"You can eat whaver you want, as long as you eat at a deficit" is true, but it's garbage advice.
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »NannersBalletLegs wrote: »1) Many binge eaters and emotional eaters continue to be triggered by calorie-dense, super-satiating foods, because they haven't yet worked through the underlying psychological issues that are causing them to overeat and feel an overwhelming urge to numb or soothe themselves with ice cream, cake, pizza, french fries, etc.
This is not about the food, really, though, and restricting can be even more problematic. Someone with a BED should consider getting help, but I would say different issues apply. (I'm an emotional eater, and even for that I know there's more to it than just watching calories -- I need to work on psychological triggers.)You need fruit and veggies and other micronutrient and antioxidant rich foods to fuel your body properly and keep it in the best condition possible. I know none of you are saying it's fine to just eat McD's and pizza every day, but I do think that there is a tendency to oversimplify the CICO thing as "eat whatever you want" and lose weight without acknowledging some of the other consequences. Someone who takes this advice to heart might lose weight but still end up in really poor health.
Honestly, I think (a) someone who eats only junk food knows better and would do it no matter what people on MFP said, and (b) if you and I know that of course we should eat a healthful diet and that eating "whatever you want within your calories" doesn't mean only donuts or whatever (and, seriously, yuck, who would want to?), then why assume other people are too ignorant to figure that out? I think politeness requires assuming that most people have some common sense and get that "eat what you want within your calories" also involves "eat a nutritionally-balanced diet for health, including vegetables, protein, etc."3) It is a lot, LOT harder to fit in calorie-dense foods while still eating at a deficit when you are (a) short and (b) closer to a healthy weight.
It's not that hard, really. I'm 5'3, 125, and granted I have been mostly maintaining (although I ate plenty of ice cream and weekly restaurant dinners and so on losing from 140 to 125), but with exercise I could easily keep a deficit at this weight and eat ice cream or weekly restaurant splurges or some pizza (which need not be more than a normal dinner anyway), etc.
Yes, satiety is important, but absolutely no one says otherwise. This is not something that is ignored on MFP.
Yes, someone with any eating disorder should absolutely get help. MFP will never be an appropriate stand-in for a qualified mental health professional. I am glad to hear from a fellow emotional eater. I know that our perspectives and experiences probably vary in spite of that. In my own experience, removing the foods that I use as a crutch to suppress my feelings has actually helped me make progress in working through those feelings. There have been so many times in the past that I would just buy or bake a cake and eat the whole thing in a day to avoid addressing something that is bothering me. Now, I tell myself, "Okay. We can't go to cake for help today. We need to stop, breathe, figure out where this is coming from, and formulate an appropriate response. Are we lonely? Maybe we should call a friend? Are we anxious? Maybe we should go for a run on the treadmill and burn off some excess energy or maybe just meditate." Giving cake and a few other items the boot (albeit temporarily) has given me a lot of freedom to explore my feelings in greater depth and keep them from running my life. Again, I'm speaking about my own experience and don't assume to understand yours. I do know that I've met a lot of others like me on here, though.
I think you're probably right in saying that most people know that McDonald's, pizza, whatever, isn't technically good for you and that they would probably eat it regardless of what anyone is telling them. Perhaps my assertion that CICO advocates should be qualifying their advice with nutritional caveats is unfair for this reason. However, I do think that far too many tend to make a fetish of their ability to "eat anything" and still lose weight. Many are also far too quick to assume that when someone is saying that "eat whatever and still lose weight is bad advice" that that means that someone is somehow trying to take away their chocolate and their cheeseburgers. It's silly.
Your point about being able to include more of those foods with added exercise is well taken, and I did try to address that at some point in a previous reply. However, I didn't really want to go into the subject of intense physical exercise, because it's not something that everyone can do. Disabilities and injuries can make obtaining a caloric deficit through exercise far more difficult—not impossible—but definitely more challenging. I guess I was trying to be more inclusive by not going into that.
0 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »New poster throwing shade on successful posters........200% legit.
I'm not throwing shade. I'm sharing my opinion with the OP.
I think they were talking to the OP.
Oh, whoops. Bit defensive, sorry @prattiger658 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »New poster throwing shade on successful posters........200% legit.
I'm not throwing shade. I'm sharing my opinion with the OP.
I think they were talking to the OP.
Oh, whoops. Bit defensive, sorry @prattiger65
not a problem. I have learned that you can't have thin skin around here. But yeah, that was directed at the op.
6 -
prattiger65 wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »New poster throwing shade on successful posters........200% legit.
I'm not throwing shade. I'm sharing my opinion with the OP.
I think they were talking to the OP.
Oh, whoops. Bit defensive, sorry @prattiger65
not a problem. I have learned that you can't have thin skin around here. But yeah, that was directed at the op.
Yes, very much so. Texts have no context sometimes. Easy to read things wrong5 -
You guys just take every single word someone writes literally, to the t. I don't mean that you have to spend the rest of your life not eating things you enjoy. I also don't mean that you can NEVER have things you enjoy, or that are calorie dense. What I do mean, and was obvious in the original post, that is if you aren't just looking for something to complain about, is that dieting under the idea that "you can have whatever, so long as it fits in your calorie count" is not an effective long term solution because MOST people, especially larger people, run out of calories waaaaay before they become satiated. If you are a 135lb woman that's 5'9 which I think was an example somewhere in this thread, and you're only eating at a 500 calorie deficit, no *kitten* you are gonna be full before you run out of calories. You're small, even if you aren't at your "goal" you are going to feel satiated. If you are the kind of person who is accustomed to eating 3500-4000 calories a day and your prescribed amount is 2500, there is absolutely NO WAY that you can eat the calorie dense foods you enjoy, but at a lower quantity, and not be absolutely starving to death. Which will lead to a derailment in most people. Contrary to popular belief, will power is not a dominant trait. So there you go, here's another post for you guys to pick apart to for *kitten* that is obviously not what I meant.3
-
I'm not in the business of being patronising and condescending and I won't pick apart your opinion, but I will give mine. And I did. Which is what your post was originally intended as, YOUR opinion. No ones is wrong, just different.9
-
You're right.
People just looking for something to complain about are super annoying.19 -
All I can say is you and I must be reading very different threads. I see posters go out of their way to mention "but, nutrition" all the time.
And I'm sorry, but it is kind of condescending to suggest that the average newbie doesn't realize that nutrition is important without being explicitly told that in every single reply. I don't think the concept that "weight loss" and "health" are two related but different things is such an intellectual leap for most.
And just to add to the whole thread - I have never seen a post from someone who is struggling because everyone here told them to eat all junk food and now they're hungry. I have seen plenty of posts from folks saying that learning from mfp that it's OK to eat treats in moderation was a huge factor in their success.
NannersBalletLegs wrote: »NannersBalletLegs wrote: »
These are the reasons that I think a eat-whatever-you-want-within-your-calorie-allotment is sometimes unhelpful:
1) Many binge eaters and emotional eaters continue to be triggered by calorie-dense, super-satiating foods, because they haven't yet worked through the underlying psychological issues that are causing them to overeat and feel an overwhelming urge to numb or soothe themselves with ice cream, cake, pizza, french fries, etc. They don't yet have the emotional tools or the necessary support system to deal with depression, grief, anxiety, or whatever is bothering them on a deeper level. And let's face it—the emotional eater demographic probably makes up a fairly sizable minority here on MFP. I include myself in this group and am temporarily avoiding trigger foods (cake is a big one) while I get a handle on the underlying emotional issues. It's not like I'm banishing cake forever because of the notion that it's somehow "unclean," but it does get in the way of me sorting through the things that require attention, you know? And, like it or not, my brain is now kind of wired to use cake like a drug until I get those neurons firing in a different way.
2) A lot of these so-called junk foods are often not really very nourishing beyond their protein, fat, and carb content. Sure, you could eat McDonalds every day and still lose weight, but why would you want to do that to yourself? You need fruit and veggies and other micronutrient and antioxidant rich foods to fuel your body properly and keep it in the best condition possible. I know none of you are saying it's fine to just eat McD's and pizza every day, but I do think that there is a tendency to oversimplify the CICO thing as "eat whatever you want" and lose weight without acknowledging some of the other consequences. Someone who takes this advice to heart might lose weight but still end up in really poor health. Yes, we're mostly talking about weight loss, but when eating at a deficit, you're more likely to become deficient in certain nutrients, so it stands to reason that nutrition should probably take center stage during the weight loss portion of a fitness journey. It's not a requirement, of course, but why wouldn't you want to take care of your body to the best of your ability?
3) It is a lot, LOT harder to fit in calorie-dense foods while still eating at a deficit when you are A) short and
closer to a healthy weight. If you're 300 pounds and 5'9", you can still eat a lot of those things at 2000-2500 cals or more a day and continue to lose. If you're 150 pounds and 5'3", eating those foods in moderation while losing would require such minuscule portions that it would get sort of ridiculous unless you're really ratcheting up the exercise regimen and jogging for an hour a day or whatever. Even if you don't mind only eating a couple bites here and there, that still won't leave much room for the healthy nutrient-rich stuff mentioned in point 2. Eventually, small such small portions of these yummy foods become kind of a why bother thing for some of us, ya know? The only way it's really feasible and satisfying in any meaningful way—again, for SOME OF US—is if we decide to just give ourselves a few maintenance days where we eat enough to get what we want and/or need then go back to eating at a deficit. There's nothing wrong with that, and I certainly do it as part of my calorie cycling. But it can mean slower weight loss.
1) So we are supposed to not offer anyone advice that wouldn't be good for binge eaters? Besides, over-restricting is a recipe for boomerang binge eating. I would actually suggest that learning to fit treats into your diet is far more healthy for binge/emotional eaters than to cut all junk food out of their diet.
2) Again, NO ONE says to eat just junk food. They say that you can eat some junk food and still lose weight. While one or two responses may JUST say you can eat whatever you want, countless others in the same thread will say that you can eat whatever you want to lose weight, BUT obviously you need to eat a nutritious balanced diet for your health.
3) As I said in my earlier post, I eat 1500 cals to lose, and I do fine eating a mix of 50% whole and 50% processed food. There is in fact vitamins, minerals, fiber, protein etc in many selections at McDonalds or any other fast food, as well as in processed foods you find at the store. This idea that only whole fresh foods have nutrition is simply not true. As long as you are paying attention to hitting your numbers and making smart choices, it's totally doable. Yes it can take some time to figure it out, but IMHO that time is more than worth it!
1) Of course learning to fit in treats in moderation is the best approach long-term, but it may not be possible for emotional eaters until they start dealing with the underlying issue first.
2) If you read what I wrote there more closely, you'll see that I acknowledged that I don't think "eat junk everyday" is what most folks are advocating in these kinds of threads. Here is the direct quote: "I know none of you are saying it's fine to just eat McD's and pizza every day, but I do think that there is a tendency to oversimplify the CICO thing as 'eat whatever you want' and lose weight without acknowledging some of the other consequences." To reiterate, the problem I have is the way that so many CICO folks oversimplify the process to the advice-seeking noobs. They brag about how much chocolate and how many cheeseburgers they get to eat while losing weight while dismissing how difficult moderation can be for chronic overeaters and conveniently forgetting to mention how terrible for you an all-junk-food diet would be. Yes, some do acknowledge nutrition, but I am finding that those who actually do so are disappointingly rare. No one really says to not eat all junk food all the time...but I almost never see those same folks who brag about their cheeseburger and chocolate consumption bragging about all the healthy, nutritious foods they eat in addition to those cheeseburgers and chocolate bars.
3) Again, you're pointing out something I already acknowledged. McDonalds has some nutritional value. Of course it does. But you cannot tell me that it can give you everything fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts, legumes, etc. can give you. Antioxidants loom quite large in this regard, as do omega 3 fatty acids. And McDonalds and other fast food is pumped up with all kinds of sodium, trans fats, etc, so you get the macros and a few other things, but you also ingest some of the unhealthy stuff with it. P.S. I eat some processed and even fast foods from time to time (as long as they're not emotional eating triggers). I'm not a dietary saint and certainly not advocating that. I just really think it's important to acknowledge that these foods aren't healthy, even though they can be eaten in moderation while losing weight. Again, there's way too much emphasis on weight and not enough on nutrition in these threads, it seems.
20 -
annacole94 wrote: »Do you feel better getting that out?
I'm going to keep having my daily chocolate, thank you. Learning portion control, calorie banking, and that Domino's pizza isn't worth the calories is part of learning how to live life at a lower weight. If the advice isn't helpful to you because you inevitably binge, it's because it's bad advice FOR YOU. Some people can moderate, others do better if they abstain.
Actually I tried Domino's new cracker crust pizza this weekend, and it was damn delicious. And well worth the 400 calories or so. I generally stay away from pizza now, as it just too hard to have one slice, but the cracker crust style is right up my alley. I had about 1/3 of a medium, and my BF polished off the rest. I have not had Domino's in probably 25 years. I was happily surprised!8 -
annacole94 wrote: »You're right.
People just looking for something to complain about are super annoying.
That irony isn't it? I'm sure it is. I concur.
8 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »
Cosigned.
It also needs the jalapenos, then you have the sweet and hot, which is to die for.
And bacon... maybe some ham.1 -
You do realize that percentage wise the smaller person has as much of a cut and may only be allowed 1500 calories or less?You guys just take every single word someone writes literally, to the t. I don't mean that you have to spend the rest of your life not eating things you enjoy. I also don't mean that you can NEVER have things you enjoy, or that are calorie dense. What I do mean, and was obvious in the original post, that is if you aren't just looking for something to complain about, is that dieting under the idea that "you can have whatever, so long as it fits in your calorie count" is not an effective long term solution because MOST people, especially larger people, run out of calories waaaaay before they become satiated. If you are a 135lb woman that's 5'9 which I think was an example somewhere in this thread, and you're only eating at a 500 calorie deficit, no *kitten* you are gonna be full before you run out of calories. You're small, even if you aren't at your "goal" you are going to feel satiated. If you are the kind of person who is accustomed to eating 3500-4000 calories a day and your prescribed amount is 2500, there is absolutely NO WAY that you can eat the calorie dense foods you enjoy, but at a lower quantity, and not be absolutely starving to death. Which will lead to a derailment in most people. Contrary to popular belief, will power is not a dominant trait. So there you go, here's another post for you guys to pick apart to for *kitten* that is obviously not what I meant.
8 -
Wait, first we give crappy advice, and now shame on us for taking your words at face value?
Sorry, but I still disagree. I think more people would be successful if they took the time to figure out how to work their fave foods into their diet rather than quitting almost everything, feeling deprived, and hoping they can figure out how to work them back in when they reach goal. Assuming they can stick with their virtuous diet long enough to reach goal.
24 -
You guys just take every single word someone writes literally, to the t. I don't mean that you have to spend the rest of your life not eating things you enjoy. I also don't mean that you can NEVER have things you enjoy, or that are calorie dense. What I do mean, and was obvious in the original post, that is if you aren't just looking for something to complain about, is that dieting under the idea that "you can have whatever, so long as it fits in your calorie count" is not an effective long term solution because MOST people, especially larger people, run out of calories waaaaay before they become satiated. If you are a 135lb woman that's 5'9 which I think was an example somewhere in this thread, and you're only eating at a 500 calorie deficit, no *kitten* you are gonna be full before you run out of calories. You're small, even if you aren't at your "goal" you are going to feel satiated. If you are the kind of person who is accustomed to eating 3500-4000 calories a day and your prescribed amount is 2500, there is absolutely NO WAY that you can eat the calorie dense foods you enjoy, but at a lower quantity, and not be absolutely starving to death. Which will lead to a derailment in most people. Contrary to popular belief, will power is not a dominant trait. So there you go, here's another post for you guys to pick apart to for *kitten* that is obviously not what I meant.
Wrong. I went from a typical after-synagogue smorgasbord plate being 4-8 pieces of potato kugel, 6-8 rogelach, 4-5 cookies, and veggies drowned in dip to 2 pieces of kugel, one frosted cookie, and a cup of melon. I stopped eating 3-4 loaves of nan in an evening, but I make room for one every so often. Just came off a Jewish holiday where people go from door to do dropping off baskets of goodies. And instead of mindlessly grazing on it all, I moderated it. Jellybeans today. Asian pear chips, chocolate buttons, and saltwater taffy yesterday. Banana crisps and a caramel on Friday. I'm satiated because that's not ALL I eat. But I make room for it.
You see, nobody is saying "Only eat high-calorie foods, just less." We're saying "Fit high-calorie foods into your plan in moderation. You don't have to give up the food you love."
And for the record, my starting weight was 124lbs above goal.16 -
All I can say is you and I must be reading very different threads. I see posters go out of their way to mention "but, nutrition" all the time.
And I'm sorry, but it is kind of condescending to suggest that the average newbie doesn't realize that nutrition is important without being explicitly told that in every single reply. I don't think the concept that "weight loss" and "health" are two related but different things is such an intellectual leap for most.
We must be, because all I'm seeing in this thread (with about two exceptions), is a bunch of people responding with things like, "No thanks. I'll take my chili cheese fries over your broccoli" or "Fall on your face eating organic chia seeds, you weirdo. I'm gonna go eat buffalo wings and chocolate and pizza." Those aren't exact quotes of course, but it's the general spirit of much of the commentary in this thread. I guess everyone prefers flame wars to actual conversations just like in every other internet forum.
A lot of people are really ignorant about basic nutrition. It's not necessarily insulting people to offer nutritional advice or to assume that they may not have a lot of knowledge. I was very uneducated (and pretty indifferent) about that sort of thing when I was really young and am still learning more all the time. As I enter my mid-thirties, I find that my interest in it has only grown, because I'd really like to avoid osteoporosis, colon cancer, and other unpleasantness as I age. Anyone who wants to remind me to eat my leafy greens and take a vitamin every now and again is okay in my book.
5 -
Fair enough.2
-
NannersBalletLegs wrote: »All I can say is you and I must be reading very different threads. I see posters go out of their way to mention "but, nutrition" all the time.
And I'm sorry, but it is kind of condescending to suggest that the average newbie doesn't realize that nutrition is important without being explicitly told that in every single reply. I don't think the concept that "weight loss" and "health" are two related but different things is such an intellectual leap for most.
We must be, because all I'm seeing in this thread (with about two exceptions), is a bunch of people responding with things like, "No thanks. I'll take my chili cheese fries over your broccoli" or "Fall on your face eating organic chia seeds, you weirdo. I'm gonna go eat buffalo wings and chocolate and pizza." Those aren't exact quotes of course, but it's the general spirit of much of the commentary in this thread. I guess everyone prefers flame wars to actual conversations just like in every other internet forum.
A lot of people are really ignorant about basic nutrition. It's not necessarily insulting people to offer nutritional advice or to assume that they may not have a lot of knowledge. I was very uneducated (and pretty indifferent) about that sort of thing when I was really young and am still learning more all the time. As I enter my mid-thirties, I find that my interest in it has only grown, because I'd really like to avoid osteoporosis, colon cancer, and other unpleasantness as I age. Anyone who wants to remind me to eat my leafy greens and take a vitamin every now and again is okay in my book.
You get answers to the questions you ask.
If you post an attack rant, then buckle up and get ready for a hard defense.
If you're a reasonable person with a reasonable question, people are really informative. If you ask for support, you'll get support.
But if you're aggressive and disjointed and spewing nonsense, it goes like this.27 -
I eat junk. I've done alright.22
-
You guys just take every single word someone writes literally, to the t. I don't mean that you have to spend the rest of your life not eating things you enjoy. I also don't mean that you can NEVER have things you enjoy, or that are calorie dense. What I do mean, and was obvious in the original post, that is if you aren't just looking for something to complain about, is that dieting under the idea that "you can have whatever, so long as it fits in your calorie count" is not an effective long term solution because MOST people, especially larger people, run out of calories waaaaay before they become satiated. If you are a 135lb woman that's 5'9 which I think was an example somewhere in this thread, and you're only eating at a 500 calorie deficit, no *kitten* you are gonna be full before you run out of calories. You're small, even if you aren't at your "goal" you are going to feel satiated. If you are the kind of person who is accustomed to eating 3500-4000 calories a day and your prescribed amount is 2500, there is absolutely NO WAY that you can eat the calorie dense foods you enjoy, but at a lower quantity, and not be absolutely starving to death. Which will lead to a derailment in most people. Contrary to popular belief, will power is not a dominant trait. So there you go, here's another post for you guys to pick apart to for *kitten* that is obviously not what I meant.
Ah, so because we pointed out that you're wrong, you've fallen back on the old strawman argument!
Nobody here is saying, in these various threads you're talking about, 'eat whatever you want'. What we are saying, and what you're twisting to the extreme, is that you can have food you enjoy in moderation as long as the majority of your diet is nutritional. Most long term posters will advocate some kind of 80/20 split between nutrient dense (vegetables, lean meats/protein sources, healthy carbs) and foods you really enjoy but aren't as nutrient dense. No long term posters here have ever said 'eat 100% junk food if you want' and then not followed it up with 'but that would be a really bad idea because you'd be very sick'.If you are the kind of person who is accustomed to eating 3500-4000 calories a day and your prescribed amount is 2500, there is absolutely NO WAY that you can eat the calorie dense foods you enjoy, but at a lower quantity, and not be absolutely starving to death.
This is completely untrue btw. Before I came here to lose weight I was eating probably 2500 calories a day (I was 210lbs, very inactive). I dropped to about 1500. I could still very easily fit in all the calorie dense food I enjoyed, in moderation. I ate mostly vegetables and meats, but also had a packet of crisps or a chocolate bar every day. Guess what? I didn't feel like I was starving to death! Hunger is felt differently by different people. Someone could eat 100% nutrient dense food and still feel starving. Someone else could eat a lot of junk and feel full. If you're hungry, get more protein, more fibre, drink more water, eat by volume... find what works to sate your hunger, rather than assuming everyone's the same and nit-picking on people who know what works.15 -
You guys just take every single word someone writes literally, to the t. I don't mean that you have to spend the rest of your life not eating things you enjoy. I also don't mean that you can NEVER have things you enjoy, or that are calorie dense. What I do mean, and was obvious in the original post, that is if you aren't just looking for something to complain about, is that dieting under the idea that "you can have whatever, so long as it fits in your calorie count" is not an effective long term solution because MOST people, especially larger people, run out of calories waaaaay before they become satiated. If you are a 135lb woman that's 5'9 which I think was an example somewhere in this thread, and you're only eating at a 500 calorie deficit, no *kitten* you are gonna be full before you run out of calories. You're small, even if you aren't at your "goal" you are going to feel satiated. If you are the kind of person who is accustomed to eating 3500-4000 calories a day and your prescribed amount is 2500, there is absolutely NO WAY that you can eat the calorie dense foods you enjoy, but at a lower quantity, and not be absolutely starving to death. Which will lead to a derailment in most people. Contrary to popular belief, will power is not a dominant trait. So there you go, here's another post for you guys to pick apart to for *kitten* that is obviously not what I meant.
I beg to differ. My original calorie goal on MFP was 2,300 calories. When I started eating at or below that, I wasn't hungry. I still had food I enjoyed, just smaller amounts, and it wasn't an issue for me. Nor has it derailed me. While it might not be possible for some, to say "there is absolutely NO WAY" to "not be absolutely starving to death" is a gross generalisation that doesn't take into account that some people can - and do - find it possible.
7 -
annacole94 wrote: »NannersBalletLegs wrote: »All I can say is you and I must be reading very different threads. I see posters go out of their way to mention "but, nutrition" all the time.
And I'm sorry, but it is kind of condescending to suggest that the average newbie doesn't realize that nutrition is important without being explicitly told that in every single reply. I don't think the concept that "weight loss" and "health" are two related but different things is such an intellectual leap for most.
We must be, because all I'm seeing in this thread (with about two exceptions), is a bunch of people responding with things like, "No thanks. I'll take my chili cheese fries over your broccoli" or "Fall on your face eating organic chia seeds, you weirdo. I'm gonna go eat buffalo wings and chocolate and pizza." Those aren't exact quotes of course, but it's the general spirit of much of the commentary in this thread. I guess everyone prefers flame wars to actual conversations just like in every other internet forum.
A lot of people are really ignorant about basic nutrition. It's not necessarily insulting people to offer nutritional advice or to assume that they may not have a lot of knowledge. I was very uneducated (and pretty indifferent) about that sort of thing when I was really young and am still learning more all the time. As I enter my mid-thirties, I find that my interest in it has only grown, because I'd really like to avoid osteoporosis, colon cancer, and other unpleasantness as I age. Anyone who wants to remind me to eat my leafy greens and take a vitamin every now and again is okay in my book.
You get answers to the questions you ask.
If you post an attack rant, then buckle up and get ready for a hard defense.
If you're a reasonable person with a reasonable question, people are really informative. If you ask for support, you'll get support.
But if you're aggressive and disjointed and spewing nonsense, it goes like this.
Just so you know, I'm not the OP. I didn't post an "attack rant." I don't know if that was entirely clear based on your response, which seemed strongly directed at me as if I was the OP. What I wrote was a very long, thoughtful response that acknowledged some gray area and some points on both sides in addition to trying to bring some other voices and perspectives. Overall, I was expressing the perspective that "eat whatever within your limits" isn't super helpful in some circumstances and wanted to discuss that gray area. Most people did respond to me in a civil manner, even if they disagreed or didn't really get what I was saying. Fine. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about the people just being snarky and over-the-top without really contributing anything to the debate. Sure, the OP started a fire. That doesn't mean we should just continue throwing gasoline on it.2 -
My love affair with pizza goes like this. When I started to test my blood sugars I came to the sad conclusion that three slices is way more than my body could handle. My limit is two and my ideal is one, with a dark leafy salad besides.
The numbers didn't lie.
I haven't given up pizza. I have found a way to make it fit.
Yes, dear dieter, you can eat anything....within reason.12 -
NannersBalletLegs wrote: »<snip for brevity>
...3) Again, you're pointing out something I already acknowledged. McDonalds has some nutritional value. Of course it does. But you cannot tell me that it can give you everything fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts, legumes, etc. can give you. Antioxidants loom quite large in this regard, as do omega 3 fatty acids. And McDonalds and other fast food is pumped up with all kinds of sodium, trans fats, etc, so you get the macros and a few other things, but you also ingest some of the unhealthy stuff with it. P.S. I eat some processed and even fast foods from time to time (as long as they're not emotional eating triggers). I'm not a dietary saint and certainly not advocating that. I just really think it's important to acknowledge that these foods aren't healthy, even though they can be eaten in moderation while losing weight. Again, there's way too much emphasis on weight and not enough on nutrition in these threads, it seems.
Once again, context and dosage. No, subsisting entirely (or even mostly) on McDonalds fast food is not a good idea, and I've never seen anybody claim it is. I'll freely acknowledge that such a diet would be lacking in certain macro and micronutrients and have too much of certain others (and I think anybody else with a lick of common sense would as well). With that said, and within the context of an overall well-balanced diet, I don't find anything "unhealthy" about an occasional Big Mac and fries. You're not going to catch da diabeetus and cancer from one meal, nor is your body going to suddenly gum up and grind to a screeching halt because you ate a hamburger and some french fries. If you do it every day? Yeah, not so good. Once in a while? Isn't going to hurt one single thing.
There are a lot of people who are absolutely neurotic about their diet/nutrition and weight loss, and take it way, way, waaaaayyyyyyy too seriously. Instead of applying a little logic and common sense to something that's really relatively simple, they turn it into a psyche wrecking, guilt tripping, white knuckling life and death battle. It's completely unnecessary.29 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »
Word.6 -
If you are the kind of person who is accustomed to eating 3500-4000 calories a day and your prescribed amount is 2500, there is absolutely NO WAY that you can eat the calorie dense foods you enjoy, but at a lower quantity, and not be absolutely starving to death. Which will lead to a derailment in most people. Contrary to popular belief, will power is not a dominant trait. So there you go, here's another post for you guys to pick apart to for *kitten* that is obviously not what I meant.
How are we supposed to know what you "obviously" meant if it's not what you said. Your point was that the advice we normally give is wrong, so we assumed that's what was meant. Personally, my advice is never that satiety doesn't matter or that everything fits equally easily in limited calories.
I also think you make a lot of assumptions about people who need to lose weight: that we can't be satisfied on a piece of pizza or (say) a serving size of ice cream, that what we want isn't a balanced healthy diet with some more indulgent treats too, and--especially--that we are used to 3500-4000 calories, which I never was, not as a regular thing. (And yet I was pretty darn fat.)
Also, someone with more weight to lose will often have a LARGER, not a smaller, calorie goal than someone almost at goal.
Yes, it can be hard to drop calories by 1000 (if you were maintaining and are aiming for 2 lb per week), but if you were eating a low satiety diet it can be not that hard from the hunger perspective. What can be equally hard or worse, depending on the person, is thinking you must be super restrictive and never eat anything that you think of as not virtuous. That's what used to derail me--I'd start, blow it, and decide I might as well start again later since I obviously wasn't ready (to do something that wasn't necessary). Hunger, on the other hand, was never a problem for me when losing -- maybe because what I wanted to eat, even when I added structure and controlled calories, was not mainly made up of low satiety foods, but was reasonably balanced. I assume others have the sense to figure that out too, perhaps after some trial and error. So why would I tell them they couldn't eat as they wanted within their calories. What is worth the calories to them is for them to figure out.10 -
JohnnyPenso wrote: »annacole94 wrote: »Do you feel better getting that out?
I'm going to keep having my daily chocolate, thank you. Learning portion control, calorie banking, and that Domino's pizza isn't worth the calories is part of learning how to live life at a lower weight. If the advice isn't helpful to you because you inevitably binge, it's because it's bad advice FOR YOU. Some people can moderate, others do better if they abstain.
"Dominoes pizza isn't worth the calories" is a great little piece of wisdom, in a general way of course. It's something I think about on a regular basis when it comes to eating. Is this worth XXX calories and is it worth missing out on this or that that I could have instead? Is there a better option for me? Can I make this better/healthier myself? Is there an alternative ill enjoy almost as much but which better fits my overall strategy? I know lots of people don't have to have that mindset but it's really helped me get the crazy overeating days out of my system.
I feel the same way. I can't "unknow" what I now know about french fries. I know how many calories they have and what a large percentage of my daily caloric intake they would take. While I know I can have french fries whenever I want, I have only ordered them ONCE since July of 2018. ( I may have nibbled on a handful from my daughters plate on occasion though, and logged an estimated amount of calories.) I never would have thought about it before. Logging food has changed how I think about what I chose to eat. Every day I have some chocolate, but it is controlled. I am so aware of how many calories are in so many kinds of food now and truly understand that what I was eating before was not a reasonable amount. I used to believe my weight gain was due to my age, two pregnancies etc... I even wondered if a medication was the cause of weight gain. It took using MFP, logging food, and losing 55 pounds to realize that my weight gain was due to my overeating.10 -
I was just telling you how this goes. It's the internet. I wasn't really saying YOU attacked anyone.NannersBalletLegs wrote: »annacole94 wrote: »NannersBalletLegs wrote: »All I can say is you and I must be reading very different threads. I see posters go out of their way to mention "but, nutrition" all the time.
And I'm sorry, but it is kind of condescending to suggest that the average newbie doesn't realize that nutrition is important without being explicitly told that in every single reply. I don't think the concept that "weight loss" and "health" are two related but different things is such an intellectual leap for most.
We must be, because all I'm seeing in this thread (with about two exceptions), is a bunch of people responding with things like, "No thanks. I'll take my chili cheese fries over your broccoli" or "Fall on your face eating organic chia seeds, you weirdo. I'm gonna go eat buffalo wings and chocolate and pizza." Those aren't exact quotes of course, but it's the general spirit of much of the commentary in this thread. I guess everyone prefers flame wars to actual conversations just like in every other internet forum.
A lot of people are really ignorant about basic nutrition. It's not necessarily insulting people to offer nutritional advice or to assume that they may not have a lot of knowledge. I was very uneducated (and pretty indifferent) about that sort of thing when I was really young and am still learning more all the time. As I enter my mid-thirties, I find that my interest in it has only grown, because I'd really like to avoid osteoporosis, colon cancer, and other unpleasantness as I age. Anyone who wants to remind me to eat my leafy greens and take a vitamin every now and again is okay in my book.
You get answers to the questions you ask.
If you post an attack rant, then buckle up and get ready for a hard defense.
If you're a reasonable person with a reasonable question, people are really informative. If you ask for support, you'll get support.
But if you're aggressive and disjointed and spewing nonsense, it goes like this.
Just so you know, I'm not the OP. I didn't post an "attack rant." I don't know if that was entirely clear based on your response, which seemed strongly directed at me as if I was the OP. What I wrote was a very long, thoughtful response that acknowledged some gray area and some points on both sides in addition to trying to bring some other voices and perspectives. Overall, I was expressing the perspective that "eat whatever within your limits" isn't super helpful in some circumstances and wanted to discuss that gray area. Most people did respond to me in a civil manner, even if they disagreed or didn't really get what I was saying. Fine. I'm not talking about those people. I'm talking about the people just being snarky and over-the-top without really contributing anything to the debate. Sure, the OP started a fire. That doesn't mean we should just continue throwing gasoline on it.
If you don't like it, you can happily track calories here without the boards. They're not required, and if they're not useful, ignore us.5 -
OMG YOU'RE FROM THE FUTURE!!1!CaliMomTeach wrote: »While I know I can have french fries whenever I want, I have only ordered them ONCE since July of 2018.
Do you happen to know the winning Powerball numbers for next week? Not asking for any particular reason; just curious.33 -
NannersBalletLegs wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »NannersBalletLegs wrote: »1) Many binge eaters and emotional eaters continue to be triggered by calorie-dense, super-satiating foods, because they haven't yet worked through the underlying psychological issues that are causing them to overeat and feel an overwhelming urge to numb or soothe themselves with ice cream, cake, pizza, french fries, etc.
This is not about the food, really, though, and restricting can be even more problematic. Someone with a BED should consider getting help, but I would say different issues apply. (I'm an emotional eater, and even for that I know there's more to it than just watching calories -- I need to work on psychological triggers.)You need fruit and veggies and other micronutrient and antioxidant rich foods to fuel your body properly and keep it in the best condition possible. I know none of you are saying it's fine to just eat McD's and pizza every day, but I do think that there is a tendency to oversimplify the CICO thing as "eat whatever you want" and lose weight without acknowledging some of the other consequences. Someone who takes this advice to heart might lose weight but still end up in really poor health.
Honestly, I think (a) someone who eats only junk food knows better and would do it no matter what people on MFP said, and (b) if you and I know that of course we should eat a healthful diet and that eating "whatever you want within your calories" doesn't mean only donuts or whatever (and, seriously, yuck, who would want to?), then why assume other people are too ignorant to figure that out? I think politeness requires assuming that most people have some common sense and get that "eat what you want within your calories" also involves "eat a nutritionally-balanced diet for health, including vegetables, protein, etc."3) It is a lot, LOT harder to fit in calorie-dense foods while still eating at a deficit when you are (a) short and (b) closer to a healthy weight.
It's not that hard, really. I'm 5'3, 125, and granted I have been mostly maintaining (although I ate plenty of ice cream and weekly restaurant dinners and so on losing from 140 to 125), but with exercise I could easily keep a deficit at this weight and eat ice cream or weekly restaurant splurges or some pizza (which need not be more than a normal dinner anyway), etc.
Yes, satiety is important, but absolutely no one says otherwise. This is not something that is ignored on MFP.
Yes, someone with any eating disorder should absolutely get help. MFP will never be an appropriate stand-in for a qualified mental health professional. I am glad to hear from a fellow emotional eater. I know that our perspectives and experiences probably vary in spite of that. In my own experience, removing the foods that I use as a crutch to suppress my feelings has actually helped me make progress in working through those feelings.
For me, that's not actually an option -- most of the temptation to snack is at work where there's always stuff around. Sometimes it would be an evening thing, but I tend to have less issues then. When I first started I did cut out lots of the kinds of things that would normally be a temptation (and I lot of things that weren't, since based on what other people said I thought they might be). Part of this was to teach myself that I didn't need them as a crutch. I also worked on being really mindful and some other things (and got back into exercise).
What I learned, for me, was that what I ate didn't matter much (I do mostly eat a whole foods based nutrition conscious diet, but that's how I was before too, other than dumb snacking at work -- I get annoyed by the stereotype that fat people must have no clue how to eat or always prefer chili cheese fries to vegetables or, weirdly, fast food to a high cal gourmet meal, let alone that we all mostly go nuts on sugar). Anyway, I digress -- what helped me was adding some external structure, planning to take the impulse way, and basically no snacking. If I graze I don't have good control at all, and appetite isn't why I eat so picking satiating things doesn't help. Also related is working hard to not eat my feelings. But I could always do that with any delicious foods so focusing on specific things doesn't matter -- part of it is the idea of "I deserve it," so not that long ago a vegan stir fry with brown rice I had delivered sufficed. It wasn't very damaging calorie wise, although I overate, but it was the same old impulse so ugh.
But I get the idea of the space you talk about -- mostly for me that's by not eating outside of mealtimes, when I would normally go to food to avoid feelings or the like (and can feel anxious when I don't).
Eating some ice cream or other dessert (good cheese is my other favorite) post dinner when I reintroduced it was surprisingly easy for me to moderate, since I wasn't eating it for emotional reasons and I was doing it right after a satisfying balanced meal and spooning out an appropriate serving size. (Would I grab a pint and eat out of it when feeling bad? No, I would not. Would I let myself go to food as self comfort? Well, can't say I never do, but I try not to and I don't find that it's hard to switch to a different set of foods if I merely ban specific foods and think that's the trick.
I know others find different things work and that's cool, but I would separate out what works when talking about something like emotional eating (let alone an ED), vs. dieting. I would never assume that someone else wants to hear from me about how they shouldn't eat specific foods let alone -- as with OP -- that they WANT to eat stuff they should not, combined with lots of assumptions about how fat people eat and think about food.I think you're probably right in saying that most people know that McDonald's, pizza, whatever, isn't technically good for you and that they would probably eat it regardless of what anyone is telling them. Perhaps my assertion that CICO advocates should be qualifying their advice with nutritional caveats is unfair for this reason.
Actually, if you read the threads you will see that about 50% of the posts include the nutritional caveats anyway. I always say (despite my thinking it's unnecessary and a little condescending) that OF COURSE (my apology for telling the person something I think they know) that for health and satiety what you eat matters, but for weight loss whatever. (I also preach annoyingly about vegetables, but again make clear it's for nutrition, not weight loss.) I always wonder why people think these points don't get made.However, I do think that far too many tend to make a fetish of their ability to "eat anything" and still lose weight. Many are also far too quick to assume that when someone is saying that "eat whatever and still lose weight is bad advice" that that means that someone is somehow trying to take away their chocolate and their cheeseburgers. It's silly.
I simply disagree with this reading of the threads in question (which I often participate in). Most of the people are proponents of eating healthfully with some treats (and say so) -- I think most in those threads eat much more like the recommended diet of nutrition types than not, and say it matters for health and satiety. I think people who get that we are eating 3 cheeseburgers a day or whatever are projecting or just reading something far different than what I've seen. (Do people mention occasional meals or lower cal options? -- I make pizza at home, for example, it's got lean meat and vegetables typically and a whole wheat crust -- or post photos of tempting treats sometimes, usually well into a thread? well, sure, but I think you have to try to misread to get that people are saying you can ignore satiety or nutrition or should, on a regular basis.
I also really don't see anyone reacting as if people are trying to take away their food. What normally causes me to jump in is that I think it's odd that people stereotype "eat what you want" as "don't care about nutrition" (when I think I'm a bit of a nutrition fanatic, actually) and claim we all eat donuts 24/7, well when not eating McD's, of course. And what caused me to respond to OP specifically again wasn't concern about my chocolate or cheeseburgers (I'm actually not eating either during Lent anyway, LOL), but that I thought he or she was really misrepresenting how people who ate what they wanted felt, what we "wanted" to eat, and just generally what the normal advice is. People who assume it means "ignore satiety" or "eat only junk" or "be hungry so you can eat 5 french fries" aren't being realistic about how it's possible to eat or are not in good faith reflecting what is said, IMO.
(I actually think if you read the threads you'd see a lot of advice consistent with the kinds of things you said, that you seemed to think were points not normally made.)6 -
People don't want to eat 1 slice of pizza, or a 1/4 of a plate of Loco Rice, or 7 chili cheese fries. They want to have a meal. If you eat the "right amount" of junk food to stay within your calorie limits, you're going to be starving to death and it's going to cause you to eat more. Eating food that doesn't taste as good as what you want is much better than satisfying a craving and then derailing later because you were so hungry you caved. There are a few people around here who have done their time, lost their weight, and they are in good shape. These people give advice from the "look at me, I lost a ton of weight so I know what I'm doing" stand point, but seem to have forgotten what it was like to ACTUALLY live as a fat person. So when someone tells you you can have junk food, don't listen to them, not because they are lying to you - they aren't, it's true - but because the advice isn't helpful in practice.
It was helpful to me. I'm at my goal weight now, but it was not long ago that I was still overweight. I was overweight most of my adult life. I haven't forgotten what it was like. For me having small portions of "junk" food is satisfying. Eating food that doesn't taste as good as what I want is what causes me to derail and overeat. Eating food you don't really like and depriving yourself of foods you love may work for you but I don't think that advice is helpful in practice.3
This discussion has been closed.
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