To me, building a healthy relationship with food is just simply 'eating when hungry, stopping when full' and eating in moderation (whether we restrict to certain food groups or not). Don't need to overthink the process.

You know junk is not good for you, so don't eat so much junk - it's not just about calories, it's about your overall health. IMO, if we ate healthy food and lived a healthy lifestyle, we're naturally healthier - our skin is better and we 'glow'. We look better and feel better. Doesn't matter what plan we're on to achieve that goal.

My husband is one of those guys who can eat anything he wants and never gain weight. I swear, he lacks the ability to taste sweet - as opposed to me, who has the sweet tooth of a 6-year-old - but he does love chips, snack foods, fast food, and bar food. Pretty much anything processed or fried. He's also the kinda guy to eat whatever you put in front of him, though, whereas I am as picky as... well, a 6-year-old.

Like me, he's a foodie and has a particular love of French food. Unlike me, he was never very athletically inclined as a kid and much prefers video games and lounging around to going to the gym or being physically active. The one thing that works in his favor later in life is that he is a soldier in a very high-speed unit, and has PT daily, must run 2-5 miles a day (he's deployed and they have a 5-mile run tomorrow, in fact!) and his job is very physically demanding. So when he asked me last week how many calories a day he "should" be eating, I was unsurprised to find around 3,300-3,600 just to maintain his regular daily activity.

What a jerk :)

I'm among those of you who would eat and eat and eat if it had no consequences. Unless I'm eating a meal, I have an unlimited appetite. If I sit down and eat, I'll get full and stop for a few hours. However, if I'm sad or bored I'll snack constantly and not feel full. I loooove fast food, so I would eat that every night if it had no consequences.

My boyfriend's answer was that already eats and much as he wants without regard to his weight or health, so he wouldn't change.

9 years is a big difference. I have a 7 year old and have seen practice changes. WannaB ahs referenced her child's age, and I'm fairly certain s/he is younger perhaps 2-4 years old.

Secondly, Jaundice is different. My youngest had it and up until VERY recently it was standard practice to with hold breast milk while treating jaundice. Formula feeding and even offering water is more effective in lowering bilirubin. They basically force feed the baby on a tight schedule. Bottle feeding is preferred in the hospital setting ESPECIALLY 9 years ago because it allowed an more accurate measurement if input vs output. When my son was in the pedi unit for jaundice my pediatrician recommend not breastfeeding, and of course being a nurse I understood why and knew he was not discouraging BFing but that there was real medical evidence as to why he would do that. However, he and I discussed that there have been increasing studies suggesting that BFing during jaundice may not be as harmful as once thought, though it still is obvious during treatment that bottle feeding formula more quickly decreases the bilirubin.

On the rest of the points you made, I will say again that 9 years is practically a life time in medicine and your experiences are slightly dated. I'm sure there are still doctors that when giving advice to a patient that is complaining of various problems like frequent night waking still recommend given some formula. I'm not saying this is sound advice, but pointing out that they are not discouraging, but rather giving poor advice to the new mother's problem. However, to suggest that healthcare professionals are actively discouraging breastfeeding just because and that they most be fought with to continue, is ridiculous.

Do you really think things can change so drastically in 9 years? I had 4 instances where're breast feeding was discouraged with 4 different situations and offices. Not all are going to hop on board that quickly.

Do you understand the difference between discouraging and making a poor attempt to solve a problem? This is the type of thinking in patients I do find irritating. If your baby is not gaining, the doc has a responsibility to address this. Now I know nothing about how slowly your baby was gaining or how seriously concerning it was for your doctor. Do I agree with jumping right to formula? No. But these are the interventions doctors are taught to use when a baby is not gaining.

What if you were not producing enough milk, but your doc continued to "support" your BFing by doing nothing when he discovered that your baby was gaining slowly. I put quotes around support because it seems "support" for you would have been to not recommend formula. So as I was saying, if he did nothing and then you found out down the line that there was a supply issue, and you had to give formula anyway, then you'd be complaining your doc ignored the concern that your baby wasn't gaining. Or here's another thought. Lets say you give formula, but the baby still isn't gaining because of another medical or metabolic issue? Well, now the doc knows its not you milk or the formula, but has evidence that the baby is unable to gain from either source. Suggesting you switch to formula and then seeing a gain tells the doc that there's not a larger issue at play there, but its just a simple problem of you possibly not having enough milk. But patients don't get this. I think if docs explained things a little better, it would prevent some people from jumping to conclusions, like he's discouraging BFing. I'm sorry but patients can be really clueless sometimes.

But you don't need to stop breast feeding to see if there is a supply issue or any almost any other issue. Telling someone to stop breast feeding is a no turning back answer. If she dries up.... It's over. How about, let's see if it's a supply issue and have her pump? And if it is a supply issue, discuss with her ways to increase supply - pumping between feedings, trying herbal supplies, taking away baby's pacifier so they suckle more. There are a lot of things a doctor can suggest BEFORE formula is ever mentioned. So I agree.... If a doctor immediately jumps to "let's try formula" they are not encouraging breast feeding and is actively discouraging it.

Yeah, I tend to agree... as much as there is a big push for breastfeeding, the medical community is often much quicker with theory than they are with practice. I had an amazing OB in the highest-rated clinic in my state, of all women physicians, and they were pushing formula on me before I even reached the second trimester because they decided my (very common) complications meant breastfeeding wasn't at all an option. I ended up switching in the middle of my pregnancy because the entire clinic preferred outdated practices.

I am not and never have been a part of the modern breastfeeding movement - I believe every woman should choose herself what's best for her and her child - and ultimately, I chose formula. And I do agree that some opposition to, and the severity of it, is sometimes perceived. But there is absolutely still a large part of the medical community that lacks sufficient support for breastfeeding and even some who still push it - sometimes because formula companies have offered them incentives to do so. While some areas have gone to great lengths to educate and support mothers who choose to breastfeed, there are still vastly more who don't; often, it's the under/un-education, lower-income mothers who depend on programs like WIC and nutritional assistance that end up lacking the support. For example, WIC has contracts with three of the major formula companies, so every WIC recipient who feeds formula is more guaranteed money for them.

I don't subscribe to the camp that formula is poison and everyone should breastfeed, but I'm also not ignorant of the very firm grip that formula companies still have on many parts of the medical community.

I am UK. But just to put an alternate experience out there: I really struggled with breastfeeding my first. He fed every 20mins sometimes more, I was beyond sore, in tears, couldn't get him to latch, he lost weight, everything! If it weren't for the constant support of the midwives and medical professions to keep going and stick with it I would've thought I was incapable of breastfeeding and given formula.

I breastfeed for 14months, then fell pregnant with second. Similar problems, she was even hungrier! Some days I did nothing but sit and feed. She also fed for 14months.

Different people have different experiences.

I don't know, that's a good question. I suppose I got a little defensive about it because it's such a different experience than I've had. What if I said to you something like "low carb doesn't work for me, I gained 100lbs following the atkins diet." Or what if I said "I cut out all grains for a year and gained 100lbs because of it." Wouldn't you assume that maybe I was doing something else wrong and blaming it on the diet? We all know that every method works, and that every method has a process. You can't extract one little principle, follow it with poor results and then blame the whole process. Maybe while doing atkins I was eating several pounds of bacon a day, that were unknowingly laced with maple syrup and eating too much fruit - both of which are allowed on the diet but maybe in more moderate portions but I was overdoing it and gaining weight. That wouldn't necessarily be the fault of the diet, only how I was executing the diet.

There's not a single IE book that I've read that doesn't warn the possibility of an initial gain during the legalization and on-demand feeding step. I gained, everyone I know that's done it gained. But you can't extract that one little particular step, call it IE and continue doing it until you've gained 100lbs, that's not the actual process of IE. Does that make sense? I do think there is a misconception that IE is only "eat what you want whenever you want it" and people get stuck on that one principle when there is so much more that goes into it like mindful eating practices, identifying all the different stages of hunger, eating slowly, assessing your hunger every few bites, questioning your hunger when it arises, going back and re-evaluating your hunger after you've eaten, identifying emotional triggers and finding the appropriate way to deal with them instead of reaching for food, working on building your self-image, getting rid of negative thoughts and guilt, neutralizing your relationship with food, there's a lot that goes into the process, it's not an all-you-can-eat program.

Um, no, I wouldn't say you are doing low carb wrong. I would say that low carb dieting doesn't work for you if you are unable to create a caloric deficit while following it. I DO NOT agree that every method works. That is simply NOT true. The ONLY weight loss that works is one that is creating a caloric deficit and is sustainable for long stretches of time - for however long you need to do it to lose weight - PERIOD. Cut and DRY. That is the key... but HOW we get to that caloric deficit is what varies from diet to diet and some work long term for some people while others do not.

I would fall off the wagon in days if I went on a high carb diet. I would gain if I started to eat intuitively without adjusting WHAT foods I was eating. I would barf if I went on a fish diet. I would get bored and start craving if I went on the cabbage soup diet, etc.

So... what I have done is create my own diet. It is a lower carb (but not super low carb) diet, with intermittent fasting thrown in, calorie counting AND a bit of intuitive eating. Yes, intuitive eating is in there!

How all four? I eat when I am hungry. So, since I haven't been hungry in the morning, I am not eating (although SOOOOO many things say you need to eat in the morning - bah!) And.. I sometimes eat lunch and sometimes not. I strive NOT to, but if I feel really hungry, I do eat. I then am very hungry by dinner and so I eat a big dinner. Since I don't have an "I'm full" meter that is reasonable, I still have to plan how much I can allow myself to eat, thus the calorie counting to make sure I don't go overboard. But... I listen to my hunger and sometimes I will eat less than I am "allowing" myself and sometimes I eat more. I WILL NOT let myself get too hungry as that can spell disaster for me too.

So... I can "sort of" intuitively eat as I do listen for when I'm truly hungry - like GNAWING hungry. But I need help in control eating by calorie counting... the intermittent fasting just kind of "happened" by listening to when I was hungry and since I do have a BIG appetite, I LOVE having a really substantial meal that actually leaves me feeling like I'm really EATING versus nibbling.

No one else in the WORLD may be able to follow the same diet as me, but that is the one that I have tweaked for the last 3 years and I'm constantly adjusting and discovering new things about what makes sustaining this easier for me.

It is not that people are doing intuitive eating WRONG... it's that intuitive eating is wrong FOR THEM. Just like restricting foods was wrong for YOU, but it's best FOR ME.

Yes! After I read your post, I asked my husband the same question and his answer was just as your husband's. In fact, he said, "I eat whatever I want now." Amazing.

A few months ago, he got on the scale for curiosity's sake [because it happened to be out and I had just changed the battery] and he weighed 179 (6 ft, decent muscle tone---never works out). About a month later, he stepped on the scale again at my request, and he was EXACTLY the same weight! Arrgh!

Like you, I believe I could comfortably pack away 5,000 calories a day. This attitude toward food that my husband (and others like him) have never ceases to amaze me. They have some sort of internal regulator that effortlessly helps them control their weight. I believe it's something one is born with. I say this because he has a sister who is overweight, and they both grew up in the same house, so it cannot be environment.

I could have written this. Intuitively, I need more food to be satisfied than many others do. Besides that factor, I like the taste of food, and generally, that's why I might overeat those foods even if I had satisfied my physical hunger.

That's the point. Simply because something works for you does not mean that same something will work for everyone. I have a feeling you will disagree with that previous statement, no matter how many times I and others state it, but it's true. IE works for you. That's wonderful for you. But, to be frank, I sometimes get the vibe from reading your posts that the rest of us are unenlightened and that you've found "the" answer, in your view for everyone. I think that is why one of the other posters on this thread made the religious conversion reference. I understand that you are excited that you've found something that has enabled you to have a normal relationship with food. I am happy for you. But please understand that, as ArticMama pointed out, many of us have read the standard IE bibles (I've read at least three books on IE) and tried it and still were not successful at it. So, our lack of success does not mean we do not understand IE; it just means it didn't work for us.

Just some food for thought

We agree then. I'm probably taking the slowest of the slow routes to get there lol. I'm not even tracking weight loss, I'm not sure how long I can keep myself off the scale but I'll get there when I get there... I'm just happy not to be gaining.

No I don't disagree with you, I know very well that what works for one person can't work for another. Nothing is one size fits all. I don't think anyone is unenlightened - I know very well what people go through, the type of research they do to find the answer. I feel a lot of kinship with other dieters because I've been in the trenches for 20yrs. I could win trophies rattling off calories in various servings of foods. I'm sure you understand how frustrating it is to have all this knowledge and know everything there is to know about weightloss... except you just can't make it happen. If I do seem excited it's because I am excited - not about the weightloss because like I said in a previous post, that's slow to come off. But about the fact that I'm not binging anymore! To someone who has an ED, that's huge. That's progress, real progress, that has made a very very big difference in my day to day life, it's not to be scoffed at.

You know, there's lots of people who give advice about what works for them. A lot of people say 'you've got to cut out the sugar" or they say "you've gotta create a caloric deficit" or "you're eating way too many carbs" and nobody argues. It's standard diet dialogue. But as soon as someone mentions IE inevitably someone jumps in and says THAT DOESN'T WORK, and so maybe you're just witnessing me defending it. People tend to oversimplify IE which is a little unfair. But I don't presume that it works for everyone, but I'm fortunate that I have a nutritional therapist who works specifically with getting people with eating disorders back into intuitive eating. I can imagine that doing IE without that supervision can be very scary and improbable.

IMO, because many/most don't breastfeed past 3-6 months. There is a general lack of knowledge when it comes to normal problems with those who breastfeed up to/beyond 2 years of age. And, I think most mainstream doctors are hesitant to troubleshoot breastfeeding issues.

Funny enough, DP had the same experience as your DH - huge baby, rice cereal in the bottle, and yet, my DP has the healthiest attitude towards food of anyone I have ever met. So far, anyway. ;)

In my experience doctors don't know anything at all about breastfeeding. I have a few friends that are doctors and/or married to doctors and not a single one of them even considered breastfeeding when they had their own babies. Not one. I know what happened to me, I can see other ladies here were also discouraged like I was and I'm not surprised, I know what happened to me.

But it's interesting how environmental factors do play in to our relationship with food. I am the only one in my family who had an ED. Everyone else is an intuitive eater. My husband is a natural intuitive eater even though he was raised in a house where you had to wipe your plate clean, and could only eat what was served. His mother and sister have huge issues with food, undoubtedly they exhibit disordered eating, I've never met anyone who can eat as fast and as much as his sister can, very large quantities of food in one sitting all gone before I've taken a few bites myself. But hubby is not like that at all, he eats normally and very easily refuses food if he's not hungry.

I am sure it must be very frustrating to be in the medical field sometimes dealing with patients. It can be frustrating to be a patient as well. I agree communication between dr's and patients can be misunderstood. I have dealt with dr's that do support breastfeeding and I have dealt with doctors that do not support breastfeeding or are quick to discourage at the first sign of difficulty. There is a difference. There are, as you said, many many steps between, your baby is gaining slowly and put them on formula instead. The problem is, a lot of mom's don't know that if you do that, you will most likely lose your supply, and so in essence yes those dr's are discouraging breastfeeding.

In MY case, I refused formula and instead kept track for them of wet and dirty diapers and we went in for weight checks. (and started looking for another ped) But this was the Dr's very grudging second option when I wouldn't do formula. I know for LLL in order to tell if a baby is getting enough milk and supply stuff, they weigh the baby, then have the mom nurse the baby and weigh the baby again. A pump doesn't really tell you if you have supply issues because a pump is sadly inefficient at getting out milk compared to a baby. I always had trouble getting much out with a pump but actual nursing was fine. :)

Anywho, didn't mean to get in to a breastfeeding dr debate. Glamourgirl are you a Dr?

I agree, there are lots of steps to figure out a solution. And to "support" the breastfeeding mom and baby. (the pumping one isn't always accurate but yes to the other options).

I totally agree with this too. I dont' even know how much free formula I got at the hospital, from my clinic, and of course sent to my home.

Yep, I have noticed that too. Breastfeeding is a BIG deal if people do it up to a year. At least around here. :) That is interesting about your dh. Maybe there is hope for my dh too! He has sensory issues with food though so its a whole different ballgame.

I'd much prefer people say "what works for me."

But there's a different between pushing an approach and something like: "you've gotta create a caloric deficit"

This is a weight loss support site. Although some people are here with other priorities (health, exericse, bf%, binge control), the statement was made by BBB in the context of weight loss. I really don't think there's much room for argument on that one. If you want weight loss, "you've gotta create a caloric deficit" (unless you want to lose water weight or surgically remove stuff).

I'd be happy with 2,000-3,000 cals. I have a decent relationship with food, nothing too overboard. My BF is thin but eats pretty bad. Way too many sweets.

I occasionally think about having a breast reduction. I'm sure if I surgically get down to a small C that I'd be taking off at least 20lbs by that alone :D But I keep holding on to the hope that when I get down to goal weight that my boobs will magically reduce to a normal size lol. Caloric deficit, burn more than you take in, whatever you call it that's the goal of any dieter and we all take different paths to get to that magical place.

Calorie deficits aren't the end all, be all, nor is a calorie just a calorie. That's a huuuuge pet peeve of mine :lol:

I highly recommend Bill Lagakos' blog and book, "The Poor, Misunderstood Calorie". Good primer on why some arguments relating to weight management are more accurate than others - it's endocrinology, not religion. Not all diets work equally well for all people, but even in an absolute sense some are just not as effective. There's actual reasons for that besides individual preference, and I think that is one of the things I see missed most often on this particular forum.

On another forum I frequent there is an allergy to calories as a rule, and that's also a pitfall. They aren't irrelevant, they just aren't as simplified as often stated nor are the they whole or even most relevant part of the energy equation in our bodies. Everyone has blind spots and ditches, it's good to be aware of them :)

I would not try to claim that a calorie is a calorie.

I suppose there's more room for interpretation than I thought. When I was supporting BBB's claim that you need a calorie deficit to lose weight, I interpreted that to factor in all the subtleties of the energy ins and outs, including energy required to digest/metabolize/store the specific foods involved, all the specific quirks and reactions of the individual (and gut bacteria/parasites) involved, and any influences of the specific environment, time, etc.

On top of that, I very much believe that the specific calories we choose to eat (and a host of other factors, some of which are part of a given approach) affect how easy or difficult it is to achieve a deficit (and keep it up over the long run, which is what BBB was also arguing).

While a calorie deficit isn't the end all and be all, it is fundamental (at least the way I interpret it) to losing weight.

Agreed.

And... the way the weight is WHOOSHING off of me.. faster than ever before in me entire 44 years, I TRULY believe a calorie is not a calorie. But I already knew that.

My husband is one of those whose weight stays steady and he happily eats as much or as little as he wants/needs.

Me? I enjoy food, not so much a high volume but the taste. I have a theory that my sense of taste is heightened like some people have a heightened sense of smell or touch.

I could eat endless amounts of food if it pleased my palate.

The only way I found to to avoid that came from culinary school.

The higher quality food I cook and eat the more refined my palate gets. Now it's not Doritos I want (except occasionally). I find the higher quality meals that brim with flavor fill up my need for taste without my needing to consume large portions.

I've realized my husband doesn't work the same way. After a particularly great meal I will be going on and on about how amazing the food was and he will have a lack luster moment of agreement. And he likes good food. It's just that what amounts to a moment of near nirvana for me equals a nice dinner for him lol.

That doesn't necessarily mean he enjoyed it less intensely than you, he let go of it more readily perhaps. It's hard to measure pleasure through the volume of enthusiasm. How we express that pleasure has no bearing on how much we feel it.

I've had many discussions with my husband on the topic, I did not reach my conclusion based solely on gauging his outward reaction at one isolated event. It's strange to me that you would assume I had.

I don't assume that at all! You know your hubby better than anyone :). I was speaking in a general sense, like when we observe how a friend deals with grief or pleasure or stress, the way we express it is often different but that has no bearing on the intensity of what we feel internally. It's not easy to judge how someone feels based on how they react to it.

I have realized that not only do I love the taste of food, I love the process of eating. Lots of hand to mouth action makes me happy. Quantity, quantity, quantity. And flavor. All of it.

My husband is the same, so unfortunately we can't really help each other put the breaks on.