I'm just going to leave this here

13»

Replies

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    baby05phat wrote: »
    When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
    http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

    I found the cognitive behavioral techniques I used when I wanted to stop abusing alcohol useful for stopping self-medicating with food as well. Now I self-soothe with exercise.

    Now you've learned it's more important to listen to your body than people on a forum :D However, the vast majority of the CICO posts do add a disclaimer that macros are important for nutrition, satiety, health, etc.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    ReaderGirl3 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    For the purposes of weight loss, a calorie is just a calorie. But for people who struggle with issues like binge eating, food choices do matter. I honestly don't see the conflict between knowing both of those statements to be true.

    The OP is projecting her own distorted issues with food and saying that CICO doesn't work for anyone. She's denying your first point, that CICO is the key for weight loss. And then she takes it another step and blames her issues on forum members. That's what people are disagreeing with. Obviously OP needs help beyond what this forum can give, probably someone who deals with EDs.

    Well said. I've never seen anyone here saying that food choices are irrelevant for things like nutrition or that they're irrelevant for people who are working on disordered relationships with food.

    CICO, for weight loss, does work for everyone. But if someone know they have special needs, like a medical or mental disorder, those also need to be considered alongside the deficit. But nobody here argues otherwise. Sometimes when people are struggling with things, they find it easier to place that emotion into conflicts with other people. I'm wondering if that is at least part of what is going on here.
  • Noelv1976
    Noelv1976 Posts: 18,948 Member
    fbmandy55 wrote: »
    ReaderGirl3 wrote: »
    baby05phat wrote: »
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    baby05phat wrote: »
    When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
    http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

    Two comments: 1) why have people flagged the original post? and 2) I am surprised the contents of the referenced article are a newsflash to anyone or is cause for debate. Does anyone actually believe that 100 calories from potato chips have the equivalent impact on the body or are used in the same was as 100 calories of spinach? Or that all that matters is calories (energy) and that nutritional value doesn't come into play?

    To the OP: make sure you do your own research or ask people who offer you advice to provide references for the same. If they can't or won't, treat it with a grain of salt. Else it's all just opinion, and opinions rather than facts won't help you accomplish your goals, and can also hurt your quest in the long run.

    Perfect reply, thank you :) I 've overcome my eating issues by realizing this... for me a calorie just isn't a calorie, my body reacts completely differently. When I eat all healthy calories my shape becomes attractive and healthy looking as I lose weight. When I did all junk food but restricted calories.. yes I still lost weight, but my shape was skinny fat and unattractive + I'd just binge because I was addicted to heavy salt, sugar, fat and other chemicals in the food in today's world.
    Today's food is brand new that's why we are seeing an epidemic of obesity, everything is new. Back in 1800s no such thing existed as modified food and McDonald's and junk food, and everyone was a lot healthier. So in 2016, I completely think a calorie is not a calorie anymore

    You do realize there were obese/overweight people in the1800s? There were still unhealthy and sick people back in the 'good old' days. The earliest record of diabetes was in 1552BC. There wasn't exactly a McDonalds and Starbucks at every corner back then :p

    I am wondering though, from your original OP and now this one, if you perhaps have a history with eating disorders? The language you're using raises red flags. Seeing a licensed ED specialist may be able to help you work through your issues with food.

    The thigh gap profile pic was the first clue that OP had/does have an ED..

    ^^ What?? What does the thigh gap have anything to do with eating disorder?
  • ReaderGirl3
    ReaderGirl3 Posts: 868 Member
    edited April 2016
    Noelv1976 wrote: »
    fbmandy55 wrote: »
    ReaderGirl3 wrote: »
    baby05phat wrote: »
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    baby05phat wrote: »
    When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
    http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

    Two comments: 1) why have people flagged the original post? and 2) I am surprised the contents of the referenced article are a newsflash to anyone or is cause for debate. Does anyone actually believe that 100 calories from potato chips have the equivalent impact on the body or are used in the same was as 100 calories of spinach? Or that all that matters is calories (energy) and that nutritional value doesn't come into play?

    To the OP: make sure you do your own research or ask people who offer you advice to provide references for the same. If they can't or won't, treat it with a grain of salt. Else it's all just opinion, and opinions rather than facts won't help you accomplish your goals, and can also hurt your quest in the long run.

    Perfect reply, thank you :) I 've overcome my eating issues by realizing this... for me a calorie just isn't a calorie, my body reacts completely differently. When I eat all healthy calories my shape becomes attractive and healthy looking as I lose weight. When I did all junk food but restricted calories.. yes I still lost weight, but my shape was skinny fat and unattractive + I'd just binge because I was addicted to heavy salt, sugar, fat and other chemicals in the food in today's world.
    Today's food is brand new that's why we are seeing an epidemic of obesity, everything is new. Back in 1800s no such thing existed as modified food and McDonald's and junk food, and everyone was a lot healthier. So in 2016, I completely think a calorie is not a calorie anymore

    You do realize there were obese/overweight people in the1800s? There were still unhealthy and sick people back in the 'good old' days. The earliest record of diabetes was in 1552BC. There wasn't exactly a McDonalds and Starbucks at every corner back then :p

    I am wondering though, from your original OP and now this one, if you perhaps have a history with eating disorders? The language you're using raises red flags. Seeing a licensed ED specialist may be able to help you work through your issues with food.

    The thigh gap profile pic was the first clue that OP had/does have an ED..

    ^^ What?? What does the thigh gap have anything to do with eating disorder?

    Thigh gaps are a big thing in the anorexia/ED world. Someone using that as their profile picture is a big red flag.
    Google at your own risk :p
  • Noelv1976
    Noelv1976 Posts: 18,948 Member
    Huh, and I thought thigh gaps were genetics. Learned something new today
  • keepupwithjack
    keepupwithjack Posts: 44 Member
    "In one recent survey, only 12% of adults were able to accurately estimate the number of daily calories they need for their age, height, weight, and physical activity level."

    This is reason #1 to weigh your food and log it!
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    booksandchocolate12 wrote: »
    LMAO at CICO being "outdated".

    Also from the article: When I hear people repeat notions like “a calorie is a calorie” I like to reply: “That’s like saying a cubic zirconia is the same as a sparkling diamond.”

    Um, no. A calorie is calorie is like saying an inch is an inch or a yard is a yard. It's a unit of measure. Would you tell me that a foot of thread is longer or shorter than a foot of rope?

    But nice job blaming other people (and a basic scientific principle) for your struggles. That lack of personal accountability will serve you well.
    Everything this.

    What an absolutely ridiculous article. Information such as that included in the article is how I got stressed out about weight loss and never succeeded in the first place. It wasn't until I started weighing and logging (counting calories) that the weight came off and stayed off. Calorie counting opened my eyes. I am NOT going to give an author my money just to fail...myfitnesspal is FREE.

    FREE.

    A calorie is not a calorie? Well, damn..I guess a liter isn't a liter, or a gallon isn't a gallon (see how ridiculous that unsupported claim was).
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    PiperGirl08 wrote: »
    baby05phat wrote: »
    When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
    http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/

    Two comments: 1) why have people flagged the original post? and 2) I am surprised the contents of the referenced article are a newsflash to anyone or is cause for debate. Does anyone actually believe that 100 calories from potato chips have the equivalent impact on the body or are used in the same was as 100 calories of spinach?

    To the OP: make sure you do your own research or ask people who offer you advice to provide references for the same. If they can't or won't, treat it with a grain of salt. Else it's all just opinion, and opinions rather than facts won't help you accomplish your goals, and can also hurt your quest in the long run.

    Anyone who knows how digestion works knows it just gets turned into its components.
    Your body really doesn't give a single F*** if you had potato chips or baked potato with butter, it's both just potatoes and fat. In fact, your body doesn't even have a concept of "good" and "bad" foods, that's just you. It just doesn't care as long as it gets what it needs which is first and foremost calories and only secondly minimum amounts of nutrients. Most of the time you'd die of lack of calories a good while before you get problems because of lack of a nutrient.

    And that's a good thing because it made us probably the most adaptable higher life form in the world. Slovenly said, as long as there is ANYTHING edible, we can work with that.
    If someone who can eat mostly fat with little fruits and vegetables in their diet can achieve weight loss and health just as much as someone with balanced amounts or someone on the other side who almost only eats fruits and vegetables and little fat and protein, you should ask yourself why that is.

    Posts like this are the reason people should do their own research and use credible sources in the process. (OP: I'm talking to you.) :|

    See, when I think of credible sources I don't think of the article OP posted.

    That's all fine and well, and I mean no disrespect, but no one, especially the OP in this case, has any reason to consider you any more credible that the author the OP cites. In truth, this isn't about you and your beliefs, it is about her, and finding information that can truly helps her accomplish her goals.

    Yeah, she could have left the blame-gaming and finger-pointing out of her original post. But the bottom line is that what she has been doing (following bad advice from this site) hasn't worked so it is time for her to find something better and do something different. Such as some real research so she can learn what she needs to in order to accomplish her goals.<shrug>
    You're right. It's actually about science and experience. Why wouldn't anyone want to listen to science and to those who have been maintaining weight losses?

    So, shes a special snowflake then? Obviously she didn't follow any advice to have it not work.



  • PaulaWallaDingDong
    PaulaWallaDingDong Posts: 4,645 Member
    Noelv1976 wrote: »
    Huh, and I thought thigh gaps were genetics. Learned something new today

    Having one naturally is genetic. Glamourizing it speaks to something else entirely.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »
    Noelv1976 wrote: »
    Huh, and I thought thigh gaps were genetics. Learned something new today

    Having one naturally is genetic. Glamourizing it speaks to something else entirely.

    Exactly. I'm a male. I have one...lol. You aren't gonna see an avatar with it showing though. Lol.
  • Afura
    Afura Posts: 2,054 Member
    Noelv1976 wrote: »
    Huh, and I thought thigh gaps were genetics. Learned something new today
    Whoa, now you're going to have her blaming us on genetic issues because she was told thigh gap was genes.

    OP, take to heart what we tell you. A calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss. If you have issues with binging, or not eating then those are mental issues that we cannot assist with and you should see a doctor. If it's just a not understanding that leads to a freakout over what to do, see a nutritionist to help put things in perspective.
    The article is well written and made to focus you towards their point of view, and especially on her CICO 'myth' she offers no study to back it up and some of her information is fine (ie If you’ve overestimated your calorie needs, which I’ve seen many clients do, counting won’t create results.), while others are just off base (eat breakfast every day to jump-start your metabolism, eat on a regular schedule, spacing your meals about 3-5 hours apart).
  • snowflake930
    snowflake930 Posts: 2,188 Member
    edited April 2016
    OP, perhaps for some people, points made in the article may be valid, but for the vast majority of people, eating less calories than you burn results in weight loss, no matter how you arrive at the deficit, or what weight loss diet you follow, or what you eat. A calorie is a calorie.

    Many people have "trigger" foods that they have to cut out. If you don't have the self control to limit certain foods then just avoid them. No big deal. You have control over what you eat, no one else does.

    Ultimately, all the success, or failure, rests on each of our shoulders for ourselves only. Finding what works for us as individuals is important for achieving our ultimate goal.

    BTW, right or wrong, you can find anything on the internet to back up what you believe, whether or not it is fact. Just saying.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    I used to counsel people on reducing debt, and weight loss / CICO has a good analogy there. The fundamental advice there is spend less than you earn. Then would follow the details of each individual's budget: housing, food, utilities, etc. I'd always advise them to budget something for entertainment or fun, but to service the mandatory spending first. One could similarly state that "a dollar is a dollar" when it comes to debt reduction.

    Now if a person simply looked at umbrella advice - spend less than you earn - and then not actually service their mandatory obligations but spend the majority of their budget on "fun", they would suffer certain consequences even though they had money left over at the end of the month. But if they served their mandatory obligations and kept some aside for "fun", it helped make the whole process more sustainable.

    Similarly, if you spend your caloric budget on "junk food" (however you define that) and don't get adequate nutrition to serve your body's needs, you suffer consequences. That is why the mantra that "calories are for weight loss, macros are for nutrition" are important to understand. The division of macros and micros vary by individual preference and needs, but there are certain minimums that are needed.

    If the OP took CICO to mean an "all junk food" diet was a good idea, she didn't understand the intended advice.

    This is a fantastic analogy.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    I love the budgeting comparison too.

    And the specific things people should cut are individual and require a review of the overall spending/eating in both cases.
  • TR0berts
    TR0berts Posts: 7,739 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    I used to counsel people on reducing debt, and weight loss / CICO has a good analogy there. The fundamental advice there is spend less than you earn. Then would follow the details of each individual's budget: housing, food, utilities, etc. I'd always advise them to budget something for entertainment or fun, but to service the mandatory spending first. One could similarly state that "a dollar is a dollar" when it comes to debt reduction.

    Now if a person simply looked at umbrella advice - spend less than you earn - and then not actually service their mandatory obligations but spend the majority of their budget on "fun", they would suffer certain consequences even though they had money left over at the end of the month. But if they served their mandatory obligations and kept some aside for "fun", it helped make the whole process more sustainable.

    Similarly, if you spend your caloric budget on "junk food" (however you define that) and don't get adequate nutrition to serve your body's needs, you suffer consequences. That is why the mantra that "calories are for weight loss, macros are for nutrition" are important to understand. The division of macros and micros vary by individual preference and needs, but there are certain minimums that are needed.

    If the OP took CICO to mean an "all junk food" diet was a good idea, she didn't understand the intended advice.


    giphy.gif
  • endlessfall16
    endlessfall16 Posts: 932 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    I used to counsel people on reducing debt, and weight loss / CICO has a good analogy there. The fundamental advice there is spend less than you earn. Then would follow the details of each individual's budget: housing, food, utilities, etc. I'd always advise them to budget something for entertainment or fun, but to service the mandatory spending first. One could similarly state that "a dollar is a dollar" when it comes to debt reduction.

    Now if a person simply looked at umbrella advice - spend less than you earn - and then not actually service their mandatory obligations but spend the majority of their budget on "fun", they would suffer certain consequences even though they had money left over at the end of the month. But if they served their mandatory obligations and kept some aside for "fun", it helped make the whole process more sustainable.

    Your financial analogy is interesting, but it makes me wonder...

    I knew two people in recent years. One was very conservative with his money, always spent (much) less than he made but he was never short on any of the basics. He was comfortable and remained the same after decades.

    The second person, due to failing to find a job in his study, went to get a realtor license, worked, used his money, took (huge) risks with loans left and right and flipped houses. He's now a millionaire by the assets.

    To me budgeting, following the traditional route is ok but if one's smart he can flourish one way or another. When something works, it just works.
  • bpetrosky
    bpetrosky Posts: 3,911 Member
    endlessfall16 wrote: »
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    I used to counsel people on reducing debt, and weight loss / CICO has a good analogy there. The fundamental advice there is spend less than you earn. Then would follow the details of each individual's budget: housing, food, utilities, etc. I'd always advise them to budget something for entertainment or fun, but to service the mandatory spending first. One could similarly state that "a dollar is a dollar" when it comes to debt reduction.

    Now if a person simply looked at umbrella advice - spend less than you earn - and then not actually service their mandatory obligations but spend the majority of their budget on "fun", they would suffer certain consequences even though they had money left over at the end of the month. But if they served their mandatory obligations and kept some aside for "fun", it helped make the whole process more sustainable.

    Your financial analogy is interesting, but it makes me wonder...

    I knew two people in recent years. One was very conservative with his money, always spent (much) less than he made but he was never short on any of the basics. He was comfortable and remained the same after decades.

    The second person, due to failing to find a job in his study, went to get a realtor license, worked, used his money, took (huge) risks with loans left and right and flipped houses. He's now a millionaire by the assets.

    To me budgeting, following the traditional route is ok but if one's smart he can flourish one way or another. When something works, it just works.

    That is confusing budgeting with investing. Related, but not part of the same discussion.

    Granted, the financial analogy is imperfect, but it serves to illustrate the point between cashflow and budgeting expenses vs TDEE and dietary balance.

    Now if I truly wanted to stretch the analogy to include investing, I might compare exercise to investing vs. overeating to accumulating debt...but it would be a big stretch and not nearly as useful.
  • beemerphile1
    beemerphile1 Posts: 1,710 Member
    I think I agree that a calorie is not just a calorie. Some taste much better than others!
  • annaskiski
    annaskiski Posts: 1,212 Member
    Afura wrote: »
    [while others are just off base (eat breakfast every day to jump-start your metabolism, eat on a regular schedule, spacing your meals about 3-5 hours apart).

    The 'eat breakfast every day' mantra and 'eat 3-5 hours apart' gibberish is why I gained weight in the first place.
    Discovering Intermittent Fasting (which is really just going back to my natural schedule) has been such a godsend to me, that anyone who spouts the 'breakfast is the most important meal' theory is immediately thrown in the 'doesn't know what they're talking about' group.

  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    I used to counsel people on reducing debt, and weight loss / CICO has a good analogy there. The fundamental advice there is spend less than you earn. Then would follow the details of each individual's budget: housing, food, utilities, etc. I'd always advise them to budget something for entertainment or fun, but to service the mandatory spending first. One could similarly state that "a dollar is a dollar" when it comes to debt reduction.

    Now if a person simply looked at umbrella advice - spend less than you earn - and then not actually service their mandatory obligations but spend the majority of their budget on "fun", they would suffer certain consequences even though they had money left over at the end of the month. But if they served their mandatory obligations and kept some aside for "fun", it helped make the whole process more sustainable.

    Similarly, if you spend your caloric budget on "junk food" (however you define that) and don't get adequate nutrition to serve your body's needs, you suffer consequences. That is why the mantra that "calories are for weight loss, macros are for nutrition" are important to understand. The division of macros and micros vary by individual preference and needs, but there are certain minimums that are needed.

    If the OP took CICO to mean an "all junk food" diet was a good idea, she didn't understand the intended advice.

    +1
This discussion has been closed.

Categories