Calories deficit vs quality of food
Replies
-
The OP seems concerned with quality of food in relation to weight loss, my position is very relevant to that.PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »craigyallan wrote: »So here's a question.. Will you still loose weight eating roughly what you want as long as you maintain a 500 calorie deficit per day for example as this app says maintaining a 500 calorie deficit per day will result in weight loss. Or is it intact all down to the quality of food you eat.
You will still loss weight and depending on your macro split. Possibly more weight if you are light on protein (which isn't advised).
The difference the food choice delivers is better health benefits for better choices.
First part ....LOL Wut?
Second part ...yes
LOL (in capitals) rather passive aggressive!
Eating a deficit with a high proportion of carbs and fat and little protein will likely result in more lean mass loss, compared to a deficit containing adequate protein
As a one inch cube volume of lean mass weighs more than the same volume of fat the dieter will loss more weight for the same calorie deficit.
Just making a point that not all weight loss is the same.
Personally I think food choice is more important!
You can make the most wonderful food choice in the world, but if your goal is to actually lose weight, unless you're creating a caloric deficit, your efforts will be for naught.
Why the false dichotomy you're creating here, food choice isn't more important for weight loss, it's more important for nutrition, fat loss, and body composition.
That's the position you're taking, but that wasn't the question posed.
An answer along these lines was given by more than a few posters without adopting a contrarian approach to the calories/food quality issue.
I'm not sure what your point is in the bold paragraph above. I am not claiming that weight loss can happen outside of a calorie deficit - are you claiming that???
I agree food choice is not important for weight loss, in fact I was suggesting the worse choice you make the more weight you could lose.
My comment to the OP was stressing for healthy weight loss, food choice is very important.
Now can we get back to addressing the OP!0 -
OP wrote, "So here's a question.. Will you still loose weight eating roughly what you want as long as you maintain a 500 calorie deficit per day for example as this app says maintaining a 500 calorie deficit per day will result in weight loss. Or is it intact all down to the quality of food you eat."tennisdude2004 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
That's peachy. Losing weight -- the subject of the OP's question, after all -- is still all about CICO.It's hard, at first, skipping the junk food! Then it gets easier. Finally, it's not an issue. You don't even want it, so passing it isn't difficult. You're buying stuff you like and want, so it's as easy to skip the junk as it once was to skip the produce. That's how it went for me, anyway.
Step by step! That's a nice way to look at it.
I think she was talking about her focus. Many people start out with just cutting calories, then find they get interested in eating healthier.DeguelloTex wrote: »
It's still CICO. That doesn't mean some foods aren't more satiating than others, but that wasn't the question.sunandmoons wrote: »At first it was always about CICO. Then I started watching macros with CICO. If I dont eat enough protein Im really hungry. I was eating too much sodium, fat and carbs.
So I incorperated more protien and there it was.. getting fuller quicker.. more energy no more cravings. I was at the store yesterday.. and went to the bagged candy isle out of habit.. looked at m@ms and snickers and passed right on by. I no longer crave cupcakes, donuts and candy bars or heavy ice cream..I no longer drink sodas or any calories unless its skim milk.. Im feeling really good about what I have learned and how my body reacts to what I eat.
One good step.. leads to another!
If someone wants to eat in a way she considees healthier in order to the CI under CO, that's great for her but extraneous to the question.
The title of this thread is - Calories deficit vs quality of food
The answers are yes to the first and no to the latter. No matter how much you try to obfuscate by citing a necessarily simplified post subject instead of the actual post itself.0 -
Google 'Twinkie diet'... Yes, you can lose weight; you might even see short term health improvements if you are obese. But 20 years on I wouldn't want the skin, hair, bones, brain or pancreas of someone who has only eaten that way. I follow the 80/20 metric... 80% wholesome food my great grandmother from the Isle of Man would readily recognize; 20% don't ask don't tell.
And without a deficit you won't sustain true weight loss, period.
Nicely said, my thoughts exactly!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Obviously, if you want to be your healthiest, you'll do the things that will make you healthy and that includes eating healthy food.
I'm not really sure if the OP cares about eating healthy or if they just want to lose weight.
Some people really don't care about being healthy and just want to be thin or have big muscles or whatever. That's their goal and that's cool.0 -
Cough:: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007789/flagged-content-reported-posts-warning-points#latest Cough::
On point: OP: you can eat whatever you like while in a calorie deficit and still lose weight. Some people have found certain foods more satisfying than others and choose to eat accordingly so they do not feel hungry. I don't believe the quality of food matters in the CICO equation.0 -
Obviously, if you want to be your healthiest, you'll do the things that will make you healthy and that includes eating healthy food...
"Healthy" is a vague term and subject to interpretation/individual bias. I'm sure my definition would be considerably different from a vegan, or a person who follows paleo, keto, etc. To me, "healthy" is getting adequate nutrition (micro- and macronutrients). Once you've met those goals, you don't get extra credit for eating more "healthy" food. If you have calories left to eat, there's nothing wrong with ice cream, a candy bar, pizza, a glass of wine or whatever else suits your fancy.
Being thin (as in losing weight) is simply CI<CO. When it comes to more specific goals (obtaining low bodyfat levels, getting "big muscles", sports performance, etc.), macronutrients absolutely *do* matter. As do caloric intake levels, how you train, etc....Some people really don't care about being healthy and just want to be thin or have big muscles or whatever. That's their goal and that's cool.
The answer to the OP's question is that speaking strictly in terms of weight loss, calorie deficit is all that matters. If you factor in overall health/nutrition, satiety, adherence, athletic performance and body composition, what you eat (i.e., micro- and macronutrients) matter significantly.0 -
You misunderstood the last part. The point is that some people don't care about being healthy and just want to look good. That's a valid goal. There isn't anything wrong with them. If they don't care about eating healthy or paying attention to their macros, that's fine.Obviously, if you want to be your healthiest, you'll do the things that will make you healthy and that includes eating healthy food...
"Healthy" is a vague term and subject to interpretation/individual bias. I'm sure my definition would be considerably different from a vegan, or a person who follows paleo, keto, etc. To me, "healthy" is getting adequate nutrition (micro- and macronutrients). Once you've met those goals, you don't get extra credit for eating more "healthy" food. If you have calories left to eat, there's nothing wrong with ice cream, a candy bar, pizza, a glass of wine or whatever else suits your fancy.
Being thin (as in losing weight) is simply CI<CO. When it comes to more specific goals (obtaining low bodyfat levels, getting "big muscles", sports performance, etc.), macronutrients absolutely *do* matter. As do caloric intake levels, how you train, etc....Some people really don't care about being healthy and just want to be thin or have big muscles or whatever. That's their goal and that's cool.
The answer to the OP's question is that speaking strictly in terms of weight loss, calorie deficit is all that matters. If you factor in overall health/nutrition, satiety, adherence, athletic performance and body composition, what you eat (i.e., micro- and macronutrients) matter significantly.
As for the first part, if you have a genuine interest in finding out what is healthy for you, see your doctor. I couldn't tell you what you should do any more than you could tell me what I should do.
This frequently-repeated business of how "you don't get extra credit" is rather pointless. People who say they're eating junk food because they have hit their macro and micro goals...they really haven't. I skimmed some diaries, once, of the people who say that - none actually got all their micros. So, a little more fruit or veggies wouldn't have been "extra" credit. It would've been the regular kind.
However, nobody needs an defend their decision to eat junk food. You don't have to fulfill all your micros in order to have whatever you want. No excuse required! If you want to have pizza and ice cream for dinner, it's your choice. It's a valid choice and I support it.
0 -
I skimmed some diaries, once, of the people who say that - none actually got all their micros. So, a little more fruit or veggies wouldn't have been "extra" credit. It would've been the regular kind.
I've been logging on CronOMeter, so I'm pretty sure I do usually get my micros. (Haven't been logging here regularly lately -- doing CronOMeter more because it's interesting and inspires me to log.)
On the other hand, I know I am regularly low on iron when I don't watch it, and yet I've never been anemic, so does it really matter that I've generally not obsessively logged and watched iron? Has my diet been inadequate? Or, perhaps, is it enough to generally eat a healthy diet without hitting every target every day? Given human history and how spotty our access to food often was, I suspect the latter. (And my doctor certainly never told me to track every nutrient. She asked generally how I ate and said the only supplement to bother with was D, in the winter, given how common it is to be low in it in this climate.)
Cron says I usually hit D, though, surprisingly.0 -
No, I understood it perfectly. My point is that if somebody cares about aesthetics/appearance, macros matter significantly. If one just wants to get 'skinny' and don't care that they look like 5 pounds of flour in a 10-pound sack, a calorie deficit alone will accomplish that perfectly. If you want to preserve lean body mass and look lean/athletic ("toned" in the ladies' vernacular), macros matter. As does training. Skinny looks good in clothes; lean/athletic looks good without them.You misunderstood the last part. The point is that some people don't care about being healthy and just want to look good. That's a valid goal. There isn't anything wrong with them. If they don't care about eating healthy or paying attention to their macros, that's fine...
Thanks for the help, but I was making a statement rather than asking for advice. I've taken the time and made the effort to educate myself on both nutrition and training (and how to separate science from junk/pseudoscience) and am well aware of what "healthy" is. I'm also aware of what orthorexia (orthorexia nervosa) is, and I want no part of it....As for the first part, if you have a genuine interest in finding out what is healthy for you, see your doctor. I couldn't tell you what you should do any more than you could tell me what I should do.0 -
I was responding to the post that went up before you edited it.
No, I understood it perfectly. My point is that if somebody cares about aesthetics/appearance, macros matter significantly. If one just wants to get 'skinny' and don't care that they look like 5 pounds of flour in a 10-pound sack, a calorie deficit alone will accomplish that perfectly. If you want to preserve lean body mass and look lean/athletic ("toned" in the ladies' vernacular), macros matter. As does training. Skinny looks good in clothes; lean/athletic looks good without them.You misunderstood the last part. The point is that some people don't care about being healthy and just want to look good. That's a valid goal. There isn't anything wrong with them. If they don't care about eating healthy or paying attention to their macros, that's fine...
Thanks for the help, but I was making a statement rather than asking for advice. I've taken the time and made the effort to educate myself on both nutrition and training (and how to separate science from junk/pseudoscience) and am well aware of what "healthy" is. I'm also aware of what orthorexia (orthorexia nervosa) is, and I want no part of it....As for the first part, if you have a genuine interest in finding out what is healthy for you, see your doctor. I couldn't tell you what you should do any more than you could tell me what I should do.
One can eat healthy and not have a mental illness, just as one can also choose to lift weights and not have muscle dysmorphia.
I have yet to meet a person who looks like a sack of flour. That smacks of body shaming to me. If people want to be thin and not build muscle,that's cool.
Many different people, many different approaches.
0 -
I've always wondered about that "you don't get extra credit" comment. My understanding of RDA is that it is a set amount, not a percentage. For vitamin A for example, RDA is 900 mcg for men and 700 mcg for women, regardless of your height/weight/calorie intake. Most of the time that I have seen the "you don't get extra credit" comment it has come from someone with a fairly high caloric intake. It's no surprise that someone with a 2700 daily goal can hit their micros and have more room for "treats" than someone with a 1350 daily goal. But is that same 900 mcg of vitamin A REALLY an appropriate target for both people?
ETA: I should have googled first
. It's based on a 2000kcal diet. Does MFP take this into account? I also see that there is a whole realm for me to explore on the topic, specifically Dietary Reference Intake. 0 -
To answer the OP's question, technically, CICO is all that matters if all that matters to you is weight loss. But I sure hope that percentage of us who don't care about health is very small. My assumption would be that most of us are trying to eat in a sustainably healthy way at the same time as we lose weight.0
-
goldthistime wrote: »To answer the OP's question, technically, CICO is all that matters if all that matters to you is weight loss. But I sure hope that percentage of us who don't care about health is very small. My assumption would be that most of us are trying to eat in a sustainably healthy way at the same time as we lose weight.
My assumption when people ask this question is that they want to know "Can I eat imperfectly?" For many years, I have eaten what must be relatively healthy as I have perfect cholesterol and blood glucose numbers, I just ate too much of it. (In fact, just this week my doctor told me exactly that.) And for years, I thought I must be doing something wrong, eating the wrong food, not eating the right food, whatever. I think a lot of people just want validation that they don't have to eat textbook perfect. (I'm not saying that no one hopes to subsist on a fast food diet, I'm sure those people are out there.)0 -
Those numbers are averages. Some people have unique needs. Many people, in fact.goldthistime wrote: »I've always wondered about that "you don't get extra credit" comment. My understanding of RDA is that it is a set amount, not a percentage. For vitamin A for example, RDA is 900 mcg for men and 700 mcg for women, regardless of your height/weight/calorie intake. Most of the time that I have seen the "you don't get extra credit" comment it has come from someone with a fairly high caloric intake. It's no surprise that someone with a 2700 daily goal can hit their micros and have more room for "treats" than someone with a 1350 daily goal. But is that same 900 mcg of vitamin A REALLY an appropriate target for both people?
ETA: I should have googled first. It's based on a 2000kcal diet. Does MFP take this into account? I also see that there is a whole realm for me to explore on the topic, specifically Dietary Reference Intake.
I strive for a healthy and well-balanced diet and I don't get all my micros every day. That's just never going to happen. For a long time, I thought that maybe I could do it, but I cannot. I do my best to get as much as I can, but getting them all, every day - not going to happen.
I asked the dietitian about it and she said that most people don't and can't, especially eating the amount of calories I eat. She doesn't get all of hers every single day and she eats 1700 calories/day, lol. She encouraged trying, but agreed that it's not really a doable thing for me. I asked the doctor about it and he said, "No." I asked he thought it was possible and he tipped his head, screwed up his mouth and shrugged his shoulder, then said something to the effect of, "You can try," lol.
It's really hard to hit ALL of those goals every day. For many of us, it's damn near (if not totally) impossible.
I will continue to eat a healthy,well-balanced diet, but I'm not going to stress if I don't get enough selenium, zinc or Vitamin K one day, KWIM?
If only they were all as easy as manganese.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
The OP seems concerned with quality of food in relation to weight loss, my position is very relevant to that.PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »craigyallan wrote: »So here's a question.. Will you still loose weight eating roughly what you want as long as you maintain a 500 calorie deficit per day for example as this app says maintaining a 500 calorie deficit per day will result in weight loss. Or is it intact all down to the quality of food you eat.
You will still loss weight and depending on your macro split. Possibly more weight if you are light on protein (which isn't advised).
The difference the food choice delivers is better health benefits for better choices.
First part ....LOL Wut?
Second part ...yes
LOL (in capitals) rather passive aggressive!
Eating a deficit with a high proportion of carbs and fat and little protein will likely result in more lean mass loss, compared to a deficit containing adequate protein
As a one inch cube volume of lean mass weighs more than the same volume of fat the dieter will loss more weight for the same calorie deficit.
Just making a point that not all weight loss is the same.
Personally I think food choice is more important!
You can make the most wonderful food choice in the world, but if your goal is to actually lose weight, unless you're creating a caloric deficit, your efforts will be for naught.
Why the false dichotomy you're creating here, food choice isn't more important for weight loss, it's more important for nutrition, fat loss, and body composition.
That's the position you're taking, but that wasn't the question posed.
An answer along these lines was given by more than a few posters without adopting a contrarian approach to the calories/food quality issue.
I'm not sure what your point is in the bold paragraph above. I am not claiming that weight loss can happen outside of a calorie deficit - are you claiming that???
I agree food choice is not important for weight loss, in fact I was suggesting the worse choice you make the more weight you could lose.
My comment to the OP was stressing for healthy weight loss, food choice is very important.
Now can we get back to addressing the OP!
Here's the OP:So here's a question.. Will you still loose weight eating roughly what you want as long as you maintain a 500 calorie deficit per day for example as this app says maintaining a 500 calorie deficit per day will result in weight loss. Or is it intact all down to the quality of food you eat.
Now, perhaps you and I are interpreting that question differently, but I hardly think you need to call me out for derailing a thread when I interpret the poster to be asking about losing weight since that's what I see in the first post, and you answered that food choice was more important. It's not derailing the thread to point out that food choice does not affect how much weight is lost -- which was all I was doing in my post.
Now, if you're done wrist-slapping other posters, maybe we can get back to the point of the thread and oh, I don't know, something really crazy like actually agree on an answer!
Calorie deficit for weight loss; food quality for nutrition, body composition, and health.0 -
Wow that got intense!0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
The OP seems concerned with quality of food in relation to weight loss, my position is very relevant to that.PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »craigyallan wrote: »So here's a question.. Will you still loose weight eating roughly what you want as long as you maintain a 500 calorie deficit per day for example as this app says maintaining a 500 calorie deficit per day will result in weight loss. Or is it intact all down to the quality of food you eat.
You will still loss weight and depending on your macro split. Possibly more weight if you are light on protein (which isn't advised).
The difference the food choice delivers is better health benefits for better choices.
First part ....LOL Wut?
Second part ...yes
LOL (in capitals) rather passive aggressive!
Eating a deficit with a high proportion of carbs and fat and little protein will likely result in more lean mass loss, compared to a deficit containing adequate protein
As a one inch cube volume of lean mass weighs more than the same volume of fat the dieter will loss more weight for the same calorie deficit.
Just making a point that not all weight loss is the same.
Personally I think food choice is more important!
You can make the most wonderful food choice in the world, but if your goal is to actually lose weight, unless you're creating a caloric deficit, your efforts will be for naught.
Why the false dichotomy you're creating here, food choice isn't more important for weight loss, it's more important for nutrition, fat loss, and body composition.
That's the position you're taking, but that wasn't the question posed.
An answer along these lines was given by more than a few posters without adopting a contrarian approach to the calories/food quality issue.
I'm not sure what your point is in the bold paragraph above. I am not claiming that weight loss can happen outside of a calorie deficit - are you claiming that???
I agree food choice is not important for weight loss, in fact I was suggesting the worse choice you make the more weight you could lose.
My comment to the OP was stressing for healthy weight loss, food choice is very important.
Now can we get back to addressing the OP!
Here's the OP:So here's a question.. Will you still loose weight eating roughly what you want as long as you maintain a 500 calorie deficit per day for example as this app says maintaining a 500 calorie deficit per day will result in weight loss. Or is it intact all down to the quality of food you eat.
Now, perhaps you and I are interpreting that question differently, but I hardly think you need to call me out for derailing a thread when I interpret the poster to be asking about losing weight since that's what I see in the first post, and you answered that food choice was more important. It's not derailing the thread to point out that food choice does not affect how much weight is lost -- which was all I was doing in my post.
Now, if you're done wrist-slapping other posters, maybe we can get back to the point of the thread and oh, I don't know, something really crazy like actually agree on an answer!
Calorie deficit for weight loss; food quality for nutrition, body composition, and health.
I'm not calling you out for misinterpreting the question, it's for rushing in and misinterpreting my answer.
You seem to be suggesting I'm claiming you can lose weight and not be in a calorie deficit - I haven't claimed that!
Food choice has absolutely everything to do with 'how much' weight you lose.
Or are you suggesting that regardless of what you eat, at a daily deficit of 500 calories you will always lose the same amount???
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I skimmed some diaries, once, of the people who say that - none actually got all their micros. So, a little more fruit or veggies wouldn't have been "extra" credit. It would've been the regular kind.
I've been logging on CronOMeter, so I'm pretty sure I do usually get my micros. (Haven't been logging here regularly lately -- doing CronOMeter more because it's interesting and inspires me to log.)
On the other hand, I know I am regularly low on iron when I don't watch it, and yet I've never been anemic, so does it really matter that I've generally not obsessively logged and watched iron? Has my diet been inadequate? Or, perhaps, is it enough to generally eat a healthy diet without hitting every target every day? Given human history and how spotty our access to food often was, I suspect the latter. (And my doctor certainly never told me to track every nutrient. She asked generally how I ate and said the only supplement to bother with was D, in the winter, given how common it is to be low in it in this climate.)
Cron says I usually hit D, though, surprisingly.
We've discussed this several times before. You know how impressed I am by your diet.
I tried to do as well as you do, but have since given up on ever accomplishing it.0 -
Tennis is technically correct.tennisdude2004 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
The OP seems concerned with quality of food in relation to weight loss, my position is very relevant to that.PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »craigyallan wrote: »So here's a question.. Will you still loose weight eating roughly what you want as long as you maintain a 500 calorie deficit per day for example as this app says maintaining a 500 calorie deficit per day will result in weight loss. Or is it intact all down to the quality of food you eat.
You will still loss weight and depending on your macro split. Possibly more weight if you are light on protein (which isn't advised).
The difference the food choice delivers is better health benefits for better choices.
First part ....LOL Wut?
Second part ...yes
LOL (in capitals) rather passive aggressive!
Eating a deficit with a high proportion of carbs and fat and little protein will likely result in more lean mass loss, compared to a deficit containing adequate protein
As a one inch cube volume of lean mass weighs more than the same volume of fat the dieter will loss more weight for the same calorie deficit.
Just making a point that not all weight loss is the same.
Personally I think food choice is more important!
You can make the most wonderful food choice in the world, but if your goal is to actually lose weight, unless you're creating a caloric deficit, your efforts will be for naught.
Why the false dichotomy you're creating here, food choice isn't more important for weight loss, it's more important for nutrition, fat loss, and body composition.
That's the position you're taking, but that wasn't the question posed.
An answer along these lines was given by more than a few posters without adopting a contrarian approach to the calories/food quality issue.
I'm not sure what your point is in the bold paragraph above. I am not claiming that weight loss can happen outside of a calorie deficit - are you claiming that???
I agree food choice is not important for weight loss, in fact I was suggesting the worse choice you make the more weight you could lose.
My comment to the OP was stressing for healthy weight loss, food choice is very important.
Now can we get back to addressing the OP!
Here's the OP:So here's a question.. Will you still loose weight eating roughly what you want as long as you maintain a 500 calorie deficit per day for example as this app says maintaining a 500 calorie deficit per day will result in weight loss. Or is it intact all down to the quality of food you eat.
Now, perhaps you and I are interpreting that question differently, but I hardly think you need to call me out for derailing a thread when I interpret the poster to be asking about losing weight since that's what I see in the first post, and you answered that food choice was more important. It's not derailing the thread to point out that food choice does not affect how much weight is lost -- which was all I was doing in my post.
Now, if you're done wrist-slapping other posters, maybe we can get back to the point of the thread and oh, I don't know, something really crazy like actually agree on an answer!
Calorie deficit for weight loss; food quality for nutrition, body composition, and health.
I'm not calling you out for misinterpreting the question, it's for rushing in and misinterpreting my answer.
You seem to be suggesting I'm claiming you can lose weight and not be in a calorie deficit - I haven't claimed that!
Food choice has absolutely everything to do with 'how much' weight you lose.
Or are you suggesting that regardless of what you eat, at a daily deficit of 500 calories you will always lose the same amount???
It helps if the numbers are filled in.
Breaking down a pound of fat for energy yields roughly 3500 calories.
Breaking down a pound of muscle only yields roughly 1200 calories. Despite taking so much more energy to make, muscle is rather poor at converting back into energy, plus muscle is a lot of energy less water. That's a big part of why the body avoids using it as fuel and why multi-cellular organisms have fat cells. Fat molecules and cells work a lot better as a form of energy storage, though storage and possibly insulation is are the only useful things they tend to do.
So if your protein macros force muscle loss, you'll end up with muscle broken down, and it would take around 3 pounds worth of muscle to equal a pound of fat in energy. So technically you could lose a lot more weight if have have a 3500 calorie deficit that ends up coming from pure muscle, though I don't think you could ever get pure muscle loss, even while eating zero protein.
The difference in density doesn't have anything to do with though.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »I've always wondered about that "you don't get extra credit" comment. My understanding of RDA is that it is a set amount, not a percentage. For vitamin A for example, RDA is 900 mcg for men and 700 mcg for women, regardless of your height/weight/calorie intake. Most of the time that I have seen the "you don't get extra credit" comment it has come from someone with a fairly high caloric intake. It's no surprise that someone with a 2700 daily goal can hit their micros and have more room for "treats" than someone with a 1350 daily goal. But is that same 900 mcg of vitamin A REALLY an appropriate target for both people?
ETA: I should have googled first. It's based on a 2000kcal diet. Does MFP take this into account? I also see that there is a whole realm for me to explore on the topic, specifically Dietary Reference Intake.
Extras may help some with requirements, though. In logging on CronOMeter I know my favorite extra ice cream does, a bit, and same with my second favorite (cheese), given how I eat and what my goals are.0 -
goldthistime wrote: »To answer the OP's question, technically, CICO is all that matters if all that matters to you is weight loss. But I sure hope that percentage of us who don't care about health is very small. My assumption would be that most of us are trying to eat in a sustainably healthy way at the same time as we lose weight.
My assumption when people ask this question is that they want to know "Can I eat imperfectly?" For many years, I have eaten what must be relatively healthy as I have perfect cholesterol and blood glucose numbers, I just ate too much of it. (In fact, just this week my doctor told me exactly that.) And for years, I thought I must be doing something wrong, eating the wrong food, not eating the right food, whatever. I think a lot of people just want validation that they don't have to eat textbook perfect. (I'm not saying that no one hopes to subsist on a fast food diet, I'm sure those people are out there.)
I think a lot of the MFP discussion is weirdly driven by people who used to subsist on fast food diets and assume it's more common than it is, and that it's what the rest of us mean when saying "eat a moderate diet of what you like, generally balanced and healthy." Which is, of course, annoying. I agree that most who ask the question just mean can they not eat perfectly always--and I'd love to hear a good reason against that, because I don't think it exists.
My diet had lots of flaws when I was gaining weight, but it certainly was healthy when compared to the SAD, but for the excess calories, and it had lots of veg and little fast food or convenience foods (and fewer sweets than the national norm, I think). Related or not (it was likely luck or genetics), my tests were always good and my health was always good. I did a decent amount of exercise (spotty as it was) even while fat, because I live on the 4th floor and in a city where I walk everywhere, which might be relevant. (This is true even when it's cold.)
I lost lots of weight, easily, and improved already good test results, when eating a generally healthy but imperfect diet. But I also see no reason to see my decision to include ice cream or the like in my diet as some kind of imperfection. I like it, and it doesn't detract from the overall healthiness of my diet, and I've never had any dietary health issues. If some has had the latter, they might be in a different situation and should acknowledge that.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I skimmed some diaries, once, of the people who say that - none actually got all their micros. So, a little more fruit or veggies wouldn't have been "extra" credit. It would've been the regular kind.
I've been logging on CronOMeter, so I'm pretty sure I do usually get my micros. (Haven't been logging here regularly lately -- doing CronOMeter more because it's interesting and inspires me to log.)
On the other hand, I know I am regularly low on iron when I don't watch it, and yet I've never been anemic, so does it really matter that I've generally not obsessively logged and watched iron? Has my diet been inadequate? Or, perhaps, is it enough to generally eat a healthy diet without hitting every target every day? Given human history and how spotty our access to food often was, I suspect the latter. (And my doctor certainly never told me to track every nutrient. She asked generally how I ate and said the only supplement to bother with was D, in the winter, given how common it is to be low in it in this climate.)
Cron says I usually hit D, though, surprisingly.
We've discussed this several times before. You know how impressed I am by your diet.
I tried to do as well as you do, but have since given up on ever accomplishing it.
My diet isn't that exciting. The main thing I do is focus on eating lots of vegetables and especially greens. I find adding more legumes helps on Cron, which was a goal anyway. It's true I like meat (especially any seafood) so have no issues with protein.0 -
Never said it was exciting, lol. It is impressive, though. Knowing you did it made me think that maybe I could, too. But I cannot. I tried. I tried very, very hard. But I suck at it and cannot do it. There are micros every day that I don't hit. Different days, different micros! But still.lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I skimmed some diaries, once, of the people who say that - none actually got all their micros. So, a little more fruit or veggies wouldn't have been "extra" credit. It would've been the regular kind.
I've been logging on CronOMeter, so I'm pretty sure I do usually get my micros. (Haven't been logging here regularly lately -- doing CronOMeter more because it's interesting and inspires me to log.)
On the other hand, I know I am regularly low on iron when I don't watch it, and yet I've never been anemic, so does it really matter that I've generally not obsessively logged and watched iron? Has my diet been inadequate? Or, perhaps, is it enough to generally eat a healthy diet without hitting every target every day? Given human history and how spotty our access to food often was, I suspect the latter. (And my doctor certainly never told me to track every nutrient. She asked generally how I ate and said the only supplement to bother with was D, in the winter, given how common it is to be low in it in this climate.)
Cron says I usually hit D, though, surprisingly.
We've discussed this several times before. You know how impressed I am by your diet.
I tried to do as well as you do, but have since given up on ever accomplishing it.
My diet isn't that exciting. The main thing I do is focus on eating lots of vegetables and especially greens. I find adding more legumes helps on Cron, which was a goal anyway. It's true I like meat (especially any seafood) so have no issues with protein.
Not even counting the protein issue, I will never have the excellent diet that you do. I don't even try anymore. I strive for a healthy, well-balanced diet, but I know I won't hit all my micros every day. If I ever have ONE day where I hit them all, it'll be some kind of miracle.
I'm glad to know that you've succeeded, though. It's nice to know that someone is doing it, even if I cannot.
You do an awesome job and would be an inspiration to most people. I've said this before, but you should talk more about how you mange it. Not now (not trying to push or demand, lol) but in general. So many people struggle to obtain healthy diets. Knowing how you do it would probably help and inspire them. Even if they find out, later, that they cannot do it (like me), knowing that you do it and how you go about it might be a serious help.
I don't think you give yourself the credit you deserve for eating as well as you do. I think you underestimate how much help you could be to those who are struggling to improve their diets.
You're like a shining example. Share the light, woman!
0 -
You can eat 2000 calories of fruit and veg and wholewheat carbs, lean protein.... Etc and feel completely satisfied and motivated; if you eat 2000 calories of McDonalds it would be less than you think and you may even feel deprived after a while. Yes it is about CICO, but it's a lot easier to maintain when you don't feel hungry. People recommend aiming for 'good' nutrition as it has other benefits besides maintaining a healthy weight (good skin, better eyesight, easier breathing...) just remember enjoy everything in moderation 0
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
The OP seems concerned with quality of food in relation to weight loss, my position is very relevant to that.PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »craigyallan wrote: »So here's a question.. Will you still loose weight eating roughly what you want as long as you maintain a 500 calorie deficit per day for example as this app says maintaining a 500 calorie deficit per day will result in weight loss. Or is it intact all down to the quality of food you eat.
You will still loss weight and depending on your macro split. Possibly more weight if you are light on protein (which isn't advised).
The difference the food choice delivers is better health benefits for better choices.
First part ....LOL Wut?
Second part ...yes
LOL (in capitals) rather passive aggressive!
Eating a deficit with a high proportion of carbs and fat and little protein will likely result in more lean mass loss, compared to a deficit containing adequate protein
As a one inch cube volume of lean mass weighs more than the same volume of fat the dieter will loss more weight for the same calorie deficit.
Just making a point that not all weight loss is the same.
Personally I think food choice is more important!
You can make the most wonderful food choice in the world, but if your goal is to actually lose weight, unless you're creating a caloric deficit, your efforts will be for naught.
Why the false dichotomy you're creating here, food choice isn't more important for weight loss, it's more important for nutrition, fat loss, and body composition.
That's the position you're taking, but that wasn't the question posed.
An answer along these lines was given by more than a few posters without adopting a contrarian approach to the calories/food quality issue.
I'm not sure what your point is in the bold paragraph above. I am not claiming that weight loss can happen outside of a calorie deficit - are you claiming that???
I agree food choice is not important for weight loss, in fact I was suggesting the worse choice you make the more weight you could lose.
My comment to the OP was stressing for healthy weight loss, food choice is very important.
Now can we get back to addressing the OP!
Here's the OP:So here's a question.. Will you still loose weight eating roughly what you want as long as you maintain a 500 calorie deficit per day for example as this app says maintaining a 500 calorie deficit per day will result in weight loss. Or is it intact all down to the quality of food you eat.
Now, perhaps you and I are interpreting that question differently, but I hardly think you need to call me out for derailing a thread when I interpret the poster to be asking about losing weight since that's what I see in the first post, and you answered that food choice was more important. It's not derailing the thread to point out that food choice does not affect how much weight is lost -- which was all I was doing in my post.
Now, if you're done wrist-slapping other posters, maybe we can get back to the point of the thread and oh, I don't know, something really crazy like actually agree on an answer!
Calorie deficit for weight loss; food quality for nutrition, body composition, and health.
I'm not calling you out for misinterpreting the question, it's for rushing in and misinterpreting my answer.
You seem to be suggesting I'm claiming you can lose weight and not be in a calorie deficit - I haven't claimed that!
Food choice has absolutely everything to do with 'how much' weight you lose.
Or are you suggesting that regardless of what you eat, at a daily deficit of 500 calories you will always lose the same amount???
Ah, I see, you're adding to the question with things like thermic effect. Well, that was beyond the scope of the original question as I interpreted it.
My position is this: you can, if you want to, optimize food choice and play the game of "which foods will lose the optimum amount of fat" and all of that...
BUT...
To me, that comes up against a brick wall of sustainability. For some people, that's a sustainable game. For others, it's not.
Personally, I prefer a more measured approach, one that builds a diet mostly around nutrient-dense foods that a person likes with some treats throw in here and there. One full of choices that make the process of "dieting" seem effortless.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I skimmed some diaries, once, of the people who say that - none actually got all their micros. So, a little more fruit or veggies wouldn't have been "extra" credit. It would've been the regular kind.
I've been logging on CronOMeter, so I'm pretty sure I do usually get my micros. (Haven't been logging here regularly lately -- doing CronOMeter more because it's interesting and inspires me to log.)
On the other hand, I know I am regularly low on iron when I don't watch it, and yet I've never been anemic, so does it really matter that I've generally not obsessively logged and watched iron? Has my diet been inadequate? Or, perhaps, is it enough to generally eat a healthy diet without hitting every target every day? Given human history and how spotty our access to food often was, I suspect the latter. (And my doctor certainly never told me to track every nutrient. She asked generally how I ate and said the only supplement to bother with was D, in the winter, given how common it is to be low in it in this climate.)
Cron says I usually hit D, though, surprisingly.
We've discussed this several times before. You know how impressed I am by your diet.
I tried to do as well as you do, but have since given up on ever accomplishing it.
My diet isn't that exciting. The main thing I do is focus on eating lots of vegetables and especially greens. I find adding more legumes helps on Cron, which was a goal anyway. It's true I like meat (especially any seafood) so have no issues with protein.
What's the data base like there? The ability to create recipes? Anything that gives more data makes me wibble in naughty places.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
The OP seems concerned with quality of food in relation to weight loss, my position is very relevant to that.PeachyCarol wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »craigyallan wrote: »So here's a question.. Will you still loose weight eating roughly what you want as long as you maintain a 500 calorie deficit per day for example as this app says maintaining a 500 calorie deficit per day will result in weight loss. Or is it intact all down to the quality of food you eat.
You will still loss weight and depending on your macro split. Possibly more weight if you are light on protein (which isn't advised).
The difference the food choice delivers is better health benefits for better choices.
First part ....LOL Wut?
Second part ...yes
LOL (in capitals) rather passive aggressive!
Eating a deficit with a high proportion of carbs and fat and little protein will likely result in more lean mass loss, compared to a deficit containing adequate protein
As a one inch cube volume of lean mass weighs more than the same volume of fat the dieter will loss more weight for the same calorie deficit.
Just making a point that not all weight loss is the same.
Personally I think food choice is more important!
You can make the most wonderful food choice in the world, but if your goal is to actually lose weight, unless you're creating a caloric deficit, your efforts will be for naught.
Why the false dichotomy you're creating here, food choice isn't more important for weight loss, it's more important for nutrition, fat loss, and body composition.
That's the position you're taking, but that wasn't the question posed.
An answer along these lines was given by more than a few posters without adopting a contrarian approach to the calories/food quality issue.
I'm not sure what your point is in the bold paragraph above. I am not claiming that weight loss can happen outside of a calorie deficit - are you claiming that???
I agree food choice is not important for weight loss, in fact I was suggesting the worse choice you make the more weight you could lose.
My comment to the OP was stressing for healthy weight loss, food choice is very important.
Now can we get back to addressing the OP!
Here's the OP:So here's a question.. Will you still loose weight eating roughly what you want as long as you maintain a 500 calorie deficit per day for example as this app says maintaining a 500 calorie deficit per day will result in weight loss. Or is it intact all down to the quality of food you eat.
Now, perhaps you and I are interpreting that question differently, but I hardly think you need to call me out for derailing a thread when I interpret the poster to be asking about losing weight since that's what I see in the first post, and you answered that food choice was more important. It's not derailing the thread to point out that food choice does not affect how much weight is lost -- which was all I was doing in my post.
Now, if you're done wrist-slapping other posters, maybe we can get back to the point of the thread and oh, I don't know, something really crazy like actually agree on an answer!
Calorie deficit for weight loss; food quality for nutrition, body composition, and health.
I'm not calling you out for misinterpreting the question, it's for rushing in and misinterpreting my answer.
You seem to be suggesting I'm claiming you can lose weight and not be in a calorie deficit - I haven't claimed that!
Food choice has absolutely everything to do with 'how much' weight you lose.
Or are you suggesting that regardless of what you eat, at a daily deficit of 500 calories you will always lose the same amount???
Ah, I see, you're adding to the question with things like thermic effect. Well, that was beyond the scope of the original question as I interpreted it.
My position is this: you can, if you want to, optimize food choice and play the game of "which foods will lose the optimum amount of fat" and all of that...
BUT...
To me, that comes up against a brick wall of sustainability. For some people, that's a sustainable game. For others, it's not.
Personally, I prefer a more measured approach, one that builds a diet mostly around nutrient-dense foods that a person likes with some treats throw in here and there. One full of choices that make the process of "dieting" seem effortless.
I agree, that's the approach I take, which is why I can lose weight, fuel all of my workouts and not feel the need to constantly eat. As you put it 'effortless' and without the ball-ache (my own personal experience) of having to count calories. I can maintain a deficit through exercise and quality of choice in my food - yay us.
Also we all add to the threads as they go along, that's what happens in public forums and what makes them so diverse. Otherwise this thread should have ended after the one word response of yes.
0 -
Cleaned up this discussion a bit... want to remind you of:2. No Hi-Jacking, Trolling, or Flame-baiting
Please stay on-topic in an existing thread, and post new threads in the appropriate forum. Taking a thread off-topic is considered hi-jacking. Please either contribute politely and constructively to a topic, or move on without posting. This includes posts that encourage the drama in a topic to escalate, or posts intended to incite an uproar from the community.
Also: http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007789/flagged-content-reported-posts-warning-points?
and: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
Need. Coffee. Back later.0 -
That was good moderating. Thanks0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 422 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions