The Truth About Calories.

juggernaut1974

diannethegeek wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

ceoverturf wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Do you think a dieter can do just fine eating a handle of Skittles every day? Yes, you do. Do the sugar-haters think a handful of skittles will completely derail a weight loss plan? No, they don't.

There's the error in your thinking.

Certainly not all, but (depending on how you define the group "sugar-haters") a healthy percentage of them do actually think (or at least espouse to think) that is true.

Name one sugar-hater on MFP who believes the 25g of simple carbs in a handful of Skittles is going to derail a proper weight loss plan.

It's old, I suppose, but you asked for one: community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/20088470#Comment_20088470

Good job!!! Your sugar is set too high though and therein lies your problem. It should be set at 30 grams for your calorie amount. Fructose in sugar is not metabolized as glucose is and one, if not the main, cause of obesity.

Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group

Predicted response:

"No where in that thread does any poster say specifically that 25g of skittles will derail a weight loss plan".

stevencloser

ceoverturf wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

ceoverturf wrote: »

Mr_Knight wrote: »

Do you think a dieter can do just fine eating a handle of Skittles every day? Yes, you do. Do the sugar-haters think a handful of skittles will completely derail a weight loss plan? No, they don't.

There's the error in your thinking.

Certainly not all, but (depending on how you define the group "sugar-haters") a healthy percentage of them do actually think (or at least espouse to think) that is true.

Name one sugar-hater on MFP who believes the 25g of simple carbs in a handful of Skittles is going to derail a proper weight loss plan.

It's old, I suppose, but you asked for one: community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/20088470#Comment_20088470

Good job!!! Your sugar is set too high though and therein lies your problem. It should be set at 30 grams for your calorie amount. Fructose in sugar is not metabolized as glucose is and one, if not the main, cause of obesity.

Joanne Moniz
The Skinny on Obesity Group

Predicted response:

"No where in that thread does any poster say specifically that 25g of skittles will derail a weight loss plan".

Personally I would have went with "They're saying 30g, I said 25, see?"

ana3067

stevencloser wrote: »

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

Ravachu wrote: »

I am genuinely disturbed by how grossly misinterpreted this programme was by the OP.

I've just finished watching it and its entire emphasis was on NOT cutting anything out. The programme was about the science behind what a calorie is, how the calorie is absorbed by the body, how you don't have to cut anything out to lose weight because CICO and how portion control plus little food swaps (eg: double cream instead of butter in mash) can save you calories.

The presenter said on too many occasions to count that you don't have to eat just celery to lose weight. He was all about the chips, chocolate and cheesecake actually. His point was to understand how many calories your body needs, how many it burns and to eat less than maintenance calories to lose weight.

How anyone reached the conclusion that it was about cutting out food items is beyond me.

She didn't misinterpret or conclude any such thing:

"Just wanted to share this great documentary I recently watched on bbciplayer as it has me motivated again. It's called "The Truth About Calories" and you can find it on bbciplayer."

Why did you leave out her last sentence?

lol ikr?

ana3067

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

Ravachu wrote: »

I am genuinely disturbed by how grossly misinterpreted this programme was by the OP.

I've just finished watching it and its entire emphasis was on NOT cutting anything out. The programme was about the science behind what a calorie is, how the calorie is absorbed by the body, how you don't have to cut anything out to lose weight because CICO and how portion control plus little food swaps (eg: double cream instead of butter in mash) can save you calories.

The presenter said on too many occasions to count that you don't have to eat just celery to lose weight. He was all about the chips, chocolate and cheesecake actually. His point was to understand how many calories your body needs, how many it burns and to eat less than maintenance calories to lose weight.

How anyone reached the conclusion that it was about cutting out food items is beyond me.

She didn't misinterpret or conclude any such thing:

"Just wanted to share this great documentary I recently watched on bbciplayer as it has me motivated again. It's called "The Truth About Calories" and you can find it on bbciplayer."

Why did you leave out her last sentence?

Because the beginning and end of the OP's post had nothing to do with the program. I only quoted the relevant bit.

If that's what you believe then what do you think of the areas in bold?

Ravachu wrote: »

I am genuinely disturbed by how grossly misinterpreted this programme was by the OP.

I've just finished watching it and its entire emphasis was on NOT cutting anything out. The programme was about the science behind what a calorie is, how the calorie is absorbed by the body, how you don't have to cut anything out to lose weight because CICO and how portion control plus little food swaps (eg: double cream instead of butter in mash) can save you calories.

The presenter said on too many occasions to count that you don't have to eat just celery to lose weight. He was all about the chips, chocolate and cheesecake actually. His point was to understand how many calories your body needs, how many it burns and to eat less than maintenance calories to lose weight.

How anyone reached the conclusion that it was about cutting out food items is beyond me.

vitaminski wrote: »

I've recently lost 1/2 a stone and have been working out as I played Carnival in February this year. Now I no longer have the threat of a teeny, tiny carnival costume hanging over my head, I've been eating all the naughty stuff. The difficulty for me lies in keeping motivated when you have reached your goal and I've slipped a bit, but am ready to jump back on the wagon!!!

Just wanted to share this great documentary I recently watched on bbciplayer as it has me motivated again. It's called "The Truth About Calories" and you can find it on bbciplayer. Hope it helps to keep you away from the chips, chocolate and cheesecake!!!!!

The program motivated the OP to get back to her diet and she was trying to be encouraging with her closing sentence. People on diets generally stay away from chips, chocolate and cheesecake.

Or do you really think the OP watched a show that had nothing to do with cutting out desserts but came here to tell everyone to cut out desserts because that's what this show said? That's an absurd interpretation of the OP's post -- and your welcome to it of course -- but I think it's nonsense.

Damn, I've been dieting wrong

ana3067

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

Ravachu wrote: »

I am genuinely disturbed by how grossly misinterpreted this programme was by the OP.

I've just finished watching it and its entire emphasis was on NOT cutting anything out. The programme was about the science behind what a calorie is, how the calorie is absorbed by the body, how you don't have to cut anything out to lose weight because CICO and how portion control plus little food swaps (eg: double cream instead of butter in mash) can save you calories.

The presenter said on too many occasions to count that you don't have to eat just celery to lose weight. He was all about the chips, chocolate and cheesecake actually. His point was to understand how many calories your body needs, how many it burns and to eat less than maintenance calories to lose weight.

How anyone reached the conclusion that it was about cutting out food items is beyond me.

She didn't misinterpret or conclude any such thing:

"Just wanted to share this great documentary I recently watched on bbciplayer as it has me motivated again. It's called "The Truth About Calories" and you can find it on bbciplayer."

Why did you leave out her last sentence?

Because the beginning and end of the OP's post had nothing to do with the program. I only quoted the relevant bit.

If that's what you believe then what do you think of the areas in bold?

Ravachu wrote: »

I am genuinely disturbed by how grossly misinterpreted this programme was by the OP.

I've just finished watching it and its entire emphasis was on NOT cutting anything out. The programme was about the science behind what a calorie is, how the calorie is absorbed by the body, how you don't have to cut anything out to lose weight because CICO and how portion control plus little food swaps (eg: double cream instead of butter in mash) can save you calories.

The presenter said on too many occasions to count that you don't have to eat just celery to lose weight. He was all about the chips, chocolate and cheesecake actually. His point was to understand how many calories your body needs, how many it burns and to eat less than maintenance calories to lose weight.

How anyone reached the conclusion that it was about cutting out food items is beyond me.

vitaminski wrote: »

I've recently lost 1/2 a stone and have been working out as I played Carnival in February this year. Now I no longer have the threat of a teeny, tiny carnival costume hanging over my head, I've been eating all the naughty stuff. The difficulty for me lies in keeping motivated when you have reached your goal and I've slipped a bit, but am ready to jump back on the wagon!!!

Just wanted to share this great documentary I recently watched on bbciplayer as it has me motivated again. It's called "The Truth About Calories" and you can find it on bbciplayer. Hope it helps to keep you away from the chips, chocolate and cheesecake!!!!!

The program motivated the OP to get back to her diet and she was trying to be encouraging with her closing sentence. People on diets generally stay away from chips, chocolate and cheesecake.

Or do you really think the OP watched a show that had nothing to do with cutting out desserts but came here to tell everyone to cut out desserts because that's what this show said? That's an absurd interpretation of the OP's post -- and your welcome to it of course -- but I think it's nonsense.

Based on one person's summary of the program, yes.

ana3067

Mr_Knight wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

And FYI I know plenty of people that lose weight and don't stay away from food like that.

"Don't stay away" is not the same as "eat as much as they'd like or is possible"

Every successful and healthy dieter I know limits the amount of (for example) cheesecake that they're eating. In fact, the very definition of "in moderation" means they're limiting ALL food groups.

So all of you arguing back and forth are avoiding foods - you're all the same - the only difference is the small margin in how much you're avoiding certain foods.

Avoid: verb (used with object)
1.to keep away from; keep clear of; shun:
to avoid a person; to avoid taxes; to avoid danger.

Moderation:
1.the avoidance of excess or extremes, especially in one's behavior or political opinions.
"he urged the police to show moderation"

So avoid = staying away from something, i.e. with regards to food it would not be consumed in any way.
Moderation = still included in one's life but to a lesser extent, i.e. food is still consumed but in smaller amounts.

So these are different things. Moderating how many calories I'm consuming doesn't mean I'm avoiding eating calories. That is just non-sense. Same applies to moderation of chips =/= avoiding eating chips.

And since OP did not say "i hope this helps you moderate your intake of cheesecake" and instead said "I hope this helps keep you away from (i.e. avoid) your intake of cheesecake," pretty sure she's 100% gleaming the wrong message from the progrma and preaching something that is unnecessary for weight loss.

and keep away:
1. to refrain or prevent from coming (near)
2. to stop using, touching, etc

Good show, though.

ana3067

mynameisoliverqueen wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

mynameisoliverqueen wrote: »

The problem is refined SUGARS! Cut the sugars right down, and you will use more body fat.

Well that couldn't be further from the truth.

So you know more than every qualified nutritionist that I have spoken to that are not making ANY money out of me at all?

Maybe you should research on how refined sugars and some fats are broken down by the liver before disagreeing with someone.

Lets not forget how "correct" MFP actually is when it comes to calculating calories used during exercise..... Too many people brainwashed into thinking less calories in = more weight/fat lost..... Could not be further from the truth as if all your calories were from sugars, you would not be doing anything at all!

I am done with the "community" now as I am not going to waste any more of my time.

Anyone can call themselves a nutritionist.....................................................................................


Except that, the bold, is how it works. If you maintain on 2000 calories and eat 1500 calories you would, theoretically, lose 1lb/week. If those calories are all cane sugar or all chicken breast, doesn't matter for simple weight loss. It will affect satiety and body composition, yes, but not weight loss.

But csb about leaving the forums, probably good if you're going to try to get people to believe that CICO isn't waht results in weight loss

psuLemon

mynameisoliverqueen wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

mynameisoliverqueen wrote: »

The problem is refined SUGARS! Cut the sugars right down, and you will use more body fat.

Well that couldn't be further from the truth.

So you know more than every qualified nutritionist that I have spoken to that are not making ANY money out of me at all?

Maybe you should research on how refined sugars and some fats are broken down by the liver before disagreeing with someone.

Lets not forget how "correct" MFP actually is when it comes to calculating calories used during exercise..... Too many people brainwashed into thinking less calories in = more weight/fat lost..... Could not be further from the truth as if all your calories were from sugars, you would not be doing anything at all!

I am done with the "community" now as I am not going to waste any more of my time.

I would ask your qualified nutritionist how dosage and context come into play. They may be recommending it as a strategy to help cut calories, but overall, you can still have refined sugars in a diet and cut fat, maintain muscle and become healthier in every way depending on what your whole diet looks like. This pedantic argument of "well if your whole diet was from sugar... blah blah blah" is not only ridiculous but mind numbing. NO ONE is advocating a diet all in sugar (if that was even possible). We all understand that protein and fats are essential, thence essential amino acids and essential fatty acids. And well all understand that different macros provide different benefits (satiety, energy, nutrient absorption, etc..) and help you sustain a diet over a specific period of time.

But with your inference, you would suggest that I couldn't have my nightly klondike bar, because you know sugar, even though I hit over 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass, I weight train 4 hours a week with 2 hours of HIIT and I get the majority of my calories from whole natural foods?

And I have done plenty of research, but I always love to see more if you have any. But depending on the type of sugar, depends on where it's broken down (intestines or live) and then converted to glycogen or stored as fat (but it can only store as fat when you consume more energy than you burn).