eat right and no need to count calories
Replies
-
oh and i've been maintaining for almost 2 years.
But, in general type of diet has nothing to do with it except that it the right diet for you due to preference.
You simply eat the same amount of calories you burn. One can do that on any type of diet.0 -
200 calories in pasta would be tiny and would not be filling.
It would be, and is, plenty for me.
0 -
"White Knight." It's name-calling.
what is WK?
I'd rather be the white knight than the villain and have never considered it an insult.
-1 -
*shrug* maybe it's a weakness i have then. it doesn't help that the portions are usually huge with pasta where i am from.0 -
Billions of people in the world are food-insecure, and have trouble finding enough to eat to sustain life.segacs wrote:Billions of people in the world maintain a healthy weight without ever counting calories. Most of them just intuitively don't eat too much.
Actually, you're conflating 2 different logical errors.I love the standard straw man "take it to extremes" response that always comes out in these threads.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
A straw man is "the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made".
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
"A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") has an absurd, unpleasant, or ridiculous consequence, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Taking something to extremes is reductio ad absurdum - reduction to absurdity.
"seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum0 -
Straw man is routinely done on this board. It starts with "So..." or "So you're saying..."
You'll see it done here all the time. Look for replies that begin with the word "So." Read the rest of that sentence and then compare it to what was actually said, lol. It's almost never the same thing. -1 -
You're not consuming 2000 cal of apples (4 cal/g), you're consuming 2000 cal of alcohol (7 cal/g), or maybe part of alcohol and part of sugar from the apple juice.SergeantSausage wrote:I'm an amateur orchardist (80-ish trees), ferment my own cider and find it quite easy to consume 2000 calories of apples in Apple Jack or Hard Cider form, if I'm not careful.
(And I love hard cider!!! Yum.)
So you don't have to count calories if you count calories??lemurcat wrote:You can prevent this without counting if you internalize ways to keep track of how much you are eating
0 -
Straw man is routinely done on this board. It starts with "So..." or "So you're saying..."
You'll see it done here all the time. Look for replies that begin with the word "So." Read the rest of that sentence and then compare it to what was actually said, lol. It's almost never the same thing.
Hueuehuheuheuheuhe hahahahahaha0 -
*shrug* maybe it's a weakness i have then. it doesn't help that the portions are usually huge with pasta where i am from.
Well, let me tell you,its because of our interaction I've added pasta to my dinner menu for tomorrow night. Can't wait.
0 -
what is WK?
It's what a troll calls someone who agrees with a poster they're attacking.
-2 -
I don't usually count calories and I can lose weight without counting. But I did come here because I like the community. I plan to start counting calories just so I lose at a healthy rate. I don't need to lose 3 or more pounds a week.0
-
Hi, I have a question pertaining to healthy and realistic goal creating. What is a reasonable rate of loss per week? I selected a kg a week and mbf calculated 1200 cal max a day. I'm struggling a bit with that. Would appreciate your advice.0
-
I don't know much about calories for guys but isn't 1200 cals a bit low for a guy?0
-
I see we have a lot of IIFYMers in here. But I say, youre absolutely right. I have lost over 80lbs and have not counted not one calorie. I just eat whole foods....which are pretty hard to over eat because they feel you up....and I continue to lose weight. Some people can fight cravings and some cant. Long as you throw in a cheat day then you should be good0
-
Theres no doubt if you are eating healthier foods they are generally lower calories and it should work, the thing most people need for success is to be educated so they know how many calories are in their meals each day and this is why MFP works. If you eat more than you burn, it wont matter what food it is, you will gain.
Once you're educated in calories/portion sizes, then yes, eating right works and will help you maintain.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
shelleygold wrote: »Hi, I have a question pertaining to healthy and realistic goal creating. What is a reasonable rate of loss per week? I selected a kg a week and mbf calculated 1200 cal max a day. I'm struggling a bit with that. Would appreciate your advice.
This excludes exercise calories, so when you log exercise, your target will increase. I would lower your goal loss to 0.5kg a week - may take longer but it should help adherence.0 -
shelleygold wrote: »Hi, I have a question pertaining to healthy and realistic goal creating. What is a reasonable rate of loss per week? I selected a kg a week and mbf calculated 1200 cal max a day. I'm struggling a bit with that. Would appreciate your advice.
You should start your own thread. Your post will get overlooked here, and any advice would be lost in the length and lots of people won't read this far anyway.
(But good advice from Sara.)0 -
Billions of people in the world are food-insecure, and have trouble finding enough to eat to sustain life.
Actually, you're conflating 2 different logical errors.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
A straw man is "the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody's argument, rather than the actual argument they've made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody's mouth by saying they've made arguments they haven't actually made".
