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.
If it's all CICO - why can't you outrun a bad diet?
Replies
-
To expand on that - someone close to me who shall remain anonymous for my own protection since I am married to them (haha) complained they gained three pounds over the last few days and it must be because they "didn't get enough sleep". Since I want to not get a divorce I decided not to mention the literally 5000-6000 calories they consumed over the weekend in pure junk food - on top of their meals. That's not including whatever they snacked on I didn't see, I know there were crackers and booze. So probably closer to 8000-9000 calories, given the three pounds.
If they were an exercising type, they could exercise that off. Theoretically. BUT:
To exercise off what must be about a 9000 calorie excess and thus maintain (not lose), she would have to (given her age, height, weight, etc):
walk for nearly fifteen hours at a speed of 3 miles per hour, or;
Jump rope for 6 and a half hours, or;
Do nearly 13 hours of moderate intensity Pilates, or;
Jog at 8 mph for almost 5 hours
You get the idea.
In short, you'd have to be a sort of insane fitness maniac Olympic style athlete to pull off this kind of physical activity and indulge in these sort of overindulgences regularly without gaining weight. Most people overestimate how much their exercise burns off.
Of course if you are the kind of person who spends 3+ hours at the gym lifting weights every day, I guess you can eat whatever you like. Like the Mountain Who Moves, or the Rock. Although even they follow some very specific diets to maximize their performance.
0 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »
CICO is not a way to lose weight, it is an energy equation. You are confusing CICO with counting calories...
Ok, you can pick apart grammar all day, or you can accept the point I'm attempting to make. Many people use CICO as a method to count calories, and do not understand the difference. Call it a mathematical equation, call it whatever you want, but please debate my main paoint rather than my grammar.
He is not arguing grammar; he is arguing physics, and schooling you, because you don't understand the first law of thermodynamics, specifically, the law of conservation of energy, of which CICO is an exemplar. When people argue against CICO because they or their mom failed with their own flawed calorie counting methodology, it's about as intelligent as arguing against the concept of gravity: "Gravity doesn't work because when I jump in the air, my scale goes to 0." No, gravity vs. kinetic energy is a mathematical equation, also an exemplar of the law of conservation of energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it just changes forms. A calorie is one measure of one unit of that energy (I believe potential energy) which when introduced to another living system gets stored as more potential energy (fat) or expended as thermal, mechanical or kinetic energy.
It is.
A fact.
Of the Universe.
As we know it.
Like gravity.
2 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »Tydeclare44 wrote: »
CICO is not a way to lose weight, it is an energy equation. You are confusing CICO with counting calories...
Ok, you can pick apart grammar all day, or you can accept the point I'm attempting to make. Many people use CICO as a method to count calories, and do not understand the difference. Call it a mathematical equation, call it whatever you want, but please debate my main paoint rather than my grammar.
He is not arguing grammar; he is arguing physics, and schooling you, because you don't understand the first law of thermodynamics, specifically, the law of conservation of energy, of which CICO is an exemplar. When people argue against CICO because they or their mom failed with their own flawed calorie counting methodology, it's about as intelligent as arguing against the concept of gravity: "Gravity doesn't work because when I jump in the air, my scale goes to 0." No, gravity vs. kinetic energy is a mathematical equation, also an exemplar of the law of conservation of energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it just changes forms. A calorie is one measure of one unit of that energy (I believe potential energy) which when introduced to another living system gets stored as more potential energy (fat) or expended as thermal, mechanical or kinetic energy.
It is.
A fact.
Of the Universe.
As we know it.
Like gravity.
Well, no.
CICO has an assumption that metabolic paths are consistent, that inefficiencies in energy absorption are negligible and that the thermal effect of food is not a major contributor.
While gravity is a pretty constant force as we experience it and conservation of energy is relatively immutable (excluding the new dark matter theories which would indeed include equations on the expansion of the space in my stomach) CICO is and will remain an estimated time-dependent physiological estimation.
As such, the effects of macros, the Atwater constants, the physiological effects of disease, non-energy related factors (such as water sheathing, bloating, etc).
What Tydeclare may be trying to argue (outside of the misuse of the term) is that a variety of other factors influence weight loss.
A calorie is not necessarily a calorie. A calorie is a thermochemical unit (not potential energy) and does not correspond exactly to the units we use for food those are big calories or kcals (commonly miswritten as Cals) and are losely linked to the energy determined by Atwater to protein, carbs and fats (and alcohol).
An easy way to show that conservation of energy doesn't exactly pertain to food we eat is to take a banana. A green banana will have less metabolic energy as a ripe banana (total energy of the banana isn't changing, if we were to measure is via a bomb calorimeter); the idea that CICO represents an exact equation or a conservation of energy equation is a false overlay of biological energy homeostasis, it's good enough, but it hardly reaches the level of rigour of gravitational mass equations.
0 -
seekingdaintiness wrote: »To expand on that - someone close to me who shall remain anonymous for my own protection since I am married to them (haha) complained they gained three pounds over the last few days and it must be because they "didn't get enough sleep". Since I want to not get a divorce I decided not to mention the literally 5000-6000 calories they consumed over the weekend in pure junk food - on top of their meals. That's not including whatever they snacked on I didn't see, I know there were crackers and booze. So probably closer to 8000-9000 calories, given the three pounds.
If they were an exercising type, they could exercise that off. Theoretically. BUT:
To exercise off what must be about a 9000 calorie excess and thus maintain (not lose), she would have to (given her age, height, weight, etc):
walk for nearly fifteen hours at a speed of 3 miles per hour, or;
Jump rope for 6 and a half hours, or;
Do nearly 13 hours of moderate intensity Pilates, or;
Jog at 8 mph for almost 5 hours
You get the idea.
In short, you'd have to be a sort of insane fitness maniac Olympic style athlete to pull off this kind of physical activity and indulge in these sort of overindulgences regularly without gaining weight. Most people overestimate how much their exercise burns off.
Of course if you are the kind of person who spends 3+ hours at the gym lifting weights every day, I guess you can eat whatever you like. Like the Mountain Who Moves, or the Rock. Although even they follow some very specific diets to maximize their performance.
A three pound gain from a binge weekend is more likely bloating and other non-fat gain factors than it is actually fat gain. No real math is required. I suspect if he returns to normal eating habits, nearly all of those three pounds will disappear.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »jmbmilholland wrote: »Tydeclare44 wrote: »
CICO is not a way to lose weight, it is an energy equation. You are confusing CICO with counting calories...
Ok, you can pick apart grammar all day, or you can accept the point I'm attempting to make. Many people use CICO as a method to count calories, and do not understand the difference. Call it a mathematical equation, call it whatever you want, but please debate my main paoint rather than my grammar.
He is not arguing grammar; he is arguing physics, and schooling you, because you don't understand the first law of thermodynamics, specifically, the law of conservation of energy, of which CICO is an exemplar. When people argue against CICO because they or their mom failed with their own flawed calorie counting methodology, it's about as intelligent as arguing against the concept of gravity: "Gravity doesn't work because when I jump in the air, my scale goes to 0." No, gravity vs. kinetic energy is a mathematical equation, also an exemplar of the law of conservation of energy. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it just changes forms. A calorie is one measure of one unit of that energy (I believe potential energy) which when introduced to another living system gets stored as more potential energy (fat) or expended as thermal, mechanical or kinetic energy.
It is.
A fact.
Of the Universe.
As we know it.
Like gravity.
Well, no.
CICO has an assumption that metabolic paths are consistent, that inefficiencies in energy absorption are negligible and that the thermal effect of food is not a major contributor.
While gravity is a pretty constant force as we experience it and conservation of energy is relatively immutable (excluding the new dark matter theories which would indeed include equations on the expansion of the space in my stomach) CICO is and will remain an estimated time-dependent physiological estimation.
As such, the effects of macros, the Atwater constants, the physiological effects of disease, non-energy related factors (such as water sheathing, bloating, etc).
What Tydeclare may be trying to argue (outside of the misuse of the term) is that a variety of other factors influence weight loss.
A calorie is not necessarily a calorie. A calorie is a thermochemical unit (not potential energy) and does not correspond exactly to the units we use for food those are big calories or kcals (commonly miswritten as Cals) and are losely linked to the energy determined by Atwater to protein, carbs and fats (and alcohol).
An easy way to show that conservation of energy doesn't exactly pertain to food we eat is to take a banana. A green banana will have less metabolic energy as a ripe banana (total energy of the banana isn't changing, if we were to measure is via a bomb calorimeter); the idea that CICO represents an exact equation or a conservation of energy equation is a false overlay of biological energy homeostasis, it's good enough, but it hardly reaches the level of rigour of gravitational mass equations.
Who says CICO has the assumption that metabolic paths are consistent? Just because MFP used the principle as a basis for its calorie-counting methodology doesn't mean that we think we are operating in an isolated system, which is what that would be.
And surely in the bolded section you are not stating that the laws of thermodynamic don't apply to food? Everything you wrote deals with the entirely-theoretical "isolated system" aspect of the laws of thermodynamics; of course it is exceedingly difficult to quantify the quirks and inefficiencies in a "real world" system, especially biological systems which simply can't be measured with the precision that we can measure simple mechanical non-biological systems. The energy of the banana can be impacted by thousands of immeasurable things, including the breed of the banana, the soil upon which it was raised, how much sun it got, whether it was green or ripe, and whether you puked up some, half or all of it because an hour after you ate it you regrettably discovered you had a stomach flu. Naturally none of this can be measured by human calibrations, but just because humans (even the most brilliant of scientists) are too clumsy and ignorant to measure it doesn't mean a precise amount of energy isn't converted.
My gravity calculation example is also prone to inefficiences in the system, from the reliability of the scale to whether you were wearing your heavy boots or the wind was blowing or the floor was uneven, all of which is easier and more obvious for our chimpanzee minds to comprehend and crudely measure. I am sure a physicist could detail more subtle and fancier inefficiencies in the system. It's just an easier energy conversion process overall to imagine and calculate.
We operate in the real world, but it doesn't prevent both from being exemplars of a law of thermodynamics. We just can't measure it accurately, but it still exists despite our lack of abilities.
1 -
RebeccaParmenter wrote: »And no my body doesn't care if my carbs come from sweet potatoes or waffles. A carb is a carb.
Amen...and since my mouth cares more than my body, I'll take the friggin' waffle!
2 -
Tydeclare44 wrote: »Well, there's two sides to this argument IMO.
One, if all that matters is pure weight loss (fat and muscle), then CICO is mathmatically correct. Eg. The biggest loser. They eat low calories and have a high output trough exercise and drop a tremendous amount of weight.
There are 500 threads about the NYT article, including one in this section. I still don't get why people think it has anything to do with CICO.However, if you follow these contestants for a few years after the competition, most have regained a substantial amount of weight. In fact, some now weight more than they did before they started the biggest loser. When looking at their TDEE post-show, even if they eat to maitenence for a person at their weight, they are burning far less calories than their counterparts from their constant low-calorie diets. Thus, their metabolism gets shot from years of calorie restriction, and therefore they would have to, a you say, exercise off 3000 calories a day (which is absolutely mindboggling). Some of this can be attributed to the muscle loss caused by chronic low calorie dietng (More muscle=higher TDEE).
Dumb overly aggressive diets result in more muscle loss and reduction in metabolism than other methods, and pretty much all diets involving significant weight loss result in some muscle loss (though not as much) and commonly some metabolic adaptation, although there seem to be ways to avoid it.
This doesn't contradict CICO at all. It simply affects CO.
Also, no of course they don't have to exercise off 3000 calories unless they eat something like 4500 calories.
Muscle also has less of an effect on TDEE than we all wish.
IF is as reliant on calorie restriction as any other diet. Maybe my TDEE is 2200 so I eat 1700 to lose 1 lb per week. If I do 5-2 IF, I eat 2200 on 5 days and 500 calories on the others. Nearly the same deficit. With something like 16-8 it's even more clear, as it works if the narrow eating window means I naturally restrict calories to 1700 or have an easier time doing so.0 -
I am going to get a lot of flack for this. I don't think its all calories in calories out.
I'll only give you flack for posting this in the wrong thread, since it doesn't seem to be about whether you can run off the calories, wherever from. ;-)A calorie is a calorie. Not if your body processes and uses those calories differently. I can eat 200 calories of candy or 200 calories of chicken and my body will handle it differently.
I think this is a misunderstanding. Some people seem to use "calorie" as a synonym for food and think others are saying foods have no differences, which is of course not true. But no one is saying that they are all the same. Foods are not foods when it comes to satiety, nutrition, how they effect your body. But for weight loss, a calorie is still a calorie. Sounds like you, like many people with PCOS, find a lower carb diet more satisfying, perhaps because you have some degree of IR.1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Exactly.kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
What exactly constitutes 1500 calories of crap? Sounds subjective. Sounds extreme. Possibly a useless example...
When I say 1500 calories of crap, I mean nothing but junk food or processed foods. You could eat 1500 calories of that stuff and still lose weight, but it's not going to bring the benefits that 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, and lean protein are going to bring you.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
Is crap in the MFP database? What is the nutritional profile of crap? Also, it seems unhealthy to eat crap. You should probably seek professional help for the compulsion that is leading you to eat crap instead of food. That sounds like a serious and potentially dangerous problem.
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.0 -
kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
Is crap in the MFP database? What is the nutritional profile of crap? Also, it seems unhealthy to eat crap. You should probably seek professional help for the compulsion that is leading you to eat crap instead of food. That sounds like a serious and potentially dangerous problem.
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.
I eat 1500 calories of crap, oops, I mean processed food everyday and have for two years and my bloodwork is perfect.2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I took it to mean (as one example) a diet based around fast food and/or highly processed snacks, sweets, etc. that provide very little micronutrients. While that's obviously not a very nutritious diet, I think it's fair to say that there could very well be a sizable number of people eating this way.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Exactly.kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
What exactly constitutes 1500 calories of crap? Sounds subjective. Sounds extreme. Possibly a useless example...
The thing is this tho...I've done checks and you can easily fill decent macros (mine) eating at fast food places...so to your argument...it's not crap.
AS well the biology teacher who ate at Micky D's for a month, lost weight and blood tests/numbers/bp all got better...
[/quotelemurcat12 wrote: »I am going to get a lot of flack for this. I don't think its all calories in calories out.
I'll only give you flack for posting this in the wrong thread, since it doesn't seem to be about whether you can run off the calories, wherever from. ;-)A calorie is a calorie. Not if your body processes and uses those calories differently. I can eat 200 calories of candy or 200 calories of chicken and my body will handle it differently.
I think this is a misunderstanding. Some people seem to use "calorie" as a synonym for food and think others are saying foods have no differences, which is of course not true. But no one is saying that they are all the same. Foods are not foods when it comes to satiety, nutrition, how they effect your body. But for weight loss, a calorie is still a calorie. Sounds like you, like many people with PCOS, find a lower carb diet more satisfying, perhaps because you have some degree of IR.
The issue with those of us with PCOS is that for me, calories from whole grain carbs affect my blood sugar levels very differently than "white" carbs. A piece of whole grain bread may have the same number of calories than a piece of white bread, but that white bread is going to spike my blood sugar far more than the whole grain bread. That blood sugar won't be able to enter the cells to be used for energy because my cells are resistant to the insulin. As such, the sugar will remain in the bloodstream and turn to fat. Someone whose insulin response is sufficient won't have that same effect. I could eat 200 calories of chicken or a 200 calorie candy bar, and they will have extremely different effects on me and my weight. For most people, a calorie is a calorie. But for some of us, because of the way certain foods affect us, a calorie isn't just a calorie. That means that we can't necessarily outrun our diet because our diet affects us so differently than most people.0 -
kmbrooks15 wrote: »
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.
Actually, that's not true. The biggest advantage to your health is to lose 10% of your body weight if you are overweight, regardless of what you eat. There have been countless studies backing this up...
0 -
Two years isn't that much time in relation to how long many diseases take to develop.queenliz99 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
Is crap in the MFP database? What is the nutritional profile of crap? Also, it seems unhealthy to eat crap. You should probably seek professional help for the compulsion that is leading you to eat crap instead of food. That sounds like a serious and potentially dangerous problem.
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.
I eat 1500 calories of crap, oops, I mean processed food everyday and have for two years and my bloodwork is perfect.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Two years isn't that much time in relation to how long many diseases take to develop.queenliz99 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
Is crap in the MFP database? What is the nutritional profile of crap? Also, it seems unhealthy to eat crap. You should probably seek professional help for the compulsion that is leading you to eat crap instead of food. That sounds like a serious and potentially dangerous problem.
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.
I eat 1500 calories of crap, oops, I mean processed food everyday and have for two years and my bloodwork is perfect.
What are you talking about? I was at the high end of overweight according to BMI. I was eating a paleo diet with mostly proteins and fats and yet was almost prescribed a statin for high cholesterol. I changed my eating to a more moderate approach to macros and I am now at an appropriate goal weight. So, yea, I stop the development of CVD for myself.4 -
kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
Is crap in the MFP database? What is the nutritional profile of crap? Also, it seems unhealthy to eat crap. You should probably seek professional help for the compulsion that is leading you to eat crap instead of food. That sounds like a serious and potentially dangerous problem.
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.
What if I eat 1500 calories of processed food made up of lean protein (which is always processed), vegetables and fruits -- like, for example, very heathy frozen meals without significant additives of the sort that some people find bothersome?
I'm also not sure how it's possible to generalize about fast food. You can get a salad or a Chipotle bowl or a burger or fries or a grilled chicken sandwich and on and on -- the effect of 1500 calories of fries is going to be different than 1500 calories of Chipotle bowls and salads from various places, although both are ridiculous diets IMO.0 -
Understood. My point was that just because one can eat "1500 calories of crap" and not have any problems at a given point in time, does not mean that one can eat that way for a lifetime and not have any consequences from doing so.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Two years isn't that much time in relation to how long many diseases take to develop.queenliz99 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
Is crap in the MFP database? What is the nutritional profile of crap? Also, it seems unhealthy to eat crap. You should probably seek professional help for the compulsion that is leading you to eat crap instead of food. That sounds like a serious and potentially dangerous problem.
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.
I eat 1500 calories of crap, oops, I mean processed food everyday and have for two years and my bloodwork is perfect.
What are you talking about? I was at the high end of overweight according to BMI. I was eating a paleo diet with mostly proteins and fats and yet was almost prescribed a statin for high cholesterol. I changed my eating to a more moderate approach to macros and I am now at an appropriate goal weight. So, yea, I stop the development of CVD for myself.
2 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Understood. My point was that just because one can eat "1500 calories of crap" and not have any problems at a given point in time, does not mean that one can eat that way for a lifetime and not have any consequences from doing so.queenliz99 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Two years isn't that much time in relation to how long many diseases take to develop.queenliz99 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
Is crap in the MFP database? What is the nutritional profile of crap? Also, it seems unhealthy to eat crap. You should probably seek professional help for the compulsion that is leading you to eat crap instead of food. That sounds like a serious and potentially dangerous problem.
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.
I eat 1500 calories of crap, oops, I mean processed food everyday and have for two years and my bloodwork is perfect.
What are you talking about? I was at the high end of overweight according to BMI. I was eating a paleo diet with mostly proteins and fats and yet was almost prescribed a statin for high cholesterol. I changed my eating to a more moderate approach to macros and I am now at an appropriate goal weight. So, yea, I stop the development of CVD for myself.
And conversely a person can eat a diet of primarily whole foods and develop medical issues as well.4 -
kmbrooks15 wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »kmbrooks15 wrote: »You could outrun it, but it may not be healthy to do so. Eating 1500 calories of crap and burning 2000 calories will still cause weight loss, but you will likely be unhealthy because of the lack of vitamins, minerals, and other nutrients necessary.
Is crap in the MFP database? What is the nutritional profile of crap? Also, it seems unhealthy to eat crap. You should probably seek professional help for the compulsion that is leading you to eat crap instead of food. That sounds like a serious and potentially dangerous problem.
Ha Ha. I meant that 1500 calories of junk/processed/fast food vs. 1500 calories of vegetables, fruits, lean proteins, etc., doesn't matter for weight loss. But it does matter for overall health. You're obviously not going to get the nutritional benefit from the first group that you would for the second.
I'm what ways is a reasonable diet of "junk" deficient where a "lean proteins*" diet is not? How extreme will your example have to be to make this point?
*what's with the continued hate for animal fat? It's remarkably nutritious.3 -
This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
A little late to this, but it is because you can eat far more calories in far less time than you could ever burn running.1 -
Well I'm glad we got that one all cleared up.2
-
seekingdaintiness wrote: »Because there's a limit to what you can physically burn off. You'd die of a heart attack from over exertion.
And what's that limit?
0 -
rileysowner wrote: »This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
A little late to this, but it is because you can eat far more calories in far less time than you could ever burn running.
But would you keep eating those calories for the length of time it would take you to burn them off?
Others have pointed out that they could consume 1000 calories in 15 minutes ... but it would take them 2-3 hours to burn that off. Yes, that's probably true. But would you continue to eat 1000 calories every 15 minutes during those 2-3 hours? Or would you be full after consuming those 1000 calories, and be off doing something else with your time for the next 2-3 hours?
Personally, if I do consume 1000 calories in one sitting (rare), I'm stuffed to the gills and don't want to look at food for the next 2-3 hours. So while it is true that I can consume those 1000 calories in a mere 15 min, it takes me about the same length of time to get process that consumption and feel hungry again as it would to burn off 1000 calories by going for a 2-3 hour bicycle ride.
1 -
seekingdaintiness wrote: »Because there's a limit to what you can physically burn off. You'd die of a heart attack from over exertion.
And what's that limit?
I'm just going to quote Tom Venuto to answer that question. He's done the math.The research paper, titled, A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia, gave a specific number on the maximum rate of fat oxidation and energy transfer:
A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290+/-25) kJ/kgd. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM).
This says that the limit is 290+/- 25 KJ/kg/d, which is a maximum energy transfer rate of 31 kcal/lb of fat per day.
So, if you're a 180 pound male and you're fairly lean at 10% body fat, you have 18 lbs of fat. 31 kcal X 18 = 558 kcal deficit. That pans out to only 1.1 lbs of fat loss per week. Beyond that you lose fat free mass.
Now take the guy who is 280 lbs and 37% body fat, which is 103 lbs of fat. 31kcal X 103 lbs of fat = 3193 kcal per day, which is close to a pound of fat a day which could be safely lost.(6.4 lbs per week to be precise).
This was published in a theoretical biology journal, so I suppose you could say these numbers are theoretical. They are most certainly an estimate or generalization because they are based on research that used one specific population of subjects. However, these findings are consistent with other research which has clearly shown that obese individuals can lose fat faster than lean people.
Trying to burn off beyond some limit (and I have issues with that 31 cals/lb, but even if it is 150% of that) is going to result in LBM loss.
Secondarily, even at those high rates, you are going to affect hormonal balance which can then result in other long term metabolic issues.
One can easily exceed via intake these loss rates.0 -
rileysowner wrote: »This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
A little late to this, but it is because you can eat far more calories in far less time than you could ever burn running.
But would you keep eating those calories for the length of time it would take you to burn them off?
Others have pointed out that they could consume 1000 calories in 15 minutes ... but it would take them 2-3 hours to burn that off. Yes, that's probably true. But would you continue to eat 1000 calories every 15 minutes during those 2-3 hours? Or would you be full after consuming those 1000 calories, and be off doing something else with your time for the next 2-3 hours?
Personally, if I do consume 1000 calories in one sitting (rare), I'm stuffed to the gills and don't want to look at food for the next 2-3 hours. So while it is true that I can consume those 1000 calories in a mere 15 min, it takes me about the same length of time to get process that consumption and feel hungry again as it would to burn off 1000 calories by going for a 2-3 hour bicycle ride.
Yeah, I think this is the point. How people react to exercise varies. Are you really likely to go eat it all off? It depends. I'm not convinced that I eat much more when very active than when sedentary, all else equal. In fact, I gained weight in the first place by going from a very active lifestyle to a sedentary one and not changing my eating habits (as they seemed fine and were for my prior lifestyle).0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »seekingdaintiness wrote: »Because there's a limit to what you can physically burn off. You'd die of a heart attack from over exertion.
And what's that limit?
I'm just going to quote Tom Venuto to answer that question. He's done the math.The research paper, titled, A limit on the energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia, gave a specific number on the maximum rate of fat oxidation and energy transfer:
A limit on the maximum energy transfer rate from the human fat store in hypophagia is deduced from experimental data of underfed subjects maintaining moderate activity levels and is found to have a value of (290+/-25) kJ/kgd. A dietary restriction which exceeds the limited capability of the fat store to compensate for the energy deficiency results in an immediate decrease in the fat free mass (FFM).
This says that the limit is 290+/- 25 KJ/kg/d, which is a maximum energy transfer rate of 31 kcal/lb of fat per day.
So, if you're a 180 pound male and you're fairly lean at 10% body fat, you have 18 lbs of fat. 31 kcal X 18 = 558 kcal deficit. That pans out to only 1.1 lbs of fat loss per week. Beyond that you lose fat free mass.
Now take the guy who is 280 lbs and 37% body fat, which is 103 lbs of fat. 31kcal X 103 lbs of fat = 3193 kcal per day, which is close to a pound of fat a day which could be safely lost.(6.4 lbs per week to be precise).
This was published in a theoretical biology journal, so I suppose you could say these numbers are theoretical. They are most certainly an estimate or generalization because they are based on research that used one specific population of subjects. However, these findings are consistent with other research which has clearly shown that obese individuals can lose fat faster than lean people.
Trying to burn off beyond some limit (and I have issues with that 31 cals/lb, but even if it is 150% of that) is going to result in LBM loss.
Secondarily, even at those high rates, you are going to affect hormonal balance which can then result in other long term metabolic issues.
One can easily exceed via intake these loss rates.
Yeah I'm not convinced that 31lb/day equation is that linear either...0 -
rileysowner wrote: »This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
A little late to this, but it is because you can eat far more calories in far less time than you could ever burn running.
But would you keep eating those calories for the length of time it would take you to burn them off?
Others have pointed out that they could consume 1000 calories in 15 minutes ... but it would take them 2-3 hours to burn that off. Yes, that's probably true. But would you continue to eat 1000 calories every 15 minutes during those 2-3 hours? Or would you be full after consuming those 1000 calories, and be off doing something else with your time for the next 2-3 hours?
Personally, if I do consume 1000 calories in one sitting (rare), I'm stuffed to the gills and don't want to look at food for the next 2-3 hours. So while it is true that I can consume those 1000 calories in a mere 15 min, it takes me about the same length of time to get process that consumption and feel hungry again as it would to burn off 1000 calories by going for a 2-3 hour bicycle ride.
The only snag IMO is that not everyone eats for hunger. Some continue eating beyond satiety for taste, texture and psychological reasons...2 -
rileysowner wrote: »This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
A little late to this, but it is because you can eat far more calories in far less time than you could ever burn running.
But would you keep eating those calories for the length of time it would take you to burn them off?
Others have pointed out that they could consume 1000 calories in 15 minutes ... but it would take them 2-3 hours to burn that off. Yes, that's probably true. But would you continue to eat 1000 calories every 15 minutes during those 2-3 hours? Or would you be full after consuming those 1000 calories, and be off doing something else with your time for the next 2-3 hours?
Personally, if I do consume 1000 calories in one sitting (rare), I'm stuffed to the gills and don't want to look at food for the next 2-3 hours. So while it is true that I can consume those 1000 calories in a mere 15 min, it takes me about the same length of time to get process that consumption and feel hungry again as it would to burn off 1000 calories by going for a 2-3 hour bicycle ride.
Depends on what the meal is. A quarter pounder with cheese, medium fries, and a medium soda (regular, not diet) is right around 1000 calories. I could eat that in 15 min and not be "stuffed" at all. In fact I've btdt and been hungry just an hour or two later (one reason I don't eat fast food terribly often). So I could reasonably eat that same meal every 2-3 hours during my waking hours (let's call it 16 hours) easily consuming between 5000 and 8000 calories for the day. No problem. But I'm not sure I could work out at a high enough intensity, long enough to burn that many calories in the same 16 hour time frame... I kinda doubt it. I would think I would get fatigued a lot sooner and either would have to stop altogether, or would be at a very low intensity, therefore not burning nearly as many calories as I would need to in order to outrun that level of intake.
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
A little late to this, but it is because you can eat far more calories in far less time than you could ever burn running.
But would you keep eating those calories for the length of time it would take you to burn them off?
Others have pointed out that they could consume 1000 calories in 15 minutes ... but it would take them 2-3 hours to burn that off. Yes, that's probably true. But would you continue to eat 1000 calories every 15 minutes during those 2-3 hours? Or would you be full after consuming those 1000 calories, and be off doing something else with your time for the next 2-3 hours?
Personally, if I do consume 1000 calories in one sitting (rare), I'm stuffed to the gills and don't want to look at food for the next 2-3 hours. So while it is true that I can consume those 1000 calories in a mere 15 min, it takes me about the same length of time to get process that consumption and feel hungry again as it would to burn off 1000 calories by going for a 2-3 hour bicycle ride.
Depends on what the meal is. A quarter pounder with cheese, medium fries, and a medium soda (regular, not diet) is right around 1000 calories. I could eat that in 15 min and not be "stuffed" at all. In fact I've btdt and been hungry just an hour or two later (one reason I don't eat fast food terribly often). So I could reasonably eat that same meal every 2-3 hours during my waking hours (let's call it 16 hours) easily consuming between 5000 and 8000 calories for the day. No problem. But I'm not sure I could work out at a high enough intensity, long enough to burn that many calories in the same 16 hour time frame... I kinda doubt it. I would think I would get fatigued a lot sooner and either would have to stop altogether, or would be at a very low intensity, therefore not burning nearly as many calories as I would need to in order to outrun that level of intake.
That, but with diet soda, was my normal fast food order when forced to do fast food (i.e., road trip). It was quite filling and I'd feel if anything sluggish (high fat) and not want anything more 'til my next planned meal. High cal if lots of meals were made up of that, but for an occasional meal, no. The reason I don't eat fast food is that I don't care for it, not because it's that hard to fit in.
Anyway, I agree with Machka. There are some foods I like where I can eat insane calories in a short amount of time (Indian), but even so that's great for hours. I can't imagine eating and eating. I now don't get Indian 3x/week but maybe 1 time/month around a half marathon or long bike or run, and allow myself to eat whatever I want. Works fine for maintenance. Is that outrunning a bad diet?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »This is purely for debate purposes - if weight loss is purely calories in and calories out, why can't you 'outrun a bad diet' - surely if you run enough to burn off the calories of a bad dietary intake, you can for all intents and purposes outrun a bad diet?
If a person is in a caloric deficit surely they will lose irrespective of what their food intake is.
begin.....
A little late to this, but it is because you can eat far more calories in far less time than you could ever burn running.
But would you keep eating those calories for the length of time it would take you to burn them off?
Others have pointed out that they could consume 1000 calories in 15 minutes ... but it would take them 2-3 hours to burn that off. Yes, that's probably true. But would you continue to eat 1000 calories every 15 minutes during those 2-3 hours? Or would you be full after consuming those 1000 calories, and be off doing something else with your time for the next 2-3 hours?
Personally, if I do consume 1000 calories in one sitting (rare), I'm stuffed to the gills and don't want to look at food for the next 2-3 hours. So while it is true that I can consume those 1000 calories in a mere 15 min, it takes me about the same length of time to get process that consumption and feel hungry again as it would to burn off 1000 calories by going for a 2-3 hour bicycle ride.
Depends on what the meal is. A quarter pounder with cheese, medium fries, and a medium soda (regular, not diet) is right around 1000 calories. I could eat that in 15 min and not be "stuffed" at all. In fact I've btdt and been hungry just an hour or two later (one reason I don't eat fast food terribly often). So I could reasonably eat that same meal every 2-3 hours during my waking hours (let's call it 16 hours) easily consuming between 5000 and 8000 calories for the day. No problem. But I'm not sure I could work out at a high enough intensity, long enough to burn that many calories in the same 16 hour time frame... I kinda doubt it. I would think I would get fatigued a lot sooner and either would have to stop altogether, or would be at a very low intensity, therefore not burning nearly as many calories as I would need to in order to outrun that level of intake.
That, but with diet soda, was my normal fast food order when forced to do fast food (i.e., road trip). It was quite filling and I'd feel if anything sluggish (high fat) and not want anything more 'til my next planned meal. High cal if lots of meals were made up of that, but for an occasional meal, no. The reason I don't eat fast food is that I don't care for it, not because it's that hard to fit in.
Anyway, I agree with Machka. There are some foods I like where I can eat insane calories in a short amount of time (Indian), but even so that's great for hours. I can't imagine eating and eating. I now don't get Indian 3x/week but maybe 1 time/month around a half marathon or long bike or run, and allow myself to eat whatever I want. Works fine for maintenance. Is that outrunning a bad diet?
Fwiw, when I do occasionally get fast food, these days I get unsweetened iced tea (hate the taste of diet soda), skip the fries altogether (or sub a salad) and get a double burger, no bun. That fills me up for 3-4 hours, no sluggishness. But the meal I described? That used to be my go-to mickey d's meal and I would always be hungry an hour or two later. Not sluggish at all. Heck, I could do a double qpc, supersize fries (back in the day when they still offered that) and supersize regular soda, and be ready for my next meal in 3-4 hours. For me the carbs awaken my inner monster. And the monster is hangry, lol. Now, 1000 calories of steak and salad? Stuffed to the gills for hours. My point was, mcd's aside, I could easily consume 5000+ calories in a day, given the right food (or the wrong food depending on how you look at it, lol). I'd be hard pressed to be able to maintain a high enough intensity of cardio to burn that off in the same timeframe. I'd really have to train for it and work up to it. Wouldn't need to train for or work up to that level of intake. At. All. And I suspect that rings true for the average person (which is whom I believe that saying is directed at in the first place).
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions