eat right and no need to count calories
Options
Replies
-
http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-9686/how-processed-foods-are-killing-you-one-bite-at-a-time.html
I like to think long term, not just the quick fix.-9 -
christinev297 wrote: »I happen to like kalikels post. Made sense to me
yep, me too.-1 -
When I began, I was advised to eat healthy, exercise and not worry about anything else. I had special restrictions in addition to that, but could eat all the fruits and veggies my little heart desired.
Without logging, counting, weighing myself or doing any of the things that are so common for weight loss, I lost my first forty pounds. I was shocked when I found out how much I'd lost. Since my clothes got bigger and too big, I knew I'd lost, but was FLOORED by forty pounds. I literally got off and back on the scale and considered that I might've been weighed wrong in the first place, but it would've required like a dozen people doing it wrong in six or eight different places, so there was no error.
If you eat only the healthiest of foods - all healthy, all the time - it's really hard to overeat. You'll see people here asking about how to get to 1200 eating only the healthiest of food. While it's theoretically possible, it would be very difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time.
You bring this on yourself. You know that, right?
1) Marry me, I love you.
2) You owe me a monitor cleaning and some more wine, because I just sprayed my screen with red wine. :laugh:0 -
I've read in a number of books and articles, one today, that if you are eating right (or healthy or clean or however you call it) then you don't need to measure food or count calories. Since this is a calorie-counting site I assume you have not found this to be the case? Is it likely one will continue to carry excess fat even when eating healthy, if calories aren't controlled too?
I read this in a book by Bethany Frankel. I haven't tried it.rileysowner wrote: »I have a number of friends both here on MFP and in person who are Vegan even mainly raw Vegan who are overweight, one would be classified as Obese. Yes a person can get fat on the so called healthy foods just as much as they can with the so called unhealthy foods. It may be somewhat more difficult, but it is just as likely.
Ah I gained 30 pounds after becoming a vegetarian. The problem is Oreos are vegan. So are french fries.Glockland43 wrote: »Look up Freelee the Banana Girl, she'll blow your mind! If not for all seriousness then for fun. She's crazy.
after reading your post, i looked her up
SHE IS A MORON, no one should ever follow that crap
Dont even mention her as the less people know the better man kind is
I agree. I can't imagine 95% of my calories coming from fruit. Or the bowel movements that would follow. She said she ditched supplements so she's not even taking vitamins to get the nutrition she's missing.0 -
Best of luck on your journey. This is a calorie counting website (despite its name). You'll likely find that most folks attempting to lose weight are counting calories.
That said: Many people, throughout time have lived at a good weight, so obviously it's possible. It's probably harder for the average person now, particularly one who lives in a country that eats a standard western pattern diet to BE at a healthy weight but it IS possible.
I'd suggest that if you DON'T want to count calories, you'd be best served by eating a nutrient dense, primarily whole food, plant based diet, with adequate protein and fats.
And you'd probably want to count calories etc. (or estimate them) while you transition to such a diet. OH and be very, very active. Best of luck. It's doable!0 -
I've read in a number of books and articles, one today, that if you are eating right (or healthy or clean or however you call it) then you don't need to measure food or count calories. Since this is a calorie-counting site I assume you have not found this to be the case? Is it likely one will continue to carry excess fat even when eating healthy, if calories aren't controlled too?
Over the weekend I made a " healthy " sandwich for a friend ( who luckily is skinny ). It was a home baked roll made from sprouted grains and seed flour. Home made Hummus & mayonnaise ( made from prime olive oil, organic limes and organic apple cider vinegar ), one avocado, organic Brie cheese, home cured Serrano ham, home grown lettuce, sun dried tomatoes and home pickled chiles and vegetables and the sandwich came in at...........721 calories........while I am sure that it was " healthy " and probably easy to eat, for most of us a over 700 calorie sandwich is just much too much, no matter how healthy.
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
You needed more qualifiers, like "once you've hit your micro and macro needs, treats are just fine as long as you don't overshoot your calorie needs." That is a far cry from 'everything in moderation'.
0 -
deviboy1592 wrote: »http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-9686/how-processed-foods-are-killing-you-one-bite-at-a-time.html
I like to think long term, not just the quick fix.
lulz at the link and its hyperbole.0 -
I've read in a number of books and articles, one today, that if you are eating right (or healthy or clean or however you call it) then you don't need to measure food or count calories. Since this is a calorie-counting site I assume you have not found this to be the case? Is it likely one will continue to carry excess fat even when eating healthy, if calories aren't controlled too?
Over the weekend I made a " healthy " sandwich for a friend ( who luckily is skinny ). It was a home baked roll made from sprouted grains and seed flour. Home made Hummus & mayonnaise ( made from prime olive oil, organic limes and organic apple cider vinegar ), one avocado, organic Brie cheese, home cured Serrano ham, home grown lettuce, sun dried tomatoes and home pickled chiles and vegetables and the sandwich came in at...........721 calories........while I am sure that it was " healthy " and probably easy to eat, for most of us a over 700 calorie sandwich is just much too much, no matter how healthy.
can use some common sense in healthy intuitive eating. this is obviously going to be high calorie. doesn't mean you have to start logging though.
this is not something i would ever eat.0 -
I completely disagree with this. There are too many high calorie choices that could be considered "healthy". If I ate grass fed steak, eggs, almonds/almond butter, milk, avocados, coconut oil, bananas, natural peanut butter, oats, granola, etc I could easily eat above my maintenance, and my maintenance is over 3000 calories. Someone with a smaller maintenance could do it even easier.When I began, I was advised to eat healthy, exercise and not worry about anything else. I had special restrictions in addition to that, but could eat all the fruits and veggies my little heart desired.
Without logging, counting, weighing myself or doing any of the things that are so common for weight loss, I lost my first forty pounds. I was shocked when I found out how much I'd lost. Since my clothes got bigger and too big, I knew I'd lost, but was FLOORED by forty pounds. I literally got off and back on the scale and considered that I might've been weighed wrong in the first place, but it would've required like a dozen people doing it wrong in six or eight different places, so there was no error.
If you eat only the healthiest of foods - all healthy, all the time - it's really hard to overeat. You'll see people here asking about how to get to 1200 eating only the healthiest of food. While it's theoretically possible, it would be very difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time.
I guess, but really, who's going to have a steak-egg-avocado-peanut butter sandwich?
Most people tend not to eat as much when all they eat is home-cooked meals.
Fact is, when people mostly ate nothing but home-cooked meals, fewer people were overweight. Fact is, wherever the fast food industry takes hold, obesity rates rise in previously normal-weight populations.
I gained all the weight I recently lost without eating fast food. For the most significant portion of it I mostly ate home cooked food, although I also went out to eat about as often as I do now. The restaurants I go to are mostly the seasonal, local kind, so no more "processed" than what I cook at home.
It's really easy to eat high calories when cooking at home. It's also reasonably easy to cook in a way that's not high calorie--if you care and bother to do so. It's no magic pill against gaining weight, though.
In fact, I'd bet the main benefit of home cooking as a protection against getting fat is not that the food is somehow less caloric than much of the "processed" stuff you can buy (which varies widely in all respects, including number of calories and how nutrient dense it is, such that generalizing about it makes no sense). Instead, it's that it takes work to cook something, whereas if you buy stuff it's easier to snack constantly.0 -
I had the most weight loss success following paleo, never counting anything yet only eating when hungry. I disagree completely with having to count calories. I use this site to stay accountable and make sure I am getting enough fiber and keeping sugars low (even natural). But i also think we all find what works and what we can commit to.
if any one wants info on paleo check out marksdailyapple.com-5 -
yes, I find if I avoid too many carbs, I can go long periods of time without logging food at all and not gain.
yeah, me too, in the past. i think it's true that if you stick to food rules, counting can be less important. but it requires close adherence to the rules. exceptions have a way of slipping past a lot of people. counting calories is a surer way of knowing what's going in.
basically, it takes rigourous attention to either quantity (calories) or quality (food choices). ( both = better)
I think this is true too, but I'd say it's not about eating "healthy" but eating according to particular rules that tend to enforce lower calories, which you may, of course, tell yourself is the same as eating healthy. (I've lost weight without counting in the past and maintained it for 5 years. I regained, but not because I wasn't counting. I find counting helpful, but not necessary--I pretty much know what foods will fit within my idea of the right amount for me to eat and what won't. IMO, logging or counting is a potential tool for helping me to care or find a way to modify if I don't at some point in the future where that might be an issue. If you don't care enough to log, it's also quite possible--at some point--that you won't care enough to follow your internal rules. That's what led to my regain before, after 5 years.)
As I recall from other things Kalikel has said, she considers healthy to be to some extent overlapping with low fat, or at least wanted to lower her fat for other reasons. It's absolutely true that if you try to cut, say, sugar and fat, that it will often be quite hard to make 1200 calories. I think that's how most of the people who worry about that end up there--they go overboard cutting things that happen to have lots of calories.
The problem is that having lots of calories doesn't make something unhealthy unless you define it that way. Meat is the classic example, especially when people start going on about "clean" or whole foods. Lean cuts are no more "clean" than eating the whole animal, I wouldn't think. I guess if you focus on health you can go with the idea that animal fat (including that in dairy and whole eggs) is unhealthy and thus say healthy=low fat, but I think there is some evidence that freaking out about fat was not a beneficial thing overall.
Similarly, some do the same thing by cutting carbs and I think it's great if that works for you, but I don't believe that's the same thing as just eating "healthy." Plenty of high calorie carbs are perfectly healthy under any reasonable definition.0 -
Downvote on MDA. That place is filled with more junk science and crap advice than you can shake a bro at.0
-
deviboy1592 wrote: »deviboy1592 wrote: »http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-9686/how-processed-foods-are-killing-you-one-bite-at-a-time.html
I like to think long term, not just the quick fix.
lulz at the link and its hyperbole.
Wow your just like the Taco Bell dog, no input on the OP. Thanks for your opinion.
I already posted earlier skippy.
Nice ad hominem attack also.-3 -
The thing about weight loss is that for most of us it is hard. The body doesn't particularly want to lose weight (particularly significant amounts of weight). So it takes purposeful choices. That can be done in a lot of different ways, but calorie counting is perhaps one of the easier ways because it arms you with clear understanding of your intake.0
-
I completely disagree with this. There are too many high calorie choices that could be considered "healthy". If I ate grass fed steak, eggs, almonds/almond butter, milk, avocados, coconut oil, bananas, natural peanut butter, oats, granola, etc I could easily eat above my maintenance, and my maintenance is over 3000 calories. Someone with a smaller maintenance could do it even easier.When I began, I was advised to eat healthy, exercise and not worry about anything else. I had special restrictions in addition to that, but could eat all the fruits and veggies my little heart desired.
Without logging, counting, weighing myself or doing any of the things that are so common for weight loss, I lost my first forty pounds. I was shocked when I found out how much I'd lost. Since my clothes got bigger and too big, I knew I'd lost, but was FLOORED by forty pounds. I literally got off and back on the scale and considered that I might've been weighed wrong in the first place, but it would've required like a dozen people doing it wrong in six or eight different places, so there was no error.
If you eat only the healthiest of foods - all healthy, all the time - it's really hard to overeat. You'll see people here asking about how to get to 1200 eating only the healthiest of food. While it's theoretically possible, it would be very difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time.
I could see how this could happen for instance, my handful of peanuts is just over a 1/4 cup and = 200 cals. so just a couple handfulls and I've got 400 cals give or take. Same with natural peanut butter with no added anything 2 tbls = 200. Those servings are not large at all and wont last long to me. And a simple avacado and a handfull of peanuts and you got 400 cals easy. That wont keep me full for very long anyway.
0 -
Healthy eating includes watchingcholesterol, sodium, fat content and sticking to lean, white meats. You won't be able to eat too many of those eggs sticking to All Healthy, All The Time.
I completely disagree with this. There are too many high calorie choices that could be considered "healthy". If I ate grass fed steak, eggs, almonds/almond butter, milk, avocados, coconut oil, bananas, natural peanut butter, oats, granola, etc I could easily eat above my maintenance, and my maintenance is over 3000 calories. Someone with a smaller maintenance could do it even easier.When I began, I was advised to eat healthy, exercise and not worry about anything else. I had special restrictions in addition to that, but could eat all the fruits and veggies my little heart desired.
Without logging, counting, weighing myself or doing any of the things that are so common for weight loss, I lost my first forty pounds. I was shocked when I found out how much I'd lost. Since my clothes got bigger and too big, I knew I'd lost, but was FLOORED by forty pounds. I literally got off and back on the scale and considered that I might've been weighed wrong in the first place, but it would've required like a dozen people doing it wrong in six or eight different places, so there was no error.
If you eat only the healthiest of foods - all healthy, all the time - it's really hard to overeat. You'll see people here asking about how to get to 1200 eating only the healthiest of food. While it's theoretically possible, it would be very difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time.
I'm not saying you couldn't gain weight eating whatever you choose to eat, just that people sometimes have a really hard time hitting 1200 when doing All Healthy, All The Time.
But I respect your opinion and think the boards are better when there are multiple opinions posted. Not trying to start a big fight, just clarify.
Why would non-lean meats not be healthy? Does that make fish not healthy? As was pointed out, nuts (and fish) are very healthy in most people's eyes but they are very calorie (fat) dense.
Bigger picture must be examined, not single items as you are eating them.0 -
QuietBloom wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
You needed more qualifiers, like "once you've hit your micro and macro needs, treats are just fine as long as you don't overshoot your calorie needs." That is a far cry from 'everything in moderation'.
You can use treats to meet your macro needs if desired. I've used muffins, chocolate, and donuts to meet fat and carb needs when I was eating my last meal late and didn't want to go to bed with a super full stomach caused by too much food volume. Or just when I really wanted one and saw that I had the macros left for it.
And to say that you need to meet your macro needs before eating treats doesn't really help, because that lends one to assume that one needs to meet all fo their macros, i.e. eat to their calorie goal, which then removes the possibility for treats.0 -
Slideshow: Simple Secrets to Portion Control and Healthy Eating
http://www.m.webmd.com/diet/ss/slideshow-serving-sizes-3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I completely disagree with this. There are too many high calorie choices that could be considered "healthy". If I ate grass fed steak, eggs, almonds/almond butter, milk, avocados, coconut oil, bananas, natural peanut butter, oats, granola, etc I could easily eat above my maintenance, and my maintenance is over 3000 calories. Someone with a smaller maintenance could do it even easier.When I began, I was advised to eat healthy, exercise and not worry about anything else. I had special restrictions in addition to that, but could eat all the fruits and veggies my little heart desired.
Without logging, counting, weighing myself or doing any of the things that are so common for weight loss, I lost my first forty pounds. I was shocked when I found out how much I'd lost. Since my clothes got bigger and too big, I knew I'd lost, but was FLOORED by forty pounds. I literally got off and back on the scale and considered that I might've been weighed wrong in the first place, but it would've required like a dozen people doing it wrong in six or eight different places, so there was no error.
If you eat only the healthiest of foods - all healthy, all the time - it's really hard to overeat. You'll see people here asking about how to get to 1200 eating only the healthiest of food. While it's theoretically possible, it would be very difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time.
I guess, but really, who's going to have a steak-egg-avocado-peanut butter sandwich?
Most people tend not to eat as much when all they eat is home-cooked meals.
Fact is, when people mostly ate nothing but home-cooked meals, fewer people were overweight. Fact is, wherever the fast food industry takes hold, obesity rates rise in previously normal-weight populations.
I gained all the weight I recently lost without eating fast food. For the most significant portion of it I mostly ate home cooked food, although I also went out to eat about as often as I do now. The restaurants I go to are mostly the seasonal, local kind, so no more "processed" than what I cook at home.
It's really easy to eat high calories when cooking at home. It's also reasonably easy to cook in a way that's not high calorie--if you care and bother to do so. It's no magic pill against gaining weight, though.
In fact, I'd bet the main benefit of home cooking as a protection against getting fat is not that the food is somehow less caloric than much of the "processed" stuff you can buy (which varies widely in all respects, including number of calories and how nutrient dense it is, such that generalizing about it makes no sense). Instead, it's that it takes work to cook something, whereas if you buy stuff it's easier to snack constantly.
that's quite possible. i'm thinking of france, again, though, with their lower obesity rates (compared to many western countries) but high-cal deliciousness. their children are thinner, too, and i doubt they're doing the bulk of the cooking and shopping. the kids are gaining, though, and it's thought the fact that they're snacking more does have something to do with it (vs. 3 squares), along with fast food.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions