1,200 - but what if you're eating good food?

Kalikel

Here is the issue I have with labeling foods "good" and "bad".

Putting labels on food and making it an all or nothing approach may set someone up for failure.

Say I decide to restrict my diet (noun) and cut out all of the "bad" stuff. After some time goes by I start craving some of that "bad" stuff and decide to cave in and have just a little bit. What do you think the reaction is going to be?

"OMG I'm such a failure!"
"I feel so guilty for eating something 'bad'!"
"I might as well give up and just quit trying to lose weight!"

I would much rather allow myself to have something in moderation than to stress myself out like that and feel miserable if I decide to give in.

But when I have a little treat, it's like when a shark smells blood. That is then the point that everything goes out the window and it danger zone! But up until I actually put it in my mouth, I have no desire for it. It's easy for me to watch my partner eat a share size chocolate bar and not want it. So I just thought it was best to completely avoid chocolate, crisps, cake etc

I think these are two different things.

If eating something makes you crave more of it, such that you want it more than if you never had it, then for the most part not eating it is probably a decent strategy. That's not my reaction to treats, but I understand that many people say it's theirs. I'd only warn you that if you've just started the easiness of not wanting whatever it is you've cut out (if you wanted it before you started this plan) might go away, and then you will have to come up with a strategy.

But in any case, I think the good/bad issue is different. A lot of people seem to approach food much like sex. They convince themselves that stuff they think they shouldn't have (do) is disgusting and not something they'd want, is not natural, unhealthy, etc. This may well help them not want it, for a while. But if it's a mental game, at some point they will likely cave, and indulge, and then not only have eaten more than they want, but have internal messages set to tell them that what they ate was disgusting and they are thus disgusting and perverted and a failure and so on. And for many people this makes them feel shameful and creates the kinds of emotional strains that often let to overeating to satisfy, so they eat more. Or, similarly, they figure they've screwed up and are disgusting, so might as well just shove more and more in their face until they eat tons. Either way they end up feeling much worse about themselves. In the long run they may build up a situation where everytime they "cheat" and eat a little it's a food they assume they can't normally have, so take the opportunity to eat and eat and create for emotional reasons the situation that they can't eat the food in moderation.

That's what I see as really bad about calling foods bad and good or (sorry!) clean and unclean. It partakes in this kind of thing.

If you can just shrug and say "I don't eat whatever, it's a trigger food for me" without having to reinforce to yourself that it's bad or disgusting or makes you FAT or some such, then that's great.

I do suspect a little that BELIEF that a food is a trigger food to some extent emotionally makes it so, but at a certain point you just have to go with what works for you.

Most people do not approach sex in that way. Those who do should seek counseling. It's not normal.

I'm not saying that in a mean, arrogant or snarky way.

lemurcat12

Here is the issue I have with labeling foods "good" and "bad".

Putting labels on food and making it an all or nothing approach may set someone up for failure.

Say I decide to restrict my diet (noun) and cut out all of the "bad" stuff. After some time goes by I start craving some of that "bad" stuff and decide to cave in and have just a little bit. What do you think the reaction is going to be?

"OMG I'm such a failure!"
"I feel so guilty for eating something 'bad'!"
"I might as well give up and just quit trying to lose weight!"

I would much rather allow myself to have something in moderation than to stress myself out like that and feel miserable if I decide to give in.

But when I have a little treat, it's like when a shark smells blood. That is then the point that everything goes out the window and it danger zone! But up until I actually put it in my mouth, I have no desire for it. It's easy for me to watch my partner eat a share size chocolate bar and not want it. So I just thought it was best to completely avoid chocolate, crisps, cake etc

I think these are two different things.

If eating something makes you crave more of it, such that you want it more than if you never had it, then for the most part not eating it is probably a decent strategy. That's not my reaction to treats, but I understand that many people say it's theirs. I'd only warn you that if you've just started the easiness of not wanting whatever it is you've cut out (if you wanted it before you started this plan) might go away, and then you will have to come up with a strategy.

But in any case, I think the good/bad issue is different. A lot of people seem to approach food much like sex. They convince themselves that stuff they think they shouldn't have (do) is disgusting and not something they'd want, is not natural, unhealthy, etc. This may well help them not want it, for a while. But if it's a mental game, at some point they will likely cave, and indulge, and then not only have eaten more than they want, but have internal messages set to tell them that what they ate was disgusting and they are thus disgusting and perverted and a failure and so on. And for many people this makes them feel shameful and creates the kinds of emotional strains that often let to overeating to satisfy, so they eat more. Or, similarly, they figure they've screwed up and are disgusting, so might as well just shove more and more in their face until they eat tons. Either way they end up feeling much worse about themselves. In the long run they may build up a situation where everytime they "cheat" and eat a little it's a food they assume they can't normally have, so take the opportunity to eat and eat and create for emotional reasons the situation that they can't eat the food in moderation.

That's what I see as really bad about calling foods bad and good or (sorry!) clean and unclean. It partakes in this kind of thing.

If you can just shrug and say "I don't eat whatever, it's a trigger food for me" without having to reinforce to yourself that it's bad or disgusting or makes you FAT or some such, then that's great.

I do suspect a little that BELIEF that a food is a trigger food to some extent emotionally makes it so, but at a certain point you just have to go with what works for you.

Most people do not approach sex in that way. Those who do should seek counseling. It's not normal.

I'm not saying that in a mean, arrogant or snarky way.

Yes, it's a super screwed up way to approach sex that leads to neurotic behavior and self hatred, like it is a super screwed up way to approach eating, same. That was (rather obviously, I would have thought) the point!

PayneAS

I know the general consensus is that 1,200 is far too low for the majority of people. But is this still the case if somebody is eating a great diet? This would consist of no "treats" but tonnes of veg, nuts, seeds, pulses.

I don't have the time right now to adequately research your profile and such so I simply wanted to add that nuts & seeds are not low calorie in the least. I get the feeling that you aren't weighing your portions and underestimating your meals.

1800 calorie diets can be full of good, healthy foods with "no treats" whatsoever.

Kalikel

Here is the issue I have with labeling foods "good" and "bad".

Putting labels on food and making it an all or nothing approach may set someone up for failure.

Say I decide to restrict my diet (noun) and cut out all of the "bad" stuff. After some time goes by I start craving some of that "bad" stuff and decide to cave in and have just a little bit. What do you think the reaction is going to be?

"OMG I'm such a failure!"
"I feel so guilty for eating something 'bad'!"
"I might as well give up and just quit trying to lose weight!"

I would much rather allow myself to have something in moderation than to stress myself out like that and feel miserable if I decide to give in.

But when I have a little treat, it's like when a shark smells blood. That is then the point that everything goes out the window and it danger zone! But up until I actually put it in my mouth, I have no desire for it. It's easy for me to watch my partner eat a share size chocolate bar and not want it. So I just thought it was best to completely avoid chocolate, crisps, cake etc

I think these are two different things.

If eating something makes you crave more of it, such that you want it more than if you never had it, then for the most part not eating it is probably a decent strategy. That's not my reaction to treats, but I understand that many people say it's theirs. I'd only warn you that if you've just started the easiness of not wanting whatever it is you've cut out (if you wanted it before you started this plan) might go away, and then you will have to come up with a strategy.

But in any case, I think the good/bad issue is different. A lot of people seem to approach food much like sex. They convince themselves that stuff they think they shouldn't have (do) is disgusting and not something they'd want, is not natural, unhealthy, etc. This may well help them not want it, for a while. But if it's a mental game, at some point they will likely cave, and indulge, and then not only have eaten more than they want, but have internal messages set to tell them that what they ate was disgusting and they are thus disgusting and perverted and a failure and so on. And for many people this makes them feel shameful and creates the kinds of emotional strains that often let to overeating to satisfy, so they eat more. Or, similarly, they figure they've screwed up and are disgusting, so might as well just shove more and more in their face until they eat tons. Either way they end up feeling much worse about themselves. In the long run they may build up a situation where everytime they "cheat" and eat a little it's a food they assume they can't normally have, so take the opportunity to eat and eat and create for emotional reasons the situation that they can't eat the food in moderation.

That's what I see as really bad about calling foods bad and good or (sorry!) clean and unclean. It partakes in this kind of thing.

If you can just shrug and say "I don't eat whatever, it's a trigger food for me" without having to reinforce to yourself that it's bad or disgusting or makes you FAT or some such, then that's great.

I do suspect a little that BELIEF that a food is a trigger food to some extent emotionally makes it so, but at a certain point you just have to go with what works for you.

