Does it really matter what you eat?
Replies
-
Ndj1979 probably means that 500 calories of vegetables would be better for you than 500 calories of french fries, and have more nutritional value. Both would lead to losing weight if you eat them and maintain a deficit. Both would not be good for you, even with a calorie being a calorie. I'm the same way, i have been in a deficit eating both healthy food and junk, and physically feel better on healthy food, or at least a combination of both.
no, I mean a calorie is a unit of energy, not a unit of nutrition.
Right. I'm with you. But we can get our fill of those units of energy from foods that are good for us, or from foods that are bad for us. I can run a calorie deficit eating nothing but McNuggets, but I won't look or feel as good as I would if I hit the same deficit from healthier foods like lean meats and vegetables. Obviously, the calories themselves aren't more or less nutritious - but the foods that deliver them to us certainly are. I believe that is the point that ndj1979 was going for.
Do you realize you are trying to explain the point that @ndj1979 was going for, to @ndj1979? You are quoting his posts and talking about him as if he isn't the person you are conversing with, so I'm a bit confused...
Also - why does it have to be either foods that are good for you, or foods that are bad for you? First, I don't believe any food is bad for you, unless spoiled, improperly prepared, or a person is allergic or has an underlying medical condition. But just to put it in your terms, why does everything have to be either bad or good? Why can't I eat a diet filled with lean meats and vegetables and once I've hit my macro/micronutrient goals for the day, why can't I have McNuggets then? People don't generally eat exclusively bad foods OR exclusively good foods. Most people advocate for a balance - primarily nutrient dense foods with treats as they can be worked in. I'm always perplexed by the extreme examples...0 -
Ndj1979 probably means that 500 calories of vegetables would be better for you than 500 calories of french fries, and have more nutritional value. Both would lead to losing weight if you eat them and maintain a deficit. Both would not be good for you, even with a calorie being a calorie. I'm the same way, i have been in a deficit eating both healthy food and junk, and physically feel better on healthy food, or at least a combination of both.
no, I mean a calorie is a unit of energy, not a unit of nutrition.
Right. I'm with you. But we can get our fill of those units of energy from foods that are good for us, or from foods that are bad for us. I can run a calorie deficit eating nothing but McNuggets, but I won't look or feel as good as I would if I hit the same deficit from healthier foods like lean meats and vegetables. Obviously, the calories themselves aren't more or less nutritious - but the foods that deliver them to us certainly are. I believe that is the point that ndj1979 was going for.
my point is the following:
all calories are the same from an energy perspective; however, not all calories are the same nutritionally.
so 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of ice cream; however, they do not have the same nutritional content.
0 -
CICO but I think what you eat matters in that you are satisfied, and not hungry.0
-
WHAT you eat matters from a health perspective. However, having said that, you have to strike a balance between Healthy and Happy - and keep it under the calorie goal. Only if you can consistently eat at a calorie deficit will you lose weight - but, what you eat will determine how you feel while you are doing it.
But, consider this - if you are miserable, every day, how likely is it that you will continue on this plan?
Moderation is always in fashion. Some days, it's all about the veggies... some days, you gotta have pizza.
Good Luck!0 -
Pretty much what I thought.
Ndj1979 probably means that 500 calories of vegetables would be better for you than 500 calories of french fries, and have more nutritional value. Both would lead to losing weight if you eat them and maintain a deficit. Both would not be good for you, even with a calorie being a calorie. I'm the same way, i have been in a deficit eating both healthy food and junk, and physically feel better on healthy food, or at least a combination of both.
no, I mean a calorie is a unit of energy, not a unit of nutrition.
Right. I'm with you. But we can get our fill of those units of energy from foods that are good for us, or from foods that are bad for us. I can run a calorie deficit eating nothing but McNuggets, but I won't look or feel as good as I would if I hit the same deficit from healthier foods like lean meats and vegetables. Obviously, the calories themselves aren't more or less nutritious - but the foods that deliver them to us certainly are. I believe that is the point that ndj1979 was going for.
my point is the following:
all calories are the same from an energy perspective; however, not all calories are the same nutritionally.
so 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of ice cream; however, they do not have the same nutritional content.
0 -
Pretty much what I thought.
Ndj1979 probably means that 500 calories of vegetables would be better for you than 500 calories of french fries, and have more nutritional value. Both would lead to losing weight if you eat them and maintain a deficit. Both would not be good for you, even with a calorie being a calorie. I'm the same way, i have been in a deficit eating both healthy food and junk, and physically feel better on healthy food, or at least a combination of both.
no, I mean a calorie is a unit of energy, not a unit of nutrition.
Right. I'm with you. But we can get our fill of those units of energy from foods that are good for us, or from foods that are bad for us. I can run a calorie deficit eating nothing but McNuggets, but I won't look or feel as good as I would if I hit the same deficit from healthier foods like lean meats and vegetables. Obviously, the calories themselves aren't more or less nutritious - but the foods that deliver them to us certainly are. I believe that is the point that ndj1979 was going for.
my point is the following:
all calories are the same from an energy perspective; however, not all calories are the same nutritionally.
so 100 calories of carrots = 100 calories of ice cream; however, they do not have the same nutritional content.
Different nutritional content. Not better or worse. To be clear 0 -
I've lost 70lbs since Feb. I eat what ever I feel like eating... Within reason. I eat Chinese on a pretty regular basis. That's my biggest, and worst, addiction. I have still managed to lose. I just turn what they call a meal into 3-4 small meals.0
-
Eating clean is a big deal for my body. I wish I could eat whatever I want but for some reason I gain weight even if I eat within my calories. I can only have cheat snacks once every 2 weeks. Even weekly cheat meal does not work for me.
My meal plan is pretty boring but it has helped me from going from 163lbs to 137lbs
6 egg whites 1/2 cup of oatmeal
Protein shake with 2 tablespoons of macadamia nut oil
4 ounces of meat with cup of brown rice and 1 cup of spinach
Protein shake with 2 tablespoons of flaxseed oil
4 ounces of meat with 1 cup of asparagus0 -
Eating in moderation is best because you will be filled and get adequate calories and nutrients.0
-
some calories are more packed with nutrition than others. so some cals are healthier cals....my body always reflects the diff. if I eat junk my skin Is dull and I bloat etc etc.
That's not the way calories work.... Food is packed with nutrition... calories are not packed with nutrition. Calories are a measurement of energy from chemical bonds between different atoms.0 -
Wah. My first quote actually lost what I was trying to reply to:WinoGelato wrote: »
Ndj1979 probably means that 500 calories of vegetables would be better for you than 500 calories of french fries, and have more nutritional value. Both would lead to losing weight if you eat them and maintain a deficit. Both would not be good for you, even with a calorie being a calorie. I'm the same way, i have been in a deficit eating both healthy food and junk, and physically feel better on healthy food, or at least a combination of both.
no, I mean a calorie is a unit of energy, not a unit of nutrition.
Right. I'm with you. But we can get our fill of those units of energy from foods that are good for us, or from foods that are bad for us. I can run a calorie deficit eating nothing but McNuggets, but I won't look or feel as good as I would if I hit the same deficit from healthier foods like lean meats and vegetables. Obviously, the calories themselves aren't more or less nutritious - but the foods that deliver them to us certainly are. I believe that is the point that ndj1979 was going for.
Do you realize you are trying to explain the point that @ndj1979 was going for, to @ndj1979? You are quoting his posts and talking about him as if he isn't the person you are conversing with, so I'm a bit confused...
Also - why does it have to be either foods that are good for you, or foods that are bad for you? First, I don't believe any food is bad for you, unless spoiled, improperly prepared, or a person is allergic or has an underlying medical condition. But just to put it in your terms, why does everything have to be either bad or good? Why can't I eat a diet filled with lean meats and vegetables and once I've hit my macro/micronutrient goals for the day, why can't I have McNuggets then? People don't generally eat exclusively bad foods OR exclusively good foods. Most people advocate for a balance - primarily nutrient dense foods with treats as they can be worked in. I'm always perplexed by the extreme examples...
urloved33 wrote: »
some calories are more packed with nutrition than others. so some cals are healthier cals....my body always reflects the diff. if I eat junk my skin Is dull and I bloat etc etc.
Which ndj1979 replied to. Then I apparently confused myself.
I am definately all about some good stuff and some junk mixed in. I was just trying to expand on the healthier calorie idea. Some brain cramps sorta wrecked that, though.
1 -
As simple as it sounds and it's true, it's a simple matter of calories in vs. Calories out. The answer is so simple and that's why I think it's screwed up so many people. We've been conditioned by social media about all these crazy diet programs and weight loss programs.
You could eat Snickers bar and drink vodka and you'd lose weight. Wouldn't want to do it because of what it would do to your body. As far as clean eating that's a subjective term to a lot of people and if you ask 10 people what it means you'll get 11 answers.
My simple answer to you is it's a matter of Common Sense listening to your body and using this app as a tool. Don't think of that as a diet it's a lifestyle change. By approaching it as a lifestyle change you'll succeed. I haven't given up anything I enjoy. it's just a matter of following the calorie guides in MFP seeing how your body reacts and learning from that information.
1 -
Eating clean is a big deal for my body. I wish I could eat whatever I want but for some reason I gain weight even if I eat within my calories. I can only have cheat snacks once every 2 weeks. Even weekly cheat meal does not work for me.
My meal plan is pretty boring but it has helped me from going from 163lbs to 137lbs
6 egg whites 1/2 cup of oatmeal
Protein shake with 2 tablespoons of macadamia nut oil
4 ounces of meat with cup of brown rice and 1 cup of spinach
Protein shake with 2 tablespoons of flaxseed oil
4 ounces of meat with 1 cup of asparagus
Sorry but you are wrong..the type of food you eat does not change basic math and physics...you can eat in a 500 calorie deficit of clean or dirty food (whatever that is) and you will lose weight regardless of food type.0 -
Everybody needs some protein, some fat, and some carbs. How you macro that out varies, personal preference and comorbid condtions that may affect carb metabolism being two of the main determining factors from my observations here on MFP. Some foods have essential vitamins and trace minerals in them, some not so much. I personally prefer eating real, whole foods, but you can eat all processed foods and lose weight. Or just one food, although I don't recommend it...wasn't it a bigwig potato guy who lived on potatoes for several weeks to prove how nutritious potatoes are? Can't exactly remember the details...0
-
KetoneKaren wrote: »Everybody needs some protein, some fat, and some carbs. How you macro that out varies, personal preference and comorbid condtions that may affect carb metabolism being two of the main determining factors from my observations here on MFP. Some foods have essential vitamins and trace minerals in them, some not so much. I personally prefer eating real, whole foods, but you can eat all processed foods and lose weight. Or just one food, although I don't recommend it...wasn't it a bigwig potato guy who lived on potatoes for several weeks to prove how nutritious potatoes are? Can't exactly remember the details...
Lol what are fake foods?0 -
Yes it does matter. Now, I am not saying that CICO does not work. It does, but there is much more to weight loss. What you eat will affect your mood, will affect your satiety, will affect your health and all of these do come in to play in your ability to stay to a particular food and exercise regiment.
Now with regards to CICO...even that is not cut and dry. Someone above commented about 100 calories in carrots and Ice cream. If you could actually eat all your calories in one or the other, I00% you would be heavier with ice cream. Why? The calories in the ice cream are more readily available. Now, if you pureed the carrots first, then maybe the balance is restored.0 -
What's the goal? Is it to lose weight? Then CICO it is.
If there are some nutritional goals in there, too, choices do matter. I count protein as a minimum because I like having nice hair and nails, and the idea of a weakened heart gives me the shudders.
Logging all foods, like peanut butter (fats), can be a wake-up call as a very little extra peanut butter adds up to a whole lot of calories. And the air-popped popcorn starts looking a lot more attractive.0 -
Yes it does matter. Now, I am not saying that CICO does not work. It does, but there is much more to weight loss. What you eat will affect your mood, will affect your satiety, will affect your health and all of these do come in to play in your ability to stay to a particular food and exercise regiment.
Now with regards to CICO...even that is not cut and dry. Someone above commented about 100 calories in carrots and Ice cream. If you could actually eat all your calories in one or the other, I00% you would be heavier with ice cream. Why? The calories in the ice cream are more readily available. Now, if you pureed the carrots first, then maybe the balance is restored.
wow, so much wrong in your post.
please explain to me another way to lose weight besides a calorie deficit that uses the CICO equation? I never understand this "there is so much more to weight loss mentality"...The fact is if you adhere to the following you will be fine:
1. straight calorie deficit for weight loss.
2. strict micro and macro adherence and progressive training routine for body composition goals
that is it, besides some kind of medical issue that may require medication to regulate the CI or CO side of CICO.
why is it always a false choice between a diet of 100% ice cream or 100% vegetables? The fact is that you consume no one food in a vacuum so your argument is nonsensical.
1 -
Thanks for the feedback!!0
-
I think one of the most important answers to the original question wasn't mentioned enough in this thread. "Bad" foods don't give you the feeling of being full and often are much smaller and easier to eat fast. Both of which means it's MUCH harder to keep a deficit when the foods lean in that direction. Eating foods like salads and soups take a long time to eat and don't contain many calories. They keep you eating longer while not taking up many calories. That gives your body the time to feel full before eating your main course. Clean protein like a plain grilled chicken breast or a piece of salmon will you give your body the sense of being full much longer than a bar of dark chocolate.
The original question was does it matter what you eat and for me the answer is yes. If I don't eat "healthy" I tend to overeat.1 -
justified111 wrote: »I think one of the most important answers to the original question wasn't mentioned enough in this thread. "Bad" foods don't give you the feeling of being full and often are much smaller and easier to eat fast. Both of which means it's MUCH harder to keep a deficit when the foods lean in that direction. Eating foods like salads and soups take a long time to eat and don't contain many calories. They keep you eating longer while not taking up many calories. That gives your body the time to feel full before eating your main course. Clean protein like a plain grilled chicken breast or a piece of salmon will you give your body the sense of being full much longer than a bar of dark chocolate.
The original question was does it matter what you eat and for me the answer is yes. If I don't eat "healthy" I tend to overeat.
there are no bad foods in the context of an overall diet, so your point is flawed..1 -
justified111 wrote: »I think one of the most important answers to the original question wasn't mentioned enough in this thread. "Bad" foods don't give you the feeling of being full and often are much smaller and easier to eat fast. Both of which means it's MUCH harder to keep a deficit when the foods lean in that direction. Eating foods like salads and soups take a long time to eat and don't contain many calories. They keep you eating longer while not taking up many calories. That gives your body the time to feel full before eating your main course. Clean protein like a plain grilled chicken breast or a piece of salmon will you give your body the sense of being full much longer than a bar of dark chocolate.
The original question was does it matter what you eat and for me the answer is yes. If I don't eat "healthy" I tend to overeat.
What's your definition of "bad" foods?
Why the false dilemma? Why can't I have a piece of grilled chicken or salmon, AND some dark chocolate?
Also plain grilled chicken sounds terrible.1 -
@njd1979
You are right, I shouldn't have said "real" foods as if their are "fake" foods, but I don't like cheese analogs and soy protein isolate-containing veggie burgers and tofu dogs. I would rather eat cheese, edamame, and steamed vegetables instead. Fair enough?0 -
Calories in must be less than calories out for weight loss to occur... Scientifically just fact.
What your body looks like at the end of the journey depends on the nutrition.
Protein allows you to sustain some of your muscle mass (pro tip: the more muscle you have, the more calories your body burns...)
Eating mostly carbs and fats will not be helpful in muscle maintenance.. Carbs, if not used by the body right away (as glycogen, etc) will be turned into fat as a fuel source.
Take two identical people, let them both lose 50 lbs, one on a diet with a proper macro spread and one on a diet focused on just calories (eat 1800 calories of pizza and burn 2000 a day, you'll still lose weight). Guess which person will look better?
Moral of the story:
Just wanna lose weight (don't care if it's fat or muscle) then don't worry about macros.
Wanna lose FAT - make macros a concern.
Good luck on your journey!0 -
xBabyLlamaDrama wrote: »Calories in must be less than calories out for weight loss to occur... Scientifically just fact.
What your body looks like at the end of the journey depends on the nutrition.
Protein allows you to sustain some of your muscle mass (pro tip: the more muscle you have, the more calories your body burns...)
Eating mostly carbs and fats will not be helpful in muscle maintenance.. Carbs, if not used by the body right away (as glycogen, etc) will be turned into fat as a fuel source.
Take two identical people, let them both lose 50 lbs, one on a diet with a proper macro spread and one on a diet focused on just calories (eat 1800 calories of pizza and burn 2000 a day, you'll still lose weight). Guess which person will look better?
Moral of the story:
Just wanna lose weight (don't care if it's fat or muscle) then don't worry about macros.
Wanna lose FAT - make macros a concern.
Good luck on your journey!
Whichever one has the better training plan will look better. If the training plan is the same, the body comp differences would be negligible.
Pro tip = a meat lovers pizza has a great macro breakdown.0 -
justified111 wrote: »I think one of the most important answers to the original question wasn't mentioned enough in this thread. "Bad" foods don't give you the feeling of being full and often are much smaller and easier to eat fast. Both of which means it's MUCH harder to keep a deficit when the foods lean in that direction. Eating foods like salads and soups take a long time to eat and don't contain many calories. They keep you eating longer while not taking up many calories. That gives your body the time to feel full before eating your main course. Clean protein like a plain grilled chicken breast or a piece of salmon will you give your body the sense of being full much longer than a bar of dark chocolate.
The original question was does it matter what you eat and for me the answer is yes. If I don't eat "healthy" I tend to overeat.
Salads leave me feeling completely empty.
An egg mcmuffin from McDonalds keeps me full all morning.
For me, fat is satiating, regardless of the source. Some people find protein satiating. I find that protein like a chicken breast does not fill me up and keep me full unless I have fat with it.
Fat is satiating. Protein is satiating. Fiber helps you feel full. The sources of these don't matter.0 -
xBabyLlamaDrama wrote: »Calories in must be less than calories out for weight loss to occur... Scientifically just fact.
What your body looks like at the end of the journey depends on the nutrition.
Protein allows you to sustain some of your muscle mass (pro tip: the more muscle you have, the more calories your body burns...)
Eating mostly carbs and fats will not be helpful in muscle maintenance.. Carbs, if not used by the body right away (as glycogen, etc) will be turned into fat as a fuel source.
Take two identical people, let them both lose 50 lbs, one on a diet with a proper macro spread and one on a diet focused on just calories (eat 1800 calories of pizza and burn 2000 a day, you'll still lose weight). Guess which person will look better?
Moral of the story:
Just wanna lose weight (don't care if it's fat or muscle) then don't worry about macros.
Wanna lose FAT - make macros a concern.
Good luck on your journey!
I thought carbs were muscle sparing?0 -
Whichever one has the better training plan will look better. If the training plan is the same, the body comp differences would be negligible.
Pro tip = a meat lovers pizza has a great macro breakdown.
If that were true, the guys who go to the gym all the time but don't change their crap diet wouldn't look the same that they did 2 years ago.3dogsrunning wrote: »I thought carbs were muscle sparing?
Glycogen (stored energy form of carbs) is used by your muscles for energy.
A 1940's study showed them to be "protein sparing." Compared to a fasting group, those with carbs (still no protein) lost only half as much muscle as those without carbs. Throw protein in and you get the same effect just at a higher level. Those with less carbs lose more muscle. Protein is certainly still king in the body's anti-catabolism campaign, but carbohydrates are just as important.
So good call! It's a balancing act. Not enough, lose muscle. Too much, gain fat.
There's been plenty of research done on proper ratios.. All easily accessible via the Internet0 -
xBabyLlamaDrama wrote: »
Whichever one has the better training plan will look better. If the training plan is the same, the body comp differences would be negligible.
Pro tip = a meat lovers pizza has a great macro breakdown.
If that were true, the guys who go to the gym all the time but don't change their crap diet wouldn't look the same that they did 2 years ago.
No, they over eat or don't train correctly is more likely the reason they don't see results. If they were eating at a deficit, they would lose weight, mostly fat assuming their training was adequate. Like I said, pizza has good macros if you do it right. That can be said for just about any food you deem "crap diet" worthy.
0 -
No, they over eat or don't train correctly is more likely the reason they don't see results. If they were eating at a deficit, they would lose weight, mostly fat assuming their training was adequate. Like I said, pizza has good macros if you do it right. That can be said for just about any food you deem "crap diet" worthy.
I agree with your last statement. You can make most foods macro friendly. But until you can provide research that can prove that nutrition is negligible in comparison to training routines when transforming one's body, I respectfully disagree with you.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions
Do you Love MyFitnessPal? Have you crushed a goal or improved your life through better nutrition using MyFitnessPal?
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!