Why you should cut out/lower sodium, sugar or carbs
Options
Replies
-
Actually if I were to eat small pieces of cake all day on 1200 calories a day (I'm old and sedentary and short, don't judge!) I would actually harm my health as it would be impossible, even taking a good multivitamin, to meet my nutritional needs.
Hmmm....not so sure about that....
But whatever.
Well, if by small you mean 'forkful' maybe not. Either way, I see no reason to torture myself that way. As for intermittent fasting, ever notice how good you feel on day two if you wait a few extra hours to eat? Or is that just me? I actually wait until the evening of the second day sometimes just so I can walk around feeling all happy and stuff. Not sure what's up with that. Very light ketosis, maybe. Much better than cake!
You take that back. Nothing is better than cake. Unless you add ice cream
And this weekend I shall. It just happens it will probably be all I eat that day. And any leftovers must be given a decent burial by Monday, or there goes my deficit for the week! :laugh:
throw out food, really?
Nah, my kid will eat it.0 -
I got used to IF almost immediately but I'd never been much of a breakfast person to begin with. I eat from 4pm to midnight but I also work night shift.0
-
I do have a medical condition. Roughly, it's called a tendency to get fat. Cutting sugar and when possible carbs actually helps me not get fat. So I'll keep right on with it.
But I'll also keep envying those who don't have to cut anything and can still lose or maintain weight. See my green eyes? That is the green eyed envy monster staring you lucky people down.
ummm its called eat less calories and you can still eat carbs and sugar....not sure why you would be envious of this as anyone can do it...
I'm not envious for that reason. I'm envious of people who can buy a cake, eat one serving, put the cake away, and maybe have another piece tomorrow without a piece of their brain yelling 'more cake!' for the rest of the day. My son is like that. He can leave cookies on the counter and ice cream in the fridge for weeks and never think twice about it.0 -
I got used to IF almost immediately but I'd never been much of a breakfast person to begin with. I eat from 4pm to midnight but I also work night shift.
That didn't work for me. I'm trying modified ADF. 1 1/2 to 2 days fast, 1 1/2 to 2 days feast, rinse, repeat. I like it. Although I'm adding some veggies in on my fast days this week cause potassium. It's a pain to get enough.0 -
I got used to IF almost immediately but I'd never been much of a breakfast person to begin with. I eat from 4pm to midnight but I also work night shift.
That didn't work for me. I'm trying modified ADF. 1 1/2 to 2 days fast, 1 1/2 to 2 days feast, rinse, repeat. I like it. Although I'm adding some veggies in on my fast days this week cause potassium. It's a pain to get enough.
Actually, you said you frequently go 3-4 days without eating in an earlier post.0 -
If you have a medical condition which requires you to do so. Otherwise, please stop obsessing over and wasting precious time worrying about things that won't harm you. As I always try to reiterate, life is too short.
ETA: I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't be able to reduce the amount of x they consume, if that's what is keeping them from achieving weight loss. The intention of this post was to point out that demonizing any particular food group is unnecessary. "I went over my sodium intake, that is horrible!" and "Added sugars are horrible" statements are far too frequent, and that way of thinking really isn't healthy or needed.
I don't understand. You tell me and quite a few others not to obsess, yet you obsess over what I do or don't do. Why do you care if I prefer not to add extra sugar to my diet, or eat low sodium for reasons I don't have to explain to anyone. You complain about people demonizing food groups, yet you demonize a group of people.
Why don't we agree that everyone takes care of themselves and their respective health...... and leave it at that ?0 -
I am sorry but I completely disagree with OP.
Different food sources trigger different responses in the body. There is a wealth of information out there that will explain this much better that I am willing to try.
To say it doesn't matter whether you eat 500 calories of a Mars bars is the same as eating 500 cal of spinach is only correct in 500 cal are 500 cal, but it neglecting the fact that both food items trigger different responses in our bodies,
Stef.
I love when people say there is a wealth of information and then do not even provide one link to this supposed "wealth" of information ...0 -
I do have a medical condition. Roughly, it's called a tendency to get fat. Cutting sugar and when possible carbs actually helps me not get fat. So I'll keep right on with it.
But I'll also keep envying those who don't have to cut anything and can still lose or maintain weight. See my green eyes? That is the green eyed envy monster staring you lucky people down.
ummm its called eat less calories and you can still eat carbs and sugar....not sure why you would be envious of this as anyone can do it...
I'm not envious for that reason. I'm envious of people who can buy a cake, eat one serving, put the cake away, and maybe have another piece tomorrow without a piece of their brain yelling 'more cake!' for the rest of the day. My son is like that. He can leave cookies on the counter and ice cream in the fridge for weeks and never think twice about it.
its called teaching yourself portion control....I did it, and so can you ...0 -
I got used to IF almost immediately but I'd never been much of a breakfast person to begin with. I eat from 4pm to midnight but I also work night shift.
That didn't work for me. I'm trying modified ADF. 1 1/2 to 2 days fast, 1 1/2 to 2 days feast, rinse, repeat. I like it. Although I'm adding some veggies in on my fast days this week cause potassium. It's a pain to get enough.
Actually, you said you frequently go 3-4 days without eating in an earlier post.
Three to four days a week. Standard ADF. It works out as either three or four. Not consecutive, the most I go is two consecutive. I did try four days every two weeks for one month because in a mouse study female mice who were fasted lived longer but were bigger than the control mice. So I was interested. Sure enough, I gained weight that month, just like the mice! I felt pretty crappy on day three both times and definitely crappy by the end of day four, I have no intention of repeating that one.0 -
If you have a medical condition which requires you to do so. Otherwise, please stop obsessing over and wasting precious time worrying about things that won't harm you. As I always try to reiterate, life is too short.
ETA: I'm not saying that individuals shouldn't be able to reduce the amount of x they consume, if that's what is keeping them from achieving weight loss. The intention of this post was to point out that demonizing any particular food group is unnecessary. "I went over my sodium intake, that is horrible!" and "Added sugars are horrible" statements are far too frequent, and that way of thinking really isn't healthy or needed.
I don't understand. You tell me and quite a few others not to obsess, yet you obsess over what I do or don't do. Why do you care if I prefer not to add extra sugar to my diet, or eat low sodium for reasons I don't have to explain to anyone. You complain about people demonizing food groups, yet you demonize a group of people.
Why don't we agree that everyone takes care of themselves and their respective health...... and leave it at that ?
No, you missed the point of my post. I don't care if people don't eat whatever, but I don't want those same people to run around saying that those things are harmful and should be avoided. Many people who are new to the idea of weight loss are pressured to give up things they love for no reason. If you want to cut out sugar, that's okay, but don't go saying that it's necessary or better than moderation.0 -
I mean for me, I have no problem turning away from cake or brownies or doughnuts....
But not all people are like me.
So for those people, it will be alright to indulge in their "cake".....
Just fit it in.
I think that's what it comes down to. If you're the type of person who is miserable without cake, then you need to find a way to fit some cake into your diet. On the other hand, if you really don't care much about cake to begin with, it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to budget a lot of calories for cake. And that doesn't mean that you'll somehow fail and binge on cake down the road - it just means you don't prioritize cake the way others do.
I think people start to get defensive when they're told they should be eating cake more often or they somehow lack self control because they don't eat cake on a regular basis. Whether you "should" eat something really comes down to whether it fits into your specific goals. Could you eat it? Sure, at least in some quantity. Should you? It really depends.
no one says they should...they are told they can....and they respond no I can't I will cave and eat it all....then they are told to practice moderation, they say I can't...just can't do it...in for a penny in for a pound then they are told they lack self control.
Which is by definition lacking self control...if you can't eat a portion of cake/chocolate whatever without eating too much you lack self control...do you lack it in all aspects of life...nope but you do when it comes to whatever it is that you can't say no to.
ETA: never mind...
Except abstaining from a food requires self control, just like eating food in moderation does. Don't distort the plain meaning of the term just to try and make a point. I don't disagree that if someone has a food they feel they "can't" eat, less they will binge, then they need to deal with that issue. That's clearly a sign someone has an unhealthy relationship with food; but it doesn't mean they lack self control if they're able to abstain from eating that problem food. To that end, you could make the argument that it actually requires more control to completely eliminate a food. That's why it's so common to see people recommending against restrictive diets, as most people lack the self control to stick with restrictions in the long run and eventually give in. This all boils down to semantics, but twisting the plain meaning of terms like "self control" and suggesting its synonymous with satiation just confuses the issue.Actually, you said you frequently go 3-4 days without eating in an earlier post.
What I'm struggling with is Justina mentioned 1200 calories a day... is that a "feast" day? If you're seriously fasting for 1.5-2 days in a row, you should be consuming many days worth of calories on your "feast" days and you should have tons of room for cake in your diet.0 -
I got used to IF almost immediately but I'd never been much of a breakfast person to begin with. I eat from 4pm to midnight but I also work night shift.
That didn't work for me. I'm trying modified ADF. 1 1/2 to 2 days fast, 1 1/2 to 2 days feast, rinse, repeat. I like it. Although I'm adding some veggies in on my fast days this week cause potassium. It's a pain to get enough.
Actually, you said you frequently go 3-4 days without eating in an earlier post.
Three to four days a week. Standard ADF. It works out as either three or four. Not consecutive, the most I go is two consecutive. I did try four days every two weeks for one month because in a mouse study female mice who were fasted lived longer but were bigger than the control mice. So I was interested. Sure enough, I gained weight that month, just like the mice! I felt pretty crappy on day three both times and definitely crappy by the end of day four, I have no intention of repeating that one.
Ah ok.0 -
What I'm struggling with is Justina mentioned 1200 calories a day... is that a "feast" day? If you're seriously fasting for 1.5-2 days in a row, you should be consuming many days worth of calories on your "feast" days and you should have tons of room for cake in your diet.
I was confused, too. My understanding of IF was that you ate more on the days you eat. Otherwise, it really just sounds like glorified anorexia.0 -
1+I do have a medical condition. Roughly, it's called a tendency to get fat. Cutting sugar and when possible carbs actually helps me not get fat. So I'll keep right on with it.
But I'll also keep envying those who don't have to cut anything and can still lose or maintain weight. See my green eyes? That is the green eyed envy monster staring you lucky people down.
I agree, do what works for YOU
Thank God for that "individuality" thing :bigsmile:0 -
I mean for me, I have no problem turning away from cake or brownies or doughnuts....
But not all people are like me.
So for those people, it will be alright to indulge in their "cake".....
Just fit it in.
I think that's what it comes down to. If you're the type of person who is miserable without cake, then you need to find a way to fit some cake into your diet. On the other hand, if you really don't care much about cake to begin with, it probably doesn't make a lot of sense to budget a lot of calories for cake. And that doesn't mean that you'll somehow fail and binge on cake down the road - it just means you don't prioritize cake the way others do.
I think people start to get defensive when they're told they should be eating cake more often or they somehow lack self control because they don't eat cake on a regular basis. Whether you "should" eat something really comes down to whether it fits into your specific goals. Could you eat it? Sure, at least in some quantity. Should you? It really depends.
no one says they should...they are told they can....and they respond no I can't I will cave and eat it all....then they are told to practice moderation, they say I can't...just can't do it...in for a penny in for a pound then they are told they lack self control.
Which is by definition lacking self control...if you can't eat a portion of cake/chocolate whatever without eating too much you lack self control...do you lack it in all aspects of life...nope but you do when it comes to whatever it is that you can't say no to.
ETA: never mind...
Except abstaining from a food requires self control, just like eating food in moderation does. Don't distort the plain meaning of the term just to try and make a point. I don't disagree that if someone has a food they feel they "can't" eat, less they will binge, then they need to deal with that issue. That's clearly a sign someone has an unhealthy relationship with food; but it doesn't mean they lack self control if they're able to abstain from eating that problem food. To that end, you could make the argument that it actually requires more control to completely eliminate a food. That's why it's so common to see people recommending against restrictive diets, as most people lack the self control to stick with restrictions in the long run and eventually give in. This all boils down to semantics, but twisting the plain meaning of terms like "self control" and suggesting its synonymous with satiation just confuses the issue.Actually, you said you frequently go 3-4 days without eating in an earlier post.
What I'm struggling with is Justina mentioned 1200 calories a day... is that a "feast" day? If you're seriously fasting for 1.5-2 days in a row, you should be consuming many days worth of calories on your "feast" days and you should have tons of room for cake in your diet.
No! That is the average. Total calories for the week, divided by 7. Sometimes it's been higher than 1200 lately.0 -
self control > pretending sugars and carbs and sodiums are teh debil
I exercise self control every time I don't put something in my mouth that is going to make me crave more of it.
no that's denial not self control ....
Self control is being able to eat what you want/love/crave in moderation (moderation=self control)
By what twisted definition of self control is abstaining from something not control of one's self? If I were to fast for the next 7 days, would that require absolutely no self control simply because that involves the denial of food? No willpower whatsoever required simply because it involves abstaining? That simply makes no sense.
If you think self control means "moderation", you should consult a dictionary.
I did...
self denial per websters = a restraint or limitation of one's own desires or interests
self control = Satiation
The decrease in liking of and desire for a substance following repeated consumption is known as satiation. Satiation rates when eating depend on interactions of trait self-control and healthiness of the food. ... those with low self-control satiated at the same rate regardless of health condition. Perceived unhealthiness of the food alone, regardless of actual health level, relates to faster satiation, but only for people with high trait self-control.
I have read your post numerous times advocating eat whatever and you jump right in if someone disagrees. Fair Enough.0 -
self control > pretending sugars and carbs and sodiums are teh debil
I exercise self control every time I don't put something in my mouth that is going to make me crave more of it.
no that's denial not self control ....
Self control is being able to eat what you want/love/crave in moderation (moderation=self control)
By what twisted definition of self control is abstaining from something not control of one's self? If I were to fast for the next 7 days, would that require absolutely no self control simply because that involves the denial of food? No willpower whatsoever required simply because it involves abstaining? That simply makes no sense.
If you think self control means "moderation", you should consult a dictionary.
I did...
self denial per websters = a restraint or limitation of one's own desires or interests
self control = Satiation
The decrease in liking of and desire for a substance following repeated consumption is known as satiation. Satiation rates when eating depend on interactions of trait self-control and healthiness of the food. ... those with low self-control satiated at the same rate regardless of health condition. Perceived unhealthiness of the food alone, regardless of actual health level, relates to faster satiation, but only for people with high trait self-control.
I have read your post numerous times advocating eat whatever and you jump right in if someone disagrees. Fair Enough.
But I have also seen this same profile picture of yours for sometime now.
Jus' curious when are you updating us with your new picture. That would help me understand and convince me - Yes you are correct.
Why should anyone have to appease you with a new picture? Wth does that have to do with anything? The fact still remains. Eat what you want in a deficit, lose weight. Perhaps you should check the success stories thread and find iifym - goers and the like to convince you through visual imagery
Her picture is fabulous btw. I wouldn't change it either0 -
self control > pretending sugars and carbs and sodiums are teh debil
I exercise self control every time I don't put something in my mouth that is going to make me crave more of it.
no that's denial not self control ....
Self control is being able to eat what you want/love/crave in moderation (moderation=self control)
By what twisted definition of self control is abstaining from something not control of one's self? If I were to fast for the next 7 days, would that require absolutely no self control simply because that involves the denial of food? No willpower whatsoever required simply because it involves abstaining? That simply makes no sense.
If you think self control means "moderation", you should consult a dictionary.
I did...
self denial per websters = a restraint or limitation of one's own desires or interests
self control = Satiation
The decrease in liking of and desire for a substance following repeated consumption is known as satiation. Satiation rates when eating depend on interactions of trait self-control and healthiness of the food. ... those with low self-control satiated at the same rate regardless of health condition. Perceived unhealthiness of the food alone, regardless of actual health level, relates to faster satiation, but only for people with high trait self-control.
I have read your post numerous times advocating eat whatever and you jump right in if someone disagrees. Fair Enough.
But I have also seen this same profile picture of yours for sometime now.
Jus' curious when are you updating us with your new picture. That would help me understand and convince me - Yes you are correct.
Wow, that was uncalled for. There's no need to get so personal. Maybe she just likes that picture or doesn't feel like changing it? I don't see what it has to do with anything.
A lot when you are on my side of aisle. I have seen people advocating weirdest of stuff around and quite frankly the only way for someone like me on internet to agree and be sold on is 'OK here is what I was before and this is I am right now" .... No and I'm saying there is anything bad with her pic ... keep it for all I care but maybe now I have adoubt whether the "diet" being advocated is really working for not changing the pic.0 -
1+I do have a medical condition. Roughly, it's called a tendency to get fat. Cutting sugar and when possible carbs actually helps me not get fat. So I'll keep right on with it.
But I'll also keep envying those who don't have to cut anything and can still lose or maintain weight. See my green eyes? That is the green eyed envy monster staring you lucky people down.
I agree, do what works for YOU
Thank God for that "individuality" thing :bigsmile:
Individuality. Even when it's a real pain in the neck! :drinker:
I do wish I could be like my son, though. He just forget the treats are even in the house for days on end. I don't know how. The darn things call to me, and always have.0 -
I do have a medical condition. Roughly, it's called a tendency to get fat. Cutting sugar and when possible carbs actually helps me not get fat. So I'll keep right on with it.
But I'll also keep envying those who don't have to cut anything and can still lose or maintain weight. See my green eyes? That is the green eyed envy monster staring you lucky people down.
ummm its called eat less calories and you can still eat carbs and sugar....not sure why you would be envious of this as anyone can do it...
I'm not envious for that reason. I'm envious of people who can buy a cake, eat one serving, put the cake away, and maybe have another piece tomorrow without a piece of their brain yelling 'more cake!' for the rest of the day. My son is like that. He can leave cookies on the counter and ice cream in the fridge for weeks and never think twice about it.
its called teaching yourself portion control....I did it, and so can you ...
So let me get this straight. You eat a serving of cake, knowing for the rest of that day, part of your brain will pester you for more. When you could have skipped the cake and not had the brain pester? Why? I'll just skip the darn cake, maybe have it one day a week, not get too nutty on carbs early in the day, and be happy and have more brain power available for other things.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions