Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Right calories vs less calories
Replies
-
This is so true. If you eat right, you will feel more satiated on fewer calories; try naturals and organics, they fill you up fast...
Please explain how an organic tomato is more satiating than a non-organic tomato.However, if youre eating well already, lower your caloric intake. Try sticking to 500 calories/day less, this will have you losing a pound or so per week; losing much more than per week will be hard on your skin to adjust properly and will result in more flab. Also remember considerable calorie cuts can actually be detrimental as your body will start storing energy as fat reserves rather than short term reserves to keep you stable for longer periods of time.
Incorrect. Have you ever seen a fat anorexic? How about starving people in third-world countries? Don't see too many fat ones wandering around.0 -
This is so true. If you eat right, you will feel more satiated on fewer calories; try naturals and organics, they fill you up fast...
Please explain how an organic tomato is more satiating than a non-organic tomato.However, if youre eating well already, lower your caloric intake. Try sticking to 500 calories/day less, this will have you losing a pound or so per week; losing much more than per week will be hard on your skin to adjust properly and will result in more flab. Also remember considerable calorie cuts can actually be detrimental as your body will start storing energy as fat reserves rather than short term reserves to keep you stable for longer periods of time.
Incorrect. Have you ever seen a fat anorexic? How about starving people in third-world countries? Don't see too many fat ones wandering around.
Well yes, yes I have.
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Hi there seen you on here b4.
My opinion is calories did matter but right kind is far more important. Your body wants to good stuff and your brain regulates hunger not on a full feeling in tummy but biochemical response to nutrients it basically tells your brain what of what it needs came in and that is how satiation occurs. If you eat crap you won't be satisfied this still hungry and keep on going. This is obesity crisis 4 legs right there. Eat good stuff but less and you'll be fine. Then during maintaining it will get easier as you can slowly reintroduce that which you don't need
You clearly don't know how this works and are making up your own theories.
I'm seeing a trend...0 -
Its far easier to eat less when you eat "right". "Right" being the way that suits you best, not your friend, not your coworker, not some arbitrary diet.0
-
DancingDarl wrote: »...and boost your capacity for academic learning.
The right calories in this context presumably meaning pizza, caffeine and chinese takeaway...0 -
0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »
It's for the best.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
It's for the best.
Is not....0 -
Everyone says calories in vs calories out is all you need to know. That's not true for everyone. Theoretically, people are correct when they say you could eat 1200 cal of fruit & veggies or 1200 cal of chocolate and lose weight.
However, those of us with hormone imbalances or insulin resistance find that statement to not be true for US. I cannot eat 1200 cal of chocolate and lose weight because my body does not respond to chocolate in the same way it responds to fruits and veggies. I had to learn what foods my body does respond to while maintaining nutrition and watching those blood sugar spikes.
The moral of the story is this....while CICO is a good starting point, you may have to adjust what you eat based on how your body processes what you put in it. We are all the same in the fact that our bodies all have the same parts but, much like a car, sometimes those parts work better in some people while they break down in other people. You have to find what works best for you.0 -
Everyone says calories in vs calories out is all you need to know. That's not true for everyone. Theoretically, people are correct when they say you could eat 1200 cal of fruit & veggies or 1200 cal of chocolate and lose weight.
However, those of us with hormone imbalances or insulin resistance find that statement to not be true for US. I cannot eat 1200 cal of chocolate and lose weight because my body does not respond to chocolate in the same way it responds to fruits and veggies. I had to learn what foods my body does respond to while maintaining nutrition and watching those blood sugar spikes.
The moral of the story is this....while CICO is a good starting point, you may have to adjust what you eat based on how your body processes what you put in it. We are all the same in the fact that our bodies all have the same parts but, much like a car, sometimes those parts work better in some people while they break down in other people. You have to find what works best for you.
Didn't you say exactly the same thing in another thread and got told, no, CICO is always true for everyone living in this universe?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Everyone says calories in vs calories out is all you need to know. That's not true for everyone. Theoretically, people are correct when they say you could eat 1200 cal of fruit & veggies or 1200 cal of chocolate and lose weight.
However, those of us with hormone imbalances or insulin resistance find that statement to not be true for US. I cannot eat 1200 cal of chocolate and lose weight because my body does not respond to chocolate in the same way it responds to fruits and veggies. I had to learn what foods my body does respond to while maintaining nutrition and watching those blood sugar spikes.
The moral of the story is this....while CICO is a good starting point, you may have to adjust what you eat based on how your body processes what you put in it. We are all the same in the fact that our bodies all have the same parts but, much like a car, sometimes those parts work better in some people while they break down in other people. You have to find what works best for you.
Didn't you say exactly the same thing in another thread and got told, no, CICO is always true for everyone living in this universe?
Not to mention the fact that NO ONE ever suggest eating one's entire 1200 calorie diet in chocolate bars...regardless of how many time dishonest debaters bring that strawman up.0 -
Everyone says calories in vs calories out is all you need to know.
No one says this. Calories are not all that matter for all sorts of things, like nutrition, energy level, satiety.
They are what matter for weight loss IF you are somehow able to keep the calories the same no matter what you eat (I could not under normal circumstances -- maybe for an experiment).Theoretically, people are correct when they say you could eat 1200 cal of fruit & veggies or 1200 cal of chocolate and lose weight.
However, those of us with hormone imbalances or insulin resistance find that statement to not be true for US. I cannot eat 1200 cal of chocolate and lose weight because my body does not respond to chocolate in the same way it responds to fruits and veggies.
I find this difficult to believe, because I don't see how this could possibly work. Your body will still need to burn a certain amount of calories to fuel your activities (however sedentary) and your body cannot magically draw that fuel from no where while adding fat from the chocolate so as to prevent weight loss when in a deficit. Perhaps eating chocolate would have some negative effect on your calories out vs. eating a more balanced diet (since no one ever recommends eating only chocolate this seems odd anyway), but not the kind of extremely dramatic effect that you seem to be claiming. I suppose if you say you control your thyroid through diet and this would destroy that, maybe it would explain some kind of major decline in CO.
But if so that is a result of a health condition, not a statement about CICO.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »I agree with you.CICO is just one way of looking at things, it is simple and for a lot of people it is something that ensures their perception that weight or body composition is more important than the health of us internall,bio mechanically, and neurologically.
Wow, now you are claiming that people who understand that CICO is what determines weight loss/gain/maintenance aren't healthy and don't care about nutrition or health.
It's almost like you don't read the thread before you post, and definitely rude and offensive.
No one has said that food choice isn't important for things like nutrition, and no one has given you any reason to think we don't care about health.0 -
Deficit. It is very difficult to eat junk food while keeping your calories in check and also supplying enough nutrients to be healthy.
It is most important to have a good idea of your BMR including daily activity. This includes water retention from too much sodium (diet again). This takes more monitoring over time and you will eventually see the pattern.0 -
Choosing the right calories helps me eat less calories.0
-
ClosetBayesian wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »
It's for the best.
Is not....
Sorry but..lol0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »Everyone says calories in vs calories out is all you need to know. That's not true for everyone. Theoretically, people are correct when they say you could eat 1200 cal of fruit & veggies or 1200 cal of chocolate and lose weight.
However, those of us with hormone imbalances or insulin resistance find that statement to not be true for US. I cannot eat 1200 cal of chocolate and lose weight because my body does not respond to chocolate in the same way it responds to fruits and veggies. I had to learn what foods my body does respond to while maintaining nutrition and watching those blood sugar spikes.
The moral of the story is this....while CICO is a good starting point, you may have to adjust what you eat based on how your body processes what you put in it. We are all the same in the fact that our bodies all have the same parts but, much like a car, sometimes those parts work better in some people while they break down in other people. You have to find what works best for you.
I agree with you.CICO is just one way of looking at things, it is simple and for a lot of people it is something that ensures their perception that weight or body composition is more important than the health of us internall,bio mechanically, and neurologically.
It is the difference between surviving and thriving for those of us who struggle with insulin resistance(believe me I feel there with you with the struggle). I try to eat the beneficial calories because I know they help the human body.
do you know any other way to lose weight beside CICO?
0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »Caloric value is one thing. Knowing we are here to maintain a certain body composition is another. Insinuations that I perceive those who use CICO to be an excuse to cause nutritional neglect is a fallacy. I know there are people in MFP community who are very conscious of their nutrition health and well being. Just as well as I know there are people who do not know enough about what a healthy diet entails and rely on CICO as it enables their choices. Intimately I am not judging just noticing the differences which is important when debating nutrition.
not sure what your point is..
standard advice on this site is to get into a deficit, exercise, and make sure to hit micros and macros...0 -
taylorjgarner wrote: »Is weight loss more about less calories or the right calories?
@taylorjgarner in my case it seem to be both not one or the other.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Weight loss is about 'how much' food (measured via # of calories)
Other factors (body composition, physical performance, satiety, to name a few) are influenced by the 'what type' of food
this0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Choosing the right calories helps me eat less calories.
Yes.0 -
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »...and boost your capacity for academic learning.
The right calories in this context presumably meaning pizza, caffeine and chinese takeaway...
Don't forget ramen noodles and a LOT of beer. Does anyone survive grad school without these staples?0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »...and boost your capacity for academic learning.
The right calories in this context presumably meaning pizza, caffeine and chinese takeaway...
Don't forget ramen noodles and a LOT of beer. Does anyone survive grad school without these staples?
Gluten intolerant. Forced to substitute wine for the ramen.0 -
Never got the appeal of either!ClosetBayesian wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »...and boost your capacity for academic learning.
The right calories in this context presumably meaning pizza, caffeine and chinese takeaway...
Don't forget ramen noodles and a LOT of beer. Does anyone survive grad school without these staples?
Gluten intolerant. Forced to substitute wine for the ramen.
0 -
It's a myth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ewexMZ1-o
Abbreviated version.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U36XJaETbh8 1 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »It's a myth.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ewexMZ1-o
Abbreviated version.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U36XJaETbh8
Starvation used to be a hairsbreadth away for most of the population, so calories don't real?
It relies on mistakes about correlation and causation. The knowledge of how diet and calories is rising concurrent with rises in obesity is because people want to fix the issue. Saying it goes the other way, or doesn't work is like saying solar panels cause global warming, because the more we've developed solar panel technology, the more global warming has advanced, and it is getting worse at a greater rate despite the increase in carbon neutral technology.
Then the hormones and nature. Totally false premise view of what is being overweight. I am tired of having to say this again and again on this board - gaining weight from overeating is expected, gaining weight tends to lead to health problems, it is not a state of being unhealthy that causes weight in and of itself. What would be unhealthy is eating large quantities of food and NOT gaining weight. Take a look at Lizzie Velasquez for what happens if you can burn off food effortlessly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lizzie_Velásquez#Condition .
Also, the guy can't even differential equation. Yes, calories have gone up by X/day and yes (X*days since obesity expidemic)/3500calories/pound = +800 pounds, but that isn't how it works. It isn't that the math doesn't make sense, it is that it is an assine way to apply the math because you're afraid of having to use a mathematical series and break out your calculus - the more calories you've consumed, the more calories you've stored, the more calories it takes to continue to move. The math can explain it actually model the problem properly and don't think the integral sign is against the Geneva Convention. Heck, the USDA's weight loss and calorie tracking App uses all that same calories in calories out, and yes, it too figures out weight loss or gain will peter out - that it forms an asymptotic function instead of a linear slope.
Honestly, his own reasoning contradicts the possibility of his program working. As he's said, calories can't be right, or we'd have solved the obesity crisis. Well he has to hold himself to the same standard.
1. If Jonathan Bailor is right, then we've solved the obesity crisis.
2. There is still an obesisty crisis
3. By contrapositive of 1, combined with 2, we have Jonathan Bailor is not right
4. QED0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »It's a myth.
Abbreviated version.
Care to provide a synopsis, to avoid people wasting an hour listening to utter nonsense?0 -
lisawinning4losing wrote: »It's a myth.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5ewexMZ1-o
Abbreviated version.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U36XJaETbh8
I'm gonna tell you this with the utmost respect: You seem to hang on to literally every woo diet myth that is around from what I can tell by your posts in the last few days. We're trying to help you understand that people trying to sell you diet programs via youtube videos are not science and how some of the things you've been linking did not say what you thought they were saying whatsoever. We're trying to help you but you don't seem to want to listen to what others have to say to you. Please reconsider that stance.0 -
This content has been removed.
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
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K 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
- 96.3K 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