Paleo.
Options
Replies
-
oh and final note, I find it amusing that your diary is private yet you are the one arguing for "quality of calories"….what are you trying to hide?
Testify.
It's a recurring theme for those who like to preach the "right" foods for everyone else.
You and your cohorts are those who preach the mantra of "calories in-calories out". I have been on many, many calorie restricted diets--they do not work LONG TERM. Look at the miserable statistics of regain. I have found what works for me and I am merely trying to share it with others in the hope that it will help them too. Peace.
news flash - if you are losing long term then you are following calories in vs calories out ...
news flash - I well know that. But how I achieve it makes all the difference. The components of the diet are very important for me to achieve my health goals. Period.
so you agree with the mantra of calories in vs calories out then? That would make you one of my "cohorts"...whoever they are...0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
How would anyone gain that much weight, even if it were just 25 pounds in three years without noticing it ? I maintained my 110 pounds ( for someone under 5 feet within the high normal range ) all my adult life by sometimes eating normal, sometimes eating a bit more ( on special occasions ) and then making up for it by eating less, or eating lighter. Losing and gaining within a 5-10 pound parameter is pretty much normal for all normal weight people and is not considered yo-yo-ing....it's just the normal way things balance out.
I wish I had stopped and eaten 100 calories less and I had not gained 80 pounds over the last eleven years ( not counting the last year when I lost 50 of them )...but personal reasons kept me from doing so. And btw: yes, I noticed that I gained weight....I just did not care at the time.
They WOULD notice and then many of them would get on the yo-yo dieting treadmill. I've been there and done it all. Now I maintain my weight effortlessly (in fact, I will probably lose another 5-7 pounds this year)--all without "dieting". I count calories only to ensure that I eat enough calories. When one eats nutrient-dense food, one is satisfied with many fewer calories.
you just told Ndj that it's difficult to stay under goal because your goal is so low due to your age, etc. but here you're saying that it's difficult to eat enough nutrient dense food to make your goal.
okay.
*sigh* I found it difficult to stay under my calorie goal on LOW-CALORIE diets--I was hungry and miserable all the time. Now, it is effortless. I make no attempt to "diet". I merely eat the foods that are right for me and I slowly lose (very slowly now that I am close to my goal weight). I assume that I will reach some level of homeostasis eventually.
0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
How would anyone gain that much weight, even if it were just 25 pounds in three years without noticing it ? I maintained my 110 pounds ( for someone under 5 feet within the high normal range ) all my adult life by sometimes eating normal, sometimes eating a bit more ( on special occasions ) and then making up for it by eating less, or eating lighter. Losing and gaining within a 5-10 pound parameter is pretty much normal for all normal weight people and is not considered yo-yo-ing....it's just the normal way things balance out.
I wish I had stopped and eaten 100 calories less and I had not gained 80 pounds over the last eleven years ( not counting the last year when I lost 50 of them )...but personal reasons kept me from doing so. And btw: yes, I noticed that I gained weight....I just did not care at the time.
They WOULD notice and then many of them would get on the yo-yo dieting treadmill. I've been there and done it all. Now I maintain my weight effortlessly (in fact, I will probably lose another 5-7 pounds this year)--all without "dieting". I count calories only to ensure that I eat enough calories. When one eats nutrient-dense food, one is satisfied with many fewer calories.
you just told Ndj that it's difficult to stay under goal because your goal is so low due to your age, etc. but here you're saying that it's difficult to eat enough nutrient dense food to make your goal.
okay.
*sigh* I found it difficult to stay under my calorie goal on LOW-CALORIE diets--I was hungry and miserable all the time. Now, it is effortless. I make no attempt to "diet". I merely eat the foods that are right for me and I slowly lose (very slowly now that I am close to my goal weight). I assume that I will reach some level of homeostasis eventually.
I really do not see the difference...you say low calorie diet does not work for you ..but then you agree with calories out vs calories in...but then you say you eat the "right" foods for you ...if you are losing weight, then you are eating lower calories, which would imply a lower calorie diet...
it is like a walking contradiction...0 -
oh and final note, I find it amusing that your diary is private yet you are the one arguing for "quality of calories"….what are you trying to hide?
Testify.
It's a recurring theme for those who like to preach the "right" foods for everyone else.
You and your cohorts are those who preach the mantra of "calories in-calories out". I have been on many, many calorie restricted diets--they do not work LONG TERM. Look at the miserable statistics of regain. I have found what works for me and I am merely trying to share it with others in the hope that it will help them too. Peace.
news flash - if you are losing long term then you are following calories in vs calories out ...
news flash - I well know that. But how I achieve it makes all the difference. The components of the diet are very important for me to achieve my health goals. Period.
so you agree with the mantra of calories in vs calories out then? That would make you one of my "cohorts"...whoever they are...
No--I object to the reductionism represented by that phrase. I repeat what I said earlier: obesity is a complex disease with a constellation of likely causes (the most important among them would be a diet that encourages high blood glucose such as a high carbohydrate, low fat diet). My brother has Type II diabetes. When it was diagnosed, his doctor put him on a very low fat diet and ignored the large amount of carbohydrate he was eating. My brother got quite thin, BUT his diabetes GOT WORSE. He is now insulin dependent. All because the medical establishment, at the time, believed that obesity CAUSES diabetes (and some still do believe that). The emerging truth is that a diet containing a high percentage of carbohydrate, in the absence of a great deal of exercise (my brother is also arthritic)--especially in the form of added sugar and a lot of "healthy whole grains" (especially wheat)--causes diabetes AND obesity.0 -
I really do not see the difference...you say low calorie diet does not work for you ..but then you agree with calories out vs calories in...but then you say you eat the "right" foods for you ...if you are losing weight, then you are eating lower calories, which would imply a lower calorie diet...
it is like a walking contradiction...
I'm pretty sure she's saying that by putting certain restrictions on what she eats, her remaining food choices make it easier to achieve a caloric deficit. And so long as she's not unhappy giving up those foods, I'd say that's a pretty reasonable assertion. You can tell someone to eat a caloric deficit, but if they try to eat an aggressive caloric deficit (as many do) while eating foods that aren't particularly satiating, that can be a pretty miserable experience. You can then say to be less aggressive with your deficit, but then the person may be unhappy with how slowly the weight is coming off. On the other hand, if you force yourself to stick with satiating foods, that aggressive caloric deficit can be easier to achieve. Of course, that comes at the cost of a more restrictive diet but that's worth it to many people.
To put it another way, "calories in/calories out" is the most basic description of how the body functions with respect to fat storage but it's not, in and of itself, particularly helpful for a lot of people when it comes to weight loss. It's equivalent to telling a new lifter wanting to add mass to "pick heavy stuff up and eat lots of food." Yes, that is the basic idea of adding mass, but is that information in and of itself enough for that person to see optimal gains? I don't think so and that's why there are so many training plans out there for new lifters.0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
How would anyone gain that much weight, even if it were just 25 pounds in three years without noticing it ? I maintained my 110 pounds ( for someone under 5 feet within the high normal range ) all my adult life by sometimes eating normal, sometimes eating a bit more ( on special occasions ) and then making up for it by eating less, or eating lighter. Losing and gaining within a 5-10 pound parameter is pretty much normal for all normal weight people and is not considered yo-yo-ing....it's just the normal way things balance out.
I wish I had stopped and eaten 100 calories less and I had not gained 80 pounds over the last eleven years ( not counting the last year when I lost 50 of them )...but personal reasons kept me from doing so. And btw: yes, I noticed that I gained weight....I just did not care at the time.
They WOULD notice and then many of them would get on the yo-yo dieting treadmill. I've been there and done it all. Now I maintain my weight effortlessly (in fact, I will probably lose another 5-7 pounds this year)--all without "dieting". I count calories only to ensure that I eat enough calories. When one eats nutrient-dense food, one is satisfied with many fewer calories.
you just told Ndj that it's difficult to stay under goal because your goal is so low due to your age, etc. but here you're saying that it's difficult to eat enough nutrient dense food to make your goal.
okay.
*sigh* I found it difficult to stay under my calorie goal on LOW-CALORIE diets--I was hungry and miserable all the time. Now, it is effortless. I make no attempt to "diet". I merely eat the foods that are right for me and I slowly lose (very slowly now that I am close to my goal weight). I assume that I will reach some level of homeostasis eventually.
I really do not see the difference...you say low calorie diet does not work for you ..but then you agree with calories out vs calories in...but then you say you eat the "right" foods for you ...if you are losing weight, then you are eating lower calories, which would imply a lower calorie diet...
it is like a walking contradiction...
The human body is amazingly complex. It is not a machine. That is your problem, you are assuming a mechanistic model rather than the complex of bio-chemical forces that come together to impact on the problem of obesity.0 -
I really do not see the difference...you say low calorie diet does not work for you ..but then you agree with calories out vs calories in...but then you say you eat the "right" foods for you ...if you are losing weight, then you are eating lower calories, which would imply a lower calorie diet...
it is like a walking contradiction...
I think what she is trying to say is that all weight loss happens through a calorie deficit but eating this way has been a more sustainable way for her to cut calories. I'm no way Paleo and I will never be, it's the least sustainable thing I would ever attempt for myself so I don't even bother. I have my own strategies that fit ME. Lots of beans and dairy plus a measuring scale have been what helped ME get rid of my pre diabetes and hypertension so far, and it feels almost effortless. Both of you need to understand that what works for one may not work for another. Just because I count doesn't mean I yoyo or that I'm miserable, similarly if if she chooses to swear off dairy for the rest of her life doesn't mean SHE is miserable.0 -
I really do not see the difference...you say low calorie diet does not work for you ..but then you agree with calories out vs calories in...but then you say you eat the "right" foods for you ...if you are losing weight, then you are eating lower calories, which would imply a lower calorie diet...
it is like a walking contradiction...
I'm pretty sure she's saying that by putting certain restrictions on what she eats, her remaining food choices make it easier to achieve a caloric deficit. And so long as she's not unhappy giving up those foods, I'd say that's a pretty reasonable assertion. You can tell someone to eat a caloric deficit, but if they try to eat an aggressive caloric deficit (as many do) while eating foods that aren't particularly satiating, that can be a pretty miserable experience. You can then say to be less aggressive with your deficit, but then the person may be unhappy with how slowly the weight is coming off. On the other hand, if you force yourself to stick with satiating foods, that aggressive caloric deficit can be easier to achieve. Of course, that comes at the cost of a more restrictive diet but that's worth it to many people.
To put it another way, "calories in/calories out" is the most basic description of how the body functions with respect to fat storage but it's not, in and of itself, particularly helpful for a lot of people when it comes to weight loss. It's equivalent to telling a new lifter wanting to add mass to "pick heavy stuff up and eat lots of food." Yes, that is the basic idea of adding mass, but is that information in and of itself enough for that person to see optimal gains? I don't think so and that's why there are so many training plans out there for new lifters.
Thank you. :flowerforyou:0 -
I really do not see the difference...you say low calorie diet does not work for you ..but then you agree with calories out vs calories in...but then you say you eat the "right" foods for you ...if you are losing weight, then you are eating lower calories, which would imply a lower calorie diet...
it is like a walking contradiction...
I think what she is trying to say is that all weight loss happens through a calorie deficit but eating this way has been a more sustainable way for her to cut calories. I'm no way Paleo and I will never be, it's the least sustainable thing I would ever attempt for myself so I don't even bother. I have my own strategies that fit ME. Lots of beans and dairy plus a measuring scale have been what helped ME get rid of my pre diabetes and hypertension so far, and it feels almost effortless. Both of you need to understand that what works for one may not work for another. Just because I count doesn't mean I yoyo or that I'm miserable, similarly if if she chooses to swear off dairy for the rest of her life doesn't mean SHE is miserable.
Thank you--I agree. We all have to find our own way--I'm just supplying information on what works for me. As I said earlier, I am not strictly Paleo. I eat some raw milk organic cheese almost every day and I eat legumes of some sort every week (I believe that some in the Paleo community have said that legumes are probably okay for those who don't react to them). The beauty of legumes is that they are a way of getting carbohydrate (and protein) in a way that does not precipitously raise blood sugar. Obesity is a disease and, along with other medical conditions that frequently accompany obesity, it must be carefully managed. It is much better to handle it with diet than with drugs--almost ALL of which have a range of side effects that are highly objectionable. I was on two blood pressure medications and now I take none--but I know that, were I to return to my previous "healthy" carbohydrate-filled diet that I would be back in the hypertensive camp.0 -
:grumble: :grumble: :grumble:0
-
Giving up legumes is stupid. Better advice is "eat more legumes"
I am still unsure as to what a legume is
Well-known legumes include alfalfa, clover, peas, beans, lentils, lupins, mesquite, carob, soybeans, peanuts, tamarind, and the woody climbing vine wisteria. Legume trees like the Locust trees (Gleditsia, Robinia) or the Kentucky coffeetree (Gymnocladus dioicus)0 -
I stole this from a member of a group I belong to on Facebook and it cracked me up. This is the best description of Paleo dieting I have ever seen!!!
"Just remember, plant oils are BAD because they're unsaturated fats, except for coconut oil and palm oil because they're saturated and that is GOOD. And butter and beef tallow and lard are animal fats and thus GOOD, don't think about the fact that they're all >51% unsaturated fatty acids. Oh and nuts and seeds are GOOD, except peanuts which are BAD, and the fact that they're all chock-full of unsaturated plant oils that we just told you to avoid is totally irrelevant. Also, grains and legumes are BAD, because they're the mature embryos of plants, which is BAD unless it's a nut or seed (which are also the mature embryos of plants) in which case it's GOOD. Lastly, dairy from cows and goats and sheep and camels and horses is a neolithic invention and thus BAD, unless you're talking about clarified butter in which case it's GOOD and you need to put that **** in your coffee instead of cream, but don't you dare put it on a slice of toast, unless you made that toast from almond flour or coconut flour. Totally clear."0 -
I stole this from a member of a group I belong to on Facebook and it cracked me up. This is the best description of Paleo dieting I have ever seen!!!
"Just remember, plant oils are BAD because they're unsaturated fats, except for coconut oil and palm oil because they're saturated and that is GOOD. And butter and beef tallow and lard are animal fats and thus GOOD, don't think about the fact that they're all >51% unsaturated fatty acids. Oh and nuts and seeds are GOOD, except peanuts which are BAD, and the fact that they're all chock-full of unsaturated plant oils that we just told you to avoid is totally irrelevant. Also, grains and legumes are BAD, because they're the mature embryos of plants, which is BAD unless it's a nut or seed (which are also the mature embryos of plants) in which case it's GOOD. Lastly, dairy from cows and goats and sheep and camels and horses is a neolithic invention and thus BAD, unless you're talking about clarified butter in which case it's GOOD and you need to put that **** in your coffee instead of cream, but don't you dare put it on a slice of toast, unless you made that toast from almond flour or coconut flour. Totally clear."
should be made a sticky. :flowerforyou:0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
How would anyone gain that much weight, even if it were just 25 pounds in three years without noticing it ? I maintained my 110 pounds ( for someone under 5 feet within the high normal range ) all my adult life by sometimes eating normal, sometimes eating a bit more ( on special occasions ) and then making up for it by eating less, or eating lighter. Losing and gaining within a 5-10 pound parameter is pretty much normal for all normal weight people and is not considered yo-yo-ing....it's just the normal way things balance out.
I wish I had stopped and eaten 100 calories less and I had not gained 80 pounds over the last eleven years ( not counting the last year when I lost 50 of them )...but personal reasons kept me from doing so. And btw: yes, I noticed that I gained weight....I just did not care at the time.
They WOULD notice and then many of them would get on the yo-yo dieting treadmill. I've been there and done it all. Now I maintain my weight effortlessly (in fact, I will probably lose another 5-7 pounds this year)--all without "dieting". I count calories only to ensure that I eat enough calories. When one eats nutrient-dense food, one is satisfied with many fewer calories.
you just told Ndj that it's difficult to stay under goal because your goal is so low due to your age, etc. but here you're saying that it's difficult to eat enough nutrient dense food to make your goal.
okay.
*sigh* I found it difficult to stay under my calorie goal on LOW-CALORIE diets--I was hungry and miserable all the time. Now, it is effortless. I make no attempt to "diet". I merely eat the foods that are right for me and I slowly lose (very slowly now that I am close to my goal weight). I assume that I will reach some level of homeostasis eventually.
I hope that sigh wasn't directed at my response.
You use "count" in present tense where I bolded.
Therefore, I could only assume that you presently count calories.
Now you are saying that you don't.
I'm not even being unkind here; I simply can not possibly be expected to understand what you mean by the things you say here, as every statement contradicts the previous.0 -
I stole this from a member of a group I belong to on Facebook and it cracked me up. This is the best description of Paleo dieting I have ever seen!!!
"Just remember, plant oils are BAD because they're unsaturated fats, except for coconut oil and palm oil because they're saturated and that is GOOD. And butter and beef tallow and lard are animal fats and thus GOOD, don't think about the fact that they're all >51% unsaturated fatty acids. Oh and nuts and seeds are GOOD, except peanuts which are BAD, and the fact that they're all chock-full of unsaturated plant oils that we just told you to avoid is totally irrelevant. Also, grains and legumes are BAD, because they're the mature embryos of plants, which is BAD unless it's a nut or seed (which are also the mature embryos of plants) in which case it's GOOD. Lastly, dairy from cows and goats and sheep and camels and horses is a neolithic invention and thus BAD, unless you're talking about clarified butter in which case it's GOOD and you need to put that **** in your coffee instead of cream, but don't you dare put it on a slice of toast, unless you made that toast from almond flour or coconut flour. Totally clear."
should be made a sticky. :flowerforyou:
I think this sums it all up very nicely. Thank you.0 -
I stole this from a member of a group I belong to on Facebook and it cracked me up. This is the best description of Paleo dieting I have ever seen!!!
"Just remember, plant oils are BAD because they're unsaturated fats, except for coconut oil and palm oil because they're saturated and that is GOOD. And butter and beef tallow and lard are animal fats and thus GOOD, don't think about the fact that they're all >51% unsaturated fatty acids. Oh and nuts and seeds are GOOD, except peanuts which are BAD, and the fact that they're all chock-full of unsaturated plant oils that we just told you to avoid is totally irrelevant. Also, grains and legumes are BAD, because they're the mature embryos of plants, which is BAD unless it's a nut or seed (which are also the mature embryos of plants) in which case it's GOOD. Lastly, dairy from cows and goats and sheep and camels and horses is a neolithic invention and thus BAD, unless you're talking about clarified butter in which case it's GOOD and you need to put that **** in your coffee instead of cream, but don't you dare put it on a slice of toast, unless you made that toast from almond flour or coconut flour. Totally clear."
Why do I always end up defending Paleo? :laugh:
A lot of the reasons listed here of why things are "good" and "bad" aren't really the "reasons".
And peanuts are legumes, not nuts.
0 -
I hope that sigh wasn't directed at my response.
You use "count" in present tense where I bolded.
Therefore, I could only assume that you presently count calories.
Now you are saying that you don't.
I'm not even being unkind here; I simply can not possibly be expected to understand what you mean by the things you say here, as every statement contradicts the previous.
Is it really that hard to understand what she meant? She's saying that she naturally eats less with her current restrictive diet, almost certainly due to the satiating foods she's eating. She's also saying that she found it difficult to hit her restricted caloric target when she was not avoiding particular foods/types of foods. You're acting like she's speaking a foreign language when her point seems relatively clear to me. Her experience also lines up with that of other people who have followed "restrictive" diets and find they can lose weight simply due to the satiating nature of their diet.0 -
Actually, it does.giving simplistic nostrums like "calories in--calories out" does nothing to help anyone to curb the problem long term.
It is the very basis of what ANYONE needs to lose weight.
The fact that people try and claim they are special fairies who it doesn't apply to is much more of a problem, I would suggest.
While it is true that anyone can restrict calories and lose WEIGHT in the short term (you'll note that I SAID "long term"). But non-OCD individuals find calorie-restrictive diets tedious. That is why the weight-regain figures are so miserable. Calorie-restriction is ultimately not very effective for most people in terms of PERMANENT weight loss. In the end, WHAT you eat is easily as important as HOW MUCH you eat. I come here to share what has been effective for me and others on a long-term basis. I actually do not follow a strongly Paleo diet but I do eliminate wheat and added sugar (as the least painful/healthiest way to control blood glucose--which is a large part of controlling tendencies toward obesity).
so people that count calories are OCD, really?
Oh lawd here we go again ..so I can eat 500 calories of "quality" food, be over maintenance level, and still lose weight?
No, I did not say that. I easily stay within my calorie limit by employing food choices (and have for three years and counting). When I allow myself to eat whatever I like within my "no added sugar-no wheat" parameters, I find under-eating to be the biggest danger and that would be counter-productive in the longer term because it would cut lean body mass.
back tracking now?
you said that non-ocd individual find calorie counting tedious; hence, the implication is that anyone who counts calories and does not find it tedious is OCD ….
fixed the typo….
I was more or less joking on that assertion. Nevertheless, maintaining one's weight while calorie-counting IS a tedious affair. And further, it doesn't work because it is extremely difficult to be that precise. Eating just 100 calories more than what you need per day (and that is easily within measurement error) will just as easily put 70 pounds on you within 10 years. Or you can yo-yo up and down during that ten years--bleh. I have found what works for me.
How would anyone gain that much weight, even if it were just 25 pounds in three years without noticing it ? I maintained my 110 pounds ( for someone under 5 feet within the high normal range ) all my adult life by sometimes eating normal, sometimes eating a bit more ( on special occasions ) and then making up for it by eating less, or eating lighter. Losing and gaining within a 5-10 pound parameter is pretty much normal for all normal weight people and is not considered yo-yo-ing....it's just the normal way things balance out.
I wish I had stopped and eaten 100 calories less and I had not gained 80 pounds over the last eleven years ( not counting the last year when I lost 50 of them )...but personal reasons kept me from doing so. And btw: yes, I noticed that I gained weight....I just did not care at the time.
They WOULD notice and then many of them would get on the yo-yo dieting treadmill. I've been there and done it all. Now I maintain my weight effortlessly (in fact, I will probably lose another 5-7 pounds this year)--all without "dieting". I count calories only to ensure that I eat enough calories. When one eats nutrient-dense food, one is satisfied with many fewer calories.
you just told Ndj that it's difficult to stay under goal because your goal is so low due to your age, etc. but here you're saying that it's difficult to eat enough nutrient dense food to make your goal.
okay.
*sigh* I found it difficult to stay under my calorie goal on LOW-CALORIE diets--I was hungry and miserable all the time. Now, it is effortless. I make no attempt to "diet". I merely eat the foods that are right for me and I slowly lose (very slowly now that I am close to my goal weight). I assume that I will reach some level of homeostasis eventually.
I hope that sigh wasn't directed at my response.
You use "count" in present tense where I bolded.
Therefore, I could only assume that you presently count calories.
Now you are saying that you don't.
I'm not even being unkind here; I simply can not possibly be expected to understand what you mean by the things you say here, as every statement contradicts the previous.
I'm sorry you are having so much difficulty with understanding what I am saying--perhaps I am not explaining it very well. I sometimes forget that some of these concepts are quite new to some people. I DO count calories (I faithfully fill out my food diary every day and I note the calories. HOWEVER, I would not need to, as I am always consistently under--because of my food choices. The only reason why I do keep track of my calories is that I want to make sure I am eating enough calories to avoid losing too quickly. I have gouty arthritis that is made worse when I lose too quickly. It is improving but I do not want to go on medication for it, so I am trying to manage it with diet. If I didn't have some of the health problems I have, I would likely be more strictly Paleo in order to shed weight faster. Does that make sense to you now? Losing weight too quickly is undesirable for other reasons. The faster you lose weight, the more lean body mass you are apt to lose and that just sets you up for regain.0 -
You can always tell how a thread is going if you enter and there are multitudes of ridiculously untrimmed quote mosaics included.
lol0 -
I stole this from a member of a group I belong to on Facebook and it cracked me up. This is the best description of Paleo dieting I have ever seen!!!
"Just remember, plant oils are BAD because they're unsaturated fats, except for coconut oil and palm oil because they're saturated and that is GOOD. And butter and beef tallow and lard are animal fats and thus GOOD, don't think about the fact that they're all >51% unsaturated fatty acids. Oh and nuts and seeds are GOOD, except peanuts which are BAD, and the fact that they're all chock-full of unsaturated plant oils that we just told you to avoid is totally irrelevant. Also, grains and legumes are BAD, because they're the mature embryos of plants, which is BAD unless it's a nut or seed (which are also the mature embryos of plants) in which case it's GOOD. Lastly, dairy from cows and goats and sheep and camels and horses is a neolithic invention and thus BAD, unless you're talking about clarified butter in which case it's GOOD and you need to put that **** in your coffee instead of cream, but don't you dare put it on a slice of toast, unless you made that toast from almond flour or coconut flour. Totally clear."
Why do I always end up defending Paleo? :laugh:
A lot of the reasons listed here of why things are "good" and "bad" aren't really the "reasons".
And peanuts are legumes, not nuts.
By this time next year, I expect you to be a card-carrying paleoarian with your second book soon to hit the shelves.
(Of course, you still won't be eating paleo, but you'll be one of its most well known proponents.)0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 990 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions