"Eat well, live better" class vs. MFP

The only thing I’d agree about is that weighing every morsel and counting calories for ever may not be seen as mentally healthy ie my interpretation of her point about being “too diet focused”. But, here’s the rub: the plate method doesn’t work for everyone. If everyone could self-moderate their food intake we wouldn’t have a multi-billion £ industry. And I have a naturally obsessive personality. I record all my food and I’m fine with that. We all differ, and what works for one won’t work for all.

Attend the classes but decide what works for you. For some it’s MFP, others it’s Noom, WW or IF 🤷‍♂️

Well, between tracking calories and using "My Plate" I'd have to say her method isn't exactly accurate either.

Is there some good information buried in there? Perhaps. You'll have to decide what works best for you. It's important to rein in overeating and get your portions down. I find MFP to be very helpful and liberating.

I think different things work for different people.

Physics is physics, but there are people for whom counting calories is a dark path due to their backgrounds.

I don’t have that background, but I use the plate method (without realizing it was a method) just due to vision loss making building my calorie log just too exhausting.

That worked for me, but would not work for others. Some can’t be intuitive, they need hard numbers and need to weigh every morsel. Still others need to track but eyeballing it is enough.

The other dietician sounded like a total quack. But this one might be useful for certain people.

What I don’t like are the hard conclusions like “calorie counting is too rigid” (it can be too rigid for some people is much better).

CICO is not oversimplified - but indeed there is more to it in the sense that some foods feel more filling, and other factors. CICO still applies.

I don’t worry about what other people choose to do or what works for them.

Interesting post, thank you. AARP (retiree organization in the US) has recently come out with a book and some eating guidelines that seem to take a similar approach, though with perhaps a stronger emphasis on adequate protein in every meal because many seniors don't get enough (more by taste-preference than poverty, I think, though there's some of both of course).

I'm going to selectively snip a few things from your OP to comment.

As a generality: What that dietitian is saying seems to be becoming more common as mainstream advice, I think because of a perception that calorie-counting focus has not worked (at the population level), has triggered some backlash, and it's now time to try a different approach.

history_grrrl wrote: »

* She cautioned against weighing and measuring because it's too diet-focused and "we can't ever truly know" what calories are in our food (? - something about the calories it takes to digest certain foods).

Yes, certain foods do have a higher TEF (thermic effect of food), i.e., require more calories to be burned in order to metabolize them. I think that most of us have a consistent enough way of eating that this isn't a big deal, if we adjust our calorie goal based on 4-6 weeks of logging and weight change results.

* Calories in, calories out is oversimplified.

Sure, in a practical sense.

To me, calories are the foundation. If calories aren't in line, weight management isn't happening.

But things like satiation, energy level, personal taste preferences, possible emotional/psychological factors, and more are part of the practical side of weight management . . . but that's true of most any method of managing eating/activity more intentionally, I think?

Isn't the plate method oversimplified in that sense, too?

ETA: I've seen some critiques of calorie counting that call it oversimplified or similar because it ignores the value of good nutrition. I think that's just silly: There's nothing inherent in counting that requires us to ignore nutrition. If anything, a tool like MFP specifically makes good nutrition easier for me, because I can see how I'm doing over time with major nutrients.

* "Tracking calories is difficult and most often inaccurate."

Research suggests that that's true. But personal preferences matter here. I don't find it particularly difficult, and "close enough" is OK with me - i.e., if I'm getting the results I want, that's accurate enough.

* Instead of counting calories and macros, we should use the plate method and hand portion guide.
* Our bodies want us to be a certain weight so we can survive famine (paraphrased); she did say this was a theory, but didn't say if she subscribed to it or not - so repeating it multiple times in response to questions suggested she does. (Personally, I find this type of evolutionary biology claim not useful because it doesn't reflect the actual conditions in which we live now - but maybe there's more to it.)

The plate/hand thing isn't appealing to me at all. I eat in quite non-average ways. I'm vegetarian, which is part of that, but also my meals are mostly combinations of things. What part of my plate should my bean tostadas with avocado, tomato, and yogurt topping take up? That's confusing to me.

[*] On multiple occasions, she suggested we look into Health at Every Size.

Ugh. I agree that health is a key goal, of course. But there's a bunch of nonsense in the blogosphere labeled HAES, too.

I don't disagree that the "diet mentality" is problematic, but I found the disjuncture between her approach and MFP's really interesting.

The thing is, a "mentality" is an interior state. The same external actions can correlate with different mental states in different people.

I 100% agree that calorie counting, for some, can result in obsessive thoughts and dysfunctional behavior (like refusing to participate in social events involving food). It doesn't have that effect on everyone.

(more snipping from quote below)

history_grrrl wrote: »

But there’s no way I’m deciding portions by the size of my fist or palm or whatever. Deck of cards? Also not happening.

Yes. That's "no way" for me, too. Partly it's the things I mentioned above. Beyond that, as someone who's a data geek and a hedonist, I think it would make me more anxious/compulsive and unhappy rather than less. One of the things I like about calorie counting is that I can eat every delicious calorie I burn, with very little worry about either over-eating and regaining, or under-eating and missing out on some pleasurable eating.

I'd enjoy it if you'd add to this thread as you get more information from the class. It's interesting.

i've lost 98 pounds using calories in/calories out. suggestions like these from a previous doctor's dietician were useless to me. my calorie tracking, btw, turns out to be MUCH more useful than any other method, and it's pretty accurate. has she not heard of the FDA and manufacturer calorie listings?

herringboxes wrote: »

jessalittlemore wrote: »

I'm not an expert in anything and I'm not going to knock someone's whole career I haven't had any personal experience with...

That said, I kind of chuckled that the dietician poo-poos the accuracy of calorie counting and calls CICO "oversimplified" and in the same breath tells you to use the "hand portion" method. 'Cause THAT'S scientific and not arbitrary at all!

I wonder if the logic is that both methods are imperfect, so the one that is probably easier (and possibly less triggering for some people) is recommended?

I dunno, I’d be more of a fan if it was phrased as an option rather than dismissing CICO and selling this as the only solution.

Could be.

I recently did the VA MOVE program and multiple methods, including hand portion and calorie counting on MFP, were included.

This was good, as only a few of us, perhaps just me, were willing to do MFP.

Our leader was a nurse, not a dietitian, who did mention quite a few food myths as fact, and repeatedly said, "It's hard," so not a great program either.

I just sat through it because it was the only way I could get Contrave prescribed. I'm having too many side effects to go to the full dose though and have been at 1/4 strength for a month Told this to the pharmacist and am waiting to hear back from the doctor.

kshama2001 wrote: »

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

She cautioned against weighing and measuring because it's too diet-focused and "we can't ever truly know" what calories are in our food (? - something about the calories it takes to digest certain foods).
Calories in, calories out is oversimplified.
"Tracking calories is difficult and most often inaccurate."


The fact that we can't get a guaranteed accurate calorie number from weighing and measure is a bad reason to advocate the plate measure and hand portion guide. If weighing is bad because it's not perfectly accurate, that means she thinks accuracy is a good thing. Eyeballing stuff is pretty much guaranteed to be less accurate than weighing.

I wouldn't hire an accountant who told me not to keep records and just give them a spitball estimate of what I spent on various things.

I wouldn't hire a doctor who thought that instead of sending a sample of my blood to a lab, they'll just lance my finger, squeeze out a bit, and decide what was wrong with me by looking at it with the naked eye.

I wouldn't hire an engineer or architect who instead of calculating the weight various materials will bear, just shrugged and said "use 2X2s and throw in some rebar where you think you need it."

I love your accountant example! I'm not at all disagreeing with it; this is what it made me think of:

At one point in my life, I had to carefully monitor my bank balance. One pay period, I literally had $1 left before pay day. These days, I have a cushion, and don't have to keep track that closely.

Similarly, there have been times in my life when I lost weight by making some food and lifestyle changes, and did not have to track calories. Not so these days.

Absolutely -- specific changes that work for you instead of tracking is perfectly fine, if that works. I just think the person running the class in the OP is saying "weighing is an inaccurate to track calorie. Here, try this even less accurate way of tracking calories."

sollyn23l2 wrote: »

zebasschick wrote: »

on the other hand, almost every woman i know whose doctors (mostly male) put them on an 800 calorie per day diet. that's low for me at 5'4", it's super low for someone like my friend, who's 6 fee tall. i am sure there must be doctors, nurses and dieticians out there who know more than the average bear about nutrition, but no one i know has ever met one in person.

I've never heard of any doctor putting someone on an 800 calorie diet. 1000, maybe. If they're super morbidly obese and facing imminent death if they don't lose weight.

There seems to be an idea getting going that goes to 800 for a short time at first, maybe a couple weeks. I think it maybe started in the UK, and I think some doctors are recommending it.

https://thefast800.com/the-very-fast-800/

Personally, I wouldn't want to do it. 🤷‍♀️

One of the thing to aim for according to the Mediterranean scoring tool is 480 calories of olive oil every day? I'm not going to do that, period. (They apparently would want that to be in addition to the fatty fish and nuts, besides. Yikes.)

Overall, looking at the whole scoring tool, I get it, but there are some not very nuanced points in there IMO if one is pursuing overall healthy eating, a maybe broader thing than just "eat Mediterranean". (Don't interpret that as a diss to Mediterranean; even as described there, it looks like a reasonably healthy approach, even though I'm not gonna spend that many calories on any oil daily. (Personal goal is 50g/450 calorie fat minimum, prioritizing MUFA/PUFA and enough O-3s for balance.)