Good vs bad CICO
Options
Replies
-
And for what it's worth - I really doubt it's the donut that made you 'feel like crap', but more the fact that you're eating way too little. And I strongly suggest that you weigh your food, because I highly doubt that your 'chicken' was only 2 oz (that, and what kind of chicken? raw, cooked, deli meat, what? Calories will vary... use accurate entries). And 3 strawberries is nowhere near 96 calories...
I agree with this. If you look at the donut day, you have barely any calories at lunch (assuming it was just a tiny amount of chicken) and then a dinner of donuts, which are generally not filling. Not much protein. Quite low calories well below the goal. A day like that would make me feel awful too. (Although we all have bad days on occasion, of course.)
A donut can work as part of a balanced healthy diet, but I'd focus on getting in basics (protein, vegetables, filling foods) at meals and then add it (or even specifically save room for it) as a dessert or snack. For example, on that day you could have easily had a normal dinner (for the same calories as the donuts) and then one of the donuts too.
Again, these days happen, so I'm not criticizing -- more just suggesting that it doesn't have to be all or nothing, and that there are more sustainable ways of fitting in treats if you want them.
Logging is really helpful in doing this and making gradual changes and learning what works for you, as you can look at the day after the fact and think about how you could have done things differently. For example (just hypothetically), if you had the donuts because you were really hungry and craving them and then felt guilty and didn't think you could have a real dinner, looking at that day would teach a couple of things. In that hypothetical case it might be that you need to eat more for lunch (or more filling foods like more protein) to avoid excess hunger or cravings later, if you knew you were having a sweet thing after dinner maybe it would help willpower earlier (and maybe not, just possibilities), and you had calories to have at least a little something more dinner-like for dinner after the donuts, like chicken and vegetables, which might have helped with how you felt (if you really didn't want anything and it wasn't a self-punishment thing, just move on to the next day). None of us are perfect or need to be, and this is all a learning experience.0 -
mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.7 -
The main issue with the whole 'all calories are not created equal' thing is that it's nice and dandy in theory, but in practice, it's just not sustainable for most people to ALWAYS pick the chicken breast and watermelon over the donut.
The key is to find the right balance so that your diet is both satisfying and sustainable. I don't even track sugar and sodium, but I track fiber... Fiber helps me stay full. What worked best for me when losing was to eat about 80% of whole foods and 20% of whatever I wanted (I put bread in that, as it doesn't fill me up much)... but always trying to meet my protein, fat, and fiber macros.
And for what it's worth - I really doubt it's the donut that made you 'feel like crap', but more the fact that you're eating way too little. And I strongly suggest that you weigh your food, because I highly doubt that your 'chicken' was only 2 oz (that, and what kind of chicken? raw, cooked, deli meat, what? Calories will vary... use accurate entries). And 3 strawberries is nowhere near 96 calories...
plus 2 oz of chicken is so little! When i weigh 4oz im like what is this crap haha.
I ate 220g of grilled chicken last night. It was delicious.
ETA: It was also the smallest breast in the package.3 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
2 -
mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.7 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
2 -
mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
6 -
mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
5 -
mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
I understand the point you are trying to make about calories being more available in more processed foods (cooking, etc), however CICO works and would work 100% of the time if you took out the mind factor. No one is going to lose weight if they don't have the right mindset to do so. That is the only factor that takes the simplicity out of weight loss.4 -
mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
Wow!! Not serious, I hope!!0 -
mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
lol...I read that in what I think is his voice!0 -
A calorie is just a unit of energy...your body is going to use that unit of energy the same regardless of source. From a nutritional standpoint, obviously there are foods that are more nutritious than others...but that has nothing to do with the energy aspect.
Understand what a calorie actually is and then it makes sense...a calorie has jack crap to do with how nutritious something is or isn't.16 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »A calorie is just a unit of energy...your body is going to use that unit of energy the same regardless of source. From a nutritional standpoint, obviously there are foods that are more nutritious than others...but that has nothing to do with the energy aspect.
Understand what a calorie actually is and then it makes sense...a calorie has jack crap to do with how nutritious something is or isn't.
This. In a nutshell!0 -
mochachichi wrote: »
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
It's not that hard to figure out what they're saying 200 calories of donut is 200 calories, but 200 calories of baked chicken breast is actually 174 calories because the calories aren't absorbed as much in whole foods, which means they actually aren't as energy dense as processed foods. The problem is when you look at 200 calories of raw, whole foods like apples - 200 calories of apples is 174 calories but when you look at 174 calories it's actually 150 calories which becomes 129 calories.
If you think like this long enough, you don't need to worry about your caloric intake because you should get plenty of cardio through mental gymnastics.5 -
mochachichi wrote: »
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
It's not that hard to figure out what they're saying 200 calories of donut is 200 calories, but 200 calories of baked chicken breast is actually 174 calories because the calories aren't absorbed as much in whole foods, which means they actually aren't as energy dense as processed foods. The problem is when you look at 200 calories of raw, whole foods like apples - 200 calories of apples is 174 calories but when you look at 174 calories it's actually 150 calories which becomes 129 calories.
If you think like this long enough, you don't need to worry about your caloric intake because you should get plenty of cardio through mental gymnastics.
To my understanding, the parts of foods that we don't absorb are already accounted for in the calorie equation.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »To my understanding, the parts of foods that we don't absorb are already accounted for in the calorie equation.
Right, like calories from fiber. MOST of the time these are taken off on the label, but I think I've seen some times where they haven't been.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »To my understanding, the parts of foods that we don't absorb are already accounted for in the calorie equation.
Right, like calories from fiber. MOST of the time these are taken off on the label, but I think I've seen some times where they haven't been.
It depends on the labeling system. In the US, insoluble fiber may be counted as zero for calorie count purposes (it's optional, although most products do take this option, especially diet products). Soluble fiber is still counted as 4 calories/gram as with any carb.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »To my understanding, the parts of foods that we don't absorb are already accounted for in the calorie equation.
Right, like calories from fiber. MOST of the time these are taken off on the label, but I think I've seen some times where they haven't been.
My guess is that manufacturers will always use the equation that lets them report the fewest number of calories because it would help their product sell better.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
It's not that hard to figure out what they're saying 200 calories of donut is 200 calories, but 200 calories of baked chicken breast is actually 174 calories because the calories aren't absorbed as much in whole foods, which means they actually aren't as energy dense as processed foods. The problem is when you look at 200 calories of raw, whole foods like apples - 200 calories of apples is 174 calories but when you look at 174 calories it's actually 150 calories which becomes 129 calories.
If you think like this long enough, you don't need to worry about your caloric intake because you should get plenty of cardio through mental gymnastics.
To my understanding, the parts of foods that we don't absorb are already accounted for in the calorie equation.
There's some research that they may be imperfectly, though, so that we absorb less from meat and high fiber foods and nuts than we thought we did and than the calorie count indicates.
Trying to control for that seems, well, nuts to me, though, especially since there is some individual variation in amount absorbed and in any case we won't absorb MORE than the 200 calories listed. If you eat mostly foods where the calories are less well absorbed and lose a bit more on average, it's because you thought you were eating 1800 but were really eating, say, 1730, not because a calorie is not a calorie.
If one isn't happy with their loss on 1800, the solution is to eat less (maybe the 1730 the other person was really eating).
Satiety of foods depends on more than calories alone, so I don't see any particular benefit to maximizing one's calories based on stated calorie counts vs. the actual amount consumed. There's so much more to putting together a healthful and satisfying and workable to you diet; it seems a total majoring in the minors thing.
IMO, protein and fiber are typically more satiating than highly refined carbs (or same + fat), although people vary on that, of course. Therefore, my reason for suggesting more protein or vegetables or shifting to whole grains or the like if one is hungry or needs to cut calories is satiety. The fact that stated calorie count might be a little off when we are never completely exact in measuring calories in anyway seems irrelevant to me.2 -
queenliz99 wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
Wow!! Not serious, I hope!!
You don't have to believe me. My answer will mean something to some and not to others. If you don't believe me then take it from the folks from Precision Nutrition...they won't lie to you
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/metabolic-damage
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 995 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions