I only eat one meal a day.
Replies
-
This cannot be stressed enough. Weight loss is calories in/calories out, but how you get there--eating "healthy" or "unhealthy," whatever either of those mean to you--is preference only.@velveteen7845 You may disagree, but you will be wrong. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is.
You lost weight eating healthy foods; the fact that you lost weight confirms that ate less calories than you used to. You could have lost the same weight eating the same junk food, just less of it. While this is a strategy that works, it is a) not as healthy as what you did and b) harder to do, because junk food is less satiating. Still, it's possible.
You did a great job and I am not trying to take that away from you, but it is entirely possible to lose weight on a "bad" diet.
0 -
jthompson693 wrote: »There's nothing wrong with eating one meal a day if you're meeting your calorie and macro goals. But if you're looking to eat healthier, can you discuss your desires with your parents and tag along with them when they go to the store?
There is plenty wrong with eating just one meal a day. There are many factors that determine weight loss/weight gain, including resting metabolism and hormones. Eating one meal/day will put your body into a starvation mode. In response your body will store more fat when it has the chance. Also not getting proper nutrient intake can lead to vitamin deficiencies, which can in turn alter your ability to lose weight. The best way to increase your metabolism and facilitate weight loss is to eat smaller more frequent meals throughout the day. Calories are not all equal, for instance if you eat 100 calories in potatoes chips, you have just consumed 100 calories with no nutritional value. Your body also responds differently to certain foods, some foods like simple sugars will cause a spike in the hormone insulin and thereby cause more fat storage. The same amount of calories consumed in complex carbohydrates will not result in such an insulin spike and therefore would be less fattening. It is very unfortunate that she cannot afford a proper diet. Junk food is cheaper.
No, starvation mode is a myth.
A lot of people are successful eating one meal a day, meeting both their caloric and nutritional needs.0 -
jenmarie72011 wrote: »I'm having a hard time eating healthy, I can only afford to eat once a day, and when It comes time to eat it's usually unhealthy, I don't buy the food, so I have no control over what there is to eat. Any advice, like cheap healthy meals to make.jenmarie72011 wrote: »I just recently found a job, so maybe I can start to buy some of my own food, and I just want healthy food ideas that won't be too expensive.
Great! Yep, buy things you'd like to eat when you get paid from your new job. Congrats on that, btw!
If you have a look here in Community, there is a "Recipes" forum that can give you ideas for food you might like.
When you say you "can only afford to eat once a day", what do you mean?0 -
One meal a day is fine.
Are you eating too many calories? If not, what's the problem?
0 -
jthompson693 wrote: »There's nothing wrong with eating one meal a day if you're meeting your calorie and macro goals. But if you're looking to eat healthier, can you discuss your desires with your parents and tag along with them when they go to the store?
There is plenty wrong with eating just one meal a day. There are many factors that determine weight loss/weight gain, including resting metabolism and hormones. Eating one meal/day will put your body into a starvation mode. In response your body will store more fat when it has the chance. Also not getting proper nutrient intake can lead to vitamin deficiencies, which can in turn alter your ability to lose weight. The best way to increase your metabolism and facilitate weight loss is to eat smaller more frequent meals throughout the day. Calories are not all equal, for instance if you eat 100 calories in potatoes chips, you have just consumed 100 calories with no nutritional value. Your body also responds differently to certain foods, some foods like simple sugars will cause a spike in the hormone insulin and thereby cause more fat storage. The same amount of calories consumed in complex carbohydrates will not result in such an insulin spike and therefore would be less fattening. It is very unfortunate that she cannot afford a proper diet. Junk food is cheaper.
No, starvation mode is a myth.
A lot of people are successful eating one meal a day, meeting both their caloric and nutritional needs.
Right? The post is full of pseudoscience. 100 calories, if you are in a surplus, will be stored as fat regardless of whether it is potato chips or broccoli. If you are not in surplus, you will not store excess energy as fat. It's the law of thermodynamics, you cannot create something from nothing.
0 -
honkytonks85 wrote: »jthompson693 wrote: »There's nothing wrong with eating one meal a day if you're meeting your calorie and macro goals. But if you're looking to eat healthier, can you discuss your desires with your parents and tag along with them when they go to the store?
There is plenty wrong with eating just one meal a day. There are many factors that determine weight loss/weight gain, including resting metabolism and hormones. Eating one meal/day will put your body into a starvation mode. In response your body will store more fat when it has the chance. Also not getting proper nutrient intake can lead to vitamin deficiencies, which can in turn alter your ability to lose weight. The best way to increase your metabolism and facilitate weight loss is to eat smaller more frequent meals throughout the day. Calories are not all equal, for instance if you eat 100 calories in potatoes chips, you have just consumed 100 calories with no nutritional value. Your body also responds differently to certain foods, some foods like simple sugars will cause a spike in the hormone insulin and thereby cause more fat storage. The same amount of calories consumed in complex carbohydrates will not result in such an insulin spike and therefore would be less fattening. It is very unfortunate that she cannot afford a proper diet. Junk food is cheaper.
No, starvation mode is a myth.
A lot of people are successful eating one meal a day, meeting both their caloric and nutritional needs.
Right? The post is full of pseudoscience. 100 calories, if you are in a surplus, will be stored as fat regardless of whether it is potato chips or broccoli. If you are not in surplus, you will not store excess energy as fat. It's the law of thermodynamics, you cannot create something from nothing.
This is good. You seem to be very smart for a girl.0 -
ncboiler89 wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »jthompson693 wrote: »There's nothing wrong with eating one meal a day if you're meeting your calorie and macro goals. But if you're looking to eat healthier, can you discuss your desires with your parents and tag along with them when they go to the store?
There is plenty wrong with eating just one meal a day. There are many factors that determine weight loss/weight gain, including resting metabolism and hormones. Eating one meal/day will put your body into a starvation mode. In response your body will store more fat when it has the chance. Also not getting proper nutrient intake can lead to vitamin deficiencies, which can in turn alter your ability to lose weight. The best way to increase your metabolism and facilitate weight loss is to eat smaller more frequent meals throughout the day. Calories are not all equal, for instance if you eat 100 calories in potatoes chips, you have just consumed 100 calories with no nutritional value. Your body also responds differently to certain foods, some foods like simple sugars will cause a spike in the hormone insulin and thereby cause more fat storage. The same amount of calories consumed in complex carbohydrates will not result in such an insulin spike and therefore would be less fattening. It is very unfortunate that she cannot afford a proper diet. Junk food is cheaper.
No, starvation mode is a myth.
A lot of people are successful eating one meal a day, meeting both their caloric and nutritional needs.
Right? The post is full of pseudoscience. 100 calories, if you are in a surplus, will be stored as fat regardless of whether it is potato chips or broccoli. If you are not in surplus, you will not store excess energy as fat. It's the law of thermodynamics, you cannot create something from nothing.
This is good. You seem to be very smart for a girl.
You are bad. So bad.
0 -
ncboiler89 wrote: »honkytonks85 wrote: »jthompson693 wrote: »There's nothing wrong with eating one meal a day if you're meeting your calorie and macro goals. But if you're looking to eat healthier, can you discuss your desires with your parents and tag along with them when they go to the store?
There is plenty wrong with eating just one meal a day. There are many factors that determine weight loss/weight gain, including resting metabolism and hormones. Eating one meal/day will put your body into a starvation mode. In response your body will store more fat when it has the chance. Also not getting proper nutrient intake can lead to vitamin deficiencies, which can in turn alter your ability to lose weight. The best way to increase your metabolism and facilitate weight loss is to eat smaller more frequent meals throughout the day. Calories are not all equal, for instance if you eat 100 calories in potatoes chips, you have just consumed 100 calories with no nutritional value. Your body also responds differently to certain foods, some foods like simple sugars will cause a spike in the hormone insulin and thereby cause more fat storage. The same amount of calories consumed in complex carbohydrates will not result in such an insulin spike and therefore would be less fattening. It is very unfortunate that she cannot afford a proper diet. Junk food is cheaper.
No, starvation mode is a myth.
A lot of people are successful eating one meal a day, meeting both their caloric and nutritional needs.
Right? The post is full of pseudoscience. 100 calories, if you are in a surplus, will be stored as fat regardless of whether it is potato chips or broccoli. If you are not in surplus, you will not store excess energy as fat. It's the law of thermodynamics, you cannot create something from nothing.
This is good. You seem to be very smart for a girl.
You are bad. So bad.
Your sarcasm meter seems to be dead on
0 -
-
jthompson693 wrote: »There's nothing wrong with eating one meal a day if you're meeting your calorie and macro goals. But if you're looking to eat healthier, can you discuss your desires with your parents and tag along with them when they go to the store?
There is plenty wrong with eating just one meal a day. There are many factors that determine weight loss/weight gain, including resting metabolism and hormones. Eating one meal/day will put your body into a starvation mode. In response your body will store more fat when it has the chance. Also not getting proper nutrient intake can lead to vitamin deficiencies, which can in turn alter your ability to lose weight. The best way to increase your metabolism and facilitate weight loss is to eat smaller more frequent meals throughout the day. Calories are not all equal, for instance if you eat 100 calories in potatoes chips, you have just consumed 100 calories with no nutritional value. Your body also responds differently to certain foods, some foods like simple sugars will cause a spike in the hormone insulin and thereby cause more fat storage. The same amount of calories consumed in complex carbohydrates will not result in such an insulin spike and therefore would be less fattening. It is very unfortunate that she cannot afford a proper diet. Junk food is cheaper.
No.0 -
85Cardinals wrote: »You're 21. Go get a job and buy some food. You're creating trouble out of nothing.
You know nothing of the OPs situation. Not speaking about her specifically but many people might have disabilities, addiction, criminal record or other barriers that prevent them from just going and "get a job and buy some food."
0 -
85Cardinals wrote: »You're 21. Go get a job and buy some food. You're creating trouble out of nothing.
You know nothing of the OPs situation. Not speaking about her specifically but many people might have disabilities, addiction, criminal record or other barriers that prevent them from just going and "get a job and buy some food."
It's a suggestion. If she has a pool of those available to her, she can then pick what'll work for her. Besides, people in those categories can still get jobs...
0 -
She already said she recently found a job.0
-
-
Oats are cheap and nutritious, with a bit of milk and seasonal fruit makes them more balanced. I buy cheap chicken or tin tuna and eat with fresh veg when I can and frozen if I have to, there is a nice mix in Aldi for AUS $1.59 a kilo, you can't go wrong. Eggs are about the most complete protein you can get. I mix mine into my oats and bake into a muffin!
For the person who posted
"Caloric volume, not caloric sources, are your problem. If doesn't matter what food you're eating, it matters how much of it you eat."
Of course it matters, just because you want to lose weight doesn't mean you should compromise your health, in fact the opposite is true. If you restrict the amount of calories you eat then it is VITALLY important that those calories are quality, nutritious calories. How else is the body supposed to function? Where do all the vitamins and minerals come from?
[Edited by MFP Mods]
0 -
@velveteen7845 You may disagree, but you will be wrong. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is.
You lost weight eating healthy foods; the fact that you lost weight confirms that ate less calories than you used to. You could have lost the same weight eating the same junk food, just less of it. While this is a strategy that works, it is a) not as healthy as what you did and b) harder to do, because junk food is less satiating. Still, it's possible.
You did a great job and I am not trying to take that away from you, but it is entirely possible to lose weight on a "bad" diet.
The OP specifically asked for inexpensive and healthy food, not just inexpensive food. In my experience, 100 calories of junk food can be much cheaper than 100 calories of healthy food. (Especially when you have to watch your carbs. Rice, potatoes, legumes, etc. have a lot of carbs.) So yes, a person may save some money because they are eating less calories in order to lose weight. But they may spend more money if they are purchasing healthier food than in the past, and overall their food costs may go up.
Something that I think often gets lost in this forum in the "a calorie is a calorie" arguments is nutrition and overall health. And while a person could lose weight while eating 1200 calories of lard or 1200 calories of sugar a day, that would not be the path toward optimum health.
To the OP, I am sorry that money is tight. I think it's great that you have a job and might be able to afford better food soon. The timing of your meal(s) doesn't really matter much for weight loss. For weight loss, you just need to look at overall intake of calories and your calorie expenditure. Your diet will probably be 90% of where your weight loss comes from. MFP tends to overestimate calories burned through exercise, so don't eat back more than about 50% of those calories back. And pay attention to your overall nutrition!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
jackielou867 wrote: »Oats are cheap and nutritious, with a bit of milk and seasonal fruit makes them more balanced. I buy cheap chicken or tin tuna and eat with fresh veg when I can and frozen if I have to, there is a nice mix in Aldi for AUS $1.59 a kilo, you can't go wrong. Eggs are about the most complete protein you can get. I mix mine into my oats and bake into a muffin!
For the person who posted
"Caloric volume, not caloric sources, are your problem. If doesn't matter what food you're eating, it matters how much of it you eat."
Of course it matters, just because you want to lose weight doesn't mean you should compromise your health, in fact the opposite is true. If you restrict the amount of calories you eat then it is VITALLY important that those calories are quality, nutritious calories. How else is the body supposed to function? Where do all the vitamins and minerals come from?
Restrict to what? 900? 1200? 2000? Just because you're attempting to lose weight doesn't mean you have to eat like a bird. I'm not sure what these tiny numbers are that suddenly force you to have to eat only certain kinds of food to meet your nutritional needs
[Edited by MFP Mods]0 -
velveteen7845 wrote: »In my experience, 100 calories of junk food can be much cheaper than 100 calories of healthy food
100 calories of lentils costs about $0.08.
Hard to get much cheaper than that...
0 -
jackielou867 wrote: »Oats are cheap and nutritious, with a bit of milk and seasonal fruit makes them more balanced. I buy cheap chicken or tin tuna and eat with fresh veg when I can and frozen if I have to, there is a nice mix in Aldi for AUS $1.59 a kilo, you can't go wrong. Eggs are about the most complete protein you can get. I mix mine into my oats and bake into a muffin!
For the person who posted
"Caloric volume, not caloric sources, are your problem. If doesn't matter what food you're eating, it matters how much of it you eat."
Of course it matters, just because you want to lose weight doesn't mean you should compromise your health, in fact the opposite is true. If you restrict the amount of calories you eat then it is VITALLY important that those calories are quality, nutritious calories. How else is the body supposed to function? Where do all the vitamins and minerals come from?
Agree. Saying otherwise is like saying "let them eat cake".
OP, there are some great (and really long!) threads where people have shared tons of recipes and strategies for eating nutritionally balanced meals on a budget. (Search for "eating on a budget" or similar.)
Congratulations on the job
[Edited by MFP Mods]0 -
Just my 2p, though not sure how relevant it would be, since I live in a different continent.
I once did an experiment (at home). Bought different fruits (not organic) and ate them until 6pm, with plenty of purified water. Had dinner around 6:30pm, normal dinner with dairy, carbs, animal protein etc.
I didn't feel ravenous. Bloated, cross, diarrhoea, killer headache- yes to all, but no empty gnawing stomach sensation. That was the biggest discovery. That my body *could* survive with one meal a day.
OTOH, it did cost me money to stock up on the fruits. Had to eat roughly one fruit every 2 hours, to avoid the hunger pangs. It required a lot of discipline. Can't imagine doing it every other week!0 -
velveteen7845 wrote: »@velveteen7845 You may disagree, but you will be wrong. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is.
You lost weight eating healthy foods; the fact that you lost weight confirms that ate less calories than you used to. You could have lost the same weight eating the same junk food, just less of it. While this is a strategy that works, it is a) not as healthy as what you did and b) harder to do, because junk food is less satiating. Still, it's possible.
You did a great job and I am not trying to take that away from you, but it is entirely possible to lose weight on a "bad" diet.
The OP specifically asked for inexpensive and healthy food, not just inexpensive food. In my experience, 100 calories of junk food can be much cheaper than 100 calories of healthy food. (Especially when you have to watch your carbs. Rice, potatoes, legumes, etc. have a lot of carbs.) So yes, a person may save some money because they are eating less calories in order to lose weight. But they may spend more money if they are purchasing healthier food than in the past, and overall their food costs may go up.
Something that I think often gets lost in this forum in the "a calorie is a calorie" arguments is nutrition and overall health. And while a person could lose weight while eating 1200 calories of lard or 1200 calories of sugar a day, that would not be the path toward optimum health.
To the OP, I am sorry that money is tight. I think it's great that you have a job and might be able to afford better food soon. The timing of your meal(s) doesn't really matter much for weight loss. For weight loss, you just need to look at overall intake of calories and your calorie expenditure. Your diet will probably be 90% of where your weight loss comes from. MFP tends to overestimate calories burned through exercise, so don't eat back more than about 50% of those calories back. And pay attention to your overall nutrition!
Exactly, if a calorie is just calorie in and out and it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you're on a deficit. I really want to watch someone eat in a caloric deficit with nothing but lets say something like Pop tarts. Let it be tracked by a scientist, a RTD other professionals and see the results on healthy level from the amount of BFP, to organ health to things like blood pressure, acid reflex, fatty liver, vitamin deficiency. To make it fair, we could have people ranging for the age of 20,30,40,50 both female and male. I'd love to see the results of that. Because hey, "a calorie is just a calorie"
Cheap food. To the op:
Food prices are expensive to an extent. Don't neglect health over losing weight, like strength and gaining muscle they both tend to go hand and hand.
Try to buy in bulk and freeze chicken/ hamburger other animal products if you eat meat.
If you're a vegetarian and live next a farm or can travel to one you can get some pretty cheap fruits/vegs for a fraction of the cost. There usually are farmers markets going on every Sat or Sunday.
I get my eggs free from a family member because they raise chicken, which saves me a ton because eggs in my state are like $3-5 depending on quality and quantity and I eat around 10-12 a week.
Coupons might take a little more time but could save you some money also.
Never shop hungry.
Don't stress over weight loss, that is really counter productive, everyone makes mistakes do your best. Remember you need to be able to maintain you eating habits, this is not a diet, it's a lifestyle. If you can't sustain your habits or find it's more of a choir you will most likely fail. Good luck.0 -
-
85Cardinals wrote: »You're 21. Go get a job and buy some food. You're creating trouble out of nothing.
Very unkind message.0 -
velveteen7845 wrote: »@velveteen7845 You may disagree, but you will be wrong. I'm sorry, that's just the way it is.
You lost weight eating healthy foods; the fact that you lost weight confirms that ate less calories than you used to. You could have lost the same weight eating the same junk food, just less of it. While this is a strategy that works, it is a) not as healthy as what you did and b) harder to do, because junk food is less satiating. Still, it's possible.
You did a great job and I am not trying to take that away from you, but it is entirely possible to lose weight on a "bad" diet.
The OP specifically asked for inexpensive and healthy food, not just inexpensive food. In my experience, 100 calories of junk food can be much cheaper than 100 calories of healthy food. (Especially when you have to watch your carbs. Rice, potatoes, legumes, etc. have a lot of carbs.) So yes, a person may save some money because they are eating less calories in order to lose weight. But they may spend more money if they are purchasing healthier food than in the past, and overall their food costs may go up.
Something that I think often gets lost in this forum in the "a calorie is a calorie" arguments is nutrition and overall health. And while a person could lose weight while eating 1200 calories of lard or 1200 calories of sugar a day, that would not be the path toward optimum health.
To the OP, I am sorry that money is tight. I think it's great that you have a job and might be able to afford better food soon. The timing of your meal(s) doesn't really matter much for weight loss. For weight loss, you just need to look at overall intake of calories and your calorie expenditure. Your diet will probably be 90% of where your weight loss comes from. MFP tends to overestimate calories burned through exercise, so don't eat back more than about 50% of those calories back. And pay attention to your overall nutrition!
Exactly, if a calorie is just calorie in and out and it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you're on a deficit. I really want to watch someone eat in a caloric deficit with nothing but lets say something like Pop tarts. Let it be tracked by a scientist, a RTD other professionals and see the results on healthy level from the amount of BFP, to organ health to things like blood pressure, acid reflex, fatty liver, vitamin deficiency. To make it fair, we could have people ranging for the age of 20,30,40,50 both female and male. I'd love to see the results of that. Because hey, "a calorie is just a calorie"
Cheap food. To the op:
Food prices are expensive to an extent. Don't neglect health over losing weight, like strength and gaining muscle they both tend to go hand and hand.
Try to buy in bulk and freeze chicken/ hamburger other animal products if you eat meat.
If you're a vegetarian and live next a farm or can travel to one you can get some pretty cheap fruits/vegs for a fraction of the cost. There usually are farmers markets going on every Sat or Sunday.
I get my eggs free from a family member because they raise chicken, which saves me a ton because eggs in my state are like $3-5 depending on quality and quantity and I eat around 10-12 a week.
Coupons might take a little more time but could save you some money also.
Never shop hungry.
Don't stress over weight loss, that is really counter productive, everyone makes mistakes do your best. Remember you need to be able to maintain you eating habits, this is not a diet, it's a lifestyle. If you can't sustain your habits or find it's more of a choir you will most likely fail. Good luck.
Google the Twinkie diet. It's been done. And if I recall correctly, his health markers did improve due to the weight loss. Now the next question you need to ask yourself, is, no matter how much someone loved pop tarts, would they really want to eat a diet containing nothing but that?nanaloseweight wrote: »85Cardinals wrote: »You're 21. Go get a job and buy some food. You're creating trouble out of nothing.
Very unkind message.
I don't understand this. Why is getting a job considered mean? Even fifteen year olds get jobs. Just something small for pocket money, to learn a little bit of budgeting, responsibility, and independence. To help avoid asking parents for money everytime they need to buy a tiny snack or go to the movies, etc. Some even get to learn about the work place but under low stress, sometimes fun conditions, working with others their age (think a job at McDonald's)
0 -
velveteen7845 wrote: »In my experience, 100 calories of junk food can be much cheaper than 100 calories of healthy food
100 calories of lentils costs about $0.08.
Hard to get much cheaper than that...
Yep. Beans. Rice. Chickpeas. Whatever fruit and veg is on sale that week. Potatoes. Whatever cheap cut of meat is on sale that week. Oatmeal. Flour. Eggs. Cornmeal. Canned tomatoes and cheap marinara. Pasta on sale.
Fresh foods are cheaper, meal per meal, than processed foods. And if you go "But RAMEN is $.40!" I'll go "But you can get more meals out of $.40 of red beans and rice!"
I fed my family for $20 per person per year or less for YEARS.0 -
Just my 2p, though not sure how relevant it would be, since I live in a different continent.
I once did an experiment (at home). Bought different fruits (not organic) and ate them until 6pm, with plenty of purified water. Had dinner around 6:30pm, normal dinner with dairy, carbs, animal protein etc.
I didn't feel ravenous. Bloated, cross, diarrhoea, killer headache- yes to all, but no empty gnawing stomach sensation. That was the biggest discovery. That my body *could* survive with one meal a day.
OTOH, it did cost me money to stock up on the fruits. Had to eat roughly one fruit every 2 hours, to avoid the hunger pangs. It required a lot of discipline. Can't imagine doing it every other week!
Lol. Many people just naturally prefer literally 1 meal a day.
I tend to be one of those people. And it's usually a late large dinner just a few hours before *gasp* bedtime and full of *gasp* carbs.
Google interminent fasting OP. If you like eating one larger meal it's really okay to do.0 -
Google the Twinkie diet. It's been done. And if I recall correctly, his health markers did improve due to the weight loss. Now the next question you need to ask yourself, is, no matter how much someone loved pop tarts, would they really want to eat a diet containing nothing but that?
The point is clearly a calorie is not just a calorie the type of food matters as the person. I already heard of the Twinkle diet, but just because a person loses weight doesn't mean they are healthy also doesn't mean it work for everyone.
http://www.metaboliceffect.com/the-twinkie-diet-metabolic-effects-perspective/
"We are each very different metabolically, and it is unfortunate that the policy makers, researchers, and most especially the diet and exercise gurus don’t get hands on experience with people who have disrupted metabolisms. They think if the twinkie diet works for them it will work for everyone. This simply is not true.
I have personally seen people on low calorie diets not lose a pound or simply strip off large amounts of water and muscle and not lose any fat. I have seen people train for marathons and gain fat not lose it. I have seen those with Cushing’s disease and hypothyroid not lose a pound of fat until dairy and gluten were removed from their diet. I have seen those with mercury poisoning struggle with fat loss for years before finally detoxing enough to get any results. I have seen psychological issues around weight and food that are such big obstacles to change that even gastric bypass surgery could not keep the weight off for long.
Unfortunately many of the people dispensing advice on diet, exercise, and weight loss have written a book, trained a few clients, read a few research reviews and claim they have it figured out. But they don’t have enough hands on clinical experience to realize the above distinctions. There are causes of weight and fat loss resistance they are simply unaware of because they have never seen them or worked with them. The world of calories in and calories out is still unaware of many of these issues and therefore will continue to deny and ignore they play any role at all.
So, is it calories that matter, or hormones, or toxicity, or stress? From Metabolic Effect’s perspective, it is all of these things and each person’s approach must be managed and handled differently………hence our acronym ME. From our perspective, simply lowering calories without being aware of the quality issue and other problems leading to metabolic derangement will lead to a continued fight of weight loss and weight regain all while the population continues to get fatter and fatter."
0 -
The point is it's a moot point - nobody eats just that. I've answered your question about weight loss in and of itself leading to improved health markers. Other issues the individual may wish to work with their doctor, not snake oil salesmen about "detoxifying". If you want to eat nutritious food, do it. It's not a prerequisite for weight loss. And we still don't know what the OP meant by "cannot afford to eat more than once per day" because she didn't explicitly clarify it0
-
The point is it's a moot point - nobody eats just that. I've answered your question about weight loss in and of itself leading to improved health markers. Other issues the individual may wish to work with their doctor, not snake oil salesmen about "detoxifying". If you want to eat nutritious food, do it. It's not a prerequisite for weight loss. And we still don't know what the OP meant by "cannot afford to eat more than once per day" because she didn't explicitly clarify it
Also, he didn't just eat twinkies!
Espresso, Double: 6 calories; 0 grams of fat
Hostess Twinkies Golden Sponge Cake: 150 calories; 5 grams of fat
Centrum Advanced Formula From A To Zinc: 0 calories; 0 grams of fat
Little Debbie Star Crunch: 150 calories; 6 grams of fat
Hostess Twinkies Golden Sponge Cake: 150 calories; 5 grams of fat
Diet Mountain Dew: 0 calories; 0 grams of fat
Doritos Cool Ranch: 75 calories; 4 grams of fat
Kellogg’s Corn Pops: 220 calories; 0 grams of fat
whole milk: 150 calories; 8 grams of fat
baby carrots: 18 calories; 0 grams of fat
Duncan Hines Family Style Brownie Chewy Fudge: 270 calories; 14 grams of fat
Little Debbie Zebra Cake: 160 calories; 8 grams of fat
Muscle Milk Protein Shake: 240 calories; 9 grams of fat
Totals: 1,589 calories and 59 grams of fat0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions