Why does everyone think it's WHAT they eat that matters?

Instead of Guinness drink a Miller Lite.

Instead of Guinness drink a Miller Lite.

^ This is not an option! Otherwise, I agree.

I read so many threads on here about giving up this or that, limiting this or that, etc. It's not what you eat, it's how much you eat that matters. You just need to chose if you want calorie-dense food or more of a less-dense food.

If you have to lose a lot of weight and restrict what tastes good you're going to fail. So instead of giving up pizza why not just eat one less slice per meal? Instead of Guinness drink a Miller Lite. I really don't understand why people are so dang hard on themselves. Good luck!

As reported on CNN:

Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.

For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.

His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.

The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.

For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.

His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.

Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.

I read so many threads on here about giving up this or that, limiting this or that, etc. It's not what you eat, it's how much you eat that matters.

Our stomachs don't actually measure the amount of calories we eat, it simply doesn't matter to our stomach. But, our stomachs do measure the volume of food we eat and it is amazingly accurate at doing so. So for many of us we simply have to eat foods that are heavier and have more volume but, far less calories than what we were eating. There is no law that these foods can't taste good, they can, but we certainly can't just eat less and expect our stomach to just automatically go along with that.

Guinness is actually one of the most naturally light beers!!! (Just wanted to let OP know in case he's been forgoing Guiness!!!)

As you were.

Guinness is pretty low calorie. Now, a nice microbrewed imperial stout at 300+ calories per 12 oz. yeah, those'll getchya.

For me, it is what I eat.
If I eat a massive 2-lb salad with cucumber, tomato, avocado, and tuna which only comes to 300 calories, I will feel invigorated, full, and satisfied.
If I eat a 2.5oz bar of chocolate which comes to 300 calories, it will taste good while I'm eating it, but I'll still be hungry and I will feel unsatisfied and have heartburn.

That's the point that I made, though. Your calorie-dense chocolate bar isn't satisfying whereas your big salad is. You decide what to eat for your calories. For example, as a test, if you only ate 1,200 calories of chocolate bars each day you'd still lose weight. I see so many people on this site only wanting to lose weight (and fast!). So cut down what you eat. Period. Of course it matters what we put in our bodies but from a pure calories in/out perspective just eat less. You're going to fail if you cut out pizza, beer, a candy bar, etc. That's why when I lost my weight I focused on the calories only.