Decided to join WW
Replies
-
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume!
I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
LOL yeah. When I was on it, we took their bmr test, got a range of points, and had 35 extra weekly plus any exercise points to play with. And it was easier to get all that info free on the internet. 😀
I've definitely seen a few people's accounts of eating healthy but still being overweight...because they ate to much of it.0 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
While I won't claim "only healthy foods", I for sure got obese eating what most people would call healthy foods as the majority of my diet: Veggies, whole grains, etc. Honestly, it's pretty easy to creep those portions up over a period of years, and to add *lots* of calories via "healthy" add ons (olive oil, full fat dairy, nuts, etc.). We're all different. I feel like sometimes people who got fat eating mostly more processed, less nutrient dense foods, and found nutrient-dense foods super helpful for satiation, are biased in their own kind of way by that experience.
It's hard for me to say which foods were the "main contributors to weight gain" for me, but I will say that it was easy, and still is, for me to eat an entire large roasted cabbage or big head of broccoli in one meal, by myself. Add a generous side of whole wheat pasta, a reasonably calorie-efficient cheese, fruit and nuts for dessert, and that gets to a reasonably high calorie level, without necessarily drenching anything in buckets of oil/fat or something.
I 100% know and acknowledge that it's not true for every other person on the planet, but I absolutely could blow my calorie goal on the WW plans that have the larger lists of free foods, if I treated those as entirely free/unlimited. Those plans would not work for me, but they do work great for some others.
Same. I mean I like and liked cake and ice cream and my MAJOR issues were assorted fats in condiments, but I can absolutely put down a days worth of calories and then some on whole wheat pasta with chicken and broccoli with tomato sauce - with or without the cheese, just MORE over calorie budget with the cheese. And that's just the one meal. Give me freedom to make my own oatmeal + skim milk + dried fruit I would add another 800 calories to my day.1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.1 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.1 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
They're binge worthy if you're desperate enough for food.
All of those are carbs and I would binge (and have in the loosest sense of the word) on all of them. "Healthy" oatmeal just as easily as "unhealthy" oreo cookies. In fact, *sigh* damn those S'moreos that have come back for a while. Best oreos ever.
The free foods list *are* more satiating foods but it's also sorta counting on intuitive eating now that I think about it. It's gonna work for some but not for others. There's no way in hell I would do as well on that plan as I did on the all points/5 free foods version.
But some have and can and do.
1 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
Also nuts/nut butter?
A cup of walnuts is 800 calories. A CUP. You don't have to binge those to blow through a reasonable calorie amount of them, just go 'they're nuts, they're healthy' and eat.
A tablespoon of PB is a hundred. I absolutely promise you that you combine that PB with some bread I could easily put down 4 sandwiches, each one conservative 600 calories (200 cals on whole grain bread, 4 tbsp of pb) :P Is that a healthy meal. No. Is it crazy? I don't know not me.
PB and an apple? Well the apple is 100. The 8 tablespoons of PB I ate with an apple 'spoon' sure adds up though, and that's a healthy snack WITH DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS.
Avocado? Man, even now I eat a whole one for lunch most days. It's a calorie bomb but it's a decently healthy food and worth it to me (mostly since most of my other fat has been cut as 'eh' to me). You turn it into a tub of guac with other healthy food (it's all veg) and throw it on some toast and yeah I could binge that.
It's all healthy FOOD though.
Also fat+Carbs are clearly my thing, whether it's cake or peanut butter or avocado on toast.4 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
They're binge worthy if you're desperate enough for food.
All of those are carbs and I would binge (and have in the loosest sense of the word) on all of them. "Healthy" oatmeal just as easily as "unhealthy" oreo cookies. In fact, *sigh* damn those S'moreos that have come back for a while. Best oreos ever.
The free foods list *are* more satiating foods but it's also sorta counting on intuitive eating now that I think about it. It's gonna work for some but not for others. There's no way in hell I would do as well on that plan as I did on the all points/5 free foods version.
But some have and can and do.
Off topic but ... I honestly don't get oreos: what is so great about them? People think I am nuts when I say I don't like them. They don't even seem like food to me.
I do admit that I have and sometimes still do eat peanut butter right out of the jar. And those types of items are difficult to manage in a calorie deficit situation - I just can't imagine a healthy weight person eating enough of them on a daily basis to cause obesity to begin with - without the addition of high calorie snacks, desserts, fast food etc.
But again - that is just me there are lots of people who insist that it happens so who am I to argue about it.2 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
Another one who was obese eating mostly healthy food, just too much of it.
I also got to my highest weight without binging. When my binging was at its worst, related to post-partum depression, I was actually a little bit lighter than I am right now. I went to therapy and that helped loads, but I still overate. Not a lot, but enough to keep gaining. But it wasn't binging behavior. I was just eating too much, without really knowing it. And once I started actually measuring how much I ate instead of eyeballing what I thought was reasonable, ta-da! The weight started coming off. It's not always easy - sometimes I want more, because darn it food just tastes really good - but yeah, you can definitely overeat healthy foods, not just "junk."6 -
I recently joined WW and am getting the hang of the concept behind the free foods, I tracked my points against the calories on here and they were actually very close most of the time.
I didnt join for the diet though as I prefer to do CICO, I joined for the accountability at the scales, my motivation comes from standing in front of someone and the desire to lose, not gain.
The face to face meetings haven't started again yet but there are lots and lots of zoom groups and tutorials.
3 -
I think it's important to remember that like losing weight, gaining takes time and can happen with a moderate calorie surplus. Not that I'm arguing with you, I just think people just think it's harder than it is.
You need 500 calories extra a day to gain a pound a week. I took probably a decade to get from healthy weight to obese - and just barely into the category of obesity at that (3lbs into it, in fact).
That's 520 weeks.
The space between just barely healthy weight to obese for my height is 36 lbs.
36*3500 (pound of fat) is 126,000
126000/520 (weeks in 10 years) is 243 (rounded up).
243 is the amount of calorie surplus I needed in a given day to gain weight to obese. Now, my calories to maintain went up too, meaning I was in fact eating steadily more calories -every 10lbs adds 100 calories to maintain, but again, the difference between healthy and obese for a 5'5" woman is 36lbs.
So from healthy weight to obese weight to maintain I added 360 calories total. Since it took ten years that's adding an additional 36 calories a year to maintain.
TL:DR? Probably an extra 300 calories a day. That's basically toast with butter. Or an apple and actually reasonable amount of PB. a quarter cup of walnuts and an apple.
Or, well, in my case a lifestyle change from lots of walking (lightly active/maybe more) to a desk job (sedentary) and busy with little kids.
I absolutely am sure some people gain more and more quickly but again - that isn't always the case. Sometimes the problem is a sustained small overage and a steady, but not alarming, gain. In truth I probably didn't tip into obese until covid when my activity dropped MORE. I'm also not going to pretend I didn't have a problem with dietary fat and a weird relationship with 'junk' food. Mostly though I just had a long time with a slight calorie surplus that stayed a slight calorie surplus long enough to add up.8 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
They're binge worthy if you're desperate enough for food.
All of those are carbs and I would binge (and have in the loosest sense of the word) on all of them. "Healthy" oatmeal just as easily as "unhealthy" oreo cookies. In fact, *sigh* damn those S'moreos that have come back for a while. Best oreos ever.
The free foods list *are* more satiating foods but it's also sorta counting on intuitive eating now that I think about it. It's gonna work for some but not for others. There's no way in hell I would do as well on that plan as I did on the all points/5 free foods version.
But some have and can and do.
Off topic but ... I honestly don't get oreos: what is so great about them? People think I am nuts when I say I don't like them. They don't even seem like food to me.
I'm not saying you need to "like* oreos or whatever but maybe part of the problem is it doesn't seem like you can see that foods that people think are unhealthy aren't real food. I mean, why wouldn't they be? You ingest them, they get digested in your body, they contain calories...that's food. Is this a clean eating versus processed thing because I love when people on here get technical about everything being processed in one way or another.
Oreos...I'm a cookie person so they have that going for them. They have a bunch of different flavors (I have NOT tried the swedish fish one nor will I ever), and are a pretty good size for the calories actually.
But, fwiw, I've never been the best eater when it comes to "healthy" foods. When I started on WW, I added some protein and fiber (fiber keeps those points down, dontcha know?!) but I was also eating 3 packages of these mini hostess cupcakes a night that were 1 point per package and fiber one bars and chocolate and ice cream and, between WW and moving on to calorie counting, I lost 120ish lbs. Well, 150 if you want to count the 30 I put back on after moving from WW to calorie counting.
Which is why I advocate that if you count points, to spot check your calories every once in a while to make sure you're not undereating!
0 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
They're binge worthy if you're desperate enough for food.
All of those are carbs and I would binge (and have in the loosest sense of the word) on all of them. "Healthy" oatmeal just as easily as "unhealthy" oreo cookies. In fact, *sigh* damn those S'moreos that have come back for a while. Best oreos ever.
The free foods list *are* more satiating foods but it's also sorta counting on intuitive eating now that I think about it. It's gonna work for some but not for others. There's no way in hell I would do as well on that plan as I did on the all points/5 free foods version.
But some have and can and do.
Off topic but ... I honestly don't get oreos: what is so great about them? People think I am nuts when I say I don't like them. They don't even seem like food to me.
I'm not saying you need to "like* oreos or whatever but maybe part of the problem is it doesn't seem like you can see that foods that people think are unhealthy aren't real food. I mean, why wouldn't they be? You ingest them, they get digested in your body, they contain calories...that's food. Is this a clean eating versus processed thing because I love when people on here get technical about everything being processed in one way or another.
Oreos...I'm a cookie person so they have that going for them. They have a bunch of different flavors (I have NOT tried the swedish fish one nor will I ever), and are a pretty good size for the calories actually.
But, fwiw, I've never been the best eater when it comes to "healthy" foods. When I started on WW, I added some protein and fiber (fiber keeps those points down, dontcha know?!) but I was also eating 3 packages of these mini hostess cupcakes a night that were 1 point per package and fiber one bars and chocolate and ice cream and, between WW and moving on to calorie counting, I lost 120ish lbs. Well, 150 if you want to count the 30 I put back on after moving from WW to calorie counting.
Which is why I advocate that if you count points, to spot check your calories every once in a while to make sure you're not undereating!
Idk I do eat processed food, but they just seem like little pucks of compressed sugar to me, there is no real interesting flavor, texture or I guess "depth" to them. Just doesn't seem worth the calories I guess.
I always ate "healthy" foods for most of my meals - it is the potato chips, chocolate and wine that did me in. 2 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
They're binge worthy if you're desperate enough for food.
All of those are carbs and I would binge (and have in the loosest sense of the word) on all of them. "Healthy" oatmeal just as easily as "unhealthy" oreo cookies. In fact, *sigh* damn those S'moreos that have come back for a while. Best oreos ever.
The free foods list *are* more satiating foods but it's also sorta counting on intuitive eating now that I think about it. It's gonna work for some but not for others. There's no way in hell I would do as well on that plan as I did on the all points/5 free foods version.
But some have and can and do.
Off topic but ... I honestly don't get oreos: what is so great about them? People think I am nuts when I say I don't like them. They don't even seem like food to me.
I do admit that I have and sometimes still do eat peanut butter right out of the jar. And those types of items are difficult to manage in a calorie deficit situation - I just can't imagine a healthy weight person eating enough of them on a daily basis to cause obesity to begin with - without the addition of high calorie snacks, desserts, fast food etc.
But again - that is just me there are lots of people who insist that it happens so who am I to argue about it.
I think I love you. Oreos are just the same hyperpfocessed stuff as so many other snacks. Nothing wrong with that, but the taste is just shallow, single-layered and cheap.3 -
I like oreos for the same reason I like a lot of cheap, single layered, shallow food.
Nostalgia and childhood.1 -
wunderkindking wrote: »I like oreos for the same reason I like a lot of cheap, single layered, shallow food.
Nostalgia and childhood.
That's funny. I wasn't that big of an oreo eater when I was younger (did they even HAVE oreos back then??)
Then I started eating the bite sized because mini anything is awesome...plus you get more.
Then I started branching out into the full size and all the flavors.
And then they kept coming up with new ones.
And then they really did a disservice to S'moreos by not calling them that.
C'mon, it's perfect! 2 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
They're binge worthy if you're desperate enough for food.
All of those are carbs and I would binge (and have in the loosest sense of the word) on all of them. "Healthy" oatmeal just as easily as "unhealthy" oreo cookies. In fact, *sigh* damn those S'moreos that have come back for a while. Best oreos ever.
The free foods list *are* more satiating foods but it's also sorta counting on intuitive eating now that I think about it. It's gonna work for some but not for others. There's no way in hell I would do as well on that plan as I did on the all points/5 free foods version.
But some have and can and do.
Off topic but ... I honestly don't get oreos: what is so great about them? People think I am nuts when I say I don't like them. They don't even seem like food to me.
I do admit that I have and sometimes still do eat peanut butter right out of the jar. And those types of items are difficult to manage in a calorie deficit situation - I just can't imagine a healthy weight person eating enough of them on a daily basis to cause obesity to begin with - without the addition of high calorie snacks, desserts, fast food etc.
But again - that is just me there are lots of people who insist that it happens so who am I to argue about it.
I think I love you. Oreos are just the same hyperpfocessed stuff as so many other snacks. Nothing wrong with that, but the taste is just shallow, single-layered and cheap.
Yes, as I always say, Oreos, to me, seem like two rounds of dark brown fiberboard with denatured dollar store toothpaste in between. To me, they just aren't good, not even food. Peace, people who like them. I'm sure I like some things you don't; you can have my share of the Oreos, I'll take your share of any of the things you don't like among kale, cilantro, eggplant, sauerkraut, kim chi, miso, generally any veggie or fruit you don't like (except lima beans or seaweed), wasabi, most bitter things . . . .
If I ate more than a dozen Oreos over the decades it took me to get overfat then obese, I'd be surprised. I've never been a soda pop drinker in adulthood. I don't much like super-sweet coffee drinks, have had them occasionally as a dessert, but even when fat preferred plain skim latte (and I like that a lot, these days consider it an excellent protein source, since I'm a veg). I dislike most fast-food offerings, and as a veg am obviously not eating all those burgers, deep-fried chicken thingies, etc. I like french fries, but not the skinny ones most fast-food places have.
I was not a binge eater or compulsive eater. I'm a hedonist. I ate *mostly* healthy food, some of which was quite calorie dense, in large portions. As @wunderkindking describes, I got fat fairly gradually, and stabilized around the class 1 obese BMI line, sometimes above, sometimes below. I like food, it's tasty. Most of the time I was getting fat - which did happen when I went from a very active college life to a desk job - was during my marriage, and I often kept up with my 6' tall male spouse in portion sizes. It was easy. 500-700 excess calories of theoretically healthy food daily is very easy.
Even if this is not how you'd eat, I don't get how it's hard to understand, frankly. You start with food that's maybe more satiating than the "standard American diet" (SAD), and you gradually creep portions upward, including calorie-dense foods, until you get to 500-700 or so extra calories. IMO, these foods taste *better* than SAD foods, much better. I like them, so I ate more of them. 🤷♀️
4 -
Even if this is not how you'd eat, I don't get how it's hard to understand, frankly. You start with food that's maybe more satiating than the "standard American diet" (SAD), and you gradually creep portions upward, including calorie-dense foods, until you get to 500-700 or so extra calories. IMO, these foods taste *better* than SAD foods, much better. I like them, so I ate more of them. 🤷♀️
I truly believe that there are a lot of people who truly want to believe that it takes a LOT to get obese. That you must, simply must, be massively overeating and doing so on loads and loads of 'junk' - whatever their definition of that is.
The irony is those same people will be anxious to varying degrees about going over their calories for a single day.
The truth is, gaining weight works the same way as losing it: it's the result of a pattern of sustained behavior.
I am absolutely not claiming I did not overeat - I clearly did thing is? The calories I found to cut in my own diet were largely painless BECAUSE my base diet was pretty good. The calories I cut were mostly calorie dense, low volume fat based condiments. The thing is I eat is about the same as it ever was. Oh, it's spread out more - smaller servings more frequently as opposed to 'it's Friday I'm eating the whole family sized bag of chips' or whatever, but the calories I cut were things that went on or INTO my food as additions. The bulk of my diet really has not changed much at all. My food today has been two cups of coffee (with almond milk and reduced swiss miss), tuna and guac on toast, and chicken sausage and veg stir fry with soy/ginger/garlic + some ice cream. The only change that would have existed previous to loss would be cream and full calorie hot chocolate mix in the coffee, mayo WITH the guac in the tuna, sesame oil in the stir fry - and probably just glugged some oil into the pan to cook it in addition to that sesame oil. That's 500 calories or more of difference. That's enough.3 -
AND THE FLIP SIDE OF THIS is an awful lot of people around the world wondering how they got fat/obese. Yeah, sure it's clear to me in hindsight. I have vivid memories of going 'I don't eat that much, I should not be this heavy'. Because I DIDN"T EAT THAT MUCH. I ate somewhere around a thousand calories a day in condiments multiple times a week but I wasn't eating a LOT.2
-
wunderkindking wrote: »Even if this is not how you'd eat, I don't get how it's hard to understand, frankly. You start with food that's maybe more satiating than the "standard American diet" (SAD), and you gradually creep portions upward, including calorie-dense foods, until you get to 500-700 or so extra calories. IMO, these foods taste *better* than SAD foods, much better. I like them, so I ate more of them. 🤷♀️
I truly believe that there are a lot of people who truly want to believe that it takes a LOT to get obese. That you must, simply must, be massively overeating and doing so on loads and loads of 'junk' - whatever their definition of that is.
The irony is those same people will be anxious to varying degrees about going over their calories for a single day.
The truth is, gaining weight works the same way as losing it: it's the result of a pattern of sustained behavior.
I am absolutely not claiming I did not overeat - I clearly did thing is? The calories I found to cut in my own diet were largely painless BECAUSE my base diet was pretty good. The calories I cut were mostly calorie dense, low volume fat based condiments. The thing is I eat is about the same as it ever was. Oh, it's spread out more - smaller servings more frequently as opposed to 'it's Friday I'm eating the whole family sized bag of chips' or whatever, but the calories I cut were things that went on or INTO my food as additions. The bulk of my diet really has not changed much at all. My food today has been two cups of coffee (with almond milk and reduced swiss miss), tuna and guac on toast, and chicken sausage and veg stir fry with soy/ginger/garlic + some ice cream. The only change that would have existed previous to loss would be cream and full calorie hot chocolate mix in the coffee, mayo WITH the guac in the tuna, sesame oil in the stir fry - and probably just glugged some oil into the pan to cook it in addition to that sesame oil. That's 500 calories or more of difference. That's enough.
Yup, yup, yup: So many yup.
I eat and drink mostly the foods I always did, even alcohol and treats. It's just different portions sizes, proportions, frequencies. Legume pastas (more protein) instead of whole wheat, more of the veggies/sauce, less pasta. Stuff like that.5 -
wunderkindking wrote: »Even if this is not how you'd eat, I don't get how it's hard to understand, frankly. You start with food that's maybe more satiating than the "standard American diet" (SAD), and you gradually creep portions upward, including calorie-dense foods, until you get to 500-700 or so extra calories. IMO, these foods taste *better* than SAD foods, much better. I like them, so I ate more of them. 🤷♀️
I truly believe that there are a lot of people who truly want to believe that it takes a LOT to get obese. That you must, simply must, be massively overeating and doing so on loads and loads of 'junk' - whatever their definition of that is.
The irony is those same people will be anxious to varying degrees about going over their calories for a single day.
The truth is, gaining weight works the same way as losing it: it's the result of a pattern of sustained behavior.
I am absolutely not claiming I did not overeat - I clearly did thing is? The calories I found to cut in my own diet were largely painless BECAUSE my base diet was pretty good. The calories I cut were mostly calorie dense, low volume fat based condiments. The thing is I eat is about the same as it ever was. Oh, it's spread out more - smaller servings more frequently as opposed to 'it's Friday I'm eating the whole family sized bag of chips' or whatever, but the calories I cut were things that went on or INTO my food as additions. The bulk of my diet really has not changed much at all. My food today has been two cups of coffee (with almond milk and reduced swiss miss), tuna and guac on toast, and chicken sausage and veg stir fry with soy/ginger/garlic + some ice cream. The only change that would have existed previous to loss would be cream and full calorie hot chocolate mix in the coffee, mayo WITH the guac in the tuna, sesame oil in the stir fry - and probably just glugged some oil into the pan to cook it in addition to that sesame oil. That's 500 calories or more of difference. That's enough.
Yup, yup, yup: So many yup.
I eat and drink mostly the foods I always did, even alcohol and treats. It's just different portions sizes, proportions, frequencies. Legume pastas (more protein) instead of whole wheat, more of the veggies/sauce, less pasta. Stuff like that.
Me too mostly. I did have to give up things like pasta because 1) the points value at the time and 2) I know myself. I like food and I can't eat an itty bitty little portion when I'm used to a huge bowlful drenched in butter and parmesean cheese (cuz that's as far as my cooking went when it wasn't top ramen). Every time there's pasta in front of me now, I'm reminded of that.
But I definitely know how I got overweight. I think the only time I wasn't was when I was six. But I kept getting older and fatter and topped off at 225 lbs. I think I may have done a good job of maintaining the overweightness but I never weighed myself so who knows.1 -
wunderkindking wrote: »AND THE FLIP SIDE OF THIS is an awful lot of people around the world wondering how they got fat/obese. Yeah, sure it's clear to me in hindsight. I have vivid memories of going 'I don't eat that much, I should not be this heavy'. Because I DIDN"T EAT THAT MUCH. I ate somewhere around a thousand calories a day in condiments multiple times a week but I wasn't eating a LOT.
Oh I know how I got (borderline) obese. Maybe I gave the impression that I ate nothing but junk food but that isn't the case. I ate mostly healthy meals but gained a bunch of weight at menopause when hormones and health issues wreaked havoc on my sleep, eating and exercise habits. (**I am not claiming that those things directly cause weight gain, but that they contributed a lifestyle change that supported weight gain.)
And then without losing that weight I hit another roadblock last year when the pandemic and post viral fatigue syndrome knocked me out for the summer and I gained 30 lbs in a year. So for me when I am not well and fatigued or stressed it is a recipe for overeating and "giving up" on caring what I eat. I can pinpoint the times in my life when my eating habits have changed for the worse, and those are the times when I piled on weight.
I can eat healthy all day and be fine, but my problem is the junk food I eat in addition to that when my self control/willpower runs out. So for me the WW points thing with the free food would probably work well.
Self control is not my strong point and actually now I am thinking maybe WW might even work better for me - free foods I can moderate and "rules" (points) for the other ones might keep me on track better.
Perhaps I have been projecting that on others because that is my experience.3 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
They aren't at odds with each other at all..at least for me. They are foods I could binge on but I won't. I do have a friend who said she couldn't follow WW or at least not the purple plan because she would binge on anything and everything.
Like I said, I am not selling the plan, just saying I am pleased with it for myself and why that is so. I am 10 days in and still pleased.
2 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
EXACTLY THIS!!!
Of course, these choices can be made without a "program". The program kind makes it a game which is fun. Now that I am feeling so much better, I just want to keep playing the game. :-)2 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
They're binge worthy if you're desperate enough for food.
All of those are carbs and I would binge (and have in the loosest sense of the word) on all of them. "Healthy" oatmeal just as easily as "unhealthy" oreo cookies. In fact, *sigh* damn those S'moreos that have come back for a while. Best oreos ever.
The free foods list *are* more satiating foods but it's also sorta counting on intuitive eating now that I think about it. It's gonna work for some but not for others. There's no way in hell I would do as well on that plan as I did on the all points/5 free foods version.
But some have and can and do.
Off topic but ... I honestly don't get oreos: what is so great about them? People think I am nuts when I say I don't like them. They don't even seem like food to me.
I do admit that I have and sometimes still do eat peanut butter right out of the jar. And those types of items are difficult to manage in a calorie deficit situation - I just can't imagine a healthy weight person eating enough of them on a daily basis to cause obesity to begin with - without the addition of high calorie snacks, desserts, fast food etc.
But again - that is just me there are lots of people who insist that it happens so who am I to argue about it.
I totally get you! :-)
0 -
I think what I appreciate is the ability, at the end of the day, to be able to have "one more thing" to eat before bed without going "off program". My litmus test for deciding if I am really hungry vs just wanting to eat because I can is to ask myself if I want some 0 point food like an apple or some steamed veggies and chicken. If the answer is "no", then I am probably not really hungry and the jello pudding snack is calling me and I want it just because it is there. If I truly AM hungry, I will want the fruit or second helping of dinner. If that takes me a bit over, I feel defeated. With zero point foods, I don't have to feel that way.
That said, 10 days in and I have not gone over my calorie goals.3 -
wunderkindking wrote: »AND THE FLIP SIDE OF THIS is an awful lot of people around the world wondering how they got fat/obese. Yeah, sure it's clear to me in hindsight. I have vivid memories of going 'I don't eat that much, I should not be this heavy'. Because I DIDN"T EAT THAT MUCH. I ate somewhere around a thousand calories a day in condiments multiple times a week but I wasn't eating a LOT.
OH me too! One hot dog, dressed with some chips and Pepsi. Yikes! Oh, and then hungry an hour later because we did was fill our stomach, we did not FEED our bodies!0 -
wunderkindking wrote: »AND THE FLIP SIDE OF THIS is an awful lot of people around the world wondering how they got fat/obese. Yeah, sure it's clear to me in hindsight. I have vivid memories of going 'I don't eat that much, I should not be this heavy'. Because I DIDN"T EAT THAT MUCH. I ate somewhere around a thousand calories a day in condiments multiple times a week but I wasn't eating a LOT.
Oh I know how I got (borderline) obese. Maybe I gave the impression that I ate nothing but junk food but that isn't the case. I ate mostly healthy meals but gained a bunch of weight at menopause when hormones and health issues wreaked havoc on my sleep, eating and exercise habits. (**I am not claiming that those things directly cause weight gain, but that they contributed a lifestyle change that supported weight gain.)
And then without losing that weight I hit another roadblock last year when the pandemic and post viral fatigue syndrome knocked me out for the summer and I gained 30 lbs in a year. So for me when I am not well and fatigued or stressed it is a recipe for overeating and "giving up" on caring what I eat. I can pinpoint the times in my life when my eating habits have changed for the worse, and those are the times when I piled on weight.
I can eat healthy all day and be fine, but my problem is the junk food I eat in addition to that when my self control/willpower runs out. So for me the WW points thing with the free food would probably work well.
Self control is not my strong point and actually now I am thinking maybe WW might even work better for me - free foods I can moderate and "rules" (points) for the other ones might keep me on track better.
Perhaps I have been projecting that on others because that is my experience.
The Pandemic hit me much harder last year than I realized at the time. Looking back now, I totally see it. I lost a few good habits and replaced them with some bad and earned myself another 10 pounds because of it.2 -
wunderkindking wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
Not really. You CAN eat unlimited quantities of certain foods, but they are the types of foods that the OP is unlikely to want to overeat.
No, I get that part. But the OP made it sound like you can eat those unlimited quantities and presumably still lose weight. WW (and no real hate here. I lost 90 lbs on it.) lists all these unlimited zero point foods but, if you actually DO eat unlimited quantities, it's gonna throw a wrench into the weight loss thing.
What you eat matters for satiety and fitness goals. How much for weight loss. I'm glad she found something that works but it's misleading. Eating unlimited quantities of chicken and broccoli is still going to cause weight gain if you go over your tdee.
I guess - but whenever someone on here insists that they got obese eating only healthy foods I just kind of go "hmmmm". I guess it's possible but I would think the more common scenario is that those food that are much harder to moderate and low in satiety are the main contributors to weight gain - not chicken and brocolli. And those hard to moderate foods are what you would spend points on. I imagine that is why the program is set up that way.
Back when I lost weight on it every food had points and you had to count everything - so it was basically simplified calorie counting.
Oatmeal. Whole grain bread. Brown Rice. Whole grain pasta. Nuts/nut butters. Avocados. Those are all healthy. They're also high calorie and not particularly high volume. They are not the free foods on WW, no, but people here speaking generally about healthy diets that they got obese on, it's not ww specific.
And WW is not all free points. So you can get your satiating thing and have a whole lot left for other things if you're not also watching those.
But they are also super filling/satiating. Idk I have never heard of anyone binge eating oatmeal, whole grain bread and brown rice, I wouldn't consider those foods generally that difficult to moderate, but I could be wrong.
My point was that in general on WW those foods that are free aren't particularly "binge worthy" - I guess there will always be outliers - so yeah that program wouldn't work for them.
Like I said I have never done the "free food" version, when I did it you had to count everything so it was just simplified calorie counting.
They're binge worthy if you're desperate enough for food.
All of those are carbs and I would binge (and have in the loosest sense of the word) on all of them. "Healthy" oatmeal just as easily as "unhealthy" oreo cookies. In fact, *sigh* damn those S'moreos that have come back for a while. Best oreos ever.
The free foods list *are* more satiating foods but it's also sorta counting on intuitive eating now that I think about it. It's gonna work for some but not for others. There's no way in hell I would do as well on that plan as I did on the all points/5 free foods version.
But some have and can and do.
Off topic but ... I honestly don't get oreos: what is so great about them? People think I am nuts when I say I don't like them. They don't even seem like food to me.
I do admit that I have and sometimes still do eat peanut butter right out of the jar. And those types of items are difficult to manage in a calorie deficit situation - I just can't imagine a healthy weight person eating enough of them on a daily basis to cause obesity to begin with - without the addition of high calorie snacks, desserts, fast food etc.
But again - that is just me there are lots of people who insist that it happens so who am I to argue about it.
I think I love you. Oreos are just the same hyperpfocessed stuff as so many other snacks. Nothing wrong with that, but the taste is just shallow, single-layered and cheap.
Yes, as I always say, Oreos, to me, seem like two rounds of dark brown fiberboard with denatured dollar store toothpaste in between. To me, they just aren't good, not even food. Peace, people who like them. I'm sure I like some things you don't; you can have my share of the Oreos, I'll take your share of any of the things you don't like among kale, cilantro, eggplant, sauerkraut, kim chi, miso, generally any veggie or fruit you don't like (except lima beans or seaweed), wasabi, most bitter things . . . .
I love the things you mention. Mind you, years ago I had a training course in Canada, flying over all the way from Europe. Ex and me went to a supermarket to buy those mysterious Oreos - and were sooooo disappointed. I guess it helps when you grow up with them. Now if you buy good-quality British gingersnaps, or any of the more unusual Dutch cookies... still highly processed of course, but you can actually see and taste what's inside. Btw, I'll have soesjes tonight. They're like profiteroles but without chocolate on top but icing sugar.1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
They aren't at odds with each other at all..at least for me. They are foods I could binge on but I won't. I do have a friend who said she couldn't follow WW or at least not the purple plan because she would binge on anything and everything.
Like I said, I am not selling the plan, just saying I am pleased with it for myself and why that is so. I am 10 days in and still pleased.
I think I touched on why I said that or maybe we got off topic with the oreo thing (sorry! 😀) but I said that because you made it sound like you could binge on the zero point foods and still lose weight but don't binge because, like you said, won't on those foods. But zero points doesn't mean zero calories. So, yeah, still at odds in the grand scheme of things.
Edited to add: I meant the general you. Not the specific you. I'm glad you found something that works and am doubly glad you're keeping an eye on calories. 😀1 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I wouldn't presume to really know why you got disagrees, but many people have come over here from WW. Perhaps they are not in agreement with your reasons. Then there are the people that are thinking "but you can do all that on MFP". Many of us do (including choosing foods that are healthy and filling). You can follow both of course, as i said before--whatever works is what you should do. It doesn't mean that it's a popular choice.
I would presume! I think it's this paragraph:WW gives me a way to lean into foods that nourish me and that I can eat in unlimited quantities. It is just that they are the types of foods that are generally low in fat and calories and are foods that I won't binge on. Poultry, eggs, seafood, fruits and veggies. It leaves me with enough room to have an occasional treat.
The bolded are a touch at odds with each other.
They aren't at odds with each other at all..at least for me. They are foods I could binge on but I won't. I do have a friend who said she couldn't follow WW or at least not the purple plan because she would binge on anything and everything.
Like I said, I am not selling the plan, just saying I am pleased with it for myself and why that is so. I am 10 days in and still pleased.
I think I touched on why I said that or maybe we got off topic with the oreo thing (sorry! 😀) but I said that because you made it sound like you could binge on the zero point foods and still lose weight but don't binge because, like you said, won't on those foods. But zero points doesn't mean zero calories. So, yeah, still at odds in the grand scheme of things.
Edited to add: I meant the general you. Not the specific you. I'm glad you found something that works and am doubly glad you're keeping an eye on calories. 😀
Got it!! Thanks! :-)
0
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
- 426 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