CALORIE QUALITY
Replies
-
To each their own! I am here to get healthy and fit and to create lasting lifestyle changes (as I starting having health issues). That means different things to different people. I don't want to be forced to eat at a deficit and/or work my *kitten* off just so I can continue have crap daily. Personally, I hate the way junk food makes me feel ...it fluffs me up quickly and really slows me down. So it's not part of my daily eating (or drinking) habits, only occasional in moderate amounts.0
-
How did that "call me out?" it's a reputable resource and explains the process of carb metabolism which you would find is the same process anywhere you look.
If you consumed 1200 cals and 80% were from carbs, 10% protein and 10% fat did that for a week and then tried doing 1200 cals with 25% carbs, 40% protein and 35% fat you would get very different results.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »nichalsont wrote: »The nutritional value of the calorie really is the key. 1200 calories of crap won't keep you as satisfied or provide the energy that1200 calories of healthy food will. Also, since there will be sugar crashes and low energy with the 1200 calories of crap, it will be much harder to stay at just 1200 calories.
I've never experienced something like a "sugar crash" in my whole life, not even when I was overweight and would eat whole bags of candy in a day.
how old are you?
Why is that relevant? Everyone was a child at some point and did the whole bag of candy thing.
I've eaten whole bags of candy, on at least one occasion it was over 2lbs of gummy bears. Don't buy gummy bears at Sam's club!
0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »How did that "call me out?" it's a reputable resource and explains the process of carb metabolism which you would find is the same process anywhere you look.
If you consumed 1200 cals and 80% were from carbs, 10% protein and 10% fat did that for a week and then tried doing 1200 cals with 25% carbs, 40% protein and 35% fat you would get very different results.
That's not calorie quality, that's macronutrient breakdown.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »nichalsont wrote: »The nutritional value of the calorie really is the key. 1200 calories of crap won't keep you as satisfied or provide the energy that1200 calories of healthy food will. Also, since there will be sugar crashes and low energy with the 1200 calories of crap, it will be much harder to stay at just 1200 calories.
I've never experienced something like a "sugar crash" in my whole life, not even when I was overweight and would eat whole bags of candy in a day.
how old are you?
Why is that relevant? Everyone was a child at some point and did the whole bag of candy thing.
It's also could be offensive to those who may or may not have had BED and done that as an adult as part of their disorder.
I've done this as an adult, it is not offensive I don't think.
0 -
Main point was that I understood the post. I don't want that poster to think that it was hard to understand.UltimateRBF wrote: »
So the point is that you don't like pizza and don't understand why people like it. I feel like so many arguments could have been avoided by this revelation.
I got the point.kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »Isn't the ultimate goal to be HEALTHY though? Or am I the only one who thinks like that? I'm all for having the occasional treat but I'm not going to fill up my daily calories with junk. But that's just me.
I lost 121 pounds eating 80% healthy and 20% treat foods, I have totally reverse my heart disease and my blood work is near perfect.
Ice cream has good nutrition in it calcium, protein, etc.
How is pizza considered junk, it has veggies, meat, cheese, tomatoes, fruit sometimes, etc. it bogs my mind why people think pizza is junk. LOL
Why do people think pizza is junk? Well, for one thing, the USDA has labeled it empty calories.
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html
So pizza is "junk" because it contains cheese? Because that's what your argument says.
Even if cheese is "empty calories," there is a distinction between IS empty calories (as you incorrectly claimed the USDA had said about pizza) and "contains empty calories."
If your argument were correct, every food containing saturated fat (which is the stated problem here with pizza) would be "junk food."
Do you really wish to defend that claim? I would not.
And the pizza I eat, again, is NOT empty calories (although it does include some cheese, as did my vegetable omelet this morning, which thus also must be junk food, I guess). Instead, it includes lots of vegetables, tomatoes, usually olives, ideally some lean meat, and of course olive oil and herbs. If I make it at home (although I'm not as good at it as the Italian place I like), it generally has a whole wheat crust also.
Seems weird to call it "junk food." YMMV about the merits of vegetables, etc, though, or perhaps you have a more phobic attitude toward cheese.
Y'all are missing my point, which is that considering pizza to be junk food shouldn't be surprising given that the USDA features pizza among "foods and beverages that provide the most empty calories for Americans". Is it really such a stretch to imagine people mentally shortening "foods and beverages that provide the most empty calories" to "junk food"?
Of course pizza falls into the junk food category. Ask friends, relatives or coworkers what their favorite junk food is and someone is going to say, "Pizza!" I don't get everyone's love for it. Even when I made no attempt at eating a healthy diet, I still had pizza near the bottom of the list of things I liked to eat. But people love pizza. It's got to be one of the most popular junk foods in America.
I added the thin about not liking pizza because I felt like it.
I really had no idea it was going to upset some people so much.
0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »How did that "call me out?" it's a reputable resource and explains the process of carb metabolism which you would find is the same process anywhere you look.
If you consumed 1200 cals and 80% were from carbs, 10% protein and 10% fat did that for a week and then tried doing 1200 cals with 25% carbs, 40% protein and 35% fat you would get very different results.
0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »The whole "calories in- calories out" is old school thinking. There have been a multitude of studies that show consumption of certain macros will influence your weight especially for those who are overweight/obese. Excess carbs will prevent those people from losing weight.
Post studies?
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »nichalsont wrote: »The nutritional value of the calorie really is the key. 1200 calories of crap won't keep you as satisfied or provide the energy that1200 calories of healthy food will. Also, since there will be sugar crashes and low energy with the 1200 calories of crap, it will be much harder to stay at just 1200 calories.
I've never experienced something like a "sugar crash" in my whole life, not even when I was overweight and would eat whole bags of candy in a day.
how old are you?
Why is that relevant? Everyone was a child at some point and did the whole bag of candy thing.
It's also could be offensive to those who may or may not have had BED and done that as an adult as part of their disorder.
I have had several times as an adult that I have eaten whole bags of candy...a big bag. There are certain candies that I just don't buy any more for fear that I might eat the entire bag...such as Peanut Butter M&Ms. Eliminating them has worked for me.
And moderation worked for me.
That is mainly what it is all about...each of us finding what works.
0 -
Which is exactly what I said when I posted:LolBroScience wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »How did that "call me out?" it's a reputable resource and explains the process of carb metabolism which you would find is the same process anywhere you look.
If you consumed 1200 cals and 80% were from carbs, 10% protein and 10% fat did that for a week and then tried doing 1200 cals with 25% carbs, 40% protein and 35% fat you would get very different results.
That's not calorie quality, that's macronutrient breakdown.
The whole "calories in- calories out" is old school thinking. There have been a multitude of studies that show consumption of certain macros will influence your weight especially for those who are overweight/obese. Excess carbs will prevent those people from losing weight.0 -
Excess carbs would be excess calories. You're contradicting yourself.0
-
AlexisUPenn wrote: »UltimateRBF wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »The whole "calories in- calories out" is old school thinking. There have been a multitude of studies that show consumption of certain macros will influence your weight especially for those who are overweight/obese. Excess carbs will prevent those people from losing weight.
Post studies?
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
From the first study: The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year. The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease. Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups. Longer and larger studies are required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets.
Your own source shows that long-term, it doesn't work.0 -
JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight. The men on the low-carb diet lost three times as much abdominal fat as the men on the low-fat diet.
0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »
Which is exactly what I said when I posted:LolBroScience wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »How did that "call me out?" it's a reputable resource and explains the process of carb metabolism which you would find is the same process anywhere you look.
If you consumed 1200 cals and 80% were from carbs, 10% protein and 10% fat did that for a week and then tried doing 1200 cals with 25% carbs, 40% protein and 35% fat you would get very different results.
That's not calorie quality, that's macronutrient breakdown.
The whole "calories in- calories out" is old school thinking. There have been a multitude of studies that show consumption of certain macros will influence your weight especially for those who are overweight/obese. Excess carbs will prevent those people from losing weight.
and... you didn't read my response to your previous post, where I said you're talking about two different things. Again, in a deficit, it's impossible to gain weight. Even if carbs are the only source of calories. It's been proven in more than one college study. Macronutrients is about balance while in the calorie deficit, which is about health.0 -
I had always believed in calories in vs calories out. It's worked for me. But I went 4 months on a MFP calorie level that should have had me losing a pound and a half a week while doing between an hour and an hour and a half of cardio daily. For the last six weeks I even added in TRX workouts. I'd lost 3 pounds. Total.
Then a friend shared info with me about how sugar - from any source - affects insulin. Insulin has a direct effect on metabolism. So, using MFP, I looked back over my nutrition tab at average grams of sugar a day. It was almost spot-on to what MFP said it should be, but from my reading I decided it was too high. So, just by making a few simple changes, I cut my sugar in half. Same total calories. Same daily exercise routine. I've dropped 5 pounds in the past week.
What this says to me is that while CI/CO generally is valid, there is such a thing as making better weight-loss choices about where those calories come from.
You might be surprised where your sugar calories come from. You don't have to be a saint to reduce them. MFP is really helpful to identify them for you.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Isn't the ultimate goal to be HEALTHY though? Or am I the only one who thinks like that? I'm all for having the occasional treat but I'm not going to fill up my daily calories with junk. But that's just me.
I lost 121 pounds eating 80% healthy and 20% treat foods, I have totally reverse my heart disease and my blood work is near perfect.
Ice cream has good nutrition in it calcium, protein, etc.
How is pizza considered junk, it has veggies, meat, cheese, tomatoes, fruit sometimes, etc. it bogs my mind why people think pizza is junk. LOL
Why do people think pizza is junk? Well, for one thing, the USDA has labeled it empty calories.
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html
So let me get this straight. Foods that the USDA says have empty calories are junk food. The USDA says solid fats and added sugar are empty calories.
So if I buy some fresh strawberries that are wonderfully ripe and sweet, and eat them as they are, that's fine. That's a healthy food. But if I buy some more strawberries that aren't so ripe, and aren't so sweet, and sprinkle a little sugar on them, so that the sugar content of both batches of strawberries is exactly the same, although one is from a higher level of naturally occurring sugars and the other includes some added sugar, the second batch of strawberries are now junk.
The "solid fat" (saturated fat) thing is even sillier. Most foods with fat have a combination of saturated and unsaturated fats. I'm surprised eggs aren't on their list of foods with empty calories. A large egg gets 1.5 grams, or about a third of its fat grams, from saturated fat. Maybe it's only bad if you cook it until the yolk is "solid" -- e.g., hard-boiled, or dry-scrambled.
100 grams of raw Atlantic salmon contains about 6 grams of fat, 1 gram of which is saturated (solid fat). Is salmon junk?
Plus, fats are an essential nutrient, so saying solid fats contain "few or no nutrients" is pretty absurd. This is apparently just a disguised continuation of the attack on saturated fat as a risk factor for heart disease, which has become a pretty controversial claim in recent years.
Stupidity is still stupidity, even when it comes from the government.0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »
Which is exactly what I said when I posted:LolBroScience wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »How did that "call me out?" it's a reputable resource and explains the process of carb metabolism which you would find is the same process anywhere you look.
If you consumed 1200 cals and 80% were from carbs, 10% protein and 10% fat did that for a week and then tried doing 1200 cals with 25% carbs, 40% protein and 35% fat you would get very different results.
That's not calorie quality, that's macronutrient breakdown.
The whole "calories in- calories out" is old school thinking. There have been a multitude of studies that show consumption of certain macros will influence your weight especially for those who are overweight/obese. Excess carbs will prevent those people from losing weight.
Excess carbs in an energy deficit, ok.0 -
I had always believed in calories in vs calories out. It's worked for me. But I went 4 months on a MFP calorie level that should have had me losing a pound and a half a week while doing between an hour and an hour and a half of cardio daily. For the last six weeks I even added in TRX workouts. I'd lost 3 pounds. Total.
Then a friend shared info with me about how sugar - from any source - affects insulin. Insulin has a direct effect on metabolism. So, using MFP, I looked back over my nutrition tab at average grams of sugar a day. It was almost spot-on to what MFP said it should be, but from my reading I decided it was too high. So, just by making a few simple changes, I cut my sugar in half. Same total calories. Same daily exercise routine. I've dropped 5 pounds in the past week.
What this says to me is that while CI/CO generally is valid, there is such a thing as making better weight-loss choices about where those calories come from.
You might be surprised where your sugar calories come from. You don't have to be a saint to reduce them. MFP is really helpful to identify them for you.
1- were you weighing all your food to ensure your calorie counts were accurate? Otherwise, it's quite possible your were undersestimating your calorie intake. Now that you're eating fewer carbs, you've eliminated a calorie source, so you're eating fewer calories.
2 - carbs can make you retain water, so reducing them can help you eliminate a source of water retention. I'd be pretty positive the five pounds you've lost is water weight. It takes 3,500 calories to lose a pound of fat, and it's highly unlikely you've lost five pounds of fat in the last week.
0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »The whole "calories in- calories out" is old school thinking. There have been a multitude of studies that show consumption of certain macros will influence your weight especially for those who are overweight/obese. Excess carbs will prevent those people from losing weight.
Please post a link to these multitude of studies that state this.....
*waits*
Yeah. Nope.
Excess CALORIES will prevent people from losing weight.
Body composition is a function of both what is consumed and how much is consumed.
CO is a function of body composition.
Deficit at isocaloric intake is a function of CO.
Weight loss is a function of deficit.
Therefore weight loss is also a function of what is consumed.
0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »
Which is exactly what I said when I posted:LolBroScience wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »How did that "call me out?" it's a reputable resource and explains the process of carb metabolism which you would find is the same process anywhere you look.
If you consumed 1200 cals and 80% were from carbs, 10% protein and 10% fat did that for a week and then tried doing 1200 cals with 25% carbs, 40% protein and 35% fat you would get very different results.
That's not calorie quality, that's macronutrient breakdown.
The whole "calories in- calories out" is old school thinking. There have been a multitude of studies that show consumption of certain macros will influence your weight especially for those who are overweight/obese. Excess carbs will prevent those people from losing weight.
So I didn't really start out severely obese and lose 30 lbs eating around 225 grams of carbs a day? Or does that not meet your threshold for excess carbs?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions