Why Calories In and Calories Out... It really ISN'T that simple.....
Replies
-
A cup of gasoline has around 2000 calories.
A calorie is not a calorie. Nutrition counts too. Ever heard of vitamins? Minerals?
And the calories in the gasoline have the same energy as a 2,000 calorie bowl of ice cream would have.
It's not the calories, but the poison in the gas, that would kill you.
Putting arsenic on mashed potatoes doesn't make the calories in the potatoes "bad calories." It makes them "calories that don't matter because the arsenic will kill you before anyone sees you've gained weight."0 -
-
RodneyCornelius wrote: »I think part of the problem is that whenever someone says something like "a calorie isn't just a calorie, an apple is better than you than cake for weight loss", some people basically rush to start "shaming" that person, instead of a much more constructive comment like yours...
No one is shamed, but the problem is it's an annoying and willful misunderstanding that ignores everything else people have posted and thus seems kind of rude to me.
Again, as people have said over and over, a calorie is a calorie in that it's a unit of measurement and for weight loss purposes. A calorie is a calorie obviously does not mean a food is a food, so no one is questioning that an apple is different from a cake. (How they fit into a diet or will affect the day of a particular person trying to lose weight depends on the circumstances and the person and the rest of the person's diet, etc.)
I honestly cannot understand why people insist upon pretending that a calorie is a calorie means all foods are the same when there are numerous posts explaining that is not what is being said. It's like you'd rather argue with a strawman than respect others enough to address the actual comments.
(No, I don't expect an answer to this either, but feel free to surprise me.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Again, as people have said over and over, a calorie is a calorie in that it's a unit of measurement and for weight loss purposes. A calorie is a calorie obviously does not mean a food is a food
This.
If folks could stop equating these things, that'd be great. Healthy eating does not guarantee weight loss. Eating at a caloric deficit does not guarantee good health.0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
You keep injecting feelings and perceptions into a thread that claimed the body treats identical units of energy differently based source. CICO is the driving factor behind gaining, maintaining, or losing weight. If a person knows it to be true or not is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works. If a person needs to address their psychological approach to food is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works.
I'm sorry to have disturbed you @brianpperkins
I understood the thread as also being about "why CICO may not be enough for people," which OP had one opinion on, and I have another.
The facticity of CICO (which I believe in) is entirely irrelevant to whether someone will actually be able to change their life habits.
The only thing in your posts that disturbs me is your failed attempt at word games. Science (noun) is not changed by feelings. Your trying to say "science" isn't a "thing" ignores actual definitions.
Oh no, they're not word games! It's just my thing, and I find the difference important. I'm a PhD in science studies, marrying a PhD in Chemistry. It's what I do...science!
I explained it to someone else above, if you're interested in learning the difference.
Back on topic: I think you've missed my point, but I'm OK with that.
Best of luck.
But are you a PhD?
(I vaguely recall you mentioning once that you were, but I wasn't entirely certain.)
Meanwhile, what brings you to MFP?0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
You keep injecting feelings and perceptions into a thread that claimed the body treats identical units of energy differently based source. CICO is the driving factor behind gaining, maintaining, or losing weight. If a person knows it to be true or not is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works. If a person needs to address their psychological approach to food is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works.
I'm sorry to have disturbed you @brianpperkins
I understood the thread as also being about "why CICO may not be enough for people," which OP had one opinion on, and I have another.
The facticity of CICO (which I believe in) is entirely irrelevant to whether someone will actually be able to change their life habits.
The only thing in your posts that disturbs me is your failed attempt at word games. Science (noun) is not changed by feelings. Your trying to say "science" isn't a "thing" ignores actual definitions.
Oh no, they're not word games! It's just my thing, and I find the difference important. I'm a PhD in science studies, marrying a PhD in Chemistry. It's what I do...science!
I explained it to someone else above, if you're interested in learning the difference.
Back on topic: I think you've missed my point, but I'm OK with that.
Best of luck.
"It's" (science is) what you do ... used as a noun (thing) in your own declaration.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
You keep injecting feelings and perceptions into a thread that claimed the body treats identical units of energy differently based source. CICO is the driving factor behind gaining, maintaining, or losing weight. If a person knows it to be true or not is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works. If a person needs to address their psychological approach to food is irrelevant when it comes to if CICO works.
I'm sorry to have disturbed you @brianpperkins
I understood the thread as also being about "why CICO may not be enough for people," which OP had one opinion on, and I have another.
The facticity of CICO (which I believe in) is entirely irrelevant to whether someone will actually be able to change their life habits.
The only thing in your posts that disturbs me is your failed attempt at word games. Science (noun) is not changed by feelings. Your trying to say "science" isn't a "thing" ignores actual definitions.
Oh no, they're not word games! It's just my thing, and I find the difference important. I'm a PhD in science studies, marrying a PhD in Chemistry. It's what I do...science!
I explained it to someone else above, if you're interested in learning the difference.
Back on topic: I think you've missed my point, but I'm OK with that.
Best of luck.
"It's" (science is) what you do ... used as a noun (thing) in your own declaration.
To be fair, she doesn't do science; she reads books about people who did science in the past.0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
PS: as a scientist, i'd like to remind you that "science" is not a thing, it's a method and a process. Do you mean to say "feelings don't change scientifically derived facts"?
Methods and processes are things.
Actually...they are different! Here, @Carlos_421 let me explain it to you so you'll know
I can say "e=mc(squared)" and that is not "science." It's a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact". The science are the methods by which Einstein figured that out. That is the difference. And it's the same with CICO. It's not "science" it is a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact." Science is the method and process by which people found it to be true to the extent that it has never been proven otherwise.
You're speaking to a PhD in the history of science, who is getting married to a PhD in Chemistry. I love my science!
Hey, you learned something today!
If you're going to be picking nits over the meaning of the word 'science', you ought to be more precise. Science is defined as 1) the systematic study of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment 2) a particular field of this type of study, and 3) a systematic body of knowledge on a particular subject.
Science is not actually the method or the process. That would be the 'scientific method' which is interchangeable with the less frequently used 'scientific process'.
And the word science is still a noun, and therefore a thing, regardless, as Carlos already mentioned (as is the scientific method).
I get that if the history of science is your field of study you're going to have a knee-jerk reaction to such things, but restraint would serve you better, especially if it is not really relevant to and doesn't clarify the main discussion.0 -
It IS NOT as easy as calories in/calories out for SOME people (for others, that truly does work). I wish people would put that caveat on their statement because it can confuse a lot of people. Many women here suffer from underactive thyroids and hormone conditions like PCOS or menopause. In those cases, its a lot about what you eat. The hormone condition I have responds very well to low carb, which is ironic because I always considered low carb to be a fad type of diet, not sustainable in the long term. But I no longer have a gall bladder, I have NAFLD and a sluggish digestive system. Sugar and high glycemic carbs, even if I remain exactly at 1200 calories (measured, weighed food), will cause a weight gain for me, not to mention a bloated belly and some digestive issues. But, as soon as I go to a high protein food plan, the weight starts melting off very quickly, my stomach flattens again and I feel so much better.
I know someone is going to say CICO is a proven formula and I understand the mathematics behind it. I am just pointing out that for some people (especially woman and there are more than a few), certain combinations of foods work better than others. I don't want someone to get stuck on CICO when changing a few items might help them out even more.0 -
robs_ready wrote: »I'm not criticising but the majority of people already know that a banana is better than eating a bag of crisps, and will feel you up for longer.
However CICO is designed to provide simple effective guidelines that the majority of people can follow. Its not perfect but it's by far the best way to keep tabs on what your shoving in your mouth.
Most people will lose weight in a calorie deficit, regardless of what they are eating
100% agree0 -
I know someone is going to say CICO is a proven formula and I understand the mathematics behind it. I am just pointing out that for some people (especially woman and there are more than a few), certain combinations of foods work better than others. I don't want someone to get stuck on CICO when changing a few items might help them out even more.
I think the problem is that on many occasions CICO and the act of calorie counting get mixed up.
CICO describes a theory of energy balance whereas calorie counting describes one practical way to achieve the state of energy balance the individual requires to meet their goals (negative energy balance aka a calorie deficit which is required to lose weight for example.)
So energy balance will be applicable to all individuals no matter their circumstances but the most suitable practical methods for achieving that required state successfully can vary wildly between them depending on a number of factors.
0 -
It IS NOT as easy as calories in/calories out for SOME people (for others, that truly does work). I wish people would put that caveat on their statement because it can confuse a lot of people. Many women here suffer from underactive thyroids and hormone conditions like PCOS or menopause. In those cases, its a lot about what you eat. The hormone condition I have responds very well to low carb, which is ironic because I always considered low carb to be a fad type of diet, not sustainable in the long term. But I no longer have a gall bladder, I have NAFLD and a sluggish digestive system. Sugar and high glycemic carbs, even if I remain exactly at 1200 calories (measured, weighed food), will cause a weight gain for me, not to mention a bloated belly and some digestive issues. But, as soon as I go to a high protein food plan, the weight starts melting off very quickly, my stomach flattens again and I feel so much better.
I know someone is going to say CICO is a proven formula and I understand the mathematics behind it. I am just pointing out that for some people (especially woman and there are more than a few), certain combinations of foods work better than others. I don't want someone to get stuck on CICO when changing a few items might help them out even more.
CICO is not only a proven formula, it is immutable. You do not get around it, not even with PCOS. You do not start losing fat at the same calorie intake just from changing your foods around, unless your body is even worse at absorbing the new diet and it lowers your intake significantly.0 -
It IS NOT as easy as calories in/calories out for SOME people (for others, that truly does work). I wish people would put that caveat on their statement because it can confuse a lot of people. Many women here suffer from underactive thyroids and hormone conditions like PCOS or menopause. In those cases, its a lot about what you eat. The hormone condition I have responds very well to low carb, which is ironic because I always considered low carb to be a fad type of diet, not sustainable in the long term. But I no longer have a gall bladder, I have NAFLD and a sluggish digestive system. Sugar and high glycemic carbs, even if I remain exactly at 1200 calories (measured, weighed food), will cause a weight gain for me, not to mention a bloated belly and some digestive issues. But, as soon as I go to a high protein food plan, the weight starts melting off very quickly, my stomach flattens again and I feel so much better.
I know someone is going to say CICO is a proven formula and I understand the mathematics behind it. I am just pointing out that for some people (especially woman and there are more than a few), certain combinations of foods work better than others. I don't want someone to get stuck on CICO when changing a few items might help them out even more.
It's about the amount of what you eat.0 -
It IS NOT as easy as calories in/calories out for SOME people (for others, that truly does work). I wish people would put that caveat on their statement because it can confuse a lot of people. Many women here suffer from underactive thyroids and hormone conditions like PCOS or menopause.
Whoa, menopause is something I suffer from? No! Actually it's simply a biological function that indicates health. It's not always a day at the beach, I grant you that, but it's also not that big of a deal. And I've lost the most weight and kept it off after menopause because of one thing: CICO.
0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »The ability of a person to lose weight doesn't come down to ONLY math. Why? Because we're complex social and psychological beings. Food is part of that complex social and psychological life that we all lead. Therefore, weightloss is a complex psychological as well as physiological process. So tabling the debate of "fat loss vs. nutrition"...there is still more to be said about whether CICO is ultimately "right" or "useful".
So here's my opinion: Yes, CICO is a great fact to learn that can shape your relationship to food. But there is also willpower, feeling full, letting go of unhealthy emotional attachments to food, creating new habits that don't cause you to spiral back into over-eating later in life.
It's a nice quip, and can be a useful leverage for many people! However, I sometimes see it harshly thrown in people's faces when they're struggling with the knowledge of how to re-fashion their relationships to their bodies and to food. Comments along the lines of, "eat less than you burn it's that simple" may help some, and may entirely discourage others.
That's what it comes down to. No matter what, when, where, how or who you decide to eat, CICO is the thing that ends up making you lose weight.
That's lovely idea and absolutely true in mechanical form, @stevencloser but I think my point went entirely over your head!
ONCE SOMEONE IS ABLE to learn how to eat less and have a new relationship to food, CICO will be the underlying mathematical function that helps them lose weight. I know. I lost 125 lbs. But to GET TO THAT POINT where they are actually eating less will take lots of other work. We are not machines, we are thinking, feeling beings (at least, most of us are).
That's not this discussion though and I rarely see people not add caveats about behaviour and disordered relationships with food when people ask for such advice.
The point of this discussion is the OPs assertion that somehow 10 calories from nuts is used differently by the human body than 10 calories of chocolate. Or further on those that somehow think being a firm advocate of just using CICO as your base method to lose weight is fundamentally flawed scientifically and those the advocate for it are living off pizza and chocolate (partially true for me to be fair).
Start and end of weight loss and weight gain from a scientific perspective is CICO. Ability to implement the science is a separate issue.
I think it's an important part of the discussion. Learning about how to feel full was psychological for me. But if you don't think so, that's just fine!
Feelings don't change science.
That's no news to me. As I wrote above: "But merely because a person ***knows*** CICO is true doesn't make them magically start losing weight out of nowhere."
PS: as a scientist, i'd like to remind you that "science" is not a thing, it's a method and a process. Do you mean to say "feelings don't change scientifically derived facts"?
Methods and processes are things.
Actually...they are different! Here, @Carlos_421 let me explain it to you so you'll know
I can say "e=mc(squared)" and that is not "science." It's a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact". The science are the methods by which Einstein figured that out. That is the difference. And it's the same with CICO. It's not "science" it is a theory that most people would call something close to a scientifically deduced "fact." Science is the method and process by which people found it to be true to the extent that it has never been proven otherwise.
You're speaking to a PhD in the history of science, who is getting married to a PhD in Chemistry. I love my science!
Hey, you learned something today!
WRONG. To quote Dr. Spaceman...
0 -
AmandaOmega wrote: »However, as others have pointed out, you are going to feel less full on something like ice cream than the caloric equivalent of veggies.
Not necessarily. The way I eat ice cream I stay full for a loooong time.
0 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »AmandaOmega wrote: »However, as others have pointed out, you are going to feel less full on something like ice cream than the caloric equivalent of veggies.
Not necessarily. The way I eat ice cream I stay full for a loooong time.
Same here, and for whatever reason veggies usually leave me feeling more hungry than I was before I ate them. Raw veggies that is.0 -
I've struggled with weight issues most of my adult life. Lost up to 40 lbs at various times through a variety of methods-Atkins, South Beach, Weight Watchers, SlimFasy, gluten-free, etc. Each time I thought "this is it, I've found a way to trick my body and I don't have to bother with weighing and measuring food, or with counting calories. Yippee me!"
HOWEVER, once I started to eat more normally, I always put the weight + back on within a few months -and always much faster than it took me to lose it. I am 100% certain that CICO is the only forever solution for me. While it does mean a lifetime of logging food, I feel liberated because I know I can eat anything I want as long as I stay within my calorie target. I do choose to focus on whole grains, lean proteins and lots of veggies and fruits, mainly because they keep me full longer and I can stay under my calories, even saving enough for wine on Fridays and Saturdays (yes, I am that person that prefers wine over cake)
I've been on MFP for about 3 weeks now and love it.
Good for you.
And also - you may not have to log for a lifetime. It is possible to step away from logging and maintain weight loss successfully.
0 -
It IS NOT as easy as calories in/calories out for SOME people (for others, that truly does work). I wish people would put that caveat on their statement because it can confuse a lot of people. Many women here suffer from underactive thyroids and hormone conditions like PCOS or menopause. In those cases, its a lot about what you eat. The hormone condition I have responds very well to low carb, which is ironic because I always considered low carb to be a fad type of diet, not sustainable in the long term. But I no longer have a gall bladder, I have NAFLD and a sluggish digestive system. Sugar and high glycemic carbs, even if I remain exactly at 1200 calories (measured, weighed food), will cause a weight gain for me, not to mention a bloated belly and some digestive issues. But, as soon as I go to a high protein food plan, the weight starts melting off very quickly, my stomach flattens again and I feel so much better.
I know someone is going to say CICO is a proven formula and I understand the mathematics behind it. I am just pointing out that for some people (especially woman and there are more than a few), certain combinations of foods work better than others. I don't want someone to get stuck on CICO when changing a few items might help them out even more.
An underactive thyroid impacts the calories out side of the equation but CICO remains true.
0 -
Naive as I am, I can't believe that the OP contains a url that literally states "calories don't matter" and people are supporting it because "but nutrition!" and "gasoline is bad for you!"0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 907 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions