Meals to lose belly fat
Replies
-
It's because you are claiming you eat at a surplus and lose weight when that is physically impossible4
-
singingflutelady wrote: »It's because you are claiming you eat at a surplus and lose weight when that is physically impossible
Yes, pretty much this.
3 -
ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »Btw, well done everyone eating carbs and loosing weight. No need to be so highly strung about how people choose to loose weight.
I eat carbs, I feel crap. I limit intake of carbs to fresh veg and very, very little fruit and all is well with the world.
BTW, have a look at this...
http://www.dietdoctor.com/calorie-theory-obesity-falsified?utm_source=Diet+Doctor+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b4593ed146-Test&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_41db911777-b4593ed146-463916693
As someone who always asks questions, looking for different ideas. I want to ask this. I'm not criticising, or bashing or trying to undermine. It's just a thought that popped in my head. What if those of us that have studied nutrition and diet at university level have been taught wrong?
One last thing, low carb high fat is working for me. Why does that irritate so much?
I can only speak for myself.
It is not your success that bothers me. I am quite happy you found something that works for you. That said, it is obvious to me that you don't fully understand why it worked.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you claimed to achieve your weight loss in a caloric surplus, and that it was because you reduced your carbs that you succeeded.
How something worked is not the same as why something worked. Low carb was the tool you used, it worked because you were in an energy deficit, regardless of what you think. And to state otherwise is, IMO, very irresponsible.10 -
ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »Btw, well done everyone eating carbs and loosing weight. No need to be so highly strung about how people choose to loose weight.
I eat carbs, I feel crap. I limit intake of carbs to fresh veg and very, very little fruit and all is well with the world.
BTW, have a look at this...
http://www.dietdoctor.com/calorie-theory-obesity-falsified?utm_source=Diet+Doctor+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b4593ed146-Test&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_41db911777-b4593ed146-463916693
As someone who always asks questions, looking for different ideas. I want to ask this. I'm not criticising, or bashing or trying to undermine. It's just a thought that popped in my head. What if those of us that have studied nutrition and diet at university level have been taught wrong?
One last thing, low carb high fat is working for me. Why does that irritate so much?
I can only speak for myself.
It is not your success that bothers me. I am quite happy you found something that works for you. That said, it is obvious to me that you don't fully understand why it worked.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you claimed to achieve your weight loss in a caloric surplus, and that it was because you reduced your carbs that you succeeded.
How something worked is not the same as why something worked. Low carb was the tool you used, it worked because you were in an energy deficit, regardless of what you think. And to state otherwise is, IMO, very irresponsible.
So, are you saying for instance, a 100 calories of spinach will behave the same as 100 calories of banana?0 -
hassankarimi82 wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »Btw, well done everyone eating carbs and loosing weight. No need to be so highly strung about how people choose to loose weight.
I eat carbs, I feel crap. I limit intake of carbs to fresh veg and very, very little fruit and all is well with the world.
BTW, have a look at this...
http://www.dietdoctor.com/calorie-theory-obesity-falsified?utm_source=Diet+Doctor+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b4593ed146-Test&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_41db911777-b4593ed146-463916693
As someone who always asks questions, looking for different ideas. I want to ask this. I'm not criticising, or bashing or trying to undermine. It's just a thought that popped in my head. What if those of us that have studied nutrition and diet at university level have been taught wrong?
One last thing, low carb high fat is working for me. Why does that irritate so much?
I can only speak for myself.
It is not your success that bothers me. I am quite happy you found something that works for you. That said, it is obvious to me that you don't fully understand why it worked.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you claimed to achieve your weight loss in a caloric surplus, and that it was because you reduced your carbs that you succeeded.
How something worked is not the same as why something worked. Low carb was the tool you used, it worked because you were in an energy deficit, regardless of what you think. And to state otherwise is, IMO, very irresponsible.
So, are you saying for instance, a 100 calories of spinach will behave the same as 100 calories of banana?
Calories are units of energy so yes. As far as the nutrients, of course they both offer different things.
This is why I take an inclusive approach to nutrition. I look at what I can add to my diet rather then what I can eliminate. I find it very difficult to over eat "junk" food when I am focusing on my protein, fat and fiber goals.
That said, once my needs are met and calories are still available to me, I see no harm including "junk" foods into an over all healthy diet.6 -
hassankarimi82 wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »Btw, well done everyone eating carbs and loosing weight. No need to be so highly strung about how people choose to loose weight.
I eat carbs, I feel crap. I limit intake of carbs to fresh veg and very, very little fruit and all is well with the world.
BTW, have a look at this...
http://www.dietdoctor.com/calorie-theory-obesity-falsified?utm_source=Diet+Doctor+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b4593ed146-Test&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_41db911777-b4593ed146-463916693
As someone who always asks questions, looking for different ideas. I want to ask this. I'm not criticising, or bashing or trying to undermine. It's just a thought that popped in my head. What if those of us that have studied nutrition and diet at university level have been taught wrong?
One last thing, low carb high fat is working for me. Why does that irritate so much?
I can only speak for myself.
It is not your success that bothers me. I am quite happy you found something that works for you. That said, it is obvious to me that you don't fully understand why it worked.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you claimed to achieve your weight loss in a caloric surplus, and that it was because you reduced your carbs that you succeeded.
How something worked is not the same as why something worked. Low carb was the tool you used, it worked because you were in an energy deficit, regardless of what you think. And to state otherwise is, IMO, very irresponsible.
So, are you saying for instance, a 100 calories of spinach will behave the same as 100 calories of banana?
Calories are units of energy so yes. As far as the nutrients, of course they both offer different things.
This is why I take an inclusive approach to nutrition. I look at what I can add to my diet rather then what I can eliminate. I find it very difficult to over eat "junk" food when I am focusing on my protein, fat and fiber goals.
That said, once my needs are met and calories are still available to me, I see no harm including "junk" foods into an over all healthy diet.
So, are you saying for instance, 100 calories of protein is the same as a 100 calories of carbs is the same as 100 calories of fats???0 -
There's a cat 100 metres from me to my left, and a dog 100 metres from me to my right. The cat isn't a dog, and the dog isn't a cat, but they are still both 100 metres away from me.
I think I need to lie down with a gin-soaked rag now.16 -
hassankarimi82 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »Btw, well done everyone eating carbs and loosing weight. No need to be so highly strung about how people choose to loose weight.
I eat carbs, I feel crap. I limit intake of carbs to fresh veg and very, very little fruit and all is well with the world.
BTW, have a look at this...
http://www.dietdoctor.com/calorie-theory-obesity-falsified?utm_source=Diet+Doctor+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b4593ed146-Test&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_41db911777-b4593ed146-463916693
As someone who always asks questions, looking for different ideas. I want to ask this. I'm not criticising, or bashing or trying to undermine. It's just a thought that popped in my head. What if those of us that have studied nutrition and diet at university level have been taught wrong?
One last thing, low carb high fat is working for me. Why does that irritate so much?
I can only speak for myself.
It is not your success that bothers me. I am quite happy you found something that works for you. That said, it is obvious to me that you don't fully understand why it worked.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you claimed to achieve your weight loss in a caloric surplus, and that it was because you reduced your carbs that you succeeded.
How something worked is not the same as why something worked. Low carb was the tool you used, it worked because you were in an energy deficit, regardless of what you think. And to state otherwise is, IMO, very irresponsible.
So, are you saying for instance, a 100 calories of spinach will behave the same as 100 calories of banana?
Calories are units of energy so yes. As far as the nutrients, of course they both offer different things.
This is why I take an inclusive approach to nutrition. I look at what I can add to my diet rather then what I can eliminate. I find it very difficult to over eat "junk" food when I am focusing on my protein, fat and fiber goals.
That said, once my needs are met and calories are still available to me, I see no harm including "junk" foods into an over all healthy diet.
So, are you saying for instance, 100 calories of protein is the same as a 100 calories of carbs is the same as 100 calories of fats???
Has it ever crossed your mind to find out what a calorie actually is?
Are foods or macros different? Of course.
Are calories different? No.5 -
hassankarimi82 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »Btw, well done everyone eating carbs and loosing weight. No need to be so highly strung about how people choose to loose weight.
I eat carbs, I feel crap. I limit intake of carbs to fresh veg and very, very little fruit and all is well with the world.
BTW, have a look at this...
http://www.dietdoctor.com/calorie-theory-obesity-falsified?utm_source=Diet+Doctor+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b4593ed146-Test&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_41db911777-b4593ed146-463916693
As someone who always asks questions, looking for different ideas. I want to ask this. I'm not criticising, or bashing or trying to undermine. It's just a thought that popped in my head. What if those of us that have studied nutrition and diet at university level have been taught wrong?
One last thing, low carb high fat is working for me. Why does that irritate so much?
I can only speak for myself.
It is not your success that bothers me. I am quite happy you found something that works for you. That said, it is obvious to me that you don't fully understand why it worked.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you claimed to achieve your weight loss in a caloric surplus, and that it was because you reduced your carbs that you succeeded.
How something worked is not the same as why something worked. Low carb was the tool you used, it worked because you were in an energy deficit, regardless of what you think. And to state otherwise is, IMO, very irresponsible.
So, are you saying for instance, a 100 calories of spinach will behave the same as 100 calories of banana?
Calories are units of energy so yes. As far as the nutrients, of course they both offer different things.
This is why I take an inclusive approach to nutrition. I look at what I can add to my diet rather then what I can eliminate. I find it very difficult to over eat "junk" food when I am focusing on my protein, fat and fiber goals.
That said, once my needs are met and calories are still available to me, I see no harm including "junk" foods into an over all healthy diet.
So, are you saying for instance, 100 calories of protein is the same as a 100 calories of carbs is the same as 100 calories of fats???
You can't just compare two macros. A diet is composed of various macros, micros and foods. One is not better than the other and you have to always look at the good picture. Even with bad foods, you can still have an overall solid diet (especially in maintenance or bulking where its much easier to get nutrients). So trying to ask if this is better than that is kind of ridiculous. Carbs, fats and proteins all serve their purpose and should be looked at contextually.3 -
ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »Btw, well done everyone eating carbs and loosing weight. No need to be so highly strung about how people choose to loose weight.
I eat carbs, I feel crap. I limit intake of carbs to fresh veg and very, very little fruit and all is well with the world.
BTW, have a look at this...
http://www.dietdoctor.com/calorie-theory-obesity-falsified?utm_source=Diet+Doctor+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b4593ed146-Test&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_41db911777-b4593ed146-463916693
As someone who always asks questions, looking for different ideas. I want to ask this. I'm not criticising, or bashing or trying to undermine. It's just a thought that popped in my head. What if those of us that have studied nutrition and diet at university level have been taught wrong?
One last thing, low carb high fat is working for me. Why does that irritate so much?
I can only speak for myself.
It is not your success that bothers me. I am quite happy you found something that works for you. That said, it is obvious to me that you don't fully understand why it worked.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you claimed to achieve your weight loss in a caloric surplus, and that it was because you reduced your carbs that you succeeded.
How something worked is not the same as why something worked. Low carb was the tool you used, it worked because you were in an energy deficit, regardless of what you think. And to state otherwise is, IMO, very irresponsible.
This is exactly my perception. I never care how people achieve their goals, but when they misrepresent science, they should get called out for it.2 -
Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.0
-
hassankarimi82 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »ivanfawcettgibson wrote: »Btw, well done everyone eating carbs and loosing weight. No need to be so highly strung about how people choose to loose weight.
I eat carbs, I feel crap. I limit intake of carbs to fresh veg and very, very little fruit and all is well with the world.
BTW, have a look at this...
http://www.dietdoctor.com/calorie-theory-obesity-falsified?utm_source=Diet+Doctor+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b4593ed146-Test&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_41db911777-b4593ed146-463916693
As someone who always asks questions, looking for different ideas. I want to ask this. I'm not criticising, or bashing or trying to undermine. It's just a thought that popped in my head. What if those of us that have studied nutrition and diet at university level have been taught wrong?
One last thing, low carb high fat is working for me. Why does that irritate so much?
I can only speak for myself.
It is not your success that bothers me. I am quite happy you found something that works for you. That said, it is obvious to me that you don't fully understand why it worked.
Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but I believe you claimed to achieve your weight loss in a caloric surplus, and that it was because you reduced your carbs that you succeeded.
How something worked is not the same as why something worked. Low carb was the tool you used, it worked because you were in an energy deficit, regardless of what you think. And to state otherwise is, IMO, very irresponsible.
So, are you saying for instance, a 100 calories of spinach will behave the same as 100 calories of banana?
Calories are units of energy so yes. As far as the nutrients, of course they both offer different things.
This is why I take an inclusive approach to nutrition. I look at what I can add to my diet rather then what I can eliminate. I find it very difficult to over eat "junk" food when I am focusing on my protein, fat and fiber goals.
That said, once my needs are met and calories are still available to me, I see no harm including "junk" foods into an over all healthy diet.
So, are you saying for instance, 100 calories of protein is the same as a 100 calories of carbs is the same as 100 calories of fats???
It's already been said several times, but calories are a unit of energy. For weight loss you must be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. Macro composition does not matter for weight loss. Calories matter for weight loss.
Calories. Calories. And yes, Calories.
Peoples, this isn't that complicated
4 -
hassankarimi82 wrote: »Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.
yes but you still have to eat at a calorie deficit to lose weight no matter what your diet is comprised of. Our issue is that he claims he is a freak of nature who can eat at a surplus and lose weight when that is not possible5 -
hassankarimi82 wrote: »Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.
There may be different ways of eating which work for different people but the fact that one needs to be in a calorie deficit in order to lose is immutable. Stating that you can lose while in a calorie surplus is wrong, and doing so on these boards when so many people are confused about weight loss is irresponsible.7 -
singingflutelady wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.
yes but you still have to eat at a calorie deficit to lose weight no matter what your diet is comprised of. Our issue is that he claims he is a freak of nature who can eat at a surplus and lose weight when that is not possible
I don't 'claim' to be a freak. I AM ONE!!0 -
hassankarimi82 wrote: »singingflutelady wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.
yes but you still have to eat at a calorie deficit to lose weight no matter what your diet is comprised of. Our issue is that he claims he is a freak of nature who can eat at a surplus and lose weight when that is not possible
I don't 'claim' to be a freak. I AM ONE!!
wasn't referring to you in that statement
0 -
Cirtisol ie stress can add to the stomach too0
-
Cortisol0
-
singingflutelady wrote: »It's because you are claiming you eat at a surplus and lose weight when that is physically impossible
You can lose weight for a while eating at a surplus. Water weight that is. The bayesianbodybuilding link he posted said as much, not that he got what that means.0 -
hassankarimi82 wrote: »Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.
There's always a wrong way to do something.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.
There's always a wrong way to do something.
A matter of perspective. There's three ways to do things, the right way, the wrong way and the way that I do it.0 -
hassankarimi82 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.
There's always a wrong way to do something.
A matter of perspective. There's three ways to do things, the right way, the wrong way and the way that I do it.
For instance, lighting the cat on fire is the wrong way to teach it to fetch.
Also, eating at a surplus of calories is the wrong way to lose weight.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.
There's always a wrong way to do something.
A matter of perspective. There's three ways to do things, the right way, the wrong way and the way that I do it.
For instance, lighting the cat on fire is the wrong way to teach it to fetch.
Also, eating at a surplus of calories is the wrong way to lose weight.
This is getting all Pavlovian. I never said I lost weight in a surplus of calories. I lost body fat.1 -
hassankarimi82 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.
There's always a wrong way to do something.
A matter of perspective. There's three ways to do things, the right way, the wrong way and the way that I do it.
For instance, lighting the cat on fire is the wrong way to teach it to fetch.
Also, eating at a surplus of calories is the wrong way to lose weight.
This is getting all Pavlovian. I never said I lost weight in a surplus of calories. I lost body fat.
There's another person up thread who's claiming that he did.0 -
Again we are not talking about you we are talking about someone upthread who said he lost weight in a surplus0
-
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.
There's always a wrong way to do something.
A matter of perspective. There's three ways to do things, the right way, the wrong way and the way that I do it.
For instance, lighting the cat on fire is the wrong way to teach it to fetch.
Also, eating at a surplus of calories is the wrong way to lose weight.
This is getting all Pavlovian. I never said I lost weight in a surplus of calories. I lost body fat.
There's another person up thread who's claiming that he did.
Maybe we should be friends then and get our own thread and everything!0 -
hassankarimi82 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.
There's always a wrong way to do something.
A matter of perspective. There's three ways to do things, the right way, the wrong way and the way that I do it.
For instance, lighting the cat on fire is the wrong way to teach it to fetch.
Also, eating at a surplus of calories is the wrong way to lose weight.
This is getting all Pavlovian. I never said I lost weight in a surplus of calories. I lost body fat.
Are you saying you were bulking and put on enough muscle to offset your percentage of body fat?0 -
hassankarimi82 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »hassankarimi82 wrote: »Regardless, I think we all have good intentions here, however, its what works for that individual. There is no right or wrong way to go about things.
There's always a wrong way to do something.
A matter of perspective. There's three ways to do things, the right way, the wrong way and the way that I do it.
For instance, lighting the cat on fire is the wrong way to teach it to fetch.
Also, eating at a surplus of calories is the wrong way to lose weight.
This is getting all Pavlovian. I never said I lost weight in a surplus of calories. I lost body fat.
Are you saying you were bulking and put on enough muscle to offset your percentage of body fat?
Yes, exactly this.0 -
Like everyone has said nothing can spot reduce belly fat. Just eating less will make it go away. Unfortunately, belly fat is usually the last to go. Keep at it, you'll get there!!!
0 -
RebeccaParmenter wrote: »Like everyone has said nothing can spot reduce belly fat. Just eating less will make it go away. Unfortunately, belly fat is usually the last to go. Keep at it, you'll get there!!!
Its a culmination of elements, not just reducing what you eat.0
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