All calories may not be equal
Replies
-
earthakin66 wrote: »Actually we aren't talking about Dr. Lustig, but Dr. Ludwig.
I am going to go ahead and cut sugar, potatoes and processed foods out of my diet for 6 months anyway. I know a lot of you don't agree and to that I say- don't do it then! I spent two years off of sugar and flour and lost 79 pounds. So many people were bothered by this and convinced me that I should be able to eat anything I wanted in moderation. Of course I love sugar and flour and so I gave it a try- and gained back 50 pounds in the process. I am driven to overeat these things. Those of you who can't relate to this don't have that problem and I am happy for you because it really sucks. I know that I was more energetic and overall healthier when I wasn't consuming sugar and flour. Did I insist that everyone else did it? No! I didn't even make my children do that because everyone is allowed to make their own choices.
I posted this morning looking for likeminded individuals, not looking for reasons not to cut out refined sugars and flour. I found a couple, so thanks to them.
I'm not a newbie in any sense. I need support to go down the abstinence road because people are constantly telling me how stupid it is. It isn't easy but I know that it is right for me. And yes, eating 4000 calories a day won't end in weight loss.
You know, maybe if you didn't cut them out entirely and instead tried to get a healthy relationship with it you wouldn't have binged on it and wouldn't need a second try at losing weight.
Just a thought.14 -
kshama2001 wrote: »xjessicaxrx wrote: »Sounds like Slimming world to me, and people lose massive amounts of weight on that not weighing or counting most of the foods they eat?
Not according to the people who start Slimming World threads here...
I lost 2 stone on slimming world, it definetly works.....also did the atkins which I lost around 18lbs very quickly, my problem with both was the lack of bread amongst other food so wasent sustainable for me. I prefer mfp because variety of food is more important to me, but counting calories makes me hungrier. I definitely ate much more calories on slimming world and atkins than im allowed now on mfp (yes I checked) That kinda throws the cico theory out the window. Other methods do work, I just prefer mfp for now. I may go back to slimming world to get rid of my last stone.
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
yes, @stephencloser, that is the type of comment I am talking about. I can't develop a healthy relationship with them. Since you can, be happy about that. I can't develop a healthy relationship with wine either, but no one urges me to try.
7 -
bethannien wrote: »Tedebearduff wrote: »earthakin66 wrote: »It just seems obvious to me that 200 calories in almonds vs. 200 calories in a doughnut will not have the same result in your body. It actually seems like people here agree on that so I don't really know what the issue is. Part of the idea is that if we eat 1400 calories worth of nutritionally dense, higher fat foods then we will be less hungry than if we ate 1400 calories of processed, low fat foods.
I read the review, interesting points.
I dont trust doctors blindly, just was pointing out that he isn't a stick insect.
Your body does not react to them the same but the crazy CICO people will go on and on cause the unit of measure is the same. Regardless your body has a different hormonal response to each of the 2 items you just listed even though they are of the same calorie count. (saying you're right)
Welcome to the MFP community full of know it all's who "call out BS" and don't back any of there knowledge at all.They'll tell you to google it cause there are hundreds of studies out there that they've also never read!
Also that1 chick mentioned that people selling books are just trying to make money but then references that she also wrote a book... hilarious right? like am I the only person that caught that??
Remember when you're on here... most people are dicks... more so when it comes to CICO and or being a vegan... and know that for a fact! they are uneducated, unsuccessful people who know nothing at all, cause if they did ... they wouldn't be *kitten* around on the message boards now would they? Like if they are so educated, and so successful what are they doing on here all day?
Feel free to message me Earth if you want to talk about how stupid cico and how your body doesn't respond the same to 200 calories of doughnuts versus almonds.
Literally no one is saying that 200 calories of donuts is going to be as satisfying as 200 calories of nutrient dense food.
Also, calling most people "dicks" and being sarcastic and dismissive of everyone doesn't exactly make you look like a super nice guy, yourself pal.
If being a ***** means being honest and trying to save a person from a little bit of the heart ache I went through for so many years, and just one persons listens, then I am happy to be one.
1 -
BillMcKay1 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »bethannien wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »hjlourenshj wrote: »
'tgonetothedogs19 wrote: »Bottom line - if you are counting calories, weighing, measuring and logging religiously, and cannot lose weight (a common complaint on this site), try this approach. Why not? And why would you continue doing something that is not working?
Its just impossible to not lose weight when you are in a deficit. So the common complaint on this site is 100% the cause of mistakes in counting. Its that simple. Don't spin it towards something else
How hard is it to count calories? One ounce of cereal with skim milk (the amount is stated on the cereal box) for breakfast. Two cans of tuna fish and whatever the portion of mayonnaise is on the label for lunch. 100-calorie pre-packaged snack. A couple of pre-made burgers on a bun for dinner with a salad and a low-cal dressing.
This is not exactly rocket science.
It's not rocket science but if people are using the 1 cup or 1/4 cup suggestions for the measurement instead of weighing it, they're almost definitely eating more than they think. For example. I have some granola I mix into my Greek yogurt. The Greek yogurt says a serving is 1 cup (227 g) and the granola says a serving is 1/4 cup (27g). That's what the packaging gives as a serving size.
I put my 1/2 cup on my scale to eat half a serving and I filled it about 2/3 full before I reached 113 g. If I had filled it to the top, I'd be eating more than I thought. And when I weighed the granola, 1/4 cup was 1.5 servings.
So it may not be rocket science but if people are using measuring cups and wondering why they aren't losing weight, it's not what they're eating. It's how much.
This is exactly what most newbies SHOULD NOT be doing.
I am eating a Chobani yogurt right now. It contains 140 calories. Not 150 calories and not 130 caloires. There is nothing to weigh and nothing to measure. Forget about weighing granola. It just makes life difficult
And Chobani has some product where you mix in things (one of them may be granola) into the yogurt. That may contain 200 calories. Not 210 calories and not 190 calories.
I say KISS (with affection) to all newbies - Keep It Simple Stupid.
Seriously, have you actually weighed the yogurt before determining it has 140 calories, not 139 or 141?
Are you being serious?gonetothedogs19 wrote: »bethannien wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »hjlourenshj wrote: »
'tgonetothedogs19 wrote: »Bottom line - if you are counting calories, weighing, measuring and logging religiously, and cannot lose weight (a common complaint on this site), try this approach. Why not? And why would you continue doing something that is not working?
Its just impossible to not lose weight when you are in a deficit. So the common complaint on this site is 100% the cause of mistakes in counting. Its that simple. Don't spin it towards something else
How hard is it to count calories? One ounce of cereal with skim milk (the amount is stated on the cereal box) for breakfast. Two cans of tuna fish and whatever the portion of mayonnaise is on the label for lunch. 100-calorie pre-packaged snack. A couple of pre-made burgers on a bun for dinner with a salad and a low-cal dressing.
This is not exactly rocket science.
It's not rocket science but if people are using the 1 cup or 1/4 cup suggestions for the measurement instead of weighing it, they're almost definitely eating more than they think. For example. I have some granola I mix into my Greek yogurt. The Greek yogurt says a serving is 1 cup (227 g) and the granola says a serving is 1/4 cup (27g). That's what the packaging gives as a serving size.
I put my 1/2 cup on my scale to eat half a serving and I filled it about 2/3 full before I reached 113 g. If I had filled it to the top, I'd be eating more than I thought. And when I weighed the granola, 1/4 cup was 1.5 servings.
So it may not be rocket science but if people are using measuring cups and wondering why they aren't losing weight, it's not what they're eating. It's how much.
This is exactly what most newbies SHOULD NOT be doing.
I am eating a Chobani yogurt right now. It contains 140 calories. Not 150 calories and not 130 caloires. There is nothing to weigh and nothing to measure. Forget about weighing granola. It just makes life difficult
And Chobani has some product where you mix in things (one of them may be granola) into the yogurt. That may contain 200 calories. Not 210 calories and not 190 calories.
I say KISS (with affection) to all newbies - Keep It Simple Stupid.
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
Repeat: THIS IS NOT TRUE. Your yogurt is not guaranteed to contain 140 calories. In fact, in the US it can be up to 20% off ("the label is considered to be out of compliance if the nutrient content of a composite of the product is greater than 20% above the value declared on the label", Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 101.9(g))). That yogurt might be 112 calories....or, more likely, that yogurt may be 168 calories. Now expand that to a frozen dinner, one that's, say....600 calories. That could actually be up to 720. If you eat all your calories from prepackaged food, without weighing the portions, and eat up to your deficit, then you will very likely be consuming more calories than you think, cutting into or stalling your weight loss.
Seriously, have you actually weighed the yogurt before determining it has 140 calories, not 139 or 141?
You can't be serious about the calories in the yogurt.
OK, so here's what you do. The label says 140 calories. To be safe, add 10%, and now it's 154 calories. Problem solved. Or, you can make a breakfast with four or five ingredients where you have to weight and measure, weigh and measure. I would advise sticking with the yogurt.
So now you're backing out of your "Not 150 calories" claim?
10% or 20% matters. Especially when it's on every item you eat, all day, and especially if you don't have much wiggle room in your calories. Not to mention your other mistakes are not governed by the FDA requirements, so the consequences of them could be catastrophic to a carefully planned weight loss system.
For a yogurt, it's 28 more calories. For everything else, it's much more. The only method to be accurate in your calorie counting, which is necessary, is to make sure your food is in the portions that you think they are, which cannot be done by trusting labels to be accurate since we know they're not.
Although I have to be honest - I don't think I've ever seen someone arguing both "what kind of calories you consume matter, they have to be good calories" and also "people should just be eating all of their food prepackaged!" It's an interesting, if contradictory, set of opinions!
To be fair though, that up to 20% compliance zone is true even if you are weighing your yogurt. The nutrition label on a my greek yogurt (and most)t container lists it's nutrient/calorie profile by the gram and cup. 120cal per 1/2c or 175g.
Now I weigh out my 175g to get my 120 cal, but that 20% potential margin of error for calories doesn't disappear just because I weighed it out. Their have the same 20% margin in the calories for the weighted measure as well.
Yeah definitely, you'd have to go by grams and decide if it's worth the extra calories, if you want all the yogurt, etc. after weighing for sure. Weighing isn't a method to keep in a deficit, just a method to make sure that if you want a deficit you have the tools to get there!
I could be wrong, but I think this poster means that even if you weigh out 175g of yogurt, it will have 120 calories +/- error, because not every batch of yogurt will be identical. The 120 cal is still an estimate. Of course, weighing things out means you are decreasing error and coming closer to the real value, so it is still worth it.4 -
SusanMFindlay wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Most people who start diets (including those who try to count calories) fail miserably.
So if you believe in CICO, why wouldn't you advise a newbie for maybe the 1st month, to do it the easy way - only eat things that you are certain of the calorie count (and to make a prior poster happy, add 10% to what the label says).
So let's say it works. You've done CICO the easy way for one month with no measuring and weighing, and you've lost 5 pounds. Now, you are a believe in CICO! Now, it is time to learn weighing and measuring, and eating better foods.
I don't understand it. This webpage is a CICO fraternity/sorority. If you want more people doing CICO, my advise is the best advise. It's hard enough to try to lose weight using any method, and now you are asking people to weigh and measure and weigh and measure when they start out. Forget about that for the first month.
I disagree that your way is the "easy way". Most people fail on diets because they're hungry - not because weighing was too much work. An all-processed-food diet will leave you hungry because you simply won't be getting the volume that most heavier people need to feel full.
When I first started calorie counting, the first thing I did was buy a food scale and I immediately started weighing my food. (And I'll admit that I'm a scientist so weighing is completely trivial to me - as it should be for anyone who took a decent home ec or science class in school. Typing everything into the computer was *way* more time consuming than the weighing part.) The main changes that happened - and the reason I was successful at losing the weight - and the reason I continued with calorie counting - were mental. It was an awareness of how many calories were in different foods, so I started eating more fruit and veg because they were less calorie dense. None of that would/could have happened on an all processed food diet. Instead, I would have been hungry all the time and would have given up.
^ This. My food scale has made my life so much easier and reduced the time I have to spend measuring my food on a daily basis. I hate having to wash measuring cups/spoons every day; it's much easier and faster for me to use one bowl and one spoon and just tare out the scale in between adding ingredients. Plus, it's much cheaper for me (and better for the environment) to buy bigger containers of yogurt and cottage cheese than it would be to buy individual cups.5 -
BillMcKay1 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »bethannien wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »hjlourenshj wrote: »
'tgonetothedogs19 wrote: »Bottom line - if you are counting calories, weighing, measuring and logging religiously, and cannot lose weight (a common complaint on this site), try this approach. Why not? And why would you continue doing something that is not working?
Its just impossible to not lose weight when you are in a deficit. So the common complaint on this site is 100% the cause of mistakes in counting. Its that simple. Don't spin it towards something else
How hard is it to count calories? One ounce of cereal with skim milk (the amount is stated on the cereal box) for breakfast. Two cans of tuna fish and whatever the portion of mayonnaise is on the label for lunch. 100-calorie pre-packaged snack. A couple of pre-made burgers on a bun for dinner with a salad and a low-cal dressing.
This is not exactly rocket science.
It's not rocket science but if people are using the 1 cup or 1/4 cup suggestions for the measurement instead of weighing it, they're almost definitely eating more than they think. For example. I have some granola I mix into my Greek yogurt. The Greek yogurt says a serving is 1 cup (227 g) and the granola says a serving is 1/4 cup (27g). That's what the packaging gives as a serving size.
I put my 1/2 cup on my scale to eat half a serving and I filled it about 2/3 full before I reached 113 g. If I had filled it to the top, I'd be eating more than I thought. And when I weighed the granola, 1/4 cup was 1.5 servings.
So it may not be rocket science but if people are using measuring cups and wondering why they aren't losing weight, it's not what they're eating. It's how much.
This is exactly what most newbies SHOULD NOT be doing.
I am eating a Chobani yogurt right now. It contains 140 calories. Not 150 calories and not 130 caloires. There is nothing to weigh and nothing to measure. Forget about weighing granola. It just makes life difficult
And Chobani has some product where you mix in things (one of them may be granola) into the yogurt. That may contain 200 calories. Not 210 calories and not 190 calories.
I say KISS (with affection) to all newbies - Keep It Simple Stupid.
Seriously, have you actually weighed the yogurt before determining it has 140 calories, not 139 or 141?
Are you being serious?gonetothedogs19 wrote: »bethannien wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »hjlourenshj wrote: »
'tgonetothedogs19 wrote: »Bottom line - if you are counting calories, weighing, measuring and logging religiously, and cannot lose weight (a common complaint on this site), try this approach. Why not? And why would you continue doing something that is not working?
Its just impossible to not lose weight when you are in a deficit. So the common complaint on this site is 100% the cause of mistakes in counting. Its that simple. Don't spin it towards something else
How hard is it to count calories? One ounce of cereal with skim milk (the amount is stated on the cereal box) for breakfast. Two cans of tuna fish and whatever the portion of mayonnaise is on the label for lunch. 100-calorie pre-packaged snack. A couple of pre-made burgers on a bun for dinner with a salad and a low-cal dressing.
This is not exactly rocket science.
It's not rocket science but if people are using the 1 cup or 1/4 cup suggestions for the measurement instead of weighing it, they're almost definitely eating more than they think. For example. I have some granola I mix into my Greek yogurt. The Greek yogurt says a serving is 1 cup (227 g) and the granola says a serving is 1/4 cup (27g). That's what the packaging gives as a serving size.
I put my 1/2 cup on my scale to eat half a serving and I filled it about 2/3 full before I reached 113 g. If I had filled it to the top, I'd be eating more than I thought. And when I weighed the granola, 1/4 cup was 1.5 servings.
So it may not be rocket science but if people are using measuring cups and wondering why they aren't losing weight, it's not what they're eating. It's how much.
This is exactly what most newbies SHOULD NOT be doing.
I am eating a Chobani yogurt right now. It contains 140 calories. Not 150 calories and not 130 caloires. There is nothing to weigh and nothing to measure. Forget about weighing granola. It just makes life difficult
And Chobani has some product where you mix in things (one of them may be granola) into the yogurt. That may contain 200 calories. Not 210 calories and not 190 calories.
I say KISS (with affection) to all newbies - Keep It Simple Stupid.
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
Repeat: THIS IS NOT TRUE. Your yogurt is not guaranteed to contain 140 calories. In fact, in the US it can be up to 20% off ("the label is considered to be out of compliance if the nutrient content of a composite of the product is greater than 20% above the value declared on the label", Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 101.9(g))). That yogurt might be 112 calories....or, more likely, that yogurt may be 168 calories. Now expand that to a frozen dinner, one that's, say....600 calories. That could actually be up to 720. If you eat all your calories from prepackaged food, without weighing the portions, and eat up to your deficit, then you will very likely be consuming more calories than you think, cutting into or stalling your weight loss.
Seriously, have you actually weighed the yogurt before determining it has 140 calories, not 139 or 141?
You can't be serious about the calories in the yogurt.
OK, so here's what you do. The label says 140 calories. To be safe, add 10%, and now it's 154 calories. Problem solved. Or, you can make a breakfast with four or five ingredients where you have to weight and measure, weigh and measure. I would advise sticking with the yogurt.
So now you're backing out of your "Not 150 calories" claim?
10% or 20% matters. Especially when it's on every item you eat, all day, and especially if you don't have much wiggle room in your calories. Not to mention your other mistakes are not governed by the FDA requirements, so the consequences of them could be catastrophic to a carefully planned weight loss system.
For a yogurt, it's 28 more calories. For everything else, it's much more. The only method to be accurate in your calorie counting, which is necessary, is to make sure your food is in the portions that you think they are, which cannot be done by trusting labels to be accurate since we know they're not.
Although I have to be honest - I don't think I've ever seen someone arguing both "what kind of calories you consume matter, they have to be good calories" and also "people should just be eating all of their food prepackaged!" It's an interesting, if contradictory, set of opinions!
To be fair though, that up to 20% compliance zone is true even if you are weighing your yogurt. The nutrition label on a my greek yogurt (and most)t container lists it's nutrient/calorie profile by the gram and cup. 120cal per 1/2c or 175g.
Now I weigh out my 175g to get my 120 cal, but that 20% potential margin of error for calories doesn't disappear just because I weighed it out. Their have the same 20% margin in the calories for the weighted measure as well.
Yeah definitely, you'd have to go by grams and decide if it's worth the extra calories, if you want all the yogurt, etc. after weighing for sure. Weighing isn't a method to keep in a deficit, just a method to make sure that if you want a deficit you have the tools to get there!
I could be wrong, but I think this poster means that even if you weigh out 175g of yogurt, it will have 120 calories +/- error, because not every batch of yogurt will be identical. The 120 cal is still an estimate. Of course, weighing things out means you are decreasing error and coming closer to the real value, so it is still worth it.
Yes, exactly what I meant. We all just guessing. People who measure are just closer to the actual that those that are eyeballing.
Short of having a medical condition, how good we assess our intake and burn shows up when you get on the scale or do your measurements.3 -
BillMcKay1 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »bethannien wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »hjlourenshj wrote: »
'tgonetothedogs19 wrote: »Bottom line - if you are counting calories, weighing, measuring and logging religiously, and cannot lose weight (a common complaint on this site), try this approach. Why not? And why would you continue doing something that is not working?
Its just impossible to not lose weight when you are in a deficit. So the common complaint on this site is 100% the cause of mistakes in counting. Its that simple. Don't spin it towards something else
How hard is it to count calories? One ounce of cereal with skim milk (the amount is stated on the cereal box) for breakfast. Two cans of tuna fish and whatever the portion of mayonnaise is on the label for lunch. 100-calorie pre-packaged snack. A couple of pre-made burgers on a bun for dinner with a salad and a low-cal dressing.
This is not exactly rocket science.
It's not rocket science but if people are using the 1 cup or 1/4 cup suggestions for the measurement instead of weighing it, they're almost definitely eating more than they think. For example. I have some granola I mix into my Greek yogurt. The Greek yogurt says a serving is 1 cup (227 g) and the granola says a serving is 1/4 cup (27g). That's what the packaging gives as a serving size.
I put my 1/2 cup on my scale to eat half a serving and I filled it about 2/3 full before I reached 113 g. If I had filled it to the top, I'd be eating more than I thought. And when I weighed the granola, 1/4 cup was 1.5 servings.
So it may not be rocket science but if people are using measuring cups and wondering why they aren't losing weight, it's not what they're eating. It's how much.
This is exactly what most newbies SHOULD NOT be doing.
I am eating a Chobani yogurt right now. It contains 140 calories. Not 150 calories and not 130 caloires. There is nothing to weigh and nothing to measure. Forget about weighing granola. It just makes life difficult
And Chobani has some product where you mix in things (one of them may be granola) into the yogurt. That may contain 200 calories. Not 210 calories and not 190 calories.
I say KISS (with affection) to all newbies - Keep It Simple Stupid.
Seriously, have you actually weighed the yogurt before determining it has 140 calories, not 139 or 141?
Are you being serious?gonetothedogs19 wrote: »bethannien wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »hjlourenshj wrote: »
'tgonetothedogs19 wrote: »Bottom line - if you are counting calories, weighing, measuring and logging religiously, and cannot lose weight (a common complaint on this site), try this approach. Why not? And why would you continue doing something that is not working?
Its just impossible to not lose weight when you are in a deficit. So the common complaint on this site is 100% the cause of mistakes in counting. Its that simple. Don't spin it towards something else
How hard is it to count calories? One ounce of cereal with skim milk (the amount is stated on the cereal box) for breakfast. Two cans of tuna fish and whatever the portion of mayonnaise is on the label for lunch. 100-calorie pre-packaged snack. A couple of pre-made burgers on a bun for dinner with a salad and a low-cal dressing.
This is not exactly rocket science.
It's not rocket science but if people are using the 1 cup or 1/4 cup suggestions for the measurement instead of weighing it, they're almost definitely eating more than they think. For example. I have some granola I mix into my Greek yogurt. The Greek yogurt says a serving is 1 cup (227 g) and the granola says a serving is 1/4 cup (27g). That's what the packaging gives as a serving size.
I put my 1/2 cup on my scale to eat half a serving and I filled it about 2/3 full before I reached 113 g. If I had filled it to the top, I'd be eating more than I thought. And when I weighed the granola, 1/4 cup was 1.5 servings.
So it may not be rocket science but if people are using measuring cups and wondering why they aren't losing weight, it's not what they're eating. It's how much.
This is exactly what most newbies SHOULD NOT be doing.
I am eating a Chobani yogurt right now. It contains 140 calories. Not 150 calories and not 130 caloires. There is nothing to weigh and nothing to measure. Forget about weighing granola. It just makes life difficult
And Chobani has some product where you mix in things (one of them may be granola) into the yogurt. That may contain 200 calories. Not 210 calories and not 190 calories.
I say KISS (with affection) to all newbies - Keep It Simple Stupid.
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
Repeat: THIS IS NOT TRUE. Your yogurt is not guaranteed to contain 140 calories. In fact, in the US it can be up to 20% off ("the label is considered to be out of compliance if the nutrient content of a composite of the product is greater than 20% above the value declared on the label", Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 101.9(g))). That yogurt might be 112 calories....or, more likely, that yogurt may be 168 calories. Now expand that to a frozen dinner, one that's, say....600 calories. That could actually be up to 720. If you eat all your calories from prepackaged food, without weighing the portions, and eat up to your deficit, then you will very likely be consuming more calories than you think, cutting into or stalling your weight loss.
Seriously, have you actually weighed the yogurt before determining it has 140 calories, not 139 or 141?
You can't be serious about the calories in the yogurt.
OK, so here's what you do. The label says 140 calories. To be safe, add 10%, and now it's 154 calories. Problem solved. Or, you can make a breakfast with four or five ingredients where you have to weight and measure, weigh and measure. I would advise sticking with the yogurt.
So now you're backing out of your "Not 150 calories" claim?
10% or 20% matters. Especially when it's on every item you eat, all day, and especially if you don't have much wiggle room in your calories. Not to mention your other mistakes are not governed by the FDA requirements, so the consequences of them could be catastrophic to a carefully planned weight loss system.
For a yogurt, it's 28 more calories. For everything else, it's much more. The only method to be accurate in your calorie counting, which is necessary, is to make sure your food is in the portions that you think they are, which cannot be done by trusting labels to be accurate since we know they're not.
Although I have to be honest - I don't think I've ever seen someone arguing both "what kind of calories you consume matter, they have to be good calories" and also "people should just be eating all of their food prepackaged!" It's an interesting, if contradictory, set of opinions!
To be fair though, that up to 20% compliance zone is true even if you are weighing your yogurt. The nutrition label on a my greek yogurt (and most)t container lists it's nutrient/calorie profile by the gram and cup. 120cal per 1/2c or 175g.
Now I weigh out my 175g to get my 120 cal, but that 20% potential margin of error for calories doesn't disappear just because I weighed it out. Their have the same 20% margin in the calories for the weighted measure as well.
Yeah definitely, you'd have to go by grams and decide if it's worth the extra calories, if you want all the yogurt, etc. after weighing for sure. Weighing isn't a method to keep in a deficit, just a method to make sure that if you want a deficit you have the tools to get there!
I could be wrong, but I think this poster means that even if you weigh out 175g of yogurt, it will have 120 calories +/- error, because not every batch of yogurt will be identical. The 120 cal is still an estimate. Of course, weighing things out means you are decreasing error and coming closer to the real value, so it is still worth it.
I think you're right and I misread - and on further reading of the guidelines you and him are both right because the FDA does go by gram measurements in servings, not serving amounts. Thanks for correcting me, that's good to know!
Edit: I would say this makes weighing even more important, to reduce the margin of error by any amount you can
3 -
earthakin66 wrote: »Actually we aren't talking about Dr. Lustig, but Dr. Ludwig.
I am going to go ahead and cut sugar, potatoes and processed foods out of my diet for 6 months anyway. I know a lot of you don't agree and to that I say- don't do it then! I spent two years off of sugar and flour and lost 79 pounds. So many people were bothered by this and convinced me that I should be able to eat anything I wanted in moderation. Of course I love sugar and flour and so I gave it a try- and gained back 50 pounds in the process. I am driven to overeat these things. Those of you who can't relate to this don't have that problem and I am happy for you because it really sucks. I know that I was more energetic and overall healthier when I wasn't consuming sugar and flour. Did I insist that everyone else did it? No! I didn't even make my children do that because everyone is allowed to make their own choices.
I posted this morning looking for likeminded individuals, not looking for reasons not to cut out refined sugars and flour. I found a couple, so thanks to them.
I'm not a newbie in any sense. I need support to go down the abstinence road because people are constantly telling me how stupid it is. It isn't easy but I know that it is right for me. And yes, eating 4000 calories a day won't end in weight loss.
Ludwig is a huge proponent of Low Carb. Personally, I feel that if you find success in any method and can sustain that method, then it's fine. I fully recognize that some people have trigger foods and at least in the interim, it can be vastly beneficial to cut them. If at some point, you want to incorporate those foods again, then you can work them in transitionally. Personally, fat doesn't satiate me, so it's one of the things I cut. And when i do get fat, it's mainly from dairy or unsaturated sources.
You might want to check out the low carb group.5 -
BreezeDoveal wrote: »earthakin66 wrote: »Actually we aren't talking about Dr. Lustig, but Dr. Ludwig.
I am going to go ahead and cut sugar, potatoes and processed foods out of my diet for 6 months anyway. I know a lot of you don't agree and to that I say- don't do it then! I spent two years off of sugar and flour and lost 79 pounds. So many people were bothered by this and convinced me that I should be able to eat anything I wanted in moderation. Of course I love sugar and flour and so I gave it a try- and gained back 50 pounds in the process. I am driven to overeat these things. Those of you who can't relate to this don't have that problem and I am happy for you because it really sucks. I know that I was more energetic and overall healthier when I wasn't consuming sugar and flour. Did I insist that everyone else did it? No! I didn't even make my children do that because everyone is allowed to make their own choices.
I posted this morning looking for likeminded individuals, not looking for reasons not to cut out refined sugars and flour. I found a couple, so thanks to them.
I'm not a newbie in any sense. I need support to go down the abstinence road because people are constantly telling me how stupid it is. It isn't easy but I know that it is right for me. And yes, eating 4000 calories a day won't end in weight loss.
You should self experiment like this, and periodically re-testing. Perhaps if you do it long enough you'll reach an equilibirum where you can no longer process carbs as much, so you can eat them in moderation because more of them will pass through you with your weakened carb processing.
Huh?!?!0 -
earthakin66 wrote: »Actually we aren't talking about Dr. Lustig, but Dr. Ludwig.
I am going to go ahead and cut sugar, potatoes and processed foods out of my diet for 6 months anyway. I know a lot of you don't agree and to that I say- don't do it then! I spent two years off of sugar and flour and lost 79 pounds. So many people were bothered by this and convinced me that I should be able to eat anything I wanted in moderation. Of course I love sugar and flour and so I gave it a try- and gained back 50 pounds in the process. I am driven to overeat these things. Those of you who can't relate to this don't have that problem and I am happy for you because it really sucks. I know that I was more energetic and overall healthier when I wasn't consuming sugar and flour. Did I insist that everyone else did it? No! I didn't even make my children do that because everyone is allowed to make their own choices.
I posted this morning looking for likeminded individuals, not looking for reasons not to cut out refined sugars and flour. I found a couple, so thanks to them.
I'm not a newbie in any sense. I need support to go down the abstinence road because people are constantly telling me how stupid it is. It isn't easy but I know that it is right for me. And yes, eating 4000 calories a day won't end in weight loss.
You lost weight because you created a calorie deficit by cutting out those foods. When you added them back in, you eliminated the deficit by binging. I'm sorry that those foods have caused a problem for you...I totally get that. I've been there many times, but I found that if I personally cut out foods, my brain plays tricks on me, so now I just moderate and am still losing weight.kshama2001 wrote: »xjessicaxrx wrote: »Sounds like Slimming world to me, and people lose massive amounts of weight on that not weighing or counting most of the foods they eat?
Not according to the people who start Slimming World threads here...
I lost 2 stone on slimming world, it definetly works.....also did the atkins which I lost around 18lbs very quickly, my problem with both was the lack of bread amongst other food so wasent sustainable for me. I prefer mfp because variety of food is more important to me, but counting calories makes me hungrier. I definitely ate much more calories on slimming world and atkins than im allowed now on mfp (yes I checked) That kinda throws the cico theory out the window. Other methods do work, I just prefer mfp for now. I may go back to slimming world to get rid of my last stone.
That doesn't prove a thing. You just had a smaller deficit with atkins/slimming world. Just because you get to eat less with mfp, that doesn't disprove cico at all. CICO is basically eating less calories than your body needs to maintain its current weight. Of course, if you kept the same activity level and ate at your maintenance calories, you'll maintain weight. If you eat more, you'll gain, less you'll lose. CICO is just explains the different balances of calories in and calories out... it actually applies to everyone whether you believe it or not. It is science., not some made up crap that people can choose to believe or not. No matter what diet it is, it all boils down to CICO....eat LESS calories than your body needs to maintain its current weight.10 -
carlenbowie wrote: »I haven't read the book, but I am a fitness trainer and all calories are not the same. While trying to loose weight if you eat too many carbs you will still loose weight but you will be loosing muscle and not look as flattering if you loosed the fat. However, not all carbs are bad - stay away from simple carbs (in moderation)
It has nothing to do with carbs. You're saying that if you eat mostly fats and protein, you will only loose fat, and not muscle? Eating in a deficit and not doing any weight training to maintain the muscle you have, will cause more muscle loss. Not because you are eating a high ammount of carbs.1 -
50 grams is a lot? Lol, I eat at least 150-200g a day.BreezeDoveal wrote: »
Yeah, you need a tremendous amount of carbs to spare protein and muscle:
Wherever you got your cert from then isn't legit. A calorie is a unit of measurement. Units of measurements don't change because materials are different.carlenbowie wrote: »I haven't read the book, but I am a fitness trainer and all calories are not the same.
You do know that carbs are muscle sparing right? Who certified you?While trying to loose weight if you eat too many carbs you will still loose weight but you will be loosing muscle and not look as flattering if you loosed the fat.
No carbs are "bad". They are different in nutrient density though. All carbs become what once in the body and broken down to simplest form?However, not all carbs are bad - stay away from simple carbs (in moderation)
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/how-many-carbohydrates-do-you-need.html/
From the article.
I never mentioned anything about this.Early research into the topic of starvation and low-carbohydrate dieting found that as few as 15 grams of carbohydrates per day can limit nitrogen loss in the body. And raising carbohydrate intake to 50 grams per day severely limits the need for the body to use amino acids for gluoconeogenesis (which is why I suggested setting daily carbs on the low-carb days of The Ultimate Diet 2.0 at 50 grams).
And fats are nowhere near as sparing of nitrogen as carbs:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15173435
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 0 -
stevencloser wrote: »earthakin66 wrote: »Actually we aren't talking about Dr. Lustig, but Dr. Ludwig.
I am going to go ahead and cut sugar, potatoes and processed foods out of my diet for 6 months anyway. I know a lot of you don't agree and to that I say- don't do it then! I spent two years off of sugar and flour and lost 79 pounds. So many people were bothered by this and convinced me that I should be able to eat anything I wanted in moderation. Of course I love sugar and flour and so I gave it a try- and gained back 50 pounds in the process. I am driven to overeat these things. Those of you who can't relate to this don't have that problem and I am happy for you because it really sucks. I know that I was more energetic and overall healthier when I wasn't consuming sugar and flour. Did I insist that everyone else did it? No! I didn't even make my children do that because everyone is allowed to make their own choices.
I posted this morning looking for likeminded individuals, not looking for reasons not to cut out refined sugars and flour. I found a couple, so thanks to them.
I'm not a newbie in any sense. I need support to go down the abstinence road because people are constantly telling me how stupid it is. It isn't easy but I know that it is right for me. And yes, eating 4000 calories a day won't end in weight loss.
You know, maybe if you didn't cut them out entirely and instead tried to get a healthy relationship with it you wouldn't have binged on it and wouldn't need a second try at losing weight.
Just a thought.
Last time I checked, there is not one method - NONE - including CICO, that will make people lose weight once and for good. How many people are (re-re-re-) re-starters, on this thread alone ?
I'm all for CICO, but gimme a break. I've lost weight, and gained back, and lost again.
Open mind and curiosity has never killed anyone. If OP want to try out something, why not? Good lord, he did not say he's going to eat cucumber and vinegar for 6 months straight !
I read the whole thread, and I find it extremely strange that people get borderline angry and aggressive about the way someone they don't even know decides to eat. No really.
Have a doughnut and chill a bit.
- A CICO-fan.8 -
Though cico is not a woe. It's the only way to lose weight except for surgery or a tapeworm or malabsorption or a medical issue7
-
earthakin66 wrote: »I don't mind hearing criticism, I just wonder why everyone feels the need to offer that. Thanks for the tip, I'll look over in groups.
Because so very many of us were just like you when it comes to trying to lose weight. Looking for that magical answer that's out there, reading a book and saying "Aha! So that's what is wrong with me, that's why I can't lose weight. This is what I need to do! I need to eat low carb or low fat, I need to eat healthy, I need to cut out refined sugars, or processed foods. I need some raspberry keytones, or I'll do the military diet. The problem is I have to calm down my fat cells, I need to jump start my metabolism.
I tried it all for twenty years. So did a lot of people on here. I tried Atkins, South Beach, Phen Phen, over the counter pills, I read books and magazine articles, some written by scientists and Dr's.
Please listen to the people on here, Calories in/ Calories out. That's what causes weight loss.
Exactly this for me for 10 years! I tried all the diets that told me 'carbs are bad', 'just eat healthy', 'you HAVE TO exercise', 'eat smaller portions', 'salt is bad', 'eat only natural', 'eat 6 small meals a day', 'cut out the fat', 'eat slow', 'eat until full' etc. I was constantly looking up diets and all I got were these messages rehashed. I lost weight on keto but I couldn't sustain it. I lost a LOT of weight eating very little because I didn't know what a 'portion' was, I figured that to lose weight I had to eat a lot less. I put it all back on very quickly. The only thing that has worked for me is to think about calories and calories only. I have lost 17kg and I am almost at goal weight. Now that I understand the mathematical formula that that is CICO, I know exactly how much to eat. I don't give a flying $#@# if 100 grams of almonds is better for me than 100 grams of chocolate... if I have to eat chocolate to get me through the day, then I will without guilt so long as I log it. I could not have lost the weight if I made these decisions everyday but to me 'balance' works best. I don't think anyone on here counting calories who has lost weight just eats donuts all day, even the people who say they eat 'anything' like me. I still eat treats but some things I no long eat (certainly not as much of). I cook a lot more, eat far more vegetables, less meat, less oil and my portion sizes are in check. I eat 2 large meals between 11-6 and I like the feeling of being 'stuffed', breakfast is nothing or a coffee I have a miso soup later in the evening, I eat chocolate overnight. I feel like I am breaking so many rules to weight loss and yet I have lost a lot of weight.
Everyone should be able to say what works for them. If cutting carbs works for you, great! If 6 small meals a day works for you, great! If only eating 'whole foods' works for you, great! This works for me, great! It's all good if it works for you!10 -
Isabelle_1929 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »earthakin66 wrote: »Actually we aren't talking about Dr. Lustig, but Dr. Ludwig.
I am going to go ahead and cut sugar, potatoes and processed foods out of my diet for 6 months anyway. I know a lot of you don't agree and to that I say- don't do it then! I spent two years off of sugar and flour and lost 79 pounds. So many people were bothered by this and convinced me that I should be able to eat anything I wanted in moderation. Of course I love sugar and flour and so I gave it a try- and gained back 50 pounds in the process. I am driven to overeat these things. Those of you who can't relate to this don't have that problem and I am happy for you because it really sucks. I know that I was more energetic and overall healthier when I wasn't consuming sugar and flour. Did I insist that everyone else did it? No! I didn't even make my children do that because everyone is allowed to make their own choices.
I posted this morning looking for likeminded individuals, not looking for reasons not to cut out refined sugars and flour. I found a couple, so thanks to them.
I'm not a newbie in any sense. I need support to go down the abstinence road because people are constantly telling me how stupid it is. It isn't easy but I know that it is right for me. And yes, eating 4000 calories a day won't end in weight loss.
You know, maybe if you didn't cut them out entirely and instead tried to get a healthy relationship with it you wouldn't have binged on it and wouldn't need a second try at losing weight.
Just a thought.
Last time I checked, there is not one method - NONE - including CICO, that will make people lose weight once and for good. How many people are (re-re-re-) re-starters, on this thread alone ?
I'm all for CICO, but gimme a break. I've lost weight, and gained back, and lost again.
Open mind and curiosity has never killed anyone. If OP want to try out something, why not? Good lord, he did not say he's going to eat cucumber and vinegar for 6 months straight !
I read the whole thread, and I find it extremely strange that people get borderline angry and aggressive about the way someone they don't even know decides to eat. No really.
Have a doughnut and chill a bit.
- A CICO-fan.
Wrong. CICO works for everyone. If you regained wait, that's on you, not on CICO.
10 -
singingflutelady wrote: »Though cico is not a woe. It's the only way to lose weight except for surgery or a tapeworm or malabsorption or a medical issue
http://www.vice.com/read/what-happens-if-you-give-yourself-a-tapeworm-to-lose-weight-862
2 -
The Low Carber Daily MFP group would be a good spot to go for support in the idea that not all calories are created equal. The majority of us would agree that there is something about low carb (for us) that makes weight loss easier. It could just be the reduced appetite (lower CI), some of it may be reduced inflammation and better health (higher CO), maybe it is caused by avoiding highly refined foods (lower CI), and part of it could be the hormonal response caused by foods (higher CO). Who knows. For those of us who see success in lower carb diets, we know it works for us.5
-
I think if a "Newbie" was to read this thread it would scare and put them off straight away! So many judgemental, rude, aggressive people getting their back up!!
I also noticed that a lot of people on here may have developed OCD with weighing and numbers, weighing a pre packaged yogurt haha come on REALLY!
I dont take a food scale out of the house and carry it around with with me, that is just sad.
I have and I am still losing weight just fine.5 -
earthakin66 wrote: »I don't mind hearing criticism, I just wonder why everyone feels the need to offer that. Thanks for the tip, I'll look over in groups.
Because so very many of us were just like you when it comes to trying to lose weight. Looking for that magical answer that's out there, reading a book and saying "Aha! So that's what is wrong with me, that's why I can't lose weight. This is what I need to do! I need to eat low carb or low fat, I need to eat healthy, I need to cut out refined sugars, or processed foods. I need some raspberry keytones, or I'll do the military diet. The problem is I have to calm down my fat cells, I need to jump start my metabolism.
I tried it all for twenty years. So did a lot of people on here. I tried Atkins, South Beach, Phen Phen, over the counter pills, I read books and magazine articles, some written by scientists and Dr's.
Please listen to the people on here, Calories in/ Calories out. That's what causes weight loss.
Oh my gosh, you look incredible!0 -
Isabelle_1929 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »earthakin66 wrote: »Actually we aren't talking about Dr. Lustig, but Dr. Ludwig.
I am going to go ahead and cut sugar, potatoes and processed foods out of my diet for 6 months anyway. I know a lot of you don't agree and to that I say- don't do it then! I spent two years off of sugar and flour and lost 79 pounds. So many people were bothered by this and convinced me that I should be able to eat anything I wanted in moderation. Of course I love sugar and flour and so I gave it a try- and gained back 50 pounds in the process. I am driven to overeat these things. Those of you who can't relate to this don't have that problem and I am happy for you because it really sucks. I know that I was more energetic and overall healthier when I wasn't consuming sugar and flour. Did I insist that everyone else did it? No! I didn't even make my children do that because everyone is allowed to make their own choices.
I posted this morning looking for likeminded individuals, not looking for reasons not to cut out refined sugars and flour. I found a couple, so thanks to them.
I'm not a newbie in any sense. I need support to go down the abstinence road because people are constantly telling me how stupid it is. It isn't easy but I know that it is right for me. And yes, eating 4000 calories a day won't end in weight loss.
You know, maybe if you didn't cut them out entirely and instead tried to get a healthy relationship with it you wouldn't have binged on it and wouldn't need a second try at losing weight.
Just a thought.
Last time I checked, there is not one method - NONE - including CICO, that will make people lose weight once and for good. How many people are (re-re-re-) re-starters, on this thread alone ?
I'm all for CICO, but gimme a break. I've lost weight, and gained back, and lost again.
Open mind and curiosity has never killed anyone. If OP want to try out something, why not? Good lord, he did not say he's going to eat cucumber and vinegar for 6 months straight !
I read the whole thread, and I find it extremely strange that people get borderline angry and aggressive about the way someone they don't even know decides to eat. No really.
Have a doughnut and chill a bit.
- A CICO-fan.
CICO is not an eating style, it's an energy balance equation made up of: basal metabolic rate, thermal effect of food, thermal effect of activity, non-exercise activity thermogenesis.
Part of the problem is people think CICO is an eating style and they actually don't understand what it is. And if you look at all metabolic ward studies, they baseline data by measuring Energy Expended (EE), so they can make an adjustment from there.7 -
earthakin66 wrote: »It just seems obvious to me that 200 calories in almonds vs. 200 calories in a doughnut will not have the same result in your body. It actually seems like people here agree on that so I don't really know what the issue is. Part of the idea is that if we eat 1400 calories worth of nutritionally dense, higher fat foods then we will be less hungry than if we ate 1400 calories of processed, low fat foods.
I read the review, interesting points.
I dont trust doctors blindly, just was pointing out that he isn't a stick insect.
Ugh. Low fat foods do not have to be processed. Higher fat may satiate YOU, but not me. 400 calories of beans and rice (low fat, not processed) is far more filling than 400 calories of cheese, meat, nuts, oil, etc. I can get plenty of nutritionally dense low/moderate fat foods. WTF. So sick of the ignorance 'round here.
To add, a lot of high fat foods are very processed.
More examples of low fat whole foods: fruits and veggies, greek yogurt, chicken, pork and many steaks.
Add me to the fat doesnt fill me club. A 12oz sirloin fills me a lot more than a 20oz ribeye.3 -
earthakin66 wrote: »It just seems obvious to me that 200 calories in almonds vs. 200 calories in a doughnut will not have the same result in your body. It actually seems like people here agree on that so I don't really know what the issue is. Part of the idea is that if we eat 1400 calories worth of nutritionally dense, higher fat foods then we will be less hungry than if we ate 1400 calories of processed, low fat foods.
I read the review, interesting points.
I dont trust doctors blindly, just was pointing out that he isn't a stick insect.
Ugh. Low fat foods do not have to be processed. Higher fat may satiate YOU, but not me. 400 calories of beans and rice (low fat, not processed) is far more filling than 400 calories of cheese, meat, nuts, oil, etc. I can get plenty of nutritionally dense low/moderate fat foods. WTF. So sick of the ignorance 'round here.
Just some number crunching:
200 calories of baked potato (one large potato 210 grams in weight): 45 grams of carbs, 0 fat
200 calories of french fries (slightly less than a small McDonald's, ~60 grams in weight): 25 grams of carbs, 10 grams of fat.
200 calories of Lay's potato chips (slightly larger than a single serving, 35 grams in weight): 19 grams of carbs, 12 grams of fat.
I don't know how about other people, but I know which one fills me up better. This generalization that lower carb higher fat food is always more satiating boggles my mind. I mean it might be the case for some people, but not everyone. I also don't understand why we are comparing nuts to doughnuts when doughnuts are pretty high in fat - 200 calories is a very slightly smaller than average doughnut with 15 grams of fat and 1.25 oz of almonds and 17 grams of fat, not a big difference in fat content (200 calories of doughnuts fills me up better than 200 calories of nuts by the way, and 200 calories of high carb oatmeal keeps me full for hours).
Well, before someone starts using words like "junk" and "processed" here are some other "healthy nutritionally dense" examples:
Steak:
400 calories of sirloin tip side steak (about 8 oz): 12 g fat
400 calories of fatty prime rib (about 3.5 oz): 34 g fat
Fruits:
100 calories of avocado (half a slightly larger than average avocado, 60 grams): 6 g carbs, 9 g fat
100 calories of grapefruit (a huge one, more than 300 grams): 25 g carbs, 0 g fat
Snacks:
100 calories of pecan (about 2-2.5 tablespoons): 2 g carbs, 10 g fat
100 calories of air popped popcorn (3.25 cups): 20 g carbs, 1 g fat
8 -
This content has been removed.
-
cgreen120288 wrote: »earthakin66 wrote: »Has anyone else read the book "Always Hungry"? It really explains everything that I have always felt intuitively. What if he is right about not all calories being equal? That different foods (and therefore calories) biologically impact us in different ways?
I highly recommend the book, here is the website: http://drdavidludwig.com
No counting calories, eat until satisfied, cut way down on refined carbohydrates and eat plenty of fat. Countless health benefits including weight loss and best of all, no hunger.
Anyone want to join me on a 6 month experiment? Send a friend request.
What if eating until satisfied entails eating in a 2000 calorie surplus?
I call BS
Yes!! Thank you! Some people (ME!!!) do not have an off switch. If I don't pay attention to my caloric intake, I will eat far beyond maintenance. And then some.
12 -
cgreen120288 wrote: »earthakin66 wrote: »Has anyone else read the book "Always Hungry"? It really explains everything that I have always felt intuitively. What if he is right about not all calories being equal? That different foods (and therefore calories) biologically impact us in different ways?
I highly recommend the book, here is the website: http://drdavidludwig.com
No counting calories, eat until satisfied, cut way down on refined carbohydrates and eat plenty of fat. Countless health benefits including weight loss and best of all, no hunger.
Anyone want to join me on a 6 month experiment? Send a friend request.
What if eating until satisfied entails eating in a 2000 calorie surplus?
I call BS
Yes!! Thank you! Some people (ME!!!) do not have an off switch. If I don't pay attention to my caloric intake, I will eat far beyond maintenance. And then some.
Same for me. I eat until the calories are gone. If I wasn't counting, I could probably eat double my current intake in a day.7 -
earthakin66 wrote: »It just seems obvious to me that 200 calories in almonds vs. 200 calories in a doughnut will not have the same result in your body. It actually seems like people here agree on that so I don't really know what the issue is. Part of the idea is that if we eat 1400 calories worth of nutritionally dense, higher fat foods then we will be less hungry than if we ate 1400 calories of processed, low fat foods.
I read the review, interesting points.
I dont trust doctors blindly, just was pointing out that he isn't a stick insect.
Ugh. Low fat foods do not have to be processed. Higher fat may satiate YOU, but not me. 400 calories of beans and rice (low fat, not processed) is far more filling than 400 calories of cheese, meat, nuts, oil, etc. I can get plenty of nutritionally dense low/moderate fat foods. WTF. So sick of the ignorance 'round here.
To add, a lot of high fat foods are very processed.
More examples of low fat whole foods: fruits and veggies, greek yogurt, chicken, pork and many steaks.
Add me to the fat doesnt fill me club. A 12oz sirloin fills me a lot more than a 20oz ribeye.
Signing on to this also. I tend to eat whole foods, and most of them aren't high in fat. The fat I add (olive oil, butter) is more processed (not that I care), although I also eat nuts and avocados.
The "junk" I eat (like ice cream) tends to have both sugar and fat.
I wish fat filled me up, but it doesn't at all.1 -
I have lost 70+ pounds in 5 months counting calories. I am diabetic. I eat plenty of carbs. No magic diets. I got active, I exercise and I eat under my calorie goal. My Dr. never told me to go low carb either. He simply said "get active" and "lose weight".
I don't weigh much of my food. This isn't rocket science. Keep it simple.
I simply try and over-estimate my calories IN if I must, and I try and under-estimate my calorie burned. I lift some light weights (2 sets of 5 different exercises). I do this in the morning and evening. I do not log any calories burned for it. I figure it maybe gives me a couple hundred calories to play with, if my food log isn't quite right.
I log whatever is on the package. I look it up online. The only thing I weigh is my steaks, pork chops, etc and a few other things on occasion, if I must. I look it up online. How many calories in an apple? Good enough for me.
Perhaps, you wish to be more accurate? That's great. Whatever works for you. In the end, what matters to me is results.
This is NOT a diet & exercise program or routine. It is a lifestyle change. I can live with CICO the rest of my life.
I am not on any meds for my diabetes. I am not on any meds period. My BP was 111/71 last checkup. I eat all the carbs I want. My Dr said , don't bother coming back for 6 months.
Check with your Dr. if you have health issues. That's always my first advice. Otherwise, find what works for you, and what you can live with for a long time. Diet programs usually fail, because people can not or will not stick with that diet for a long time.
YMMV14
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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