eat right and no need to count calories
Options
Replies
-
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 some people, thus it's a known diet tool for them. so yes, it can be.
Fixed that for you.
I'm hungry on low carb, and eat too much fat to fill myself up to get to the point of calorie restriction.
I feel best when my macros are right around 40-30-30. I've skipped my evening oatmeal the past few days (been too lazy to make a batch), and I'm feeling it today.
What works for YOU doesn't work for everyone. Healthy eating for me includes gluten free oats, legumes, and bean pastas.
0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
if you're adding meat or vegetables, it's no longer just pasta and it's those foods that are considered as to whether or not it's filling. doesn't take away from the original premise.
I don't even know what your original premise is or was. It seems to be that you find pasta (plain or otherwise) unfilling, and are extrapolating your experience to everyone, which is ridiculous.
But I don't feel like getting sucked into your rabbit hole of arguing literal nonsense, so I'm going to go back to just lurking on this thread.
lol, so you insult me and then go back to lurking. obviously you want to argue in that case.
original premise was that if you eat right, you don't have to track calories. so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?
There's no right way of eating. What's right for you isn't right for me. What's right for me isn't right for you and so forth.
Even if a person eats "right", it's best to count calories to ensure you are eating in a calorie deficit.
One can overeat nuts just as easily as one can overeat chips.
you didn't even respond to anything i said in that post.
you also contradicted yourself. if everyone differs then saying that it's "best" to count calories would also differ among people. good job contradicting yourself. i don't need to count calories every day in order to maintain. i mostly can do it intuitively, thus the point of this thread.
Best doesn't mean right.
It's just what most choose to do in order to be most successful. After all, this is a CALORIE COUNTING site.
Best implies right. Who are you to speak for everyone? Your point is hypocritical after telling me that I can't speak for everyone about pasta even though I did it just as much as you did.
Yes, it's a calorie counting site. I used it to lose weight. Now that I'm maintaining, I only use it when I either am curious about my calories or if I'm up a couple pounds, which means I use it very rarely.
Wow. I don't even know where to begin. It's so sad.
FFF, why are you even bothering with her? Intentionally obtuse to the extreme.
I've learned there's no getting through to her so I stopped trying a little while ago! -1 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
if you're adding meat or vegetables, it's no longer just pasta and it's those foods that are considered as to whether or not it's filling. doesn't take away from the original premise.
I don't even know what your original premise is or was. It seems to be that you find pasta (plain or otherwise) unfilling, and are extrapolating your experience to everyone, which is ridiculous.
But I don't feel like getting sucked into your rabbit hole of arguing literal nonsense, so I'm going to go back to just lurking on this thread.
lol, so you insult me and then go back to lurking. obviously you want to argue in that case.
original premise was that if you eat right, you don't have to track calories. so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?
There's no right way of eating. What's right for you isn't right for me. What's right for me isn't right for you and so forth.
Even if a person eats "right", it's best to count calories to ensure you are eating in a calorie deficit.
One can overeat nuts just as easily as one can overeat chips.
you didn't even respond to anything i said in that post.
you also contradicted yourself. if everyone differs then saying that it's "best" to count calories would also differ among people. good job contradicting yourself. i don't need to count calories every day in order to maintain. i mostly can do it intuitively, thus the point of this thread.
Best doesn't mean right.
It's just what most choose to do in order to be most successful. After all, this is a CALORIE COUNTING site.
Best implies right. Who are you to speak for everyone? Your point is hypocritical after telling me that I can't speak for everyone about pasta even though I did it just as much as you did.
Yes, it's a calorie counting site. I used it to lose weight. Now that I'm maintaining, I only use it when I either am curious about my calories or if I'm up a couple pounds, which means I use it very rarely.
Wow. I don't even know where to begin. It's so sad.
FFF, why are you even bothering with her? Intentionally obtuse to the extreme.
Why is everyone bullying this person? I don't get it. Seriously. People have different preferences and different definitions of what 'healthy' means. Some people do well on high-fibre/low-fat diets. Some do well on gluten-free. Some do well on lower-carb. More people than just Aviva, I mean it's ridiculous to say otherwise, we're ten years into low-carbism and many people have found it to work for them. I don't understand the bullying.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »
Calorie counting has been proven to be most effective for weight loss.
Therefore, it IS the best way to ensure a calorie deficit, etc.prettykitty1515 wrote: »Calorie counting has been proven to be the most effective for weight loss?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/6-reasons-calorie-counting-crazy
BWAHAHAHA at the fact you think that article holds any value.0 -
Maybe this is where some of the confusion on this thread is coming from. But what I'm now wondering is if this thread title is directed at people on MFP or the general public.0
-
mamapeach910 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 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 some people, thus it's a known diet tool for them. so yes, it can be.
Fixed that for you.
I'm hungry on low carb, and eat too much fat to fill myself up to get to the point of calorie restriction.
I feel best when my macros are right around 40-30-30. I've skipped my evening oatmeal the past few days (been too lazy to make a batch), and I'm feeling it today.
What works for YOU doesn't work for everyone. Healthy eating for me includes gluten free oats, legumes, and bean pastas.
your fix is no better than my original version.-1 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
if you're adding meat or vegetables, it's no longer just pasta and it's those foods that are considered as to whether or not it's filling. doesn't take away from the original premise.
I don't even know what your original premise is or was. It seems to be that you find pasta (plain or otherwise) unfilling, and are extrapolating your experience to everyone, which is ridiculous.
But I don't feel like getting sucked into your rabbit hole of arguing literal nonsense, so I'm going to go back to just lurking on this thread.
lol, so you insult me and then go back to lurking. obviously you want to argue in that case.
original premise was that if you eat right, you don't have to track calories. so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?
There's no right way of eating. What's right for you isn't right for me. What's right for me isn't right for you and so forth.
Even if a person eats "right", it's best to count calories to ensure you are eating in a calorie deficit.
One can overeat nuts just as easily as one can overeat chips.
you didn't even respond to anything i said in that post.
you also contradicted yourself. if everyone differs then saying that it's "best" to count calories would also differ among people. good job contradicting yourself. i don't need to count calories every day in order to maintain. i mostly can do it intuitively, thus the point of this thread.
Best doesn't mean right.
It's just what most choose to do in order to be most successful. After all, this is a CALORIE COUNTING site.
Calorie counting has been proven to be most effective for weight loss.
Therefore, it IS the best way to ensure a calorie deficit, etc.
Calorie counting has been proven to be the most effective for weight loss?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/6-reasons-calorie-counting-crazy
Another "impeccably" sourced link from you. Bahahahahaha indeed. My 12 year old could punch holes in the "logic" of their arguments to boot.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
if you're adding meat or vegetables, it's no longer just pasta and it's those foods that are considered as to whether or not it's filling. doesn't take away from the original premise.
I don't even know what your original premise is or was. It seems to be that you find pasta (plain or otherwise) unfilling, and are extrapolating your experience to everyone, which is ridiculous.
But I don't feel like getting sucked into your rabbit hole of arguing literal nonsense, so I'm going to go back to just lurking on this thread.
lol, so you insult me and then go back to lurking. obviously you want to argue in that case.
original premise was that if you eat right, you don't have to track calories. so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?
Yeah, fine. I'll bite.
Yes. I find eating one serving of plain pasta (w/seasoning and pat of butter to keep the spaghetti from sticking) is more filling than eating a 4oz fillet of turbot and a half of a cup of steamed broccoli. Both of these are regular meals for me when I don't have many calories left.
I will feel full for about an hour on the plain pasta. I'll still be physically hungry after the fish and broccoli.
As an aside, since you were speaking about restaurant meals ... what restaurants are you going to that serve plain pasta with no sauce? I've never been to an Italian restaurant (including the ones I went to in Rome, Venice, and Florence) that had just pasta with no cheese, no sauce, no meat, seafood, or veg in said sauce.
where did i claim these meals have no sauce? it's the entire meal that requires a lot of calories to be filling to me.
Copied from an earlier post of yours so people don't have to scan the whole series of quotes:
"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."
If adding meat or veg changes the 'just pasta' into something more filling, surely dairy, seafood, nuts, extra oils, etc do the same. Since I can't think of a pasta sauce that doesn't contain one or more of the above, only other option is plain noodles with just enough olive oil or butter or similar to keep the noodles from sticking.
Otherwise, your whole 'adding meat or veg changes the pasta' argument is meaningless, because vegetables or meat added to pasta are just a chunky sauce.
In fact, since sauces are apparently acceptable, I will wager you're going to find a whole lot more people who find 1/2 cup of noodles in a lovely creamy cheesy sauce, or a nice bolognese far more satiating than the fish and broccoli meal.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
if you're adding meat or vegetables, it's no longer just pasta and it's those foods that are considered as to whether or not it's filling. doesn't take away from the original premise.
I don't even know what your original premise is or was. It seems to be that you find pasta (plain or otherwise) unfilling, and are extrapolating your experience to everyone, which is ridiculous.
But I don't feel like getting sucked into your rabbit hole of arguing literal nonsense, so I'm going to go back to just lurking on this thread.
lol, so you insult me and then go back to lurking. obviously you want to argue in that case.
original premise was that if you eat right, you don't have to track calories. so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?
Yeah, fine. I'll bite.
Yes. I find eating one serving of plain pasta (w/seasoning and pat of butter to keep the spaghetti from sticking) is more filling than eating a 4oz fillet of turbot and a half of a cup of steamed broccoli. Both of these are regular meals for me when I don't have many calories left.
I will feel full for about an hour on the plain pasta. I'll still be physically hungry after the fish and broccoli.
As an aside, since you were speaking about restaurant meals ... what restaurants are you going to that serve plain pasta with no sauce? I've never been to an Italian restaurant (including the ones I went to in Rome, Venice, and Florence) that had just pasta with no cheese, no sauce, no meat, seafood, or veg in said sauce.
where did i claim these meals have no sauce? it's the entire meal that requires a lot of calories to be filling to me.
Copied from an earlier post of yours so people don't have to scan the whole series of quotes:
"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."
If adding meat or veg changes the 'just pasta' into something more filling, surely dairy, seafood, nuts, extra oils, etc do the same. Since I can't think of a pasta sauce that doesn't contain one or more of the above, only other option is plain noodles with just enough olive oil or butter or similar to keep the noodles from sticking.
Otherwise, your whole 'adding meat or veg changes the pasta' argument is meaningless, because vegetables or meat added to pasta are just a chunky sauce.
In fact, since sauces are apparently acceptable, I will wager you're going to find a whole lot more people who find 1/2 cup of noodles in a lovely creamy cheesy sauce, or a nice bolognese far more satiating than the fish and broccoli meal.
find whatever you want satiating. do not care. no clue what your point is though.-2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The fact that you (/or I, not a personal attack) regained the weight and then some puts to question any method used for maintenance. Some introspection when we fail and restart should result in "well, whatever I did, didn't really work in the long term."
Of course, and I totally agree with this.
However, I have thought about it a lot, because I'd like to prevent it this time (of course). I don't have any answers, but I do know it wasn't due to not knowing my calories.
What happened was that I maintained for 5 years while being very active, lots of stuff happened in my life (which are not worth getting into, but were relevant), I stopped being active and did not adjust my calories down, and -- the big one -- I stopped caring enough for several years for one reason or another.
What I see as the question to answer is why didn't I care enough and what would prevent that from happening again? My current thought is that if I didn't care enough to eat well or weigh myself or take action when my clothes were getting tighter (yet I knew what to do and did briefly get back on the wagon successfully for a period of time), I also wouldn't care enough to log, so the logging can't be the issue.
I do plan to force myself to weigh in regularly, no matter what, as I think this will help, and right now logging and playing with my diet helps, and always I find that thinking of it as about eating healthy helps (for me, but is not enough on its own without the other rules I used or some similar thing).
I say all this not because I perceived you as being critical or am defensive about it (although I might be, I suppose), but because it fleshes out my position on this.
I don't think my participation in this thread is anti-calorie-counting, though. My feeling is that it's a great tool, one that fits my personality and which I'm using now, but one which is not necessary if you are someone who dislikes doing it or finds it burdensome. (Back in the day it would have been more burdensome to me as I wasn't aware of anything like MFP if it even existed. Even now I wouldn't count if it meant looking stuff up and keeping a written log.)
Thank you. Trying to always flesh out my own thinking.
I think that the "didn't care enough" is insightful (at least to a first level) and I'm more interested in that aspect of failure mode than does this tool or that tool works or doesn't. Weight loss is relatively easy, maintenance is harder.
It's ALL about adherence.
0 -
LazyCatPame wrote: »Not counting leads me to "one more spoonful won't hurt" (and then the spoonful becomes ten spoonfuls). When I do count, I realize that most of the times, when it doesn't fit my calorie allowance anymore, I'm usually already satisfied and I would just be eating for the sake of it
/\ This if you are aware of what you are putting in your mouth, no matter what it is, clean, healthy, not healthy etc. ---- it doesn't matter if you aren't aware and over eat, don't expend the excess calories someway -- by working out --- you will gain... Simple as that...
It's the same with fat free a few years ago ... yes they may be lower in "FAT" or have no fat.. but if you eat the whole box and don't expend the calories... it does not matter.
0 -
emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
if you're adding meat or vegetables, it's no longer just pasta and it's those foods that are considered as to whether or not it's filling. doesn't take away from the original premise.
I don't even know what your original premise is or was. It seems to be that you find pasta (plain or otherwise) unfilling, and are extrapolating your experience to everyone, which is ridiculous.
But I don't feel like getting sucked into your rabbit hole of arguing literal nonsense, so I'm going to go back to just lurking on this thread.
lol, so you insult me and then go back to lurking. obviously you want to argue in that case.
original premise was that if you eat right, you don't have to track calories. so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?
Yeah, fine. I'll bite.
Yes. I find eating one serving of plain pasta (w/seasoning and pat of butter to keep the spaghetti from sticking) is more filling than eating a 4oz fillet of turbot and a half of a cup of steamed broccoli. Both of these are regular meals for me when I don't have many calories left.
I will feel full for about an hour on the plain pasta. I'll still be physically hungry after the fish and broccoli.
As an aside, since you were speaking about restaurant meals ... what restaurants are you going to that serve plain pasta with no sauce? I've never been to an Italian restaurant (including the ones I went to in Rome, Venice, and Florence) that had just pasta with no cheese, no sauce, no meat, seafood, or veg in said sauce.
where did i claim these meals have no sauce? it's the entire meal that requires a lot of calories to be filling to me.
Copied from an earlier post of yours so people don't have to scan the whole series of quotes:
"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."
If adding meat or veg changes the 'just pasta' into something more filling, surely dairy, seafood, nuts, extra oils, etc do the same. Since I can't think of a pasta sauce that doesn't contain one or more of the above, only other option is plain noodles with just enough olive oil or butter or similar to keep the noodles from sticking.
Otherwise, your whole 'adding meat or veg changes the pasta' argument is meaningless, because vegetables or meat added to pasta are just a chunky sauce.
In fact, since sauces are apparently acceptable, I will wager you're going to find a whole lot more people who find 1/2 cup of noodles in a lovely creamy cheesy sauce, or a nice bolognese far more satiating than the fish and broccoli meal.
find whatever you want satiating. do not care. no clue what your point is though.
It's much nicer having a discussion with someone that at least tries to keep up with their own statements. Just saying. From you, a couple of posts back:
"so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?"
Yes. For some, including me, that is what I'm saying.
Since plain pasta was revised to include pasta with sauce, I'm also saying the number of people who find that this is the case for them has undoubtedly increased.
Therefore, the notion that pasta is inherently less satiating shouldn't be generalized.0 -
emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
if you're adding meat or vegetables, it's no longer just pasta and it's those foods that are considered as to whether or not it's filling. doesn't take away from the original premise.
I don't even know what your original premise is or was. It seems to be that you find pasta (plain or otherwise) unfilling, and are extrapolating your experience to everyone, which is ridiculous.
But I don't feel like getting sucked into your rabbit hole of arguing literal nonsense, so I'm going to go back to just lurking on this thread.
lol, so you insult me and then go back to lurking. obviously you want to argue in that case.
original premise was that if you eat right, you don't have to track calories. so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?
Yeah, fine. I'll bite.
Yes. I find eating one serving of plain pasta (w/seasoning and pat of butter to keep the spaghetti from sticking) is more filling than eating a 4oz fillet of turbot and a half of a cup of steamed broccoli. Both of these are regular meals for me when I don't have many calories left.
I will feel full for about an hour on the plain pasta. I'll still be physically hungry after the fish and broccoli.
As an aside, since you were speaking about restaurant meals ... what restaurants are you going to that serve plain pasta with no sauce? I've never been to an Italian restaurant (including the ones I went to in Rome, Venice, and Florence) that had just pasta with no cheese, no sauce, no meat, seafood, or veg in said sauce.
where did i claim these meals have no sauce? it's the entire meal that requires a lot of calories to be filling to me.
Copied from an earlier post of yours so people don't have to scan the whole series of quotes:
"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."
If adding meat or veg changes the 'just pasta' into something more filling, surely dairy, seafood, nuts, extra oils, etc do the same. Since I can't think of a pasta sauce that doesn't contain one or more of the above, only other option is plain noodles with just enough olive oil or butter or similar to keep the noodles from sticking.
Otherwise, your whole 'adding meat or veg changes the pasta' argument is meaningless, because vegetables or meat added to pasta are just a chunky sauce.
In fact, since sauces are apparently acceptable, I will wager you're going to find a whole lot more people who find 1/2 cup of noodles in a lovely creamy cheesy sauce, or a nice bolognese far more satiating than the fish and broccoli meal.
find whatever you want satiating. do not care. no clue what your point is though.
It's much nicer having a discussion with someone that at least tries to keep up with their own statements. Just saying. From you, a couple of posts back:
"so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?"
Yes. For some, including me, that is what I'm saying.
Since plain pasta was revised to include pasta with sauce, I'm also saying the number of people who find that this is the case for them has undoubtedly increased.
Therefore, the notion that pasta is inherently less satiating shouldn't be generalized.
keeping up with my posts just fine.
if you find a low calorie version of pasta to be filling, then go for it. do not care. not everyone does though and many people don't.-1 -
A fine example of moving the goal posts.0
-
jofjltncb6 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!
Tilapia. Mm mm good..........
Ewww. Ugh. Tilapia is nearly tasteless...and ridiculously lean. I'll take some smoked salmon or grilled swordfish. Mmm.
I kind of backed way from Tilapia after seeing they way they are raised. Pretty gross.
Also very true, but decided not to open that particular can in this thread.0 -
FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »FatFreeFrolicking wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »emily_stew wrote: »If I've learned nothing in these last few pages, it's that if one poster finds pasta not filling, therefore pasta in any form-with any permutation of sauces, meats, or veg-is non filling, for everyone, in any serving size. Cool!
if you're adding meat or vegetables, it's no longer just pasta and it's those foods that are considered as to whether or not it's filling. doesn't take away from the original premise.
I don't even know what your original premise is or was. It seems to be that you find pasta (plain or otherwise) unfilling, and are extrapolating your experience to everyone, which is ridiculous.
But I don't feel like getting sucked into your rabbit hole of arguing literal nonsense, so I'm going to go back to just lurking on this thread.
lol, so you insult me and then go back to lurking. obviously you want to argue in that case.
original premise was that if you eat right, you don't have to track calories. so, you're saying that eating plain pasta is just as filling as more nutritionally dense foods?
There's no right way of eating. What's right for you isn't right for me. What's right for me isn't right for you and so forth.
Even if a person eats "right", it's best to count calories to ensure you are eating in a calorie deficit.
One can overeat nuts just as easily as one can overeat chips.
you didn't even respond to anything i said in that post.
you also contradicted yourself. if everyone differs then saying that it's "best" to count calories would also differ among people. good job contradicting yourself. i don't need to count calories every day in order to maintain. i mostly can do it intuitively, thus the point of this thread.
Best doesn't mean right.
It's just what most choose to do in order to be most successful. After all, this is a CALORIE COUNTING site.
Best implies right. Who are you to speak for everyone? Your point is hypocritical after telling me that I can't speak for everyone about pasta even though I did it just as much as you did.
Yes, it's a calorie counting site. I used it to lose weight. Now that I'm maintaining, I only use it when I either am curious about my calories or if I'm up a couple pounds, which means I use it very rarely.
Wow. I don't even know where to begin. It's so sad.
FFF, why are you even bothering with her? Intentionally obtuse to the extreme.
Why is everyone bullying this person? I don't get it. Seriously. People have different preferences and different definitions of what 'healthy' means. Some people do well on high-fibre/low-fat diets. Some do well on gluten-free. Some do well on lower-carb. More people than just Aviva, I mean it's ridiculous to say otherwise, we're ten years into low-carbism and many people have found it to work for them. I don't understand the bullying.
There has been no bullying, and no one has said low carb does not work for some people.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions