10 ms·

Be amazed all you want, but you're conflating two different issues, as does everyone who discusses it the way you do. Your attitude on this is actually a public

Be amazed all you want, but you're conflating two different issues, as does everyone who discusses it the way you do. Your attitude on this is actually a public health risk, because you're implying eating "better" is necessary to lose weight, and eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families. "Yes, you can lose weight, you just need to spend $60 more a week on things I consider better at the grocery store." Better is a relative term. Your better is not my better. How do you quantify better? Can you explain that to me? Eat fewer calories than you need. Lose weight. Not rocket science. Sweat the other stuff later, and treat it like a separate issue, because it is. Wouldn't disagree so strongly with you if you said "this is good. In addition to just figuring calories out, people should also eat better." Then I'd agree with you, but you're indignant and "amazed" like nobody understands the nuances of one value minus another, and if you're not making a salad, why even try. My entire life I've been overweight, and everybody has told me I need to eat "better," and I just started eating less of exactly what I ate before and it works. It's mysterious.

roel_v 11y ago
Yeah, the GP sounds like my wife - "I need to lose weight, better buy two extra broccoli's". Uh no, to lose weight, you need to eat less, not more - just leave that bag of crisps and forget about the broccoli.
joelrunyon 11y ago
Nothing I said was "indignant." Just stating that there's other things besides such strict calorie counting. On top of the fact that when practically put into play for people in real life, "calorie counting" feels restrictive, doesn't account for satiety (which then causes hunger & tends to lead to binges). Re: better - tons of vegetables, high quality meats, low-sugar fruits, nuts and seeds. Carbs when-appropriate pre/post workout.
- jsmthrowaway 11y ago
  I've practically put calorie counting into play in real life, it doesn't feel restrictive, and I ignore hunger. It's almost like broad, sweeping generalizations are tough to make about human bodies and people. You didn't answer my question about "better." EDIT: You still didn't answer my question about quantifying "better."
  - sorenbs 11y ago
    There exists a group of people for whom ignoring hunger is not an option. I have been interviewing a bunch of nutritionists here in London about this and if they are to be believed this group make up a large percentage of obese people, which kinda makes sense :-) Hence the advice to eat foods that make you feel full before you reach your desired calorie intake.
- tjogin 11y ago
  You are confusing "calorie counting", which is a method of losing weight, with a "caloric deficit" being the number one factor for losing weight, which is a fact. It doesn't matter if you count calories or not. What matters is that you achieve a caloric deficit. Any method that is applied successfully to achieve weight loss has resulted in a caloric deficit, whether or not that method was calorie counting.
  - vilmosi 11y ago
    Calorie deficit is harmful for you though, there's an imbalance. You tell your body it's starving. As soon as you have an extra calorie to spare, you're body will immediately store it as fat, making your hard work essentially meaningless in the long run.
    - venomsnake 11y ago
      Let me guess you are female and practice haes? Only there I have heard such delusions.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - tjogin 11y ago
      None of what you just said is correct, not a syllable of it, really. You should read up on the available scientific evidence.
      - vilmosi 11y ago
        What scientific evidence? Let me guess, some blog post from a company that sells said diet? Give me a break. Starving your body does indeed make you lose weight, that's true. It's just not a healthy way to do it. Nor is it long term. Your body will more than compensate for it as it regains all the weight you lost as soon as you eat like a regular person. http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/ http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/ http://breakingmuscle.com/endurance-sports/calorie-restriction-for-endurance-athletes-why-its-not-always-a-good-idea http://breakingmuscle.com/endurance-sports/calorie-restricti...
collyw 11y ago
> eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families. I learned to cook cheap, unprocessed, healthy food as a student, in order to save money. A big bag of potatoes doesn't cost much and can make the bulk portion of many meals. I currently cook a lot of beans in my pressure cooker - easy, cheap and healthy. Admittedly, the preparation time increases, which may be a problem for lower income families, but I always see the cost argument as false.
- jsmthrowaway 11y ago
  The people who advocate healthy food will tell you that potatoes and beans were among your worst choices. Ask them. I have a 700 calorie thing of rice and chicken that I love, and I have been repeatedly told it's awful for my diet and I need to eat healthier, completely ignoring the fact that an entire race on the planet has done pretty okay with rice and meats for centuries. The one thing I know for sure is that almost nobody who discusses this stuff on the Internet, particularly people who throw acronyms like TDEE and BMR around, have any clue what they're talking about and only you can listen to your own body. Weight loss and the Internet is a stupid, stupid place. I saw a thread once where people were sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jared from Subway was lying because there's no way such a diet could have ever worked. All he did was eat less. That's it. It's not hard. It worked. Look at him. But no, the Internet knows better.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- sorenbs 11y ago
  Cooking healthy food can indeed be cheaper than buying junk if you go about it the right way. Buy kale, cabbage, sweet potatoes, carrots etc. in bulk and combine with chicken or meat when on offer. The thing many people miss about healthy food vs cutting calories is that all this green stuff fills your stomach with less calories than a traditional western diet making it easier to cut calories. The only difficult thing about eating better food is getting into a rhythm and setting aside 30 minutes a day to do it. Plus you obviously need a kitchen.

roel_v 11y ago

Yeah, the GP sounds like my wife - "I need to lose weight, better buy two extra broccoli's". Uh no, to lose weight, you need to eat less, not more - just leave that bag of crisps and forget about the broccoli.

joelrunyon 11y ago

Nothing I said was "indignant." Just stating that there's other things besides such strict calorie counting. On top of the fact that when practically put into play for people in real life, "calorie counting" feels restrictive, doesn't account for satiety (which then causes hunger & tends to lead to binges). Re: better - tons of vegetables, high quality meats, low-sugar fruits, nuts and seeds. Carbs when-appropriate pre/post workout.

jsmthrowaway 11y ago
I've practically put calorie counting into play in real life, it doesn't feel restrictive, and I ignore hunger. It's almost like broad, sweeping generalizations are tough to make about human bodies and people. You didn't answer my question about "better." EDIT: You still didn't answer my question about quantifying "better."
- sorenbs 11y ago
  There exists a group of people for whom ignoring hunger is not an option. I have been interviewing a bunch of nutritionists here in London about this and if they are to be believed this group make up a large percentage of obese people, which kinda makes sense :-) Hence the advice to eat foods that make you feel full before you reach your desired calorie intake.
tjogin 11y ago
You are confusing "calorie counting", which is a method of losing weight, with a "caloric deficit" being the number one factor for losing weight, which is a fact. It doesn't matter if you count calories or not. What matters is that you achieve a caloric deficit. Any method that is applied successfully to achieve weight loss has resulted in a caloric deficit, whether or not that method was calorie counting.
- vilmosi 11y ago
  Calorie deficit is harmful for you though, there's an imbalance. You tell your body it's starving. As soon as you have an extra calorie to spare, you're body will immediately store it as fat, making your hard work essentially meaningless in the long run.
  - venomsnake 11y ago
    Let me guess you are female and practice haes? Only there I have heard such delusions.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - tjogin 11y ago
    None of what you just said is correct, not a syllable of it, really. You should read up on the available scientific evidence.
    - vilmosi 11y ago
      What scientific evidence? Let me guess, some blog post from a company that sells said diet? Give me a break. Starving your body does indeed make you lose weight, that's true. It's just not a healthy way to do it. Nor is it long term. Your body will more than compensate for it as it regains all the weight you lost as soon as you eat like a regular person. http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/ http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/ http://breakingmuscle.com/endurance-sports/calorie-restriction-for-endurance-athletes-why-its-not-always-a-good-idea http://breakingmuscle.com/endurance-sports/calorie-restricti...

collyw 11y ago

> eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families. I learned to cook cheap, unprocessed, healthy food as a student, in order to save money. A big bag of potatoes doesn't cost much and can make the bulk portion of many meals. I currently cook a lot of beans in my pressure cooker - easy, cheap and healthy. Admittedly, the preparation time increases, which may be a problem for lower income families, but I always see the cost argument as false.

jsmthrowaway 11y ago
The people who advocate healthy food will tell you that potatoes and beans were among your worst choices. Ask them. I have a 700 calorie thing of rice and chicken that I love, and I have been repeatedly told it's awful for my diet and I need to eat healthier, completely ignoring the fact that an entire race on the planet has done pretty okay with rice and meats for centuries. The one thing I know for sure is that almost nobody who discusses this stuff on the Internet, particularly people who throw acronyms like TDEE and BMR around, have any clue what they're talking about and only you can listen to your own body. Weight loss and the Internet is a stupid, stupid place. I saw a thread once where people were sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jared from Subway was lying because there's no way such a diet could have ever worked. All he did was eat less. That's it. It's not hard. It worked. Look at him. But no, the Internet knows better.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
sorenbs 11y ago
Cooking healthy food can indeed be cheaper than buying junk if you go about it the right way. Buy kale, cabbage, sweet potatoes, carrots etc. in bulk and combine with chicken or meat when on offer. The thing many people miss about healthy food vs cutting calories is that all this green stuff fills your stomach with less calories than a traditional western diet making it easier to cut calories. The only difficult thing about eating better food is getting into a rhythm and setting aside 30 minutes a day to do it. Plus you obviously need a kitchen.