Anyone else on the "Why We Get Fat" (Taubes) diet? (Weight Watcher, systems)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you notice when you eat a cookie, one isnt enough, and you're never full... well, its most likely a bad idea to eat those cookies... same goes for fries or even popcorn... it doesnt matter how many cals it has, if it doesnt fill you up, or give you nutrients your body needs, dont eat them.
cookies dont fill me up, but eating one no longer makes me inclined to eat another. Ive changed my HABITS. I can eat a cookie, and THEN eat a plum - or even some carrots.
OTOH, popcorn tends to be more filling.
Which suggests to me, that the inclination to eat lots of "junk food" is more psycholoy and habit that it is insulin, and that whats filling has a lot to do with fiber and bulk.
. Thats what Taubes did for me, he broke me out of the mentality that everyone should be following the diet recommended by the government.
Im pretty sure the CDC and USDA recommendations make clear they are averages, people are different, and that you should consult your physician. I doubt ANYONE at CDC or USDA would say "NO, dont do what works for you, DONT discuss it with your own doctor, WE HAVE A WEBSITE, look at that and follow it to the nth decimal"
You are fighting a strawman. Or your own mentality ,as you say -but thats not a mentality from the govt, its a product of the same obsessiveness that insists on knowing EXACTLY how many calories you metabolize.
I dont mean to make this about you. Its a larger issue for calorie restricted approaches. I know of people who get truely obsessive on WW - needing to measure everything EXACTLY - going out only to restaurants where WW can tell them the exact points totals of the dishes. That works for some people, but for many it makes WW impossible - such people are probably better off with an approach that doesnt make them track. I found WW was not bad, BECAUSE i was not obsessive about it - I rounded, I estimated, I assumed errors would offset, I could fine tune as needed.
cookies dont fill me up, but eating one no longer makes me inclined to eat another. Ive changed my HABITS. I can eat a cookie, and THEN eat a plum - or even some carrots.
OTOH, popcorn tends to be more filling.
Which suggests to me, that the inclination to eat lots of "junk food" is more psycholoy and habit that it is insulin, and that whats filling has a lot to do with fiber and bulk.
I agree, eating junk is psychological in many people. If someone puts out a bowl of chips, just about everyones going to grab them and eat, because they are there. These are habits that need to be broken, but measuring how many calories are in them isnt important, atleast not to me right now. If you're doing it to better understand just how much of your daily cals are coming from junk, and how to limit that... fine, but I dont see it as a way of life. Just a learning experience
Listening to your body, understanding when you're hungry, and what will satisfy you the best for the longest is important. I'm not saying never eat popcorn... but dont make it a staple in your diet if it doesnt give you want your body needs. If carbs with fiber fill you up well, great! I know when carbs come with fiber, it fills me up better then without BUT, not as well as other things.
I'll eat a cookie sure, but I dont over indulge in things that dont help my body. Becoming aware of what helps your own body best is an important factor. Some people are great in carb heavy diets, some arent. Some are great on low fat, some arent. I think the idea of what you consume is more important then focusing on how much of it you consume. People dont tend to over indulge on spinach. You may claim that people really do over indulge on steak or ribs, but my argument to that is... if you eat a 12 oz steak, you arent going to be very hungry for a while (or atleast I'm not) if you eat a plate of pasta, I know with me, I'll be hungry for a snack before bed.
Im pretty sure the CDC and USDA recommendations make clear they are averages, people are different, and that you should consult your physician. I doubt ANYONE at CDC or USDA would say "NO, dont do what works for you, DONT discuss it with your own doctor, WE HAVE A WEBSITE, look at that and follow it to the nth decimal"
You are fighting a strawman. Or your own mentality ,as you say -but thats not a mentality from the govt, its a product of the same obsessiveness that insists on knowing EXACTLY how many calories you metabolize.
I dont mean to make this about you. Its a larger issue for calorie restricted approaches. I know of people who get truely obsessive on WW - needing to measure everything EXACTLY - going out only to restaurants where WW can tell them the exact points totals of the dishes. That works for some people, but for many it makes WW impossible - such people are probably better off with an approach that doesnt make them track. I found WW was not bad, BECAUSE i was not obsessive about it - I rounded, I estimated, I assumed errors would offset, I could fine tune as needed.
Thats the same point I'm making though. I mean, ok, if you need to track your cals for a short time to set up some sort of guidelines, or get a vague idea of what someone normally eats fine. But people who track everything they eat day in day out dont make sense to me. All it is is estimating, and being off by even 5% = 10 lbs in a year... whats the point, theres no way to tell exactly how much my body needs, unless I listen to what my body needs, and eat what works best for my body
Thats the same point I'm making though. I mean, ok, if you need to track your cals for a short time to set up some sort of guidelines, or get a vague idea of what someone normally eats fine. But people who track everything they eat day in day out dont make sense to me. All it is is estimating, and being off by even 5% = 10 lbs in a year... whats the point, theres no way to tell exactly how much my body needs, unless I listen to what my body needs, and eat what works best for my body
I tracked on weight loss for about 6 months, to lose 20 pounds. I tracked for a bit over a month to determine my maintenance level - I did NOT look at any standards, i just did trial and error till i got to the number of ww points that kept me even. I still track, and weigh myself occasionaly to make sure Im on track. If after a year I have gained 10 pounds - well I would catch it well before then, and adjust.
. If you're doing it to better understand just how much of your daily cals are coming from junk, and how to limit that... fine, but I dont see it as a way of life. Just a learning experience
Listening to your body, understanding when you're hungry, and what will satisfy you the best for the longest is important. I'm not saying never eat popcorn... but dont make it a staple in your diet if it doesnt give you want your body needs. If carbs with fiber fill you up well, great! I know when carbs come with fiber, it fills me up better then without BUT, not as well as other things.
.
I tracked to monitor total intake, and to lose weight, which I did.
I do not consider unbuttered, unsalted popcorn particularly a junk food. Its high in vitamins and fiber - the calories are okay as long as they fit within my total intake.
People attempting to limit carbs for whatever reason, will not be able to eat as much of it I suppose.
I tracked to monitor total intake, and to lose weight, which I did.
I do not consider unbuttered, unsalted popcorn particularly a junk food. Its high in vitamins and fiber - the calories are okay as long as they fit within my total intake.
People attempting to limit carbs for whatever reason, will not be able to eat as much of it I suppose.
I actually did do a pretty long study with he effects of popcorn on me. I did 200 cals to see its effects, I did 2 butterless 100 cal packs at night with added salt. First I thought it was water retention from salt, so I went to unsalted. I found I still had the same outcome. Once it was cut from my diet, and replaced with 200 cals of cheese instead, I noticed a loss in lbs. Now, that was keeping as much of my diet constant as possible... so obviously theres a chance other factors were at play. But regardless, I find that when I eat popcorn, my weight increases. Now, thats not to say I'll never eat it, but I wont make it a go-to snack for myself. If it doesnt effect you in the same way, or its worth it to you if it does, hell enjoy your popcorn
I do not consider unbuttered, unsalted popcorn particularly a food.
Fixed that forya. It's kinda like eating corn-flavored styrofoam. Rice cakes are even worse.
Seriously, most carbs are used as a vehicle for sauces, dips, or fats. Eating the plain carb without the additions is usually unpalatable. Not that I can really eat many carbs, anyway.
I actually did do a pretty long study with he effects of popcorn on me. I did 200 cals to see its effects, I did 2 butterless 100 cal packs at night with added salt. First I thought it was water retention from salt, so I went to unsalted. I found I still had the same outcome. Once it was cut from my diet, and replaced with 200 cals of cheese instead, I noticed a loss in lbs. Now, that was keeping as much of my diet constant as possible... so obviously theres a chance other factors were at play. But regardless, I find that when I eat popcorn, my weight increases. Now, thats not to say I'll never eat it, but I wont make it a go-to snack for myself. If it doesnt effect you in the same way, or its worth it to you if it does, hell enjoy your popcorn
see WW doesnt do calorie by calorie subs, cause WW adjust cals for the "processing energy" of the different macronutrients, as I think I discussed elsewhere. So the proper comparison would be a somewhat larger amount of cheese.
popcorn isnt go to for me the way fruits, veggies, or nuts are. But its well above chips or pretzels. At one point I was eating it fairly often and continued to lose.
see WW doesnt do calorie by calorie subs, cause WW adjust cals for the "processing energy" of the different macronutrients, as I think I discussed elsewhere. So the proper comparison would be a somewhat larger amount of cheese.
popcorn isnt go to for me the way fruits, veggies, or nuts are. But its well above chips or pretzels. At one point I was eating it fairly often and continued to lose.
Soo... it seems even WW doesnt think its all Cals in vs Cals out...
Seriously though, congrats on finding something that worked so well for you. My mother did WW a few times, and was just too strict on it, she could never succeed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's kinda like eating corn-flavored styrofoam. Rice cakes are even worse.