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
"A straw man argument attempts to refute a given proposition by showing that a slightly different or inaccurate form of the proposition (the "straw man") has an absurd, unpleasant, or ridiculous consequence, relying on the audience not to notice that the argument does not actually apply to the original proposition."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Taking something to extremes is reductio ad absurdum - reduction to absurdity.
"seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Lol. Fallacy of Appeal to Numbers and then tries to school someone on a supposed conflation.
0 -
You're not consuming 2000 cal of apples (4 cal/g), you're consuming 2000 cal of alcohol (7 cal/g), or maybe part of alcohol and part of sugar from the apple juice.
(And I love hard cider!!! Yum.)
So you don't have to count calories if you count calories??
Point is you don't have to log or know the exact number if you find it burdensome, as some do. I log because I find it interesting and like to tweak, but I never have to rely on the logs to stay under, as the foods I choose come to roughly the calories I am aiming for just because at this point I have a good sense of the right amounts and mixes of foods, for me.
The idea is that it can be a learning experience not a requirement forever, for those who say they couldn't do it. You can do it even without knowing the calories if you focus on food choice and portion size. I lost weight and maintained it for years doing that and didn't know my calories at all. But the fact is that that's still different than just eating healthy, or just eating whole foods, of course, both of which can be low cal or not, depending.
0 -
Haha, yes! It feels like MFP is full of clever but annoying teen boys sometimes (even though they look like middle aged men and women). Lots of distortions, lots of extremes, insistence on impossible-to-meet standards, yup yup.
You mean the people who respond to eat what you want in moderation with "so what you are saying is it's healthy to eat Twinkies 24/7?"
What irritates me is that it's the "clean" people who insist they care so much more about health than the rest of us because they don't eat "processed" foods. Of course they do, but I think their claim entitles me to ask if they are living by their standards and actually eating a healthier diet than me and if so, how? How are the more processed foods I eat (and I typically give examples) hurting my health such that I should cut them out if I care about health. Because I do, that's why I have opinions about it, so I'd like to know.
You seem to be saying (but correct me if I'm wrong) that it's not hypocritical or absurd for some to define eating clean as mostly trying not to eat high calorie boxed meals, lots of pop tarts and Oreo, or fast food, but if they slip up occasionally that's life. If so, great, but then it's total ridiculousness to pretend they are eating in some special extra healthy way. The whole thing seems based on this idea that it's super hard to cook normally and eat regular meals, that everyone else should be presumed not to do it, and they deserve some kind of extra credit for just doing what most of us do.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Point is you don't have to log or know the exact number if you find it burdensome, as some do. I log because I find it interesting and like to tweak, but I never have to rely on the logs to stay under, as the foods I choose come to roughly the calories I am aiming for just because at this point I have a good sense of the right amounts and mixes of foods, for me.
The idea is that it can be a learning experience not a requirement forever, for those who say they couldn't do it. You can do it even without knowing the calories if you focus on food choice and portion size. I lost weight and maintained it for years doing that and didn't know my calories at all. But the fact is that that's still different than just eating healthy, or just eating whole foods, of course, both of which can be low cal or not, depending.
The fact that you (/or I, not a personal attack) regained the weight and then some puts to question any method used for maintenance. Some introspection when we fail and restart should result in "well, whatever I did, didn't really work in the long term."
I have no dog in the fight, I can see when calorie counting works and when it doesn't. But I think a little self criticism is necessary when people say this worked for years and then they find that in fact, it didn't. They got back to the starting point or worse.
"But it worked great until it didn't!!"
I'm right there. I think it is important, at least to me, to look at whatever method I was using and be critical of why it failed to create long term adherence.
In this sense, again for me, the whole calorie counting debate is sterile. It's like debating about using a nail gun or manually hammering in the nails to build a house. It's a tool that you chose of not to use. You still need a solid foundation, a plan and so many other things to build for the long term.
0 -
if you replace the word "healthy" with "low calorie dense" foods such as comparing eating pasta with steamed spinach would people agree it's harder to eat 1000 calories on spinach than 1000 calories on pasta because they would get full on less?
If people truly don't agree with this, I think they are trolling.
-1 -
since nobody can agree on what's considered healthy and have extended healthy to mean chips and cupcakes *rollseyes*-5 -
if you replace the word "healthy" with "low calorie dense" foods such as comparing eating pasta with steamed spinach would people agree it's harder to eat 1000 calories on spinach than 1000 calories on pasta because they would get full on less?
If people truly don't agree with this, I think they are trolling.
What you are failing to see is that feeling full isn't the only objective to eating. Either pasta or spinach can make sense in a diet based on context - if I am planning a long hard ride in the next days - a plate of pasta might make more sense than the calorie equivalent plate of spinach. Both are healthy, both are good.
If the only interest was to eat "low calorie dense food" we'd all be eating only cauliflower. So no, a "healthy diet" isn't eating only "low calorie dense" food.
Not trolling at all - just believe that healthy depends on contextual elements - some things are evident - variety to assure micronutrient needs, balance in macro nutrients, freshness, etc... But it doesn't necessarily exclude x or y foods. And personally, I like to commit to things like low packaging, proximity sourcing, low environment impact as part of "healthy" (socially) eating. But in terms of weight loss - given that adherence is one of the most important barriers and that the actual extra weight is the unhealthiest thing you can have then "healthy" eating is whatever brings to best adherence, IMHO. It is a personal context.
0 -
200 calories in pasta would be tiny and would not be filling.
I can eat 200 cals worth of pasta, which is probably what I usually eat now anyways for servings. I'm just smart and pair it with other food, because a 200 calorie meal itself is not filling unless it's all protein. Even that only lasts so long for me.0 -
Seriously?
Who is in charge of what is eating right (or whatever you want to call it)
You become overweight by eating more calories than you burn, consequently, you lose weight by eating less calories than you burn.
Do what is sustainable and RIGHT for you.0 -
elbaldwin0525 wrote: »I see we have a lot of IIFYMers in here. But I say, youre absolutely right. I have lost over 80lbs and have not counted not one calorie. I just eat whole foods....which are pretty hard to over eat because they feel you up....and I continue to lose weight. Some people can fight cravings and some cant. Long as you throw in a cheat day then you should be good
Depends on the person. I don't do well with "cheats." I do better eating what I feel like eating when it fits into my day or when I feel like eating it. I also lost weight eating as you are right now, but it also wasn't sustainable for me. As someone mentioned above, not counting cals led me to losing really fast - 50-60lbs in 6 months. For some that wouldn't be that fast, but considering I wasn't obese... that is a lot. And I was unable to lean out as I wanted. Then I gained the weight back over time as I switched from cardio lover to (albeit poor) weight training.
So my biggest issue with restrictive dieting is that a) it's restricting potential foods I enjoy eating nad would like to eat without delegating it to once a week only, b) it's much harder for me to estimate proper protein minimum intake without tracking it because I instinctively prefer carby and fatty foods, c) not tracking leads me to easily eat too much or not eat enough. I had to exercise 6+ hrs a week to lose weight on your diet, whenever I'd slack on the exercise I still ate the same and gained.
Definitely YMMV. Choose the diet approach that doesn't feel like a diet to you. Be as lenient or as strict as works for you. I discovered that I need to be very lenient; outside of tracking cals and macros (protein), it's all just winged throughout the day now. Otherwise it causes mental blocks.0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Exactly why if you are serious about weight loss you should keep all crap (chips, cookies, pretzels, cake, ice cream) out of your kitchen. One can argue that you will lose weight because you will eat fewer calories, or one can argue that cutting junk carbs and sugar results in weight loss. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.
Yes, there are some people with incredible self control (apparently most of the posters here), who can manage to indulge in two Oreos, five pretzels and three potato chips at the end of the evening to reach their calorie limit. But most people can't, and end up eating the entire bag of potato chips. That is why most people fail at dieting, whether it is CICO or other diets.
Keep the temptations out of your house. If you want a donut, go to Dunkin Donuts and get one. Don't buy a dozen and bring them home.
Cutting calories and removing high-calorie foods are basically the exact same this with different words being used. Both result in caloric deficit. One simply means that you are reducing calories from any food, the other means that you are restricting what you are allowed to eat. This only worked for me for a few years last time. I've lost more than 25lbs still eating "junk," because I've been monitoring my caloric intake.
To the person quoted before this, eating only chicken breast, egg whites (dude, where the frack are your whole eggs? I only use egg whites to beef up a whole-egg omelet or when recipes call for them), raw veggies, and fruit would be sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo boring, tedious, I'd hate it. I've done it, I eventually hated it. Yes, it's a bit less work, but it's also in some ways more work because I had to decide what foods were "safe" so to speak for my eating patterns. Now it's just about figuring out what portion size will fit into my needs for any food.
I also will gladly eat "junk" in the day to get towards my macro goals, or if I just feel like eating a cookie wth lunch just cuz. I have almost a dozen donuts, maybe 4 muffins, 2 cinnamon buns, and lots of chocolate (christmas, mostly) in my house. Some of this stuff I've had for at least a month, other stuff (like some of the chocolate) even longer. Now that I know it's not off limits, I don't feel the urge to stuff my face with it. But I guess it's also because I know and care about my overall macro goals, so I'm willing to say no to a donut if it means fulfilling the last 20g of protein I need that day. I think I might pack a donut for lunch now
So personally, I find it rude to say that unless you cut out x foods from your life/house that you are not serious about weight loss. I don't tell others who cut out foods that they are not being serious about weightloss, although I usually point out that their approach will likely not be sustainable for life - this is based both on things I've heard from others and from my own experience.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.1K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 445 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions