Good calories vs bad calories
Replies
-
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.
I don't work out. I never have and I've lost 50lbs. Granted, I started walking to try and get my asthma under control, but I don't use it for weight loss as I eat those calories back. Exercise IS NOT necessary for weight loss. Weight loss happens when you burn more calories than you consume. Period. HOW you do it is up to you. There's many different ways. Yes, working out and exercise are important for many reasons, such as getting your heart into better shape so it handles stress better. And lifting is a good idea when losing weight because muscle tone plays a big role in how you actually look when you've lost the weight. But assuming everyone here obviously has to work out isn't an accurate statement.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
Have you heard of Twix?!? Our Lord of the Heavenly candy bar may approve.
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
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10023905/my-one-day-snickers-bar-story/p10 -
diannethegeek wrote: »
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
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10023905/my-one-day-snickers-bar-story/p1
The snickers thread still rocks my world.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
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
Have you heard of Twix?!? Our Lord of the Heavenly candy bar may approve.
0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »
Pretty awesome. Yeah I can't imagine I'd really want to repeat that experience too often either
@_Terrapin_ , I believe Twix are produced on equipment shared with peanuts.
0 -
Reading this thread has led me to one conclusion: I really wish I had a Snickers bar right now.0
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
That's something I need to point out a lot on here.0 -
cherrycoke3170 wrote: »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).
The calories are mostly measured by composition analysis of the amount of fats, proteins and carbs contained in the food instead of burning them nowadays. It's more accurate than the burning for the reasons you pointed out.0 -
hmm. . . . . . .shared equipment. Must find answer. . . .diannethegeek wrote: »
Pretty awesome. Yeah I can't imagine I'd really want to repeat that experience too often either
@_Terrapin_ , I believe Twix are produced on equipment shared with peanuts.
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/
Flexible dieted all the way to my profile pic. HTH
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/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
0 -
tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »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/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet0 -
tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »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/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet
My understanding was that the Twinkie diet was a demonstration that you could live in a so called food desert and still maintain a healthy weight with the foods available.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »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/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet
My understanding was that the Twinkie diet was a demonstration that you could live in a so called food desert and still maintain a healthy weight with the foods available.
he lost weight and had improved health markers...0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »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/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet
My understanding was that the Twinkie diet was a demonstration that you could live in a so called food desert and still maintain a healthy weight with the foods available.
he lost weight and had improved health markers...
Exactly, so it was a successful demonstration! 0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »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/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet
My understanding was that the Twinkie diet was a demonstration that you could live in a so called food desert and still maintain a healthy weight with the foods available.
he lost weight and had improved health markers...
and on the payroll of Coca Cola...
http://transparency.coca-colacompany.com/health-professionals-and-scientific-experts
0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »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/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet
My understanding was that the Twinkie diet was a demonstration that you could live in a so called food desert and still maintain a healthy weight with the foods available.
he lost weight and had improved health markers...
and on the payroll of Coca Cola...
http://transparency.coca-colacompany.com/health-professionals-and-scientific-experts
Do you think the results were manipulated or faked?0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »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/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet
My understanding was that the Twinkie diet was a demonstration that you could live in a so called food desert and still maintain a healthy weight with the foods available.
he lost weight and had improved health markers...
and on the payroll of Coca Cola...
http://transparency.coca-colacompany.com/health-professionals-and-scientific-experts
So what? Does not change his results....0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »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/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet
My understanding was that the Twinkie diet was a demonstration that you could live in a so called food desert and still maintain a healthy weight with the foods available.
he lost weight and had improved health markers...
and on the payroll of Coca Cola...
http://transparency.coca-colacompany.com/health-professionals-and-scientific-experts
So? This is a classic fallacy to paint the results as tainted through guilt by association when they have nothing to do with the results. He wasn't conducting academic research but demonstrating a point.0 -
And none of that affects the fact that you can't lose more weight eating 1400 calories of "healthy food" versus 1200 calories of "unhealthy food".0
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »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/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet
My understanding was that the Twinkie diet was a demonstration that you could live in a so called food desert and still maintain a healthy weight with the foods available.
he lost weight and had improved health markers...
and on the payroll of Coca Cola...
http://transparency.coca-colacompany.com/health-professionals-and-scientific-experts
So? This is a classic fallacy to assume that source money taints the results that are clearly true.
This, unless @Gianfranco_R has some evidence that said study was falsified????0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »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/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet
My understanding was that the Twinkie diet was a demonstration that you could live in a so called food desert and still maintain a healthy weight with the foods available.
he lost weight and had improved health markers...
and on the payroll of Coca Cola...
http://transparency.coca-colacompany.com/health-professionals-and-scientific-experts
So? This is a classic fallacy to assume that source money taints the results that are clearly true.
This, unless @Gianfranco_R has some evidence that said study was falsified????
No, nothing like Super Size Me that's for sure.0 -
crickets.....Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tiptoethruthetulips wrote: »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/
He was fairly conservative in what he ate at Macca's and started walking for 45 minutes everyday which I guess was the whole point of the experiment, that macca's isn't all big hamburgers with bacon and smothered in cheese and that macros can be met.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/
He had two Egg White Delight McMuffins, a bowl of McDonald's Fruit & Maple Oatmeal and 1% milk for breakfast and, typically, a salad for lunch. Then, at dinner, he'd often have a more traditional Value Meal. He also adopted a new exercise regimen of walking 45 minutes daily.
And also see the Twinkie diet
My understanding was that the Twinkie diet was a demonstration that you could live in a so called food desert and still maintain a healthy weight with the foods available.
he lost weight and had improved health markers...
and on the payroll of Coca Cola...
http://transparency.coca-colacompany.com/health-professionals-and-scientific-experts
So? This is a classic fallacy to assume that source money taints the results that are clearly true.
This, unless @Gianfranco_R has some evidence that said study was falsified????
crickets....0 -
And none of that affects the fact that you can't lose more weight eating 1400 calories of "healthy food" versus 1200 calories of "unhealthy food".
It depends on how you are using the word "eating". If you mean the stuff we can track (food that is swallowed) then it's not impossible that you could lose more on 1200. If you mean the more intangible calories absorbed from food, then 1200 would always win.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »And none of that affects the fact that you can't lose more weight eating 1400 calories of "healthy food" versus 1200 calories of "unhealthy food".
It depends on how you are using the word "eating". If you mean the stuff we can track (food that is swallowed) then it's not impossible that you could lose more on 1200. If you mean the more intangible calories absorbed from food, then 1200 would always win.
It's rather unlikely that a non-extreme difference in foods would lead to enough energy wastage so you'd measurably lose more on 1400 than 1200.0 -
Wow...
How am I just now showing up to this party?
OP,
A calorie is a unit of measurement for the amount of energy your body can get out of food.
If you eat 100 more calories than you burn, your body will store those extra calories as fat (to use later if needed).
If you eat 100 fewer calories than you burn, your body will get the extra 100 that it needs by pulling them back out of the fat stores.
That is how weight is lost.
Your body does not say "this is a Twinkie. Send it to the hips."
Your body does not say "this is a carrot. Use it and then burn some fat in celebration of carrots."
Your body DOES say "this is energy from food. I will use it." Or "this is energy from food that I don't need. Store it for later."
The associations we place on foods that are fried, processed, clean, dirty, good, bad...they're just concepts that exist only on our minds.
Your body doesn't care how your food is made or what label is assigned to it.
Your body only cares about what's in it.
So to specifically answer your specific question:
If you eat 1200 calories from processed, "junk" foods, you will lose more weight that day than if you had eaten 1400 calories from "clean" foods like vegetables because at the end of the day, your body had to pull 200 more calories out of storage than it would have had you eaten 1400 calories.
That said, that doesn't mean that you should go on the Twinkie diet or eat nothing but candy.
A calorie deficit is all that is needed for weight loss but weight loss is not all that is needed for good health and/or body composition.
You need protein to retain muscle mass.
You need fats for brain health, hormone production, vitamin absorption, joint health and a host of other things.
You need carbs (sugar is a carb) for energy.
You need vitamins and minerals for all kinds of health benefits.
But still, eating enough of these things that you need to be healthy does not make you lose weight faster.
Your weight may affect your health but it is not determined by it.
Now...on to see if there's any derp in this thread which I may care to address since I'm so late to the party...0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »And none of that affects the fact that you can't lose more weight eating 1400 calories of "healthy food" versus 1200 calories of "unhealthy food".
It depends on how you are using the word "eating". If you mean the stuff we can track (food that is swallowed) then it's not impossible that you could lose more on 1200. If you mean the more intangible calories absorbed from food, then 1200 would always win.
It's rather unlikely that a non-extreme difference in foods would lead to enough energy wastage so you'd measurably lose more on 1400 than 1200.
Maybe. I really don't know what the variables between people eating the same foods would be. But a diet of mostly fast food and junk food vs. a diet of mostly meals from whole natural ingredients is pretty extreme. A 200 calorie difference in that case would not shock me.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »And none of that affects the fact that you can't lose more weight eating 1400 calories of "healthy food" versus 1200 calories of "unhealthy food".
It depends on how you are using the word "eating". If you mean the stuff we can track (food that is swallowed) then it's not impossible that you could lose more on 1200. If you mean the more intangible calories absorbed from food, then 1200 would always win.
It's rather unlikely that a non-extreme difference in foods would lead to enough energy wastage so you'd measurably lose more on 1400 than 1200.
Maybe. I really don't know what the variables between people eating the same foods would be. But a diet of mostly fast food and junk food vs. a diet of mostly meals from whole natural ingredients is pretty extreme. A 200 calorie difference in that case would not shock me.
Now who is being intentionally obtuse. It's not would someone eating "junk food" would eat more, it's would someone eating 1400 calories of "good calories" lose more weight than 1200 "good calories". I have seen several studies looking at the thermogenic effect of food, and none of them remotely come close to equaling a 200 calorie difference between processed food and non-processed food.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