In Weight Watcher's and TOPS groups, I met people who not only hated nearly all veggies, but some didn't like any fruit either. Now telling them that eating less, or eating healthy means a salad at every meal, and eating mostly fruits and vegetables - well, it's going to freak them out - so they perhaps shouldn't start there. Eating less and eating healthier might mean eating less icecream and cake (at least at first). I think that slow and gradual changes would work for a lot of yoyoers or diet-phobic folks, but people want fast results and you can't get fast results on gradual changes (Heck, often you can't get fast results on extreme changes). Our impatience (and the way in which most of us have been taught to "diet") gets in the way.
I was watching a show on "the mermaid girl" and after before her kidney transplant she was underweight and not eating, and afterward the prednisone and feeling better made her hungry and she became overweight. Although she was only 8, and still growing her doctor gave her advice that is great for anyone of any age (at least to start) "I'm not going to tell you what you can't eat, but I want you to include at least 5 servings of fruits and vegetables."
That doesn't necessarily work well for weight loss, if you eat the fruits and veggies on top of what you're normally eating, but if you're eating no low-calorie foods, eating more (volume) can result in you eating less (in calories) without hardly realizing it. It may not get you to your goal weight, but it certainly can be a good start.
I think it's a great way for many folks to start a weight loss plan, especially the "junk food junkies," because it's less intimidationg (even if not all that logical on the surface). Don't eat less - eat more (of these foods....).
I had a doctor tell me this in my twenties, and I thought he was nuts, but I did lose weight just by not counting anything and the only change being to to add servings of fruits and vegetables (and as he suggested eating 3 servings of veggies for every one serving of fruit). Now, if I had only 10 lbs to lose, maybe this wouldn't have worked so well, and as I've found that I can overeat fruits and vegetables, it wasn't enough for me in the long term. However, if I hadn't let graduate school while working full time lure me back into "grab and go" eating, it could have been a very good start.
I think we often believe that we have to make all of our changes from the beginning. People who are a hundred pounds overweight, try to put in an hour on the treadmill, get exhausted after three minutes and think that it's "useless" because they "can't exercise." If all you can do is three minutes, then start with three minutes. If you hate all vegetables, but green beans - then eat TONS of green beans and keep trying other veggies. If you hate veggies unless they're drowned in rich sauces like butter, cheese, gravy, or ranch dressing, then eat them drowning in butter, cheese, gravy or ranch dressing and gradually cut back on the quantity or richness of the sauce until you do like them naked.
When I made the switch from regular soda to diet (at about age 10), my parents were buying regular soda for my skinny dad and brother, and diet for mom and me. I hated the diet soda, but my parents would let me mix regular and diet at first. So at first I was drinking 3/4 regular and 1/4 diet, then 50/50, 25/75, and finally 100% diet.
I've been doing the same now that I'm switching from Crystal Light to plain water - I'm adding more water than "called for" to the packets. It's not a calorie savings, and I'm not overly worried about Crystal Light, so I'm doing it more for economic than health/weight reasons (hubby and I are both on Medicare and Medicare costs, probably like many people's insurance costs, are going WAY up for 2009. It looks like our medication costs arre going to gradruple or more and our health care coverage is going to nearly double).
I think we often judge folks pretty harshly for not being motivated enough to make a lot of overnight changes, chiding them for just not being motivated enough, when I think a lot of people would find more motivation by just making a few tiny changes and experiencing success. A lot of people do have a sort of learned helplessness when it comes to weight loss. The only way they've ever tried to lose weight is to make humongous overnight changes that then become overwhelmied. The "classic" diet approach really for many folks sets them up for failure.
I know my New Year's resolutions for many of my 36 dieting years went something like
1. Eat 1200 calories every day
2. Log every bite
3. Drink 12 glasses of water
4. Exercise (sweating and breathing hard the entire time) for an hour 5 to 7 days per week
5. Never eat off plan (which usually meant a huge list of "forbidden" foods)
6. Eat 5 servings or more of vegetables
7. Eat no more than 2 servings of fruit
8. Plan meals/snacks (if the diet allows snacks) at least 24 hours in advance
9. No unscheduled eating at all
10. Go to diet meetings EVERY week (Weight Watcher's, TOPS, OA...)
And sometimes I added even more rules and goals to the list, and I expected perfection in each of those goals. Of course, I didn't live up to my expectations, so when my weight loss wasn't as rapid as I'd hoped for, I blamed it on not following ALL of the rules I'd set for myself (in fact, it was never what I hoped for because I was always telling myself how much faster the weight loss would have been if I'd followed all of my rules). Instead of mastering one small change before moving onto a new change, I blamed myself (and often other people in my life blamed me as well) for not being motivated enough.
So yeah, I do think there's a common conception out there that the "eat less" part means "eat the same stuff you were eating before, only in smaller portions." And while that clearly works at first, I don't think in the long run it works. If it DID work, we'd see maintainers who were still eating like that; but none of you are, I'm prety sure. I think the concept of "eat the same stuff but less" actually ends up in people getting frustrated and abandoning their efforts, because they are hungry and their bodies are not getting the necessary nutrition.
Which is why that simple line really says and means nothing and why ennay, the OP, was probably miffed about it in the first place. Eat less, move more is not telling anyone very much.
When I was 287 lbs, had I just "ate less and moved more", I may have lost something, but not very much and it most likely wouldn't have STAYED off.
I needed to totally and completely (temporarily) elminate all the junk in order for my desire for them to fade.
I need to eat protein, and fiber in order for me to be satisfied and to keep cravings at bay.
It wasn't just the amounts of food I was eating that was wrong, it was the types as well.
Oh and I believe that just moving wouldn't have done as much good either. I needed the benefit of adding muscle. No where does that come across in the "move more" portion of the equation.
Wow, my mantra is evolving... "Eat less CRAP and less CALORIES, and move more and BUILD MUSCLE" It doesn't roll off the tongue quite the same, but it is more truthful. You are right, Robin.
I think that interpreting the "eat less, move more," in a meaningful way for ourselves often ends up a bit like Steve Martin's monologue in "The Jerk"...
Well I'm gonna to go then. And I don't need any of this. I don't need this stuff, and I don't need you. I don't need anything except this. [picks up an ashtray] Just this ashtray. And this paddle game, the ashtray and the paddle game and that's all I need. And this remote control. The ashtray, the paddle game, and the remote control, and that's all I need. And these matches. The ashtray, and these matches, and the remote control and the paddle ball. And this lamp. The ashtray, this paddle game and the remote control and the lamp and that's all I need. And that's all I need too. I don't need one other thing, not one - I need this. The paddle game, and the chair, and the remote control, and the matches, for sure. And this. And that's all I need. The ashtray, the remote control, the paddle game, this magazine and the chair....
This thread is taking such an interesting evolution.
My own eating habits have changed during my weight loss journey. I used to be a strict calorie counting kind of girl---anything was fair game as long as it fit into my calories for the day. Now, I eat how WarMaiden pointed out, clean and healthy and unprocessed as much as possible. I've slowly changed not only how I eat, but also what I eat and WHY I eat. If someone would have plucked me out of my old life and into my new life, I would have shriveled on the vine. I had to figure this stuff out gradually....
Before, I ate food that was barely food---processed, fried, refined....etc. Last night my DH mentioned getting a soda and all I thought about was the color & additives and sugar----I had NO interest in a soda and I'm not sure if I ever will have a soda again. I have no aspirations of perfection and if I do someday, okay, whatever....but right now I have no interest in putting that much sugar or aspartame or caffeine into my system.
I think I do eat a lot of food through the day. I'm not tracking calories anymore. I aim for a certain number of grams of protein & servings of fruit, veggies, complex carbs, and healthy fats. Maybe if I cut calories I would lose a little more, but I am rather content with where I am and I like what I eat and how I exercise.
I see newbies reaching for 1200 calorie meal plans....and maybe that is what they need, but my inner answer is usually "Why? Why not eat as much as you can of healthy foods and see how your body responds first to those changes before slashing your calories to the bare bones?"**** I like the suggestion to incorporate a certain number of servings of fruits and veggies. I think that alone makes a difference. I believe the answer is not always "how much" but "what" we are eating.
***Footnote to add, I think calorie counting has a place....I would just rather see more plans start at 2000 or 1800 or 1600 calories of real food first, rather than putting together a 1200 calorie day of processed foods.
I think also though...we see so many people who freak out early in the diet because they ate an icecream cone and "ruined their diet". One of the glorious things about moderation is that it is OK not to be PERFECT. Thats where I was getting a little ticked off with the over espousing of Pollan. Because while I do think it is something to strive towards, I also think that would be radically hard for a lot of people. Meet people where they ARE.
While most of the maintainers on here DO eat a much healthier diet than before, I think most of them eat stuff that Pollan would quantify as "non food" at least occasionally. (Splenda comes to mind) I hate to see someone new look at the Pollan plan and feel overwhelmed.
I think also though...we see so many people who freak out early in the diet because they ate an icecream cone and "ruined their diet". One of the glorious things about moderation is that it is OK not to be PERFECT. .
Ennay, that is absolutely 100% correct. I did not say eat NO CRAP. Who would want to live life thinking they can NEVER have a bite of cheesecake ever again or never eat, yes, a few french fries on the rare occasion. Having an off plan meal or even day is not something to feel guilty about, it is called life! This is forever, not a finite diet for a week or two weeks that you can "mess up" with one too many margaritas and chicken wings on a given night.
But learning to live the overall "whole foods" philosophy and caring about the food I eat has made this weight loss journey much, much easier -- instead of mindlessly shoveling in whatever. I eat french fries, rarely but I do eat them, but I THINK about it when I do it and I am careful with how many I eat, I don't just order them in due course and snarf down the whole little red cardboard container full.
It does seem that expectations of perfection are so wrapped up in the "diet culture." How often do we see it here, and how many of us have been in that place in which we we think of ourselves as having "been bad" (in various degrees, "a little bad" or "really bad") or "messing up," or having to "start over," often when the less than perfect choices are far from the tragedy that they appear to be when you're in that place.
Weight management, exercise, and health are skills, and it's not about perfection, it's about consistently improving (either continuously or until you decide you're at a level you want to maintain - and even then, that can be a temporary decision). It is like playing an instrument - not all of us are going to have the ability (or the interest) to play at the highest levels. Not everyone is going to strive for competitive sports or an optimally healthy diet (if it were possible to define one). Some of us will go on to run marathons. Some of us may adhere to a fairly strict diet. Some of us will decide never to stop improving, and some of us will find a point at which we're comfortable.
I think one of the hugest obstacles to weight loss is when people think they have to know where they want to end up, before they even start. And worse, some folks believe that where they want to end up, is where they have to start.
And I think those myths are perpetuated by many sources. It's not only a common belief, it's often encouraged in many ways in what we see and hear in the media and from each other. Most of us can think of an example of some of the cuckoo advice we've been given, sometimes by the "experts" who should know better.
Not to hijack the thread, but Michael Pollan irritates the heck out of me...
Back on the original topic--this is always going to come down to personal choices. I don't care for cheesecake and have never met one I couldn't pass up easily. Just goes to show.
However, I find that recently I am able to have an open container of ice cream in my freezer again, and NOT eat it. This is almost a miracle. For two years or more, no ice cream could come into the house because I had no self-control about it. None.
This change has come about for a lot of very complex reasons--not bringing it home for a long, long time, generally not eating ice cream, losing weight, losing my sweet tooth by not eating refined carbohdrates generally--all of which are way beyond the simple "Eat less, move more."
So I guess I'd say that "Eat less, move more" is a starting point, and only that. It's not a prescription or a plan, it's only a concept. One has to go beyond it to make progress.
Now that is worthy of a mantra. Most folks, even those who eat horribly and know next to nothing about nutrition, can grasp this concept, and run with it. I don't have to be perfect, I just have to be better. That may mean learning about nutrition, trying healthier foods.... heck just about anything. If you're always making progress, no matter how slow, you will eventually get to where you want to be.
One of the glorious things about moderation is that it is OK not to be PERFECT. Thats where I was getting a little ticked off with the over espousing of Pollan. Because while I do think it is something to strive towards, I also think that would be radically hard for a lot of people. Meet people where they ARE.
While most of the maintainers on here DO eat a much healthier diet than before, I think most of them eat stuff that Pollan would quantify as "non food" at least occasionally. (Splenda comes to mind) I hate to see someone new look at the Pollan plan and feel overwhelmed.
Moderation is fine, in moderation For some people, moderation doesn't work as a mantra; I'm one of those. There are certain kinds of foods I cannot be moderate about, and if they're in my diet at all, the whole thing goes to crap. One of -my- pet peeves is the preaching of moderation. I think it should be suggested, if a person is looking for a way to change their diet, that moderation is one possible approach...but moderation is not necessarily the best approach for every person, all the time. Some of us require abstinence.
I also see an assumption in this thread that Michael Pollan is akin to a diet fascist and undoubtedly never eats something non-perfect. I highly doubt that those things are true; the impression I get from reading his stuff is that he's simply trying to be helpful to all of us who are stuck in the Standard American Diet way of eating.
Personally, I got a lot out of reading In Defense of Food, and really like the "eat food, mostly plants, not too much" recommendation. The sense I got of it is that he WAS making a recommendation of "moderation."
I eat significantly better than I used to eat - I had a salad for lunch today, something that I wouldn't have even considered a year ago. I haven't cut out all of the processed foods, but I am a lot more careful. I found myself wandering around my kitchen in a funk yesterday afternoon because I wasn't satisfied with any of my snack options. A year ago I would have eaten DHs mini rice cakes or a piece of candy and gone on. Heck, six months ago I would have, too, I would have just counted the calories in them!
I still eat too much junk - we have several fast food meals each time we have DSS, I still eat too much candy, I don't always get enough protein. But, I'm making progress on a better diet, I eat half the calories I used to eat, I move a lot more. I'm making progress, but will never be perfect.
I think calorie counting has a place....I would just rather see more plans start at 2000 or 1800 or 1600 calories of real food first, rather than putting together a 1200 calorie day of processed foods.
I agree so much.
I also agree with the moderation thing. I also agree that there are some things that for some people, moderation doesn't happen (me and sour cream and onion chips, for example ). I also agree that one ice cream cone doesn't "ruin my diet". And so forth.
I've posted this on my blog and here before - I'll post it again ...
Quote:
I think that a lot of people, when they first start to lose weight, sabotage themselves with the idea that they have to completely revamp their lives and that they have to do it all at once.
Now, I won’t lie - my life now is NOTHING like my life 2 years ago. And if you had told me 2 years ago that this would be my life, I’d have given up. I’d have said “I can’t do that” and just quit then and there.
Where I am now is the result of changes made step by step by step over that 2 year period.
I wish there were some way to let people know that it's ok to move into this new life slowly and gradually, rather than making them think they had to make huge changes all at once.
Here is the thing. There are many, many different ways of losing weight. Some people do moderation well. Some people need to cut all junk. Some people CAN'T cut ALL junk, or they'll feel deprived. Some people need to make drastic, sweeping changes. Others need to make gradual changes. Some can work intuitively. Others have to count calories.
All of this is FINE until someone starts saying "Well, x way you're doing is not right and will never work". Which might be true for the person saying it (for example, intuitive eating has NEVER, and I don't think WILL ever, work for me. Intuition is off) but doesn't mean it is true for EVERYONE. Which is why you'll notice that, when I give advice here on the boards, you'll find "For me", "In my experience", and "some people find" quite a bit...because there is no one right way that works for everyone. There are MANY right ways, strategies, and approaches.
For some people, moderation doesn't work as a mantra; I'm one of those. There are certain kinds of foods I cannot be moderate about, and if they're in my diet at all, the whole thing goes to crap. One of -my- pet peeves is the preaching of moderation. I think it should be suggested, if a person is looking for a way to change their diet, that moderation is one possible approach...but moderation is not necessarily the best approach for every person, all the time. Some of us require abstinence.
