you have all fruits and fish free too, not just veggies. I wasn’t kidding when I said it was possible to eat nothing but stuff on their list of “free” foods and still go over calories! A large piece of fruit is 100 calories easy.
I never understood that. I belong to a group on Facebook for one of my favorite cookbooks which happens to be used a lot by people on Weight Watchers. They are making whole recipes that are 0 points. Which means they are not taking into account a whole meals worth of calories. Seems like it would be super easy to end up eating too much.
Weight watchers has shifted its focus in the past few years from being primarily about weight loss to being more about overall health (hence the change from Weight Watchers to WW), which I think in the long term is probably a better approach. I mean, health encompasses much more than a number on the scale or the size of your jeans.
I did Weight Watchers in the early 00's in my early 20's. There were not that many foods on the 0 point list then, or at least foods that I would even want to eat that often. I never felt like just eating all the 0 point foods I could, and honestly didn't pay much attention to them. I think if people think they could "cheat the system" by eating as many 0 point foods as possible and still count it as 0 points, they need to rethink what their goals truly are. That's just my 2 cents.1 -
Honestly, I think some of the zero point food thing is perfectly valid and okay. IT may slow weight loss down and it may not work for those last few pounds or vanity loss but-
If people decide to eat a whole meal worth of lean chicken and vegetables - without most dressings or sauces - because it's zero calories, they're going to get full. They're going to be satisfied. They're going to have less room for more calorically dense food. Even if they still have the points (or calories) to eat them and eat some of them, it won't be all of them, or as many of them. They're also not going to run otu of 'points' and think they have to stop eating while they're still hungry-- because they still have options. They're going to feel less like they 'went off plan' and say 'eff it' and binge.
So while it's not my approach, it makes perfect sense to me.
My problem with WW has more to do with it not really teaching anyone how to eat outside their plan, and the dependency it seems to foster to people and the weightloss industry as a whole. Specifically 'just eat all this low calorie density, high fiber, or high protein and low fat you want and have an allowance for the other stuff' seems like a perfectly viable plan for a lot of folks.
(PS: I ate a salad today that was almost all bib lettuce. I did not track those 10 calories. Did track the other components. )0 -
Speakeasy76 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Weight watchers lets you have all fruits and fish free too, not just veggies. I wasn’t kidding when I said it was possible to eat nothing but stuff on their list of “free” foods and still go over calories! A large piece of fruit is 100 calories easy.
I never understood that. I belong to a group on Facebook for one of my favorite cookbooks which happens to be used a lot by people on Weight Watchers. They are making whole recipes that are 0 points. Which means they are not taking into account a whole meals worth of calories. Seems like it would be super easy to end up eating too much.
Weight watchers has shifted its focus in the past few years from being primarily about weight loss to being more about overall health (hence the change from Weight Watchers to WW), which I think in the long term is probably a better approach. I mean, health encompasses much more than a number on the scale or the size of your jeans.
I did Weight Watchers in the early 00's in my early 20's. There were not that many foods on the 0 point list then, or at least foods that I would even want to eat that often. I never felt like just eating all the 0 point foods I could, and honestly didn't pay much attention to them. I think if people think they could "cheat the system" by eating as many 0 point foods as possible and still count it as 0 points, they need to rethink what their goals truly are. That's just my 2 cents.
I don't think anybody thinks "Oh, I want to cheat the system." They're going by what WW is communicating to them and if it's communicated that a food is 0 points and they don't have a good understanding of how weight management actually functions, it's not outlandish that they would conclude that these foods will have minimal impact on their weight.
My understanding is that WW makes it clear that one shouldn't be eating as much as possible, but rather until one is no longer hungry. But given that many of us have weight management issues specifically because our hunger signals can be unreliable or that it can be difficult to accurately gauge the difference between "not hungry" and "full" if those aren't distinctions one is used to dealing with, I'm not surprised that people may still struggle with this.
The current WW 0 points list includes several foods that I would find it very easy to overeat -- things like beets, black beans, canned corn, grapes, lentils, pineapple, refried beans, tofu, and watermelon.7 -
wunderkindking wrote: »Honestly, I think some of the zero point food thing is perfectly valid and okay. IT may slow weight loss down and it may not work for those last few pounds or vanity loss but-
If people decide to eat a whole meal worth of lean chicken and vegetables - without most dressings or sauces - because it's zero calories, they're going to get full. They're going to be satisfied. They're going to have less room for more calorically dense food. Even if they still have the points (or calories) to eat them and eat some of them, it won't be all of them, or as many of them. They're also not going to run otu of 'points' and think they have to stop eating while they're still hungry-- because they still have options. They're going to feel less like they 'went off plan' and say 'eff it' and binge.
So while it's not my approach, it makes perfect sense to me.
My problem with WW has more to do with it not really teaching anyone how to eat outside their plan, and the dependency it seems to foster to people and the weightloss industry as a whole. Specifically 'just eat all this low calorie density, high fiber, or high protein and low fat you want and have an allowance for the other stuff' seems like a perfectly viable plan for a lot of folks.
(PS: I ate a salad today that was almost all bib lettuce. I did not track those 10 calories. Did track the other components. )
I think *some* people would be satisfied and full on a meal of just lean chicken and 0 point vegetables and would also limit their eating at these meals enough to manage their weight. These people are the people who do WW and are generally satisfied with the program.
People who find it easier to overeat these foods, or who find that they still want higher fat/more calorie-dense foods even when they're filling themselves up with 0 point foods, may not be as satisfied with the program. This is probably part of the reason why responses to the program are so varied. For some people, it's just not as simple as "eat to satiety with foods from this list and everything will fall into place."
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Weight watchers lets you have all fruits and fish free too, not just veggies. I wasn’t kidding when I said it was possible to eat nothing but stuff on their list of “free” foods and still go over calories! A large piece of fruit is 100 calories easy.
I never understood that. I belong to a group on Facebook for one of my favorite cookbooks which happens to be used a lot by people on Weight Watchers. They are making whole recipes that are 0 points. Which means they are not taking into account a whole meals worth of calories. Seems like it would be super easy to end up eating too much.
Weight watchers has shifted its focus in the past few years from being primarily about weight loss to being more about overall health (hence the change from Weight Watchers to WW), which I think in the long term is probably a better approach. I mean, health encompasses much more than a number on the scale or the size of your jeans.
I did Weight Watchers in the early 00's in my early 20's. There were not that many foods on the 0 point list then, or at least foods that I would even want to eat that often. I never felt like just eating all the 0 point foods I could, and honestly didn't pay much attention to them. I think if people think they could "cheat the system" by eating as many 0 point foods as possible and still count it as 0 points, they need to rethink what their goals truly are. That's just my 2 cents.
I don't think anybody thinks "Oh, I want to cheat the system." They're going by what WW is communicating to them and if it's communicated that a food is 0 points and they don't have a good understanding of how weight management actually functions, it's not outlandish that they would conclude that these foods will have minimal impact on their weight.
My understanding is that WW makes it clear that one shouldn't be eating as much as possible, but rather until one is no longer hungry. But given that many of us have weight management issues specifically because our hunger signals can be unreliable or that it can be difficult to accurately gauge the difference between "not hungry" and "full" if those aren't distinctions one is used to dealing with, I'm not surprised that people may still struggle with this.
The current WW 0 points list includes several foods that I would find it very easy to overeat -- things like beets, black beans, canned corn, grapes, lentils, pineapple, refried beans, tofu, and watermelon.
I'm not sure about the bolded. I don't think it's *always* just innocence or ignorance of how things work, exactly.
From hearing some people talk about it, it seems like once there's a set of rules, there are certain personality types that are inclined to want to game those rules, without necessarily thinking through the self-interest implications clearly, yet still expecting arrival of the benefits the rules are advertised to bring . . . a sort of "stick it to the man" tendency to want to subvert authority, or wanting to slyly "get away with" something - not sure how to explain it. Not the only place that mode of thought turns up in life, I think, either.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Speakeasy76 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Weight watchers lets you have all fruits and fish free too, not just veggies. I wasn’t kidding when I said it was possible to eat nothing but stuff on their list of “free” foods and still go over calories! A large piece of fruit is 100 calories easy.
I never understood that. I belong to a group on Facebook for one of my favorite cookbooks which happens to be used a lot by people on Weight Watchers. They are making whole recipes that are 0 points. Which means they are not taking into account a whole meals worth of calories. Seems like it would be super easy to end up eating too much.
Weight watchers has shifted its focus in the past few years from being primarily about weight loss to being more about overall health (hence the change from Weight Watchers to WW), which I think in the long term is probably a better approach. I mean, health encompasses much more than a number on the scale or the size of your jeans.
I did Weight Watchers in the early 00's in my early 20's. There were not that many foods on the 0 point list then, or at least foods that I would even want to eat that often. I never felt like just eating all the 0 point foods I could, and honestly didn't pay much attention to them. I think if people think they could "cheat the system" by eating as many 0 point foods as possible and still count it as 0 points, they need to rethink what their goals truly are. That's just my 2 cents.
I don't think anybody thinks "Oh, I want to cheat the system." They're going by what WW is communicating to them and if it's communicated that a food is 0 points and they don't have a good understanding of how weight management actually functions, it's not outlandish that they would conclude that these foods will have minimal impact on their weight.
My understanding is that WW makes it clear that one shouldn't be eating as much as possible, but rather until one is no longer hungry. But given that many of us have weight management issues specifically because our hunger signals can be unreliable or that it can be difficult to accurately gauge the difference between "not hungry" and "full" if those aren't distinctions one is used to dealing with, I'm not surprised that people may still struggle with this.
The current WW 0 points list includes several foods that I would find it very easy to overeat -- things like beets, black beans, canned corn, grapes, lentils, pineapple, refried beans, tofu, and watermelon.
I'm not sure about the bolded. I don't think it's *always* just innocence or ignorance of how things work, exactly.
From hearing some people talk about it, it seems like once there's a set of rules, there are certain personality types that are inclined to want to game those rules, without necessarily thinking through the self-interest implications clearly, yet still expecting arrival of the benefits the rules are advertised to bring . . . a sort of "stick it to the man" tendency to want to subvert authority, or wanting to slyly "get away with" something - not sure how to explain it. Not the only place that mode of thought turns up in life, I think, either.
You're absolutely right. What I should have said is that if someone doesn't find success with a zero point system, I wouldn't assume they were trying to cheat the system, but would consider it more likely that the system doesn't work with their particular satiety pattern or that they just find it easy to consume more calories in zero point foods. But I have seen people demonstrate the type of behavior that you describe and it clearly makes sense that they'd also do that in their weight loss efforts.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions