'you're fat therefore you were eating too much food'... NO

False logic. Too much food does not mean that your piece of cake was too big; it means too many calories.

The volume of food you eat has nothing to do with the number of calories it contains.

Hmmm... this feels a bit like the lb of fat vs lb of muscle debate.

OP - Volume is implied!

I'm so sick of seeing this 'logic' splashed over the boards. I ate less when I was big than I do now. I just ate different, more calorific food. When people say they are struggling to get to calories it's sometimes because they are genuine about doing this and they have restricted themselves to lean meat, veges, and not much else, all really low fat and low cal, because that is what they heard for years and they don't know that there is another, more effective way.

People being sanctimonious and throwing about the 'you must know how to eat because you're fat' line is ridiculous. Everyones scenario is a little bit different and while the same solution (in variations) will work for everyone, NOT everyone is fat because they ate too much bulk of food, their balance was simply off. Or, like me, they had an accident and that, coupled with a thyroid problem and (at the time) ignorance of BMR led me to put on weight.

end rant

I *think* what she meant was bulk. Like, number of bites or actual mass of the food. It's easy to eat a relatively small mass of food and gain weight if that food is high in calories. But many people think that if you're fat you must be a glutton that's stuffing your face constantly all day, and that's just not true.

I'm so sick of seeing this 'logic' splashed over the boards. I ate less when I was big than I do now. I just ate different, more calorific food. When people say they are struggling to get to calories it's sometimes because they are genuine about doing this and they have restricted themselves to lean meat, veges, and not much else, all really low fat and low cal, because that is what they heard for years and they don't know that there is another, more effective way.

People being sanctimonious and throwing about the 'you must know how to eat because you're fat' line is ridiculous. Everyones scenario is a little bit different and while the same solution (in variations) will work for everyone, NOT everyone is fat because they ate too much bulk of food, their balance was simply off. Or, like me, they had an accident and that, coupled with a thyroid problem and (at the time) ignorance of BMR led me to put on weight.

end rant

I *think* what she meant was bulk. Like, number of bites or actual mass of the food. It's easy to eat a relatively small mass of food and gain weight if that food is high in calories. But many people think that if you're fat you must be a glutton that's stuffing your face constantly all day, and that's just not true.

She did mean bulk.

Which is weird, because that's not what anybody else means.

I, too, think the OP implied VOLUME - eating a large amount of 'food' does not necessarily automatically equal large amount of calories.

You can eat smaller VOLUME, and still consume a TON of calories. Milkshakes, an easy way to get in over 1000 calories in a glass - vs drinking water - same VOLUME - guaranteed if you have 3 milkshakes a day vs 3 large glasses of water, you're bound to gain weight, and that's just ONE example. Add in mayo laden, cheese laden, butter laden anything, and you've got calorie dense foods that pack on the pounds, with small volume.

Anyhow - we could use a thousand examples here, I get what the OP was implying, and agree 100%. I've eaten both ways, calorie dense, and non calorie dense, same amount of food by volume, and lost weight one way, gained it the other. Pretty simple if you ask me.

False logic. Too much food does not mean that your piece of cake was too big; it means too many calories.

The volume of food you eat has nothing to do with the number of calories it contains.

Hmmm... this feels a bit like the lb of fat vs lb of muscle debate.

OP - Volume is implied!

You can have a cup of almonds for 700+ calories or you can have a cup of blueberries for 80 calories.

Volume isn't implied. There is no corellation between calories and volume. When people say too much food, they mean too many calories

But a cup of blueberries has more water, and therefore, less mass by volume, than a cup of almonds, and likewise, less calories.

BTW shouldn't we be weighing these almonds and blueberries since they aren't actually liquids?

What cracks me up is the number of responses to this post, when there hasn't been anymore by the OP. It's like she came in here, dropped an illogical bomb on everyone, then walked out.