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.
I Don't Believe in Calorie Counting
Replies
-
NorthCascades wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Well, two things here:
1) this is quote from the article, not my statement; and ... (removed irrelevant material for brevity)
So you posted that specific quote because you disagreed with it? I'm trying to understand your motivation here with this.
Perhaps a cheering section of non-counting folks?
Or a safe place for those who have developed anxiety over counting calories?
Or T.A. customers and followers?
1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Don't see what this approach has to do with whether you calorie count or not.
Why does calorie counting prevent a person from reflecting on why they want to overeat? I'd think keeping that kind of food diary would be helpful for just that. I'd think logging in advance of eating would help with emotional eating. It gives you one more chance to distance yourself from the emotion before digging in, at least.
I can tell you that if I cut out all the times I ate for reasons other than 'I'm hungry' I would probably still gain weight. Why? Because if I'm not aware, I'm reaching for higher calorie items than I should be. I'm eating more of lower calorie items than I should be. And I'm doing it because I have a sedentary job and very little margin for error.
Exercise helps with that, but if I don't track it, I'll more than compensate for my activity.
All that being said, obviously people are also successful without calorie counting. I just don't see where others' success without counting invalidates the success of everyone who did count.
Thank you for the well-thought out reply. I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real.
Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated.
Personally, apart from holidays and special occasions, I simply don't have "bad" food in the house. Only whole foods -- no chips, no crackers, no cakes, no pies, no cookies, no packaged meals. What I eat is filling and satisfying and I have to work hard to exceed my caloric range. To the degree that I log in MFP, is to get a look at the nutritional makeup of what I consume (Iron, Protein, Cholestrol and Potassium). Consequently, I don't need to count calories, and I've don't have and have never had a weight problem.
Calorie counting does work for those who need it. But at the end of the day, we'd probably see fewer problems with weight gain afterwards if people learned how to eat to live, rather than lived to eat, which is what get folks in the position of needing to count calories in the first place.
Personally, I strive to not 'live to eat'' or '"eat to live", but to have a healthy balance between the two. I believe food is for fuel and enjoyment, and I would be miserable not enjoying the so called bad foods that I love.
Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect.
There was an editorial a few months ago that went viral. The mother was arguing that she could be a better mother by going for ice cream with her son than by being diet conscious all the time. I wonder, though, if she put to her son the choice of having ice cream with his mom or having her around for longer, which he'd choose. I bet it would bet the latter.
Sounds like an exaggeration? Heart disease kills more people than the various forms of Cancer. And the diet-related risks are extensive. It really isn't just about the calories.
TIL 1 potato chip = heart disease
Don't forget that eating ice cream with your kid means you don't care enough about your health to stick around to watch them grow up.
I wanted to take my kids out to ice cream this weekend for Mothers Day, so to be safe I just checked my cholesterol numbers and whew! my heart disease risk ratio is a 2.4, so I'm good to go! My kids get to keep mom AND their ice cream hoorah!
13 -
Can you imagine how much better Michael Phelps would have beat all of the world competitors if he had been eating 12,000 calories of chicken and broccoli instead of white bread, pasta, pizza, and chocolate chip waffles...PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Don't see what this approach has to do with whether you calorie count or not.
Why does calorie counting prevent a person from reflecting on why they want to overeat? I'd think keeping that kind of food diary would be helpful for just that. I'd think logging in advance of eating would help with emotional eating. It gives you one more chance to distance yourself from the emotion before digging in, at least.
I can tell you that if I cut out all the times I ate for reasons other than 'I'm hungry' I would probably still gain weight. Why? Because if I'm not aware, I'm reaching for higher calorie items than I should be. I'm eating more of lower calorie items than I should be. And I'm doing it because I have a sedentary job and very little margin for error.
Exercise helps with that, but if I don't track it, I'll more than compensate for my activity.
All that being said, obviously people are also successful without calorie counting. I just don't see where others' success without counting invalidates the success of everyone who did count.
Thank you for the well-thought out reply. I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real.
Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated.
Personally, apart from holidays and special occasions, I simply don't have "bad" food in the house. Only whole foods -- no chips, no crackers, no cakes, no pies, no cookies, no packaged meals. What I eat is filling and satisfying and I have to work hard to exceed my caloric range. To the degree that I log in MFP, is to get a look at the nutritional makeup of what I consume (Iron, Protein, Cholestrol and Potassium). Consequently, I don't need to count calories, and I've don't have and have never had a weight problem.
Calorie counting does work for those who need it. But at the end of the day, we'd probably see fewer problems with weight gain afterwards if people learned how to eat to live, rather than lived to eat, which is what get folks in the position of needing to count calories in the first place.
Personally, I strive to not 'live to eat'' or '"eat to live", but to have a healthy balance between the two. I believe food is for fuel and enjoyment, and I would be miserable not enjoying the so called bad foods that I love.
Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2177613/Michael-Phelps-12-000-calories-day-dont-doing-harm.html
8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Don't see what this approach has to do with whether you calorie count or not.
Why does calorie counting prevent a person from reflecting on why they want to overeat? I'd think keeping that kind of food diary would be helpful for just that. I'd think logging in advance of eating would help with emotional eating. It gives you one more chance to distance yourself from the emotion before digging in, at least.
I can tell you that if I cut out all the times I ate for reasons other than 'I'm hungry' I would probably still gain weight. Why? Because if I'm not aware, I'm reaching for higher calorie items than I should be. I'm eating more of lower calorie items than I should be. And I'm doing it because I have a sedentary job and very little margin for error.
Exercise helps with that, but if I don't track it, I'll more than compensate for my activity.
All that being said, obviously people are also successful without calorie counting. I just don't see where others' success without counting invalidates the success of everyone who did count.
Thank you for the well-thought out reply. I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real.
Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated.
Personally, apart from holidays and special occasions, I simply don't have "bad" food in the house. Only whole foods -- no chips, no crackers, no cakes, no pies, no cookies, no packaged meals. What I eat is filling and satisfying and I have to work hard to exceed my caloric range. To the degree that I log in MFP, is to get a look at the nutritional makeup of what I consume (Iron, Protein, Cholestrol and Potassium). Consequently, I don't need to count calories, and I've don't have and have never had a weight problem.
Calorie counting does work for those who need it. But at the end of the day, we'd probably see fewer problems with weight gain afterwards if people learned how to eat to live, rather than lived to eat, which is what get folks in the position of needing to count calories in the first place.
Personally, I strive to not 'live to eat'' or '"eat to live", but to have a healthy balance between the two. I believe food is for fuel and enjoyment, and I would be miserable not enjoying the so called bad foods that I love.
Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect.
There was an editorial a few months ago that went viral. The mother was arguing that she could be a better mother by going for ice cream with her son than by being diet conscious all the time. I wonder, though, if she put to her son the choice of having ice cream with his mom or having her around for longer, which he'd choose. I bet it would bet the latter.
Sounds like an exaggeration? Heart disease kills more people than the various forms of Cancer. And the diet-related risks are extensive. It really isn't just about the calories.
TIL 1 potato chip = heart disease
Don't forget that eating ice cream with your kid means you don't care enough about your health to stick around to watch them grow up.
If you're feeding ice cream to your kid, you're obvs trying to take them with you!
I think what I found most disturbing in this thread was the fat shaming of Gwyneth Paltrow's reflection. Calling her chubby speaks volumes to me about the OP's relationship with food and body image. So her perspective makes sense to me.
I have had some challenges with emotional eating. More so an I know what I should be eating, but I'm upset/stressed/hurting, so IDGAF, I'm going to eat all the chocolate in the vending machine. Does it make sense to fix this? Yes. One of the tools I've used to work on it is calorie counting. Like @WinoGelato, I find comfort in the numbers and knowing that a high cal day isn't ruining everything. The data tells me that a high sodium day will increase my weight, and it will drop back off. Not being upset by the swings on the scale helps.
10 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Don't see what this approach has to do with whether you calorie count or not.
Why does calorie counting prevent a person from reflecting on why they want to overeat? I'd think keeping that kind of food diary would be helpful for just that. I'd think logging in advance of eating would help with emotional eating. It gives you one more chance to distance yourself from the emotion before digging in, at least.
I can tell you that if I cut out all the times I ate for reasons other than 'I'm hungry' I would probably still gain weight. Why? Because if I'm not aware, I'm reaching for higher calorie items than I should be. I'm eating more of lower calorie items than I should be. And I'm doing it because I have a sedentary job and very little margin for error.
Exercise helps with that, but if I don't track it, I'll more than compensate for my activity.
All that being said, obviously people are also successful without calorie counting. I just don't see where others' success without counting invalidates the success of everyone who did count.
Thank you for the well-thought out reply. I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real.
Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated.
Personally, apart from holidays and special occasions, I simply don't have "bad" food in the house. Only whole foods -- no chips, no crackers, no cakes, no pies, no cookies, no packaged meals. What I eat is filling and satisfying and I have to work hard to exceed my caloric range. To the degree that I log in MFP, is to get a look at the nutritional makeup of what I consume (Iron, Protein, Cholestrol and Potassium). Consequently, I don't need to count calories, and I've don't have and have never had a weight problem.
Calorie counting does work for those who need it. But at the end of the day, we'd probably see fewer problems with weight gain afterwards if people learned how to eat to live, rather than lived to eat, which is what get folks in the position of needing to count calories in the first place.
Personally, I strive to not 'live to eat'' or '"eat to live", but to have a healthy balance between the two. I believe food is for fuel and enjoyment, and I would be miserable not enjoying the so called bad foods that I love.
Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect.
There was an editorial a few months ago that went viral. The mother was arguing that she could be a better mother by going for ice cream with her son than by being diet conscious all the time. I wonder, though, if she put to her son the choice of having ice cream with his mom or having her around for longer, which he'd choose. I bet it would bet the latter.
Sounds like an exaggeration? Heart disease kills more people than the various forms of Cancer. And the diet-related risks are extensive. It really isn't just about the calories.
TIL 1 potato chip = heart disease
Don't forget that eating ice cream with your kid means you don't care enough about your health to stick around to watch them grow up.
I wanted to take my kids out to ice cream this weekend for Mothers Day, so to be safe I just checked my cholesterol numbers and whew! my heart disease risk ratio is a 2.4, so I'm good to go! My kids get to keep mom AND their ice cream hoorah!
You feed your kids ice cream? <faints>
4 -
If you call Gwynneth Paltrow fat, you not only need glasses, but I would seriously advise you to seek help for yourself......PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »sashayoung72 wrote: »
Based on the previously posted picture, assuming she's not the chunky one near the door, she doesn't appear to be at all hideous.
It is literally only two very thin women. There is not a "chunky" one in the mirror. It's a reflection of the tall thin one. You could have just clicked and watched 2 seconds of the video. Sounds to me like you maybe don't have the healthiest attitude and relationship with food or weight. Calling a slightly overweight person "chunky" and hideous means you have some of your own issues you maybe should have a conversation with yourself about. Do some soul searching of your own. You're rather judgmental and hostile to anyone who has gained weight and is losing it in a healthy way on here by counting calories.
Actually, I didn't call the woman hideous, someone else did. I said she, Tracey, was anything but.
But yep, I did refer to the one by the door as chunky. Fat is not the new fit, no matter how vociferously people lobby for FA.
8 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »But yep, I did refer to the one by the door as chunky. Fat is not the new fit, no matter how vociferously people lobby for FA.
Have you noticed that is her reflection? There are two women in that video. Paltrow is chunky to you? Cool....
That's what people keep saying. The non-reflected Paltrow is not chunky, but that mirror does her no favors.
Are you 51 or 15???? Definitely a troll...
9 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »sashayoung72 wrote: »
Based on the previously posted picture, assuming she's not the chunky one near the door, she doesn't appear to be at all hideous.
It is literally only two very thin women. There is not a "chunky" one in the mirror. It's a reflection of the tall thin one. You could have just clicked and watched 2 seconds of the video. Sounds to me like you maybe don't have the healthiest attitude and relationship with food or weight. Calling a slightly overweight person "chunky" and hideous means you have some of your own issues you maybe should have a conversation with yourself about. Do some soul searching of your own. You're rather judgmental and hostile to anyone who has gained weight and is losing it in a healthy way on here by counting calories.
Actually, I didn't call the woman hideous, someone else did. I said she, Tracey, was anything but.
But yep, I did refer to the one by the door as chunky. Fat is not the new fit, no matter how vociferously people lobby for FA.
But neither woman in the video is anywhere near "fat" by any stretch. Either of them could probably gain 20 or 30 pounds and still be within a perfectly healthy weight range. Yet you referred to Gwyneth Paltrow, who might even be underweight considering how thin she appears on camera, as "the chunky one."3 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Don't see what this approach has to do with whether you calorie count or not.
Why does calorie counting prevent a person from reflecting on why they want to overeat? I'd think keeping that kind of food diary would be helpful for just that. I'd think logging in advance of eating would help with emotional eating. It gives you one more chance to distance yourself from the emotion before digging in, at least.
I can tell you that if I cut out all the times I ate for reasons other than 'I'm hungry' I would probably still gain weight. Why? Because if I'm not aware, I'm reaching for higher calorie items than I should be. I'm eating more of lower calorie items than I should be. And I'm doing it because I have a sedentary job and very little margin for error.
Exercise helps with that, but if I don't track it, I'll more than compensate for my activity.
All that being said, obviously people are also successful without calorie counting. I just don't see where others' success without counting invalidates the success of everyone who did count.
Thank you for the well-thought out reply. I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real.
Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated.
Personally, apart from holidays and special occasions, I simply don't have "bad" food in the house. Only whole foods -- no chips, no crackers, no cakes, no pies, no cookies, no packaged meals. What I eat is filling and satisfying and I have to work hard to exceed my caloric range. To the degree that I log in MFP, is to get a look at the nutritional makeup of what I consume (Iron, Protein, Cholestrol and Potassium). Consequently, I don't need to count calories, and I've don't have and have never had a weight problem.
Calorie counting does work for those who need it. But at the end of the day, we'd probably see fewer problems with weight gain afterwards if people learned how to eat to live, rather than lived to eat, which is what get folks in the position of needing to count calories in the first place.
Personally, I strive to not 'live to eat'' or '"eat to live", but to have a healthy balance between the two. I believe food is for fuel and enjoyment, and I would be miserable not enjoying the so called bad foods that I love.
Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect.
There was an editorial a few months ago that went viral. The mother was arguing that she could be a better mother by going for ice cream with her son than by being diet conscious all the time. I wonder, though, if she put to her son the choice of having ice cream with his mom or having her around for longer, which he'd choose. I bet it would bet the latter.
Sounds like an exaggeration? Heart disease kills more people than the various forms of Cancer. And the diet-related risks are extensive. It really isn't just about the calories.
Are you really saying that having ice cream occasionally is going to shorter your lifespan?
My grandmother ate ice cream almost daily. She was always within a healthy weight range. She died three years ago at the young, young age of 97.
If only she'd given up the ice cream ...17 -
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »SingRunTing wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Don't see what this approach has to do with whether you calorie count or not.
Why does calorie counting prevent a person from reflecting on why they want to overeat? I'd think keeping that kind of food diary would be helpful for just that. I'd think logging in advance of eating would help with emotional eating. It gives you one more chance to distance yourself from the emotion before digging in, at least.
I can tell you that if I cut out all the times I ate for reasons other than 'I'm hungry' I would probably still gain weight. Why? Because if I'm not aware, I'm reaching for higher calorie items than I should be. I'm eating more of lower calorie items than I should be. And I'm doing it because I have a sedentary job and very little margin for error.
Exercise helps with that, but if I don't track it, I'll more than compensate for my activity.
All that being said, obviously people are also successful without calorie counting. I just don't see where others' success without counting invalidates the success of everyone who did count.
Thank you for the well-thought out reply. I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real.
Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated.
Personally, apart from holidays and special occasions, I simply don't have "bad" food in the house. Only whole foods -- no chips, no crackers, no cakes, no pies, no cookies, no packaged meals. What I eat is filling and satisfying and I have to work hard to exceed my caloric range. To the degree that I log in MFP, is to get a look at the nutritional makeup of what I consume (Iron, Protein, Cholestrol and Potassium). Consequently, I don't need to count calories, and I've don't have and have never had a weight problem.
Calorie counting does work for those who need it. But at the end of the day, we'd probably see fewer problems with weight gain afterwards if people learned how to eat to live, rather than lived to eat, which is what get folks in the position of needing to count calories in the first place.
Personally, I strive to not 'live to eat'' or '"eat to live", but to have a healthy balance between the two. I believe food is for fuel and enjoyment, and I would be miserable not enjoying the so called bad foods that I love.
Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect.
There was an editorial a few months ago that went viral. The mother was arguing that she could be a better mother by going for ice cream with her son than by being diet conscious all the time. I wonder, though, if she put to her son the choice of having ice cream with his mom or having her around for longer, which he'd choose. I bet it would bet the latter.
Sounds like an exaggeration? Heart disease kills more people than the various forms of Cancer. And the diet-related risks are extensive. It really isn't just about the calories.
TIL 1 potato chip = heart disease
Don't forget that eating ice cream with your kid means you don't care enough about your health to stick around to watch them grow up.
I wanted to take my kids out to ice cream this weekend for Mothers Day, so to be safe I just checked my cholesterol numbers and whew! my heart disease risk ratio is a 2.4, so I'm good to go! My kids get to keep mom AND their ice cream hoorah!
Be careful. See what happened to my grandmother. She left her children to fend for themselves. They were only 61 and 69 years old!13 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »
Can you imagine how much better Michael Phelps would have beat all of the world competitors if he had been eating 12,000 calories of chicken and broccoli instead of white bread, pasta, pizza, and chocolate chip waffles...PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »Don't see what this approach has to do with whether you calorie count or not.
Why does calorie counting prevent a person from reflecting on why they want to overeat? I'd think keeping that kind of food diary would be helpful for just that. I'd think logging in advance of eating would help with emotional eating. It gives you one more chance to distance yourself from the emotion before digging in, at least.
I can tell you that if I cut out all the times I ate for reasons other than 'I'm hungry' I would probably still gain weight. Why? Because if I'm not aware, I'm reaching for higher calorie items than I should be. I'm eating more of lower calorie items than I should be. And I'm doing it because I have a sedentary job and very little margin for error.
Exercise helps with that, but if I don't track it, I'll more than compensate for my activity.
All that being said, obviously people are also successful without calorie counting. I just don't see where others' success without counting invalidates the success of everyone who did count.
Thank you for the well-thought out reply. I agree that it doesn't have to be an either or other choice, but to the author's point, I can't count the number of posts I've seem on MFP with people berating themselves because they blew their budget. The stress and self-loathing she describes are real.
Her point is that if people understand food better, then the problems that lead to weight gain can be much eliminated.
Personally, apart from holidays and special occasions, I simply don't have "bad" food in the house. Only whole foods -- no chips, no crackers, no cakes, no pies, no cookies, no packaged meals. What I eat is filling and satisfying and I have to work hard to exceed my caloric range. To the degree that I log in MFP, is to get a look at the nutritional makeup of what I consume (Iron, Protein, Cholestrol and Potassium). Consequently, I don't need to count calories, and I've don't have and have never had a weight problem.
Calorie counting does work for those who need it. But at the end of the day, we'd probably see fewer problems with weight gain afterwards if people learned how to eat to live, rather than lived to eat, which is what get folks in the position of needing to count calories in the first place.
Personally, I strive to not 'live to eat'' or '"eat to live", but to have a healthy balance between the two. I believe food is for fuel and enjoyment, and I would be miserable not enjoying the so called bad foods that I love.
Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2177613/Michael-Phelps-12-000-calories-day-dont-doing-harm.html
No kidding. Freaking slacker could've gotten much more than 22 medals in 3 Olympiads.
4 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »by Tracey Anderson,
http://motto.time.com/4315473/tracy-anderson-calorie-counting/?xid=newsletter-brief
"People need to have the courage and the determination to understand food and to really reflect on their past relationships with food. It’s more about the awareness of the kinds of food people are eating, the amounts they’re eating...so much of our hunger is not even rooted in a real biological need to eat; a lot of it is rooted in emotion.
"I think it’s just about having an ongoing dialogue with yourself where you try as often as possible to say, “How can I show up for myself and my body today through my food choices?”"
I agree. Thoughts?
This kind of is calorie counting though if you're controlling the kinds and amounts of food you're consuming. Whether outright or not, by eating smaller portions you're controlling calories. By eating more nutritionally sound foods, you're generally, controlling calories because nutritionally sound choices usually are more bang for your buck foods - not always, but usually. By being aware of what you're putting into your body you're subconsciously counting those calories. You may not outright be saying I have 1,358 calories today. But you're controlling your intake.
0 -
I don't think the debate is about CICO, but whether the act of counting calories is required.That's fine. To each their own. Simple science and vast majority dictates that CICO works though. No debate needed.
Like almost everything, it all depends on the individual and maybe the plan they are following (which would also depend on the individual). If one's eats a lot of foods which are easy to overeat on and therefore create a caloric surplus, they would probably be better off counting calories. If they eat foods that they find difficult to overeat on, then it probably isn't needed as much. Many LCHF participants never count calories. This doesn't mean they are not eating at a deficit. Some people might find the act of eating a large salad with low calorie dressing to be very satisfying and a great replacement option for other higher calorie meals. Also, even the people that eat "junk" (whatever that may mean) could have success if they are able to control their portions or exercise it off, as the case with Phelps.
ETA: I think most people tend to have difficulty with any of those three options (eating a very restricted diet, disciplined portion control, burning 12000 calories through exercise) and therefore count calories as a way to keep track of and govern their intake.
1 -
People keep throwing around that you get heart disease eating chips or ice cream, etc....I eat this stuff now and I totally reverse my heart disease!! This makes me laugh all the time.
I know people who eat whole foods, nothing process and they are obeist!! Why??? Because they ate to much!!!8 -
If you call Gwynneth Paltrow fat, you not only need glasses, but I would seriously advise you to seek help for yourself......PiperGirl08 wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »sashayoung72 wrote: »
Based on the previously posted picture, assuming she's not the chunky one near the door, she doesn't appear to be at all hideous.
It is literally only two very thin women. There is not a "chunky" one in the mirror. It's a reflection of the tall thin one. You could have just clicked and watched 2 seconds of the video. Sounds to me like you maybe don't have the healthiest attitude and relationship with food or weight. Calling a slightly overweight person "chunky" and hideous means you have some of your own issues you maybe should have a conversation with yourself about. Do some soul searching of your own. You're rather judgmental and hostile to anyone who has gained weight and is losing it in a healthy way on here by counting calories.
Actually, I didn't call the woman hideous, someone else did. I said she, Tracey, was anything but.
But yep, I did refer to the one by the door as chunky. Fat is not the new fit, no matter how vociferously people lobby for FA.
Agree.2 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »by Tracey Anderson,
http://motto.time.com/4315473/tracy-anderson-calorie-counting/?xid=newsletter-brief
"People need to have the courage and the determination to understand food and to really reflect on their past relationships with food. It’s more about the awareness of the kinds of food people are eating, the amounts they’re eating...so much of our hunger is not even rooted in a real biological need to eat; a lot of it is rooted in emotion.
"I think it’s just about having an ongoing dialogue with yourself where you try as often as possible to say, “How can I show up for myself and my body today through my food choices?”"
I agree. Thoughts?
If you want to call it "an awareness of the amount of food you are eating", instead of calling it "counting calories", you are free to do so. But they're the same thing.5 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »by Tracey Anderson,
"I think it’s just about having an ongoing dialogue with yourself where you try as often as possible to say, “How can I show up for myself and my body today through my food choices?”"
I agree. Thoughts?
First, I hate the grammar. You can't "show up" for yourself. You can "stand up" for yourself, perhaps. Also, I don't think you mean you don't "believe" in calorie counting, I think you mean you don't "like" calorie counting. I can truly understand that! Its hard to argue with the fact that if you eat at a sustained calorie deficit you will lose weight.
3 -
It's the act of logging that works magic for me, maybe even more than the calorie counting. I can be loosey goosey with my calorie goals and still do fine. I think logging automatically makes me more mindful about what I am eating.
ETA: By "what I am eating" I actually mean "how much I am eating" not just quality. I also want to add that counting calories has allowed me to lose more slowly and sustainably than any diet in the past.8 -
I always find it funny when people need to share the things they "don't believe in". Good for you, doesn't mean it isn't sound science or effective if used properly.9
-
Okay. So how long have you been at maintenance?
And, who the hell is Tracy Anderson and why should I care?8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions