Too good to be true!!?
Replies
-
Wow0
-
SatietyQueen wrote: »
Who is talking about coke vs diet coke but you? Don't think that you are the only person that has heard of the word satiety because it's in your screen name. We're actually pretty good at giving people advice on how to do things properly and have the ability to explain why we say what we do. Don't be one of those people that pop up on scene and claim to have the psychology of how new people think. We were all new at some point. And before you call people idiots pay attention to whom you are actually addressing because you might find yourself in the middle of a debate that you can't handle.SatietyQueen wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SatietyQueen wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »toniwarren106 wrote: »It is not just as simple as calories in/calories out. Yes, that may be the bulk of it, but consuming too much fat and sugar will not help you lose weight. Your body will store all of that fat and sugar if you do not use it up.
Actually, it *IS* just that simple.
Where do these folks come up with this horse hockey?
No, it is not that simple.
We have a bunch of veteran calorie counters on this site talking to each other. For these "veterans," counting calories comes as easy as brushing their teeth or driving a car.
Nonsense. All of us were new once. And understanding how it actually works, instead of believing idiotic myths about the magical powers of eating too much fat made it possible for me, for one, to succeed. Telling people the truth does not hurt them. They are grown ups, they can figure out how not to be hungry.
Now, if you also want to give helpful advice about what worked for you--as opposed to a lie like "if you eat a cookie it will be like a fat pill and make the diet not work"--great. For example, I experimented with different macros and found that eating balanced macros at all meals helped me feel more satisfied. I also found that FOR ME not snacking much and eating 3 decent-sized meals (sometimes with a post workout snack) was the most satisfying and enjoyable way to eat. For me, and I suspect for most, it's helpful to eat a good volume of veggies and some fruit and healthy too. So on.The fact is the vast majority (and I mean vast majority) of people who start a diet, whether they count calories or don't count calories, fail miserably because they are hungry. Look it up.
Do they fail because they are hungry, or because they are unhappy with what they are eating and unsatisfied? Different things. I seriously think a lot more people believe silly myths about how you have to eat in a rigid complicated way when dieting or it won't work (and also have some ingrained idea about self-punishment and sacrifice being good vs. self indulgence being bad) than can't figure out how to eat so as not to be hungry, which is really not very complicated unless you are very dumb. Or, more likely, simply not interested in eating in the way you know would address the issue since you are not yet ready or simply don't like the relevant foods vs. how you are eating (more common).It's tough to go from an "all you can eat" diet to a 1,500-calorie diet just like that.
Reading the forums here proves otherwise. Many, many people even at calories far lower than they need are motivated at the beginning of a diet and not hungry. The reason is that none of us are that hungry--hunger is often a psychological reaction to a belief that you are deprived.
I'm sure some percentage of overweight people are because they honestly have issues with hunger, but I suspect it's a minority and common sense would help them figure out how to deal with the issue.
But perhaps you think they are all idiots.
I make a common sense suggestion of finding foods that fill you up, and somehow you are taken aback. You think I'm making it up that bacon and eggs fill me up more than bagels? You think when you're starting out on this journey you should drink Coke instead of Diet Coke? Give me a break! I'll have to think about who the idiot is.
You win. Eat what you want newbies. It is 100% certain that you will succeed if you just count calories. Don't bother trying to find foods that make it easier for you to avoid hunger pangs and help you stay within your calorie goal. Just because MrM can do it, so can you. It's easy.
And by the way, I was the one who was accused of thinking people on this site are idiots. I did not start this battle.
This sounds eerily familiar to what a recently banned user would have said. Who also did not have a profile picture.
It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!0 -
SatietyQueen wrote: »This really isn't that difficult.
You decide you want to lose weight. Your daily calorie limit is 1,500. You can try two approaches:
1) Find the foods that fill you up so you're not hungry during various times of the day.
2) Don't bother finding the foods that fill you up. If you're hungry just deal with it.
99.9% would say that #1 makes more sense. The 0.1%, including MrM, for whatever reason, thinks #1 is idiotic.
Go figure.
When did any of us ever say to not bother finding foods that fill you up?
What several people have said is that yes, you lose purely on calories in, calories out. But that doesn't mean you should completely ignore your macronutrient needs. However, if your macros are looking pretty stellar for the day and you have some extra calories, there's nothing wrong with having a treat or two. It's called a balanced diet. Having a treat isn't unhealthy.
In my experience, including treats has made my everyday diet sustainable for the long term. I'm happy with my food choices and I loose weight to boot. And I'm 100% statisfied in satiety and variety.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »SatietyQueen wrote: »
Who is talking about coke vs diet coke but you? Don't think that you are the only person that has heard of the word satiety because it's in your screen name. We're actually pretty good at giving people advice on how to do things properly and have the ability to explain why we say what we do. Don't be one of those people that pop up on scene and claim to have the psychology of how new people think. We were all new at some point. And before you call people idiots pay attention to whom you are actually addressing because you might find yourself in the middle of a debate that you can't handle.SatietyQueen wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SatietyQueen wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »toniwarren106 wrote: »It is not just as simple as calories in/calories out. Yes, that may be the bulk of it, but consuming too much fat and sugar will not help you lose weight. Your body will store all of that fat and sugar if you do not use it up.
Actually, it *IS* just that simple.
Where do these folks come up with this horse hockey?
No, it is not that simple.
We have a bunch of veteran calorie counters on this site talking to each other. For these "veterans," counting calories comes as easy as brushing their teeth or driving a car.
Nonsense. All of us were new once. And understanding how it actually works, instead of believing idiotic myths about the magical powers of eating too much fat made it possible for me, for one, to succeed. Telling people the truth does not hurt them. They are grown ups, they can figure out how not to be hungry.
Now, if you also want to give helpful advice about what worked for you--as opposed to a lie like "if you eat a cookie it will be like a fat pill and make the diet not work"--great. For example, I experimented with different macros and found that eating balanced macros at all meals helped me feel more satisfied. I also found that FOR ME not snacking much and eating 3 decent-sized meals (sometimes with a post workout snack) was the most satisfying and enjoyable way to eat. For me, and I suspect for most, it's helpful to eat a good volume of veggies and some fruit and healthy too. So on.The fact is the vast majority (and I mean vast majority) of people who start a diet, whether they count calories or don't count calories, fail miserably because they are hungry. Look it up.
Do they fail because they are hungry, or because they are unhappy with what they are eating and unsatisfied? Different things. I seriously think a lot more people believe silly myths about how you have to eat in a rigid complicated way when dieting or it won't work (and also have some ingrained idea about self-punishment and sacrifice being good vs. self indulgence being bad) than can't figure out how to eat so as not to be hungry, which is really not very complicated unless you are very dumb. Or, more likely, simply not interested in eating in the way you know would address the issue since you are not yet ready or simply don't like the relevant foods vs. how you are eating (more common).It's tough to go from an "all you can eat" diet to a 1,500-calorie diet just like that.
Reading the forums here proves otherwise. Many, many people even at calories far lower than they need are motivated at the beginning of a diet and not hungry. The reason is that none of us are that hungry--hunger is often a psychological reaction to a belief that you are deprived.
I'm sure some percentage of overweight people are because they honestly have issues with hunger, but I suspect it's a minority and common sense would help them figure out how to deal with the issue.
But perhaps you think they are all idiots.
I make a common sense suggestion of finding foods that fill you up, and somehow you are taken aback. You think I'm making it up that bacon and eggs fill me up more than bagels? You think when you're starting out on this journey you should drink Coke instead of Diet Coke? Give me a break! I'll have to think about who the idiot is.
You win. Eat what you want newbies. It is 100% certain that you will succeed if you just count calories. Don't bother trying to find foods that make it easier for you to avoid hunger pangs and help you stay within your calorie goal. Just because MrM can do it, so can you. It's easy.
And by the way, I was the one who was accused of thinking people on this site are idiots. I did not start this battle.
This sounds eerily familiar to what a recently banned user would have said. Who also did not have a profile picture.
It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!
Yep, the content and the phrasing are a dead giveaway. You'd think if someone was going to make an alt account they would at least try to sound differently or at least not do the exact same thing that got them banned before. Probably some kind of mental issue0 -
shellen007 wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »toniwarren106 wrote: »It is not just as simple as calories in/calories out. Yes, that may be the bulk of it, but consuming too much fat and sugar will not help you lose weight. Your body will store all of that fat and sugar if you do not use it up.
Actually, it *IS* just that simple.
Where do these folks come up with this horse hockey?
I'm gonna take a stab at answering this question--and refuting what appears to be MFP dogma--and hope I don't get run out of this thread by an angry mob.
The idea that it's simply "calories in/ calories out" has been challenged by several incredibly well-educated people, particularly Robert Lustig and Gary Taubes.
Robert Lustig was educated at MIT and Cornell University Medical College. He specializes in childhood obesity and and is a pediatric endocrinologist at the University of California San Francisco. He is known for arguing that the high amount of fructose (sugar) in our diets is the chief reason for the obesity epidemic. He famously gave the following lecture called "Sugar: the Bitter Truth" (available here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM).
Gary Taubes holds degrees from Harvard, Stanford, and Columbia. He has written several books rejecting the "calories in/calories out" concept as being unscientifically sound. Here’s a link to an article he wrote in NY Magazine entitled “Is Sugar Toxic?” (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all&) and for those interested in his book Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About it (http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-Vintage/dp/0307474259/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328326126&sr=1-1). In the book, Taubes goes to great lengths to argue that weight control is not a matter of burning more calories than one consumes and advocates eliminating carbs from one's diet instead.
I mention these two and their work not because I believe what they say is gospel (I couldn't survive on the no-carb diet that Taubes advocates). I do think they raise some really fascinating points regarding how our bodies work and those people interested in the topic might find it illuminating.
And finally, to the OP and others new to dieting: there are a ton of veteran posters on MFP with no understanding of science and no education in nutrition. They take the "it works for me approach" and then shout down others who happen to disagree. Just because these people shout loudly (and accuse others of spreading "horrible misinformation" as one poster earlier did), don't be fooled into thinking they know what they are talking about.
I stopped at Lustig and Taubes. And then I read on. Please don't listen to people based on their degrees or universities (hint: I'm in a position to say this) - research and books should stand on the merit of their content. There is research that points out to possible influence of food types, but these guys are media hounds selling books.
Their criticism of CICO doesn't in anyway refute that a person, outsie of specific medical conditions, eating a standard distributed diet will lose weight when moving more and eating less calories. Nor does it refute that calories are, in general, the single most important factor in weight gain and weight loss. Are there other influences? Absolutely.
But focus on the the majors before you start tweeking the minors.
Your general statement about veteran posters is insulting there are actually quite a few of us with health and science backgrounds.
0 -
SatietyQueen wrote: »SatietyQueen wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »toniwarren106 wrote: »It is not just as simple as calories in/calories out. Yes, that may be the bulk of it, but consuming too much fat and sugar will not help you lose weight. Your body will store all of that fat and sugar if you do not use it up.
Actually, it *IS* just that simple.
Where do these folks come up with this horse hockey?
No, it is not that simple.
We have a bunch of veteran calorie counters on this site talking to each other. For these "veterans," counting calories comes as easy as brushing their teeth or driving a car.
The fact is the vast majority (and I mean vast majority) of people who start a diet, whether they count calories or don't count calories, fail miserably because they are hungry. Look it up.
So it's easy say something like, "as long as you're in a deficit you will lose weight." Easier said than done. Meanwhile, there is very little discussion about the magic word - SATIETY. It's tough to go from an "all you can eat" diet to a 1,500-calorie diet just like that.
So if 300 calories of "A" does a much better job of keeping you satiated than 300 calories of "B," then effectively, a calorie is not a calorie for most people. You just have to figure out what "A" is for you to help you stay within your goal.
For me, a bacon and eggs breakfast or lunch keeps me much more satiated than a bagel and whatever. And the bacon and eggs has fewer calories than the bagel. But that's just me.
I agree with you. Most people will find bacon and eggs more filling than a bagel. I don't know why that's controversial around here. Especially because it's due to macronutrients. However people get there is fine by me.
I know, I know. And I said the bacon and eggs fills ME up more than the bagel. I did not say it will fill everybody up more than the bagel.
Trying to figure out what the hysteria is all about over my pretty innocent comment.
Let's look at the context, shall we?
Someone said that CICO was not enough, that instead you had to watch it because eating too much sugar OR fat could make you gain fat even if you ate in a deficit.
Others pointed out (correctly) that that was false, because, well, it is.
You jumped in to disagree and argued that CICO is not enough, because people might eat the wrong foods. In context, you were defending the idea that you can gain fat in a deficit, then, which is of course false, apparently because you think that if people are told, correctly, that CICO are what matter they will eat badly and not be satiated. That's wrong.
Also, what satiates people differ. I don't find bagels satiating, but some do, especially with cream cheese or lox or some other additions. On the other hand, I like bacon and have it some times, but it's not satiating for me in comparison with its calories either. (Eggs are if I eat them with vegetables, and so I usually have a vegetable omelet. This works for me; that doesn't make it the ideal breakfast for everyone. Some people aren't hungry in the morning, some are satiated by a smoothie, although I'm not--drinking my calories doesn't work for me even with fiber.)
My main pet peeve with low carb people (I don't know if you are one, but the bacon and eggs thing sounds like you might be) is that they often insist that carbs can't be satiating for anyone, but IME eating somewhat more carbs lately has been more satiating than being lower was. (And I will also say that I disagree with those who say a low carb diet can't work for people--different things work better for different people.)
What is the good, honest advice to give, IMO, is that how weight loss works is a calorie deficit, however that is achieved, and the best way to achieve it is personal. However, some things work well for many people and here are so examples of what worked for me.
What is not good, honest advice is that CICO doesn't work unless you eat "right" because the body will hang on to fat or that you must eat breakfast or 6 mini meals to keep the metabolism running or that you better not eat after 6 pm or the body will hang onto fat, etc.
If you didn't mean to defend the earlier advice then I jumped on you harder than I probably should have, but the basic point still stands. You can't say what will be satiating for someone else, you shouldn't assume that fat people are dumb or struggling with being starving because they eat fast food or whatever 24/7, and it's incredibly important to give the facts, as well as the information on how you dealt with it, and these facts include that what matters for weight loss is a calorie deficit. That's why all the special diets work (for a time, for some), not because there's some magical combination of foods or other foods which are incompatible with weightloss.0 -
SatietyQueen wrote: »
Who is talking about coke vs diet coke but you? Don't think that you are the only person that has heard of the word satiety because it's in your screen name. We're actually pretty good at giving people advice on how to do things properly and have the ability to explain why we say what we do. Don't be one of those people that pop up on scene and claim to have the psychology of how new people think. We were all new at some point. And before you call people idiots pay attention to whom you are actually addressing because you might find yourself in the middle of a debate that you can't handle.SatietyQueen wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SatietyQueen wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »toniwarren106 wrote: »It is not just as simple as calories in/calories out. Yes, that may be the bulk of it, but consuming too much fat and sugar will not help you lose weight. Your body will store all of that fat and sugar if you do not use it up.
Actually, it *IS* just that simple.
Where do these folks come up with this horse hockey?
No, it is not that simple.
We have a bunch of veteran calorie counters on this site talking to each other. For these "veterans," counting calories comes as easy as brushing their teeth or driving a car.
Nonsense. All of us were new once. And understanding how it actually works, instead of believing idiotic myths about the magical powers of eating too much fat made it possible for me, for one, to succeed. Telling people the truth does not hurt them. They are grown ups, they can figure out how not to be hungry.
Now, if you also want to give helpful advice about what worked for you--as opposed to a lie like "if you eat a cookie it will be like a fat pill and make the diet not work"--great. For example, I experimented with different macros and found that eating balanced macros at all meals helped me feel more satisfied. I also found that FOR ME not snacking much and eating 3 decent-sized meals (sometimes with a post workout snack) was the most satisfying and enjoyable way to eat. For me, and I suspect for most, it's helpful to eat a good volume of veggies and some fruit and healthy too. So on.The fact is the vast majority (and I mean vast majority) of people who start a diet, whether they count calories or don't count calories, fail miserably because they are hungry. Look it up.
Do they fail because they are hungry, or because they are unhappy with what they are eating and unsatisfied? Different things. I seriously think a lot more people believe silly myths about how you have to eat in a rigid complicated way when dieting or it won't work (and also have some ingrained idea about self-punishment and sacrifice being good vs. self indulgence being bad) than can't figure out how to eat so as not to be hungry, which is really not very complicated unless you are very dumb. Or, more likely, simply not interested in eating in the way you know would address the issue since you are not yet ready or simply don't like the relevant foods vs. how you are eating (more common).It's tough to go from an "all you can eat" diet to a 1,500-calorie diet just like that.
Reading the forums here proves otherwise. Many, many people even at calories far lower than they need are motivated at the beginning of a diet and not hungry. The reason is that none of us are that hungry--hunger is often a psychological reaction to a belief that you are deprived.
I'm sure some percentage of overweight people are because they honestly have issues with hunger, but I suspect it's a minority and common sense would help them figure out how to deal with the issue.
But perhaps you think they are all idiots.
I make a common sense suggestion of finding foods that fill you up, and somehow you are taken aback. You think I'm making it up that bacon and eggs fill me up more than bagels? You think when you're starting out on this journey you should drink Coke instead of Diet Coke? Give me a break! I'll have to think about who the idiot is.
You win. Eat what you want newbies. It is 100% certain that you will succeed if you just count calories. Don't bother trying to find foods that make it easier for you to avoid hunger pangs and help you stay within your calorie goal. Just because MrM can do it, so can you. It's easy.
And by the way, I was the one who was accused of thinking people on this site are idiots. I did not start this battle.
Stick around a little longer and pay attention to the advice that people actually get about eating foods that meet there macronutrients, macronutrients, Vitamins and Minerals before moving into discretionary calories before you start judging what advice people are giving new members. Also, don't forget, you're new here too.
This.
Also, I think it's absurd that I'm being accused of being anti healthy eating or pro Twinkie or whatever too (although Twinkies are fine in moderation if someone actually likes them). Feel free to look at my diary or read my actual recommendations which are all over the forum, sigh.0 -
So I don't think it's too much for those who know to say, "CICO for weight loss, macros for satiety within that calorie budget, micros for health, and you can have a cookie now and then".
I always say this, and I typically see others saying this too.
But what is important to me is understanding how and why it works, and so I think that's the information others should get too. Therefore, I'm careful to distinguish between the reason for weight loss (calorie deficit), the reasons that might make that deficit easier (eating foods that are more satisfying), to distinguish between things that are always true (you need a deficit) and only true for many (I find veggies and protein and fat to be useful in creating a satisfying diet), and things that are important for entirely different reasons (for health, these are things to consider).
I also don't think "eat this way for weight loss" is always good advice, especially since (again) people aren't idiots and know how they should eat, but just don't necessarily want to.
A lot of people fail at diets because they think it must be complicated and there are millions of rules or special eating plans needed or because they think they hate all the foods they must eat (or that they must eat ridiculously low calories). I don't think switching your diet dramatically works for that many people--most studies say it's better to work on a habit at a time and go more gradually--so overwhelming people with all the extra stuff seems unhelpful when they will figure it out as they go along.
I realize that you are, for whatever reason, sold on your notion that most fat people are fat because they've never thought to eat anything but fast food and potato chips, and while I find this kind of offensive, I have known someone who ate fast food all the time and was obese. She was also really smart and understood why she was fat. When she decided to lose weight she wasn't ready to change her diet--she liked her diet, weird as it might seem to you and I--so she reduced serving sizes. I thought it was weird at the time (this was during my hard core all natural, local, blah blah phase), but it worked for her, and as she made progress and ate less and lost she continued to modify her diet and eventually ate a much more nutritious one. I don't assume that someone who starts by focusing on calories and just modifies as necessary to meet their needs is going to fail or will never change their diet. It's just that more gradual change works for many or most. Going hardcore to a super healthy (IMO, it's not "clean") worked for me, because that's how I liked to eat already. That doesn't mean I should impose my preferences when not necessary on someone claiming to hate all veggies or love McD's.0 -
SatietyQueen wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »SatietyQueen wrote: »shellen007 wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »toniwarren106 wrote: »It is not just as simple as calories in/calories out. Yes, that may be the bulk of it, but consuming too much fat and sugar will not help you lose weight. Your body will store all of that fat and sugar if you do not use it up.
Actually, it *IS* just that simple.
Where do these folks come up with this horse hockey?
And finally, to the OP and others new to dieting: there are a ton of veteran posters on MFP with no understanding of science and no education in nutrition. They take the "it works for me approach" and then shout down others who happen to disagree. Just because these people shout loudly, don't be fooled into thinking they know what they are talking about
So true. And so sad. If calorie counting in itself was so easy, then Weight Watchers, with their point system would not exist. I have no problem with counting. But that's just me. Others cannot do it. And not to beat a dead horse, but it's easier (and more fun) if you find foods that keep you satiated.
I don't quite understand your point here. Are you agreeing about Lustig, Mr. "Educated" who gets basic science wrong, of all things? LOL.
There are a lot of newbies lately who are oh-so-familiar with MFP. How odd.
Anyway, back to what you're getting at what does satiety have to do with making calorie counting easy for someone who finds it difficult? Satiety has to do with hunger, not the actual "drudgery" of tracking intake.
If you're counting calories successfully but you're hungry all the time, you will fail. That was my point.
Again, my common sense comment - eat what makes you feel full - is taken as some sort of radical statement that should be perceived as lunacy.
No, you're arguing against a straw man. No one ever said that.
Sounds really, really familiar.
What people have said is that if your macronutrients are met, and you have some extra calories left and feel satisfied, eat what makes you happy.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »SatietyQueen wrote: »
Who is talking about coke vs diet coke but you? Don't think that you are the only person that has heard of the word satiety because it's in your screen name. We're actually pretty good at giving people advice on how to do things properly and have the ability to explain why we say what we do. Don't be one of those people that pop up on scene and claim to have the psychology of how new people think. We were all new at some point. And before you call people idiots pay attention to whom you are actually addressing because you might find yourself in the middle of a debate that you can't handle.SatietyQueen wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SatietyQueen wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »toniwarren106 wrote: »It is not just as simple as calories in/calories out. Yes, that may be the bulk of it, but consuming too much fat and sugar will not help you lose weight. Your body will store all of that fat and sugar if you do not use it up.
Actually, it *IS* just that simple.
Where do these folks come up with this horse hockey?
No, it is not that simple.
We have a bunch of veteran calorie counters on this site talking to each other. For these "veterans," counting calories comes as easy as brushing their teeth or driving a car.
Nonsense. All of us were new once. And understanding how it actually works, instead of believing idiotic myths about the magical powers of eating too much fat made it possible for me, for one, to succeed. Telling people the truth does not hurt them. They are grown ups, they can figure out how not to be hungry.
Now, if you also want to give helpful advice about what worked for you--as opposed to a lie like "if you eat a cookie it will be like a fat pill and make the diet not work"--great. For example, I experimented with different macros and found that eating balanced macros at all meals helped me feel more satisfied. I also found that FOR ME not snacking much and eating 3 decent-sized meals (sometimes with a post workout snack) was the most satisfying and enjoyable way to eat. For me, and I suspect for most, it's helpful to eat a good volume of veggies and some fruit and healthy too. So on.The fact is the vast majority (and I mean vast majority) of people who start a diet, whether they count calories or don't count calories, fail miserably because they are hungry. Look it up.
Do they fail because they are hungry, or because they are unhappy with what they are eating and unsatisfied? Different things. I seriously think a lot more people believe silly myths about how you have to eat in a rigid complicated way when dieting or it won't work (and also have some ingrained idea about self-punishment and sacrifice being good vs. self indulgence being bad) than can't figure out how to eat so as not to be hungry, which is really not very complicated unless you are very dumb. Or, more likely, simply not interested in eating in the way you know would address the issue since you are not yet ready or simply don't like the relevant foods vs. how you are eating (more common).It's tough to go from an "all you can eat" diet to a 1,500-calorie diet just like that.
Reading the forums here proves otherwise. Many, many people even at calories far lower than they need are motivated at the beginning of a diet and not hungry. The reason is that none of us are that hungry--hunger is often a psychological reaction to a belief that you are deprived.
I'm sure some percentage of overweight people are because they honestly have issues with hunger, but I suspect it's a minority and common sense would help them figure out how to deal with the issue.
But perhaps you think they are all idiots.
I make a common sense suggestion of finding foods that fill you up, and somehow you are taken aback. You think I'm making it up that bacon and eggs fill me up more than bagels? You think when you're starting out on this journey you should drink Coke instead of Diet Coke? Give me a break! I'll have to think about who the idiot is.
You win. Eat what you want newbies. It is 100% certain that you will succeed if you just count calories. Don't bother trying to find foods that make it easier for you to avoid hunger pangs and help you stay within your calorie goal. Just because MrM can do it, so can you. It's easy.
And by the way, I was the one who was accused of thinking people on this site are idiots. I did not start this battle.
Stick around a little longer and pay attention to the advice that people actually get about eating foods that meet there macronutrients, macronutrients, Vitamins and Minerals before moving into discretionary calories before you start judging what advice people are giving new members. Also, don't forget, you're new here too.
This.
Also, I think it's absurd that I'm being accused of being anti healthy eating or pro Twinkie or whatever too (although Twinkies are fine in moderation if someone actually likes them). Feel free to look at my diary or read my actual recommendations which are all over the forum, sigh.
psst.... I think bagels are the new Twinkies.
It's obvious that you're pro-moderation from your posts and that you eat a well-varied diet.
0 -
emmaprov2015 wrote: »started doing the calorie counter today and mine worked out at 1300 calories and I feel like I've eaten loads I don't want anything else and I have 400 Cals left and it's saying I've not eaten enough!!
Can I honestly eat what I want as long as I stay within my given calories per day! It feels too good to be true surely!!?
Yes! I had four pieces of Valentine's candy after I worked out yesterday. I regret nothing.
0 -
I'm losing weight eating cookies every night. I just can't eat half a box, and have to stick to a single serving. So it does work as long as you stay within your limits. You will end up eating less food if you are eating foods higher in calories, but if they are foods that you like and it works for you then go for it.
That's my kind of diet
I'm currently on a search for cookies with slightly less calories. The ones I like are 62 calories each O_o0 -
dontjinxit wrote: »I'm losing weight eating cookies every night. I just can't eat half a box, and have to stick to a single serving. So it does work as long as you stay within your limits. You will end up eating less food if you are eating foods higher in calories, but if they are foods that you like and it works for you then go for it.
That's my kind of diet
I'm currently on a search for cookies with slightly less calories. The ones I like are 62 calories each O_o
Where do you get good 60 calorie cookies? O.o The ones I like are 200 calories each!0 -
Susieq_1994 wrote: »dontjinxit wrote: »I'm losing weight eating cookies every night. I just can't eat half a box, and have to stick to a single serving. So it does work as long as you stay within your limits. You will end up eating less food if you are eating foods higher in calories, but if they are foods that you like and it works for you then go for it.
That's my kind of diet
I'm currently on a search for cookies with slightly less calories. The ones I like are 62 calories each O_o
Where do you get good 60 calorie cookies? O.o The ones I like are 200 calories each!
I got the Gerber Graduates Arrowroot Cookies for my one-year-old. He didn't like them, so I tried one. Oh man, they are so good. They taste like those butter cookies that come in the tins. Much more satisfying than vanilla wafers or graham crackers, which are usually my go-to when I want a sweet fix. And they're 20 calories a piece, so you can eat 5 of them for 100 calories and feel like you got a decent little snack. They're great with coffee, too.0 -
Susieq_1994 wrote: »dontjinxit wrote: »I'm losing weight eating cookies every night. I just can't eat half a box, and have to stick to a single serving. So it does work as long as you stay within your limits. You will end up eating less food if you are eating foods higher in calories, but if they are foods that you like and it works for you then go for it.
That's my kind of diet
I'm currently on a search for cookies with slightly less calories. The ones I like are 62 calories each O_o
Where do you get good 60 calorie cookies? O.o The ones I like are 200 calories each!
Hehe. I won't even look at the good cookies. I already know I'd end up starving for them. Generic custard creams are somewhere between 62-65 calories each.0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Susieq_1994 wrote: »dontjinxit wrote: »I'm losing weight eating cookies every night. I just can't eat half a box, and have to stick to a single serving. So it does work as long as you stay within your limits. You will end up eating less food if you are eating foods higher in calories, but if they are foods that you like and it works for you then go for it.
That's my kind of diet
I'm currently on a search for cookies with slightly less calories. The ones I like are 62 calories each O_o
Where do you get good 60 calorie cookies? O.o The ones I like are 200 calories each!
I got the Gerber Graduates Arrowroot Cookies....they're 20 calories a piece, so you can eat 5 of them for 100 calories and feel like you got a decent little snack. They're great with coffee, too.
Now I want a biscotti, but that would be a 200 calorie cookie.
0 -
dontjinxit wrote: »Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Susieq_1994 wrote: »dontjinxit wrote: »I'm losing weight eating cookies every night. I just can't eat half a box, and have to stick to a single serving. So it does work as long as you stay within your limits. You will end up eating less food if you are eating foods higher in calories, but if they are foods that you like and it works for you then go for it.
That's my kind of diet
I'm currently on a search for cookies with slightly less calories. The ones I like are 62 calories each O_o
Where do you get good 60 calorie cookies? O.o The ones I like are 200 calories each!
I got the Gerber Graduates Arrowroot Cookies....they're 20 calories a piece, so you can eat 5 of them for 100 calories and feel like you got a decent little snack. They're great with coffee, too.
Now I want a biscotti, but that would be a 200 calorie cookie.
Ooh, biscotti sounds good, too!
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I realize that you are, for whatever reason, sold on your notion that most fat people are fat because they've never thought to eat anything but fast food and potato chips, and while I find this kind of offensive, I have known someone who ate fast food all the time and was obese. She was also really smart and understood why she was fat. When she decided to lose weight she wasn't ready to change her diet--she liked her diet, weird as it might seem to you and I--so she reduced serving sizes. I thought it was weird at the time (this was during my hard core all natural, local, blah blah phase), but it worked for her, and as she made progress and ate less and lost she continued to modify her diet and eventually ate a much more nutritious one. I don't assume that someone who starts by focusing on calories and just modifies as necessary to meet their needs is going to fail or will never change their diet. It's just that more gradual change works for many or most. Going hardcore to a super healthy (IMO, it's not "clean") worked for me, because that's how I liked to eat already. That doesn't mean I should impose my preferences when not necessary on someone claiming to hate all veggies or love McD's.
You can find it offensive if you want, that's up to you. The reason I believe this is the case is that's there's a strong correlation between eating fast food and obesity. Correlation =/= causation fine fine fine but it's a strong-as$ correlation and it's predictable. No, I'm not going to give a cite, I have things to do today and this is pretty damn obvious, google it. It's been shown wherever fast food goes, globally, so does obesity. I think, as I've said, that this is because the low value (macro content, specifically) of the food means that people lose their sense of satiety, if ever they had it, and as a consequence eat too much.
There's nothing wrong with an individual meal of fast food in itself, but the reality on the ground is, it's just not like that for most people who eat it, is it? It's not just one burger/fries combo. It's that and pizza and whatever the hell else, day in, day out, for most meals. People absolutely can eat it without gaining but must control portions. Those are out of control in FF restaurants, too.
I am not judging you particularly, ? I'm not even judging those who eat fast food. I eat fast food. I like it. But there is a systematic problem here. Evidently.
Can you please stop stalking my posts on the subject? It is really tiring to have to make the same arguments over again when it's not directly related to the thread.0 -
It's difficult to follow conversations when the quote feature is not used correctly. ..0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I realize that you are, for whatever reason, sold on your notion that most fat people are fat because they've never thought to eat anything but fast food and potato chips, and while I find this kind of offensive, I have known someone who ate fast food all the time and was obese. She was also really smart and understood why she was fat. When she decided to lose weight she wasn't ready to change her diet--she liked her diet, weird as it might seem to you and I--so she reduced serving sizes. I thought it was weird at the time (this was during my hard core all natural, local, blah blah phase), but it worked for her, and as she made progress and ate less and lost she continued to modify her diet and eventually ate a much more nutritious one. I don't assume that someone who starts by focusing on calories and just modifies as necessary to meet their needs is going to fail or will never change their diet. It's just that more gradual change works for many or most. Going hardcore to a super healthy (IMO, it's not "clean") worked for me, because that's how I liked to eat already. That doesn't mean I should impose my preferences when not necessary on someone claiming to hate all veggies or love McD's.
You can find it offensive if you want, that's up to you. The reason I believe this is the case is that's there's a strong correlation between eating fast food and obesity. Correlation =/= causation fine fine fine but it's a strong-as$ correlation and it's predictable. No, I'm not going to give a cite, I have things to do today and this is pretty damn obvious, google it. It's been shown wherever fast food goes, globally, so does obesity. I think, as I've said, that this is because the low value (macro content, specifically) of the food means that people lose their sense of satiety, if ever they had it, and as a consequence eat too much.
There's nothing wrong with an individual meal of fast food in itself, but the reality on the ground is, it's just not like that for most people who eat it, is it? It's not just one burger/fries combo. It's that and pizza and whatever the hell else, day in, day out, for most meals. People absolutely can eat it without gaining but must control portions. Those are out of control in FF restaurants, too.
I am not judging you particularly, ? I'm not even judging those who eat fast food. There is a systematic problem here. Evidently.
Can you please stop stalking my posts on the subject?
Yes there is a systematic problem. It's called over-eating. Fast foods are easier to over-eat, true, but they are not the root of the problem. I, for example, rarely had fast food when I was 300+ pounds. What happened is that my portions were too big, and I used too much olive oil on my salads and vegetables.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I realize that you are, for whatever reason, sold on your notion that most fat people are fat because they've never thought to eat anything but fast food and potato chips, and while I find this kind of offensive, I have known someone who ate fast food all the time and was obese. She was also really smart and understood why she was fat. When she decided to lose weight she wasn't ready to change her diet--she liked her diet, weird as it might seem to you and I--so she reduced serving sizes. I thought it was weird at the time (this was during my hard core all natural, local, blah blah phase), but it worked for her, and as she made progress and ate less and lost she continued to modify her diet and eventually ate a much more nutritious one. I don't assume that someone who starts by focusing on calories and just modifies as necessary to meet their needs is going to fail or will never change their diet. It's just that more gradual change works for many or most. Going hardcore to a super healthy (IMO, it's not "clean") worked for me, because that's how I liked to eat already. That doesn't mean I should impose my preferences when not necessary on someone claiming to hate all veggies or love McD's.
You can find it offensive if you want, that's up to you. The reason I believe this is the case is that's there's a strong correlation between eating fast food and obesity. Correlation =/= causation fine fine fine but it's a strong-as$ correlation and it's predictable. No, I'm not going to give a cite, I have things to do today and this is pretty damn obvious, google it. It's been shown wherever fast food goes, globally, so does obesity. I think, as I've said, that this is because the low value (macro content, specifically) of the food means that people lose their sense of satiety, if ever they had it, and as a consequence eat too much.
There's nothing wrong with an individual meal of fast food in itself, but the reality on the ground is, it's just not like that for most people who eat it, is it? It's not just one burger/fries combo. It's that and pizza and whatever the hell else, day in, day out, for most meals. People absolutely can eat it without gaining but must control portions. Those are out of control in FF restaurants, too.
I am not judging you particularly, ? I'm not even judging those who eat fast food. There is a systematic problem here. Evidently.
Can you please stop stalking my posts on the subject?
Yes there is a systematic problem. It's called over-eating. Fast foods are easier to over-eat, true, but they are not the root of the problem. I, for example, rarely had fast food when I was 300+ pounds. What happened is that my portions were too big, and I used too much olive oil on my salads and vegetables.
The root of the problem is too many calories. No argument there. Yes, of course, people can gain weight eating healthy foods. No argument there either.
But to argue that the obesity crisis in so many countries has just nothing at all to do with the prevalance of fast food - its quality AND quantity - and the larger factors that drive that industry is silly and even perverse. Fast foods are easier to overeat; people eat them for many reasons; most of the people who eat it regularly, in the absence of a calorie counting regime - i.e., MOST PEOPLE - gain weight.0 -
I want to correct myself. Here is where we disagree - in scope. The immediate cause of the problem is too many calories. The root cause of the problem* has to do with larger social forces, including the fast food industry.
*the larger social problem of obesity, not any individual's obesity, necessarily.0 -
Anyway, this is off-track. The point is that for those who want to not be hungry and eat fewer calories, it makes sense to attend to macros. And for those who want to be healthy, they should pay attention to micros.0
-
Emmaprov2015 - I am totally confused like you. I feel like I have eaten loads, I'm not hungry and still I am way under my calories, this is only day 2 tho!0
-
Last point before I go and do the things I need to do: the easiest way to not be hungry, on a calorie budget, is to prioritize macros in a way that is also, as it happens, largely consistent with "healthy eating". (That is not to say that any individual food is bad; the overall pattern of eating, and the amounts, are what matters for loss, can't be clearer on this.) And, at the same time, staying on a budget long-term involves eating foods that are low-value, sometimes, for sanity's sake.0
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I realize that you are, for whatever reason, sold on your notion that most fat people are fat because they've never thought to eat anything but fast food and potato chips, and while I find this kind of offensive, I have known someone who ate fast food all the time and was obese. She was also really smart and understood why she was fat. When she decided to lose weight she wasn't ready to change her diet--she liked her diet, weird as it might seem to you and I--so she reduced serving sizes. I thought it was weird at the time (this was during my hard core all natural, local, blah blah phase), but it worked for her, and as she made progress and ate less and lost she continued to modify her diet and eventually ate a much more nutritious one. I don't assume that someone who starts by focusing on calories and just modifies as necessary to meet their needs is going to fail or will never change their diet. It's just that more gradual change works for many or most. Going hardcore to a super healthy (IMO, it's not "clean") worked for me, because that's how I liked to eat already. That doesn't mean I should impose my preferences when not necessary on someone claiming to hate all veggies or love McD's.
You can find it offensive if you want, that's up to you. The reason I believe this is the case is that's there's a strong correlation between eating fast food and obesity. Correlation =/= causation fine fine fine but it's a strong-as$ correlation and it's predictable. No, I'm not going to give a cite, I have things to do today and this is pretty damn obvious, google it. It's been shown wherever fast food goes, globally, so does obesity. I think, as I've said, that this is because the low value (macro content, specifically) of the food means that people lose their sense of satiety, if ever they had it, and as a consequence eat too much.
There's nothing wrong with an individual meal of fast food in itself, but the reality on the ground is, it's just not like that for most people who eat it, is it? It's not just one burger/fries combo. It's that and pizza and whatever the hell else, day in, day out, for most meals. People absolutely can eat it without gaining but must control portions. Those are out of control in FF restaurants, too.
I am not judging you particularly, ? I'm not even judging those who eat fast food. There is a systematic problem here. Evidently.
Can you please stop stalking my posts on the subject?
Yes there is a systematic problem. It's called over-eating. Fast foods are easier to over-eat, true, but they are not the root of the problem. I, for example, rarely had fast food when I was 300+ pounds. What happened is that my portions were too big, and I used too much olive oil on my salads and vegetables.
The root of the problem is too many calories. No argument there. Yes, of course, people can gain weight eating healthy foods. No argument there either.
But to argue that the obesity crisis in so many countries has just nothing at all to do with the prevalance of fast food - its quality AND quantity - and the larger factors that drive that industry is silly and even perverse. Fast foods are easier to overeat; people eat them for many reasons; most of the people who eat it regularly, in the absence of a calorie counting regime - i.e., MOST PEOPLE - gain weight.
Regardless of how you personally feel about fast food, the obesity epidemic will never end as long as people keep trying to find something to blame it on rather than taking the responsibility for themselves. No sense in blaming fast food (or sugar or an illness or anything else). People just need to stop making excuses and take control of their own lives and eat less than they did to gain weight. I don't know why people spend so much time arguing that this or that is the reason for obesity - the ONLY reason is overconsumption. Period.
0 -
All any one person can do is monitor their own consumption, that's true.
But it's ridiculous to suggest everyone randomly at the same time deciding to overconsume can explain the rates. It's more complicated than that.0 -
All any one person can do is monitor their own consumption, that's true.
But it's ridiculous to suggest everyone randomly at the same time deciding to overconsume can explain the rates. It's more complicated than that.
But it's not more complicated than that. Yes, food is easier to come by. Yes, we all have cars and many of us have sedentary jobs. Our caloric needs have decreased because of these things. All we have to do is compensate for that by getting exercise and eating less calories than we burn. Simple, but not easy. You have to work for it, and you have to want it. That is all there is to it.
It can be done - but we have to start spreading THAT message rather than a message of blaming fast food/genetics/sugar/the debil/your neighbors/etc. It's not fair to keep leading people to believe that they cannot control their weight because there is just too much food and that we don't have enough sense to not buy it all because the fast food corporations are out to get us.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SatietyQueen wrote: »
Who is talking about coke vs diet coke but you? Don't think that you are the only person that has heard of the word satiety because it's in your screen name. We're actually pretty good at giving people advice on how to do things properly and have the ability to explain why we say what we do. Don't be one of those people that pop up on scene and claim to have the psychology of how new people think. We were all new at some point. And before you call people idiots pay attention to whom you are actually addressing because you might find yourself in the middle of a debate that you can't handle.SatietyQueen wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »SatietyQueen wrote: »SergeantSausage wrote: »toniwarren106 wrote: »It is not just as simple as calories in/calories out. Yes, that may be the bulk of it, but consuming too much fat and sugar will not help you lose weight. Your body will store all of that fat and sugar if you do not use it up.
Actually, it *IS* just that simple.
Where do these folks come up with this horse hockey?
No, it is not that simple.
We have a bunch of veteran calorie counters on this site talking to each other. For these "veterans," counting calories comes as easy as brushing their teeth or driving a car.
Nonsense. All of us were new once. And understanding how it actually works, instead of believing idiotic myths about the magical powers of eating too much fat made it possible for me, for one, to succeed. Telling people the truth does not hurt them. They are grown ups, they can figure out how not to be hungry.
Now, if you also want to give helpful advice about what worked for you--as opposed to a lie like "if you eat a cookie it will be like a fat pill and make the diet not work"--great. For example, I experimented with different macros and found that eating balanced macros at all meals helped me feel more satisfied. I also found that FOR ME not snacking much and eating 3 decent-sized meals (sometimes with a post workout snack) was the most satisfying and enjoyable way to eat. For me, and I suspect for most, it's helpful to eat a good volume of veggies and some fruit and healthy too. So on.The fact is the vast majority (and I mean vast majority) of people who start a diet, whether they count calories or don't count calories, fail miserably because they are hungry. Look it up.
Do they fail because they are hungry, or because they are unhappy with what they are eating and unsatisfied? Different things. I seriously think a lot more people believe silly myths about how you have to eat in a rigid complicated way when dieting or it won't work (and also have some ingrained idea about self-punishment and sacrifice being good vs. self indulgence being bad) than can't figure out how to eat so as not to be hungry, which is really not very complicated unless you are very dumb. Or, more likely, simply not interested in eating in the way you know would address the issue since you are not yet ready or simply don't like the relevant foods vs. how you are eating (more common).It's tough to go from an "all you can eat" diet to a 1,500-calorie diet just like that.
Reading the forums here proves otherwise. Many, many people even at calories far lower than they need are motivated at the beginning of a diet and not hungry. The reason is that none of us are that hungry--hunger is often a psychological reaction to a belief that you are deprived.
I'm sure some percentage of overweight people are because they honestly have issues with hunger, but I suspect it's a minority and common sense would help them figure out how to deal with the issue.
But perhaps you think they are all idiots.
I make a common sense suggestion of finding foods that fill you up, and somehow you are taken aback. You think I'm making it up that bacon and eggs fill me up more than bagels? You think when you're starting out on this journey you should drink Coke instead of Diet Coke? Give me a break! I'll have to think about who the idiot is.
You win. Eat what you want newbies. It is 100% certain that you will succeed if you just count calories. Don't bother trying to find foods that make it easier for you to avoid hunger pangs and help you stay within your calorie goal. Just because MrM can do it, so can you. It's easy.
And by the way, I was the one who was accused of thinking people on this site are idiots. I did not start this battle.
Stick around a little longer and pay attention to the advice that people actually get about eating foods that meet there macronutrients, macronutrients, Vitamins and Minerals before moving into discretionary calories before you start judging what advice people are giving new members. Also, don't forget, you're new here too.
This.
Also, I think it's absurd that I'm being accused of being anti healthy eating or pro Twinkie or whatever too (although Twinkies are fine in moderation if someone actually likes them). Feel free to look at my diary or read my actual recommendations which are all over the forum, sigh.
psst.... I think bagels are the new Twinkies.
Uh, oh. I actually like bagels.It's obvious that you're pro-moderation from your posts and that you eat a well-varied diet.
;-)
0 -
toniwarren106 wrote: »It is not just as simple as calories in/calories out. Yes, that may be the bulk of it, but consuming too much fat and sugar will not help you lose weight. Your body will store all of that fat and sugar if you do not use it up.
Yikes.
You're right though, except for your trashcan last sentence which I'm ignoring. Consuming too much fat and sugar will not help you lose weight. Same for protein. If you consume more than you burn, you will not lose weight. So we come right back to calories in/calories out.
OP, do what someone on the first page suggested and work on hitting your macronutrients, especially protein and fat. Glad you're excited and I wish you success, just be careful not to eat too little - it's counterproductive in the long run.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions