eat right and no need to count calories
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
oh no, it's definitely related to reducing calories overall. it's more whether people operate better (for them) by using rules of thumb ("no french fries") or by logging calories consistently.
0 -
Good article by Armi Legge from an interview by Nia Shanks:
http://www.niashanks.com/stay-lean-without-tracking/
This is more about stopping tracking than not tracking in the first place.0 -
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.
There is also activity levels and portion sizes to consider.
0 -
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.
There is also activity levels and portion sizes to consider.
Wow that's basically everything in the webmd article I posted.-7 -
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.
I'm just getting into eating more fish. I had 4 oz flounder today. It was only 80 calories according to mfp. not exactly all that calorie dense. am i missing something here?0 -
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.
There is also activity levels and portion sizes to consider.
Sure, of course, lots of factors. Here are some
http://karenlebillon.com/2012/09/17/french-kids-dont-get-fat-why/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health-advisor/we-should-look-to-this-country-for-ways-to-fight-growing-child-obesity/article16891921/
apologies for lack of primary research articles, it's late and i'm tired0 -
The number of calories coming in vs the amount of calories going out will determine whether we lose, maintain, or gain weight. This is true whether it is clean food, protein, carbs, fat, or twinkies That does not matter (as far as weight control). The QUALITY of our intake (good "clean" foods) will determine the nutrition our bodies are able to absorb. The best for our bodies is the right amount of good nutritious food but the to lose weight, we can eat nothing but candy bars as long as it is fewer calories than what we take in... I have experienced this many years ago, myself... Too much good nutritious foods and you gain weight... I've experienced that as well.0
-
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.
There is also activity levels and portion sizes to consider.
Sure, of course, lots of factors. Here are some
http://karenlebillon.com/2012/09/17/french-kids-dont-get-fat-why/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health-advisor/we-should-look-to-this-country-for-ways-to-fight-growing-child-obesity/article16891921/
apologies for lack of primary research articles, it's late and i'm tired
No worries re the articles - its more of a discussion anyway.
The first link - its funny, it mentions that most kids do not know the fat content of whole milk - I never knew it until I moved to the States (I am from the UK originally). The point about associating food with pleasure and celebration definitely resonates. When I was growing up, meals were a family and/or social occasion.
It also points to something that has IMO a huge impact, environmental factors, for example, the availability of the highly caloric, palatable and less satiating foods.0 -
"French school lunches are used as a pedagogical tool, introducing a broad range of dishes, fresh vegetables, and fruits. Strict Ministry of Education regulations ensure that fried food is served no more than once per month, children drink only water at lunch; instead of flavored milk, traditional cheeses or yogurts are served. Ketchup is served a maximum of once per week–and only with foods with which it is traditionally used as a condiment, such as steak. Portion sizes are limited (one piece of delicious baguette per child, at my daughters’ school). And vending machines are banned in all schools. Yes, that means no soda pop, no processed food, and no fast food. Kids learn to like the taste of ‘whole food’. This doesn’t mean deprivation, but rather moderation: sweet treats (like Cherry Clafoutis in cherry season, or Chocolate Mousse) are served once a week. So French kids learn to ‘treat treats as treats"
Sounds like they treated their junk food as treats, with a more healthier intake of good food. Way to go France.0 -
deviboy1592 wrote: »"French school lunches are used as a pedagogical tool, introducing a broad range of dishes, fresh vegetables, and fruits. Strict Ministry of Education regulations ensure that fried food is served no more than once per month, children drink only water at lunch; instead of flavored milk, traditional cheeses or yogurts are served. Ketchup is served a maximum of once per week–and only with foods with which it is traditionally used as a condiment, such as steak. Portion sizes are limited (one piece of delicious baguette per child, at my daughters’ school). And vending machines are banned in all schools. Yes, that means no soda pop, no processed food, and no fast food. Kids learn to like the taste of ‘whole food’. This doesn’t mean deprivation, but rather moderation: sweet treats (like Cherry Clafoutis in cherry season, or Chocolate Mousse) are served once a week. So French kids learn to ‘treat treats as treats"
Sounds like they treated their junk food as treats, with a more healthier intake of good food. Way to go France.
So I guess you really don't need to count calories.0 -
Flounder is a non fatty fish. Along with tilapia, tuna, and many others they are basically the fish equivalent of chicken breast. 4oz of Mackerel on the other hand is 230 calories. Atlantic salmon is 240. Those are both great sources of omega 3 fatty acids and generally deemed "healthy" sources of protein and fat. Also, someone like me is never going to eat 4 ounces of meat/fish. I'm going to usually eat 10-12 ounces. So if I eat 12 ounces of salmon, something that is not uncommon for me, that's 720 calories. If I'm trying to lose weight, I usually eat around 2500 calories. That salmon just accounted for almost 30% of my total daily calories. Healthy? By most peoples definition, yes. Can it easily be over consumed? It sure can be!
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.
I'm just getting into eating more fish. I had 4 oz flounder today. It was only 80 calories according to mfp. not exactly all that calorie dense. am i missing something here?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.
I'm just getting into eating more fish. I had 4 oz flounder today. It was only 80 calories according to mfp. not exactly all that calorie dense. am i missing something here?
1) that's a tiny-*kitten* portion
2) flounder is a low-fat fish. Salmon, for instance, is over 200 calories for the same weight (cooked in both cases).0 -
Your definition of healthy includes sticking to lean, white, meats. That's not everyone's definition of healthy. I happen to think eating salmon, mackerel, steak, lamb, avocado, almonds, etc is perfectly healthy. This is an inherent problem with trying to "eat healthy". There is no definition of what "healthy" is. I also find no reason to pay much attention to sodium. I do not have hypertension or kidney disease and until I do, I find no problems with eating twice the RDA for sodium some days. Someone who has moderate to severe hypertension really aught to watching their sodium. While it's not necessarily "unhealthy" for me to eat a lot of sodium, it can be quite "unhealthy" for someone else too. This is why it is an exercise in futility to classify individual foods as clean and dirty, or healthy and unhealthy. It's completely subjective and in the end, it's how those foods fit together in a total diet and how that total diet complements the individuals needs that matter.
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.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.
long term? that would require actual thinking, and any attempt at rational thought would bar anyone from sharing that link. 9 items on the other side of that link, and a total of 8 hyperbolic lies. that one thing that's not a ridiculous lie is debatable, at best.
perhaps next time go for the science backed fix instead of the quick one?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.
long term? that would require actual thinking, and any attempt at rational thought would bar anyone from sharing that link. 9 items on the other side of that link, and a total of 8 hyperbolic lies. that one thing that's not a ridiculous lie is debatable, at best.
perhaps next time go for the science backed fix instead of the quick one?
All the information is the same, doesn't matter where you find it, I'm still waiting to see one article that states that health benefits of processed food, fast food, or what we like to call junk food. Haven't seen one shred of evidence or science based fact other than meeting someone's calorie intake.
And long term take actual thinking? If that's not a useless statement I don't know what is. It doesn't take actual thought to know what's good for you. Just look at the kids in France. Wow some winners in here.-5 -
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.
long term? that would require actual thinking, and any attempt at rational thought would bar anyone from sharing that link. 9 items on the other side of that link, and a total of 8 hyperbolic lies. that one thing that's not a ridiculous lie is debatable, at best.
perhaps next time go for the science backed fix instead of the quick one?
All the information is the same, doesn't matter where you find it, I'm still waiting to see one article that states that health benefits of processed food, fast food, or what we like to call junk food. Haven't seen one shred of evidence or science based fact other than meeting someone's calorie intake.
And long term take actual thinking? If that's not a useless statement I don't know what is. It doesn't take actual thought to know what's good for you. Just look at the kids in France. Wow some winners in here.
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.
long term? that would require actual thinking, and any attempt at rational thought would bar anyone from sharing that link. 9 items on the other side of that link, and a total of 8 hyperbolic lies. that one thing that's not a ridiculous lie is debatable, at best.
perhaps next time go for the science backed fix instead of the quick one?
All the information is the same, doesn't matter where you find it, I'm still waiting to see one article that states that health benefits of processed food, fast food, or what we like to call junk food. Haven't seen one shred of evidence or science based fact other than meeting someone's calorie intake.
And long term take actual thinking? If that's not a useless statement I don't know what is. It doesn't take actual thought to know what's good for you. Just look at the kids in France. Wow some winners in here.
Yes we are.0 -
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.
Snacking is an issue when it adds calories (usually) not the actual frequency.
I live in France. Snacking is and has always been an integral part of the cultural make up here. It even has a name. Le quatre heure - what used to kids get when coming home. Children here have a pause at school and get to eat a snack in school (historically might have been the first meal).
The reasons for the rise of obesity are multi factorial - yes, availability of calorie dense food is probably a factor but so is the decline in activity level, increase in transport, etc.
Personally, when in France it is easy to see fast food on every street corner (kebab, burgers, what not) in major cities but a large part of our own cooking and shopping is oriented to open air markets.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
Snacking is an issue when it adds calories (usually) not the actual frequency.
I live in France. Snacking is and has always been an integral part of the cultural make up here. It even has a name. Le quatre heure - what used to kids get when coming home. Children here have a pause at school and get to eat a snack in school (historically might have been the first meal).
The reasons for the rise of obesity are multi factorial - yes, availability of calorie dense food is probably a factor but so is the decline in activity level, increase in transport, etc.
Personally, when in France it is easy to see fast food on every street corner (kebab, burgers, what not) in major cities but a large part of our own cooking and shopping is oriented to open air markets.
What kind of foods are on the rise that could be causing the increase of weight gain?0 -
It's like saying "if you spend right, you never run into debt" - well, some people need a budget to help them manage and household with their money, me for example. If I don't track what I spend (money and calorie wise), it is easy for me to go over, as I happily give in to temptation. So where some people naturally eat right and don't need to count calories, others do to help them stay right/healthy. Each to their own, and each to what works for them.0
-
deviboy1592 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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.
Snacking is an issue when it adds calories (usually) not the actual frequency.
I live in France. Snacking is and has always been an integral part of the cultural make up here. It even has a name. Le quatre heure - what used to kids get when coming home. Children here have a pause at school and get to eat a snack in school (historically might have been the first meal).
The reasons for the rise of obesity are multi factorial - yes, availability of calorie dense food is probably a factor but so is the decline in activity level, increase in transport, etc.
Personally, when in France it is easy to see fast food on every street corner (kebab, burgers, what not) in major cities but a large part of our own cooking and shopping is oriented to open air markets.
What kind of foods are on the rise that could be causing the increase of weight gain?
Availability of calorie rich food is only one factor. For example, pastries of all sorts, baguette are a major staple in local diet and have been present for years in the traditional boulangerie. But the cost of these - relative to cost of living has apparently gone down.
You want to focus on some evil food but it doesn't work like that - in a demographic process it's always multifactorial. For example, my two youngest daughters eat snacks - packaged cookies to apple sauce, mousse au chocolat, croissants to fruit yogurts and what not. They aren't fat. Partially because the amount of rich food they eat is also balanced by a majority of home prepared meals and balanced eating. I also have a picky eater who dislikes sweets, but would eat pasta until she exploded. We watch that. Another reason they aren't overweight is that their activity level is set to 11 (running, fencing, circus, school sport activity, climbing, cycling and getting to school on foot).
Regional genetics also play roles in height and weight...
From your posts you seem to continue to focus on some sort of diabolical food list but it just isn't so. Having said that, it's also fine if that works for you - treating certain foods as "bad" or "unhealthy" has been a very successful weightloss method. You restrict out those foods that are calorie dense and voila, one loses weight. It works. Of course, the issue is then is it maintainable?
Personally, I find it to be the wrong focus for the long term. For me, it's more about an approach that allows me to eat a large variety of anything (I'm about 70% local produce and market purchased goods, probably eat too much cured ham) but assure its aligned with an activity level that focuses on having a strong active body across a variety of fields. Diet without consideration of activity has led me down the path of either remaining overweight or crash and burn when I don't feed myself enough.
In all that, overall context matters more than any single food type.0 -
The difference is as Izzwoz said above. My husband can have the most luscious gorgeous delicious looking pizza in front of him with everything he likes and made just right (and he likes the high calorie toppings!!) and he will eat until he is satisfied no more no less. He has maintained throughout his adult life a slim 60-65kg weight. Me on the other hand give me a burger (because I hate pizza) and I will eat till I'm stuffed or possibly even until I feel sick which may not seem like allot to bing eaters but a large double whopper meal is ALLOT of food for me. I have a thing about leaving food on plates which stems back from the old "eat all of your dinner or you get no dessert" and mum would feed us HUGE plates of food (3 little girls and we were fed like teenaged boys who played sports all day). I distinctly remember going to mcdonalds and ordering 2 burgers, thick shake, large fries and a sundae and no-one raising an eyebrow. Now do I blame my parents? No, I'm an adult I can and should be making these decisions for myself but I find it hard to decide when I am full let alone satisfied and quite often I only stop eating when my plate is empty. The only way I get around this is to portion things out before hand, use smaller plates/bowls etc. Intuitive eating doesn't work for me.
My point from the novel above is that it is absolutely possible for SOME people but I think that they are few and far between especially with serving sizes, plates, restaurant serves all ballooning making judging how much you are actually consuming harder.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?
Riiiiiight.
A junkie will believe anything in support of their habit. Food junkies are not excluded.
Data point: My grandma ate virtually nothing that didn't come off their land. Garden fresh everything, orchard fruit/juices, vinyard juicr/wine, farm fresh eggs, you name it - it was raised/grown organically in their yard and was "healthy"... she died early from kidney failure. Complication from decades of Type II Diabetes due to being 450+ pounds during her 30s, 40s, and 50s.
You can overeat anything. Even good "healthy" food.0 -
If you have just started here and you are overweight, just eating healthily has probably not worked for you.0
-
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 was a raw vegan for a time. It's a very healthy, delicious way to eat.
It's also full of nuts, seeds, dates, and avocados.
Now, I moderated myself from going crazy on some of the food that I found particularly delicious, and trust me, it was hard, because the food was tasty. I could easily have gained.
The only reason I didn't gain is because I had learned, by that point in my life, how to be moderate.
The one thing I did not do was lose.
0 -
I used MFP to religiously log everything I ate for more than 3 months last Fall, then I fell off the wagon when I got weary of doing it! Right now I'm eating "as if" counting and it works well if I stick with the program. Not so well if I overeat. Funny about that.0
-
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.
I think the bigger reasons are the differences between our food cultures. When the US used to eat according to our own traditional eating patterns, we weren't obese. Pretty much any cultural patterns are fine, so long as they exist and tend to limit when and how people eat. In the US, though, we've largely lost though--people don't seem to have an innate understanding of what dinner looks like or when we eat or how much, at least lots of people do not. I think this is far more related to the obesity issue than the fact that McD exists or whatever.
Also, of course, we walk less than the French, which can't be dismissed.
These active conversations are kind of getting intertwined in an interesting way, so I can't help but think about the "clean" debate elsewhere. The French, of course, are a decent illustration of what I was talking about in the other thread--they don't "eat clean" as that is defined here, or might be defined by those whose ideas of "clean" or "healthy" is low calorie--for just one example, cheese. (I think we'd be healthier in the US if we focused on eating really good cheese and not the lowest calorie cheese possible or deciding that cheese is the devil so must be eliminated.) Instead, they get (on average) much more balanced meals than we do, focusing on nutrient dense foods, etc., without eliminating those things we demonize. It's a much healthier approach and I think what a lot of the pro moderation people would like to emulate (well, me, anyway).
When I speak of snacking in the US I'm not talking about eating any particular number of meals or times, which does not matter. I'm talking about the ease of just eating constantly all day or for whatever reason. I think that where food is imbedded in cultural rituals people tend not to overeat regularly. Where it's not, we do, especially as for many people that causes it to get detached from real hunger too.
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.
I'm just getting into eating more fish. I had 4 oz flounder today. It was only 80 calories according to mfp. not exactly all that calorie dense. am i missing something here?
IME, most fish is pretty low calorie, even salmon and other fattier fish. It varies a lot, though. (I don't focus on "lean meats" particularly and usually eat my chicken with the skin, so maybe my idea of what's low is distorted, however.)0 -
I watch an obesity show once where a 600+ pound guys gained 2 pounds. The doctor assumed he was bad with his diet. The man said all he ate was oranges the past 2 days. The doctor asked how many oranges. The man said he ate 54 oranges a day. Healthy food but gained weight.0
-
You can still eat too much of healthy foods. My husband and I have this debate every day, as he claims he isn't losing weight even though he eats the same things that I do. Today, he had a bowl of oatmeal with granola and fruit that actually overflowed the bowl, while I measure all my portions.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions