Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
Options
Replies
-
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
maybe because it sets people up to have a bad relationship with food. If you view food as "bad" and it is something that you like then you are going to crave it, and eventually you will give in and binge on it and feel guilty and then the cycle just repeats itself < been there done that.
Additionally, people then take it to the extreme and say "well I can't eat anything bad so that means no bread, no pasta, never any fast food, no hot wings, no dessert, no nothing. So all they eat is chicken and vegetables, and then they wonder why they can reach their 1200 per day goal. The reason is that they have restricted themselves to the point where they view so many things as "bad" that they eat nothing. If you do not believe me go ahead and run a search for "can't reach daily calorie goal" or "can't reach 1200"
Rather, if people learned that food is not inherently "bad" and that you can eat what you like, stay in a deficit,and lose weight then thy would have better long term, sustainable success….It also sets people up with a more healthy relationship for food..
0 -
I am very much trying not to twist your words, but to understand what you are saying. You said I was ignorant and couldn't grasp things. So, I'm trying to grasp them.
Are you agreeing with the idea of eliminating something or is this another "It's not really elimination if" things?Dierdre isn't debating. She's not making an argument. She's not trying to fight.
I think she's trying very hard to get to the bottom of exactly what people are saying.
They make broad statements, which is fine. The "Nothing should be eliminated from the diet" is a broad statement. When these people are asked exactly how that is supposed to work, people assume it's some kind of debate or argument. It's not.
I was recently told that those who seem to be on MFP just to be nasty are really not nasty. They're trying to help when they make what appear to be very rude comments.
So, here they are, being offered the opportunity to help.
People are asking how to do the things they say people should do. If "moderation" doesn't mean "a moderate amount", how much is "moderate"? If things are not to be eliminated, how do we work them all in and still meet calorie goals as well as macros and micros?
It's not a debate or an argument. It's a question. Tell me how.
Explaining CICO totally might help someone who hasn't heard it. But once they've heard it and say, "I understand that. I still binge. How do I stop binging?"...now comes the opportunity to help.
The answer was "Practice it." Practice what? How is it done? Explain how to do it.
If people really are trying to help others when they tell them what to do, then explain to them how they are supposed to do these things. That's what we all need to know. How does it work? How do I do it?
How?
In regards to the bolded bit, that's been asked and answered in more specific terms up-thread.
But, in very general terms:
- Keep track of what you eat.
- Most of the time, try to select foods designed to help you meet any currently unmet macro/micro and calorie targets.
- If you want a treat, evaluate how much of it you can eat and still hit your targets. Decide if having that amount is worth it to you. If it is, eat as much as you want within your pre-determined limits. If it isn't, or you can't have some (in other words, you have no calories left and don't want to get some extra activity), decide if you want to go to the trouble of planning it into another day. Execute that decision. Alternatively, go over by a bit today and either accept the hit, or adjust intake/exercise on one or maybe a couple of other days to make up the difference.
Doing this, it is possible to work any food into your overall diet, given that the person is not trying to achieve a deficit too big for the amount of weight they need to lose. It is not necessarily possible to work in the amount of that food you want on any given day - or maybe ever. I mean, a 1,200 calorie piece of cheesecake is not going to fit into many people's plans. But 1/4 of it will if you plan ahead. A bite or two of it will fit in more frequently, if you decide it's worth it.
BTW - if you decide it's not worth the effort to fit in that 1/4 piece of cheesecake, that is not the same thing as saying you 'can't' work cheesecake in to your diet. No. You don't 'want' to work cheesecake into your diet. Which is completely and utterly fine. I only mention it because I do see some of that reasoning floating around.
The problem with trying to explain specifically how to go about this, is that the above can be accomplished in a million different ways. Everyone has different issues and goals. So, everyone is going to explain what worked for them, maybe what they heard worked for someone else. Maybe some of those specifics doesn't work so well for you, but that's no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
For someone who's never tried this before: start with a suggested plan of attack that appeals to you. Modify it as you choose. Try it. Identify weaknesses. Ask for help with specific issues if you don't know how to address them. Apply common sense and personal knowledge to eliminate those weaknesses in ways you think you're most likely to be able to maintain. Rinse and repeat until you're happy with your plan and observed results. Prosper.
That was really well written, and I agree with all of it. Especially the bolded.
That person's post was about moderation. And the bolded part was about differentiating betweeing WANTING to work something into your day and thinking you CAN'T. Not elimination.
But seems many of you guys are twisting words and posts around, so clearly the distinction isn't going to matter.
If it is cut out because you want to cut it out, have you eliminated it?
0 -
0
-
here is a thread of an example of what I was talking about above…OP restricted herself to a point where she does not feel like eating and can't reach 1500 a day which I believe is one pound per week loss for her…
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/30562832#Comment_305628320 -
neanderthin wrote: »
The philosophy is not just for body builders and the site IIFYM is not the actual source of IIFYM, just someone that had the initiative to make a website and cash in, smart person. Oh, and eat anything you want in moderation is not what IIFYM refers to, it means after all your macro and micro nutrients have been met, then eat what you want....very different thing.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »OHC. IIFYM is for body-builders.
Ok, all you "eat what you want, just in moderation" people -- I totally agree with you. If you are a body builder, eat what you want, just in moderation.
You could have popped that little bit of information in there, that you are a BODY BUILDER.
Lol, no. You just don't get it.
0 -
nice…bookmarked for the next sugar thread….0 -
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.direct from Deirdere's post on page 25:
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
so yes, someone did say that.
eating in moderation
keeping eating what they are eating, just in moderation
two different things, bro.
-1 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »OHC. IIFYM is for body-builders.
Ok, all you "eat what you want, just in moderation" people -- I totally agree with you. If you are a body builder, eat what you want, just in moderation.
You could have popped that little bit of information in there, that you are a BODY BUILDER.
I'm not a bodybuilder. IIFYM and moderation are for everyone.
Chicken + rice + broccoli is a bro-diet. Guess that means it's only for bodybuilders. Clean eating is for moms who think that bread will poison their child. Junk food is only for fat people.
and the train is now headed directly for a tornado. . . . . .
0 -
If that is your actual point, then why don't you just say that? That's a reasonable thing. I don't agree, but it's a reasonable idea.DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »
maybe because it sets people up to have a bad relationship with food. If you view food as "bad" and it is something that you like then you are going to crave it, and eventually you will give in and binge on it and feel guilty and then the cycle just repeats itself < been there done that.
Additionally, people then take it to the extreme and say "well I can't eat anything bad so that means no bread, no pasta, never any fast food, no hot wings, no dessert, no nothing. So all they eat is chicken and vegetables, and then they wonder why they can reach their 1200 per day goal. The reason is that they have restricted themselves to the point where they view so many things as "bad" that they eat nothing. If you do not believe me go ahead and run a search for "can't reach daily calorie goal" or "can't reach 1200"
Rather, if people learned that food is not inherently "bad" and that you can eat what you like, stay in a deficit,and lose weight then thy would have better long term, sustainable success….It also sets people up with a more healthy relationship for food..
When people hear, "You don't have to change the foods you eat. You can eat them all in moderation," many reasonable people hear that and think you're saying, "You don't have to change the foods you eat. You can eat them all in moderate amounts." So, if their diet is almost all junk food, they can still eat all that and just eat single servings.
As has been demonstrated here, "in moderation" means different things to different people.
I had a hell of a time trying to figure out what "clean" and "in moderation" meant to the users of this site. I'd ask, but get different answers. I figured out that "clean" meant very different things to different people...but most of them mean "healthy". "In moderation" also means different things to different people...but most of them mean "limit the junk."
I really think the "mostly clean" group and the "in moderation" group are saying and doing the same things and may be arguing over diction.
I disagree that cutting things out means there will be some kind of inevitable, inexorable binge (much less subsequent weight gain.) I know that doesn't hold for everyone because it doesn't hold for me. I wouldn't ever suggest that you give my advice because I think mine is better, lol. Different people offer different advice and that's good. That's why the board is so awesome. People can get a variety of ideas.
But this "clean" and "in moderation" stuff doesn't mean anything until the people using it explain what they mean.-1 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.direct from Deirdere's post on page 25:
Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice.
so yes, someone did say that.
eating in moderation
keeping eating what they are eating, just in moderation
two different things, bro.
LOL you can walk it back all you want, that is what you said…
I don't really see the difference between your parsing…but feel free to break it down for me..
eating in moderation = moderating the foods that you currently eat into a calorie deficit
keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation = moderating the foods that you currently eat into a deficit..
but feel free to enlighten me...
and you can hint at name calling by calling me a "bro" but that is just a sign of a small mind and acknowledgement that you have no better comeback than "bro"…pathetic…
0 -
maybe because it sets people up to have a bad relationship with food. If you view food as "bad" and it is something that you like then you are going to crave it, and eventually you will give in and binge on it and feel guilty and then the cycle just repeats itself < been there done that.
Additionally, people then take it to the extreme and say "well I can't eat anything bad so that means no bread, no pasta, never any fast food, no hot wings, no dessert, no nothing. So all they eat is chicken and vegetables, and then they wonder why they can reach their 1200 per day goal. The reason is that they have restricted themselves to the point where they view so many things as "bad" that they eat nothing. If you do not believe me go ahead and run a search for "can't reach daily calorie goal" or "can't reach 1200"
Rather, if people learned that food is not inherently "bad" and that you can eat what you like, stay in a deficit,and lose weight then thy would have better long term, sustainable success….It also sets people up with a more healthy relationship for food..
I bolded "it" because I'm not sure what it refers to -- I think it refers to "bad food", so I'm running with that.
I don't think of any food as bad food. I think some foods are better choices for daily long-term fullness, but hell, I just had 2 slices of pizza last night for dinner and a muffin and latte for breakfast, and I'm still down two pounds. CICO works.
You are absolutely right that when people think they have to restrict, they get pissed off and act out through overeating or they restrict so much they can't reach a 1200 goal. I have had trouble myself reaching 1400 on days when I am busy and skip a meal or am just eating my standard breakfast, lunch, dinner. One day I had 600 calories left over and spent the evening getting drunk just to use them up!
I also agree with you that if people learn that food is not bad, and they learn to stay in a deficit, then they will have better long term sustainable success.
But "and that you can eat what you like" -- that's the bit that troubles me. I want donuts and lattes, Subway sub, and pizza today and for the rest of my life. That would be so awesome! But it's simply not sustainable, and I think you would agree that it would be a crazy stupid diet.
But a lot of people *do* eat like that on a daily basis. For those people who do have a diet like that, "you can eat what you like" also sets them up to have a bad relationship with food. They continue to eat high-calorie foods, but in order to meet their numbers, the amount is so small that they get hungry, want more, get pissed, then cave in and diet fail.
There's an article here that talks about "clean" eating vs IIFYM eating, and how the best diet is somewhere in the middle. The article is written by Armi Legge, whom I don't know much about. He's about 19 years old but seems to have some support from large bulky guys. IDK, he might be batsh*t crazy, but the article made sense to me, esp this bit:
"IIFYM was largely started and spread by bodybuilders, models, and athletes who were tired of adhering to the irrational and undefinable concept of “clean eating.” For the most part, they still maintained a diet that fulfilled their essential nutrition and kept them satisfied, but they didn’t obsess over food quality like they had in the past.
The problem is when someone with no regard to food quality — little common sense or nutritional knowledge — starts IIFYM and takes it literally. Someone already eating a ton of junk food keeps eating the same amount of junk food, but in a more structured manner.
IIFYM is based on the idea that you maintain an overall nutritious diet. Unfortunately, this part is sometimes lost in translation."
-1 -
LOL you can walk it back all you want, that is what you said…
I don't really see the difference between your parsing…but feel free to break it down for me..
eating in moderation = moderating the foods that you currently eat into a calorie deficit
keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation = moderating the foods that you currently eat into a deficit..
but feel free to enlighten me...
and you can hint at name calling by calling me a "bro" but that is just a sign of a small mind and acknowledgement that you have no better comeback than "bro"…pathetic…
You seem to be saying that any food, as long as it meets the numbers, is a moderate diet.
So someone could eat donuts, subs, and pizza every day, and as long as they are at their numbers, it's a moderate diet.
Is that what you are saying?
Oh, and I apologize for the "bro" comment -- for me, "bro" just means "dude." I didn't realize, until I read the IIFYM website and other articles, that "bro" refers to a particular subset of bodybuilder. Didn't mean to hit a nerve there, my bad.0 -
I drew up a menu about 15 pages ago that consisted of donuts, subs, and pizza that met my calorie and macro numbers. I was under the calories by about 200 and over the fat by 11 grams, but the carbs, protein and sugar were either at or under the macros.
That menu did bring up another interesting question that I have and don't know the answer to -- if I hit my carbs, protein, and sugar for the day, why doesn't that mean I'll be full all day?
Is that a whole other argument, whether it's better to eat a few big meals vs a lot of small meals? Ugh, I'm not even.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.
Right. NO ONE said that.
once again you have failed on reading go back to page 25:
"Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
And that quoted advice itself is the actual terrible advice.
For some.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
gently?
Well it works for me some days not all and if I have had a stressful day forget itSabine_Stroehm wrote: »I am just going toss this out as well ok you are watching your intake of added sugars but be careful what you subsitute it with. I love raw coconut water it's good its healhly right? Yes but it also carries 12 grams of sugar ( I not going into the breakdown). Does my body know or care that I made the healhier choice? H#$@ NO all my body knows is that its 12 grams 112 calories for the whole bottle. Same with a banana 12 grams of very healthly stuff, 110 calories but if I am limiting my sugar intake to 24 grams for the day as some of the current all sugars intake diets suggest I am at my target with only the two items. So as others have suggested that is a pretty hard limit to keep under. Its so much easier to do a CI CO I can have my coconut water as a treat and try and stay below my calories for the day.
Yeah, CICO (when it involves counting, or counting, weighing, measuring) is NOT easier for me. But glad you've found what works for you.
My approach is surely depending on the concept of CICO too, yes?
I sense here that as much as we are trying to guide people gently into what will help its meet with a lot of whining of why that won't work a lot of resistance to proven methods. Did not several of us point out you have to tweek and find what works for you? If its not working then you try again you have to keep at this then hopefully you will find success.
I think weight loss relies on CICO. I also think there are many ways to create a deficit.
What's easiest and most sustainable for one person is not necessarily what's easiest and most sustainable for another.
In maintenance, there are many ways to create equilibrium. What is easiest and most sustainable for one person is not necessarily what's easiest and most sustainable for another.
THAT is reality.
(yes, I know this is a predominantly calorie counting bunch, being a calorie counting website, despite the name of the site/app.)
Yes but I think your chances of success are higher and more attainable with exercise along with balancing your intake of food ( notice I did not say sugars) old proven method here many times. That's what I think most of us are trying to convey this isn't easy it takes time and someone else pointed out it takes patience with yourself in getting to a point where everything clicks.
Old proven methods? ABSOLUTELY. The modern SAD as the basis for good health? Not so much. At least not for me. Why is it hard to accept that not everyone will do what is currently popular?
I've never said "all the foods you think taste good in moderation" doesn't work for some. I'm saying it's not how *I* approach my health.
Is how I approach my health, and how others who don't do the popular approach to IIFYM some how doing it wrong?
And yes, I did get to a point where everything clicked. About 14 years ago, in fact. It made total sense for me and it worked like a charm. And has continued to do so. Which I think is the ultimate goal.
ETA: I think it also depends on your definition of "success".0 -
can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.
I did'nt say it. Did you ? I must of missed it also. Still cant find it.
Apparently DeirdreWoodward said it.
Not that I saw.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Good lord deidre how many flags have you gotten on this thread alone?
Enough to make me jealous!
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »can i ask something? ummm don't every single human being eats with moderation?, i mean then how in the world they're so many people who have never count a calorie in their life, who have never being 1 single pound overweight, who knows anything about TDEE and macros and all that stuff, who have never hit a gym a day in their life (i have a lottt of friends like that) are in a normal weight? do they have a special gene, that we didn't got? . i've ask a couple of them today if they to stay in their normal weight ELIMINATED any food and the answer was basically hell noooooooo, many of them say that they don't make any effort to stay in their weight = translation (they eat with moderation and they are not even aware of , they eat in a good calorie range and they again don't know it)
for me moderation goes with balance and equilibrium , i can eat what i want oh yesss butt jeeezz not in the amount that i used to or the timing, i've read somewhere in the post that saying "i'll eat what i want but with moderation is basically eliminating food" (i think it was something like that), i don't see that way but if that's the definition of some people of elimination, then yes i do it
apparently, based on some comments in this thread, eating in moderation is a "terrible" idea ….
go figure…
Now you're doing it.
Nobody said that.
Right. NO ONE said that.
once again you have failed on reading go back to page 25:
"Telling people to keep eating what they are eating, just in moderation, is terrible advice."
That is not the same thing. At all.
You're now repeatedly doing the things you've been accusing Dierdre of doing...
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions