Eat whatever you want and still lose weight?

jaga13 wrote: »

Kruggeri wrote: »

jaga13 wrote: »

Kruggeri wrote: »

PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »

Caitwn wrote: »

So ironically, my 'eat what I want' decision has ended up establishing far healthier eating habits than the supposedly 'healthy' diets I tried to force on myself previously. Go figure

Same for me. I used to rarely have a salad, or any vegetables, really, on a regular basis. Now I have them because COOKIE LATER!!!

This is an excellent point and I think one of the key things that people fail to understand about those who practice moderation. A lot of people hear the phrase, "there's nothing wrong with eating XYZ food, in moderation" and turn that into the strawman argument, "Sure, you can eat nothing but (insert unclean food of choice: twinkies, oreos, doritos, McDonalds) and lose weight but you won't be healthy".

I eat more vegetables, more whole grains, more "clean" foods in general now than I ever did before. I also spend a lot of time thinking about food, planning my meals, figuring out how I'm going to fit in the "treats" I want. If I have a day filled with nutrient dense foods, and am under my calorie goal, does my one serving of gelato at the end of the day suddenly render me unhealthy? Even if I get some of my other nutrient dense foods from processed food, does that make me unhealthy? If I have greek yogurt and a Kashi bar for breakfast (like I did today), a burrito bowl from Chipotle or Qdoba for lunch, and then grilled chicken, veggies, and rice for dinner, ending with wine and gelato - is that an unhealthy day? That seems pretty healthy to me, but for some reason if people say they don't eat clean, because they don't demonize food, then everyone assumes I'm sitting around eating nothing but Oreos all day long.

I agree. It's too bad this seems to be a polarizing topic in the forums. I don't think it's so black and white. Most people who "eat whatever they want" seem to do the same (I think), but they aren't very vocal about the nutritious parts. It's hard to take someone seriously when they talk about all the junk they eat and don't talk about all the other, nutritious, food they eat to balance it. I wish more people were honest and talked more about BOTH types of foods.

Yeah, I guess. I think because I know many of those people, and know that when they say, "If It Fits Your Macros" they truly mean, if it fits their macros they will eat it, and if not, they won't. It is possible to hit your macros on nothing but McDonalds, but I don't know anyone who does that in actuality. The majority of the people saying, "I fit the junk food in" mean, they fit it in AFTER they have eaten nutrient dense foods to help them meet their macro and micro nutritional profile.

I agree, and have mentioned that a couple of times in those polarizing threads, that I think for the most part, people in both camps eat relatively similarly. You have clean eaters who say, "I eat 80% clean and 20% treats" and you have IIFYM folks who say, "I fit it in after I hit my macros". A blind comparison of diaries of eaters in both camps would probably be difficult to label as one or the other. There are a few extreme examples though, in both camps, and those are the ones that drive me crazy...

What I don't like is this theory that if you are eating anything processed, you are automatically "unhealthy". That's my biggest pet peeve. Everything is processed in some way or another.

Yep, scrambled eggs are technically processed (by heat). I agree there are some people who are nutty about the processed stuff. But the majority on MFP seem to follow the moderation/IIFYM mentality.

What I see here are threads (kind of like this one), that lead with the "whatever I want" but don't disclose the rest. It's kind of misleading and tempting to start an argument. If people want to create these threads, why not automatically disclose the rest of the balance of nutrients? I think that would shut down any opponents pretty quickly. The constant posting of "mmm, pizza!" makes it look that's ALL some people eat (I mean, I WISH!).

There's no reason someone couldn't eat only pizza, McDonald's, or whatever and still lose weight. That's the point of the thread (OP can correct me if I'm wrong). It's a shout-out to people who don't care to be told what or how to eat. It's about making the lifestyle change as easy and sustainable as possible while you work out the kinks. Nothing more, nothing less. Their overall health is another thing which can be sorted out at the doctor's office when their bloodwork comes in, but even then, a lot of the time, just losing the weight will improve those metrics.

Amen. I would starve to death most days at 1200 calories. Mine is set at 1400 but i still go over alot of days. I do try to exercise 3-5 days per week i work nights so me sleep and eating schedule looks crazy some days. Its nice to hear success from peoplewho dont live so strict. Thanks for the post!

allyphoe wrote: »

I eat what I want, too.

If you normally net over 1,200 calories a day, feel free to add me. I find it really hard to be supportive of people with really low intake. I normally average about 1,900, with a wide range day-to-day.

allyphoe wrote: »

I eat what I want, too.

If you normally net over 1,200 calories a day, feel free to add me. I find it really hard to be supportive of people with really low intake. I normally average about 1,900, with a wide range day-to-day.

For those who are still hungry on higher calorie budgets, may I gently suggest spending your budget a bit more thriftily? Some have open food diaries...and yeah, I'd be freaking STARVING on what they're eating!

Look for things you like that have a lot of bulk. And if you can't find anything, well, experiment. Maybe having bad habits your whole life, you never developed a taste for bulky/low calorie things.

If you want tasty, look at ethnic cuisine--MADE AT HOME, lol, without a ton of grease. There are basically three ways of making things super-tasty: fat, sugars, and herbs/spices. Because Europe was historically the richest part of the world for the average peasant, we have lots of cuisines that depend a ton on fats for flavors, plus we have a 300-year-old sugar tooth! There's nothing in the world wrong with eating high-fat and high-sugar foods, but they ARE going to be more calorically dense, and the fillingness of fat only works to a point, after which it's just really dense calories.

If you go for spices and herbs for flavors, you can still have the same hedonia (using the non-judgmental meaning of the word) and have much less density so that you CAN eat more.

Some of your seem to be springing for the one $100 shirt every time. But you're nekkid. Try saving up for the $100 shirt over time but mostly spend your budget on the $20 shirts.

jaga13 wrote: »

I eat what I want in moderation. But for ME moderation might mean that I can "spend" 200 calories on delicious junk food (or whatever I am craving). Or it might mean I occasionally eat a piece of cake and call it dinner. Not every meal is everything I want in life. There just isn't enough room in my caloric budget, and that's the truth. I see some saying they disapprove of a "low calorie" diet, but at 4'11, MFP only gives me 1210 for a mere .5 lb loss. I exercise my way up to around 1400 most days, but that's still not a lot to work with. So I ultimately chose to eat more volume, satiating food, and much less of the calorie dense food. But believe me, if I was taller and had a lot more calories to spare, I would be enjoying junk much more often!

x2 for me. 5'1", already down 62 pounds. Not a lot of wiggle room. If I had my druthers, I'd eat pizza and ice cream every day. Not even joking.

jaga13 wrote: »

Kruggeri wrote: »

PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »

Caitwn wrote: »

So ironically, my 'eat what I want' decision has ended up establishing far healthier eating habits than the supposedly 'healthy' diets I tried to force on myself previously. Go figure

Same for me. I used to rarely have a salad, or any vegetables, really, on a regular basis. Now I have them because COOKIE LATER!!!

This is an excellent point and I think one of the key things that people fail to understand about those who practice moderation. A lot of people hear the phrase, "there's nothing wrong with eating XYZ food, in moderation" and turn that into the strawman argument, "Sure, you can eat nothing but (insert unclean food of choice: twinkies, oreos, doritos, McDonalds) and lose weight but you won't be healthy".

I eat more vegetables, more whole grains, more "clean" foods in general now than I ever did before. I also spend a lot of time thinking about food, planning my meals, figuring out how I'm going to fit in the "treats" I want. If I have a day filled with nutrient dense foods, and am under my calorie goal, does my one serving of gelato at the end of the day suddenly render me unhealthy? Even if I get some of my other nutrient dense foods from processed food, does that make me unhealthy? If I have greek yogurt and a Kashi bar for breakfast (like I did today), a burrito bowl from Chipotle or Qdoba for lunch, and then grilled chicken, veggies, and rice for dinner, ending with wine and gelato - is that an unhealthy day? That seems pretty healthy to me, but for some reason if people say they don't eat clean, because they don't demonize food, then everyone assumes I'm sitting around eating nothing but Oreos all day long.

I agree. It's too bad this seems to be a polarizing topic in the forums. I don't think it's so black and white. Most people who "eat whatever they want" seem to do the same (I think), but they aren't very vocal about the nutritious parts. It's hard to take someone seriously when they talk about all the junk they eat and don't talk about all the other, nutritious, food they eat to balance it. I wish more people were honest and talked more about BOTH types of foods.

Sorry jaga, if you follow the iifym discussions you'll see that a large part of the veterans discuss an 80/20 split of focus on calorie sources or something similar - 80% nutrient rich, macro meeting diet and 20% whatever. We are pretty vocal about eating well - a lot of locally sourced fresh produce, and low on the convenience scale ... The dichotomy you see is also due to the questions asked and a response to the demonization of food. But you'll see the balance you seek if you look at the macro setting discussions, iifym, the post your meal thread, etc...
Personally, I try to see my shopping cart with 50% vegetables and fruit and < 10% boxed goods when I'm in general maintenance or in a regular cut. (Currently I'm all protein and frozen veg but that's another story)

JAMsMom13 wrote: »

because it seems like everyone is on this no sugar, no salt, no fun lifestyle. I can't live like that...

I actually think the majority are on calorie controlled diets where they eat in moderation amd its more the norm despite your impression. People should relax more.