eat right and no need to count calories
Options
Replies
-
lemurcat12 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?
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.
fine, why can't we have a different definition of satiating with lower calories? it doesn't have to be the same for everyone. doesn't mean you have to start counting calories though and can't intuitively eat.0 -
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 and you are limiting your carbs which is exactly what i said too. none of this is different than what i said.
limiting carbs has nothing to do with healthy eating or weight loss.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.)
It's a good question, IMO. My guess is no, it wouldn't make a difference, but it would be an interesting experiment to put a cohort on a long term deficit of, say, 100 calories/day and see if stick-to-ity improves.
Doesn't sound like much, but it's still about a pound a month of weight loss....which is more than many are averaging over the long run anyway.0 -
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.
I concur.0 -
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:
Okay, this is totally a topic for a different thread (which seems to have disappeared), but do you actually use the term "clean eating" for that? Because that's a definition that I have not heard, and which seems somewhat unlike how the term is typically used (to refer to the elimination of foods that are seen as inherently unhealthy to all, whether because they supposedly make you fat or pollute your body).
I don't think minimizing the consumption of food that makes it hard for you to meet your macro and micro goals is particularly controversial, but maybe I'm wrong.
0 -
JustinAnimal wrote: »While it's hard to argue when people say you gain weight from oreos or carrots, I will say this from personal experience: it is effing hard to overindulge on raw veggies (like eat 1500 calories over my goal); it is the easiest thing in the world to overindulge in buffalo wings and beer. So while it's true you can gain from anything, you'd be working pretty goddamn hard to gain serious weight chomping on balanced amounts of chicken breast, egg whites, raw veggies and fruits. Not saying it's impossible, but much more difficult.
<golf clap>
Now make the defintion of "eating right" to be "focusing on foods it is hard to over-eat", and you have something.
:drinker:
So. Much. This.
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).
It's consistent with the given serving size on packaging, and what I've typically seen others, including myself when I was fat, eat when making pasta at home.
Restaurant serving sizes are insane, but restaurant serving sizes in the US, at least, are not good measures of anything.0 -
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 and you are limiting your carbs which is exactly what i said too. none of this is different than what i said.
limiting carbs has nothing to do with healthy eating or weight loss.
it results in eating fewer calories for many people, thus it's a known diet tool. so yes, it is.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.
What kind of fish do you use? The only fish I like is salmon. Not sure how that would go with pasta!0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »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.)
It's a good question, IMO. My guess is no, it wouldn't make a difference, but it would be an interesting experiment to put a cohort on a long term deficit of, say, 100 calories/day and see if stick-to-ity improves.
Doesn't sound like much, but it's still about a pound a month of weight loss....which is more than many are averaging over the long run anyway.
I wonder if that would not be as successful though because it's *too* little of a deficit. You would easily run into a margin of error in measuring calories. But still, the idea is sound.
And perhaps this "goldilocks" deficit (that isn't too much or too little) might also prove out that whole set-point theory...and by spending more time getting to the goal that the set-point shifts closer to the goal which might lead to better long-term compliance.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.
It works for you and that's good for you. But it doesn't work for a lot of others and that's the point.
If that is your logic then you should have a problem with the first post that states that if you eat clean, there's no need to count calories correct?0 -
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 and you are limiting your carbs which is exactly what i said too. none of this is different than what i said.
limiting carbs has nothing to do with healthy eating or weight loss.
it results in eating fewer calories for many people, thus it's a known diet tool. so yes, it is.
Limiting of carbs does not cause faster fat/weight loss than if you eat a high carb diet.0 -
lemurcat12 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?
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.
fine, why can't we have a different definition of satiating with lower calories? it doesn't have to be the same for everyone. doesn't mean you have to start counting calories though and can't intuitively eat.
The last sentence is something that I never said. Lots of people can intuitively eat, and lots of other people can achieve a deficit in some other way (including low carb) without counting calories. If you think people are telling you that you personally cannot maintain without counting, I think you have misunderstood.
What I am arguing is that merely "eating healthy" for someone who has had trouble with intuitive eating is not going to be sufficient, on its own, to create a deficit or protect against regaining. If you were advising someone on how to lose, such advice would not be all that helpful.
Now, if your personal version of "eating healthy" ALSO includes certain rules that, FOR YOU, protect against overeating, as is certainly possible--I think I have such a way myself, although I also think I could easily "eat healthy" in a way that allowed me to get fat again--then that works, but let's not pretend it's nothing more than just, generically, eating healthy.
(I used the all caps since you seemed to think it made things clearer.)0 -
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 and you are limiting your carbs which is exactly what i said too. none of this is different than what i said.
limiting carbs has nothing to do with healthy eating or weight loss.
it results in eating fewer calories for many people, thus it's a known diet tool. so yes, it is.
Yeah, I mean I eat pasta and white bread sometimes, but I have done lowish-carb successfully, and so have many, many other people. Eating that way did teach me to eat more nutritionally balanced meals. (I think it was the South Beach diet that I used as a guide.) It's done so for tons of people. Even if the mechanism for weight loss is CICO, which it probably is, it's a way of retraining palettes away from a diet that MAINLY features high-cal/low-value meals to something a little denser and calorically cheaper and frankly better for you from a micronutrient standpoint (yes! I am saying that!) than the kind of diet that leads many people to obesity. (By that I mean a diet of predominantly high-cal low/value meals, typically convenience food, typically procured from fast food establishments. People can gain weight in other ways, but pretending this kind of eating isn't exceedingly common among obese people is silly.)0 -
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 and you are limiting your carbs which is exactly what i said too. none of this is different than what i said.
limiting carbs has nothing to do with healthy eating or weight loss.
it results in eating fewer calories for many people, thus it's a known diet tool. so yes, it is.
Limiting of carbs does not cause faster fat/weight loss than if you eat a high carb diet.
it makes it easier to reduce calories for many people, thus it's a diet method. that's what i said. i did not say this if you don't reduce calories.0 -
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.
Exactly how I will be preparing my pasta tonight, except it will be fish instead of chicken.
What kind of fish do you use? The only fish I like is salmon. Not sure how that would go with pasta!
I like pasta with salmon. One of my favorite things is pasta with smoked salmon, though. The way I like it, you'd also use lots of veggies, and some mix of feta, olives, or pine nuts.0 -
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.
Exactly how I will be preparing my pasta tonight, except it will be fish instead of chicken.
What kind of fish do you use? The only fish I like is salmon. Not sure how that would go with pasta!
Tilapia. Mm mm good..........0 -
lemurcat12 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.
Exactly how I will be preparing my pasta tonight, except it will be fish instead of chicken.
What kind of fish do you use? The only fish I like is salmon. Not sure how that would go with pasta!
I like pasta with salmon. One of my favorite things is pasta with smoked salmon, though. The way I like it, you'd also use lots of veggies, and some mix of feta, olives, or pine nuts.
This too, minus the feta.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 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?
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.
fine, why can't we have a different definition of satiating with lower calories? it doesn't have to be the same for everyone. doesn't mean you have to start counting calories though and can't intuitively eat.
The last sentence is something that I never said. Lots of people can intuitively eat, and lots of other people can achieve a deficit in some other way (including low carb) without counting calories. If you think people are telling you that you personally cannot maintain without counting, I think you have misunderstood.
What I am arguing is that merely "eating healthy" for someone who has had trouble with intuitive eating is not going to be sufficient, on its own, to create a deficit or protect against regaining. If you were advising someone on how to lose, such advice would not be all that helpful.
Now, if your personal version of "eating healthy" ALSO includes certain rules that, FOR YOU, protect against overeating, as is certainly possible--I think I have such a way myself, although I also think I could easily "eat healthy" in a way that allowed me to get fat again--then that works, but let's not pretend it's nothing more than just, generically, eating healthy.
(I used the all caps since you seemed to think it made things clearer.)
It could be sufficient for many people. nothing is sufficient for all people.0 -
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.
Exactly how I will be preparing my pasta tonight, except it will be fish instead of chicken.
What kind of fish do you use? The only fish I like is salmon. Not sure how that would go with pasta!
Tilapia. Mm mm good..........
Ewww. Ugh. Tilapia is nearly tasteless...and ridiculously lean. I'll take some smoked salmon or grilled swordfish. Mmm.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