Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What to call a diet that is just based on reduced calories?
Replies
-
I never followed any structured diet, didn't count calories or log anything. On the occasions that I needed to call it something (which wasn't often) I called it a diet.0
-
"CICO" is often stated when someone advises someone else to reduce calories in order to lose weight. I've seen it called the CICO woe, but that was corrected with statements along the lines of "CICO is not a woe".
What should that way of eating be called, when one is not following or incorporating any other food specific woes (like paleo, LCHF, vegan) in their diet?
If one has just cut calories, is that a SAD reduced calorie diet?
Many around here have improved their diet from SAD; they might want to call it a healthy, balanced, or nutritious calorie reduced diet. The problem being that a LCHF or paleo or vegetarian diet that is well thought out would also be able to use the labels: healthy, balanced or nutritious. It applies to many woes.
Plus there is the problem that some do not view others' diets as nutritious, healthy or balanced, so those terms should not be used.
Dr Jason Fung calls a reduced calorie diet for weight loss as Calorie Reduced (or Reduction) as Primary. Shortened, that is CRaP.... I doubt many would like to claim that is the correct label.
A calorie reduced diet is not IIFYM. That would be more of a "IIFYC" with C=calories.
What I usually see is people calling a reduced calorie diet as CICO. Some people object to that because any diet where you have lost weight, CI<CO is true. It technically applies to all diets, but people using other woes tend to focus more so on specific foods than the underlying CI<CO aspect.
For example, I identify myself as being LCHF, but to lose weight my CO must still be greater than CI. A greater CO is achieved through my food choices more so than focusing on cutting back my calories.
In my mind CICO means people just cut calories (CI) and maybe exercise to increase CO. Those who I would apply the CICO label to, seem to generally not consider how foods and hormones will affect CO like some other woes do (such as LCHF). Doing so might end up being called "majoring in the minors", although other woes don't see it that way.... Which is part of the point - some other woes focus less on CI<CO and more on food choices.
Can CICO be acceptably used as a woe lable? Is there a better label? Is CICO the best one to use? I am looking for a simple label that I can apply to people's eating without resorting to saying Joe's woe or Mary's woe when those people cut calories.
Just reducing calories overall is simply scientifically a caloric deficit. You are putting less energy into your body than it needs to perform all of the tasks you set before it and as such it burns either muscle or fat storages. Whether it burns muscle or fat depends on you, if you are operating on a caloric deficit and doing extreme cardio without much strength training your body will burn through the muscle because it is efficient & your body is not being told it really needs that muscle; this would lead to one becoming "skinny fat" - or mostly being made up of fat even though they don't weigh much. However if one prioritizes strength training with around 3-4 cardio sessions a week - typically HIIT is best as it's quick results & less likely to eat up muscle - their body will consume fat storages & preserve, maybe even gain depending on how much fat is available to burn, muscle. So in short consuming less calories is simply scientifically a caloric deficit, consuming the exact amount of calories your body needs is caloric maintenance - the body will neither burn nor create any storages during maintenence that being said muscle will still degrade when in no use for extreme lengths of time - and a caloric surplus is when you're consuming more calories than necessary for your body to function - this is the best way to gain fat & muscle however to gain more muscle & less fat means that one's diet should be heavily revolving around protein: about 40% protein 40% carbs & the rest healthy fats , additionally one needs to again put an emphasis on strength training with cardio being around 30 mins per session about 3-4 tines a week. It's important to note that when you have muscle mass that it consumes a fair amount of calories in its own which means that your caloric surplus, caloric deficit, & caloric maintenance will be higher than what a BMI based calculation will tell you to get a better idea you need to use a calculator that accounts for your muscle mass - you can easily find these online0 -
The ELF Diet - Eat Less Food
This is awesome, sooo borrowing this for my profile
During my weight loss phase I did alternate day IF so if asked I said IF. Now that I've been in maintenance for a while no one asks me because my weight isn't an issue/the overweight me is a distant memory.0 -
Science.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Has anyone actually been asked if they mean the verb or noun when they tell people they are on a diet? :huh:
If you're on a something the something is a noun. If you said you were dieting it would be a verb ?0 -
Just reducing calories overall is simply scientifically a caloric deficit.
about 40% protein 40% carbs & the rest healthy fats
Reducing calories would be calorie restriction, scientifically. If you reduced them below the body's needs it would be a hypocaloric diet.
40% protein would be widely regarded as "excessive" as it falls outside the usual accepted macro ranges.
0 -
The reason different "labels" are used is to differentiate between different styles of eating. If you don't call it something how would anyone know what you're talking about?
Different styles of eating are used by different people for a bunch of reasons. A very common one is that a whole lot of people have trouble with an "everything in moderation" style. But, a whole bunch of other people don't have any trouble with it at all.
A good portion of the people that have trouble with "everything in moderation" will say things like "I'm always hungry", "I'm always going over calories", I can't stop binge eating", "I can't stick to my plan", "I keep failing", "so disappointed in myself, again" and lots of other things. Just take a look through the weight loss board and you see it all day long. Simply eating less of the same old foods doesn't work out for lots and lots of people or that board wouldn't be so full of struggling, disappointed people.
It doesn't matter how many times a day someone posts about their "lack of control" or whatever they title their post describing the fact that they simply cannot make themselves eat enough less each day to amount to any weight loss... They will always be told that they just need to try harder. As if they don't want it bad enough. I bet they do want it bad. But it's hard to be hungry every day. It's certainly not sustainable. A person can force it for a while. But eventually will power gives out.
It's practically impossible to offer the possibility of another style of eating to them on those posts. Those of us that choose to restrict certain foods because we decided to give it a try (even if we didn't "have a medical condition") and found it made all the difference in the world know that things can be different and it would be nice to maybe offer some info that could help ease someone else struggling in ways we ourselves were once familiar with. But, many of us literally avoid making comments trying to help because it very quickly turns to debate. It's impossible to make positive comments about a style of eating that doesn't include the "everything in moderation" without being perceived to be "demonizing" the foods we choose to avoid. We can say that's not the intention all day long but it's no use. Speaking favorably about our personal experiences with our chosen style is quickly viewed as "evangelizing". I don't know how to get around that.
Some of us found a way around the feelings of "always hungry" and "lack of control" with a different style of eating. It made eating less to achieve weight loss easy enough to do to make it both sustainable and successful for us. If we are somehow wrong for wanting to share that with others that we can identify with, then I'm happy being wrong I guess. If our efforts to share that are perceived as "demonizing" or "evangelizing"... Well, so be it I suppose.
We're just trying to offer a possible option that someone may not be familiar with or ever tried before. It does help people. Not every person, but some of them. If the idea is beaten down and ridiculed and called out as being "woo", why would this struggling person ever bother to look into it further? Some still do. I'm glad for that. But others will keep trying and failing at moderation with the same food choices. I'm sure some will get through it and find a way to make it work too.
So, calling different styles of eating by some kind of term is important to be able to identify other possible methods of achieving our goals.
We all agree that not overeating is the key to losing weight. But how we each achieve that can be different and still perfectly healthy.4 -
So broadly we are agreed that CICO works scientifically - if not emotionally. Some people need to find ways that help them restrict their CI (eg total change of what they eat, paleo or IF or whatever). Lots of people people log, but plenty of people on MFP don't. Some excercise away pounds, or to enable cake-eating in maintenance, or to have a fitter looking body, or to be super fit etc. Some people are no longer restricting calories as they as a slim/light as they wish to be, others continue to count now in 'maintenance etc etc.
It is going to be hard to find a term that encompasses all of these personal variations
The phrase that covers most of this for me is 'calorie aware'.. But it is not perfect by any means!
1 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »The reason different "labels" are used is to differentiate between different styles of eating. If you don't call it something how would anyone know what you're talking about?
Different styles of eating are used by different people for a bunch of reasons. A very common one is that a whole lot of people have trouble with an "everything in moderation" style. But, a whole bunch of other people don't have any trouble with it at all.
A good portion of the people that have trouble with "everything in moderation" will say things like "I'm always hungry", "I'm always going over calories", I can't stop binge eating", "I can't stick to my plan", "I keep failing", "so disappointed in myself, again" and lots of other things. Just take a look through the weight loss board and you see it all day long. Simply eating less of the same old foods doesn't work out for lots and lots of people or that board wouldn't be so full of struggling, disappointed people.
It doesn't matter how many times a day someone posts about their "lack of control" or whatever they title their post describing the fact that they simply cannot make themselves eat enough less each day to amount to any weight loss... They will always be told that they just need to try harder. As if they don't want it bad enough. I bet they do want it bad. But it's hard to be hungry every day. It's certainly not sustainable. A person can force it for a while. But eventually will power gives out.
It's practically impossible to offer the possibility of another style of eating to them on those posts. Those of us that choose to restrict certain foods because we decided to give it a try (even if we didn't "have a medical condition") and found it made all the difference in the world know that things can be different and it would be nice to maybe offer some info that could help ease someone else struggling in ways we ourselves were once familiar with. But, many of us literally avoid making comments trying to help because it very quickly turns to debate. It's impossible to make positive comments about a style of eating that doesn't include the "everything in moderation" without being perceived to be "demonizing" the foods we choose to avoid. We can say that's not the intention all day long but it's no use. Speaking favorably about our personal experiences with our chosen style is quickly viewed as "evangelizing". I don't know how to get around that.
Some of us found a way around the feelings of "always hungry" and "lack of control" with a different style of eating. It made eating less to achieve weight loss easy enough to do to make it both sustainable and successful for us. If we are somehow wrong for wanting to share that with others that we can identify with, then I'm happy being wrong I guess. If our efforts to share that are perceived as "demonizing" or "evangelizing"... Well, so be it I suppose.
We're just trying to offer a possible option that someone may not be familiar with or ever tried before. It does help people. Not every person, but some of them. If the idea is beaten down and ridiculed and called out as being "woo", why would this struggling person ever bother to look into it further? Some still do. I'm glad for that. But others will keep trying and failing at moderation with the same food choices. I'm sure some will get through it and find a way to make it work too.
So, calling different styles of eating by some kind of term is important to be able to identify other possible methods of achieving our goals.
We all agree that not overeating is the key to losing weight. But how we each achieve that can be different and still perfectly healthy.
But that is not what people say when they say they struggle and the debate starts. They say they must avoid certain foods because they think certain foods are fattening. When the problem is presented as trouble moderating, there are only a few that persists that it's all about attitude (I have been in some of those and it doesn't feel good, but it's not the usual conversation in here). The overall consensus IS that moderation is great, if it works for you, don't cut out anything you like for NO GOOD REASON. Trouble moderating is a good reason. Believing it turns to fat in a calorie deficit is not a good reason.4 -
kommodevaran wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »The reason different "labels" are used is to differentiate between different styles of eating. If you don't call it something how would anyone know what you're talking about?
Different styles of eating are used by different people for a bunch of reasons. A very common one is that a whole lot of people have trouble with an "everything in moderation" style. But, a whole bunch of other people don't have any trouble with it at all.
A good portion of the people that have trouble with "everything in moderation" will say things like "I'm always hungry", "I'm always going over calories", I can't stop binge eating", "I can't stick to my plan", "I keep failing", "so disappointed in myself, again" and lots of other things. Just take a look through the weight loss board and you see it all day long. Simply eating less of the same old foods doesn't work out for lots and lots of people or that board wouldn't be so full of struggling, disappointed people.
It doesn't matter how many times a day someone posts about their "lack of control" or whatever they title their post describing the fact that they simply cannot make themselves eat enough less each day to amount to any weight loss... They will always be told that they just need to try harder. As if they don't want it bad enough. I bet they do want it bad. But it's hard to be hungry every day. It's certainly not sustainable. A person can force it for a while. But eventually will power gives out.
It's practically impossible to offer the possibility of another style of eating to them on those posts. Those of us that choose to restrict certain foods because we decided to give it a try (even if we didn't "have a medical condition") and found it made all the difference in the world know that things can be different and it would be nice to maybe offer some info that could help ease someone else struggling in ways we ourselves were once familiar with. But, many of us literally avoid making comments trying to help because it very quickly turns to debate. It's impossible to make positive comments about a style of eating that doesn't include the "everything in moderation" without being perceived to be "demonizing" the foods we choose to avoid. We can say that's not the intention all day long but it's no use. Speaking favorably about our personal experiences with our chosen style is quickly viewed as "evangelizing". I don't know how to get around that.
Some of us found a way around the feelings of "always hungry" and "lack of control" with a different style of eating. It made eating less to achieve weight loss easy enough to do to make it both sustainable and successful for us. If we are somehow wrong for wanting to share that with others that we can identify with, then I'm happy being wrong I guess. If our efforts to share that are perceived as "demonizing" or "evangelizing"... Well, so be it I suppose.
We're just trying to offer a possible option that someone may not be familiar with or ever tried before. It does help people. Not every person, but some of them. If the idea is beaten down and ridiculed and called out as being "woo", why would this struggling person ever bother to look into it further? Some still do. I'm glad for that. But others will keep trying and failing at moderation with the same food choices. I'm sure some will get through it and find a way to make it work too.
So, calling different styles of eating by some kind of term is important to be able to identify other possible methods of achieving our goals.
We all agree that not overeating is the key to losing weight. But how we each achieve that can be different and still perfectly healthy.
But that is not what people say when they say they struggle and the debate starts. They say they must avoid certain foods because they think certain foods are fattening. When the problem is presented as trouble moderating, there are only a few that persists that it's all about attitude (I have been in some of those and it doesn't feel good, but it's not the usual conversation in here). The overall consensus IS that moderation is great, if it works for you, don't cut out anything you like for NO GOOD REASON. Trouble moderating is a good reason. Believing it turns to fat in a calorie deficit is not a good reason.
and if it doesn't work, it isn't great0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »The reason different "labels" are used is to differentiate between different styles of eating. If you don't call it something how would anyone know what you're talking about?
Different styles of eating are used by different people for a bunch of reasons. A very common one is that a whole lot of people have trouble with an "everything in moderation" style. But, a whole bunch of other people don't have any trouble with it at all.
A good portion of the people that have trouble with "everything in moderation" will say things like "I'm always hungry", "I'm always going over calories", I can't stop binge eating", "I can't stick to my plan", "I keep failing", "so disappointed in myself, again" and lots of other things. Just take a look through the weight loss board and you see it all day long. Simply eating less of the same old foods doesn't work out for lots and lots of people or that board wouldn't be so full of struggling, disappointed people.
It doesn't matter how many times a day someone posts about their "lack of control" or whatever they title their post describing the fact that they simply cannot make themselves eat enough less each day to amount to any weight loss... They will always be told that they just need to try harder. As if they don't want it bad enough. I bet they do want it bad. But it's hard to be hungry every day. It's certainly not sustainable. A person can force it for a while. But eventually will power gives out.
It's practically impossible to offer the possibility of another style of eating to them on those posts. Those of us that choose to restrict certain foods because we decided to give it a try (even if we didn't "have a medical condition") and found it made all the difference in the world know that things can be different and it would be nice to maybe offer some info that could help ease someone else struggling in ways we ourselves were once familiar with. But, many of us literally avoid making comments trying to help because it very quickly turns to debate. It's impossible to make positive comments about a style of eating that doesn't include the "everything in moderation" without being perceived to be "demonizing" the foods we choose to avoid. We can say that's not the intention all day long but it's no use. Speaking favorably about our personal experiences with our chosen style is quickly viewed as "evangelizing". I don't know how to get around that.
Some of us found a way around the feelings of "always hungry" and "lack of control" with a different style of eating. It made eating less to achieve weight loss easy enough to do to make it both sustainable and successful for us. If we are somehow wrong for wanting to share that with others that we can identify with, then I'm happy being wrong I guess. If our efforts to share that are perceived as "demonizing" or "evangelizing"... Well, so be it I suppose.
We're just trying to offer a possible option that someone may not be familiar with or ever tried before. It does help people. Not every person, but some of them. If the idea is beaten down and ridiculed and called out as being "woo", why would this struggling person ever bother to look into it further? Some still do. I'm glad for that. But others will keep trying and failing at moderation with the same food choices. I'm sure some will get through it and find a way to make it work too.
So, calling different styles of eating by some kind of term is important to be able to identify other possible methods of achieving our goals.
We all agree that not overeating is the key to losing weight. But how we each achieve that can be different and still perfectly healthy.
But that is not what people say when they say they struggle and the debate starts. They say they must avoid certain foods because they think certain foods are fattening. When the problem is presented as trouble moderating, there are only a few that persists that it's all about attitude (I have been in some of those and it doesn't feel good, but it's not the usual conversation in here). The overall consensus IS that moderation is great, if it works for you, don't cut out anything you like for NO GOOD REASON. Trouble moderating is a good reason. Believing it turns to fat in a calorie deficit is not a good reason.
I really don't care if they believe space aliens sneak into their rooms at night and vacuum it out if they can find a way to lose the weight and start feeling better.
Sure some people word things the way you say in sharing their thoughts about certain things being fattening. But if they are binging and overeating those things, aren't they? If I binged on lean chicken and I knew that eating that particular food was a problem because I couldn't get myself to eat it in decent portions consistently, I might say that it makes me fat. That doesn't mean that I don't know that if I ate less of it that it would be ok. It means I realize that food is a problem for me because I can't seem to stop myself from eating too much of it.
Seems a waste of time to argue the details when someone just wants to feel in control and has identified where they are not. If the topic is asking for tips for on how to cut something out or cut back, I don't understand why so many that have no intention on offering tips to that effect even bother to reply. The person knows they need to eat less and they have identified where they lose control in doing exactly that and they get pushback telling them to use moderation. As if they don't know that's what they need to do. If They are only seeking to avoid something completely because of control it to moderation, then telling them to moderate it is not addressing anything helpful.3 -
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »The reason different "labels" are used is to differentiate between different styles of eating. If you don't call it something how would anyone know what you're talking about?
Different styles of eating are used by different people for a bunch of reasons. A very common one is that a whole lot of people have trouble with an "everything in moderation" style. But, a whole bunch of other people don't have any trouble with it at all.
A good portion of the people that have trouble with "everything in moderation" will say things like "I'm always hungry", "I'm always going over calories", I can't stop binge eating", "I can't stick to my plan", "I keep failing", "so disappointed in myself, again" and lots of other things. Just take a look through the weight loss board and you see it all day long. Simply eating less of the same old foods doesn't work out for lots and lots of people or that board wouldn't be so full of struggling, disappointed people.
It doesn't matter how many times a day someone posts about their "lack of control" or whatever they title their post describing the fact that they simply cannot make themselves eat enough less each day to amount to any weight loss... They will always be told that they just need to try harder. As if they don't want it bad enough. I bet they do want it bad. But it's hard to be hungry every day. It's certainly not sustainable. A person can force it for a while. But eventually will power gives out.
It's practically impossible to offer the possibility of another style of eating to them on those posts. Those of us that choose to restrict certain foods because we decided to give it a try (even if we didn't "have a medical condition") and found it made all the difference in the world know that things can be different and it would be nice to maybe offer some info that could help ease someone else struggling in ways we ourselves were once familiar with. But, many of us literally avoid making comments trying to help because it very quickly turns to debate. It's impossible to make positive comments about a style of eating that doesn't include the "everything in moderation" without being perceived to be "demonizing" the foods we choose to avoid. We can say that's not the intention all day long but it's no use. Speaking favorably about our personal experiences with our chosen style is quickly viewed as "evangelizing". I don't know how to get around that.
Some of us found a way around the feelings of "always hungry" and "lack of control" with a different style of eating. It made eating less to achieve weight loss easy enough to do to make it both sustainable and successful for us. If we are somehow wrong for wanting to share that with others that we can identify with, then I'm happy being wrong I guess. If our efforts to share that are perceived as "demonizing" or "evangelizing"... Well, so be it I suppose.
We're just trying to offer a possible option that someone may not be familiar with or ever tried before. It does help people. Not every person, but some of them. If the idea is beaten down and ridiculed and called out as being "woo", why would this struggling person ever bother to look into it further? Some still do. I'm glad for that. But others will keep trying and failing at moderation with the same food choices. I'm sure some will get through it and find a way to make it work too.
So, calling different styles of eating by some kind of term is important to be able to identify other possible methods of achieving our goals.
We all agree that not overeating is the key to losing weight. But how we each achieve that can be different and still perfectly healthy.
But that is not what people say when they say they struggle and the debate starts. They say they must avoid certain foods because they think certain foods are fattening. When the problem is presented as trouble moderating, there are only a few that persists that it's all about attitude (I have been in some of those and it doesn't feel good, but it's not the usual conversation in here). The overall consensus IS that moderation is great, if it works for you, don't cut out anything you like for NO GOOD REASON. Trouble moderating is a good reason. Believing it turns to fat in a calorie deficit is not a good reason.
I really don't care if they believe space aliens sneak into their rooms at night and vacuum it out if they can find a way to lose the weight and start feeling better.
Sure some people word things the way you say in sharing their thoughts about certain things being fattening. But if they are binging and overeating those things, aren't they? If I binged on lean chicken and I knew that eating that particular food was a problem because I couldn't get myself to eat it in decent portions consistently, I might say that it makes me fat. That doesn't mean that I don't know that if I ate less of it that it would be ok. It means I realize that food is a problem for me because I can't seem to stop myself from eating too much of it.
Seems a waste of time to argue the details when someone just wants to feel in control and has identified where they are not. If the topic is asking for tips for on how to cut something out or cut back, I don't understand why so many that have no intention on offering tips to that effect even bother to reply. The person knows they need to eat less and they have identified where they lose control in doing exactly that and they get pushback telling them to use moderation. As if they don't know that's what they need to do. If They are only seeking to avoid something completely because of control it to moderation, then telling them to moderate it is not addressing anything helpful.
Too much of anything will make us fat
Maybe I'm just anal about these things, but I get slightly annoyed when people evade the real issues both in their OPs and in follow-ups. It's hard to offer helpful advice when they insist that they aren't overeating, and keep repeating that they "measure" all their food 
Identifying the problem is essential to solving it, and no clear thought ever arise from woolly speak, so I think using clear wording is worthwhile. 4 -
I think support even while offering critique in wording is totally acceptable.0
-
I was never able to "just eat less." I had to decide what to eat, and what to leave out. It has been markedly easier for me to maintain my weight since I decided to leave out sugar.0
-
For me there was never a separation between eating less and making choices about what to eat less of. I cut back on foods I thought were less important (for the nutrients and satiety) and just stopped eating those not worth the calories to me. I considered this a practical way to just eat less, and it never struck me to do it some other way.2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »For me there was never a separation between eating less and making choices about what to eat less of. I cut back on foods I thought were less important (for the nutrients and satiety) and just stopped eating those not worth the calories to me. I considered this a practical way to just eat less, and it never struck me to do it some other way.
Exactly. There are many foods that are a calorie bomb, that when viewed in the context of my overall diet are not worth trying to fit in every day, but to have it as a one-off, is not a worry.
I can't tell you how liberating it was when I realized that I didn't have to go without the things I enjoy, I just don't consume them as frequently or in the same quantities as before. When I was busy trying to cut out certain items that I had been convinced were bad, anytime I had one of these items, I felt horrible about myself, my self-control, and felt like a failure. I made a big difference on my level of guilt and self-doubt when I decided to look at it from a distance. I know not everyone feels this way about food, and that's why so many people need to find what works for them, but the insistence that certain things are bad or need to be removed can be very detrimental and ultimately become a source of shame for some people.2 -
When asked my method for weight loss I say " Eat less, move more - significantly less and considerably more!" It sounds a bit posey, though.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lisawinning4losing wrote: »The perpetual hunger diet?
Again with the incredibly rude assumption that others are hungry.
Re ketomom and cutting calories and eating less not working for you, I never assume that cutting calories means eating exactly the same, but less, since obviously anyone sensible (and I assume people are sensible) will realize that some calories are more dispensable than others, although it depends on their preferences and what satiates them, as well as nutrition concerns. I know I and others have said that one big change was that having reduced calories made us pickier, less likely to eat things we don't find delicious (I find vegetables delicious as well as essential for a healthy diet), and I also expect that people will prioritize health and satiety and experiment to find something to work.
So when I say "just cut calories, you don't need a special diet" I don't mean "make no changes to your diet and keep the percentage of cookies or whatever exactly the same"). I don't think anyone means that. Instead I say go through your diary and see what's easiest to cut without missing it. For me that meant increasing my protein (meat) consumption (although I was not totally comfortable with the meat part of that), decreasing sweets, especially those I ate pretty mindlessly (because they appeared in my office and everyone seemed to be eating them), decreasing some starchy carbs since for me they aren't worth the calories, decreasing the amount of oils and butter I used (this was significant). On the other hand, I greatly prefer chicken with bones and skin to most boneless, skinless, so did not make that switch (with exceptions for specific dishes). I already ate (preferred) skim or 1% dairy and saw no reason to change that. I ate lots of fish and vegetables and kept that habit. Mostly it's going to be personal, and I don't see why cutting carbs isn't often the product of the same kinds of choices (though not a hardcore keto diet, I suppose).
The bolded is essentially what I did as well.
IRL, I just tell people I "eat less and move more."1 -
Yep, I just say the same. I assume people are reasonable.0
-
Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »The reason different "labels" are used is to differentiate between different styles of eating. If you don't call it something how would anyone know what you're talking about?
Different styles of eating are used by different people for a bunch of reasons. A very common one is that a whole lot of people have trouble with an "everything in moderation" style. But, a whole bunch of other people don't have any trouble with it at all.
A good portion of the people that have trouble with "everything in moderation" will say things like "I'm always hungry", "I'm always going over calories", I can't stop binge eating", "I can't stick to my plan", "I keep failing", "so disappointed in myself, again" and lots of other things. Just take a look through the weight loss board and you see it all day long. Simply eating less of the same old foods doesn't work out for lots and lots of people or that board wouldn't be so full of struggling, disappointed people.
It doesn't matter how many times a day someone posts about their "lack of control" or whatever they title their post describing the fact that they simply cannot make themselves eat enough less each day to amount to any weight loss... They will always be told that they just need to try harder. As if they don't want it bad enough. I bet they do want it bad. But it's hard to be hungry every day. It's certainly not sustainable. A person can force it for a while. But eventually will power gives out.
It's practically impossible to offer the possibility of another style of eating to them on those posts. Those of us that choose to restrict certain foods because we decided to give it a try (even if we didn't "have a medical condition") and found it made all the difference in the world know that things can be different and it would be nice to maybe offer some info that could help ease someone else struggling in ways we ourselves were once familiar with. But, many of us literally avoid making comments trying to help because it very quickly turns to debate. It's impossible to make positive comments about a style of eating that doesn't include the "everything in moderation" without being perceived to be "demonizing" the foods we choose to avoid. We can say that's not the intention all day long but it's no use. Speaking favorably about our personal experiences with our chosen style is quickly viewed as "evangelizing". I don't know how to get around that.
Some of us found a way around the feelings of "always hungry" and "lack of control" with a different style of eating. It made eating less to achieve weight loss easy enough to do to make it both sustainable and successful for us. If we are somehow wrong for wanting to share that with others that we can identify with, then I'm happy being wrong I guess. If our efforts to share that are perceived as "demonizing" or "evangelizing"... Well, so be it I suppose.
We're just trying to offer a possible option that someone may not be familiar with or ever tried before. It does help people. Not every person, but some of them. If the idea is beaten down and ridiculed and called out as being "woo", why would this struggling person ever bother to look into it further? Some still do. I'm glad for that. But others will keep trying and failing at moderation with the same food choices. I'm sure some will get through it and find a way to make it work too.
So, calling different styles of eating by some kind of term is important to be able to identify other possible methods of achieving our goals.
We all agree that not overeating is the key to losing weight. But how we each achieve that can be different and still perfectly healthy.
I can't imagine thinking I would eat the exact same foods in the same combinations, just smaller portions, and if I were hungry I wouldn't think to rearrange those foods to be able to still prioritize my favorites while eating more satiating foods. I have always said that I was successful here because I didn't cut anything out, instead I added things to my diet: more protein, more vegetables, more exercise. Taking that approach of adding things rather than restricting, has enabled me to be able to lose weight eating all the same foods as before just less quantity or less often. That doesn't mean I didn't make any other changes/improvements and if people think that they shouldn't try to similarly add more satiating, nutrient dense foods to be able to still enjoy a cupcake or wine or McDonalds if they want on occasion, that seems rash to jump straight to the all out restriction of certain foods or other extreme changes... I personally don't have an issue with people choosing to cut things out if it works well for them and they find a way of eating to be enjoyable, healthy and sustainable. What Concerns me is the vast number of people who come to these boards thinking you HAVE to give up sugar, or fast food, or carbs in order to be successful. There's a post right now where the OP is concerned one cup of hot chocolate a day will keep her from achieving her goals because she was told added sugar was bad.8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »The reason different "labels" are used is to differentiate between different styles of eating. If you don't call it something how would anyone know what you're talking about?
Different styles of eating are used by different people for a bunch of reasons. A very common one is that a whole lot of people have trouble with an "everything in moderation" style. But, a whole bunch of other people don't have any trouble with it at all.
A good portion of the people that have trouble with "everything in moderation" will say things like "I'm always hungry", "I'm always going over calories", I can't stop binge eating", "I can't stick to my plan", "I keep failing", "so disappointed in myself, again" and lots of other things. Just take a look through the weight loss board and you see it all day long. Simply eating less of the same old foods doesn't work out for lots and lots of people or that board wouldn't be so full of struggling, disappointed people.
It doesn't matter how many times a day someone posts about their "lack of control" or whatever they title their post describing the fact that they simply cannot make themselves eat enough less each day to amount to any weight loss... They will always be told that they just need to try harder. As if they don't want it bad enough. I bet they do want it bad. But it's hard to be hungry every day. It's certainly not sustainable. A person can force it for a while. But eventually will power gives out.
It's practically impossible to offer the possibility of another style of eating to them on those posts. Those of us that choose to restrict certain foods because we decided to give it a try (even if we didn't "have a medical condition") and found it made all the difference in the world know that things can be different and it would be nice to maybe offer some info that could help ease someone else struggling in ways we ourselves were once familiar with. But, many of us literally avoid making comments trying to help because it very quickly turns to debate. It's impossible to make positive comments about a style of eating that doesn't include the "everything in moderation" without being perceived to be "demonizing" the foods we choose to avoid. We can say that's not the intention all day long but it's no use. Speaking favorably about our personal experiences with our chosen style is quickly viewed as "evangelizing". I don't know how to get around that.
Some of us found a way around the feelings of "always hungry" and "lack of control" with a different style of eating. It made eating less to achieve weight loss easy enough to do to make it both sustainable and successful for us. If we are somehow wrong for wanting to share that with others that we can identify with, then I'm happy being wrong I guess. If our efforts to share that are perceived as "demonizing" or "evangelizing"... Well, so be it I suppose.
We're just trying to offer a possible option that someone may not be familiar with or ever tried before. It does help people. Not every person, but some of them. If the idea is beaten down and ridiculed and called out as being "woo", why would this struggling person ever bother to look into it further? Some still do. I'm glad for that. But others will keep trying and failing at moderation with the same food choices. I'm sure some will get through it and find a way to make it work too.
So, calling different styles of eating by some kind of term is important to be able to identify other possible methods of achieving our goals.
We all agree that not overeating is the key to losing weight. But how we each achieve that can be different and still perfectly healthy.
I can't imagine thinking I would eat the exact same foods in the same combinations, just smaller portions, and if I were hungry I wouldn't think to rearrange those foods to be able to still prioritize my favorites while eating more satiating foods. I have always said that I was successful here because I didn't cut anything out, instead I added things to my diet: more protein, more vegetables, more exercise. Taking that approach of adding things rather than restricting, has enabled me to be able to lose weight eating all the same foods as before just less quantity or less often. That doesn't mean I didn't make any other changes/improvements and if people think that they shouldn't try to similarly add more satiating, nutrient dense foods to be able to still enjoy a cupcake or wine or McDonalds if they want on occasion, that seems rash to jump straight to the all out restriction of certain foods or other extreme changes... I personally don't have an issue with people choosing to cut things out if it works well for them and they find a way of eating to be enjoyable, healthy and sustainable. What Concerns me is the vast number of people who come to these boards thinking you HAVE to give up sugar, or fast food, or carbs in order to be successful. There's a post right now where the OP is concerned one cup of hot chocolate a day will keep her from achieving her goals because she was told added sugar was bad.
I like that perspective of adding instead of restricting. That's what I did, too.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions