Hacks for easy calorie counting
Options
Replies
-
wilson10102018 wrote: »penguinmama87 wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »It might help to have a little introspection here. A person who wants to lose weight and chooses CICO as the science to believe in, has one choice - count calories. Having said that, avoiding the calorie counting process is just another form of denial or aversion. My favorite psychologist often said: "if you want to know what a person wants, deep down, what they really, really want, just look at what they have because people get exactly what they want." If you don't want to count calories you either don't really want to lose or you don't really believe the science.
Calorie counting has been great for me. But it would be really short-sighted to presume it's the ONLY way to lose weight. You can believe in CICO and choose another path than calorie counting to achieve a caloric deficit.
What would that be?
Choosing to skip certain meals, eliminating snacks, reducing portions, choosing lower calorie versions of things or reducing/eliminating high calorie items, are all options to reduce one's intake. More exercise, of any kind, is a way to increase your calorie burn. Doing those things has been more than sufficient for some people in the past when you couldn't get the level of precision we can now, and there are some successful posters here now who use those methods too. I like the precision of calorie counting so I do it that way, especially since I've gone overboard in the past when I wasn't as precise and ended up really undereating (and getting burned out), but it really is sufficient for some people.
Some people keep their houses clean without a cleaning schedule and don't need a planner to avoid being late. I think those people are amazing and I am not one of them - I gotta write it down. But I'm not going to say they really don't care about it because they don't do it my way. I will suggest to people who struggle with those things to write it down because that's how I've made it work for me.
OK, so in your World, calories count but you don't have to count calories. You just guess at them because you have skipped a meal or whatnot. Got it.
I don't understand the reason for the tone I'm sensing here. In the very same post of mine you quoted, I mentioned that I weigh my food because I like being more precise than not. If something doesn't go the way I want it to, I have the data to know why, usually, or make a pretty educated guess. But some people don't need that and don't want that. If they stall and ask, I know what I'm going to suggest to them...but I'm not offended if somebody manages to lose weight without using a food scale. That seems silly to me.6 -
I've been counting for just over 6 years. I don't know any easy hacks, though. Frankly, I haven't found it hard at all, so it didn't occur to me to look for hacks.
I weigh foods (usually using the method: put jar/chunk on scale, tare, take out some, read the negative); I note them on a piece of junk mail to log after eating; I've saved common combos of food as meals, then tweak quantities in my diary after pulling in the meal.
Occasionally, when eating at a non-chain restaurant or someone's home, I have to estimate/ballpark, and that's fine, too.
The whole concept of eating differently than I prefer to eat, just to make it easier to calorie count? Just *no*.
I'd observe that the process feels more difficult, time-consuming and fussy right at first . . . but other experiences have taught me that that's how it feels when learning something new, even something that will be easy once I get the hang of it. It didn't take long for calorie counting to be pretty easy.wilson10102018 wrote: »penguinmama87 wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »It might help to have a little introspection here. A person who wants to lose weight and chooses CICO as the science to believe in, has one choice - count calories. Having said that, avoiding the calorie counting process is just another form of denial or aversion. My favorite psychologist often said: "if you want to know what a person wants, deep down, what they really, really want, just look at what they have because people get exactly what they want." If you don't want to count calories you either don't really want to lose or you don't really believe the science.
Calorie counting has been great for me. But it would be really short-sighted to presume it's the ONLY way to lose weight. You can believe in CICO and choose another path than calorie counting to achieve a caloric deficit.
What would that be?
Choosing to skip certain meals, eliminating snacks, reducing portions, choosing lower calorie versions of things or reducing/eliminating high calorie items, are all options to reduce one's intake. More exercise, of any kind, is a way to increase your calorie burn. Doing those things has been more than sufficient for some people in the past when you couldn't get the level of precision we can now, and there are some successful posters here now who use those methods too. I like the precision of calorie counting so I do it that way, especially since I've gone overboard in the past when I wasn't as precise and ended up really undereating (and getting burned out), but it really is sufficient for some people.
Some people keep their houses clean without a cleaning schedule and don't need a planner to avoid being late. I think those people are amazing and I am not one of them - I gotta write it down. But I'm not going to say they really don't care about it because they don't do it my way. I will suggest to people who struggle with those things to write it down because that's how I've made it work for me.
OK, so in your World, calories count but you don't have to count calories. You just guess at them because you have skipped a meal or whatnot. Got it.
It's been practical to count calories since there were apps to do it, though I guess one could argue it's theoretically possible from lists/books. Having tried to do that pre-internet . . . it's not practical. I think the apps started coming out in the early 2000s, maybe a little earlier, but not much?
Calories as the mechanism behind weight gain/loss have been known to nutritional science since the first half of the 1800s, and to quite a few regular humans since the early 1900s at least.
Humans have used the knowledge of calories to lose weight for at least a century, before there were truly practical ways to count them. Those methods still work. You're right, they're imprecise by comparison, but they worked then, and they work now.
It isn't just penguinmama's world where one doesn't *have* to count calories, to use the concept of calorie balance to lose weight.
I'd rather calorie count, personally. 🤷♀️
4 -
coderdan82 wrote: »Thanks to everyone that replied. I'm actually not new to this, I've tried and failed several times before. And I think I failed because I was trying to eat same as before (in lower quantities of course) which made calorie counting complicated. From the responses it seems like my meals will have to become a bit more repetitive if I want to sustain this. I don't think I'll go the junk/proceeded good route, it just doesn't seem very healthy, but maybe things like using sliced cheese where the calories are known per sliced instead of a brick of cheese that I have to weigh, or small buns instead of loaf of bread, etc.
2 -
There are a lot of diet plans and a lot of advocates for every one of them. CICO is just one of many. People say they have lost weight on the grapefruit diet or Mediterranean, or Keto or fasting. Not caring a whit about the number of calories. I'm happy for them.
But, if a person embraces the science that the number of calories consumed being less than the calories expended or expelled as the methodology for weight loss, then the implementation of that is to count calories. End of story.
No one has to count calories. But, if they don't then they are either not adopting CICO as their weight loss method or they are in denial as to their real goal. We could tiptoe around it to avoid hurting feelings, but I think it needed saying. And, its not controversial until someone who is in denial reads it, and blames the messenger.0 -
Personally, right now, I’m embracing the inaccuracies inherent in calorie counting. I’m logging everything, I’m weighing what is easy to weigh in that moment, but estimating where I can’t weigh or where, frankly, I don’t want to weigh because of time or effort. However, I am fully aware that at some point this might stop working and I’ll have to tighten up. Right now though, this is working for me. And is certainly a more accurate approach than the one I took before which was ‘eat all the things and then despair when my jeans don’t fit’. I suspect eventually I’ll end up with a fairly tight, accurate counting approach, but going straight to that seems too much of a leap. Eating processed food to sidestep the need to weigh or guess is missing the whole point for me. Taking a rough averaged figure for an apple which I can’t be bothered to weigh is always going to be better than eating the processed cookie which may have a more accurate calorie count attached to it but offers little in nutritional worth surely?5
-
wilson10102018 wrote: »There are a lot of diet plans and a lot of advocates for every one of them. CICO is just one of many. People say they have lost weight on the grapefruit diet or Mediterranean, or Keto or fasting. Not caring a whit about the number of calories. I'm happy for them.
But, if a person embraces the science that the number of calories consumed being less than the calories expended or expelled as the methodology for weight loss, then the implementation of that is to count calories. End of story.
No one has to count calories. But, if they don't then they are either not adopting CICO as their weight loss method or they are in denial as to their real goal. We could tiptoe around it to avoid hurting feelings, but I think it needed saying. And, its not controversial until someone who is in denial reads it, and blames the messenger.
Nope, I disagree, sorry. It's perfectly fine for people to believe in CICO yet find a way to change their energy balance without calorie counting. It adds a lot of uncertainty, but you don't get to condemn all of those people like that. One example is people recovering from an eating disorder, calorie counting is really not recommended for them.
And by the way, doing keto or Mediterranean or any other named diet does not necessarily exclude believing in CICO either, and does not even necessarily exclude calorie counting.13 -
Personally, right now, I’m embracing the inaccuracies inherent in calorie counting. I’m logging everything, I’m weighing what is easy to weigh in that moment, but estimating where I can’t weigh or where, frankly, I don’t want to weigh because of time or effort. However, I am fully aware that at some point this might stop working and I’ll have to tighten up. Right now though, this is working for me. And is certainly a more accurate approach than the one I took before which was ‘eat all the things and then despair when my jeans don’t fit’. I suspect eventually I’ll end up with a fairly tight, accurate counting approach, but going straight to that seems too much of a leap. Eating processed food to sidestep the need to weigh or guess is missing the whole point for me. Taking a rough averaged figure for an apple which I can’t be bothered to weigh is always going to be better than eating the processed cookie which may have a more accurate calorie count attached to it but offers little in nutritional worth surely?
You can gain weight eating too many "nutritional worth" calories just as easily as the "no nutrition here" calories in a cookie.
But, yeah, whatever works until it doesn't anymore.2 -
@glassyo you’re right - my use of the word ‘always’ towards the end there was a little strong. I think what I’m trying to say is that the full-on weigh and count everything can be daunting and, for me at least, unnecessary at first. And the thought of needing to take such a comprehensive approach has put me off in the past. Calorie counting will always have errors anyway and for me (who can be all or nothing about things) accepting that rough logging is good enough as long as my weight is responding as I hope, is a big step. I’ve gone down the route of using shakes and bars because it seemed easier and failed miserably. Eating processed food because of ease of counting is a similar mindset to that.5
-
@glassyo you’re right - my use of the word ‘always’ towards the end there was a little strong. I think what I’m trying to say is that the full-on weigh and count everything can be daunting and, for me at least, unnecessary at first. And the thought of needing to take such a comprehensive approach has put me off in the past. Calorie counting will always have errors anyway and for me (who can be all or nothing about things) accepting that rough logging is good enough as long as my weight is responding as I hope, is a big step. I’ve gone down the route of using shakes and bars because it seemed easier and failed miserably. Eating processed food because of ease of counting is a similar mindset to that.
LOL I'm very protective about my cookies.
I'm no longer in weight loss mode but I totally envy anyone who can achieve their goals...more intuitively than I can. My stomach is much bigger than my eyes so I'll always need to weigh and log.
I pretty much lost most of my weight (first on weight watchers and then by counting calories) eating fast food, frozen dinners, and lots of cookies and chocolate so definitely a different experience than you.2 -
In the real world, losing weight happens by eating less than you burn. CICO.
BUT CICO is not calorie counting
Calorie counting is a method to achieve a calorie deficit.
Many people can and do lose weight without counting calories - they skip meals or snacks or cut out/ reduce things like dessert, reduce portion sizes,follow prescribed diets etc.
You don't have to count calories to lose weight or to care about losing weight and of course you can believe in the science of CICO without calorie counting
This is a calorie counting site - so most people here are losing/ maintaining by calorie counting
But that doesn't mean it is the only method or we are the only people who care about losing weight.8 -
I believe firmly in CICO.
I do not believe I will ever have an exactly and perfectly accurate number of either calories in or calories out, and I do not believe I need to. I can log 'a cup of sliced strawberries + a cup of daisy cottage cheese' and end up close enough. The volume metrics keep me from huge portion creep, the occasional experiment with weighing vs volume measuring shows me that I am rarely off by much - and am usually UNDER in weight, not over - and my results on the scale say that I am almost always pretty close to what I'd expect re: loss for expected deficit or to maintain. Half a pound a month, at the absolute most - and the one time it was that much it was a half pound more LOSS than I expected.
That does not believe I do not believe in CICO. I do. CICO just means I believe that calories determine weight gain or loss, rather than 'whole foods' 'clean eating' 'low carb' 'IF' or whatever - it's all calories. I believe the math equation works.
That I use estimation and don't care if my numbers are precise to the calorie does not mean I do not think the math equation is the determination of loss. I just do the math backward - Ie: I lost a pound this week, therefore my calories over the duration of this week were about 500 calories per day less than the number of calories I expended. Good enough for me.
I hate trying to weigh everything, it irritates me on a personal level and makes me obsessive and unhappy. It reduces my enjoyment of life.
And, again: WHAT I DO IS WORKING EFFECTIVELY FOR ME. It's still using the math equation - Calories in = or < calories out, depending on my goal at the time. When it stops being effective, if I care enough to ensure that I get a precise data metric instead of a correct end result, I'll weigh my food and get an activity tracker. Meanwhile, maybe stop telling me that not using those things means I don't 'believe in' CICO. That's dumb.5 -
@glassyo you’re right - my use of the word ‘always’ towards the end there was a little strong. I think what I’m trying to say is that the full-on weigh and count everything can be daunting and, for me at least, unnecessary at first. And the thought of needing to take such a comprehensive approach has put me off in the past. Calorie counting will always have errors anyway and for me (who can be all or nothing about things) accepting that rough logging is good enough as long as my weight is responding as I hope, is a big step. I’ve gone down the route of using shakes and bars because it seemed easier and failed miserably. Eating processed food because of ease of counting is a similar mindset to that.
Yep. I started here with a very strong determination that I would not become obsessed with precision detail and got told - a lot - that I was likely to have to tighten up my logging to continue/when I got within a few pounds of goal. I expected that to be true - bigger deficit = bigger cushion. Maybe i got lucky, or maybe I just learned how to eat, but I went from obese (190 lbs) to 135 (WELL within healthy BMI) without ever once having to resort to weighing and measuring everything.
So. Don't get too hung up expecting that it NECESSARILY has to happen. It may well not. For me 'that's about a cup of cottage cheese' or using a measuring cup for it has been just freaking fine.
And I think people here often stress precision to a degree that is, for a not insignificant minority, really off putting. CICO is the driving principal but not weighing everything you put into your mouth is not a death sentence to successful loss for most folks.6 -
As usual, the arguments against calorie counting emphasize the extremes to prove the point that counting is not a necessary part of a diet plan based on a numerical value of caloric deficit. Its like saying I'm not going to record my expenditures in the checkbook or evaluate my credit card bills because I refuse to count every penny I spend.
Just another excuse for not facing the truth.0 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »As usual, the arguments against calorie counting emphasize the extremes to prove the point that counting is not a necessary part of a diet plan based on a numerical value of caloric deficit. Its like saying I'm not going to record my expenditures in the checkbook or evaluate my credit card bills because I refuse to count every penny I spend.
Just another excuse for not facing the truth.
I don't think that's what people are saying. They're (and even me) are saying there are other ways to be in a deficit without having to log the calories. The truth gets faced when they gain or lose weight. Or maintain. Whatever the goal is.7 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »As usual, the arguments against calorie counting emphasize the extremes to prove the point that counting is not a necessary part of a diet plan based on a numerical value of caloric deficit. Its like saying I'm not going to record my expenditures in the checkbook or evaluate my credit card bills because I refuse to count every penny I spend.
Just another excuse for not facing the truth.
Not facing what truth???
No that isnt what I am saying - or what I see anyone else as saying.
and to use your analogy - there are people who live with in their means without recording their expenditures at all.
But of course it is still money in, money out
what method one uses isn't the point.
8 -
Oh my goodness, what a heated debate this has started!
I haven't seen anyone here disagree with the fact (and it is a fact) that it's impossible to lose weight without a caloric deficit so let's not even argue over that. There have definitely been people that have maintained a caloric deficit without counting calories - and, for sure, some that failed. Is it really worth debating?
I'm not trying to avoid counting, I'm trying to make it easier. It makes food prep a pain and I find that a lot of it is ambiguous (ex. You pan fry a chicken thigh. How much oil did it absorb? There's 3 different options in MFP for it each with a different nutritional breakdown, which one do choose?, etc). It also doesn't allow eating anything that you can't count like when someone makes you something.2 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »As usual, the arguments against calorie counting emphasize the extremes to prove the point that counting is not a necessary part of a diet plan based on a numerical value of caloric deficit. Its like saying I'm not going to record my expenditures in the checkbook or evaluate my credit card bills because I refuse to count every penny I spend.
Just another excuse for not facing the truth.
Now we’re talking a method I understand completely.
Budgeting.
I like the YNAB program.
Yes, one rule is “give every dollar a job”
But sometimes people get hung up over finding a tiny error.
.05¢
It’s not worth it to others to spend half an hour or more tracking that down.
Some people go so far as to not count anything under a dollar. Rounding up or down as needed.
And some people have dollars assigned to a “fun money” category, which isn’t on budget anymore once the dollars are assigned to that category (categories in YNAB are basically envelopes for those familiar with that old school method)
No one says assigning dollars a job is bad.
But if rounding, or putting some dollars in a non-tracked section of the budget works for some people? More power to them.
As long as they’re still budgeting.
1 -
coderdan82 wrote: »Oh my goodness, what a heated debate this has started!
I haven't seen anyone here disagree with the fact (and it is a fact) that it's impossible to lose weight without a caloric deficit so let's not even argue over that. There have definitely been people that have maintained a caloric deficit without counting calories - and, for sure, some that failed. Is it really worth debating?
I'm not trying to avoid counting, I'm trying to make it easier. It makes food prep a pain and I find that a lot of it is ambiguous (ex. You pan fry a chicken thigh. How much oil did it absorb? There's 3 different options in MFP for it each with a different nutritional breakdown, which one do choose?, etc). It also doesn't allow eating anything that you can't count like when someone makes you something.
Well, it's not a matter of "not allowing," just accepting that sometimes you will be able to be more precise than other times. I prepare and eat most of my own food, but still socialize or occasionally go out to a restaurant. And then I make my best guess and go about my day. The weight still comes off about as I expect it will.
Much of the food I eat does not come with labels. I often use the SR Legacy food database here: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-search which has been copied into the MFP database. Or, I substitute in a particular brand - I buy flour and other grains locally, but when I build recipes I use a brand that is probably pretty close but not exact. But I consistently use that brand every time I enter that ingredient, so it will suit my purposes just fine.1 -
coderdan82 wrote: »Oh my goodness, what a heated debate this has started!
I haven't seen anyone here disagree with the fact (and it is a fact) that it's impossible to lose weight without a caloric deficit so let's not even argue over that. There have definitely been people that have maintained a caloric deficit without counting calories - and, for sure, some that failed. Is it really worth debating?
I'm not trying to avoid counting, I'm trying to make it easier. It makes food prep a pain and I find that a lot of it is ambiguous (ex. You pan fry a chicken thigh. How much oil did it absorb? There's 3 different options in MFP for it each with a different nutritional breakdown, which one do choose?, etc). It also doesn't allow eating anything that you can't count like when someone makes you something.
Really, it's fine to estimate in those harder cases. I've been doing it for 6 years now. For me, it's not a large fraction of the cases, and the majority of our days is going to determine the majority of our outcome, not the exception cases.
The oil question is maybe murkier than just estimating; various people handle it differently. I found that for most foods I eat, I can reduce the oil markedly, still get an entirely enjoyable product; I log all of the oil. I've seen others say they measure what's left in the pan, estimate a fraction of the oil, pick a middling-calorie version from the database (or a high one) etc. Close enough, any of those, likely. (Think about the ballpark potential error: If you pan fry twice a week, are off by even a couple tablespoons of oil each time, the effect on the week's end result is probably numerically pretty trivial in context of a calorie deficit; in maintenance, the bodyweight scale is a backup check.)
I think that not ever eating things you can't accurately count is one foot on a slippery slope to dysfunction: For example, I've seen people here say they're completely unwilling to have dinner at a friend's house, or go to a party with food, or eat in a non-chain restaurant. I wouldn't be willing to live that way, personally, at least not for long. IMO, calorie counting accurately enough somehow needs to be compatible with a well-rounded life, including social eating. Just my opinion, though.6 -
MargaretYakoda wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »As usual, the arguments against calorie counting emphasize the extremes to prove the point that counting is not a necessary part of a diet plan based on a numerical value of caloric deficit. Its like saying I'm not going to record my expenditures in the checkbook or evaluate my credit card bills because I refuse to count every penny I spend.
Just another excuse for not facing the truth.
Now we’re talking a method I understand completely.
Budgeting.
I like the YNAB program.
Yes, one rule is “give every dollar a job”
But sometimes people get hung up over finding a tiny error.
.05¢
It’s not worth it to others to spend half an hour or more tracking that down.
Some people go so far as to not count anything under a dollar. Rounding up or down as needed.
And some people have dollars assigned to a “fun money” category, which isn’t on budget anymore once the dollars are assigned to that category (categories in YNAB are basically envelopes for those familiar with that old school method)
No one says assigning dollars a job is bad.
But if rounding, or putting some dollars in a non-tracked section of the budget works for some people? More power to them.
As long as they’re still budgeting.
Yeaaah, shocking news but when I budget my money I round up to the next dollar for 25 cents or more over a dollar, and down to the next dollar for < 25 cents, too. Few times a year I sweep the 'overage' (and with that rounding there's always some) into 'fun' saving, too.
Still works.
1
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