CALORIE QUALITY
Options
Replies
-
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.
just sayin...don't really matter
http://news.yahoo.com/fat-loss-calories-may-matter-more-fat-carbs-161720413.html0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »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?
225 grams of carbs and weight loss is possible depending on the persons weight and the source/quality of carbs they're eating. Also, in comparison to how you were eating before plays a big role. Over time, high levels of carbs- especially if from processed foods- can lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome in those who are overweight/obese. Over time as your weight decreases so will your calorie and macronutrient goals... if you want to continue to lose weight.
I lost 121 pounds eating around 250 carbs, I also reverse my heart disease and have excellent blood work. Am I medical miracle??0 -
Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview, “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0&referrer=
Study:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC#results0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »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?
225 grams of carbs and weight loss is possible depending on the persons weight and the source/quality of carbs they're eating. Also, in comparison to how you were eating before plays a big role. Over time, high levels of carbs- especially if from processed foods- can lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome in those who are overweight/obese. Over time as your weight decreases so will your calorie and macronutrient goals... if you want to continue to lose weight.
I am currently cutting on 335g carbs and rather lean, and that's with no cardio built into my programming. I know people who are cutting on an even greater amount of carbs. So, we must be unicorns.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »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?
225 grams of carbs and weight loss is possible depending on the persons weight and the source/quality of carbs they're eating. Also, in comparison to how you were eating before plays a big role. Over time, high levels of carbs- especially if from processed foods- can lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome in those who are overweight/obese. Over time as your weight decreases so will your calorie and macronutrient goals... if you want to continue to lose weight.
I am currently cutting on 335g carbs and rather lean, and that's with no cardio built into my programming. I know people who are cutting on an even greater amount of carbs. So, we must be unicorns.
Extra special snowflake unicorn.
0 -
SergeantSausage 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.
For most average folks, losing the extra 60 or 80 pounds is the *healthiest* thing they can do, irrespective of what they're eating or how they lose it.
But if you lose it eating appropriate amounts of healthy food isn't that better?
0 -
I lost 122 pounds. What does he mean by "the kinds of calories" because counting calories mattered quite a bit to me.AlexisUPenn wrote: »Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview, “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0&referrer=
Study:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC#results
0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview, “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0&referrer=
Study:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC#results
Please keep digging your hole.0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview, “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0&referrer=
Study:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC#results
Also,
Some foods — vegetables, nuts, fruits, and whole grains — were associated with less weight gain when consumption was actually increased. Obviously, such foods provide calories and cannot violate thermodynamic laws. Their inverse associations with weight gain suggest that the increase in their consumption reduced the intake of other foods to a greater (caloric) extent, decreasing the overall amount of energy consumed. Higher fiber content and slower digestion of these foods would augment satiety, and their increased consumption would also displace other, more highly processed foods in the diet, providing plausible biologic mechanisms whereby persons who eat more fruits, nuts, vegetables, and whole grains would gain less weight over time. --- Groundbreaking stuff right here... nutrient dense foods provide greater satiation and generally prevent individuals from over eating.
Our study has some limitations. Although dietary questionnaires specified portion sizes, residual, unmeasured differences in portion sizes among participants might account for additional independent effects on energy balance. For example, an average, large baked potato contains 278 calories, as compared with 500 to 600 calories for a large serving of french fries.56 The typical portion size of a specific food or beverage may therefore partly mediate its effects on weight gain (i.e., both average portion sizes and biologic effects). --- So, calories were not held constant and it was self reported intake which is notoriously inaccurate.0 -
That's what SHE said. I moved no goalposts. She quoted "calorie counting won't matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you are eating" She has also erroneous been saying over and over again that it is excess carbs that make you gain weight and not a basic CICO equation of excess calories.
I look at macros. That doesn't mean I think it somehow changes the fundamentals of CICO. Because that would just be silliness.
If I misconstrued, my apologies.
:drinker:0 -
I never said a calorie deficit isn't needed for weight loss. I was pointing out that the equation is oversimplified. There are different metabolic pathways and hormones that play a role in losing weight.0
-
AlexisUPenn wrote: »Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview, “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0&referrer=
Study:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC#results
Sighs. None of those links said what you said they said. Of course, of course.
None of those links said that calorie counting doesn't work. One said people aren't generally good at it. That isn't because carbs make you fat. It's because a lot of people lack commitment. I don't.
The second link showed a correlation, not a causation between certain types of food over a span of time and weight gain or loss. Foods which are carbs are on either side of that equation.
Sad.
When did I say calorie counting doesn't work? I didn't say that. What the calories are composed of does play a role. It's not as simple as calories in vs cals out.
0 -
Yes it is and I have proved it with 121 pounds loss and the fact I was able to reverse my heart disease, while eating carbs.AlexisUPenn wrote: »AlexisUPenn wrote: »Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview, “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0&referrer=
Study:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC#results
Sighs. None of those links said what you said they said. Of course, of course.
None of those links said that calorie counting doesn't work. One said people aren't generally good at it. That isn't because carbs make you fat. It's because a lot of people lack commitment. I don't.
The second link showed a correlation, not a causation between certain types of food over a span of time and weight gain or loss. Foods which are carbs are on either side of that equation.
Sad.
When did I say calorie counting doesn't work? I didn't say that. What the calories are composed of does play a role. It's not as simple as calories in vs cals out.
0 -
I didn't say you couldn't eat carbs... Wow0
-
AlexisUPenn wrote: »I never said a calorie deficit isn't needed for weight loss. I was pointing out that the equation is oversimplified. There are different metabolic pathways and hormones that play a role in losing weight.
Nah, it is perfectly simple. My 58 lbs says so.
Also your studies you keep linking to....don't say what you think they say. Oh well.
All your 58 lbs say is that calorie counting makes a difference.
They certainly don't say calorie counting is the *only* thing that made a difference.
0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions