"The big fat calorie counting con"
Options
Replies
-
amusedmonkey wrote:macros are for general health/satiety/muscle mass.
They have little to do with weight loss calorie for calorie.
Wrong.yeah, he's keen on selling the world on "eat more protein."
Eating higher protein & lower carbs leads to more weight loss.
Try 45% carbs, 20% fat, 35% protein to stay within the healthy ranges on macros.
See this blog post for links to the studies:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/MKEgal/view/2014-08-09-high-protein-diet-685553
:banghead:I am no nutritionist but I don’t think anyone that is would say that “a calorie is a calorie” and would point out that 100 calories of protein is going to be better for you that 100 calories of sugar.
A unit of measurement is a unit of measurement, equal in size to every other unit of measurement with that name/definition.
Secondly, you're conflating 2 unrelated ideas. 100 cal of protein has as much energy as 100 cal of sugar, by definition. Yes, they're very different in how good for your body they are, but that's unrelated to their energy density.
Partially correct. First, the body prefers to burn carbs (glucose, then glycogen). Then it goes for fat. Protein produces the lowest conversion rate (tissue to energy).if you burn more than you take in then the body has to burn fat and muscle
0 -
No as to the bold part. I, as well as thousands of other people who don't eat high protein and lower carbs who have lost weight, are proof of that.amusedmonkey wrote:macros are for general health/satiety/muscle mass.
They have little to do with weight loss calorie for calorie.
Wrong.yeah, he's keen on selling the world on "eat more protein."
Eating higher protein & lower carbs leads to more weight loss.
Try 45% carbs, 20% fat, 35% protein to stay within the healthy ranges on macros.
See this blog post for links to the studies:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/MKEgal/view/2014-08-09-high-protein-diet-685553
Besides this....you have posted a link to your own blog, no doubt to drive traffic there. I suspect this is the link you are referring to:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15113737
Which concludes:CONCLUSION
We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.
In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote:macros are for general health/satiety/muscle mass.
They have little to do with weight loss calorie for calorie.
Wrong.yeah, he's keen on selling the world on "eat more protein."
Eating higher protein & lower carbs leads to more weight loss.
Try 45% carbs, 20% fat, 35% protein to stay within the healthy ranges on macros.
See this blog post for links to the studies:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/MKEgal/view/2014-08-09-high-protein-diet-685553
:banghead:I am no nutritionist but I don’t think anyone that is would say that “a calorie is a calorie” and would point out that 100 calories of protein is going to be better for you that 100 calories of sugar.
A unit of measurement is a unit of measurement, equal in size to every other unit of measurement with that name/definition.
Secondly, you're conflating 2 unrelated ideas. 100 cal of protein has as much energy as 100 cal of sugar, by definition. Yes, they're very different in how good for your body they are, but that's unrelated to their energy density.
Partially correct. First, the body prefers to burn carbs (glucose, then glycogen). Then it goes for fat. Protein produces the lowest conversion rate (tissue to energy).if you burn more than you take in then the body has to burn fat and muscle
Actually, the preference for burning of fat, muscle or glucose depends on a lot of factors including activity level but you are always burning fat and glucose at all times just in different ratios.0 -
redfisher1974 wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »redfisher1974 wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »redfisher1974 wrote: »If you don't count cals why are you on this site? Just for the awesome forums? (honest question)
Because this is MyfitnessPal, not MyCalorieCountingPal. There are lots of tools here besides the calorie counting app, and there are the forums.
Which is how I personally found MFP. I didn't even know there was a calorie counting app until a week or two after I was lurking the forums and then decided to sign up.
Don't recall asking you this?
Perhaps you should recall that:
A. This is a public forum. All are free to respond.
B. You didn't quote anybody directly when you asked the question.
C. I'm the one who first stated that I don't count.
How was anybody suppose to read your mind and know who you were addressing?
No need to apologize, Carry on.
Thanks for your permission mom, appreciate it.
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »redfisher1974 wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »redfisher1974 wrote: »Iwishyouwell wrote: »redfisher1974 wrote: »If you don't count cals why are you on this site? Just for the awesome forums? (honest question)
Because this is MyfitnessPal, not MyCalorieCountingPal. There are lots of tools here besides the calorie counting app, and there are the forums.
Which is how I personally found MFP. I didn't even know there was a calorie counting app until a week or two after I was lurking the forums and then decided to sign up.
Don't recall asking you this?
Perhaps you should recall that:
A. This is a public forum. All are free to respond.
B. You didn't quote anybody directly when you asked the question.
C. I'm the one who first stated that I don't count.
How was anybody suppose to read your mind and know who you were addressing?
No need to apologize, Carry on.
Thanks for your permission mom, appreciate it.
You're welcome son.0 -
The first part of the article is basically just macros.0
-
0 -
Iwishyouwell wrote: »I couldn't care less about the calorie controversy, but I do think there needs to be a much greater conversation about macros and a de-villainization of the fat macro.
Then look no further than the White House for a place to start. Queen Michelle has demonized full fat and 2% milk in kid's lunches. Jiminy Cricket! They need the stuff to grow. And just keep the twinkies off the menu.
-2 -
Somewhere probably on page three there was a comment that calories are an "artificial" measure. Well, so are inches and pounds. When you decide to measure something, you gotta start somewhere.0
-
Somewhere probably on page three there was a comment that calories are an "artificial" measure. Well, so are inches and pounds. When you decide to measure something, you gotta start somewhere.
Simple statement but so true.
When my scales were not dropping I was upset until I realized my belt size was an inch less and that I could button shirts that I had not worn in years.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Yes, part of it's that. But a huge part of the world now and in history has had no scarcity and no calorie counting tools and maintains (or they have access to calorie counting tools and don't use them). I'm surrounded by maintainers who don't count calories.WalkingAlong wrote: »I wonder how people controlled their weight before calories were invented. I wonder how the animal kingdom does it.
Food scarcity.
Calorie counting isn't necessary for maintenance. All you really need are a snug pair of jeans - as they get tighter, you start eating less, until they don't feel so tight anymore.
0 -
[/quote]CONCLUSION
...
In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another.
would some of the remaining weight be water weight, which is why you could not account for it due to cals. On low carb your glycogen stores will be reduced, having you retain less water and tada, weigh less on same caloric intake. The thing to pay attention to though is weight loss =/= fat loss.0 -
"A calorie’s worth of salmon (largely protein) and a calorie’s worth of olive oil (purely fat) have very different biological effects from a calorie’s worth of white rice (refined carbohydrate) – particularly with regard to body weight and fatness."
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »
No as to the bold part. I, as well as thousands of other people who don't eat high protein and lower carbs who have lost weight, are proof of that.amusedmonkey wrote:macros are for general health/satiety/muscle mass.
They have little to do with weight loss calorie for calorie.
Wrong.yeah, he's keen on selling the world on "eat more protein."
Eating higher protein & lower carbs leads to more weight loss.
Try 45% carbs, 20% fat, 35% protein to stay within the healthy ranges on macros.
See this blog post for links to the studies:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/MKEgal/view/2014-08-09-high-protein-diet-685553
Besides this....you have posted a link to your own blog, no doubt to drive traffic there. I suspect this is the link you are referring to:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15113737
Which concludes:CONCLUSION
We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.
In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another.
And, once again, pwned!
Nice work!
Thanks. It was so easy.
CONCLUSION
...
In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another.would some of the remaining weight be water weight, which is why you could not account for it due to cals. On low carb your glycogen stores will be reduced, having you retain less water and tada, weigh less on same caloric intake. The thing to pay attention to though is weight loss =/= fat loss.
Yes.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »I wonder how people controlled their weight before calories were invented. I wonder how the animal kingdom does it.
Food scarcity.
Yeah, all those obese lions surrounded by herds of edible animals.
No, wait......
Fat lions don't catch food. Well, unless they're the pride male, as the lionesses usually hunt whilst he sits on his backside. Of course, if he gets too fat and/or old a younger or fitter lion will drive him out or kill him, so that's cool.
Modern lion vs. prey:
0 -
OK cute but back to subject.
Yesterday I saw a family, a very large family walking around the shopping centre together. Mum and dad were huge and wearing huge baggy clothing and their two children around 6 and 8 years of age were dressed the same. Horrible huge Tshirts and huge baggy shorts and all of them happily munching on donuts.
Now how can we get a family like that to count calories and exercise? Where do you even start? Tell them to weigh their donuts, lessen the amount of food they eat and to exercise? They would still remain unhealthy and pretty soon return to their old ways of eating and simply regain the lost weight. (I know for a fact this family buys seconds from the pie factory and uses them solely for their meals at night - no vegetables involved at all.)
Counting calories for the vast population will not work. Educating the public and children about nutrition will work.0 -
This article made me laugh http://www.redbookmag.com/_mobile/health-wellness/body-blog/why-youre-not-losing-weight?src=spr_FBPAGE&spr_id=1441_113296959
And then it says "5. You’re still counting calories.
First of all, it doesn’t work. One study conducted by the Harvard Medical School/Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute found that 25 percent of the nearly 3,400 participants surveyed underestimated the calorie content of their meals by at least 500 calories."
So counting calories didn't work for 25% of people they studied, and it did for 75%. Their math sucks, and i guarantee it would have worked for all study participants if they had done it correctly. Ugh.0 -
OK cute but back to subject.
Yesterday I saw a family, a very large family walking around the shopping centre together. Mum and dad were huge and wearing huge baggy clothing and their two children around 6 and 8 years of age were dressed the same. Horrible huge Tshirts and huge baggy shorts and all of them happily munching on donuts.
Now how can we get a family like that to count calories and exercise? Where do you even start? Tell them to weigh their donuts, lessen the amount of food they eat and to exercise? They would still remain unhealthy and pretty soon return to their old ways of eating and simply regain the lost weight. (I know for a fact this family buys seconds from the pie factory and uses them solely for their meals at night - no vegetables involved at all.)
Counting calories for the vast population will not work. Educating the public and children about nutrition will work.
The FDA is requiring that all food chains of 20 or more stores start putting calorie counts on menus. This would include Krispy Kreme, fast food chains, sit-down chains, and even salad bars and delis inside grocery stores. Also, concessions at movie theaters.
You can't make a family like that care. You can't force them to read the information. But I do think that making it readily available is a step in the right direction.
0 -
OK cute but back to subject.
Yesterday I saw a family, a very large family walking around the shopping centre together. Mum and dad were huge and wearing huge baggy clothing and their two children around 6 and 8 years of age were dressed the same. Horrible huge Tshirts and huge baggy shorts and all of them happily munching on donuts.
Now how can we get a family like that to count calories and exercise? Where do you even start? Tell them to weigh their donuts, lessen the amount of food they eat and to exercise? They would still remain unhealthy and pretty soon return to their old ways of eating and simply regain the lost weight. (I know for a fact this family buys seconds from the pie factory and uses them solely for their meals at night - no vegetables involved at all.)
Counting calories for the vast population will not work. Educating the public and children about nutrition will work.
You make a lot of assumptions for someone you just saw around the mall. I guess you start by avoiding assumptions that they don't know anything about diet and exercise -- perhaps they do. I've seen a lot of fat doctors, nurses, and even dietitians and you talk about them returning to their old habits but the reality is that it's a very safe bet since there is 90%+ chance of anyone returning to old habits after losing weight no matter what method they lost it by and no matter how much they educated themselves so I don't see your point nor your logic here.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions