NO MORE CALORIE COUNTING
Options
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »Best of luck in finding what works best for you.
unfortunately for me, eating "healthy" without calorie counting is why i was obese most of my life. even after loosing 100lbs twice. I'm a victim of my own portion creep. even in maintenance this time around i should do check ins with the scale and diary every few weeks even if i don't do so daily.sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
a couple of hundred years ago our access to food and what foods as well as our actiivty level was VASTLY different. you can't really compare the two.
Easy, don't eat the processed food
Not easy. What’s your definition of processed food? That’s such a vague and general term - virtually everything we eat is “processed” in some way.
Eating processed food doesn’t cause weight gain, eating too many calories does. There have been countless examples in this thread alone of people who became overweight eating a Whole Foods diet, because they ate too many calories. There are also countless examples of people who have eaten a diet of all things in moderation, including Whole Foods, processed foods and convenience foods as part of an overall balanced and nutrient dense diet yet have done so at a calorie appropriate level and thus have achieved weight loss goals.
This is fairly much what my definition of processed food is...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441809/
Food processing is defined as any procedure that alters food from its natural state, such as freezing, drying, milling, canning, mixing, or adding salt, sugar, fat, or additives (1, 2). Thus, the US government’s definition of “processed food”—any food other than a raw agricultural commodity—includes a diverse array of foods ranging from frozen vegetables, dried fruit, and canned beans to whole-wheat bread, breakfast cereals, prepared meals, candy, and soda (1, 2). Because of this heterogeneity, classification systems were developed to subdivide processed foods into refined categories based on the complexity of processing, the physical and chemical changes in food as a result of processing, and the purpose of processing; foods are classified into levels along a spectrum, ranging from minimally processed to highly processed (3–6). Here, we define highly processed foods as multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixtures (7).
It wasn't until I joined MFP that I even had a clue that people struggled with defining "processed". I never encountered this debate in the real world. Are there degrees of processing...of course there are. I eat some processed food but over time I am eating less and less of the "highly" processed foods. Not eating some foods that are considered processed will not work for me in my life. When I need tomato products I will always turn to "processed". I do however try to buy those that have no salt added and/or with as few of ingredients as possible.
Anyway...the above definition of "processed" has always been my thinking...just in not so technical of terms.
I feel like stopping to consider whether or not something is a "multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixture" will take more time and effort than just considering whether or not it fits into my calories and allows me to meet my nutritional goals.
Obviously that definition works for some people, but it just seems so cumbersome to me.16 -
Like others said, our ancestors' notion of portion control was...famines. We ate when we could. Now we can eat whenever and it can be easy to overindulge even when you think you're listening to your body. It can also be easy to over-restrict when 'listening to your body.' I did that and kept only eating like 1400 calories, which as a 6 ft tall active woman isn't sustainable (my TDEE is like 2200-2300 calories, so a 800-900 deficit), leading to a binge-purge cycle.
Now I'm at goal, I do a combination of semi-accurate calorie counting to get me within a 100-200 calorie ballpark and within that window I eat what makes me happy. Sometimes it's a big salad. Just now it was a serving of protein cookie dough full of proccessed protein powder and chocolate chips and peanut butter. It was tasty and now I'll be full until dinner. Win.12 -
I built food logging into my life - I have been in sustainment for over 5 years with my weight the same plus or minus 3-4 lbs., so I could easily rationalize walking away from it. I continue because:
•Although I could ballpark everything and eat intuitively, but guesswork has failed the 70%+ of the US population who are overweight or obese.
•While I’m not generally concerned with my overall calories day to day, getting protein minimums and not going excessive on the sodium and sugar are also important to me. Even with 5+ years of food logging experience, there are times I don’t know with any reasonable degree of certainty how much protein, sodium, or sugar is in a meal.
•Food logging probably takes me 15 minutes per day – but if you consider that I multitask by entering food data while actually eating, eliminating it wouldn’t save me any time. I suppose it would free up 15 minutes to study quantum physics or Greek philosophy, but in reality, I would likely just use it to browse social media or check sports scores
14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »Best of luck in finding what works best for you.
unfortunately for me, eating "healthy" without calorie counting is why i was obese most of my life. even after loosing 100lbs twice. I'm a victim of my own portion creep. even in maintenance this time around i should do check ins with the scale and diary every few weeks even if i don't do so daily.sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
a couple of hundred years ago our access to food and what foods as well as our actiivty level was VASTLY different. you can't really compare the two.
Easy, don't eat the processed food
Not easy. What’s your definition of processed food? That’s such a vague and general term - virtually everything we eat is “processed” in some way.
Eating processed food doesn’t cause weight gain, eating too many calories does. There have been countless examples in this thread alone of people who became overweight eating a Whole Foods diet, because they ate too many calories. There are also countless examples of people who have eaten a diet of all things in moderation, including Whole Foods, processed foods and convenience foods as part of an overall balanced and nutrient dense diet yet have done so at a calorie appropriate level and thus have achieved weight loss goals.
This is fairly much what my definition of processed food is...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441809/
Food processing is defined as any procedure that alters food from its natural state, such as freezing, drying, milling, canning, mixing, or adding salt, sugar, fat, or additives (1, 2). Thus, the US government’s definition of “processed food”—any food other than a raw agricultural commodity—includes a diverse array of foods ranging from frozen vegetables, dried fruit, and canned beans to whole-wheat bread, breakfast cereals, prepared meals, candy, and soda (1, 2). Because of this heterogeneity, classification systems were developed to subdivide processed foods into refined categories based on the complexity of processing, the physical and chemical changes in food as a result of processing, and the purpose of processing; foods are classified into levels along a spectrum, ranging from minimally processed to highly processed (3–6). Here, we define highly processed foods as multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixtures (7).
It wasn't until I joined MFP that I even had a clue that people struggled with defining "processed". I never encountered this debate in the real world. Are there degrees of processing...of course there are. I eat some processed food but over time I am eating less and less of the "highly" processed foods. Not eating some foods that are considered processed will not work for me in my life. When I need tomato products I will always turn to "processed". I do however try to buy those that have no salt added and/or with as few of ingredients as possible.
Anyway...the above definition of "processed" has always been my thinking...just in not so technical of terms.
I feel like stopping to consider whether or not something is a "multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixture" will take more time and effort than just considering whether or not it fits into my calories and allows me to meet my nutritional goals.
Obviously that definition works for some people, but it just seems so cumbersome to me.
Well I have never stood in the grocery aisle and recited that definition either. My choices are much simpler than that...I look at the pictures mostly then flip it over to see the nutrition and glance at that little tiny section that lists the ingredients.
In no way did I advocate for "no processed foods". I use them when needed. I keep some frozen dinners in the freezer for emergencies. Some days I go on strike...no meals prepped and I refused to step foot in the kitchen. I am not under the impression though that the frozen tv dinner is as good or as healthy as if I made a similar dish.
2 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »Yep, that's right! I'm done counting calories and tracking everything I eat! I'm eating wholesome foods and eating when I am hungry. Doing what feels natural! Anyone else here with me on this?
@sweetangelkitten while counting calories is more of current fad it was not seen as a long term tool needed by the founder of MFP. He said he counted at first just to learn how calories worked.
Before Google found MFP for me with info how to use the $15 type of breath analyzers to monitor if I was in a state of nutritional ketosis or not I had already decided at the age of 63 long term counting of calories was of not interest to me. I lost 50 pounds the first year and have maintained that loss for going on 4 years without tracking calories. MFP has let me become aware of the types of calories in different food but that only required about 30 days to learn.
I now know I over ate due due to cravings that lead to binging. Now that has been addressed my my Way Of Eating continue to counting for weight management is not the training wheels I need to gain better health. My fuel gauge was stuck on EMPTY even when my tank was over full but Keto repaired my fuel gauge years ago and took away the regular need to count calories for better weight/health management.
Until one learns about and can fix their carvings that lead to being overweight or poor health counting should not be discouraged as a tool even if it is unnatural historically speaking.
Where the heck did you come up with this bolded part? Mike sold his company for $80 MILLION dollars just eight years after launching this site. Regardless of whether or not he used calorie counting, it is obviously a useful tool for millions of people or Under Armour would have stuck with selling overpriced workout gear. I would say he was on to something...calorie counting has been the most used method of weight management for as long as we've known about calories.
I agree with you about some people needed certain macro splits to control their tendencies to over-eat.
15 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »Best of luck in finding what works best for you.
unfortunately for me, eating "healthy" without calorie counting is why i was obese most of my life. even after loosing 100lbs twice. I'm a victim of my own portion creep. even in maintenance this time around i should do check ins with the scale and diary every few weeks even if i don't do so daily.sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
a couple of hundred years ago our access to food and what foods as well as our actiivty level was VASTLY different. you can't really compare the two.
Easy, don't eat the processed food
Not easy. What’s your definition of processed food? That’s such a vague and general term - virtually everything we eat is “processed” in some way.
Eating processed food doesn’t cause weight gain, eating too many calories does. There have been countless examples in this thread alone of people who became overweight eating a Whole Foods diet, because they ate too many calories. There are also countless examples of people who have eaten a diet of all things in moderation, including Whole Foods, processed foods and convenience foods as part of an overall balanced and nutrient dense diet yet have done so at a calorie appropriate level and thus have achieved weight loss goals.
This is fairly much what my definition of processed food is...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441809/
Food processing is defined as any procedure that alters food from its natural state, such as freezing, drying, milling, canning, mixing, or adding salt, sugar, fat, or additives (1, 2). Thus, the US government’s definition of “processed food”—any food other than a raw agricultural commodity—includes a diverse array of foods ranging from frozen vegetables, dried fruit, and canned beans to whole-wheat bread, breakfast cereals, prepared meals, candy, and soda (1, 2). Because of this heterogeneity, classification systems were developed to subdivide processed foods into refined categories based on the complexity of processing, the physical and chemical changes in food as a result of processing, and the purpose of processing; foods are classified into levels along a spectrum, ranging from minimally processed to highly processed (3–6). Here, we define highly processed foods as multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixtures (7).
It wasn't until I joined MFP that I even had a clue that people struggled with defining "processed". I never encountered this debate in the real world. Are there degrees of processing...of course there are. I eat some processed food but over time I am eating less and less of the "highly" processed foods. Not eating some foods that are considered processed will not work for me in my life. When I need tomato products I will always turn to "processed". I do however try to buy those that have no salt added and/or with as few of ingredients as possible.
Anyway...the above definition of "processed" has always been my thinking...just in not so technical of terms.
I feel like stopping to consider whether or not something is a "multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixture" will take more time and effort than just considering whether or not it fits into my calories and allows me to meet my nutritional goals.
Obviously that definition works for some people, but it just seems so cumbersome to me.
Well I have never stood in the grocery aisle and recited that definition either. My choices are much simpler than that...I look at the pictures mostly then flip it over to see the nutrition and glance at that little tiny section that lists the ingredients.
In no way did I advocate for "no processed foods". I use them when needed. I keep some frozen dinners in the freezer for emergencies. Some days I go on strike...no meals prepped and I refused to step foot in the kitchen. I am not under the impression though that the frozen tv dinner is as good or as healthy as if I made a similar dish.
I think I may have come across differently than I intended. I wasn't arguing that you shouldn't do what obviously works for you and I didn't think you were arguing for "no processed foods."
I was just sharing that, for me personally, using that definition to choose foods wouldn't be helpful. You had shared that as your definition, so that is why I had assumed you were using it or some version of it.
For any misunderstanding or irrelevancy, I apologize.6 -
sweetangelkitten wrote: »
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
We may not have been counting calories but there were some seriously overweight people around, and those who were trying to lose weight. Have you not heard of William Banting? His surname actually became a verb meaning 'dieting':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting
And the Georgians and Victorians certainly had their moments of over-indulgence:
https://www.historyextra.com/period/georgian/revealed-how-the-georgians-taught-us-to-diet-300-years-ago/
3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »Best of luck in finding what works best for you.
unfortunately for me, eating "healthy" without calorie counting is why i was obese most of my life. even after loosing 100lbs twice. I'm a victim of my own portion creep. even in maintenance this time around i should do check ins with the scale and diary every few weeks even if i don't do so daily.sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
a couple of hundred years ago our access to food and what foods as well as our actiivty level was VASTLY different. you can't really compare the two.
Easy, don't eat the processed food
Not easy. What’s your definition of processed food? That’s such a vague and general term - virtually everything we eat is “processed” in some way.
Eating processed food doesn’t cause weight gain, eating too many calories does. There have been countless examples in this thread alone of people who became overweight eating a Whole Foods diet, because they ate too many calories. There are also countless examples of people who have eaten a diet of all things in moderation, including Whole Foods, processed foods and convenience foods as part of an overall balanced and nutrient dense diet yet have done so at a calorie appropriate level and thus have achieved weight loss goals.
This is fairly much what my definition of processed food is...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441809/
Food processing is defined as any procedure that alters food from its natural state, such as freezing, drying, milling, canning, mixing, or adding salt, sugar, fat, or additives (1, 2). Thus, the US government’s definition of “processed food”—any food other than a raw agricultural commodity—includes a diverse array of foods ranging from frozen vegetables, dried fruit, and canned beans to whole-wheat bread, breakfast cereals, prepared meals, candy, and soda (1, 2). Because of this heterogeneity, classification systems were developed to subdivide processed foods into refined categories based on the complexity of processing, the physical and chemical changes in food as a result of processing, and the purpose of processing; foods are classified into levels along a spectrum, ranging from minimally processed to highly processed (3–6). Here, we define highly processed foods as multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixtures (7).
It wasn't until I joined MFP that I even had a clue that people struggled with defining "processed". I never encountered this debate in the real world. Are there degrees of processing...of course there are. I eat some processed food but over time I am eating less and less of the "highly" processed foods. Not eating some foods that are considered processed will not work for me in my life. When I need tomato products I will always turn to "processed". I do however try to buy those that have no salt added and/or with as few of ingredients as possible.
Anyway...the above definition of "processed" has always been my thinking...just in not so technical of terms.
I don't see people struggling with a definition of processed food here. Every new poster who uses it as a negative seems to be using the Brazilian definition of ultra processed food. That is also my experience off the site. http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guidelines_brazilian_population.pdf page 39
The struggle is to get the MFP regulars to acknowledge that the newcomers mean Ultra Processed rather than a definition that comes from a food manufacturer's perspective 6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »Best of luck in finding what works best for you.
unfortunately for me, eating "healthy" without calorie counting is why i was obese most of my life. even after loosing 100lbs twice. I'm a victim of my own portion creep. even in maintenance this time around i should do check ins with the scale and diary every few weeks even if i don't do so daily.sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
a couple of hundred years ago our access to food and what foods as well as our actiivty level was VASTLY different. you can't really compare the two.
Easy, don't eat the processed food
Not easy. What’s your definition of processed food? That’s such a vague and general term - virtually everything we eat is “processed” in some way.
Eating processed food doesn’t cause weight gain, eating too many calories does. There have been countless examples in this thread alone of people who became overweight eating a Whole Foods diet, because they ate too many calories. There are also countless examples of people who have eaten a diet of all things in moderation, including Whole Foods, processed foods and convenience foods as part of an overall balanced and nutrient dense diet yet have done so at a calorie appropriate level and thus have achieved weight loss goals.
This is fairly much what my definition of processed food is...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441809/
Food processing is defined as any procedure that alters food from its natural state, such as freezing, drying, milling, canning, mixing, or adding salt, sugar, fat, or additives (1, 2). Thus, the US government’s definition of “processed food”—any food other than a raw agricultural commodity—includes a diverse array of foods ranging from frozen vegetables, dried fruit, and canned beans to whole-wheat bread, breakfast cereals, prepared meals, candy, and soda (1, 2). Because of this heterogeneity, classification systems were developed to subdivide processed foods into refined categories based on the complexity of processing, the physical and chemical changes in food as a result of processing, and the purpose of processing; foods are classified into levels along a spectrum, ranging from minimally processed to highly processed (3–6). Here, we define highly processed foods as multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixtures (7).
It wasn't until I joined MFP that I even had a clue that people struggled with defining "processed". I never encountered this debate in the real world. Are there degrees of processing...of course there are. I eat some processed food but over time I am eating less and less of the "highly" processed foods. Not eating some foods that are considered processed will not work for me in my life. When I need tomato products I will always turn to "processed". I do however try to buy those that have no salt added and/or with as few of ingredients as possible.
Anyway...the above definition of "processed" has always been my thinking...just in not so technical of terms.
I feel like stopping to consider whether or not something is a "multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixture" will take more time and effort than just considering whether or not it fits into my calories and allows me to meet my nutritional goals.
Obviously that definition works for some people, but it just seems so cumbersome to me.
Well I have never stood in the grocery aisle and recited that definition either. My choices are much simpler than that...I look at the pictures mostly then flip it over to see the nutrition and glance at that little tiny section that lists the ingredients.
In no way did I advocate for "no processed foods". I use them when needed. I keep some frozen dinners in the freezer for emergencies. Some days I go on strike...no meals prepped and I refused to step foot in the kitchen. I am not under the impression though that the frozen tv dinner is as good or as healthy as if I made a similar dish.
I think I may have come across differently than I intended. I wasn't arguing that you shouldn't do what obviously works for you and I didn't think you were arguing for "no processed foods."
I was just sharing that, for me personally, using that definition to choose foods wouldn't be helpful. You had shared that as your definition, so that is why I had assumed you were using it or some version of it.
For any misunderstanding or irrelevancy, I apologize.
No need for an apology Jane. I was actually rather amused trying to picture me standing in the food aisle reciting that long drawn out definition of "processed food".
I think it is a case of all of us just being passionate about what we have figured out for ourselves. I once counted every calorie(still do on somethings), weighed every little drop(not so much anymore)...I guess I would say...I have done it all. Funny thing is all of it worked...until it didn't.
Processed vs non-processed, calories vs mindful eating, etc etc...none of it will work until I solve the underlying problems. I think I understand the OP to a certain degree. She is just finding a way that will work for her and not push her over the edge. Whether I agree with her or not is irrelevant...whether she is right or wrong is something that she will have to figure out for herself.
1 -
sweetangelkitten wrote: »Best of luck in finding what works best for you.
unfortunately for me, eating "healthy" without calorie counting is why i was obese most of my life. even after loosing 100lbs twice. I'm a victim of my own portion creep. even in maintenance this time around i should do check ins with the scale and diary every few weeks even if i don't do so daily.sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
a couple of hundred years ago our access to food and what foods as well as our actiivty level was VASTLY different. you can't really compare the two.
Easy, don't eat the processed food
I originally gained the weight I lost using MFP when I was on an all natural as little processed as possible kick, and even flirting with trying out localvore. (I didn't because, among other things, coffee.) I had 0 problem gaining weight despite that.
I now maintain without calorie counting, so I'm not saying it can't be done, or that weight loss can't happen without counting, but I think the idea of "just listen to your body" (as if your body were somehow different from you) is bunk for many of us. I maintain without counting because I understand the foods I am eating, my calorie needs, what a reasonable serving for me is, and I eat mindfully -- using logic and reason and also habits I have developed.
I guess if you ate absolutely nothing processed it would be tough to overeat if you consider what the word "processed" really means, but most who claim they are giving up processed foods really aren't (nor need they, many are quite filling and nutritious), and are far less neurotic about what they won't eat than I was back when I was gaining weight.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »Best of luck in finding what works best for you.
unfortunately for me, eating "healthy" without calorie counting is why i was obese most of my life. even after loosing 100lbs twice. I'm a victim of my own portion creep. even in maintenance this time around i should do check ins with the scale and diary every few weeks even if i don't do so daily.sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
a couple of hundred years ago our access to food and what foods as well as our actiivty level was VASTLY different. you can't really compare the two.
Easy, don't eat the processed food
Not easy. What’s your definition of processed food? That’s such a vague and general term - virtually everything we eat is “processed” in some way.
Eating processed food doesn’t cause weight gain, eating too many calories does. There have been countless examples in this thread alone of people who became overweight eating a Whole Foods diet, because they ate too many calories. There are also countless examples of people who have eaten a diet of all things in moderation, including Whole Foods, processed foods and convenience foods as part of an overall balanced and nutrient dense diet yet have done so at a calorie appropriate level and thus have achieved weight loss goals.
This is fairly much what my definition of processed food is...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441809/
Food processing is defined as any procedure that alters food from its natural state, such as freezing, drying, milling, canning, mixing, or adding salt, sugar, fat, or additives (1, 2). Thus, the US government’s definition of “processed food”—any food other than a raw agricultural commodity—includes a diverse array of foods ranging from frozen vegetables, dried fruit, and canned beans to whole-wheat bread, breakfast cereals, prepared meals, candy, and soda (1, 2). Because of this heterogeneity, classification systems were developed to subdivide processed foods into refined categories based on the complexity of processing, the physical and chemical changes in food as a result of processing, and the purpose of processing; foods are classified into levels along a spectrum, ranging from minimally processed to highly processed (3–6). Here, we define highly processed foods as multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixtures (7).
It wasn't until I joined MFP that I even had a clue that people struggled with defining "processed". I never encountered this debate in the real world. Are there degrees of processing...of course there are. I eat some processed food but over time I am eating less and less of the "highly" processed foods. Not eating some foods that are considered processed will not work for me in my life. When I need tomato products I will always turn to "processed". I do however try to buy those that have no salt added and/or with as few of ingredients as possible.
Anyway...the above definition of "processed" has always been my thinking...just in not so technical of terms.
This is how I define it too, but so many people claim to be cutting out "processed" foods and then claim bread or oats or frozen veg or dried fruit or cottage cheese or cheese or boneless skinless chicken breast or dried beans or canned beans or canned tomatoes or olives (the ones we eat are cured) or yogurt or olive oil or -- weirdest of all! -- protein powder somehow does not count. (And I could go on and on with such examples.)
Anyway, using what I'd consider the proper definition, I don't think processed foods are inherently bad or easier to overeat than non processed foods.10 -
kshama2001 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »Best of luck in finding what works best for you.
unfortunately for me, eating "healthy" without calorie counting is why i was obese most of my life. even after loosing 100lbs twice. I'm a victim of my own portion creep. even in maintenance this time around i should do check ins with the scale and diary every few weeks even if i don't do so daily.sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
a couple of hundred years ago our access to food and what foods as well as our actiivty level was VASTLY different. you can't really compare the two.
Easy, don't eat the processed food
Not easy. What’s your definition of processed food? That’s such a vague and general term - virtually everything we eat is “processed” in some way.
Eating processed food doesn’t cause weight gain, eating too many calories does. There have been countless examples in this thread alone of people who became overweight eating a Whole Foods diet, because they ate too many calories. There are also countless examples of people who have eaten a diet of all things in moderation, including Whole Foods, processed foods and convenience foods as part of an overall balanced and nutrient dense diet yet have done so at a calorie appropriate level and thus have achieved weight loss goals.
This is fairly much what my definition of processed food is...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441809/
Food processing is defined as any procedure that alters food from its natural state, such as freezing, drying, milling, canning, mixing, or adding salt, sugar, fat, or additives (1, 2). Thus, the US government’s definition of “processed food”—any food other than a raw agricultural commodity—includes a diverse array of foods ranging from frozen vegetables, dried fruit, and canned beans to whole-wheat bread, breakfast cereals, prepared meals, candy, and soda (1, 2). Because of this heterogeneity, classification systems were developed to subdivide processed foods into refined categories based on the complexity of processing, the physical and chemical changes in food as a result of processing, and the purpose of processing; foods are classified into levels along a spectrum, ranging from minimally processed to highly processed (3–6). Here, we define highly processed foods as multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixtures (7).
It wasn't until I joined MFP that I even had a clue that people struggled with defining "processed". I never encountered this debate in the real world. Are there degrees of processing...of course there are. I eat some processed food but over time I am eating less and less of the "highly" processed foods. Not eating some foods that are considered processed will not work for me in my life. When I need tomato products I will always turn to "processed". I do however try to buy those that have no salt added and/or with as few of ingredients as possible.
Anyway...the above definition of "processed" has always been my thinking...just in not so technical of terms.
I don't see people struggling with a definition of processed food here. Every new poster who uses it as a negative seems to be using the Brazilian definition of ultra processed food. That is also my experience off the site. http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guidelines_brazilian_population.pdf page 39
I'll say again that I went through a phase where I convinced myself that it was bad to eat processed foods and better to exclude them as much as possible. My definition was most certainly NOT "ultra processed," as I never ate much of that, but "processed" in a broader definition. I tried to eat exclusively from whole foods and was rather neurotic about the fact I could not (I did eat in restaurants some, although it wasn't a huge percentage of my calories, but generally more of the kind where you know the food was mostly cooked from whole foods).
I would find it disingenuous to claim I wasn't eating "processed" foods and yet use the many kinds of lightly processed foods I do use (like cottage cheese and dried beans and dried pasta and olive oil and so on), and so I find it really weird when people claim processed foods can be generalized about (or claim to be avoiding them when what they really mean is something else).
I think it makes communication harder.
I also agree with janejellyroll that it's not all that useful to focus on the amount of processing vs. the actual contribution of the food to the diet. It's easy to get hung up on whether something fits the ultra processed definition or not (I don't think it's really that clear, and I think even that one is broader than many people realize). I eat mostly from whole foods because that's how I like to eat, and I focus on nutrients that foods have and tend to limit those that aren't particularly nutrient dense (while still including a variety in my diet like, again, olive oil, cheese, just because they make other foods more enjoyable), but I don't think it makes sense to exclude something nutrient dense and providing nutrition needed in favor of something else just because the something else is less processed (maybe because it's more appealing to you, of course).
When I was hung up on processing, I'd often make it much much harder on myself to eat healthfully (although I generally did) and created more stress for myself by my insistence on my particular rules about making everything from whole ingredients. (And I still couldn't avoid everything that is technically processed.)6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »Best of luck in finding what works best for you.
unfortunately for me, eating "healthy" without calorie counting is why i was obese most of my life. even after loosing 100lbs twice. I'm a victim of my own portion creep. even in maintenance this time around i should do check ins with the scale and diary every few weeks even if i don't do so daily.sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
a couple of hundred years ago our access to food and what foods as well as our actiivty level was VASTLY different. you can't really compare the two.
Easy, don't eat the processed food
Not easy. What’s your definition of processed food? That’s such a vague and general term - virtually everything we eat is “processed” in some way.
Eating processed food doesn’t cause weight gain, eating too many calories does. There have been countless examples in this thread alone of people who became overweight eating a Whole Foods diet, because they ate too many calories. There are also countless examples of people who have eaten a diet of all things in moderation, including Whole Foods, processed foods and convenience foods as part of an overall balanced and nutrient dense diet yet have done so at a calorie appropriate level and thus have achieved weight loss goals.
This is fairly much what my definition of processed food is...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441809/
Food processing is defined as any procedure that alters food from its natural state, such as freezing, drying, milling, canning, mixing, or adding salt, sugar, fat, or additives (1, 2). Thus, the US government’s definition of “processed food”—any food other than a raw agricultural commodity—includes a diverse array of foods ranging from frozen vegetables, dried fruit, and canned beans to whole-wheat bread, breakfast cereals, prepared meals, candy, and soda (1, 2). Because of this heterogeneity, classification systems were developed to subdivide processed foods into refined categories based on the complexity of processing, the physical and chemical changes in food as a result of processing, and the purpose of processing; foods are classified into levels along a spectrum, ranging from minimally processed to highly processed (3–6). Here, we define highly processed foods as multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixtures (7).
It wasn't until I joined MFP that I even had a clue that people struggled with defining "processed". I never encountered this debate in the real world. Are there degrees of processing...of course there are. I eat some processed food but over time I am eating less and less of the "highly" processed foods. Not eating some foods that are considered processed will not work for me in my life. When I need tomato products I will always turn to "processed". I do however try to buy those that have no salt added and/or with as few of ingredients as possible.
Anyway...the above definition of "processed" has always been my thinking...just in not so technical of terms.
This is how I define it too, but so many people claim to be cutting out "processed" foods and then claim bread or oats or frozen veg or dried fruit or cottage cheese or cheese or boneless skinless chicken breast or dried beans or canned beans or canned tomatoes or olives (the ones we eat are cured) or yogurt or olive oil or -- weirdest of all! -- protein powder somehow does not count. (And I could go on and on with such examples.)
Anyway, using what I'd consider the proper definition, I don't think processed foods are inherently bad or easier to overeat than non processed foods.
That's because people have assigned a moral value to foods and lumped those they deem unworthy under the "processed" label. It has nothing at all to do with any governmental definition, in most cases.
But you're already knew that. It just seems to confuse newer users on occasion
7 -
kshama2001 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »Best of luck in finding what works best for you.
unfortunately for me, eating "healthy" without calorie counting is why i was obese most of my life. even after loosing 100lbs twice. I'm a victim of my own portion creep. even in maintenance this time around i should do check ins with the scale and diary every few weeks even if i don't do so daily.sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
a couple of hundred years ago our access to food and what foods as well as our actiivty level was VASTLY different. you can't really compare the two.
Easy, don't eat the processed food
Not easy. What’s your definition of processed food? That’s such a vague and general term - virtually everything we eat is “processed” in some way.
Eating processed food doesn’t cause weight gain, eating too many calories does. There have been countless examples in this thread alone of people who became overweight eating a Whole Foods diet, because they ate too many calories. There are also countless examples of people who have eaten a diet of all things in moderation, including Whole Foods, processed foods and convenience foods as part of an overall balanced and nutrient dense diet yet have done so at a calorie appropriate level and thus have achieved weight loss goals.
This is fairly much what my definition of processed food is...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441809/
Food processing is defined as any procedure that alters food from its natural state, such as freezing, drying, milling, canning, mixing, or adding salt, sugar, fat, or additives (1, 2). Thus, the US government’s definition of “processed food”—any food other than a raw agricultural commodity—includes a diverse array of foods ranging from frozen vegetables, dried fruit, and canned beans to whole-wheat bread, breakfast cereals, prepared meals, candy, and soda (1, 2). Because of this heterogeneity, classification systems were developed to subdivide processed foods into refined categories based on the complexity of processing, the physical and chemical changes in food as a result of processing, and the purpose of processing; foods are classified into levels along a spectrum, ranging from minimally processed to highly processed (3–6). Here, we define highly processed foods as multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixtures (7).
It wasn't until I joined MFP that I even had a clue that people struggled with defining "processed". I never encountered this debate in the real world. Are there degrees of processing...of course there are. I eat some processed food but over time I am eating less and less of the "highly" processed foods. Not eating some foods that are considered processed will not work for me in my life. When I need tomato products I will always turn to "processed". I do however try to buy those that have no salt added and/or with as few of ingredients as possible.
Anyway...the above definition of "processed" has always been my thinking...just in not so technical of terms.
I don't see people struggling with a definition of processed food here. Every new poster who uses it as a negative seems to be using the Brazilian definition of ultra processed food. That is also my experience off the site. http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guidelines_brazilian_population.pdf page 39
I'll say again that I went through a phase where I convinced myself that it was bad to eat processed foods and better to exclude them as much as possible. My definition was most certainly NOT "ultra processed," as I never ate much of that, but "processed" in a broader definition. I tried to eat exclusively from whole foods and was rather neurotic about the fact I could not (I did eat in restaurants some, although it wasn't a huge percentage of my calories, but generally more of the kind where you know the food was mostly cooked from whole foods).
I would find it disingenuous to claim I wasn't eating "processed" foods and yet use the many kinds of lightly processed foods I do use (like cottage cheese and dried beans and dried pasta and olive oil and so on), and so I find it really weird when people claim processed foods can be generalized about (or claim to be avoiding them when what they really mean is something else).
I think it makes communication harder.
I also agree with janejellyroll that it's not all that useful to focus on the amount of processing vs. the actual contribution of the food to the diet. It's easy to get hung up on whether something fits the ultra processed definition or not (I don't think it's really that clear, and I think even that one is broader than many people realize). I eat mostly from whole foods because that's how I like to eat, and I focus on nutrients that foods have and tend to limit those that aren't particularly nutrient dense (while still including a variety in my diet like, again, olive oil, cheese, just because they make other foods more enjoyable), but I don't think it makes sense to exclude something nutrient dense and providing nutrition needed in favor of something else just because the something else is less processed (maybe because it's more appealing to you, of course).
When I was hung up on processing, I'd often make it much much harder on myself to eat healthfully (although I generally did) and created more stress for myself by my insistence on my particular rules about making everything from whole ingredients. (And I still couldn't avoid everything that is technically processed.)
It gets even weirder. Foods that are fried outside are processed, but the same foods fried at home are not.7 -
sweetangelkitten wrote: »Not me. I gained a lot of weight eating wholesome foods and eating when I was hungry.
There are others who are basically doing what you are doing so you are not alone.
Whatever your goals are I wish you the best of luck.
Thank you! I can't seem to find anyone on here who isn't counting calories sadly...
Well it's a calorie counting website.
8 -
kshama2001 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sweetangelkitten wrote: »Best of luck in finding what works best for you.
unfortunately for me, eating "healthy" without calorie counting is why i was obese most of my life. even after loosing 100lbs twice. I'm a victim of my own portion creep. even in maintenance this time around i should do check ins with the scale and diary every few weeks even if i don't do so daily.sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
a couple of hundred years ago our access to food and what foods as well as our actiivty level was VASTLY different. you can't really compare the two.
Easy, don't eat the processed food
Not easy. What’s your definition of processed food? That’s such a vague and general term - virtually everything we eat is “processed” in some way.
Eating processed food doesn’t cause weight gain, eating too many calories does. There have been countless examples in this thread alone of people who became overweight eating a Whole Foods diet, because they ate too many calories. There are also countless examples of people who have eaten a diet of all things in moderation, including Whole Foods, processed foods and convenience foods as part of an overall balanced and nutrient dense diet yet have done so at a calorie appropriate level and thus have achieved weight loss goals.
This is fairly much what my definition of processed food is...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441809/
Food processing is defined as any procedure that alters food from its natural state, such as freezing, drying, milling, canning, mixing, or adding salt, sugar, fat, or additives (1, 2). Thus, the US government’s definition of “processed food”—any food other than a raw agricultural commodity—includes a diverse array of foods ranging from frozen vegetables, dried fruit, and canned beans to whole-wheat bread, breakfast cereals, prepared meals, candy, and soda (1, 2). Because of this heterogeneity, classification systems were developed to subdivide processed foods into refined categories based on the complexity of processing, the physical and chemical changes in food as a result of processing, and the purpose of processing; foods are classified into levels along a spectrum, ranging from minimally processed to highly processed (3–6). Here, we define highly processed foods as multi-ingredient industrially formulated mixtures (7).
It wasn't until I joined MFP that I even had a clue that people struggled with defining "processed". I never encountered this debate in the real world. Are there degrees of processing...of course there are. I eat some processed food but over time I am eating less and less of the "highly" processed foods. Not eating some foods that are considered processed will not work for me in my life. When I need tomato products I will always turn to "processed". I do however try to buy those that have no salt added and/or with as few of ingredients as possible.
Anyway...the above definition of "processed" has always been my thinking...just in not so technical of terms.
I don't see people struggling with a definition of processed food here. Every new poster who uses it as a negative seems to be using the Brazilian definition of ultra processed food. That is also my experience off the site. http://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guidelines_brazilian_population.pdf page 39
I'll say again that I went through a phase where I convinced myself that it was bad to eat processed foods and better to exclude them as much as possible. My definition was most certainly NOT "ultra processed," as I never ate much of that, but "processed" in a broader definition. I tried to eat exclusively from whole foods and was rather neurotic about the fact I could not (I did eat in restaurants some, although it wasn't a huge percentage of my calories, but generally more of the kind where you know the food was mostly cooked from whole foods).
I would find it disingenuous to claim I wasn't eating "processed" foods and yet use the many kinds of lightly processed foods I do use (like cottage cheese and dried beans and dried pasta and olive oil and so on), and so I find it really weird when people claim processed foods can be generalized about (or claim to be avoiding them when what they really mean is something else).
I think it makes communication harder.
I also agree with janejellyroll that it's not all that useful to focus on the amount of processing vs. the actual contribution of the food to the diet. It's easy to get hung up on whether something fits the ultra processed definition or not (I don't think it's really that clear, and I think even that one is broader than many people realize). I eat mostly from whole foods because that's how I like to eat, and I focus on nutrients that foods have and tend to limit those that aren't particularly nutrient dense (while still including a variety in my diet like, again, olive oil, cheese, just because they make other foods more enjoyable), but I don't think it makes sense to exclude something nutrient dense and providing nutrition needed in favor of something else just because the something else is less processed (maybe because it's more appealing to you, of course).
When I was hung up on processing, I'd often make it much much harder on myself to eat healthfully (although I generally did) and created more stress for myself by my insistence on my particular rules about making everything from whole ingredients. (And I still couldn't avoid everything that is technically processed.)
From a weight management POV, I'm much better off weighing out a serving of tortilla chips (what most people would agree is a ultra processed food) and having that instead of eating homemade whole grain bread dipped in extra virgin olive oil or dairy butter (two foods most people would agree are minimally processed, but also hyper-palatable to many of us).
Eating the bread and olive oil until I'm satisfied could easily be hundreds more calories than the serving of tortilla chips.
Now it's not like the tortilla chips are the only alternative to eating bread and olive oil, but this is just to highlight that eliminating ultra processed foods isn't going to do anything for one's weight unless it is also creating a calorie deficit. So for me personally, I just skip the middle man and create the deficit, making sure to include plenty of nutrient-rich foods so I don't have to worry about the days when I'm craving tortilla chips and decide to have some.9 -
My body is very good at keeping me alive and apparently storing away some excess for the zombie apocalypse. It is not good at making me sexy and fast on a bicycle. Good news is you can give it a try and see how it goes and always reassess. Good Luck OP!10
-
I haven't actively tracked in over 6 months and kept a steady -1lb/wk loss the whole time. A combination of consistent workout schedule and learning what worked for my body made it possible. I just took 9 days off for vacation and I'm tracking this week just to get my head back in the game. I do think if my goals were more aggressive it would not have been possible to not track, but since I've focused on real lifestyle changes and fitness instead of losing as fast as possible it's been more manageable. -57lb over the last 11 months and probably another 20ish to go.4
-
Bry_Fitness70 wrote: »I built food logging into my life - I have been in sustainment for over 5 years with my weight the same plus or minus 3-4 lbs., so I could easily rationalize walking away from it. I continue because:
•Although I could ballpark everything and eat intuitively, but guesswork has failed the 70%+ of the US population who are overweight or obese.
•While I’m not generally concerned with my overall calories day to day, getting protein minimums and not going excessive on the sodium and sugar are also important to me. Even with 5+ years of food logging experience, there are times I don’t know with any reasonable degree of certainty how much protein, sodium, or sugar is in a meal.
•Food logging probably takes me 15 minutes per day – but if you consider that I multitask by entering food data while actually eating, eliminating it wouldn’t save me any time. I suppose it would free up 15 minutes to study quantum physics or Greek philosophy, but in reality, I would likely just use it to browse social media or check sports scores
This is me, exactly, except that I have been maintaining for more than 8 years so far and it takes me less than 15 minutes a day - no worse than brushing and flossing, and I do that every day without complaint. I think I can take a few minutes to track my food, too...and like this guy, it's more than just calories I'm here for. I like to track my protein and fiber, too.
I'm not as exacting with my calorie counting these days. There's a bit of guesstimating, and I'm good at it by now, but staying aware of my intake has allowed me to literally stay at goal (between 132-137 pounds at 5'7") consistently for almost a decade now. And I'm middle-aged, which is a common excuse for people to let themselves go. Tracking makes it easy to lose and maintain, and it causes me zero emotional distress, so I'm gonna keep it up.
4 -
sweetangelkitten wrote: »Best of luck in finding what works best for you.
unfortunately for me, eating "healthy" without calorie counting is why i was obese most of my life. even after loosing 100lbs twice. I'm a victim of my own portion creep. even in maintenance this time around i should do check ins with the scale and diary every few weeks even if i don't do so daily.sweetangelkitten wrote: »spinnerdell wrote: »Eating wholesome food when I was hungry led to a 70 pound weight gain over the years. Counting calories allowed me to lose that weight and maintain the loss. Wishing you a better outcome with your eating plan.
Why does this lead so many people to weight gain? We weren't counting calories a couple hundred years ago or even a hundred years ago... Seems unnatural to be measuring and counting, we should eat when we are hungry >,<
a couple of hundred years ago our access to food and what foods as well as our actiivty level was VASTLY different. you can't really compare the two.
Easy, don't eat the processed food
Well, as posters explained some of them ate next to no so called processed food and were still over weight.
Conversely I eat plenty of processed food - in about same proportion of my overall diet as when I was overweight, just smaller portions of everything. and some things less often and some things gone altogether - but gone altogether are things like regular soda replaced by diet version - not a less processed alternative.
Eat less calories than you burn - that is sole and only way to weight loss.
Do that by whatever way of eating suits you. (and is hopefully reasonably nutrionally balanced but that is a separate issue)
7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions