Good calories vs bad calories
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet. Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body which adds weight, particularly around ones midsection. Proteins are burned off/metabolized much differently and therefore don't make you gain weight the same way. I challenge two people in this forum: One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs. The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet). Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other. Ready. Set. GO!
strawman alert, strawman alert..
no one is recommending a diet of 100% fried foods because it would be impossible to get adequate nutrition and hit all micros.
Please go back and read through the whole thread before you make outlandish statements that are not true.
Fried food, cheese, and simple carbs. Supplemented properly, macros and micros could be done. Not recommended or a tasty way to eat for me - I'd be sick from all of the oil. But it could be done. Shoot, it might even be possible to get the nutrition in without the supplements. Do the Texas State Fair thing and put together a normal meal and then mash it all together and toss it in the fryer.
Either way, she'd still be wrong.
I've heard that there is nothing they don't fry at that Fair. Is deep fried bacon going just a tad overboard?
Candied bacon is the way to go.
+1000
x10000 -
brianpperkins wrote: »byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet. Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body which adds weight, particularly around ones midsection. Proteins are burned off/metabolized much differently and therefore don't make you gain weight the same way. I challenge two people in this forum: One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs. The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet). Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other. Ready. Set. GO!
You honestly disagree that a unit of energy is identical to an equal unit of energy?
As for your strawman ... arguing against inane concepts isn't worth my time.
Even outside of the strawman, she claims carbs add weight regardless of anything.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet. Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body which adds weight, particularly around ones midsection. Proteins are burned off/metabolized much differently and therefore don't make you gain weight the same way. I challenge two people in this forum: One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs. The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet). Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other. Ready. Set. GO!
You honestly disagree that a unit of energy is identical to an equal unit of energy?
As for your strawman ... arguing against inane concepts isn't worth my time.
Even outside of the strawman, she claims carbs add weight regardless of anything.
Wut! Didn't you know!
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet. Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body which adds weight, particularly around ones midsection. Proteins are burned off/metabolized much differently and therefore don't make you gain weight the same way. I challenge two people in this forum: One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs. The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet). Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other. Ready. Set. GO!
strawman alert, strawman alert..
no one is recommending a diet of 100% fried foods because it would be impossible to get adequate nutrition and hit all micros.
Please go back and read through the whole thread before you make outlandish statements that are not true.
Fried food, cheese, and simple carbs. Supplemented properly, macros and micros could be done. Not recommended or a tasty way to eat for me - I'd be sick from all of the oil. But it could be done. Shoot, it might even be possible to get the nutrition in without the supplements. Do the Texas State Fair thing and put together a normal meal and then mash it all together and toss it in the fryer.
Either way, she'd still be wrong.
I've heard that there is nothing they don't fry at that Fair. Is deep fried bacon going just a tad overboard?
Candied bacon is the way to go.
+1000
x1000
LOL. That's what I meant. I'm in a cold medicine induced haze...0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
I think it's the same study that also goes into high fiber vs low fiber and keeping protein the same.
It would be interesting to see a study where the "extremes" of a healthy diet that remained balanced could but the intake and absorbtion rates as a percentage. Probably not enough to account for those 200 calories in the OPs first post, but it might be closer than most are assuming too.
But in any case, since most people aren't on extremes of diets, it's unlikely that the percentages would ever be very high.
Yet at the same time, CICO is a very complex thing when you dig into the various influences of both the in and out equations.0 -
byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet.
As should be obvious if you've read the thread, a calorie is a calorie does not mean "all foods are the same." No one thinks all foods are the same. Obviously broccoli has different nutrients than a steak.Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body which adds weight, particularly around ones midsection.
No. Carbs (which include that broccoli I mentioned above) are indeed broken down into sugar and fuel your body. You don't gain weight unless you overeat, and that happens if you overeat fat and protein too (although it seems it is harder to add fat if you eat excessive protein, at least if you are training and reasonably athletic).One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs.
I'd be hungry, feel like crap, and not be eating enough to fuel my training goals. I'd lose weight, though.The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet).
What's wrong with dairy and carbs? (Also, whole grains, vegetables, and fruit are obviously carbs.)
If I did this, I'd feel like crap and not have the energy (or be eating enough) for my training goals. I'd lose weight, though.Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other.
It all depends on the exercise you are doing plus probably to some degree whether that fried food you are eating includes adequate protein. At 1200 calories, I expect it doesn't.
But then no one said that what you eat and, especially, that eating adequate protein is not important.
My guess is that I'd lose more weight on the 1200 calories (if counted properly, which might be tricky), because fewer calories and it would possibly fuel my running better than the NO carb plan (well, except that it really does include carbs). If we all admit that I get to eat carbs like whole grains and fruit and veg, sure, the 1400 might be better, as I'd likely feel better and have more energy.
None of this has a thing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie, of course.0 -
I mean, what on earth?
Eat fruit, veg, and whole grains, but keep carbs to a minimum or completely out?
Are we just ignoring the actual definition of carbohydrate now so as to use it to mean "things of which I disapprove"?
I disapprove of cigarettes and tanning beds, are those carbs?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I mean, what on earth?
Eat fruit, veg, and whole grains, but keep carbs to a minimum or completely out?
Are we just ignoring the actual definition of carbohydrate now so as to use it to mean "things of which I disapprove"?
I disapprove of cigarettes and tanning beds, are those carbs?
Definitely. Can I include ecigs? Pretty sure formaldehyde is a carb as well...0 -
chrisdavey 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/
Flexible dieted all the way to my profile pic. HTH
I'm drooling. And it's not just the food.
Ooh, lucky charms!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I mean, what on earth?
Eat fruit, veg, and whole grains, but keep carbs to a minimum or completely out?
Are we just ignoring the actual definition of carbohydrate now so as to use it to mean "things of which I disapprove"?
I disapprove of cigarettes and tanning beds, are those carbs?
Movies adapted from Nicholas Sparks books are carbohydrates too, I guess.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I mean, what on earth?
Eat fruit, veg, and whole grains, but keep carbs to a minimum or completely out?
Are we just ignoring the actual definition of carbohydrate now so as to use it to mean "things of which I disapprove"?
I disapprove of cigarettes and tanning beds, are those carbs?
Definitely. Can I include ecigs? Pretty sure formaldehyde is a carb as well...
It must be.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I mean, what on earth?
Eat fruit, veg, and whole grains, but keep carbs to a minimum or completely out?
Are we just ignoring the actual definition of carbohydrate now so as to use it to mean "things of which I disapprove"?
I disapprove of cigarettes and tanning beds, are those carbs?
Movies adapted from Nicholas Sparks books are carbohydrates too, I guess.
Were is the like button on the list of 38473939 things MFP needs to fix?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Short term studies usually show an advantage for low carb in terms of weight loss but that's not the same as fat reduction. Long term studies tend to find no difference.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
I think your numbers are wrong. Here is what the article states:However, this overestimation would lead to a prediction of only a 0.2–0.6-kg weight difference over a 12-wk treatment for a 21-g difference in fiber intake.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
The weight loss had nothing to do with the calories and was likely due to satiety and compliance of the diets.
How that in any way "seems to validate the argument taht a calorie is not a calorie", I would need to ask a clairvoyant, because I'm drawing a blank here.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
I think your numbers are wrong. Here is what the article states:However, this overestimation would lead to a prediction of only a 0.2–0.6-kg weight difference over a 12-wk treatment for a 21-g difference in fiber intake.
It says this: "Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss."
And this: "In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another. "
Your quote seems to be about predictions, not actual results seen in the study.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Short term studies usually show an advantage for low carb in terms of weight loss but that's not the same as fat reduction. Long term studies tend to find no difference.
It wasn't just about low carb.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
The weight loss had nothing to do with the calories and was likely due to satiety and compliance of the diets.
How that in any way "seems to validate the argument taht a calorie is not a calorie", I would need to ask a clairvoyant, because I'm drawing a blank here.
Context.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Short term studies usually show an advantage for low carb in terms of weight loss but that's not the same as fat reduction. Long term studies tend to find no difference.
It wasn't just about low carb.
Just pointing that out as it is a common result.0 -
muscleandbeard wrote: »Omg 1) I officially dislike this app and the 2) poor advice that people on here give. 3) There is more to weight loss than just the number on the scale. 4) 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. 5) You will be skinny fat if you eat crap food. 6) 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 7) you have to have a well balanced diet to lose fat instead of muscle.
http://comfortpit.com/the-truth-about-calories/
1) we know so why are you still here?
2) no one gave poor advice. We answered a direct, specific question with accurate information.
3) nope, actually all the scale measures is weight. Weight gain or loss is directly related to the number on the scale and nothing else. Now, fitness and body composition are much more than the number on the scale, for sure, but not weight loss.
4) umm...nope. Gotta say progressive resistance training is a pretty big factor in body composition.
5) and now you're stretching things out to unpredictable conclusions. You will be skinny fat if you have an unhealthy body fat % despite a healthy weight. This could occur with a "clean" diet. All it takes is not lifting to build muscle. A deficit will result in lowered body fat regardless of diet type. It's possible that the accompanying muscle loss (if not lifting) could result in someone being skinny fat but most likely the fat loss will be sufficient that the dieter will just end up skinny, not skinny fat.
As we've explained to you before, this is not a bodybuilding website and not everyone is here to become a physique competitor or to get mass gains. Several just want to get back into their old jeans or get the doctor off their back. To those people, skinny is fine with them. They don't care if they're ripped or not.
6) read it. Found exaggerations and broscience.
7) umm, nope again! You will lose fat in a deficit every time. Sure, you will also lose muscle. Lifting heavy and eating enough protein will limit the muscle loss to a great degree but you're not going to lose muscle exclusively by not tracking macros or because you eat mostly processed foods.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »What the others have said.
The only thing I'd add is some people find certain combination of food more filling than others. So while the overall total weight loss wouldn't vary, you may find a 1400 calorie diet consisting of relatively high protein more satiating (and thus presumably easier to maintain) than a 1400 calorie diet of relatively high carbs. Each person tends to be different, though - there's not a 'one size fits all' magical combination.
You're awesome even if you do like the wrong Oreos (mint is gross).zoebrookslloyd wrote: »Hi. Can you lose weight by eating more calories but eating the right foods. I.e. could I lose more weight by eating 1400 calories of fruit and veg versus 1200 calories of fried food.
1) For some people it appears to be true that the type of food (calorie) will affect their weight. 2) Protein takes more energy to use than carbs, 3) some foods create a greater thermogenic effect than others, 4)some people appear more likely to store certain macros as fat and lose eating a majority of other macros, and 5) some foods affect health and hormones which increase or decreases daily caloric requirements.
6) I don't think it is a huge difference but I would guess the foods you choose could make the differenceof up to a couple of hundred calories per day being stored or burned.
7) I certainly find it slightly easier to lose weight eating foods that I consider to be healthy. Some foods seem to "stick" to me easier than others.
1) false
2) negligible
3) negligible
4) false
5) from what I understand, it's the lack of intake in general or of certain nutrients that causes a negative impact to hormones. I've never seen evidence that intake of a certain food causes conditions to slow the metabolism.
6) I'm afraid you're greatly overestimating
7) either this is all in your head or you're underestimating your intake when eating "sticky" foods
I didn't even see that one. Good you found it. Guess I'll have to get out the "Is a calorie a calorie" study where they showed a 300 kcal substitution of carbs for protein resulted in a whole 21 kcal more burned.
Here it is.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Interesting.
2.5 kg more loss in 12 weeks seems to validate the argument that a calorie is not a calorie. At least not within the context of weight control.
Reading at least the rest of the abstract would be useful to not jump to a conclusion like that...
I didn't jump to it. I read it in your link. Do you think the conclusions in your linked study are incorrect?
Diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate produced an ≈2.5-kg greater weight loss after 12 wk of treatment. Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.
The weight loss had nothing to do with the calories and was likely due to satiety and compliance of the diets.
How that in any way "seems to validate the argument taht a calorie is not a calorie", I would need to ask a clairvoyant, because I'm drawing a blank here.
Context.
Which context? The difference had nothing to do with a calorie not being a calorie.
Their conclusion is "a calorie is a calorie because: well, duhhhhh."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/
Interesting tidbit:
He did this experiment as a rebuttal of Supersize Me.
He set out to show that the problem wasn't that the food came from McDonald's but rather the choices made when ordering and the frequency of those choices.
In Supersize Me, it was Big Macs, fries, double quarter pounders, fries, milkshakes, fries...
However, Cisna approached his experiment with balance. He had specific macronutrient goals and calorie limitations each day.
He basically followed IIFYM. What he showed was that as long as you meet your macros and calorie goals, you'll still lose weight and improve your health even if the food comes from McD's.0 -
chrisdavey 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/
Flexible dieted all the way to my profile pic. HTH
You, sir. You are awesome.0 -
byrdiegrrrl wrote: »I'm sorry to COMPLETLY DISAGREE with all of you but "a calorie is a calorie" is FALSE. The body processes different foods completely differently which is why we eat (or should attempt to eat) a balanced diet. Carbohydrates are broken down into simple sugars in the body which adds weight, particularly around ones midsection. Proteins are burned off/metabolized much differently and therefore don't make you gain weight the same way. I challenge two people in this forum: One of you eat 1200 calories/day of fried foods, cheese, and simple carbs. The other eat 1400 calories/day of lean protein, vegetables, fruit and whole grains (keeping dairy and carbs to a minimum or completely out of your diet). Do this for a month and I would bet that the latter will see more of a significant body change than the other. Ready. Set. GO!
strawman alert, strawman alert..
no one is recommending a diet of 100% fried foods because it would be impossible to get adequate nutrition and hit all micros.
Please go back and read through the whole thread before you make outlandish statements that are not true.
Fried food, cheese, and simple carbs. Supplemented properly, macros and micros could be done. Not recommended or a tasty way to eat for me - I'd be sick from all of the oil. But it could be done. Shoot, it might even be possible to get the nutrition in without the supplements. Do the Texas State Fair thing and put together a normal meal and then mash it all together and toss it in the fryer.
Either way, she'd still be wrong.
I think you would have a hard time getting in your protein macro....
DYE fried turkey?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 diet
I've never had a Twinkie in my life.
0 -
Carlos_421 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
I've never had a Twinkie in my life.
First, I'm totally stealing that GIF.
Second, I've never had one either. ^_^; My dad's idea of buying desserts for lunches was Oatmeal Cream Pies from Little Debbie because they had oatmeal and were therefor healthier then the other ones.0 -
Carlos_421 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
I've never had a Twinkie in my life.
IMO...you're not missing much
They're nowhere near as good as a mint Oreo
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