Counting calories so insane !

I am giving this thing a try but I think it triggers my anxiety more.I feel like I am pressuring my self to eat less and that is causing me to have more stress.I want to practice intuitive eating.
«13

Replies

  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,247 Member
    Counting keeps you accountable for what you eat and drink. Intuitive eating works if you don’t consume many calories from liquids and highly processed foods as those don’t satiate well so you tend to over consume those and they can be highly caloric.
  • xbowhunter
    xbowhunter Posts: 1,309 Member
    Once you get going it gets easier.. :)
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    First let's make sure you set a reasonable weekly weight loss goal. Is your rate of loss in line with this chart?

    9kjwnia17qv9.jpg

    Going for 2 pounds per week without having the excess weight to support that rate of loss would definitely be stressful.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,260 Member
    Intuitive eating is basically eating to satiety and where your not gaining weight. Whole foods helps this situation a lot as does the type of carbs your consuming. You want whole grains and legumes to displace any refined grains for the most part, cut back as much as you can on any sugary foods and sugary liquids and that includes fruit juices. Satiety is basically gut and brain hormonal signaling, and very easily disrupted when your carb allotment is comprised of mostly of the refined and sugary foods, and why I suggest you change that, it may work, it works for many. Low carb and ketogenic diets are the go to for intuitive eating and many that are successful don't count calories, myself included.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,585 Member
    If you don't like calorie counting, don't do it. If you want to lose weight, but don't want to calorie count, use another method. You can use a structured meal plan that tells you how what to eat in what quantities, skip one meal daily but don't increase other meals, drop out or reduce frequency of foods you know are calorie dense (fried foods, snack-y foods, sugary foods, etc.), and more.

    I'm old enough to remember when calorie counting wasn't a practical method, but people managed to lose weight anyway. Those methods still work.

    For a person who tends to be overweight, just trying to be free-form "intuitive" from the start doesn't seem likely to work, to me. That's not saying that person can't get there. The closest I've seen to a method for intuitive eating from day 1 is to eat very slowly (put down the fork/spoon between bites, chew and savor slowly, sip water, etc.), then stop eating when reaching just the "not hungry any more" stage (not full!).

    Best wishes!
  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,867 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'm old enough to remember when calorie counting wasn't a practical method, but people managed to lose weight anyway. Those methods still work.
    True, but different times. Obesity wasn't as prevalent, ultra processed foods weren't so ready available and promoted, I suspect more jobs became more sedentary compared to previous generations, etc.

    I agree calorie counting isn't essential, just saying it's probably harder to lose weight and keep it off now than decades ago, without availing yourself of tools like MFP.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,585 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'm old enough to remember when calorie counting wasn't a practical method, but people managed to lose weight anyway. Those methods still work.
    True, but different times. Obesity wasn't as prevalent, ultra processed foods weren't so ready available and promoted, I suspect more jobs became more sedentary compared to previous generations, etc.

    I agree calorie counting isn't essential, just saying it's probably harder to lose weight and keep it off now than decades ago, without availing yourself of tools like MFP.

    Even in the 1970s, ultra processed foods were pretty available - somewhat so in the 1960s, even. Yes to the other stuff . . . but the older methods can still work for people for whom counting creates too much obsession or anxiety.

    You know I personally swear by counting as a methodology for myself, but gotta be realistic that it may not be perfect for everyone, and I'd hate to have anyone like that (which may include OP) think that weight loss is only possible by counting.

    The things you mention (except the processed food one) just mean that modern folks' calorie goals may need to be a little lower than in the olden days of the 1970s . . . but even that's not true if the person puts a premium on increasing activity level through either exercise or daily life stuff.

    I'd rather encourage OP to believe weight loss is possible in various ways - which I firmly believe to be true - and not to think that counting is the only way, even though I agree it's a remarkably straightforward way for people whom it suits.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,260 Member
    Maybe try a green salad 15 minutes before one of your scheduled meals, as an appetizer if you may. This roughage slows our main digestion and reduces the insulin response which is more likely to keep the hunger signaling in the brain to a minimum. Basically it's a hack to reduce that initial insulin response, that for the most part in the demographic are insulin resistant and overweight will make a big difference in the response in the gut in regards to leptin our "we're full" hormone, especially considering this demographic is also generally leptin resistant as well.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    Intuitive eating is basically eating to satiety and where your not gaining weight. Whole foods helps this situation a lot as does the type of carbs your consuming. You want whole grains and legumes to displace any refined grains for the most part, cut back as much as you can on any sugary foods and sugary liquids and that includes fruit juices. Satiety is basically gut and brain hormonal signaling, and very easily disrupted when your carb allotment is comprised of mostly of the refined and sugary foods, and why I suggest you change that, it may work, it works for many. Low carb and ketogenic diets are the go to for intuitive eating and many that are successful don't count calories, myself included.

    Yes, I've been able to "eat intuitively" when living in unusual situations where the food selection was very limited - at yoga centers where meals focusing on whole grains and legumes plus lots of non-starchy veggies were provided and at a yoga retreat center in Costa Rica where I cooked one of the meals but the food selection was very limited. Here there was lots of rice & beans and tropical fruit, but again no sugary foods or liquids, and also no cheese. (There was no refrigeration, which further reduced the selection.)

    However, when I am doing all the shopping at American groceries stores and doing most of the cooking, intuitive eating does not work for me.

    I put "eat intuitively" in quotes because I don't know that it really counts when the vast majority of my choices are nutrient dense as opposed to hyper-palatable/calorie dense.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,260 Member
    edited February 29
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    Intuitive eating is basically eating to satiety and where your not gaining weight. Whole foods helps this situation a lot as does the type of carbs your consuming. You want whole grains and legumes to displace any refined grains for the most part, cut back as much as you can on any sugary foods and sugary liquids and that includes fruit juices. Satiety is basically gut and brain hormonal signaling, and very easily disrupted when your carb allotment is comprised of mostly of the refined and sugary foods, and why I suggest you change that, it may work, it works for many. Low carb and ketogenic diets are the go to for intuitive eating and many that are successful don't count calories, myself included.

    Yes, I've been able to "eat intuitively" when living in unusual situations where the food selection was very limited - at yoga centers where meals focusing on whole grains and legumes plus lots of non-starchy veggies were provided and at a yoga retreat center in Costa Rica where I cooked one of the meals but the food selection was very limited. Here there was lots of rice & beans and tropical fruit, but again no sugary foods or liquids, and also no cheese. (There was no refrigeration, which further reduced the selection.)

    However, when I am doing all the shopping at American groceries stores and doing most of the cooking, intuitive eating does not work for me.

    I put "eat intuitively" in quotes because I don't know that it really counts when the vast majority of my choices are nutrient dense as opposed to hyper-palatable/calorie dense.

    I don't think there's any easy answers kshama2001. When your offered or introduced to hyperpalatable food choices
    it becomes difficult to resist because they stimulate the brain’s reward system, which creates feelings of pleasure and satisfaction which may affect the ability to control food intake and cravings and this is mostly due to food availability, cost, convenience, advertising and peer pressure. Basically they've been engineered to be this way and rely heavily on human physiology for this effect. They modify the release of hormones that regulate hunger, stress, and metabolism and there's really no good way to get around this sans the removal of these types of foods.

    The poster boy for processed and ultra processed foods and their possible connection and effect on our health is to look at the pacific island of Nauru which is the #1 Country for obesity. 94% are overweight with around 65% obese. The WHO have Nauru's population at 31% diabetic and with people between the age of 55-64 around 45%. The highest population other than them is China at 11% and the USA at10 %.

    Nauru was a very poor country until mining took over for phosphorus and consequently left the land totally unusable with over 90% of the Island a wasteland with a grocery list of contaminants . Consequently agriculture or any farming is impossible which led to every food stuff to be imported with the majority foods that store easily and have long shelf life. Basically they lived on processed and ultra processed foods almost exclusively. This is one of the saddest stories of human exploitation I've come across, where it effected a whole population. The Australian government is still trying to fix this total disaster they created. A very innocent and free living people that were taken advantage of with basically no knowledge of nutrition was like a time bomb.

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,260 Member
    edited February 29
    Instead of ad hominem attacks why not argue why hyperpalatable foods don't have this effect that I suggest they do on human physiology.
  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,867 Member
    edited February 29
    ddsb1111 wrote: »
    You say this as if it’s a fact and this WILL happen. This is a scare tactic that gets increasingly old to me. If this is your experience, please, just say that. And, it’s possible you don’t need to change your food, but potentially need psychotherapy due to your fear of sugar and insulin.

    For *me* allowing a variety of foods, especially the ones you demonize, has prevented more eating disorders than created.
    I think all that needs to be added to the post you quoted is,

    "there's really no good way to get around this, at a population level, sans the removal of these types of foods."

    At an individual level, I agree with you. Clearly at a population level, this is a bigger issue.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    ddsb1111 wrote: »
    Instead of ad hominem attacks why not argue why hyperpalatable foods don't have this effect that I suggest they do on human physiology.

    You’re saying highly palatable foods, what, make you addicted? They have yet to prove humans are addicted to sugar despite the numerous tests. Do we like food that tastes good? Yes.

    Don’t make it more complicated than necessary. If you are going to use hormones as an excuse for controlling our decisions then a lot of women who have been attacked will be pretty upset with your line of thinking. Bodies have hormones in conjunction with a multitude of other functions. Basic, normal, hormones are not the enemy. If you want to cut out carbs/sugar, be my guest. But quit implying for everyone that it’s the answer because, as you imply, we are impervious to the hormones that react to certain macros.

    I'm going to requote what he said because it seems to me like you are reading something into it that is not there:
    I don't think there's any easy answers kshama2001. When your offered or introduced to hyperpalatable food choices it becomes difficult to resist because they stimulate the brain’s reward system, which creates feelings of pleasure and satisfaction which may affect the ability to control food intake and cravings and this is mostly due to food availability, cost, convenience, advertising and peer pressure. Basically they've been engineered to be this way and rely heavily on human physiology for this effect. They modify the release of hormones that regulate hunger, stress, and metabolism and there's really no good way to get around this sans the removal of these types of foods.

    I'm female and didn't interpret the mention of hormones as female hormones. I assumed he was talking about hormones like ghrelin and cortisol.

    @neanderthin didn't mention addiction.

    Have you read "Salt, Sugar, Fat" by Michael Moss? Whether or not food can in fact be scientifically classified as "addictive," making it in practice difficult to put down is the goal of some food manufacturers, and the industry was not at all shy of using the word "addictive" as a desirable trait in their products.

    https://www.amazon.com/Salt-Sugar-Fat-Giants-Hooked/dp/0812982193

    "...Featuring examples from Kraft, Coca-Cola, Lunchables, Frito-Lay, Nestlé, Oreos, Capri Sun, and many more, Moss’s explosive, empowering narrative is grounded in meticulous, eye-opening research. He takes us into labs where scientists calculate the “bliss point” of sugary beverages, unearths marketing techniques taken straight from tobacco company playbooks, and talks to concerned insiders who make startling confessions."
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,260 Member
    Now your constructing a bunch of logical fallacies. Nowhere did I say addicted, and I've repeatedly said removing UPF with whole foods is a better course of action. My particular medical situation I've said that a ketogenic diet works for me but I've never said it's the only way and everyone should or we're all doomed.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,260 Member
    edited February 29
    ddsb1111 wrote: »
    @kshama2001 The issue is how he consistently says we need to remove these foods.

    They modify the release of hormones that regulate hunger, stress, and metabolism and there's really no good way to get around this sans the removal of these types of foods.

    We don’t need to remove “these types of foods”. This is his holy grail and that’s fine, but telling people it’s the only way to regulate hunger, stress, and metabolism is by living a more keto lifestyle is a belief and not an answer. We can do the same thing having a balanced diet. Constantly demonizing sugar, carbs, the process of insulin, is what I personally get tired of reading. I enjoy many of his responses other than these ones. I think creating fear does more harm than good.

    Also, I wasn’t interpreting it as female hormones, I knew what he meant. I just made an example of how we can’t blame hormones for everything.

    Your taking this out of context. It's in reference to the population that are obese, have diabetes and people who have insulin resistance. The majority and actually over 70% of the population fall into this category with half the population that actually get tested have IR, so yeah, refined carbs and sugar are a big concern as it relates to their insulin levels. This isn't some kind of conspiracy theory, this has been well known for decades. I'm not sure why knowing something that is basically common knowledge in nutrition you would then call it creating fear and is doing more harm than good.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,453 Member
    Yeah, ddsb, this isn't a conspiracy theory or fearmongering, it's a known fact. You okay?
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,296 Member
    edited February 29
    Huh?

    Good tasting food has the propensity to be overeaten.

    Grandma's took time and *effort* to make and she couldn't afford the time, effort, and money everyday.

    Door dash, McD, Sonic, pizza pasta and Twinkies and Cheetos change all that and we can light up our little light bulbs.

    Solution: nuke door dash, mcD, pizza pasta and Twinkies and ...

    Solution: stop eating them every day (or even not even every 5th day) eat your veggies and even more "veggies"* and move more.

    Neither is universal.
    Some may APPEAR to WORK better

    But only the ones that work for YOU for YEARS will make a real difference.

    It is the CALORIES stupid. Period. Full stop.

    How you manage the calories is up to you.

    Some ways will work and some won't.

    *My* truth is that as long as I was looking for a magic way prompted by sheets and plans from doctors, internets, and what have you emails and magazines NOTHING worked

    Because *I* had to find my own way and learn to both follow it and learn how to adjust.

    And as long as there was virtue signaling as opposed to needs (energy, base nutritional components, understanding of trade offs re nutrition and light bulbs and energy needs), as long as it didn't come to hard core trading and substitutions that I was personally willing to make and continue to make nothing worked for more than a few fleeing months.

    And let me throw in not overdoing things, i.e. *relative* moderation and light touch as opposed to sledgehammer reacting.

    So maybe something is marginally more advantageous IF you can implement it.

    Doesn't matter one lick if it doesn't work for YOU

    You do you boo!

    (Me too!🤣)

    *"Veggies" = nutrient rich items!

    Also: nothing wrong with proposing to boo what worked for me or you so that boo can take it into consideration and do them. But I think the caveat of how long of a timeframe they will have to do them to find success should be emphasized way more than it is