eat right and no need to count calories
Options
Replies
-
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
So, you're saying low carb foods are healthy and pasta is not healthy, or as healthy?
I say it's difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time and you say it isn't.
It isn't my definition, lol. I take advice from experts.
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.
I know many MFP people do not trust:
Doctors, because they're not smart
CDC, because government lies
Health associations, like Amercian Heart, because they have an agenda
Etc.
I do trust all those people when they all say that eating healthy (as they define it) may help me avoid illness. Avoiding illness is something I'm in favor of doing!
For various reasons, they suggest avoiding certain foods and keeping the salt lower than most Americans do.
If you stick to their recommendations and only their recommendations - All Healthy, All The Time - it's hard to gain weight.
If you add a bunch of stuff that they don't recommend and call it "healthy," that's a different ball game.
If you overdo it on the sodium, you may end up regretting it later. I'm not sure where you got the info that it's cool to eat "a lot" of sodium until it causes cardiovascular problems and then cut back, but I know it is said here a lot. You may end up wishing you'd done it differently.
I don't personally care how much sodium you eat. Eat only salt all day, every day. I don't care. I'm not trying to be Right On The Internet because then I feel smarter and more confident. Just a heads up. For whatever it's worth.
I'm posting this as FYI and not attempting to begin a Link Duel. I'm not suggesting it makes me smarter or right about anything. Just in case you're interested in reading what some people - people who you may or may not trust! People you may or may not wish to hear out! - have to say:
http://sodiumbreakup.heart.org/sodium-411/sodium-and-your-health/
Sigh more nonsense
Truly so, especially about it being difficult to gain weight if you eat "all healthy all the time."
Kalikel,
...
It's easy to overeat on any type of food.
Were you expecting me to say, "Yuh huh! Is too!"
I'm not. You disagree. Big deal.
What? Why the attitude?
It's no more difficult to gain on "all healthy all the time," as you call it then it is to gain on any other diet.
it's certainly more difficult to gain on a healthy diet than on a diet of junk food for me. i simply do not consume as many calories if i eat low carb foods rather than eating pasta every day like i used to.
I disgree.
I gained lots of weight eating what I perceived as healthy- no refined sugar, low fat, lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, lots of other foods on my avoid list.
I lost 44 pound seating foods I love, including plenty of carbs, and have been maintaining for a year.
I found it easy to lose, and easy to maintain, because I don't feel deprived.
no, that isn't what i'm saying. if you disagree with me, you disagree that eating 2000 calories in pasta for lunch every day is bad? good to know. *rollseyes*
do people even read my posts when they disagree with them?
Yeah, I read your post. 2000 calories of pasta is an extreme. How about 200 calories, maybe 300?
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.
pasta is a meal all by itself where i'm from. nothing to do with being "smart".
But that is because it's a giant serving of pasta, like you said. Pasta is not filling for me- not even in large servings. It actually leaves me hungrier unless I pair it with other foods. When I eat pasta, I always have it with a veggie and a meat. Usually asparagus tips or mushrooms. Sometimes spinach and diced tomatoes. I'll make meatballs or throw in diced chicken or ground beef.
She isn't saying your way isn't smart. She is saying the smarter option would be to eat a serving of pasta which is 200 calories, add something satiating to it, like veggies and meat.
that isn't "my way". my point is, that PASTA IS NOT FILLING AND IT'S VERY EASY TO OVEREAT ON IT AND GET FAT AND RESTAURANTS SERVE IT IN LARGE PORTIONS. i understand what a "better option is", that just doesn't happen to be how italian restaurants serve it. my point also is, if you mix pasta with less calorie dense options, you are doing exactly what I'm proposing to lose weight. neither one of you are saying anything different from what i meant. I've kept my weight off for 2 years. geeez
does using all caps help people to understand my point?
You should've said you were talking about restaurants. We were all under the impression you were referring to home-cooked meals.
Restaurants serve extra large portions of every food, not just pasta.
And that's interesting the restaurants in your area are so different from the restaurants in my area. The restaurants I have been to always have pasta choices served with veggies and meat. Sorry they don't offer that in your area.
I did say I was talking about restaurants.
Pasta is LESS FILLING than other things they serve even when it's mixed with meat. There will still be more pasta than a non-pasta dish. I said that already though. Did you read my posts or just make assumptions?
To be quite honest, your posts are all over the place and difficult to follow. Since I'm not the only one who didn't know you were talking about restaurants.
Pasta is less filling than other things even when it's mixed with meat TO YOU. Just because you feel that way, does not mean everyone else here feels that way.
this entire thread is all over the place. so, you're saying you can eat just pasta with a little meat and be full on less calories than something like vegetables and lean fish? doubt it.
I clearly stated in another post that pasta is not filling by itself. I also stated that when I make pasta, I add veggies and meat. When I eat pasta, I eat ONE serving (because I have to watch my carb intake), and when I eat it with veggies and meat, I am perfectly satisfied.
so, it's the veggies and meat that's filling, not the pasta. this is no different than what i said.
You can analyze it however you wish but for me, it's the whole meal that's filling.
a whole is a sum of it's parts.-1 -
I know people who have been "eating right" without counting calories for decades and don't have to watch their weight. They have a general idea of how much they're eating, and it's worked for them. But it seems like this ability varies greatly from individual to individual.0
-
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
So, you're saying low carb foods are healthy and pasta is not healthy, or as healthy?
I say it's difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time and you say it isn't.
It isn't my definition, lol. I take advice from experts.
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.
I know many MFP people do not trust:
Doctors, because they're not smart
CDC, because government lies
Health associations, like Amercian Heart, because they have an agenda
Etc.
I do trust all those people when they all say that eating healthy (as they define it) may help me avoid illness. Avoiding illness is something I'm in favor of doing!
For various reasons, they suggest avoiding certain foods and keeping the salt lower than most Americans do.
If you stick to their recommendations and only their recommendations - All Healthy, All The Time - it's hard to gain weight.
If you add a bunch of stuff that they don't recommend and call it "healthy," that's a different ball game.
If you overdo it on the sodium, you may end up regretting it later. I'm not sure where you got the info that it's cool to eat "a lot" of sodium until it causes cardiovascular problems and then cut back, but I know it is said here a lot. You may end up wishing you'd done it differently.
I don't personally care how much sodium you eat. Eat only salt all day, every day. I don't care. I'm not trying to be Right On The Internet because then I feel smarter and more confident. Just a heads up. For whatever it's worth.
I'm posting this as FYI and not attempting to begin a Link Duel. I'm not suggesting it makes me smarter or right about anything. Just in case you're interested in reading what some people - people who you may or may not trust! People you may or may not wish to hear out! - have to say:
http://sodiumbreakup.heart.org/sodium-411/sodium-and-your-health/
Sigh more nonsense
Truly so, especially about it being difficult to gain weight if you eat "all healthy all the time."
Kalikel,
...
It's easy to overeat on any type of food.
Were you expecting me to say, "Yuh huh! Is too!"
I'm not. You disagree. Big deal.
What? Why the attitude?
It's no more difficult to gain on "all healthy all the time," as you call it then it is to gain on any other diet.
it's certainly more difficult to gain on a healthy diet than on a diet of junk food for me. i simply do not consume as many calories if i eat low carb foods rather than eating pasta every day like i used to.
I disgree.
I gained lots of weight eating what I perceived as healthy- no refined sugar, low fat, lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, lots of other foods on my avoid list.
I lost 44 pound seating foods I love, including plenty of carbs, and have been maintaining for a year.
I found it easy to lose, and easy to maintain, because I don't feel deprived.
no, that isn't what i'm saying. if you disagree with me, you disagree that eating 2000 calories in pasta for lunch every day is bad? good to know. *rollseyes*
do people even read my posts when they disagree with them?
Yeah, I read your post. 2000 calories of pasta is an extreme. How about 200 calories, maybe 300?
200 calories in pasta would be tiny and would not be filling.
It would be, and is, plenty for me.
*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.
2000 calories of it or bust. There is no other way.
not what i meant.
but if you go to a restaurant this is basically what they give you.
I wish.
Please name a restaurant with a pasta dish that is 2000 calories. I'll add it to my "places where I like to dine" list.
might have been an exaggeration. i don't know EXACTLY how many calories was in it. just that it's a lot.
geez
Thank you for finally admitting that you don't know what you're talking about.-2 -
Yes. I don't use calorie counting to lose weight. I rely more on intermittent fasting, but in the past limiting my carbohydrates greatly allowed for me to lose lots of weight without the need to count, weigh or log.
If I eliminated all low density/high calorie convenience foods and snacks, especially in the way of sweets, I know exactly how to eat intuitively to lose without counting. But since I don't want to eliminate those foods anymore, I put in intermittent fasting to create the deficit so that I don't have to count.0 -
I think that title is a load of misinformation. You can gain weight if all you eat is broccoli and cucumbers and you can lose weight by just eating mcdonald's. It's a matter of calories in vs out, with the exception of certain health issues that complicate things.0
-
jofjltncb6 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »
So, you're saying low carb foods are healthy and pasta is not healthy, or as healthy?
I say it's difficult to gain weight eating All Healthy, All The Time and you say it isn't.
It isn't my definition, lol. I take advice from experts.
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.
I know many MFP people do not trust:
Doctors, because they're not smart
CDC, because government lies
Health associations, like Amercian Heart, because they have an agenda
Etc.
I do trust all those people when they all say that eating healthy (as they define it) may help me avoid illness. Avoiding illness is something I'm in favor of doing!
For various reasons, they suggest avoiding certain foods and keeping the salt lower than most Americans do.
If you stick to their recommendations and only their recommendations - All Healthy, All The Time - it's hard to gain weight.
If you add a bunch of stuff that they don't recommend and call it "healthy," that's a different ball game.
If you overdo it on the sodium, you may end up regretting it later. I'm not sure where you got the info that it's cool to eat "a lot" of sodium until it causes cardiovascular problems and then cut back, but I know it is said here a lot. You may end up wishing you'd done it differently.
I don't personally care how much sodium you eat. Eat only salt all day, every day. I don't care. I'm not trying to be Right On The Internet because then I feel smarter and more confident. Just a heads up. For whatever it's worth.
I'm posting this as FYI and not attempting to begin a Link Duel. I'm not suggesting it makes me smarter or right about anything. Just in case you're interested in reading what some people - people who you may or may not trust! People you may or may not wish to hear out! - have to say:
http://sodiumbreakup.heart.org/sodium-411/sodium-and-your-health/
Sigh more nonsense
Truly so, especially about it being difficult to gain weight if you eat "all healthy all the time."
Kalikel,
...
It's easy to overeat on any type of food.
Were you expecting me to say, "Yuh huh! Is too!"
I'm not. You disagree. Big deal.
What? Why the attitude?
It's no more difficult to gain on "all healthy all the time," as you call it then it is to gain on any other diet.
it's certainly more difficult to gain on a healthy diet than on a diet of junk food for me. i simply do not consume as many calories if i eat low carb foods rather than eating pasta every day like i used to.
I disgree.
I gained lots of weight eating what I perceived as healthy- no refined sugar, low fat, lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, lots of other foods on my avoid list.
I lost 44 pound seating foods I love, including plenty of carbs, and have been maintaining for a year.
I found it easy to lose, and easy to maintain, because I don't feel deprived.
no, that isn't what i'm saying. if you disagree with me, you disagree that eating 2000 calories in pasta for lunch every day is bad? good to know. *rollseyes*
do people even read my posts when they disagree with them?
Yeah, I read your post. 2000 calories of pasta is an extreme. How about 200 calories, maybe 300?
200 calories in pasta would be tiny and would not be filling.
It would be, and is, plenty for me.
*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.
2000 calories of it or bust. There is no other way.
not what i meant.
but if you go to a restaurant this is basically what they give you.
I wish.
Please name a restaurant with a pasta dish that is 2000 calories. I'll add it to my "places where I like to dine" list.
might have been an exaggeration. i don't know EXACTLY how many calories was in it. just that it's a lot.
geez
Thank you for finally admitting that you don't know what you're talking about.
i know exactly what i'm talking about.0 -
I don't have a steak, egg, avocado, and peanut butter sandwich, no. But is it that crazy to have eggs for breakfast, a peanut butter sandwich for lunch, avocados and almonds for snacks, and steak + sweet potato for dinner? Depending on portions that could be too many calories for me to lose weight. All of those foods are typically considered "healthy". Add in some vegetables cooked in extra virgin olive oil, and banana, and apple and the calories have really started to add up. No one is saying that eating minimally processed foods isn't a good idea or that it doesn't usually lead to eating fewer calories. The statement was made "If you eat only the healthiest of foods - all healthy, all the time - it's really hard to overeat." The fact of the matter is, that it isn't always really hard to do. I could do it easily.
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.
For once I agree with Vismal. I have always eaten pretty healthy foods (90 - 95% home cooked, lots of fruit and veggies, little processed food). As I got fatter, I decreased the amount of junk, but increased the amount of "healthy" food.
Based on my weight gain over the last 5 years, I estimate I got fat on about 100 excess calories per day. That's a pretty slim margin of error.
So yes, doing the math is important, especially if you get strong hunger signals and don't get much exercise.
0 -
I love pasta. Pasta tastes good. Even if I have to eat a lot. Even if it fills me up. Even if it leaves me hungry. Even if it's 2000 calories. Even if it's home cooked or in a restaurant. I LOVE pasta. I shall eat pasta for every meal!0
-
Oh, you again.
The evidence for the "a lot of us started out that way" is in the "clean eating is a myth" thread. Lots of anecdotal evidence, which is all that's needed for an "a lot" claim. I think JeffSeekingV started a new thread on this topic but I haven't read it yet.
The evidence for "calorie counting is more sustainable than restriction" is that Weight Watchers consistently comes out on top of other diet plans for amount of weight lost and sustainability. WW is just CICO, packaged for people who can't add. You can eat anything you want, and they use Points instead of calories.
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-weight-loss-diets
There are a lot of good reasons for people to cut certain foods out of their diets, but if they achieve weight loss from that, it's because they've cut the calories. Someone might achieve and maintain weight loss by switching from veganism to paleo and back again every year. But they can't maintain weight loss if they switch back and forth between "eating at or below maintenance" and "eating above maintenance".
So calorie-counting is a more direct approach than any other method, because every other method ultimately relies on CICO, regardless of whether or not you count.
Of course, individuals can use whatever food choices help them maintain their deficit.
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.
I'd eat the hell out of that sammich. And under no delusion that it's a big ole calorie bomb just because it's classified as "healthy".
But I'd be satisfied for at least half the day.
Making that 721 calories well worth it and still leaving plenty to eat later in the day without having to count a single calorie.
0 -
emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
if you're adding meat or vegetables, it's no longer just pasta and it's those foods that are considered as to whether or not it's filling. doesn't take away from the original premise. i also did not say "in any serving size".0 -
emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
if you're adding meat or vegetables, it's no longer just pasta and it's those foods that are considered as to whether or not it's filling. doesn't take away from the original premise.
I don't even know what your original premise is or was. It seems to be that you find pasta (plain or otherwise) unfilling, and are extrapolating your experience to everyone, which is ridiculous.
But I don't feel like getting sucked into your rabbit hole of arguing literal nonsense, so I'm going to go back to just lurking on this thread.
lol, so you insult me and then go back to lurking. obviously you want to argue in that case.
original premise was that if you eat right, you don't have to track calories. so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?-2 -
Oh, you again.
The evidence for the "a lot of us started out that way" is in the "clean eating is a myth" thread. Lots of anecdotal evidence, which is all that's needed for an "a lot" claim. I think JeffSeekingV started a new thread on this topic but I haven't read it yet.
The evidence for "calorie counting is more sustainable than restriction" is that Weight Watchers consistently comes out on top of other diet plans for amount of weight lost and sustainability. WW is just CICO, packaged for people who can't add. You can eat anything you want, and they use Points instead of calories.
http://health.usnews.com/best-diet/best-weight-loss-diets
The percentage of people on WW who reach their weight and maintain it is about 1%. Which means a 99% failure rate. Those are from independent studies. Even the (flawed) studies WW itself funds show 65% failure rates - that's 2 out of 3 people. Failure rates that high are incompatible with any meaningful definition of "it works".
Calorie counting, when applied, is a fantastic tool. I use it myself. The problem is that for the vast majority of dieters, it is not sustainable - not to get their desired weight, and not to keep their desired weight.
Repeating the "CICO & Count" mantra is great, in that it's medically sound - the problem is that for the vast vast majority of people it's not useful advice because very few people can actually stick to it.
The answer has to lie elsewhere...There are a lot of good reasons for people to cut certain foods out of their diets, but if they achieve weight loss from that, it's because they've cut the calories.
Yep. Never said otherwise.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
if you're adding meat or vegetables, it's no longer just pasta and it's those foods that are considered as to whether or not it's filling. doesn't take away from the original premise.
I don't even know what your original premise is or was. It seems to be that you find pasta (plain or otherwise) unfilling, and are extrapolating your experience to everyone, which is ridiculous.
But I don't feel like getting sucked into your rabbit hole of arguing literal nonsense, so I'm going to go back to just lurking on this thread.
lol, so you insult me and then go back to lurking. obviously you want to argue in that case.
original premise was that if you eat right, you don't have to track calories. so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?
There's no right way of eating. What's right for you isn't right for me. What's right for me isn't right for you and so forth.
Even if a person eats "right", it's best to count calories to ensure you are eating in a calorie deficit.
One can overeat nuts just as easily as one can overeat chips.
0 -
emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
I seriously haven't seen anyone say anything like that0 -
not that i'm reading this thread closely, it's a trainwreck0
-
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
if you're adding meat or vegetables, it's no longer just pasta and it's those foods that are considered as to whether or not it's filling. doesn't take away from the original premise.
I don't even know what your original premise is or was. It seems to be that you find pasta (plain or otherwise) unfilling, and are extrapolating your experience to everyone, which is ridiculous.
But I don't feel like getting sucked into your rabbit hole of arguing literal nonsense, so I'm going to go back to just lurking on this thread.
lol, so you insult me and then go back to lurking. obviously you want to argue in that case.
original premise was that if you eat right, you don't have to track calories. so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?
There's no right way of eating. What's right for you isn't right for me. What's right for me isn't right for you and so forth.
Even if a person eats "right", it's best to count calories to ensure you are eating in a calorie deficit.
One can overeat nuts just as easily as one can overeat chips.
you didn't even respond to anything i said in that post.
you also contradicted yourself. if everyone differs then saying that it's "best" to count calories would also differ among people. good job contradicting yourself. i don't need to count calories every day in order to maintain. i mostly can do it intuitively, thus the point of this thread.-1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions