calories, carbs, protein, oh my--confused

[chefamy]

OK, I used to think I was nutrition-savvy, having lost a good 15 pounds after my wedding (almost 3 years ago) by exercising more, drinking more water, and cutting back on restaurant portions and junk food. It took a long time, and then I got into a chronic funk and gave up my good habits (not deprivation related; just major stress). Back came 10 pounds. I am back on track with the exercising, and I'm starting to eat like a "regular person" again, but all of a sudden it seems that the "correct" way to lose weight is to cut carbs, or cut simple sugars, or limit fruits/veggies and concentrate on meat/eggs, or quit eating dairy, etc. Now it isn't calorie overload but rather carb overload, according to many, that makes you gain weight. I am a bit weirded out that suddenly the conventional wisdom of eating lots of veggies and fruits and eating fatty foods in moderation has been turned upside-down.

I had my annual checkup yesterday and discussed this with the Dr. She said that the old calorie in/calorie out balance is still the determining factor in weight loss.

Personally it sounds to me like the Atkins diet and its clones are last-ditch efforts designed for people who have truly faulted metabolisms. I also recognize that different eating plans work for different people...but the bottom line is, this whole controversy is confusing me, and I just don't know what to believe. I think it's better to lean on veggies more and meat less (because we Americans get far more protein than we need as a matter of course). This works--slowly--for me. But it sounds like if I went with Atkins, my weight would fall away like melting butter and I'd weigh a cool 100 pounds with no problem. By the way, I am 4'11", 130 or so pounds, hourglass shaped, and fit but a bit on the plump side. I'd like to weight 105-110 (but from experience I know that no matter how little I weigh, I'll always have that "curvy soft" look, which is fine).

What do y'all think?

[sage]

Amy---

I'm sure you will get a lot of useful information to your post. I am only just starting (or restarting, I should say) to get back in shape. I am doing the SBD-thing so I have eliminated the carbs and sugars and have started exercising again.

One thing I have noticed on this plan is that by cutting out the carbs (and I am a self-proclaimed carb/starch addict)---I can eat much less and still feel OK (not hungry, none of those "low blood sugar" moments). So that has helped me reduce my overall calorie intake. I just get full on a lot less food. From what I have gleaned from the others---it's more a shift from "bad" carbs/processed foods over to "good" carbs and whole grain items that do more for you nutritionally. You do get to add carbs back in on both Atkins and SBD but they advise you do it slowly so that you can see how you react to certain carbs. Some may be able to handle more carbs and maintain weight (or weight loss) while others will find they have to keep their amount of carbs more limited. Also some items have more carbs than others. For instance, cantaloupe has low carbs compared to a pear. So you can have fruits (and most veggies are OK) but you have to figure out how to balance where your carbs are coming from and how much your body can handle.

For me, carbs are a craving that I didn't know I had until I started this eating plan. As long as I am staying away from them I am fine. I know that if I were to eat a big soft roll---I would want more than one (or I would go looking for something else to satisfy it). Now, I can eat my little string cheese or some veggies and nix the hunger and be done with it.

For me, it has helped with (1) getting me away from the foods that I have a hard time controlling (my intake); (2) helping me lower my overall calorie intake without feeling hungry or deprived; (3) cut back my sugar intake (which I think has helped with those sugar lows...).

I do notice that with a combination of this plan and restarting exercise, I have made a lot more progress than I was when I was counting over all calorie intake (plus, I don't have to really keep a tally on anything---I just stick to my list of "approved foods".

I'm sure you will get a ton of good information from the ones that have beeen doing this longer than I have. I'll be watching this thread too, as I am interested in learning more about everyone's theories on how this all works.

---Shannon.:o :o

[lindrusso]

Hi there. I feel your pain! :)

I think it doesn't have to be just one thing. It's not just about eating low fat, it's not just about watching your carbs, it's not just about calories in vs. calories out.

However, I feel that overall the most important thing is calories in vs. calories out. It makes sense to me that no matter what you are eating, if you eat more than your body needs or is burning off in a day, you will gain weight. And that's whether you're eating too much broccoli or too many french fries. :D

However, if you look ONLY at calorie intake, you can still eat poorly. Your body needs good fuel, not just any old fuel. For example, one glazed cake donut is 350 calories as is, perhaps a bowl of 1 cup of high fiber cereal with soy milk, blueberries and pecans. They are about same amount of calories, but the nutritional difference between the two is worlds apart. Not only does the donut offer no or little nutrition (not to mention a lot more saturated fat), most people will be hungry again within a very short period of time - leading you to eat more in the long run.

After reading and digesting the plethora of seemingly conflicting information out there, I have decided that what works best for me or at least at this point makes the most sense is to: 1)watch the fat (but not go too low - a certain amount of fat makes me feel more satisfied and I think I actually eat less overall) and make sure that it's the good fats like olive oil or avocadoes - trying to avoid the saturated fats. 2)Eat the right carbs. I am trying to cut down on or avoid the white breads and refined carbs. I try to choose whole grains as often as possible. I also try to choose those grains that are highest in fiber. This is not only good for overall health (think colon cancer), but it also helps to feel more satiated since you tend to burn off simple carbs faster. 3)Watch the calories.

Anyway, my point is to keep reading and feel okay about making your own decisions based on the information out there. I, for one, have decided that diets such as Atkins are not for me. I'm not comfortable eating a diet high in fat or a diet that eliminates or severely restricts other food groups that are basically nutritous, even if they are higher in carbs. I favor a diet that is well-balanced, doesn't necessarily exclude anything, but keeps the "bad" stuff at a minimum.

Well, I could go on for another 10 pages here, but I'm sure that you'll get many members chiming in with lots of good ideas and advice. :D Good luck.

Alysha :)

[TLee4]

Just wanted to reply to one part of your post. I tried many "diet" plans before I found what really worked for me. And the biggest change I made when I finally got successful was ADDING protein. I have never been a big meat eater, and probably had a minimum of protein in my diet. Now I am doing a combination of BFL and SBD, and try to keep my protein at around 40% of my daily calories. It is lean protein (chicken, fish, cottage cheese, lowfat cheeses, eggs/egg whites, etc). I grew up with the whole "fat is bad" message, and lived on carbs. Now I have really had to turn my thinking around. And it works! Just my two cents.

Terri

[Valerie226]

Confusing, isn't it?? It still boils down to cutting calories by whatever means works for you.
For me I found out quickly that I can't cut carbs & still function. I never ate much garbage food , but my blood sugar drops like a stone without fruit, vegies, grains, and breads. I get sick very quickly on adkins. I can barely stand up, much less exercise. headaches, horrible breath, nauseated, and ravenous all the time. very low blood sugar that does not rise with eating fats & protein. I'm not sure about the current plan, but adkins used to have you check your urine for ketones. If I ate a small piece of lettuce I stopped spilling ketones. I could tell in a couple days it would not work. I've had much better luck with a modified low fat approach that I've been able to maintain for years and years.
I doubt the same diet will ever work for everyone.

[MrsReber]

It's been said on the BB before that each person has to find the right program for themselves. I am a carb addict. I don't think I could live without them. My dad started Atkins recently and cut out carbs. He was also a carb addict. He says his irritable bowel syndrome cleared right up, he has no more indigestion after meals (he was always taking Brioski after dinner) and he has no more highs and lows. He says that the carbs trigger insulin which will make you feel hungry. I bet that's part of my problem. I'm tempted to try Atkins, but I'd have such a hard time giving up my pasta! Also, with 2 little ones, I need to have a variety of foods in the house. So I just plug away, exercising and trying to eat as healthy as I can.

I can relate to the body size/shape thing. I'm 5' 4" and even at 125 lbs (before kids!) I still was curvy like that. I'm 15 lbs over that now and trying to get back to about 130. I know I can maintain 130 and I feel pretty good at that weight. It was the second pregnancy that really got me. Gained way too much weight with that one.

[tmsl]

I too have been confused by all the different diet methods. I think a lot of time it is trial and error to see what works for you. Definitely it boils down to calories to an extent. If you eat healthy but a lot of it you will gain weight. It is no secret that most doctors recommend exercise with dieting. I did WW about 6 years ago and lost 20lbs. I did not keep it off as I got tired of following the points and having to think about it. A year ago I started exercising and did a combination of WW and BFL. I have stopped the WW part again and do not follow strictly BFL but have kept exercising. I have maintained the weight loss and am probably healthier than I have been all my life. Due to my exercise, I try to eat more protein than I did before I started exercising. I have cut back on my refined carbs but still need carbs to fuel my workouts. I try to eat more whole grains and a variety of vegetables. But, I am burning excess calories in my workouts which allows me not to have to calorie count all the time. I can occasionally eat a "bad" meal and not worry so much about it.

Someone I work with has been doing Atkins with great success. He is the type person that if you tell him to cut back, he can't. If you tell him he just can't have something (ie. bread), he can live with that easier. I think sometimes it is as much mental as it is physical that makes a diet work. If you feel overwhelmed by an eating plan, chances are it won't work for you.

Just my 2 cents. Good Luck!

Laura

[gracey]

Just one more person chiming in about having to find what works for you--regardless of what theories of the week it combines. I come from a cursed genetic pool, so I am always reading new information and nutrition tips in an effort to fight my history. But, it really boils down to what makes you feel the best over time.

I have tried the low-fat versions--I stay hungry on that one and my weight isn't really stable. It seems pretty easy to gain weight. I tried the low carb versions too--now that was awful. I even withstood the "getting used to it" period where they tell you to expect to feel bad. Yes, you do lose weight quickly, but my body doesn't seem to embrace that method of eating. My skin looked awful and drawn and it showed in my fingernails and hair. I have finally settled on the good carb approach. I have carbs at pretty much every meal, but I try to keep them more complex. I have pretty much learned how to avoid white flour and white sugar. I also recognize that the occasional cookie or cake isn't going to kill me--I think I just recognize not to eat the entire cake in one day. I have found that I have more energy eating this way and my weight stays pretty stable. It was truly trial and error for me.

[lindrusso]

Originally posted by tmsl
I think sometimes it is as much mental as it is physical that makes a diet work. If you feel overwhelmed by an eating plan, chances are it won't work for you.

Laura makes a very good point here. If you don't feel comfortable doing it, the best diet plan in the world won't work.

Not only do you need to find a plan that works best for YOU, I also don't think that you need to feel obligated to follow that diet plan to the letter. I looked over the South Beach Diet and decided that I was not willing to give up all fruit or fresh corn, even for two weeks. It just wasn't for me and didn't feel right. In the end I just decided on my own what I was going to cut and how much and how often, etc.

Another exapmple - on Weight Watchers, I felt that the amount of calories, or POINTS, they put you on was too low, so I would eat within the range that I felt most comfortable. On days that I didn't exercise, I would try to keep my Points pretty low, on days that I worked out pretty hard, I'd up them to whatever felt right, within reason.

So, my point is that you should also feel free to tweak the plans that are out there and not feel bound to any one plan.

Terri also brought up a good point about protein - I have found that this helps me quite a bit to feel satiated. I could eat an entire plate full of pasta and be hungry a half hour later. If I cut back on the pasta (and now I try to make it whole wheat) and include a portion of protein, I'm much more likely to eat less in the long run.

Alysha :)

[wallycat]

Here's my 2cents worth :D :D

I may have posted this previously, so forgive the repitition...
it is very difficult to ascertain how many calories fit EVERYONE because all of our metabolisms are different, even day to day within our own body. We can only work on ball-park figures when doing paper calculations.

The short answer is that calories count. If you are on Atkins and stuff yourself with more calories than you burn or use up, you will not lose weight. Similarly, if you go on Pritikin diet (very low fat vegetarian) and eat more than you need, you will still gain weight or at least not lose any.

Because each of us is different (some with thyroid issues, some with diabetes, some with kidneys not working optimally, heart disease, pregnancy, growth spurts, blah, blah, blah) you can't say one diet will work for everyone. I won't dwell on this point because that seems to be the consensus on this thread already :)

The bottom line is that for the majority of us, if we eat less calories than we use up, or use up more calories than we eat, we'll lose weight...be it candy bars from the time we get up to the time we go to bed...or fresh fruits, veggies, etc.
The obvious point is that some diets are healthier over all than others and the point of life is not only to lose weight, but to remain healthy and ENJOY YOURSELF while you try to attain your goal weight.

ok, guess I had like 5cents worth here...sorry :o :p

[lakelady1]

Put me in the category of "all diets work because, bottom line, you are taking in fewer calories than you are expending." We lose on this one or the other because it is structured around foods we like, it is easier to fit into our schedule, or it allows us to focus on -- or not focus on -- the process of dieting. I could invent a hot fudge and vodka diet and, if the daily amount of calories were under a certain number (1000-1200 a day for me)I would lose weight. I would go nuts and it would be a nutritional disaster, but I would lose weight. I think the popularity of modern diets, whether I am counting points or grams of this or of that, is that you don't have to count so high or think so hard as you do with calories!!

And, sad to say, the latest scientific evidence (the stuff done by lots of real scientists in controlled studies over long periods of time) indicates that, except for those very few with truly problem metabolic rates, there is very, very little change in our metabolism regardless of what we eat or how much we exercise. Exercise is good for us and will make us lose weight because of increased work burning off calories, but exercisers aren't burning off any more calories in their sleep than couch potatoes, and that is what metabolic rate is about.

And, yeah, I've been on them all. I'm 12 days into the first two weeks of Atkins/SBD and have lost a glorious 10 pounds and feel FABULOUS!!

So, whatever works for you, and whenever it works for you -- GO FOR IT.

[greysangel]

just adding one more thing...

AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE ONE THING, TRY SOMETHING NEW!

If you don't like a plan or aren't seeing the progress you feel you should be seeing, try something else! There's no "failure" if you don't gel with a plan. It's been a long journey for me and I've gone from WW, to my own thing, to a nutritionist, to now Body for Life. And who knows...a few months from now it may be something else :D

JeAnne

[DocAgocs]

Here's how I explain it to patients: "If it doesn't have a mother and a father, it's a carb, and there are two kinds of carbs: good and bad. Good carbs are vegetables and fruits and bad carbs are everything else."

If your diet was primarily fresh vegetables, reasonable (about 4-5 ounces per meal) amounts of properly cooked lean protein and some fruit you would have no problems. Pretty much everything else should be avoided as much as possible.

This would be a pretty short book, though, so that's why you won't find it with the thousands of others over at Barnes & Noble!

[BlueMoose]

Originally posted by DocAgocs
Here's how I explain it to patients: "If it doesn't have a mother and a father, it's a carb, and there are two kinds of carbs: good and bad. Good carbs are vegetables and fruits and bad carbs are everything else."

If your diet was primarily fresh vegetables, reasonable (about 4-5 ounces per meal) amounts of properly cooked lean protein and some fruit you would have no problems. Pretty much everything else should be avoided as much as possible.

This would be a pretty short book, though, so that's why you won't find it with the thousands of others over at Barnes & Noble!

Isn't that rather simplistic and severe??? Don't whole grains play a part in a healthy human diet?

[Valerie226]

Huh?? what happened to whole grains, nuts and seeds, legumes?

[DocAgocs]

Oops, should've explained a bit better. This is what I say to new patients who are starting our weight loss program. After some time, we refine that statement to include certain grains. All of the health benefits of grains can be gotten from 1-2 servings per day, so it takes quite a bit of willpower for the average person who is a raging carb junkie to eat good quality grains in moderation. So, yeah, with time add a couple of servings of whole grains to that statement and that pretty much sums it up.

And, no, it's not severe at all. Okay, you don't get Easy Mac, Twinkies, Snickers Bars, etc on that philosophy, but last time I checked those weren't foods.

Unfortunately when you talk to people about this sort of diet they say "When can I get back to eating normal foods?" That's pretty twisted when you think about it. Ever seen a french fry field? How about a Snickers bush or a tree with Wonder Bread hanging from it?

[kwormann]

Originally posted by DocAgocs
How about a Snickers bush

I might want one of these:D:D:D

[DocAgocs]

Just reread my second post and, boy, did I screw up. Let's back up...

My original statement is for patient who are starting our detoxification/weight loss program. On that program they eat fresh vegetables, fresh fruits, 2 tablespoons of flaxseed oil per day and utilize an extremely high quality protein/amino acid replacement drink. So, that original statement is a description of what they can eat when they start this program.

After a while, we add 4-5 ounces of protein to each meal and instruct the patient about good fats and bad fats. Same with grains.

The results are phenomenal and people realize how they can: a) Get along without the "foods" they've always had a psychological attachment to and b) How they don't need to eat ten meals per day to fuel their bodies.

The proper diet will provide the body with the components it needs for fuel (carbohydrates = kindling, fats = long-burning logs on the fire) and proper cellular function without a bunch of excess calories, additives, preservatives, weird cooking methods,coloring agents, added sweeteners, etc. Thanks to the "health food" and "lite food" industries, Americans have never been fatter than before. Obviously some piece of the equation is missing, and that is the concept of living food versus man-made biojunk.

It's certainly a disciplined lifestyle, but it beats the heck out of Warfarin, Aspirin, Lipitor, Prozac, Ritalin, Glucagon, Insulin, etc.

Our way of eating also addresses key detoxification reactions in the liver, brain and GI tract (Cytochrome P450 reaction pathways). It is virtually impossible to lose weight, control triglycerides and cholesterol, have healthy blood pressure, etc if the liver isn't working right. So, yeah, it is a bit more complicated than "calories in, calories out" but the reality of it is if it was swimming, running, flying, growing in the water or planted in dirt and it looks like it did when it died then it's probably okay to eat. Otherwise probably pass on it.

I guess I wish there were Ice Cream waterfalls and cheesecake trees, but I suppose I can be grateful there aren't! :D

[Pico]

Originally posted by DocAgocs
The reality of it is if it was swimming, running, flying, growing in the water or planted in dirt and it looks like it did when it died then it's probably okay to eat.

Excellent. I'll be sure to enjoy my poison ivy salad with black widow croutons tonight. Kidding, kidding. ;)

I'm glad that you've had such success with your program, but I wanted to comment on something that jumped out at me. In my experience, telling people that Snickers bars and bagels are "not real food" is not always a good idea. True, they are not nutrient-packed foods you would want to eat every day, but I don't think it's necessary to completely stigmatize them. I agree that the food industry is in need of reform; however, I don't think it's the greatest menace to society. And I don't believe having a psychological attachment to foods (e.g., it's fun to make and eat Christmas cookies) is always negative. Sometimes I feel that experts make food too much of a moral issue. Eating a less-than-ideal diet does not make someone a slovenly, bad person. Indeed, it's often this sort of condescension that turns people off to healthy eating.

That said, I'm certainly no expert on nutrition. I simply don't think I'd be very receptive to being told my diet was all wrong and foods I enjoyed were absolute junk. If the point of eating healthy is to improve the quality of life, why should you have to give up everything you enjoy?

[wallycat]

DocAgocs,
Where do amino acid/protein replacement drink trees grow :D :D

(As an aside, aspirin has been shown to be quite beneficial for many things :) .)

[BlueMoose]

Well stated, Pico. I agree whole-heartedly.

[SandyM]

Originally posted by BlueMoose
Well stated, Pico. I agree whole-heartedly.

I agree. Such wise words from such a young person - I'm humbled.

Nice job, Pico.

Now. Out to find those Black Widow Croutons she speaks of...... ;) :D

[lakelady1]

Poor Doc, not a chance around this quippy group :D It's because dieting makes us hostile; frankly, I never could figure out why rabbits weren't more vicious . . . all that lettuce and such . . .

[DocAgocs]

Wally, you're right about the protein. That said, they only use the product for 21 days. It also isn't your average *NC junk. The product we use has properly made whey protein with a biological value of 104 (versus 80 for beef, 74 for soy, 100 for whole eggs, etc). It also contains flax meal, brown rice, buckwheat, brussels sprouts, kale, the fat soluble b-vitamin complexes, barley grass, alfalfa, grape seed, green tea, carrot, red wine extract and more.

As far as the rest of it, if you want to eat Snickers and everything else, go for it. In my experience, however, people don't eat these foods in moderation. If they did, Americans wouldn't be facing a weight epidemic. If they did, this forum wouldn't exist. If they did, the grocery store would be ten aisles of wholesome, natural, real foods and one aisle of junk. Instead, it's one aisle of real stuff and the rest is stuff no one really has any need to eat ever.

Yes, it tastes good. Yes, it appeals to our strong memories of childhood and safety. Yes, it smells good. And, scientists get paid a lot of money to maker sure that it does appeal to us on these levels. That's what generates sales. I think it's pretty tough to make a compelling argument in favor of a lunch for kids that consists of a can of Mountain Dew, Lunchables and Cool Ranch Doritos. It's convenient, I suppose, but that's not a real good argument in my opinion.

Eat whatever you want! Go for it! When I ask a patient if they feel like their life, their health and their body is out of their control and they answer "Yes," it is my job to help them regain control and empower themselves. That means a few weeks of extreme discipline and change followed by a slower realization that the "food" we find in the grocery store aisles is anything but and that they don't "need" it. When you help someone lose weight, control triglycerides and cholesterol, redcuce pain, gain confidence, make chronic problems like IBS/Chrohn's et al disappear, etc it's pretty clear that the junk isn't good for anybody in any quantities. No one is a complete "food Nazi" but most people are compelled beyond their reasonable control to eat properly, so it takes a complete paradign shift to get them focused again. Once they "kick the habit" then they can moderate their eating. Before that, though, it's like boot camp! My patients' time and money is valuable to them, and I'm not going to waste it with the typical doctor-speak of "Well, Mary, you are very overweight. Try eating more fruits and vegetables and exercising some more. I'll see you in six months." That doesn't cut it. The only people happy with that kind of "care" is the HMO.

[BlueMoose]

I don't think most of the people on this board advocate lunches of Mountain Dew, Lunchables, and Cool Ranch Doritos or eat Snickers all the time. It's just that there is such a thing as a happy medium. Eating does not have to be one extreme or the other.

Do what you think is right for your patients, Doc, but I think that putting many people on a regimen that strict sets them up for failure. Just my opinion.:)

[Kayaksoup]

Originally posted by lakelady1
Poor Doc, not a chance around this quippy group :D It's because dieting makes us hostile; frankly, I never could figure out why rabbits weren't more vicious . . . all that lettuce and such . . .

I can't stop giggling at this one. Must be the lack of calories going to my head:p

[kwormann]

Originally posted by DocAgocs
I think it's pretty tough to make a compelling argument in favor of a lunch for kids that consists of a can of Mountain Dew, Lunchables and Cool Ranch Doritos. It's convenient, I suppose, but that's not a real good argument in my opinion.


We had a student run snack shop in high school and I thought a candy bar and milk shake was healthy...(ya know, its not very "bulky")...

[lindrusso]

Originally posted by BlueMoose
Do what you think is right for your patients, Doc, but I think that putting many people on a regimen that strict sets them up for failure. Just my opinion.:)

It really just depends.

I think many people do fail on very restrictive diets, but as DogAgocs points out, many people also fail at being moderate about junk food. I think I am one of them. I used to allow myself treats each day, but then it started getting out of control. One little Hershey's kiss would turn into many kisses. :o

I have now started to restrict my junk ALOT more because I'm one of those who can't have just one. I was at the point where I'd finish a meal and automatically crave something sweet. I wouldn't mind reaching for something sweet once in a while as a lovely indulgence, but not as an automatic reaction. I have not cut it out completely, but compared to what I was eating, I am being quite restrictive. I can definitely see where some people would need to cut it out completely to, as Doc said, just prove to themselves that they really CAN live without the junk.

So moderation for some, banishment for others. Whatever works, right? :)

Good one lakelady. I think the bunnies in my yard ARE vicious. One year they trampled my garden (peppers, green beans, etc.) - didn't eat the stuff - just killed it!

Kim - I remember a girl in HS telling me that she had been really "good" that day - she had only eaten a donut for breakfast. And there I was eating milkshakes and fries for lunch. :rolleyes:

[DocAgocs]

Do what you think is right for your patients, Doc, but I think that putting many people on a regimen that strict sets them up for failure. Just my opinion.

Well, you're right that this isn't for everyone. We only do this with the ones that are willing to make changes. When a patient says "I want to lose weight and I want to clean up my life," but during the consultation I find out they are unwilling to make any changes, then I refuse to take their money. The ones that really want to make changes will do this and they are extremely happy. And, after eating nothing but real food for a few weeks, they kick a lot of their habits and can quite easily make longterm changes for the better. But, most people expect huge results but want to keep eating and living the same way. Doesn't work real well! FWIW, long term success on this program has been excellent in my office.


So moderation for some, banishment for others. Whatever works, right?
Right. When it comes to patients they are in serious trouble, so they are willing to make changes and improve their quality of life. I am always shocked when I read another 7 day food diary that someone brings in. I always think "This is by far the worst one...it can't possibly get any worse than this..." but there is always a surprise around the corner. I'm usually more interested in how people are still living on what they eat than how we can make changes to make things better! You'd be amazed.

[greysangel]

What an amazing thread :)

Doc - I kinda have to agree with you on many accounts and I haven't always agreed with you, that's for sure! Here's my little .02 for what it's worth.

When I was faced with tons of weight to lose, I had some serious food issues. I never (and I do mean never) ate "desserts" apart from ice cream because sweets were the "evil"..not the box of hamburger helper in one sitting or the chinese take out. At that time in my life, WW was perfect. I didn't have to think about a fancy workout regimen, and I really learned portion sizes as well as anything being ok in moderation. I needed this kind of transition. I needed to be able to have whatever I wanted in a serving size in order to be able to stick with it in the long term. So the first 80 pounds were lost baking, cooking, trying things out for size and enjoying food and choice without feeling deprived :D

However after I started hitting it hard at the gym and reading more and more about nutrition and fueling the body vs fueling my food desires, WW for me wasn't enough. WW didn't push me to what I felt was the next level. Targeting an "athlete" mindset vs a "dieter" mindset allowed me to take away my intimate love affair with food. It didn't take away the enjoyment of it, but in my opinion it helped put food in its place. I was truly able to see that I was living to eat. While that is enjoyable :D , taking away some of that food fervor allowed me to see things that are equally if not more enjoyable :D Now I do indulge occasionally...some weeks it's an all out home cooked meal, other weeks it's a night out on the town and other weeks it just means beer and mixed nuts one night or homemade cookies fresh out of the oven. :)

I guess my point in all this is you really have to evaluate what you want and what you are willing to do to get it. This is in terms of weight loss maintenance and goals, quality of life, health etc.. If the goal is just losing scale weight, there are five million ways to get there..it's just finding what works for you. But when you start adding in quality of life and health, that's where it gets tricky. For the enjoyment that I get out of occasional treats, I know that for me those "treats" do not work on a daily basis in my overall quest for health and quality of life.

I applaud you for taking the "stricter" road in a village of easier, more appealing looking paths. The only thing I would say is that sometimes, you have to start with the baby steps in order to get to the huge leaps of faith :D

JeAnne

[RebeccaT]

Originally posted by DocAgocs

And, after eating nothing but real food for a few weeks, they kick a lot of their habits and can quite easily make longterm changes for the better.

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. I have learned so much in the past couple of years (from this BB, from magazines such as Eating Well and CL, from finally PAYING ATTENTION to the information that's out there) and my eating habits have changed so much that I cannot imagine going back. My grocery cart looks totally different than it used to - almost everything in it is from the "perimeter" of the grocery store (the produce, meats and seafood, a little bit of dairy and eggs) and so little of it is from the aisles (maybe some canned beans and tomatoes, spices and such, and of course my cleaning products ;) ). When I think about the ramen noodles, Rice a Roni, Golden Grahams and NutriGrain bars that used to fill my cart, I am amazed.

It must be hard to tell people things they don't want to hear, day after day. But your message is a good one, and while I have not totally banished myself from eating occasional desserts or white rice, I also can't claim ignorance when I do eat them any longer.