Most people do not approach sex in that way. Those who do should seek counseling. It's not normal.

I'm not saying that in a mean, arrogant or snarky way.

Yes, it's a super screwed up way to approach sex that leads to neurotic behavior and self hatred, like it is a super screwed up way to approach eating, same. That was (rather obviously, I would have thought) the point!

You never really finished the whole sex comparison. The premise alone was disturbing.

I leave you all to your "Potato chips aren't bad for you!" stuff. But I promise you that if you put spinach on one table and potato chips on another and asked a cardiologist to point to the one that is bad for you, he would not be stumped.

Meerataila

I've discovered something this month: The better quality of food I eat, the more calories I can eat without gaining because (in addition to exercise) I feel like getting out of my chair constantly throughout the day.

Your mileage may vary.

Edit to clarify my point in all this:

I was fine on 1200 net as far as losing weight slowly (too slowly for me!) because I am short, old, and was extremely slothy, but now maybe I'm not, and all because I am eating better food.

ukaryote

At 60 yo, my metabolism has slowed down a sh%$-load. A 1200 calorie diet suits me fine even with 20-30 min of daily exercise. I never feel hungry and I am not anorexic.

I'm carrying around an energy reserve, right? That's what it is for, right?

The challenge lately has been keeping up the protein levels, so I have learned to keep cottage cheese and canned tuna on hand to kick it up as needed. Not taken together.

AliceDark

I leave you all to your "Potato chips aren't bad for you!" stuff. But I promise you that if you put spinach on one table and potato chips on another and asked a cardiologist to point to the one that is bad for you, he would not be stumped.

Are you a cardiologist?

If you show my doctor my chart (healthy weight, works out regularly, no major medical concerns, occasional low blood pressure) and ask him if it's detrimental to my health for me to eat chips, he's going to tell you no, it's fine for me to eat chips.

lemurcat12

I've discovered something this month: The better quality of food I eat, the more calories I can eat without gaining because (in addition to exercise) I feel like getting out of my chair constantly throughout the day.

Your mileage may vary.

Edit to clarify my point in all this:

I was fine on 1200 net as far as losing weight slowly (too slowly for me!) because I am short, old, and was extremely slothy, but now maybe I'm not, and all because I am eating better food.

I was fine on 1250 net for the same reason (although I was still pretty fat, so losing at 2 lb/week) and now I'm not, for similar reasons (bike a lot, training for a half marathon). I'm doing 1400 net now, but gross is usually more, sometimes significantly more. (I'm still fatter than you, though.)

And yet I guess lots of people wouldn't think I eat good food at all! (I think I do, of course.)

And for me one type of food that makes a difference really is the carbs. I can tell the difference in my energy for a long run or (especially) long bike if I have a decent serving of carbs (including, maybe even especially, the evil potato!) the night before. And so I'd say people should pay attention to how they feel and what works for them.

And to go back to the context point, I was cutting carbs much more when I was less active (never low carb, but 100 g or under), because that helped me have a diet that was filling and sustainable at a lower calorie level. Now that diet wouldn't work for me at all. Because the context is different.

Someone who does physical labor needs a diet that supports more activity; others need more protein than me; so on.

Daiako

I know the general consensus is that 1,200 is far too low for the majority of people. But is this still the case if somebody is eating a great diet? This would consist of no "treats" but tonnes of veg, nuts, seeds, pulses.
I find when home cooking a meal, it's so easy for a BIG meal to be under 400 calories when all the ingredients are completely natural. Plus dairy is kept to an absolute bare minimum (soon to be none) and meat isn't in my diet (ethical reasons).
Surely this is better than an 1,800 calorie a day diet with a treat or 2? Or is it not?
And also people say that it's not a happy way to live and hard to keep up - but how can it be when you're eating two or 3 BIG meals a day and then a snack too?!

I prefer to eat 1800-1900 calories worth of good food, personally.

giggitygoo

This to me, is really more of a mental health and happiness thing. Can you get all your nutrients into a day with 1200 calories? Maybe, I've certainly never been able to do it though.

But the real question is: will you be happy eating this way? Are you going to have to sacrifice things you love when you otherwise wouldn't have to with a more moderate diet? Why would you needlessly eliminate things you love when you could just as successful keeping them?

Things to ponder.

SherryTeach

Most MFP posters don't think that there is any difference between potato chips and spinach. Nothing is good or bad. The other day someone was arguing that deluxe pizza is probably more healthy than baked chicken breast.

As far as weight loss goes, they're right. You can and will lose weight on a calorie deficit, even if all you eat is pizza and ice cream. You can eat a lot more food if it's healthy food, though.

Many people suggest that making junk food 1/5 of your diet is the best plan.

You should ask your doctor.

Than decide what you want.

I believe that everyone on MFP knows the difference between potato chips and spinach. They may still choose the chips, but everyone of them knows the nutrient difference.

lemonsurprise

I know the general consensus is that 1,200 is far too low for the majority of people. But is this still the case if somebody is eating a great diet? This would consist of no "treats" but tonnes of veg, nuts, seeds, pulses.

I don't have the time right now to adequately research your profile and such so I simply wanted to add that nuts & seeds are not low calorie in the least. I get the feeling that you aren't weighing your portions and underestimating your meals.

1800 calorie diets can be full of good, healthy foods with "no treats" whatsoever.

Nope, I always weigh things like nuts and seeds. I'll have 12.5g of mixed seeds and the same with cashews. This will total to 150 cals which is nothing! I'll have 25g of nuts and seeds on a meal and another 25 as a snack later on usually because my calories are too low.

lemonsurprise

This to me, is really more of a mental health and happiness thing. Can you get all your nutrients into a day with 1200 calories? Maybe, I've certainly never been able to do it though.

But the real question is: will you be happy eating this way? Are you going to have to sacrifice things you love when you otherwise wouldn't have to with a more moderate diet? Why would you needlessly eliminate things you love when you could just as successful keeping them?

Things to ponder.

Not sure if I'll always be happy eating like this. Now, I would say yes but if I'm not I can just change it when that arises. If I WANT something, I will just have it. I can't stop myself. But in this case I REALLY want to loose weight so I'm not sure if it's that real want to loose weight that has genuinely taken away all my want for treats.

But I wouldn't ever make myself unhappy with it, I couldn't do it to myself. If all I craved was treats then id have them! This is how I got myself in to this situation lol

Samstan101

Would it not ber more beneficial in the long run to learn to have the things you like in moderation? I spent years yo-yo dieting by eating low and cutting out lots of things I liked to a point where I just gave up and piled the weight on. I now eat what I want in moderation and can sustain my weight loss over the time its going to take (I have around 30lbs to go so I reckon another 12 months) and a lifestyle I can sustain when I get to target. I'm averaging around 2100 cals a day with a TDEE averaging 2800 a day (ignore this week's diary as am eating just a little under mainetance as have a half marathon at the weekend!).

Personally I couldn't eat 1200 cals and have the energy to live my life but more importantly, I couldn't cut out everything remotely calorific for a sustained period. I mean no chocolate or wine forever?! ;-)

I'm not getting into the 1200 cals argument (as long as its 1200cals net!) but would suggest you have a think about long term sustainability so you not only lose the weight but keep it off. Even if that means losing slower over the long term it may suit you better.

paperpudding

I leave you all to your "Potato chips aren't bad for you!" stuff. But I promise you that if you put spinach on one table and potato chips on another and asked a cardiologist to point to the one that is bad for you, he would not be stumped.

I would hope that like any person of intelligence, the cardiologist would say "In what context and dosage?" Because that's the better question.
But that takes a measure of critical thinking. So yeah.

Anyway, bye!!

The following is a true story.

I go to education evenings for health professionals,the sponsor provides dinner.
One evening the speaker was a cardiologist. I'm not sure what she had for main course but after that she had chocolate pudding and ice cream for desert!!!!

Not quite potato chips but shocking nevertheless :huh:



(Or perhaps most doctors understand moderation and context? :indifferent: )

Branstin

I leave you all to your "Potato chips aren't bad for you!" stuff. But I promise you that if you put spinach on one table and potato chips on another and asked a cardiologist to point to the one that is bad for you, he would not be stumped.

It will really help to interject a little reality into this scenario. A lot of health factors will need to be considered before determining if potato chips are "bad" and spinach is the better choice. A cardiologist will not automatically pick the spinach.

lemurcat12

Dean Ornish might.

Of course, then we get into our battling gurus, who all have quite different ideas of what's "good" and what's "bad." Seems better just to eat an overall healthy, balanced diet and avoid bringing false moral claims into it.