You NEED to stop calorie counting and restricting!
Replies
-
It's really frustrating! I watch what I eat and count most of the time to maintain, and everyone IRL says it's eating disorder behavior and that I'm "naturally thin" and can eat whatever I want. We end up getting into full-blown arguments about it.
I'm a healthy weight. I'm 5'5" and bounce back and forth between 110-115lbs. I would like to keep it that way, and MFP makes this SUPER easy. I can even put stuff in on MFP before I eat, to see if I can afford to eat a double-serving of those amazing leftovers from last night or not. Sometimes, I'm pleasantly surprised. 
I don't know about you guys, but my appetite is full of misfires and cannot be trusted. Some days she says "Naw dawg, you just did 4 hours of back-breaking manual labor, but you don't need to eat, it's cool", and other days it fires back with "NOOOO! You don't understand! You may have been on your butt all day, but you really need to eat ALL THE FOOD IN THE HOUSE."4 -
I have never been overweight (5'7 between 146-150) but I was so resistant to count calories because deep down I knew I was eating to much. I liked to say that it was all in my boobs plus I strength train so my body needed the nutrition.
But when I started using my MFP I realized I had a very poor understanding of portion sizes. So I bought a food scale. And then I started seeing how much I was really eating. I would do between 2,500-4,000 a day! What I found interesting, though, is the next day I wouldn't eat as much (1,200) which I think was part of the reason I never gained a significant amount of weight.
I started to see that I was eating way to much and needed to make changes. For example, I was eating 500 calories of tortilla chips. I just didn't feel like they where worth it so I stopped eating them.
Now I go between 141-146. I still go over my calorie limit which is why I have't lost more weight. But tracking has helped me figure out my weak areas that I need to improve on. I have noticed that I will overeat at night. I started to wonder why I always do that, and started to suspect it is because I am reading stuff on my computer. If I eat distracted I am still hungry after finishing my meal. When I just eat my meal without watching TV or reading, I get full and don't need to keep eating. So now I am working on just focusing on my meal and slowing down. MFP has helped make me more aware and a more mindful eater.
Its a great tool that helps empower people to take control of their life, and I get so sad seeing all this misinformation because it is holding people down and keeping them from succeeding.
1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Actually, yes. Weight loss would result if 1500 calories puts both people in a calorie deficit and food has been weighed. Nutrition isn't the same (of course), but calories are. I thought the twinkie study/diet confirmed that.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
I lost over 80lbs eating nutritious as well as snacks and treats that include chocolate, cake, donuts....etc..
A calorie is a calorie.
A calorie is a unit of energy.
"A calorie is a unit of energy." True, but don't you think it's possible that eating crappy food for extended periods can screw up your metabolism over time, and result in weight gain? Unit of energy does not reflect changes in metabolism.
If our metabolism slows with age, why couldn't change based on what you eat?
5 Foods That Slow Down Your Metabolism - http://annagodfrey.com/5-foods-that-slow-down-your-metabolism/
again, this is not science.
OK, how about this one. Conclusion - "Saying that weight (or health for that matter) is simply a function of “calories in, calories out” is completely wrong. It is a drastic oversimplification that doesn’t account for the complex metabolic pathways that different foods go through, or the effects that foods have on our brain and hormones."
"https://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
I don't think CICO is a simplification and it is not wrong. What is difficult is figuring out exactly what you CO is and what you CI is. I don't understand how CICO fails to account for the complex metabolic pathways or the effects food have on our brain or hormones. The complex metabolic pathways and hormones are the CO part of the equation.
There was a teacher who lost 60 pounds eating nothing but McDonalds for 6 months, but he ate 2,000 calories. His cholesterol and other labs improved. http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/ Various nutrition professors have lost weight eating nothing but Twinkies. No one is saying this is healthy as the Twinkie diet lacked numerous vitamins and minerals. The point of these studies is that you don't need complicated meal plans or to buy only organic or any special equipment. You need to eat less then what you ate yesterday.3 -
counting calories has been the ONLY thing that is working for me. People like to give their opinions about what ever you're doing. I have a friend who thinks she's helping by constantly telling me "they said to do this or that" and telling me how she's lost 60lbs 3 times(gained it all back) I feel like saying who are "they" & why aren't you doing it?She gives me advise every time we talk, so annoying. she needs to loose wt too but i don't say anything to her, it's up to her1
-
If someone is eating healthfully and losing weight they are restrictiing calories whether they know it or not. I personally find it much harder to overeat when diet is primarily whole foods, but not impossible. ..I don't count calories so just eating really well works for me. ..but if I'm dropping weight I have a calorie deficiency.0
-
I lost weight last time (80+ lbs) without counting a single calorie. I increased my activity level and switched my portions up to have the salad or whatever as my main course with the protein and starches as smaller sides. It worked for me then.
This time Im older and my auto-immune/hormonal issues have progressed. What worked before didnt work this time so I joined MFP and worked with my doctor to design a new approach.
Different things work for different people. And different approaches might work for the same person at different points in their life.3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Actually, yes. Weight loss would result if 1500 calories puts both people in a calorie deficit and food has been weighed. Nutrition isn't the same (of course), but calories are. I thought the twinkie study/diet confirmed that.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
I lost over 80lbs eating nutritious as well as snacks and treats that include chocolate, cake, donuts....etc..
A calorie is a calorie.
A calorie is a unit of energy.
"A calorie is a unit of energy." True, but don't you think it's possible that eating crappy food for extended periods can screw up your metabolism over time, and result in weight gain? Unit of energy does not reflect changes in metabolism.
If our metabolism slows with age, why couldn't change based on what you eat?
5 Foods That Slow Down Your Metabolism - http://annagodfrey.com/5-foods-that-slow-down-your-metabolism/
again, this is not science.
OK, how about this one. Conclusion - "Saying that weight (or health for that matter) is simply a function of “calories in, calories out” is completely wrong. It is a drastic oversimplification that doesn’t account for the complex metabolic pathways that different foods go through, or the effects that foods have on our brain and hormones."
"https://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
Yea ... because a site that hawks an e-book called "Want to Lose Weight? Six Things to Eat Before Bed" and provides references from non peer-reviewed journals is credible ... (end sarcasm).4 -
I lost weight last time (80+ lbs) without counting a single calorie. I increased my activity level and switched my portions up to have the salad or whatever as my main course with the protein and starches as smaller sides. It worked for me then.
This time Im older and my auto-immune/hormonal issues have progressed. What worked before didnt work this time so I joined MFP and worked with my doctor to design a new approach.
Different things work for different people. And different approaches might work for the same person at different points in their life.
The vast majority of people who lose weight don't count calories. You are one of many.
Kudos to those who count calories. It is something I could never do.0 -
Reading this made me angry. Why must you read an article then decide that it's true? Or read another one and argue that yours is true? Did you do the market research? Did you write it? So who gives a monkeys??!! Ffs grow up. Each body is a little different. Some people respond well to some stuff. Some to others. For me carbs spike insulin and make me tired.. For some it won't. I lost weight in a deficit with terrible food (nutritionally speaking) you know fries and cider whilst at work. I lost eating lovely veggie stir fries too i was in a deficit bothways. WHO CARES WHAT SOME ARTICLE SAYS YOUR LOSS IS INDIVIDUAL AND NOT DEFINED BY ANYONE BUT YOU. You're not the same as anyone else! What works for you might not for others urrghhh0
-
We are flesh and blood, living proof CICO works... I have been on all diets known to humans, and this life style works for me!! It is not hard if you make it like a game.. a game of life...survival!0
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I lost weight last time (80+ lbs) without counting a single calorie. I increased my activity level and switched my portions up to have the salad or whatever as my main course with the protein and starches as smaller sides. It worked for me then.
This time Im older and my auto-immune/hormonal issues have progressed. What worked before didnt work this time so I joined MFP and worked with my doctor to design a new approach.
Different things work for different people. And different approaches might work for the same person at different points in their life.
The vast majority of people who lose weight don't count calories. You are one of many.
Kudos to those who count calories. It is something I could never do.
I count calories. I'm down 110.2 lbs as of this morning. I also had sushi and an ice cream sandwich as part of my meals today, because I counted calories and knew I could eat them and still lose weight. Like every day I've had since last July. Oh, and I've done almost no exercise either in that time. Looks like CICO likes me just fine.3 -
Multiple scientists have done self-experiments where they literally tried to get fat on high fat/low carb, gorging themselves with 5000 calories a day, and can't gain more than four pounds over several months. If calories were the only thing that mattered, they should have gained that in a week, and kept gaining. Yes, sample size is low, but it's clearly possible to do that.
When you're eating low carb, hunger and cravings are rare for most people anyway. So you're still eating few calories just naturally. As long as you're eating plenty of (low carb) veggies, this usually makes calorie counting irrelevant (depending how low carb you go), although you do still have to count carbs. Reducing carbs keeps blood sugar from getting elevated too high, which leads to fat storage. Protein and fat don't elevate blood sugar. So possibly eating your maintenance number of calories but going low carb could lead to fat loss, since you can't absorb the calories you eat as well? I don't know the science on that one.
And if you aren't eating plenty of protein (.85 g/lb of body weight) and strength training you're going to get skinny but not look as good as you could if you were toned. Getting toned can make a HUGE difference in appearance, making it so you may not even have to lose as much weight, although muscle does help burn calories.
BUT most people have a very bad idea of what's healthy and what's not, usually the product of bad marketing. They'll eat flavored yogurt, protein powder, maple syrup, honey, whole wheat, 100-calorie packs, aspartame, Gatorade, fruit juice, low-fat this and all-natural that, granola and fruit (all sugar, and a lot of it fructose) thinking it's good for you. It's not, people, and all that sugar is absolutely terrible for your heart and weight loss. The US's percent daily values are bad too, recommending double the carbs and half the protein most good cardiologists and bodybuilders would. That's to feed the sugar/grain industry. Count calories and grams (not %DV) of different nutrients in the nutrition facts. Calories, macros, plus avoiding a few blood sugar-spiking ingredients are the only thing that matters for weight loss and muscle building. For health, you also need to focus on the foods themselves--what kind of fat they contain, how much sugar etc.
TL;DR, Choosing foods wisely is just another way to create a caloric deficit, you could say, but you need to make sure you know what "choosing foods wisely" even means.1 -
Asher_Ethan wrote: »Because people want an easy way out and counting calories is too hard.
...and they want weight loss FAST. It takes time and patience to stick with something like weight management long term.1 -
WHY DO I KEEP READING THIS EVERYWHERE ONLINE?
Calorie counting on MFP has been a game changer for me and it's so irritating when people keep saying calories don't matter and you can eat as much as you want of "healthy" foods and still lose weight
Thoughts??
Actually it doesn't matter and you shouldn't be irritated when someone doesn't agree to your opinion.
And if you eat as much as you want than you won't lose weight unless you want to eat less.
Eat not more than 1/3 rd of your stomach not more than 3 times a day. And drink not more than 1/3 rd of your stomach not more than 3 times a day. You will lose weight. Eat clean though.0 -
squatsnotsquat wrote: »Multiple scientists have done self-experiments where they literally tried to get fat on high fat/low carb, gorging themselves with 5000 calories a day, and can't gain more than four pounds over several months.
No, multiple scientists have not done metabolic ward level controlled experiments like this eating at that kind of hypercaloric level for months.
One guy did a self experiment for one month in free living conditions.
Hardly a gold standard in proof.11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »squatsnotsquat wrote: »Multiple scientists have done self-experiments where they literally tried to get fat on high fat/low carb, gorging themselves with 5000 calories a day, and can't gain more than four pounds over several months.
No, multiple scientists have not done metabolic ward level controlled experiments like this eating at that kind of hypercaloric level for months.
One guy did a self experiment for one month in free living conditions.
Hardly a gold standard in proof.
yes, and anyone who thinks that CICO doesn't apply simply because you're eating "high fat" and hight fat "doesn't cause an insulin response".... i just... LOL Good Luck with that6 -
They would never give the same advice applied to money and unhealthy finances LOL. Your body has a budget and it's governed by the laws of thermodynamics. You can stop getting the receipts at the ATM every time you make a withdrawal but your bank account is still going to to deplete nomsayin?3
-
rainbowbow wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »squatsnotsquat wrote: »Multiple scientists have done self-experiments where they literally tried to get fat on high fat/low carb, gorging themselves with 5000 calories a day, and can't gain more than four pounds over several months.
No, multiple scientists have not done metabolic ward level controlled experiments like this eating at that kind of hypercaloric level for months.
One guy did a self experiment for one month in free living conditions.
Hardly a gold standard in proof.
yes, and anyone who thinks that CICO doesn't apply simply because you're eating "high fat" and hight fat "doesn't cause an insulin response".... i just... LOL Good Luck with that
Funny, that. In metabolic ward conditions, that insulin theory was... disproved ... in research funded by the people seeking to prove it.3 -
squatsnotsquat wrote: »Multiple scientists have done self-experiments where they literally tried to get fat on high fat/low carb, gorging themselves with 5000 calories a day, and can't gain more than four pounds over several months. If calories were the only thing that mattered, they should have gained that in a week, and kept gaining. Yes, sample size is low, but it's clearly possible to do that.
I am going need to see citations for that please.
Here is a story of a nutrition professor eating nothing but Twinkies and losing 27 pounds: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
And here is a science teacher who lost 60 pounds eating nothing but McDonalds: http://abc7.com/health/teacher-loses-60-pounds-while-eating-nothing-but-mcdonalds/705916/squatsnotsquat wrote: »And if you aren't eating plenty of protein (.85 g/lb of body weight) and strength training you're going to get skinny but not look as good as you could if you were toned. Getting toned can make a HUGE difference in appearance, making it so you may not even have to lose as much weight, although muscle does help burn calories.
Do you mean lb or kg? Because this from Harvard says g/kg: http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/how-much-protein-do-you-need-every-day-201506188096
I am not aware of any professional organization (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, American College of Sports Medicine) that has protein recommendations in g/pound, so please cite this.squatsnotsquat wrote: »BUT most people have a very bad idea of what's healthy and what's not, usually the product of bad marketing. They'll eat flavored yogurt, protein powder, maple syrup, honey, whole wheat, 100-calorie packs, aspartame, Gatorade, fruit juice, low-fat this and all-natural that, granola and fruit (all sugar, and a lot of it fructose) thinking it's good for you. It's not, people, and all that sugar is absolutely terrible for your heart and weight loss. The US's percent daily values are bad too, recommending double the carbs and half the protein most good cardiologists and bodybuilders would. That's to feed the sugar/grain industry. Count calories and grams (not %DV) of different nutrients in the nutrition facts. Calories, macros, plus avoiding a few blood sugar-spiking ingredients are the only thing that matters for weight loss and muscle building. For health, you also need to focus on the foods themselves--what kind of fat they contain, how much sugar etc.
Fruit is not unhealthy and there is no evidence that it causes weight gain when eaten within your calorie allowance. Diets high in fruit have consistently been linked to healthier body weights and lower risk of heart disease and diabetes. Fruit may be high in sugar as compared to celery, but if you drink 24 ounces of pop you would have to eat 6 4 oz apples to get that amount of sugar. In order for the sugar in fruit to be detrimental for your health, you need to eat pounds of it daily.
Aspartame has been around since 1965 and there is no research in humans that it causes cancer or other health problems. It was causing cancer in rats because they where feeding the rats huge amounts. You would have to drink like 2,000 cans a day. This is from the National Cancer Institute: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/artificial-sweeteners-fact-sheet
The dose makes the poison of everything.
3 -
squatsnotsquat wrote: »Multiple scientists have done self-experiments where they literally tried to get fat on high fat/low carb, gorging themselves with 5000 calories a day, and can't gain more than four pounds over several months. If calories were the only thing that mattered, they should have gained that in a week, and kept gaining. Yes, sample size is low, but it's clearly possible to do that.
When you're eating low carb, hunger and cravings are rare for most people anyway. So you're still eating few calories just naturally. As long as you're eating plenty of (low carb) veggies, this usually makes calorie counting irrelevant (depending how low carb you go), although you do still have to count carbs. Reducing carbs keeps blood sugar from getting elevated too high, which leads to fat storage. Protein and fat don't elevate blood sugar. So possibly eating your maintenance number of calories but going low carb could lead to fat loss, since you can't absorb the calories you eat as well? I don't know the science on that one.
And if you aren't eating plenty of protein (.85 g/lb of body weight) and strength training you're going to get skinny but not look as good as you could if you were toned. Getting toned can make a HUGE difference in appearance, making it so you may not even have to lose as much weight, although muscle does help burn calories.
BUT most people have a very bad idea of what's healthy and what's not, usually the product of bad marketing. They'll eat flavored yogurt, protein powder, maple syrup, honey, whole wheat, 100-calorie packs, aspartame, Gatorade, fruit juice, low-fat this and all-natural that, granola and fruit (all sugar, and a lot of it fructose) thinking it's good for you. It's not, people, and all that sugar is absolutely terrible for your heart and weight loss. The US's percent daily values are bad too, recommending double the carbs and half the protein most good cardiologists and bodybuilders would. That's to feed the sugar/grain industry. Count calories and grams (not %DV) of different nutrients in the nutrition facts. Calories, macros, plus avoiding a few blood sugar-spiking ingredients are the only thing that matters for weight loss and muscle building. For health, you also need to focus on the foods themselves--what kind of fat they contain, how much sugar etc.
TL;DR, Choosing foods wisely is just another way to create a caloric deficit, you could say, but you need to make sure you know what "choosing foods wisely" even means.
So it would appear that you have falling for some of the propaganda within the LCHF/Keto community. Our bodies are fat storing machines. We continuously break down and store fat and glycogen. Saying otherwise is completely wrong. There are multiple hormones that can suppress hormone senstive lipase (HSL) which is the enzyme that breaks down body fat. When a person eats carbs, and protein to a less extent, insulin will increase. When insulin is release to regulate blood sugars, the enzyme lipoprotein lipase is release, which suppresses HSL. When you are on low carb or keto and eating high amounts of dietary fat, the enzyme Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP) is more prevalent and it also suppresses HSL. And when you each a meal high in fat and carbs, the enzyme Glucosedependent Insulinotrophic Peptide (GIP) is released and HSL is also suppressed.
In the end, regardless of the diet you follow, the body can store fat.
Now lets talk muscle building. Carbs are king when it comes to building muscle? Why, because carbs cause the body to release insulin, which actives mTOR and protein synthesis (mechanical stress and leucine can as well), which can lead to increases in muscle mass. It's a bit harder in very low carb environments which is why in the body building community, they have TKD and CKD style diets. Also, carbs are anticatabolic and are protein sparring.3 -
My neighbour tells me this all the time and gets angry when I try to explain CICO. "It's not about how much you eat but what you eat. If you eat any junk food, you'll gain weight. Don't you dare try and tell me that CICO *kitten*". Her exact words to me yesterday (without the kitten bit lol). I just let her rant and moan about not losing weight despite eating "healthy" foods.3
-
squatsnotsquat wrote: »
BUT most people have a very bad idea of what's healthy and what's not, usually the product of bad marketing. They'll eat flavored yogurt, protein powder, maple syrup, honey, whole wheat, 100-calorie packs, aspartame, Gatorade, fruit juice, low-fat this and all-natural that, granola and fruit (all sugar, and a lot of it fructose) thinking it's good for you. It's not, people, and all that sugar is absolutely terrible for your heart and weight loss.
0 -
100% correct.
You forgot about the junk cereals (like Chocolate Cheerios) that have the large "Healthy Heart" label on the box, with the citation that Chocolate Cheerios can reduce your risk of heart disease because it contains no cholesterol. How is this even legal when it's false?
Guess General Mills donates millions to the American Heart Association for their "search for a cure." A total scam.0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »100% correct.
You forgot about the junk cereals (like Chocolate Cheerios) that have the large "Healthy Heart" label on the box, with the citation that Chocolate Cheerios can reduce your risk of heart disease because it contains no cholesterol. How is this even legal when it's false?
Guess General Mills donates millions to the American Heart Association for their "search for a cure." A total scam.
If you really have a propensity to label foods, then you should also add processed meats, and large amounts of saturated fats. There are no benefits to SFA and improved health. At best, SFA from natural sources like meat and dairy, is neutral in nature.
ETA: you are so overly stuck on sugar is bad, that you fail to recognize that dietary context matters more than the individual components. You fail to recognize what is required to achieve peoples goal, and fail to recognize that even if you have a very low carb low sugar diet, that you can still have a very unhealthy diet.6 -
I could never dunk a basketball and probably never will. But it doesn't mean that others that have the ability to shouldn't try.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I lost weight last time (80+ lbs) without counting a single calorie. I increased my activity level and switched my portions up to have the salad or whatever as my main course with the protein and starches as smaller sides. It worked for me then.
This time Im older and my auto-immune/hormonal issues have progressed. What worked before didnt work this time so I joined MFP and worked with my doctor to design a new approach.
Different things work for different people. And different approaches might work for the same person at different points in their life.
The vast majority of people who lose weight don't count calories. You are one of many.
Kudos to those who count calories. It is something I could never do.
The mentality you have against calorie counting defies how weight loss actually works, so please don't dissuade those that CAN actually do it.
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
9 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I lost weight last time (80+ lbs) without counting a single calorie. I increased my activity level and switched my portions up to have the salad or whatever as my main course with the protein and starches as smaller sides. It worked for me then.
This time Im older and my auto-immune/hormonal issues have progressed. What worked before didnt work this time so I joined MFP and worked with my doctor to design a new approach.
Different things work for different people. And different approaches might work for the same person at different points in their life.
The vast majority of people who lose weight don't count calories. You are one of many.
Kudos to those who count calories. It is something I could never do.
I count calories. I'm down 110.2 lbs as of this morning. I also had sushi and an ice cream sandwich as part of my meals today, because I counted calories and knew I could eat them and still lose weight. Like every day I've had since last July. Oh, and I've done almost no exercise either in that time. Looks like CICO likes me just fine.
110lbs! that is mind boggling - you must get the most amazing comments! and you look like Annette Bening! It's all going on for you!0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »
The vast majority of people who lose weight don't count calories. You are one of many.
Kudos to those who count calories. It is something I could never do.
Actually the vast majority of participants in the National Weight Control Registry do count calories. http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/published research.htm. See the second abstract, or read though them all if you have time.
At the end of the day counting calories is just being aware of how much and what you are eating. I don't understand why so many people feel so strongly against mindful eating.
2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »
The vast majority of people who lose weight don't count calories. You are one of many.
Kudos to those who count calories. It is something I could never do.
Actually the vast majority of participants in the National Weight Control Registry do count calories. http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/published research.htm. See the second abstract, or read though them all if you have time.
At the end of the day counting calories is just being aware of how much and what you are eating. I don't understand why so many people feel so strongly against mindful eating.
To me MFP is just a tool. No more different than using a fitbit or a bathroom scale. Its not required but increases accuracy and makes things more quantitative. That aspect enables me to have much greater granularity into my intake, from a calorie and macronutrient perspective, and increases my chances of losing weight.
For me, its been an eye opener as it has allowed me to make smarter choices to increase satiety and given me an understanding oh what combinations of foods increase satiation. And i quickly discovered thag diets that restricted foods i loved or the times i ate thise foods did not work well with me. By doing this i have lost 50lbs and become more fit than i have been most my life.3 -
Granted I am pretty new to counting, but for me it's the first time weight loss scientifically made sense to me. I didn't understand what a deficit was or how to create it without spending 12 hours on a treadmill. Now that I know what I am doing (or at least getting the hang of) I feel a lot more solid that what I am doing is meaningful, rather than good foods and bad foods and foods with certain points. Today I ate a macadamia nut cookie and it was amazing and I understand exactly why I could eat it and still "win" at losing weight. To me, that's freedom.8
-
The vast majority of North Americans dislike/fear/avoid math like the plague. Is it any surprise that they aren't interested in using it to help them lose weight? Weight Watchers tries to limit the math phobia via their points method (since small numbers are less intimidating than big numbers; to the math phobic, counting to 30 points is substantially less intimidating than counting to 1500 calories).4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions