eat right and no need to count calories
Options
Replies
-
Glockland43 wrote: »Look up Freelee the Banana Girl, she'll blow your mind! If not for all seriousness then for fun. She's crazy.
What blows my mind about Freelee is her level of ignorance.
The only youtuber more irritating than her is her lunatic boyfriend, Durrianrider. Together they're the perfect solution to pest control.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
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.
And many people that give foods bad names and eliminate foods that they like don't stay on their clean diets either. So with that logic, your clean eating theory isn't any more valid than counting calories0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »One can overeat nuts just as easily as one can overeat chips.
Personally I find it *way* easier to overeat nuts vs chips.
0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »
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.
And many people that give foods bad names and eliminate foods that they like don't stay on their clean diets either. So with that logic, your clean eating theory isn't any more valid than counting calories
My "clean eating theory", in its entirety, is to minimize the consumption of foods that make it hard to meet my macro and calorie goals. If you think that doesn't make sense, that's cool, you're free to believe and eat what you like. :drinker:
And you're right - for the general population it's not any more successful than straight calorie counting or WW or anything else.
But it works for me, and in the end, that's all that matters....to me. Others are going to have to find their own conceptual frameworks for success.0 -
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.
When I say best, I'm not implying best for everyone. So no, I am not contradicting myself.
It's just what most choose to do in order to be most successful. After all, this is a CALORIE COUNTING site.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »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?
Most people who "diet" fail in the long term, whether it be CICO or other methods. Some people do really well with CICO. Others fail because counting the calories of every pretzel and cookie can be a real drag. Others have done very well simply by eliminating most sugars and junk carbs (bread, pasta, cereal) from their regimens (yes, I know it's hard to believe, but there are people who lose a ton of weight without counting a single calorie).
So you have to figure out what works for you.
Yeah, what's the long-term success rate for giving up carbs and maintaining any kind of loss? Also? How many calories are consumed on this carb free diet?
I imagine probably about as successful as the long term rate of calorie counting.
Abysmal.
But I would love to see some concrete numbers.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
Best doesn't mean right.
It's just what most choose to do in order to be most successful. After all, this is a CALORIE COUNTING site.
Best implies right. Who are you to speak for everyone? Your point is hypocritical after telling me that I can't speak for everyone about pasta even though I did it just as much as you did.
Yes, it's a calorie counting site. I used it to lose weight. Now that I'm maintaining, I only use it when I either am curious about my calories or if I'm up a couple pounds, which means I use it very rarely.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?
Yeah, fine. I'll bite.
Yes. I find eating one serving of plain pasta (w/seasoning and pat of butter to keep the spaghetti from sticking) is more filling than eating a 4-6oz fillet of turbot and a half of a cup of steamed broccoli. Both of these are regular meals for me when I don't have many calories left.
I will feel full for about an hour on the plain pasta. I'll still be physically hungry after the fish and broccoli.
As an aside, since you were speaking about restaurant meals ... what restaurants are you going to that serve plain pasta with no sauce? I've never been to an Italian restaurant (including the ones I went to in Rome, Venice, and Florence) that had just pasta with no cheese, no sauce, no meat, seafood, or veg in said sauce.0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »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.
If you think *that* is sating, you absolutely have to try the plate of vegetables and lean fish. Apparently that has been proven to be the most filling meal ever...(and as a result, inherently healthier too).
But yeah...I find high fat meals very sating...and decreases hunger for much longer than the veggies and lean fish example.
But that's just me. I suppose each of us find different macro compositions differently satisfying. Would be ludicrous to assume 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?
Yeah, fine. I'll bite.
Yes. I find eating one serving of plain pasta (w/seasoning and pat of butter to keep the spaghetti from sticking) is more filling than eating a 4oz fillet of turbot and a half of a cup of steamed broccoli. Both of these are regular meals for me when I don't have many calories left.
I will feel full for about an hour on the plain pasta. I'll still be physically hungry after the fish and broccoli.
As an aside, since you were speaking about restaurant meals ... what restaurants are you going to that serve plain pasta with no sauce? I've never been to an Italian restaurant (including the ones I went to in Rome, Venice, and Florence) that had just pasta with no cheese, no sauce, no meat, seafood, or veg in said sauce.
where did i claim these meals have no sauce? it's the entire meal that requires a lot of calories to be filling to me.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »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.
If you think *that* is sating, you absolutely have to try the plate of vegetables and lean fish. Apparently that has been proven to be the most filling meal ever...(and as a result, inherently healthier too).
But yeah...I find high fat meals very sating...and decreases hunger for much longer than the veggies and lean fish example.
But that's just me. I suppose each of us find different macro compositions differently satisfying. Would be ludicrous to assume otherwise.
i find fat to be filling. i don't find carbs to be filling though.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
Best doesn't mean right.
It's just what most choose to do in order to be most successful. After all, this is a CALORIE COUNTING site.
Best implies right. Who are you to speak for everyone? Your point is hypocritical after telling me that I can't speak for everyone about pasta even though I did it just as much as you did.
Yes, it's a calorie counting site. I used it to lose weight. Now that I'm maintaining, I only use it when I either am curious about my calories or if I'm up a couple pounds, which means I use it very rarely.
There's no getting through to you so I'll leave it at this:
Calorie counting has been proven to be most effective for weight loss.
Therefore, it IS the best way to ensure a calorie deficit, etc.
Does it mean it is best for each person trying to lose weight? No. It is simply a general rule of thumb.
There will always be individuals who have to do it their own way, despite the evidence that proves how effective calorie counting is.
One can choose whether or not to count calories. I know plenty of people who choose not to and then b!tch and moan when they don't see results. My response: Well, you aren't keeping track of how many calories you are consuming, or even bothering to weigh your food, so it's no wonder you aren't losing weight…0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »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.
Best doesn't mean right.
It's just what most choose to do in order to be most successful. After all, this is a CALORIE COUNTING site.
Best implies right. Who are you to speak for everyone? Your point is hypocritical after telling me that I can't speak for everyone about pasta even though I did it just as much as you did.
Yes, it's a calorie counting site. I used it to lose weight. Now that I'm maintaining, I only use it when I either am curious about my calories or if I'm up a couple pounds, which means I use it very rarely.
There's no getting through to you so I'll leave it at this:
Calorie counting has been proven to be most effective for weight loss.
Therefore, it IS the best way to ensure a calorie deficit, etc.
Does it mean it is best for each person trying to lose weight? No. It is simply a general rule of thumb.
There will always be individuals who have to do it their own way, despite the evidence that proves how effective calorie counting is.
One can choose whether or not to count calories. I know plenty of people who choose not to and then b!tch and moan when they don't see results. My response: Well, you aren't keeping track of how many calories you are consuming, or even bothering to weigh your food, so it's no wonder you aren't losing weight…
calorie counting is best for weightloss, but it's not best for maintaining in my experience. that's where the intuitive eating comes from which you hopefully learn through calorie counting.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.
Aside from people (men) who are bulking and/or extremely active, who would be eating 1000 calories of spinach or pasta for a meal? I can eat a loot of pasta if calories aren't concerned, but even I never ate 1000 calories of it in a sitting. Most people don't, they eat a combination of foods, which will of course change how the calories play out for the total meal.
1 serving or 50 grams of dry pasta is 200 calories. That's a lot of cooked pasta in my opinion. With add ins, you can get a big 300 to 400 calorie meal. 2000 calories of prepared pasta would kill my stomach
It's really not. That's like 2/3rds of a cup cooked. 85 grams dry is one cup cooked, usually - about 300 cals. I find that's not enough for a meal, I need more like 1.5 cups.
It's enough for me.
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Calorie counting has been proven to be most effective for weight loss.
No, sorry, that doesn't get any truer with repetition. The success rate for calorie counters is as appallingly low as for any number of other methods.
That doesn't mean CICO is medically unsound - it means its really freakin' hard to follow.
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.
Aside from people (men) who are bulking and/or extremely active, who would be eating 1000 calories of spinach or pasta for a meal? I can eat a loot of pasta if calories aren't concerned, but even I never ate 1000 calories of it in a sitting. Most people don't, they eat a combination of foods, which will of course change how the calories play out for the total meal.
1 serving or 50 grams of dry pasta is 200 calories. That's a lot of cooked pasta in my opinion. With add ins, you can get a big 300 to 400 calorie meal. 2000 calories of prepared pasta would kill my stomach
It's really not. That's like 2/3rds of a cup cooked. 85 grams dry is one cup cooked, usually - about 300 cals. I find that's not enough for a meal, I need more like 1.5 cups.
It's enough for me.
I'm sorry, but it was demonstrably proven earlier in this thread that it is not...
...for anyone...
...because science.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?
The original post was clear that "eat right" meant "eat healthy." It's commonly accepted that the Mediterranean Diet is a quite healthy way to eat. IMO, you can debate about what the Med Diet is, but typically it means less meat (which you have claimed is satiating), but plenty of whole grains (including pasta).
Thus, since you think pasta is non-satiating and can easily lead to overeating, doesn't that demonstrate that "eating healthy" does not, in fact, protect against gaining weight, without more?
I will repeat, however, that for me pasta with sauce is plenty satiating. The combination is more than the sum of its parts, FOR ME, since I tend to find most satiating meals that contain a combination of protein, fat, and carbs. I understand that you disagree, and that's great, that's why we probably should choose different ways of eating.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.
Aside from people (men) who are bulking and/or extremely active, who would be eating 1000 calories of spinach or pasta for a meal? I can eat a loot of pasta if calories aren't concerned, but even I never ate 1000 calories of it in a sitting. Most people don't, they eat a combination of foods, which will of course change how the calories play out for the total meal.
1 serving or 50 grams of dry pasta is 200 calories. That's a lot of cooked pasta in my opinion. With add ins, you can get a big 300 to 400 calorie meal. 2000 calories of prepared pasta would kill my stomach
It's really not. That's like 2/3rds of a cup cooked. 85 grams dry is one cup cooked, usually - about 300 cals. I find that's not enough for a meal, I need more like 1.5 cups.
It's enough for me.
lol
ok! it's enough for you.
I was saying more that it's not "a lot" to me and probably many others, I have to assume, given the relative rarity of this serving size (in my experience and observation).0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »Calorie counting has been proven to be most effective for weight loss.
No, sorry, that doesn't get any truer with repetition. The success rate for calorie counters is as appallingly low as for any other method.
That doesn't mean CICO is medically unsound - it means its really freakin' hard to follow.
(I know this is off topic, but I wonder if the stats would improve if 1) a reasonable calorie deficit was used, and 2) if people were educated on and aware of realistic expectations of progress. In other words, I wonder how the stats are affected by people trying to keep an unrealistic deficit and having unrealistic expectations. Note that I said "I wonder"...not that I said it would have a bearing. I have my own expectations for it, but it's just that...my own expectations.)0 -
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.
Exactly how I will be preparing my pasta tonight, except it will be fish instead of chicken.0
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