Can you eat whatever you want as long as you stay in your calorie range and still lose weight?
Replies
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Yes as long as you have the willpower to only stick to small amounts that fit into your calories.
Personally I don't have that willpower and that's why I put on weight in the first place, by eating loads of junk food and not being able to stop a one item every now and then.
I see post like this a lot. And while I get your point I don't understand how you can not have the willpower to eat only a small amount of something but you do have the willpower to restrict it altogether. I think it must just be differences in personalities. For me it is much easier to restrict the amounts I eat than to forbid myself to ever eat certain things. I do a lot better allowing myself a small portion of something I love than I do making things off limits. Restrictions like that lead me to have cravings and eventually over eat.
For me it's SO MUCH EASIER to have no tortilla chips than 10.
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/salty-snacks-corn-or-cornmeal-base-tortilla-chips
Easier to have no nachos than 6.
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/nachos-with-cheese?portionid=40522&portionamount=1.000
Definitely easier to have no oreos than three oreos...
I truly think there's two kinds of folks when it comes to tempting foods.
I certainly agree. And I wasn't trying to say that I think that one way is right or wrong. I just can't imagine having the willpower to completely restrict any food.
You kinda implied that.
but no harm. For me, these days, it doesn't take much of any willpower to not eat sweets. After a few months of not eating my daily snickers I found the idea kinda gross. All sweets. blech. (except very dark chocolate).
Nachos are another thing. (salty fat? YUM). But I save those for special, indulgent events. A special evening out with hubs or the like. And I don't eat six.
But sweets are pretty much a non issue now. I had tried to "moderate" them, but found it was easier, 14 years ago, to cut them out. No willpower involved now.
We each have to find our own way.2 -
I'd add to the chorus but with a caveat- you can certainly eat whatever you want but ALWAYS keep nutrition in mind- making sure whatever you're eating has the good stuff your body needs (micronutirents)- something chips, pizza, etc. don't, but fruits and vegetables generally do. A diet of straight "fun stuff" is fun but not one for optimal health.2
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Might wanna try Ezikiel (or the like) bread. It's 80 calories a slice and delicious--plus, it has a little protein.
+1 for Ezekiel or another true sprouted grain bread. Very nutrient dense, high fiber, not a lot of added crap. Delicious.
Fooducate.com rates it an A- (Nature's Own lite honey wheat gets a C+).
I mean, that's great if you get many of your nutrients from grains. I really don't. I'm not low carb by any means, but I get the bulk of my micros from the veggies I eat, along with fiber, and I get plenty of protein through meats and dairy. I'd rather not spend 160 calories for the bread on my sandwich, no matter how healthy it is, because that's 80 extra calories that I can use for things that I actually enjoy.
Nope, I'll take my mediocre bread with the lower calories and have room for 80 extra calories of wine. Or ice cream.5 -
I don't get much of any of my nutrients from grains, actually. I just prefer all of my carbs to be nutrient dense and high fiber. I also love wine, btw, and ice cream.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Might wanna try Ezikiel (or the like) bread. It's 80 calories a slice and delicious--plus, it has a little protein.
+1 for Ezekiel or another true sprouted grain bread. Very nutrient dense, high fiber, not a lot of added crap. Delicious.
Fooducate.com rates it an A- (Nature's Own lite honey wheat gets a C+).
I mean, that's great if you get many of your nutrients from grains. I really don't. I'm not low carb by any means, but I get the bulk of my micros from the veggies I eat, along with fiber, and I get plenty of protein through meats and dairy. I'd rather not spend 160 calories for the bread on my sandwich, no matter how healthy it is, because that's 80 extra calories that I can use for things that I actually enjoy.
Nope, I'll take my mediocre bread with the lower calories and have room for 80 extra calories of wine. Or ice cream.
3 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Yes as long as you have the willpower to only stick to small amounts that fit into your calories.
Personally I don't have that willpower and that's why I put on weight in the first place, by eating loads of junk food and not being able to stop a one item every now and then.
I see post like this a lot. And while I get your point I don't understand how you can not have the willpower to eat only a small amount of something but you do have the willpower to restrict it altogether. I think it must just be differences in personalities. For me it is much easier to restrict the amounts I eat than to forbid myself to ever eat certain things. I do a lot better allowing myself a small portion of something I love than I do making things off limits. Restrictions like that lead me to have cravings and eventually over eat.
For me it's SO MUCH EASIER to have no tortilla chips than 10.
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/salty-snacks-corn-or-cornmeal-base-tortilla-chips
Easier to have no nachos than 6.
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/nachos-with-cheese?portionid=40522&portionamount=1.000
Definitely easier to have no oreos than three oreos...
I truly think there's two kinds of folks when it comes to tempting foods.
I'm definitely one that can't restrictall together. I have to partake in small amounts or it leads to an eventual binge to me. So cool how it works differently for different people though!0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I don't get much of any of my nutrients from grains, actually. I just prefer all of my carbs to be nutrient dense and high fiber. I also love wine, btw, and ice cream.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Might wanna try Ezikiel (or the like) bread. It's 80 calories a slice and delicious--plus, it has a little protein.
+1 for Ezekiel or another true sprouted grain bread. Very nutrient dense, high fiber, not a lot of added crap. Delicious.
Fooducate.com rates it an A- (Nature's Own lite honey wheat gets a C+).
I mean, that's great if you get many of your nutrients from grains. I really don't. I'm not low carb by any means, but I get the bulk of my micros from the veggies I eat, along with fiber, and I get plenty of protein through meats and dairy. I'd rather not spend 160 calories for the bread on my sandwich, no matter how healthy it is, because that's 80 extra calories that I can use for things that I actually enjoy.
Nope, I'll take my mediocre bread with the lower calories and have room for 80 extra calories of wine. Or ice cream.
Different strokes 0 -
oliverneedsyou wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Yes as long as you have the willpower to only stick to small amounts that fit into your calories.
Personally I don't have that willpower and that's why I put on weight in the first place, by eating loads of junk food and not being able to stop a one item every now and then.
I see post like this a lot. And while I get your point I don't understand how you can not have the willpower to eat only a small amount of something but you do have the willpower to restrict it altogether. I think it must just be differences in personalities. For me it is much easier to restrict the amounts I eat than to forbid myself to ever eat certain things. I do a lot better allowing myself a small portion of something I love than I do making things off limits. Restrictions like that lead me to have cravings and eventually over eat.
For me it's SO MUCH EASIER to have no tortilla chips than 10.
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/salty-snacks-corn-or-cornmeal-base-tortilla-chips
Easier to have no nachos than 6.
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/nachos-with-cheese?portionid=40522&portionamount=1.000
Definitely easier to have no oreos than three oreos...
I truly think there's two kinds of folks when it comes to tempting foods.
I'm definitely one that can't restrictall together. I have to partake in small amounts or it leads to an eventual binge to me. So cool how it works differently for different people though!
Yep definitely. And I'm always happy when the community here respects both kinds of folks. cheers!1 -
In answer to the title question technically yes, although practically speaking it helps to make food choices that are high satiation to calorie so that you can reach your calorie goal and maintain your deficit comfortably while still getting the necessary micro and macronutrients for health.
Yes you technically could lose weight eating nothing but twinkies but it wouldn't be healthy and you would be miserable.3 -
Yup!Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I don't get much of any of my nutrients from grains, actually. I just prefer all of my carbs to be nutrient dense and high fiber. I also love wine, btw, and ice cream.Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Might wanna try Ezikiel (or the like) bread. It's 80 calories a slice and delicious--plus, it has a little protein.
+1 for Ezekiel or another true sprouted grain bread. Very nutrient dense, high fiber, not a lot of added crap. Delicious.
Fooducate.com rates it an A- (Nature's Own lite honey wheat gets a C+).
I mean, that's great if you get many of your nutrients from grains. I really don't. I'm not low carb by any means, but I get the bulk of my micros from the veggies I eat, along with fiber, and I get plenty of protein through meats and dairy. I'd rather not spend 160 calories for the bread on my sandwich, no matter how healthy it is, because that's 80 extra calories that I can use for things that I actually enjoy.
Nope, I'll take my mediocre bread with the lower calories and have room for 80 extra calories of wine. Or ice cream.
Different strokes
0 -
Yes as long as you have the willpower to only stick to small amounts that fit into your calories.
Personally I don't have that willpower and that's why I put on weight in the first place, by eating loads of junk food and not being able to stop a one item every now and then.
I see post like this a lot. And while I get your point I don't understand how you can not have the willpower to eat only a small amount of something but you do have the willpower to restrict it altogether. I think it must just be differences in personalities. For me it is much easier to restrict the amounts I eat than to forbid myself to ever eat certain things. I do a lot better allowing myself a small portion of something I love than I do making things off limits. Restrictions like that lead me to have cravings and eventually over eat.
I do much better when I "can't" have anything than if I can have just a little. I have a pretty strong will power to say no pizza. But when you put a pizza in front of me and I tell myself that I can have just one slice, that one slice turns into a second slice "because I have been really good for the last week" and then a third "because I have already had two anyway so my day is ruined" until I have eaten the whole thing! Restrictions can be hard, but once you get over the craving hump, it really isn't so bad. That first week or two is rough though. I personally just find clear and defined rules much easier. If you have the will power to eat just one serving of chips or pizza or whatever junk food you like, more power to you!
Yes this is me too. When I have a plan in place (that I know I can stick to) I stick to it and work better that way.0 -
I wish I can eat what ever I want and lose weight but unfortunately I can't. Even with exercising and burning more than I'm consuming. Carbs is my enemy.(I'm talking bread, pizza, stuff like that).0
-
Yep! I've managed to lose 56lbs so far without cutting out any major food groups or food types.
I limit pizza because of calorie content, as well as the fact that the high amount of carbs and salt often leads to gaining quite a lot in water weight... and because I am dangerously capable of eating the whole pizza. I've noticed this pattern in general - very carby, salty days tend to lead gaining water weight (that can always be lost, of course).0 -
CICO is only true in theory. In reality, you can't eat 2000 calories of ice cream & maintain a healthy weight. Why? Because you have no protein & very little vitamin intake. You think you can eat 600 calories of ice cream for breakfast, lunch & dinner with 200 more for a snack & not be starving (or sick) all day. Especially if you eat it right after working out.0
-
I always have room for donuts0
-
-
JBApplebee wrote: »CICO is only true in theory. In reality, you can't eat 2000 calories of ice cream & maintain a healthy weight. Why? Because you have no protein & very little vitamin intake. You think you can eat 600 calories of ice cream for breakfast, lunch & dinner with 200 more for a snack & not be starving (or sick) all day. Especially if you eat it right after working out.
Nope. Yes, nutrition is important, but you can eat nothing but junk food and still lose weight as long as you maintain a deficit.
Satiety and nutrition are different from weight loss.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html4 -
JBApplebee wrote: »CICO is only true in theory. In reality, you can't eat 2000 calories of ice cream & maintain a healthy weight. Why? Because you have no protein & very little vitamin intake. You think you can eat 600 calories of ice cream for breakfast, lunch & dinner with 200 more for a snack & not be starving (or sick) all day. Especially if you eat it right after working out.
Was there someone who suggested eating nothing but ice cream? Or did the OP ask about eating nothing but ice cream? What I saw was a person who adopted a fairly restrictive (maybe low carb, but not sure if she specified) diet and is asking if it is possible to add back in some of his favorites, subbing out an equivalent calorie food, without gaining weight. Switching out some bread because he misses it, for a single yogurt, is hardly the same as eating nothing but ice cream...
6 -
In my 62 day experience, i've eaten more bread than before mfp & loosing weight. Before i avoided it, but never lost weight. I have one slice to have P&J, tuna or chicken salad on. Some things are just too much calories that i used to eat but i modified it, like i ate a chicken dish i made often with skinless chicken thighs & lots of veggies, sauteed in olive oil with garlic & onions, but after it was done i'd add cream cheese or cream of mushroom soup & used chicken broth with tons of sodium. Now i make it & use no sodium chicken broth & skip the cream cheese, add a little sour cream or yogurt, I use lite mayo, lite yogurt, lite almond milk, instead of a hamburger, i eat a hamburger patty with a sweet or regular potato( instead of fries) & a veggie with cheese so i found there's a lot of room to be creative. I also bought sardines as snack at nite2
-
sorry, forgot & wanted to add that i love Lays potato chips & do have some, but i have one ounce & it's easier if i have it along with a meal than by themselves0
-
You can still lose weight because calories are the same and substituting a few things is absolutely fine. But if someone who ate junk only changed their calorie intake they would be starving and feel sick. This is because they won't be able to eat enough to ever be full and won't be getting enough nutrients. I tried to do this when I was younger until I saw that chart that showed a stomach filled with veggies that said "100 calories" next to a stomach with a tiny bit of pizza or something that said "100 calories" and I finally got to it.0
-
The bottom line is yes.. so long as you stay in a calorie deficit you can lose weight.1
-
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Yes as long as you have the willpower to only stick to small amounts that fit into your calories.
Personally I don't have that willpower and that's why I put on weight in the first place, by eating loads of junk food and not being able to stop a one item every now and then.
I see post like this a lot. And while I get your point I don't understand how you can not have the willpower to eat only a small amount of something but you do have the willpower to restrict it altogether. I think it must just be differences in personalities. For me it is much easier to restrict the amounts I eat than to forbid myself to ever eat certain things. I do a lot better allowing myself a small portion of something I love than I do making things off limits. Restrictions like that lead me to have cravings and eventually over eat.
For me it's SO MUCH EASIER to have no tortilla chips than 10.
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/salty-snacks-corn-or-cornmeal-base-tortilla-chips
Easier to have no nachos than 6.
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/nachos-with-cheese?portionid=40522&portionamount=1.000
Definitely easier to have no oreos than three oreos...
I truly think there's two kinds of folks when it comes to tempting foods.
I certainly agree. And I wasn't trying to say that I think that one way is right or wrong. I just can't imagine having the willpower to completely restrict any food.
For me, it requires a ton more willpower to stop at a serving of ice cream or a few chips/nuts etc etc than it does to just not have them in the first place. If they're not in the house then i don't think about it. If i have a box of cheerios or peanut butter cups sitting in my kitchen, they will torment me until i devour the lot of them!!2 -
I see post like this a lot. And while I get your point I don't understand how you can not have the willpower to eat only a small amount of something but you do have the willpower to restrict it altogether. I think it must just be differences in personalities. For me it is much easier to restrict the amounts I eat than to forbid myself to ever eat certain things. I do a lot better allowing myself a small portion of something I love than I do making things off limits. Restrictions like that lead me to have cravings and eventually over eat.
I'm an addict; a food addict, but still an addict in the way an alcoholic is. If I am around one of my "trigger" foods I will eat it until it is gone. Just as an alcoholic usually can't have just a little drink, I can't have just one donut or 3 cookies or a half cup of fettuccini Alfredo or just one slice of pizza (with the rest sitting in the box taunting me.) It doesn't matter if I've had 50 or 5000 calories already that day. So I've learned to make myself happy with foods I enjoy but that don't set off my out-of-control behaviors.
2 -
Also, if i don't buy my trigger foods then there is zero chance i will overeat them The less i eat them, the less i think about them. It makes staying in a deficit a hell of a lot easier and less stressful. 1
-
It is indeed calories in/calories out. However, tonight I had a choice to eat my usual banana/Greek yogurt/peanut butter snack for 217 calories or a Klondike Reese's Ice Cream sandwich for 250. Even though they were really close in calories, I knew after eating the Klondike I would be hungrier later, and it wouldn't give me near the nutrition (protein and fiber) as my dessert did. Plus, who needs all that sugar? So, yes, even though it's calories in/calories out, you've got to pick your poison, because, believe me, it's not that I always pick the smartest, most nutritious choice!
1 -
TL;DR version of whole thread:
Well, like, don't eat nothing but donuts cause you'll die, but yeah you can still enjoy portion controlled helpings of all the stuff you like...0 -
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »JBApplebee wrote: »CICO is only true in theory. In reality, you can't eat 2000 calories of ice cream & maintain a healthy weight. Why? Because you have no protein & very little vitamin intake. You think you can eat 600 calories of ice cream for breakfast, lunch & dinner with 200 more for a snack & not be starving (or sick) all day. Especially if you eat it right after working out.
Nope. Yes, nutrition is important, but you can eat nothing but junk food and still lose weight as long as you maintain a deficit.
Satiety and nutrition are different from weight loss.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
CICO is too basic, it is just oversimplified. Eating nothing but junk food will make you unhealthy either way. Article from 2010 that says this is temporary and not long term
It is simple. Weight loss doesn't have to be complicated.
Of course his diet was temporary. You can't live on Twinkies forever and be healthy. That was not his point. His point was to prove that you can eat anything and lose weight. And you can. His health markers even improved.2 -
So if I'm trying to lose weight should I just focus on staying within my calorie limit (which is currently 1400)?
Or should I stay within the other limits provided by MFP like the fat and sugar etc. I am contstantly going over the sugar limit due to fruit and milk.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »JBApplebee wrote: »CICO is only true in theory. In reality, you can't eat 2000 calories of ice cream & maintain a healthy weight. Why? Because you have no protein & very little vitamin intake. You think you can eat 600 calories of ice cream for breakfast, lunch & dinner with 200 more for a snack & not be starving (or sick) all day. Especially if you eat it right after working out.
Was there someone who suggested eating nothing but ice cream? Or did the OP ask about eating nothing but ice cream? What I saw was a person who adopted a fairly restrictive (maybe low carb, but not sure if she specified) diet and is asking if it is possible to add back in some of his favorites, subbing out an equivalent calorie food, without gaining weight. Switching out some bread because he misses it, for a single yogurt, is hardly the same as eating nothing but ice cream...
I think she was just giving an example. Being a bit to literal there perhaps
It's called a straw man argument and it is raised on nearly every one of these threads.
Op asks if they can eat whatever they want and still lose weight.
Many posters chime in, "yep! CICO! Nutrition is important too but for weight loss it's all about calories!"
Straw man poster: " yeah but if you ate nothing but ________ (insert junk food of choice here, donuts, doritos, Ice cream) you wouldn't be healthy!
The point is no one is suggesting a diet of all junk food as you mentioned above. You are creating a false position that you can beat up, a straw man.
OP asked if they can eat anything they want and still lose weight. Why do people assume that means OP wants to eat nothing but junk is beyond me, he specifically gave the example of adding in a piece of bread on occasion?9 -
So if I'm trying to lose weight should I just focus on staying within my calorie limit (which is currently 1400)?
Or should I stay within the other limits provided by MFP like the fat and sugar etc. I am contstantly going over the sugar limit due to fruit and milk.
Yes to the calorie limit. The macros are an indication of nutritional value.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions