Originally Posted by Amarantha:
This is what I was trying to say. Amen! :)

the word has contextually different meanings. there's diet in the sense that you defined it, and then diet in the sense of restricting or changing your habitual eating patterns.

The word "diet" has always implied restriction to me so I tend not to use it to describe my current calorie-counting regimen. Like others have said, I'm pretty sure I'll need to count calories forever, since I'm clearly incapable of eating like a normal person without some sort of tool to help me. I'm never going to be a healthy eater (I hate vegetables!) so I need to use portion control and counting calories makes that easier for me.

Originally Posted by Lori Bell:
Exactly..."[I]You can have a diet of grasshoppers and tuna...if you eat it, it is your diet.

I'll be over for Sunday dinner.:dizzy:

Originally Posted by gagalu:
the word has contextually different meanings. there's diet in the sense that you defined it, and then diet in the sense of restricting or changing your habitual eating patterns.

The phrasing almost always makes it obvious which meaning is being used. "Dieting" as a verb, and "I'm on a diet" both mean an attempt to lose weight. "The Japanese diet has a lower incidence of breast cancer" or "the rats were fed a diet of..." is a way of eating. "My diet consists of..." could be either, although the context will usually elucidate that one. (The "Diet of Worms" is something else entirely, of course.)

The context of the original post made it clear that both "diet" and "counting calories" were meant in the sense of weight loss.

Originally Posted by Esofia:
The phrasing almost always makes it obvious which meaning is being used. "Dieting" as a verb, and "I'm on a diet" both mean an attempt to lose weight. "The Japanese diet has a lower incidence of breast cancer" or "the rats were fed a diet of..." is a way of eating. "My diet consists of..." could be either, although the context will usually elucidate that one. (The "Diet of Worms" is something else entirely, of course.)

The context of the original post made it clear that both "diet" and "counting calories" were meant in the sense of weight loss.

Well...okay then. LOL
The way I see it, (and I'm not going to sugar coat it), whatever the crap a person wants to call counting calories it is fine. If you need to lose weight then just do it, and don't worry about what it's called. Over analyzing everything is NOT a diet and is for sure is an annoying lifestyle change.

I think getting caught up in the semantics (is it a "diet"? no, it's a "lifestyle change!") is a distraction. I don't care what it's called - I COUNT calories, I'm LOSING weight, and that's the whole point. When I reach goal, I will STILL count calories and maintain my weight. That's the whole point. :D

Yes, to me

diet=creating a calorie deficit

so anything you're doing to do that is a diet. I'm on a diet even though it's of my own making, doesn't follow any book and I don't count calories. However, I eat less than what I need to maintain my weight.

Now you can get wrapped up in semantics here for sure, since some might not like the word "diet" and immediately associate it with "fad diet". Call it whatever you like but in my mind if you're purposefully (so not talking about due to illness, depression etc) eating below your maintenance calories you're on a diet. :shrug:

I should also add. I don't think

diet=eating healthy

You can be eating just french fries below your maintenance calories. You'd be on a diet but I don't think anybody would call what you're doing healthy. You can also be on a diet even though you don't need to be or be eating foods that harm you (like if you have allergies...).

Clearly you can be on a diet AND eating healthy. It seems like that is the intention of most people here. You can also start out on a diet and THEN eat healthy (something I've seen on here often too because you get more bang for you buck with healthy foods).

ETA: if it's not obvious from my post you can be eating healthy and NOT be on a diet too and can even gain. Certainly it's harder when you're eating healthier food but definitely still possible

The main way I lost weight was through counting calories and eating whole foods/high fiber/good carbs only/daily exercise. I switched to whole foods so I could get the most bang for my buck, since calories were restricted.

I think it is both a tool and diet method

Yes I do. Controlling your calorie intake is a HUGE part of weight loss. i mean is eating 3 pieces of cheesecake for your 1500 calories a good diet? No. I think in time you learn if you only have x amount of calories, eating healthy you will get the most fulfillment out of those calories.

Originally Posted by kaplods:
I think there's a huge weight loss myth right now, that implies that you're doomed to failure if you use the word "diet," and guarnteed success by simply by using the word "lifestyle." As in - "it's not a diet, it's a lifestyle."

The label doesn't matter nearly as much as the attitude and behavior do - and there's no one set of attitudes and behaviors that determine either success or failure

I agree completely. One of my pet peeves is when someone on a forum chastises another person for using the word "diet" (this is no slam to anyone here---just a general observation). In my view, whatever I call it is not as important as my attitude toward it. I have had to accept my limitations and not compare myself to others. I am not a good estimator, so for right now, what is working for me is weighing and measuring my food and keeping a tally of the calories.

I see it as a diet, but not the best one. Through research I've discovered that losing weight should not be based on calories alone, or fats alone, or carbs alone, etc.

Many nutritionists agree. Due to the recent (10yrs) research, Weight Watchers did their overhaul and changed the points system, which now focuses on fats, fiber, carbs AND protein.

Originally Posted by Princess Squish:
I see it as a diet, but not the best one.

The best diet is whatever a person can live with long term. Thus, it depends.

Originally Posted by JohnP:
The best diet is whatever a person can live with long term. Thus, it depends.

I meant health wise, for the body internally, not what you see as a result in the mirror or on the scale. That's why I further explained in my OP. ;)

Originally Posted by Princess Squish:
I see it as a diet, but not the best one. Through research I've discovered that losing weight should not be based on calories alone, or fats alone, or carbs alone, etc.

Many nutritionists agree. Due to the recent (10yrs) research, Weight Watchers did their overhaul and changed the points system, which now focuses on fats, fiber, carbs AND protein.

I think most people who use calorie counting as their weight loss method pay attention to at least some, if not all, of those factors. I track all of them, and target specific ratios for each (20-25% calories from fat; 25-30% calories from protein; 45-55% calories from carbs; 25g + fiber). Most of us don't eat X calories daily but ignore everything else; we just use calories as the limiting factor in what we consume daily, in the same way that those on Weight Watchers use points. Just wanted to clarify that. :)

Originally Posted by Princess Squish:
I see it as a diet, but not the best one. Through research I've discovered that losing weight should not be based on calories alone, or fats alone, or carbs alone, etc.

Many nutritionists agree. Due to the recent (10yrs) research, Weight Watchers did their overhaul and changed the points system, which now focuses on fats, fiber, carbs AND protein.

Most calorie counters do not base their diet and weight loss on calories alone. Just as most low-carb dieters do not base their diet and
weight loss solely on restricting carbohydrates.

The calorie counter meeting their target calories through candybars is rare, as is the low-carber on the all-pork diet.