Good calories vs bad calories
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »I would expect the OP would want to opt for a diet higher in proteins and carbs from fruit and vegetables. Every one would most likely agree that the less processed foods the better for weight "healthy" weight loss.
I tend to agree with the gentlemen who indicated that if the OP ate a calorie deficit of junk food he/she or anyone for that matter would end up a skinny "fat" person. Yes a calorie is a calorie and a deficit is a deficit but a low calorie diet of calorie loaded unhealthy foods would be one where a trip to McDonald's could use up half or more of your calorie goal. Because that unhealthy food will soon be gone and has done little to nothing to provide your body with its needed nutrition, you are now faced with the balance of the day with a low amount of calories to eat and no ability to get proper nutrition.
As you lose the weight if you can stick with it which I trust you will, you won't be happy IMO with how your body responds to a diet of "empty" calories....especially at a deficit.
Wish you the best, this is NOT an easy transition to make. Maybe an approach is lessening the junk food to once a day or something and easing your way towards healthy choices which your body will love you for.
"disclaimer"
This is just my opinion and is not meant to elicit a firestorm of people telling me how stupid I am 
I wouldn't agree. Some processed foods fit very well into a weight loss plan. I ate canned tomatoes, frozen broccoli, tofu, seitan, protein powder, rolled oats, roasted nuts, and dried beans regularly when I was losing weight. I don't agree that I would have been healthier or lost weight faster if I had eliminated these items. I know I'm not the only person who has experienced successful weight loss while including many processed foods in my diet.
I don't know if anybody is going to tell you that you're stupid -- I do think that dividing foods into "processed - bad" and "unprocessed -- good" is an over-simplification and one that isn't very useful for weight loss purposes.
Seems like you might be mixing the apples with the oranges. The post was about junk/unhealthy food and only once used the term processed food. I doubt many people would put "canned tomatoes, frozen broccoli, tofu, seitan, protein powder, rolled oats, roasted nuts, and dried beans" in the category of junk food or unhealthy food.
I was responding to this statement: "Every one would most likely agree that the less processed foods the better for weight 'healthy' weight loss."
I don't agree the less processed foods the better for healthy weight loss. I think processed foods can be a great advantage for those trying to lose weight and maintain or regain health.
I agree that most people wouldn't put the foods I mentioned in the category of junk food or unhealthy food, which is why it doesn't make sense to demonize processed food or say that we should eat less of it if we want to be healthy or lose weight.
Do you think that's what the post was doing? Demonizing nuts and beans and protein powder?
When someone says "the less processed foods the better," I assume they are saying the less processed foods one eats, the better off one will be. If that wasn't what was meant, then there is an opportunity for better communication.
I disagree with that statement, for the reasons that I mentioned. I don't agree the less dried beans I eat, the better off I'll be. I don't agree the less frozen broccoli I eat, the better I'll be. I don't agree the less miso I eat, the better off I'll be.
I can't tell if you are being purposely obtuse, didn't read past the first sentence before responding or are serious. I don't see how anyone could read that whole post about "unhealthy" "junk" food and McD and think it had anything to do with broccoli and beans. I think you jest.
I read the entire post and I indicated the part that I was responding to. Do you agree the less processed foods the better? If you do, we can just agree to disagree. If you agree with me -- that processed foods can be a valuable part of a healthy diet -- I'm not quite sure what you're wanting to discuss.
Sometimes when responding to a longer post, someone will pull out a specific part they agree or disagree with to discuss. It's a fairly standard part of online communication. Because a specific part is pulled out, going back over sections that aren't called out may not be particularly useful. Since I mentioned the specific part of the post that I disagreed with (the part about processed food), I'm not sure what the rest of the post has to do with it.
So let me be clearer: When I wrote "I was responding to this statement" and then quoted a specific part of the statement, I meant that I was responding to that statement. If you want to discuss the rest of the post, maybe you could find someone who is interested in doing that. I am interested in discussing the statement that we will be better off the less processed food we eat.
You think I'm mixing apples with oranges. What I'm really saying is that the fact that a food is processed is an irrelevant data point when determining whether or not one should eat it. When a category includes frozen broccoli, miso, PopTarts, protein powder, hot sauce, dried beans, heavy cream, Oreos, canned tomatoes, skim milk, raspberry jam, and olive oil, it's not a useful category to decide what -- if anything -- should be eliminated or reduced from the diet.
I agree with the bolded sentence. Perhaps the poster did also and that's why they when on to further explain rather than stopping with one rather vague sentence.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »I would expect the OP would want to opt for a diet higher in proteins and carbs from fruit and vegetables. Every one would most likely agree that the less processed foods the better for weight "healthy" weight loss.
I tend to agree with the gentlemen who indicated that if the OP ate a calorie deficit of junk food he/she or anyone for that matter would end up a skinny "fat" person. Yes a calorie is a calorie and a deficit is a deficit but a low calorie diet of calorie loaded unhealthy foods would be one where a trip to McDonald's could use up half or more of your calorie goal. Because that unhealthy food will soon be gone and has done little to nothing to provide your body with its needed nutrition, you are now faced with the balance of the day with a low amount of calories to eat and no ability to get proper nutrition.
As you lose the weight if you can stick with it which I trust you will, you won't be happy IMO with how your body responds to a diet of "empty" calories....especially at a deficit.
Wish you the best, this is NOT an easy transition to make. Maybe an approach is lessening the junk food to once a day or something and easing your way towards healthy choices which your body will love you for.
"disclaimer" This is just my opinion and is not meant to elicit a firestorm of people telling me how stupid I am
I wouldn't agree. Some processed foods fit very well into a weight loss plan. I ate canned tomatoes, frozen broccoli, tofu, seitan, protein powder, rolled oats, roasted nuts, and dried beans regularly when I was losing weight. I don't agree that I would have been healthier or lost weight faster if I had eliminated these items. I know I'm not the only person who has experienced successful weight loss while including many processed foods in my diet.
I don't know if anybody is going to tell you that you're stupid -- I do think that dividing foods into "processed - bad" and "unprocessed -- good" is an over-simplification and one that isn't very useful for weight loss purposes.
Seems like you might be mixing the apples with the oranges. The post was about junk/unhealthy food and only once used the term processed food. I doubt many people would put "canned tomatoes, frozen broccoli, tofu, seitan, protein powder, rolled oats, roasted nuts, and dried beans" in the category of junk food or unhealthy food.
I was responding to this statement: "Every one would most likely agree that the less processed foods the better for weight 'healthy' weight loss."
I don't agree the less processed foods the better for healthy weight loss. I think processed foods can be a great advantage for those trying to lose weight and maintain or regain health.
I agree that most people wouldn't put the foods I mentioned in the category of junk food or unhealthy food, which is why it doesn't make sense to demonize processed food or say that we should eat less of it if we want to be healthy or lose weight.
Do you think that's what the post was doing? Demonizing nuts and beans and protein powder?
When someone says "the less processed foods the better," I assume they are saying the less processed foods one eats, the better off one will be. If that wasn't what was meant, then there is an opportunity for better communication.
I disagree with that statement, for the reasons that I mentioned. I don't agree the less dried beans I eat, the better off I'll be. I don't agree the less frozen broccoli I eat, the better I'll be. I don't agree the less miso I eat, the better off I'll be.
I can't tell if you are being purposely obtuse, didn't read past the first sentence before responding or are serious. I don't see how anyone could read that whole post about "unhealthy" "junk" food and McD and think it had anything to do with broccoli and beans. I think you jest.
I read the entire post and I indicated the part that I was responding to. Do you agree the less processed foods the better? If you do, we can just agree to disagree. If you agree with me -- that processed foods can be a valuable part of a healthy diet -- I'm not quite sure what you're wanting to discuss.
Sometimes when responding to a longer post, someone will pull out a specific part they agree or disagree with to discuss. It's a fairly standard part of online communication. Because a specific part is pulled out, going back over sections that aren't called out may not be particularly useful. Since I mentioned the specific part of the post that I disagreed with (the part about processed food), I'm not sure what the rest of the post has to do with it.
So let me be clearer: When I wrote "I was responding to this statement" and then quoted a specific part of the statement, I meant that I was responding to that statement. If you want to discuss the rest of the post, maybe you could find someone who is interested in doing that. I am interested in discussing the statement that we will be better off the less processed food we eat.
You think I'm mixing apples with oranges. What I'm really saying is that the fact that a food is processed is an irrelevant data point when determining whether or not one should eat it. When a category includes frozen broccoli, miso, PopTarts, protein powder, hot sauce, dried beans, heavy cream, Oreos, canned tomatoes, skim milk, raspberry jam, and olive oil, it's not a useful category to decide what -- if anything -- should be eliminated or reduced from the diet.
I agree with the bolded sentence. Perhaps the poster did also and that's why they when on to further explain rather than stopping with one rather vague sentence.
If they do agree, writing "the less processed foods the better" doesn't make much sense. The person I'm responding to wrote that "everyone would most likely agree" with their statement. The point of my post was to let him/her know that I didn't agree, for the reasons that I explained. And it sounds like you also would not agree.
So I'm not sure what's left to discuss unless you want to continue to explain why you think I'm obtuse for explaining why I disagree with something that you also apparently disagree with.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Here is how I think about this scenario.
Lets say on a 1200 calorie diet you eat nothing but snickers bars. Yes you would most likely weigh less, but you would feel like crap. And eating nothing but 4.8 candy bars a day would most likely leave you still hungry, and make you more likely to binge on even more crap, which makes you feel bad about yourself, so you eat even more crap food to cheer yourself up. A vicious cycle.
Now on that same 1200 calories, you eat nothing but boiled chicken breast and steamed broccoli. That's close to a pound of lean protein, and around 4 pounds of plant based nutrients. You will be much more satisfied and energized. Bored to tears, but not hungry.
So yes, a calorie is a calorie. But don't be an idiot. Your diet is your diet for life. Choose to fuel your body in a sustainable and responsible manner and it will treat you well.
To be honest, neither of those plans (only Snickers or only boiled chicken and steamed broccoli) sounds very sustainable.
Yep. I think approaching a weight loss as requiring one to eat only boiled (ugh, really--I hope broiled was meant) chicken breast and steamed broccoli is one reason a lot of people don't last or opt out as "not something I can handle now" or "not worth the effort." Same with people thinking that BL type workouts are required.
I lost a great deal of weight and rarely ate boneless, skinless chicken breast or steamed broccoli (I eat a lot of broccoli, as well as many other vegetables, but I prefer my broccoli roasted or sauteed, usually with some olive oil). (I also didn't eat any Snickers, since I don't like them.) Instead, I ate a nice mix of proteins and as many different types of vegetables I could get my hands on, plus a wide mix of other foods, including some splurgy foods like naan and curry, cheese, and ice cream. I just fit it into my overall nutrient-dense (and protein-appropriate) diet.
Why is this always presented as some either/or choice between crazy extremes?0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »Well i'm new here and I guess some people just want to argue and post rebuttals on sentences instead of the post as a whole so with that....I bow out...with only saying that I stand behind what I said above as it was it considerate advice that I believe is in the best overall interest of anyone on a path towards better health. I'll take the high road and allow those to each have their opinions and let the OP to weed though for their own on their road to a healthier leaner person.
I'm still curious why you thought it was important to tell OP not to eat all "junk" food or imagined that OP was -- OP never said anything like that. I'm also curious why you suggested that others were encouraging OP to eat all junk food. Don't you think that kind of distortion of our comments is rude? I'd like to understand your point if you think you were disagreeing with other comments in what you said, but it seems to me that you have misunderstood (and we are talking past each other) if you think people have been suggesting that an all junk food diet is a great idea.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »I would expect the OP would want to opt for a diet higher in proteins and carbs from fruit and vegetables. Every one would most likely agree that the less processed foods the better for weight "healthy" weight loss.
I tend to agree with the gentlemen who indicated that if the OP ate a calorie deficit of junk food he/she or anyone for that matter would end up a skinny "fat" person. Yes a calorie is a calorie and a deficit is a deficit but a low calorie diet of calorie loaded unhealthy foods would be one where a trip to McDonald's could use up half or more of your calorie goal. Because that unhealthy food will soon be gone and has done little to nothing to provide your body with its needed nutrition, you are now faced with the balance of the day with a low amount of calories to eat and no ability to get proper nutrition.
As you lose the weight if you can stick with it which I trust you will, you won't be happy IMO with how your body responds to a diet of "empty" calories....especially at a deficit.
Wish you the best, this is NOT an easy transition to make. Maybe an approach is lessening the junk food to once a day or something and easing your way towards healthy choices which your body will love you for.
"disclaimer" This is just my opinion and is not meant to elicit a firestorm of people telling me how stupid I am
I wouldn't agree. Some processed foods fit very well into a weight loss plan. I ate canned tomatoes, frozen broccoli, tofu, seitan, protein powder, rolled oats, roasted nuts, and dried beans regularly when I was losing weight. I don't agree that I would have been healthier or lost weight faster if I had eliminated these items. I know I'm not the only person who has experienced successful weight loss while including many processed foods in my diet.
I don't know if anybody is going to tell you that you're stupid -- I do think that dividing foods into "processed - bad" and "unprocessed -- good" is an over-simplification and one that isn't very useful for weight loss purposes.
Seems like you might be mixing the apples with the oranges. The post was about junk/unhealthy food and only once used the term processed food. I doubt many people would put "canned tomatoes, frozen broccoli, tofu, seitan, protein powder, rolled oats, roasted nuts, and dried beans" in the category of junk food or unhealthy food.
I was responding to this statement: "Every one would most likely agree that the less processed foods the better for weight 'healthy' weight loss."
I don't agree the less processed foods the better for healthy weight loss. I think processed foods can be a great advantage for those trying to lose weight and maintain or regain health.
I agree that most people wouldn't put the foods I mentioned in the category of junk food or unhealthy food, which is why it doesn't make sense to demonize processed food or say that we should eat less of it if we want to be healthy or lose weight.
Do you think that's what the post was doing? Demonizing nuts and beans and protein powder?
When someone says "the less processed foods the better," I assume they are saying the less processed foods one eats, the better off one will be. If that wasn't what was meant, then there is an opportunity for better communication.
I disagree with that statement, for the reasons that I mentioned. I don't agree the less dried beans I eat, the better off I'll be. I don't agree the less frozen broccoli I eat, the better I'll be. I don't agree the less miso I eat, the better off I'll be.
I can't tell if you are being purposely obtuse, didn't read past the first sentence before responding or are serious. I don't see how anyone could read that whole post about "unhealthy" "junk" food and McD and think it had anything to do with broccoli and beans. I think you jest.
I read the entire post and I indicated the part that I was responding to. Do you agree the less processed foods the better? If you do, we can just agree to disagree. If you agree with me -- that processed foods can be a valuable part of a healthy diet -- I'm not quite sure what you're wanting to discuss.
Sometimes when responding to a longer post, someone will pull out a specific part they agree or disagree with to discuss. It's a fairly standard part of online communication. Because a specific part is pulled out, going back over sections that aren't called out may not be particularly useful. Since I mentioned the specific part of the post that I disagreed with (the part about processed food), I'm not sure what the rest of the post has to do with it.
So let me be clearer: When I wrote "I was responding to this statement" and then quoted a specific part of the statement, I meant that I was responding to that statement. If you want to discuss the rest of the post, maybe you could find someone who is interested in doing that. I am interested in discussing the statement that we will be better off the less processed food we eat.
You think I'm mixing apples with oranges. What I'm really saying is that the fact that a food is processed is an irrelevant data point when determining whether or not one should eat it. When a category includes frozen broccoli, miso, PopTarts, protein powder, hot sauce, dried beans, heavy cream, Oreos, canned tomatoes, skim milk, raspberry jam, and olive oil, it's not a useful category to decide what -- if anything -- should be eliminated or reduced from the diet.
I agree with the bolded sentence. Perhaps the poster did also and that's why they when on to further explain rather than stopping with one rather vague sentence.
If they do agree, writing "the less processed foods the better" doesn't make much sense. The person I'm responding to wrote that "everyone would most likely agree" with their statement. The point of my post was to let him/her know that I didn't agree, for the reasons that I explained. And it sounds like you also would not agree.
So I'm not sure what's left to discuss unless you want to continue to explain why you think I'm obtuse for explaining why I disagree with something that you also apparently disagree with.
I think taking one sentence out of context and ignoring everything else written is silly. But it does seem particularly typical when it comes to diet, which I find odd.0 -
I'm only trying to help people and steer them away from misinformation.
proceeds to steer everyone towards an article full of misinformation
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »Well i'm new here and I guess some people just want to argue and post rebuttals on sentences instead of the post as a whole so with that....I bow out...with only saying that I stand behind what I said above as it was it considerate advice that I believe is in the best overall interest of anyone on a path towards better health. I'll take the high road and allow those to each have their opinions and let the OP to weed though for their own on their road to a healthier leaner person.
I'm still curious why you thought it was important to tell OP not to eat all "junk" food or imagined that OP was -- OP never said anything like that. I'm also curious why you suggested that others were encouraging OP to eat all junk food. Don't you think that kind of distortion of our comments is rude? I'd like to understand your point if you think you were disagreeing with other comments in what you said, but it seems to me that you have misunderstood (and we are talking past each other) if you think people have been suggesting that an all junk food diet is a great idea.
Please show where i said what you are claiming and i'll be happy to explain.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »I would expect the OP would want to opt for a diet higher in proteins and carbs from fruit and vegetables. Every one would most likely agree that the less processed foods the better for weight "healthy" weight loss.
I tend to agree with the gentlemen who indicated that if the OP ate a calorie deficit of junk food he/she or anyone for that matter would end up a skinny "fat" person. Yes a calorie is a calorie and a deficit is a deficit but a low calorie diet of calorie loaded unhealthy foods would be one where a trip to McDonald's could use up half or more of your calorie goal. Because that unhealthy food will soon be gone and has done little to nothing to provide your body with its needed nutrition, you are now faced with the balance of the day with a low amount of calories to eat and no ability to get proper nutrition.
As you lose the weight if you can stick with it which I trust you will, you won't be happy IMO with how your body responds to a diet of "empty" calories....especially at a deficit.
Wish you the best, this is NOT an easy transition to make. Maybe an approach is lessening the junk food to once a day or something and easing your way towards healthy choices which your body will love you for.
"disclaimer" This is just my opinion and is not meant to elicit a firestorm of people telling me how stupid I am
I wouldn't agree. Some processed foods fit very well into a weight loss plan. I ate canned tomatoes, frozen broccoli, tofu, seitan, protein powder, rolled oats, roasted nuts, and dried beans regularly when I was losing weight. I don't agree that I would have been healthier or lost weight faster if I had eliminated these items. I know I'm not the only person who has experienced successful weight loss while including many processed foods in my diet.
I don't know if anybody is going to tell you that you're stupid -- I do think that dividing foods into "processed - bad" and "unprocessed -- good" is an over-simplification and one that isn't very useful for weight loss purposes.
Seems like you might be mixing the apples with the oranges. The post was about junk/unhealthy food and only once used the term processed food. I doubt many people would put "canned tomatoes, frozen broccoli, tofu, seitan, protein powder, rolled oats, roasted nuts, and dried beans" in the category of junk food or unhealthy food.
I was responding to this statement: "Every one would most likely agree that the less processed foods the better for weight 'healthy' weight loss."
I don't agree the less processed foods the better for healthy weight loss. I think processed foods can be a great advantage for those trying to lose weight and maintain or regain health.
I agree that most people wouldn't put the foods I mentioned in the category of junk food or unhealthy food, which is why it doesn't make sense to demonize processed food or say that we should eat less of it if we want to be healthy or lose weight.
Do you think that's what the post was doing? Demonizing nuts and beans and protein powder?
When someone says "the less processed foods the better," I assume they are saying the less processed foods one eats, the better off one will be. If that wasn't what was meant, then there is an opportunity for better communication.
I disagree with that statement, for the reasons that I mentioned. I don't agree the less dried beans I eat, the better off I'll be. I don't agree the less frozen broccoli I eat, the better I'll be. I don't agree the less miso I eat, the better off I'll be.
I can't tell if you are being purposely obtuse, didn't read past the first sentence before responding or are serious. I don't see how anyone could read that whole post about "unhealthy" "junk" food and McD and think it had anything to do with broccoli and beans. I think you jest.
I read the entire post and I indicated the part that I was responding to. Do you agree the less processed foods the better? If you do, we can just agree to disagree. If you agree with me -- that processed foods can be a valuable part of a healthy diet -- I'm not quite sure what you're wanting to discuss.
Sometimes when responding to a longer post, someone will pull out a specific part they agree or disagree with to discuss. It's a fairly standard part of online communication. Because a specific part is pulled out, going back over sections that aren't called out may not be particularly useful. Since I mentioned the specific part of the post that I disagreed with (the part about processed food), I'm not sure what the rest of the post has to do with it.
So let me be clearer: When I wrote "I was responding to this statement" and then quoted a specific part of the statement, I meant that I was responding to that statement. If you want to discuss the rest of the post, maybe you could find someone who is interested in doing that. I am interested in discussing the statement that we will be better off the less processed food we eat.
You think I'm mixing apples with oranges. What I'm really saying is that the fact that a food is processed is an irrelevant data point when determining whether or not one should eat it. When a category includes frozen broccoli, miso, PopTarts, protein powder, hot sauce, dried beans, heavy cream, Oreos, canned tomatoes, skim milk, raspberry jam, and olive oil, it's not a useful category to decide what -- if anything -- should be eliminated or reduced from the diet.
I agree with the bolded sentence. Perhaps the poster did also and that's why they when on to further explain rather than stopping with one rather vague sentence.
If they do agree, writing "the less processed foods the better" doesn't make much sense. The person I'm responding to wrote that "everyone would most likely agree" with their statement. The point of my post was to let him/her know that I didn't agree, for the reasons that I explained. And it sounds like you also would not agree.
So I'm not sure what's left to discuss unless you want to continue to explain why you think I'm obtuse for explaining why I disagree with something that you also apparently disagree with.
I think taking one sentence out of context and ignoring everything else written is silly. But it does seem particularly typical when it comes to diet, which I find odd.
Thanks for sharing your feelings on the subject.0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »Well i'm new here and I guess some people just want to argue and post rebuttals on sentences instead of the post as a whole so with that....I bow out...with only saying that I stand behind what I said above as it was it considerate advice that I believe is in the best overall interest of anyone on a path towards better health. I'll take the high road and allow those to each have their opinions and let the OP to weed though for their own on their road to a healthier leaner person.
I'm still curious why you thought it was important to tell OP not to eat all "junk" food or imagined that OP was -- OP never said anything like that. I'm also curious why you suggested that others were encouraging OP to eat all junk food. Don't you think that kind of distortion of our comments is rude? I'd like to understand your point if you think you were disagreeing with other comments in what you said, but it seems to me that you have misunderstood (and we are talking past each other) if you think people have been suggesting that an all junk food diet is a great idea.
Please show where i said what you are claiming and i'll be happy to explain.
Perhaps it was when you wrote this: "I tend to agree with the gentlemen who indicated that if the OP ate a calorie deficit of junk food he/she or anyone for that matter would end up a skinny "fat" person. Yes a calorie is a calorie and a deficit is a deficit but a low calorie diet of calorie loaded unhealthy foods would be one where a trip to McDonald's could use up half or more of your calorie goal."
0 -
did you miss the small word "IF" the OP ate that way? it was an illustration not an indictment.0
-
muscleandbeard wrote: »Omg I officially dislike this app and the poor advice that people on here give. There is more to weight loss than just the number on the scale. Body composition is only determined by the foods you eat. You can lose weight by a calorie deficit but you will not be toned, shredded etc. You will be skinny fat if you eat crap food. Please refer to this link to better understand why what you eat is just as important as how much you eat. You have to be in deficit to lose weight, but you have to have a well balanced diet to lose fat instead of muscle.
http://comfortpit.com/the-truth-about-calories/
wrong.
you can have an overall diet that hits micros and macros AND eat some calorie dense foods, and you can still meet body recomp goals...
0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »did you miss the small word "IF" the OP ate that way? it was an illustration not an indictment.
I'm unclear what it was an illustration of, as nobody was suggesting that OP eat in the way that you described.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On the other hand, just fruit and veg isn't healthy either.
Hmm. Not sure this statement would always be true.
We've discussed this before. My belief is that normally when people say "just fruit and veg" they don't mean "eating a balanced vegan diet that includes legumes and other sources of protein and are careful to get good sources of fat like avocado and nuts and seeds." They mean "I will eat only fruit and non-starchy vegetables." They have a mistaken belief that those are the healthiest foods and that just eating them is therefore the healthiest thing to do. I've seen it over and over again on MFP. When people mean vegan or plant-based, they say vegan or plant-based.
That's quite a generalization. I'm not sure most people would get all that from simply saying eating only fruit and veg isn't healthy.
I don't know what "most people" would get, but I'll say that even in the vegan community "fruits and vegetables" is often interpreted as "fruit and non-starchy vegetables." If someone is eating legumes and grains and nuts and seeds, this will usually be specified, as people often don't include these under the umbrella of "vegetables."
I guess we can discuss whether this is technically correct or not, but I think what most people -- including those on plant-based diets -- mean by "fruits and vegetables" is fairly limited. I know that legumes and grains are vegetables, but if someone told me that they only ate fruits and vegetables, my first assumption would be that they were on a very limited and strict diet that didn't include legumes and grains. And I probably would caution them that this isn't going to be great for their health, that they need more protein and fat.
exactly...
also, i find the "all this or all that" arguments to pretty much kill any kind of legitimate discussion right from go because it's so ludicrous.0 -
still waiting to hear where i said the OP eats all junk food or imagined that they were and where i said other posters where encouraging the OP to eat junk food. apparently that was your question to me. Please tell me where i have been rude in any of my posts.
Thank you.0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »Well i'm new here and I guess some people just want to argue and post rebuttals on sentences instead of the post as a whole so with that....I bow out...with only saying that I stand behind what I said above as it was it considerate advice that I believe is in the best overall interest of anyone on a path towards better health. I'll take the high road and allow those to each have their opinions and let the OP to weed though for their own on their road to a healthier leaner person.
I'm still curious why you thought it was important to tell OP not to eat all "junk" food or imagined that OP was -- OP never said anything like that. I'm also curious why you suggested that others were encouraging OP to eat all junk food. Don't you think that kind of distortion of our comments is rude? I'd like to understand your point if you think you were disagreeing with other comments in what you said, but it seems to me that you have misunderstood (and we are talking past each other) if you think people have been suggesting that an all junk food diet is a great idea.
Please show where i said what you are claiming and i'll be happy to explain.
Thanks.I tend to agree with the gentlemen who indicated that if the OP ate a calorie deficit of junk food he/she or anyone for that matter would end up a skinny "fat" person.
This person (the "gentleman") made a point of calling out the rest of us for supposedly recommending an unhealthy diet. You made a point of agreeing with him (presumably vs. the rest of us, as if we were somehow suggesting that OP eat only "junk" food).
You then went on not to answer the specific (hypothetical) question OP asked, but to give OP advice on nutrition, as if OP had indicated a plan or desire or practice of eating only "junk" food instead of asking if she could eat more if eating only fruits and veg:Yes a calorie is a calorie and a deficit is a deficit but a low calorie diet of calorie loaded unhealthy foods would be one where a trip to McDonald's could use up half or more of your calorie goal. Because that unhealthy food will soon be gone and has done little to nothing to provide your body with its needed nutrition, you are now faced with the balance of the day with a low amount of calories to eat and no ability to get proper nutrition.
The following comments, to me, make clear the assumption that OP is currently eating only "junk":As you lose the weight if you can stick with it which I trust you will, you won't be happy IMO with how your body responds to a diet of "empty" calories....especially at a deficit.
Wish you the best, this is NOT an easy transition to make. Maybe an approach is lessening the junk food to once a day or something and easing your way towards healthy choices which your body will love you for.
Your finishing sentence indicates that you think "don't eat only junk food" would be considered stupid or bad advice by others here (pretty much all of whom have said that eating a healthful diet is important for nutrition):"disclaimer" This is just my opinion and is not meant to elicit a firestorm of people telling me how stupid I am
The funny thing is that it is controversial -- not because of some sort of vast disagreement with the point that a diet of only "junk food" is not ideal for health purposes, but because of the assumption that OP was being told to eat only "junk food." You perceived yourself to be bucking the majority here, and I don't see where you got that idea. Of course OP shouldn't eat 1200 calories of fried foods (although if she could manage to, it would work for weight loss purposes).0 -
Wow. amazing. simply amazing. assumptions and perceptions by you. alrighty then. Clearly you win! Congratulations. case closed. I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
0 -
You may have seen a story doing the rounds about a teacher who lost 56lb eating nothing but McDonalds? I thought it was quite appropriate for this discussion, so I'm just gonna leave this here as I think it sums up some of this debate perfectly, especially the sentence at the end. Link to the full article below.
"What did the experiment prove? That it’s acceptable to live off fast food? No. It reinforced what research and science has stated all along: caloric intake and expenditure are critical for weight loss and health.
Regardless of Cisna eating 540 straight meals at McDonald’s, his health markers improved. Here are the improvements he made in the first three months:
Cholesterol: started at 249 and lowered to 170
Triglycerides: from 156 to 80
LDL: from 170 to 113
Those are terrific improvements in 90 days and you cannot claim he’s not healthier as a result of the experiment.
And why are some people so upset? Because he “didn’t do enough” and should have eaten real foods? Come on, people. You’re missing the point entirely.
It likely would not have been practical for this gentleman to eat nothing but real food every day for every single meal without fail for six months straight.
People shouting that this doesn’t prove anything are missing the forest for the trees. How many millions of people in the United States alone are obese or overweight? If you think the answer is to tell everyone to trade their morning McDonald’s meal for a homemade omelet and cook dinner from scratch when they’re used to going out to eat is going to work … well … it hasn’t yet. And for most people it won’t.
Demonstrating, as Cisna did, that it’s possible to lose weight and improve your health eating McDonald’s provides real world application for many people.
Dr. Brad Schoenfeld said it well in response to criticism of the experiment:
“The point is to show that if you reduce calories below expenditure, you’ll lose weight regardless of (and despite) the nutritional components. I’ll also add the most important aspect of any diet is adherence. Sure, it’s nice to speak of ideals. But what good is giving someone a “healthy” nutritional approach if they don’t follow it?”
Well said, doc.
It’s not always about what’s “ideal”. It may have to be about what’s doable for the individual at first."
http://www.niashanks.com/teacher-lost-weight-eating-mcdonalds/0 -
skysiebaby wrote: »You may have seen a story doing the rounds about a teacher who lost 56lb eating nothing but McDonalds? I thought it was quite appropriate for this discussion, so I'm just gonna leave this here as I think it sums up some of this debate perfectly, especially the sentence at the end. Link to the full article below.
"What did the experiment prove? That it’s acceptable to live off fast food? No. It reinforced what research and science has stated all along: caloric intake and expenditure are critical for weight loss and health.
Regardless of Cisna eating 540 straight meals at McDonald’s, his health markers improved. Here are the improvements he made in the first three months:
Cholesterol: started at 249 and lowered to 170
Triglycerides: from 156 to 80
LDL: from 170 to 113
Those are terrific improvements in 90 days and you cannot claim he’s not healthier as a result of the experiment.
And why are some people so upset? Because he “didn’t do enough” and should have eaten real foods? Come on, people. You’re missing the point entirely.
It likely would not have been practical for this gentleman to eat nothing but real food every day for every single meal without fail for six months straight.
People shouting that this doesn’t prove anything are missing the forest for the trees. How many millions of people in the United States alone are obese or overweight? If you think the answer is to tell everyone to trade their morning McDonald’s meal for a homemade omelet and cook dinner from scratch when they’re used to going out to eat is going to work … well … it hasn’t yet. And for most people it won’t.
Demonstrating, as Cisna did, that it’s possible to lose weight and improve your health eating McDonald’s provides real world application for many people.
Dr. Brad Schoenfeld said it well in response to criticism of the experiment:
“The point is to show that if you reduce calories below expenditure, you’ll lose weight regardless of (and despite) the nutritional components. I’ll also add the most important aspect of any diet is adherence. Sure, it’s nice to speak of ideals. But what good is giving someone a “healthy” nutritional approach if they don’t follow it?”
Well said, doc.
It’s not always about what’s “ideal”. It may have to be about what’s doable for the individual at first."
http://www.niashanks.com/teacher-lost-weight-eating-mcdonalds/
#TRUTH
Seriously, what works for one person isn't going to work for another. You have to find an eating plan that works FOR YOU and is sustainable. If you try someone else's diet, after a couple weeks ask yourself "Can I see myself eating this way the rest of my life?" If the answer is No, then what you're doing isn't for you.
Your best bet it make small adjustments in your diet over time. That helps you learn what a proper portion actually LOOKS like, helps you make better decisions, and still lets you eat foods you like. That way, at the end, you have a diet that you like, works for you, and is usually healthier than what you were doing. Even if you eat fast food every day for lunch, if you've learned how to account for that in daily calories, you're fine.0 -
Tomk652015 wrote: »Wow. amazing. simply amazing. assumptions and perceptions by you. alrighty then. Clearly you win! Congratulations. case closed. I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
I'm not trying to win. I'm trying to discuss why these threads tend to end up with silly argument. My contention is that one reason is that people don't really read and respond to what other participants are saying but to straw men. One such straw man is that anyone recommends eating 100% junk food (or says that would be a good choice).
You seemed to think your comment (and the "gentleman's") were inconsistent with the advice OP was otherwise getting -- why? Because we answered her question about weight loss honestly? Or did you simply assume that people were telling her that food choice is irrelevant to health because you jumped to the end, saw the "gentleman's" answer, and assumed that what he said was an accurate reflection of what others had said?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »Omg I officially dislike this app and the poor advice that people on here give. There is more to weight loss than just the number on the scale. Body composition is only determined by the foods you eat. You can lose weight by a calorie deficit but you will not be toned, shredded etc. You will be skinny fat if you eat crap food. Please refer to this link to better understand why what you eat is just as important as how much you eat. You have to be in deficit to lose weight, but you have to have a well balanced diet to lose fat instead of muscle.
http://comfortpit.com/the-truth-about-calories/
Body composition is not only determined by the foods you eat. Have you seen a 5% bf bodybuilder who never did any training?
You obviously have to work out. This is under the presumption that the person already does.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Tomk652015 wrote: »Wow. amazing. simply amazing. assumptions and perceptions by you. alrighty then. Clearly you win! Congratulations. case closed. I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming.
I'm not trying to win. I'm trying to discuss why these threads tend to end up with silly argument.
I think assumptions and perceptions answers this question perfectly. 0 -
muscleandbeard wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »Omg I officially dislike this app and the poor advice that people on here give. There is more to weight loss than just the number on the scale. Body composition is only determined by the foods you eat. You can lose weight by a calorie deficit but you will not be toned, shredded etc. You will be skinny fat if you eat crap food. Please refer to this link to better understand why what you eat is just as important as how much you eat. You have to be in deficit to lose weight, but you have to have a well balanced diet to lose fat instead of muscle.
http://comfortpit.com/the-truth-about-calories/
Body composition is not only determined by the foods you eat. Have you seen a 5% bf bodybuilder who never did any training?
You obviously have to work out. This is under the presumption that the person already does.
You're presuming that everyone who wants to lose weight is already working out? That's a pretty big presumption.0 -
muscleandbeard wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »Omg I officially dislike this app and the poor advice that people on here give. There is more to weight loss than just the number on the scale. Body composition is only determined by the foods you eat. You can lose weight by a calorie deficit but you will not be toned, shredded etc. You will be skinny fat if you eat crap food. Please refer to this link to better understand why what you eat is just as important as how much you eat. You have to be in deficit to lose weight, but you have to have a well balanced diet to lose fat instead of muscle.
http://comfortpit.com/the-truth-about-calories/
Body composition is not only determined by the foods you eat. Have you seen a 5% bf bodybuilder who never did any training?
You obviously have to work out. This is under the presumption that the person already does.
MFP is designed to set a calorie goal for users without exercise, such that even if a person does no exercise, they can lose weight. Now for improving overall health, fitness, etc - it is optimal if a person does incorporate some level of exercise into their goals, but to presume that every person on here is exercising, especially progressive lifting, is just not accurate for the demographic of this site.0 -
muscleandbeard wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »Omg I officially dislike this app and the poor advice that people on here give. There is more to weight loss than just the number on the scale. Body composition is only determined by the foods you eat. You can lose weight by a calorie deficit but you will not be toned, shredded etc. You will be skinny fat if you eat crap food. Please refer to this link to better understand why what you eat is just as important as how much you eat. You have to be in deficit to lose weight, but you have to have a well balanced diet to lose fat instead of muscle.
http://comfortpit.com/the-truth-about-calories/
Body composition is not only determined by the foods you eat. Have you seen a 5% bf bodybuilder who never did any training?
You obviously have to work out. This is under the presumption that the person already does.
The point stands that you are making a moral judgement that isn't supported by facts. You can have a "crap" diet and that won't affect your body composition unless you are missing key macros/micros at the proper level. Just look at all the classic bodybuilders and strength altheletes that used to have diets of pizza and beer during their bulks. There is no evidence to show that, as long as you meet your macro/micro targets that it has to be done in some particular fashion, our bodies are pretty damn good at extracting what we need reguardless of the form it comes in. We wouldn't have survived in such vastly different food environments for thousands of years if that wasn't the case.
ETA, working out is the key to preserving and building muscle, but that's pretty much a given.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On the other hand, just fruit and veg isn't healthy either.
Hmm. Not sure this statement would always be true.
We've discussed this before. My belief is that normally when people say "just fruit and veg" they don't mean "eating a balanced vegan diet that includes legumes and other sources of protein and are careful to get good sources of fat like avocado and nuts and seeds." They mean "I will eat only fruit and non-starchy vegetables." They have a mistaken belief that those are the healthiest foods and that just eating them is therefore the healthiest thing to do. I've seen it over and over again on MFP. When people mean vegan or plant-based, they say vegan or plant-based.
That's quite a generalization. I'm not sure most people would get all that from simply saying eating only fruit and veg isn't healthy.
I don't know what "most people" would get, but I'll say that even in the vegan community "fruits and vegetables" is often interpreted as "fruit and non-starchy vegetables." If someone is eating legumes and grains and nuts and seeds, this will usually be specified, as people often don't include these under the umbrella of "vegetables."
I guess we can discuss whether this is technically correct or not, but I think what most people -- including those on plant-based diets -- mean by "fruits and vegetables" is fairly limited. I know that legumes and grains are vegetables, but if someone told me that they only ate fruits and vegetables, my first assumption would be that they were on a very limited and strict diet that didn't include legumes and grains. And I probably would caution them that this isn't going to be great for their health, that they need more protein and fat.
exactly...
also, i find the "all this or all that" arguments to pretty much kill any kind of legitimate discussion right from go because it's so ludicrous.
But the binary, black-and-white approach builds the strongest support framework for the strawman. It's much harder for them to argue that a moderate, balanced diet with occasional treats thrown in is a "bad" way to eat - instead, frame those people as eating doughnuts for breakfast, Snickers bars for lunch and McDonald's for dinner every day. Because there can't possibly be a sensible, moderate approach to eating.0 -
A calorie is measured by burning the food to determine the amount of energy in the food. There are some foods that they body is better able to digest and therefore make use of all of the energy in the food. For example corn comes out looking very similar to the way that it went in and thus your body did not make use of all of the energy in that food. So a diet high in fiber (which is harder for your body to digest) will not be absorbed as well as a junk food diet which is more easily absorbed by your body.
Also with a healthy diet you can be completely and utterly full with only 447 calories (my lunch today) as opposed to a 500 calorie muffin which leaves me hungry an hour later (that is the fruit and bran muffin at my local coffee shop).
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On the other hand, just fruit and veg isn't healthy either.
Hmm. Not sure this statement would always be true.
We've discussed this before. My belief is that normally when people say "just fruit and veg" they don't mean "eating a balanced vegan diet that includes legumes and other sources of protein and are careful to get good sources of fat like avocado and nuts and seeds." They mean "I will eat only fruit and non-starchy vegetables." They have a mistaken belief that those are the healthiest foods and that just eating them is therefore the healthiest thing to do. I've seen it over and over again on MFP. When people mean vegan or plant-based, they say vegan or plant-based.
That's quite a generalization. I'm not sure most people would get all that from simply saying eating only fruit and veg isn't healthy.
I don't know what "most people" would get, but I'll say that even in the vegan community "fruits and vegetables" is often interpreted as "fruit and non-starchy vegetables." If someone is eating legumes and grains and nuts and seeds, this will usually be specified, as people often don't include these under the umbrella of "vegetables."
I guess we can discuss whether this is technically correct or not, but I think what most people -- including those on plant-based diets -- mean by "fruits and vegetables" is fairly limited. I know that legumes and grains are vegetables, but if someone told me that they only ate fruits and vegetables, my first assumption would be that they were on a very limited and strict diet that didn't include legumes and grains. And I probably would caution them that this isn't going to be great for their health, that they need more protein and fat.
exactly...
also, i find the "all this or all that" arguments to pretty much kill any kind of legitimate discussion right from go because it's so ludicrous.
But the binary, black-and-white approach builds the strongest support framework for the strawman. It's much harder for them to argue that a moderate, balanced diet with occasional treats thrown in is a "bad" way to eat - instead, frame those people as eating doughnuts for breakfast, Snickers bars for lunch and McDonald's for dinner every day. Because there can't possibly be a sensible, moderate approach to eating.
We don't build strawmen at MFP we build straw armies! 0 -
muscleandbeard wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »muscleandbeard wrote: »Omg I officially dislike this app and the poor advice that people on here give. There is more to weight loss than just the number on the scale. Body composition is only determined by the foods you eat. You can lose weight by a calorie deficit but you will not be toned, shredded etc. You will be skinny fat if you eat crap food. Please refer to this link to better understand why what you eat is just as important as how much you eat. You have to be in deficit to lose weight, but you have to have a well balanced diet to lose fat instead of muscle.
http://comfortpit.com/the-truth-about-calories/
Body composition is not only determined by the foods you eat. Have you seen a 5% bf bodybuilder who never did any training?
You obviously have to work out. This is under the presumption that the person already does.
"Body composition is only determined by the foods you eat" ... your words that you now have added a presumption to after it was not part of your initial diatribe. What else did you realize you left out of your broscience, slanted perception based earlier post?0 -
And of course people are definitely eating nothing but Snickers bars for their diet.Here is how I think about this scenario.
Lets say on a 1200 calorie diet you eat nothing but snickers bars. Yes you would most likely weigh less, but you would feel like crap. And eating nothing but 4.8 candy bars a day would most likely leave you still hungry, and make you more likely to binge on even more crap, which makes you feel bad about yourself, so you eat even more crap food to cheer yourself up. A vicious cycle.
Now on that same 1200 calories, you eat nothing but boiled chicken breast and steamed broccoli. That's close to a pound of lean protein, and around 4 pounds of plant based nutrients. You will be much more satisfied and energized. Bored to tears, but not hungry.
So yes, a calorie is a calorie. But don't be an idiot. Your diet is your diet for life. Choose to fuel your body in a sustainable and responsible manner and it will treat you well.
The point being that "a" Snickers bar can be PART of a diet plan and weight loss can still occur.
1 snickers bar = 266 calories
I could eat 6 snickers bars a day...
I could probably get on board with this diet, at least for one day a week. If I wasn't allergic to peanuts
0 -
OP: if you are still around think of it like this
which weighs more:
a pound of feather or a pound of rocks?0
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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