I'm just going to leave this here

2

Replies

  • bclarke1990
    bclarke1990 Posts: 287 Member
    edited April 2016
    This is a super-long rant to the original poster. It just sort of sums of my experiences with this website and how I got over a bad relationship with food. I probably won't check back here to argue or defend any of my points (not because I think they're all right-it simply wasn't my intention)

    My beliefs are fairly contrary to most people on this website. After being obese for most of my life, and then becoming skinny, I still struggled with a poor relation with food, uncontrollable binging, and a serious obession and controlling behavior with food.

    I've always considered myself fairly skeptical and rational, (I'm a Bio student, so I certain don't dismiss any of the obvious "truths" regarding anatomy and physiology) and in the last year or so, after lots of "experimenting" with my own body, listening to tons of anecdotal information and trying to make sense of it all, I've basically come to this conclusion. (This is just my opinion; different things work for different people and everyone has a different level of willpower and genetic predisposition)

    I don't think dieting works very well for a lot of people. I myself lost 100 lbs dieting and tracking my macros. By all accounts this website helped me get myself "together". With that being said, I had a very rigid, relationship with food, calories, etc.

    Besides the obvious extremities of over-stressing about food, whether I went over by 150 calories one day and felt discouraged, or simply being "afraid" of calories. So many people become essentially "addicted" to hyper-palatable foods and eat under their hunger drive constantly, which IMO makes binge-eaing so common nowadays.

    I was one of those people who tried every type of diet. I tried low carb for a bit and hated it. I went vegan and it felt great but I would still binge and I couldn't figure out why.

    I had no regard for nutrition. Obviously, I would try to eat "my veggies" at least once a day, however upon reflection that is such a silly notion-convincing myself I had a quota to meet of including healthy food one time a day.

    I was one of those people who had a large number of protein powders of difference flavours. I had dozens of artifical flavours, sweeteners, etc. At one point, I truly believed that if I minimized my carbs as much as possible and ate chicken and protein-mug cakes, protein shakes, protein breads, protein-oatmeal, etc, that I was really "succeeding" in my diet, which I've come to realize couldn't be far from the truth

    Obviously we need protein. It helps us build muscle, and provides us with the building blocks our body needs to produce enzymes, channels, biological structures, etc. When you get protein from something like a black bean, you're getting so many more vitamins, minerals, fiber, phytochemicals, etc. When you eat a "protein-mug cake", you get an egg, some milk, and some nutritionless processed protein.. that's it.

    I've really grown to dislike the way we treat iifym. Not only do you glorify protein and demonize a lot of plant foods, that are undeniably the most nutritious (Obviously you can eat healthy and still fit things like processed protein bars in, although If you're trying to lose weight I think using calories to something devoid of nutrients is counter productive), but when we eat these less nutritious, calorically dense foods, while restricting our calories, we're essentially eating under our biological hunger drive.

    I've watched a lot of the plant based presenters, like McDougall, Barnard and Lisle, and I'm certainly not "indoctrinated" like a lot of their supporters. I think they make a lot of poor arguments. I believe they base many of their guidelines on insubstantial evolutionary patterns, and they're often far too extreme (such as no overt fats, plant or animal based).

    I still strongly recommend anyone struggling with binge-eating and obsessing over food to check out some of their presentations, though. When I first started binging, I felt like there was something wrong with my brain. As I kept going, I realized how many people it was affecting and started to attribute it to biological mechanisms rather than some personal failure. There are plenty of strong-willed people who succeed vibrantly on an "IIFYM" lifestyle, but I think there are quite a few who don't, whether it be due to their upbringing, something genetic that makes them susceptible to dopamine stimulation, or many other factors.

    Obviously a calorie is a calorie, but I truly believe if you just eat a largely whole-foods plant based diet without a lot of added salt and sugar, you can get more in touch with your biological hunger queues and lose weight easily without counting anything. As soon as I started to follow this approach I started appreciating how good real food tastes, and I stopped thinking about when my next meal was going to be and how many calories I could fit in. Any time I'm hungry I eat now. I eat sensible portions like anyone practicing iifym, but because I don't over-stimulate myself with artificially sweet foods, I don't crave junk food anymore which makes it so easy to eat at or slightly below maintenance without being hungry. If I'm hungry I'll have an apple or a banana or some carrots without ever thinking about "those extra 200 calories".

    Sorry for the extremely long, somewhat incoherent rant, but hopefully OP sees this and maybe some of my experiences can relate to her or anyone else.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    kgeyser wrote: »
    baby05phat wrote: »
    When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
    http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

    There are some interesting points in that article that I've seen recommended numerous times on this site, such as taking into account macro levels when dieting, the margin of error on packaged foods, how things can impact the calories out side, etc. I don't see anything in there that was really off the mark as far as things to consider during weight loss. I do wish they would have linked to that Wake Forest study though.

    The thing that was "really off the mark" was the insinuation by the author that any of those points are actually more important than your calorie intake and even saying in the last point that you can start losing weight by eating more calories which would mean a stupid high increase in TDEE just from food choice or even timing which just doesn't happen.
  • Verdenal
    Verdenal Posts: 625 Member
    edited April 2016
    baby05phat wrote: »
    When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
    http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

    There is a tendency to oversimplification on this site. I've seen many posts that in essence parroted "a calorie is a calorie you're no special snowflake" without going into a real explanation of the effect of different foods on the weight loss process. Well, now you're better informed. I don't agree with everything in the article, but it certainly is the case the nutritional content of different foods is important.
  • Serah87
    Serah87 Posts: 5,481 Member
    OP sorry but CI/CO does work, it's up to you what you put in. You need to be accurate with logging. If you eat more, binge, etc, that's your fault not anyone or thing's fault. As other people suggested above you should seek help, you sound like you have some issues going on.

    Best of luck.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    RobD520 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    RobD520 wrote: »
    Lounmoun wrote: »
    Cynthia Sass has a diet book to sell that promises fast weight loss without counting calories.

    ETA: That means she is biased and not a good source of information.

    So anyone who has a book out is by definition not a good source of information EVER, because they are "biased".....

    Proof please?



    You mean apart from the laughable notion that 1 unit of measurement is somehow not equal to another identical unit of measurement? Are you the kind of person who picks the bag with a ton of feathers because it's lighter than the bag with a ton of bricks?

    Actually I may well have as many disagreements with the author as you do. I just get frustrated when someone is discounted just because they wrote a book...

    Well, The whole thing was leading up to her last point which was basically a single "See? That's the reason you should follow my program instead of counting calories." Even without voicing it out.
  • ereck44
    ereck44 Posts: 1,170 Member
    There are a lot of methods that work for losing weight...it's the "keeping it off" part that is hard to do. And mfp and support from my friends have been helping me with the "keeping it off" part. You have to decide what works for you but also recognize that this site has worked for many, many people.
  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    kgeyser wrote: »
    baby05phat wrote: »
    When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
    http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

    There are some interesting points in that article that I've seen recommended numerous times on this site, such as taking into account macro levels when dieting, the margin of error on packaged foods, how things can impact the calories out side, etc. I don't see anything in there that was really off the mark as far as things to consider during weight loss. I do wish they would have linked to that Wake Forest study though.

    The thing that was "really off the mark" was the insinuation by the author that any of those points are actually more important than your calorie intake and even saying in the last point that you can start losing weight by eating more calories which would mean a stupid high increase in TDEE just from food choice or even timing which just doesn't happen.

    I didn't see any insinuation by the author that calorie deficit was unnecessary, I think it was just digging deeper into why there are other things to consider besides calories. And other than the "jumpstart metabolism" thing, I didn't see much wrong with the last paragraph. She didn't say "eat more to lose weight," she said that she's seen clients break through a plateau by eating more calories in conjunction with the points she made above. She didn't say how many more, it could have been simply recalculating their TDEE and eating what they need to eat (rather than putting themselves at 1200 calories by default) for their lifestyle, choosing the right balance of macros for their goals, and getting on an eating schedule that reduces the likelihood of getting too hungry and making poor choices.
  • PiperGirl08
    PiperGirl08 Posts: 134 Member
    stevencloser wrote: »
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    baby05phat wrote: »
    When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
    http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

    Two comments: 1) why have people flagged the original post? and 2) I am surprised the contents of the referenced article are a newsflash to anyone or is cause for debate. Does anyone actually believe that 100 calories from potato chips have the equivalent impact on the body or are used in the same was as 100 calories of spinach?

    To the OP: make sure you do your own research or ask people who offer you advice to provide references for the same. If they can't or won't, treat it with a grain of salt. Else it's all just opinion, and opinions rather than facts won't help you accomplish your goals, and can also hurt your quest in the long run.

    Anyone who knows how digestion works knows it just gets turned into its components.
    Your body really doesn't give a single F*** if you had potato chips or baked potato with butter, it's both just potatoes and fat. In fact, your body doesn't even have a concept of "good" and "bad" foods, that's just you. It just doesn't care as long as it gets what it needs which is first and foremost calories and only secondly minimum amounts of nutrients. Most of the time you'd die of lack of calories a good while before you get problems because of lack of a nutrient.

    And that's a good thing because it made us probably the most adaptable higher life form in the world. Slovenly said, as long as there is ANYTHING edible, we can work with that.
    If someone who can eat mostly fat with little fruits and vegetables in their diet can achieve weight loss and health just as much as someone with balanced amounts or someone on the other side who almost only eats fruits and vegetables and little fat and protein, you should ask yourself why that is.

    Posts like this are the reason people should do their own research and use credible sources in the process. (OP: I'm talking to you.) :|

    See, when I think of credible sources I don't think of the article OP posted.

    That's all fine and well, and I mean no disrespect, but no one, especially the OP in this case, has any reason to consider you any more credible that the author the OP cites. In truth, this isn't about you and your beliefs, it is about her, and finding information that can truly helps her accomplish her goals.

    Yeah, she could have left the blame-gaming and finger-pointing out of her original post. But the bottom line is that what she has been doing (following bad advice from this site) hasn't worked so it is time for her to find something better and do something different. Such as some real research so she can learn what she needs to in order to accomplish her goals.<shrug>
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    I believe a calorie is a calorie no matter what food it comes from. For me, adherence to a diet comes down to macros, if I get them spot on then the calories fall into line and make eating at a deficit a lot easier.
  • baby05phat
    baby05phat Posts: 71 Member
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    baby05phat wrote: »
    When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
    http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

    Two comments: 1) why have people flagged the original post? and 2) I am surprised the contents of the referenced article are a newsflash to anyone or is cause for debate. Does anyone actually believe that 100 calories from potato chips have the equivalent impact on the body or are used in the same was as 100 calories of spinach? Or that all that matters is calories (energy) and that nutritional value doesn't come into play?

    To the OP: make sure you do your own research or ask people who offer you advice to provide references for the same. If they can't or won't, treat it with a grain of salt. Else it's all just opinion, and opinions rather than facts won't help you accomplish your goals, and can also hurt your quest in the long run.

    Perfect reply, thank you :) I 've overcome my eating issues by realizing this... for me a calorie just isn't a calorie, my body reacts completely differently. When I eat all healthy calories my shape becomes attractive and healthy looking as I lose weight. When I did all junk food but restricted calories.. yes I still lost weight, but my shape was skinny fat and unattractive + I'd just binge because I was addicted to heavy salt, sugar, fat and other chemicals in the food in today's world.
    Today's food is brand new that's why we are seeing an epidemic of obesity, everything is new. Back in 1800s no such thing existed as modified food and McDonald's and junk food, and everyone was a lot healthier. So in 2016, I completely think a calorie is not a calorie anymore
  • snowflake930
    snowflake930 Posts: 2,188 Member
    As with most things related to weight loss and maintaining a normal weight, find what works for you and stick with it. You know yourself better than anyone else. I am sure that not one is intentionally trying to mislead anyone. There are a lot of different factors that go into being successful at weight loss. Use all of the information available to find what works for you.
  • Triplestep
    Triplestep Posts: 239 Member
    The author says "Because each [Carbohydrates, protein, and fat] performs a unique function, they aren’t interchangeable, so getting the right amount of each is important." But she does not bother to posit what the "right amount" is, or even the right proportion.

    I'm experiencing the most weight loss success of my adult life with CICO. In the past I've tried many things, including Zone and South Beach Diet; both talked a lot about protein intake, and carbs/sugar causing cravings for more of the same.

    What I've learned is that calories matter most for weight loss. Protein intake matters most *to me* for mental clarity, and watching carbs/sugar (and the time of day I eat them) matter most *to me* for for sustained energy, and reduced hunger/cravings. But CICO is to thank for the actual weight loss.

  • EvgeniZyntx
    EvgeniZyntx Posts: 24,208 Member
    baby05phat wrote: »
    When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
    http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

    How did understanding calories lead to loathing, destruction, binging and unhappiness?

    You are trying to blame underlying psychology of eating and poor diet on calorie counting?
    One can eat well or eat poorly while calorie counting.

    That article isn't very good.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Triplestep wrote: »
    The author says "Because each [Carbohydrates, protein, and fat] performs a unique function, they aren’t interchangeable, so getting the right amount of each is important." But she does not bother to posit what the "right amount" is, or even the right proportion.

    I'm experiencing the most weight loss success of my adult life with CICO. In the past I've tried many things, including Zone and South Beach Diet; both talked a lot about protein intake, and carbs/sugar causing cravings for more of the same.

    What I've learned is that calories matter most for weight loss. Protein intake matters most *to me* for mental clarity, and watching carbs/sugar (and the time of day I eat them) matter most *to me* for for sustained energy, and reduced hunger/cravings. But CICO is to thank for the actual weight loss.

    Because then she'd have to admit that the amounts needed for functions outside energy generation are only about 200 calories of protein (as per the 46 g for women and 56g for men minimum recommendation) and right now I'm looking for the minimum fat amounts and found this gem http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/FFA_summary_rec_conclusion.pdf containing the following conclusion:

    There was convincing evidence that energy balance is critical to maintaining healthy body weight and
    ensuring optimal nutrient intakes, regardless of macronutrient distribution of energy as % total fat and % total carbohydrates.

    we now resume our scheduled program.

    and about 300-400 calories from fats (from above link, 15-20% of energy consumed [maintenance] for a 2000 kcal diet) totalling a staggering 500-600 calories that your body actually might use for stuff other than just energy fuel (though the actual amounts are likely far lower because minimum recommendations are always a step higher than what is actually needed) and everything apart from that can be turned into energy as much as the other through different metabolic pathways that create ATP.
  • Wickedfaery73
    Wickedfaery73 Posts: 184 Member
    "When I hear people repeat notions like “a calorie is a calorie” I like to reply: “That’s like saying a cubic zirconia is the same as a sparkling diamond.”

    This reminds me of the "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat" arguments.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    A calorie is a calorie is about weight loss, it doesn't say anything about what you should eat. If you have self-control issues, work on that or take it into account.

    I believe (of course) that a calorie is a calorie and that it is physically possible to lose weight eating lots of "junk" food, but I don't, because usually I like other foods better, because I care about how my overall diet makes me feel and nutrition, and because I want to (usually) eat in a way that helps benefit my training goals and maintain/gain muscle and all that.

    I also eat some ice cream or cheese or the like (or really good fries on occasion) within the context of a nutritionally sensible diet, since I enjoy them. Has never hurt my weight loss.

    As for the silly article, no one claims calorie counts are perfect (they don't need to be, it's still quite easy to be able to determine if you need to eat less and to do so) or that one must count to lose weight (although it can be helpful for many, and if you don't count and have become overweight you need another way to control calories, even if you never think about calories).
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    For the purposes of weight loss, a calorie is just a calorie. But for people who struggle with issues like binge eating, food choices do matter. I honestly don't see the conflict between knowing both of those statements to be true.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
    baby05phat wrote: »
    When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
    http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

    How did understanding calories lead to loathing, destruction, binging and unhappiness?

    You are trying to blame underlying psychology of eating and poor diet on calorie counting?
    One can eat well or eat poorly while calorie counting.

    That article isn't very good.

    Agreed.

    I get that "CICO" is only the first step, but the point of "preaching" it is to allow the individual to find their own path to achieving it rather than trying to force them into some some overly-restrictive prescribed diet that may not work for them. Do your own homework, experiment with your own macros, etc., do whatever you have to do to get there in a way that is sustainable for you, but CICO is still king.

    Exactly this.
  • ReaderGirl3
    ReaderGirl3 Posts: 868 Member
    edited April 2016
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    For the purposes of weight loss, a calorie is just a calorie. But for people who struggle with issues like binge eating, food choices do matter. I honestly don't see the conflict between knowing both of those statements to be true.

    The OP is projecting her own distorted issues with food and saying that CICO doesn't work for anyone. She's denying your first point, that CICO is the key for weight loss. That's what people are disagreeing with. The OP needs help beyond what this forum can give, probably with a professional who deals with EDs.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories