Carbs or fat? Totally confused
Replies
-
ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
Really? please link to this "real science"
Hormones are responsive to sleep, stress and anxiety
Metabolism is responsive to mass and there is minutiae in TEF but TDEE is responsive to activity and exercise levels
As @Wynterbourne says you are conflating two goals here
Excess calories result in excess fat storage
Also you should read up on the professor who followed a Twinkie diet and his improved health markers from pure weight loss
100 calories of pure sugar and 100 cals of grass fed beef can both have their place in a rounded nutritiously healthy diet dependent on goals and there can be strong rationale for why either is preferable at a given point in time6 -
aashish14914 wrote: »I read in an article about how quickly one can loss weight. After reading all i came to conclusion that having less carb food (between 50-100 g or even <50 g) would help in loosing your fat fast. But for having less carb one have to eat more Fat which maintain your daily calories need. I am really confused. It is like sin to have so much fat when you are trying to get rid of your weight, eat fat but in less amount (I weigh 194 lbs, height 183 cm & age 22). For me it is estimated to have 2200 calories, 73 g fat and 275 g carbs to loose my 6 lbs in 4 weeks. But i am trying to have less carbs foods (Max. 150g carbs), so where to put my 500 calories that less carbs creates. Please suggest whether i have to eat recommended carbs or put my required carbs calories any where else. I am really confused.
STOP the presses. Keep researching weight loss. It is simply burn more calories than you take in. Do not make this about carbs and fats and so on.
If you don't understand why you should eat more carbs..less carbs..No wait..eat more fat..no less fat..
Keep it simple..Burn more calories than you take in..see what works for you..before worrying about carbs, and fats, and protein, and everything else.
2 -
There is a difference. Keep it simple1
-
ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
Seeing that you just joined MFP today, that's an interesting observation. Hmm....3 -
Alluminati wrote: »ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
Seeing that you just joined MFP today, that's an interesting observation. Hmm....
I originally responded to them on my phone so I couldn't see their total number of posts. After your comment I hopped on my computer. Funny that their complaint about "we're still arguing about this" was their very first post on their very first day? Yeah, something's rotten in Denmark.4 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »this is a short article that I found fairly easy by searching are all calories equal. there were a ton of other articles to read also.. maybe I'm wrong.. and if so I'm ok with that, but I like to try and give good advice so to be attacked while trying to help caught me off gaurd. It's amazing how quick people are on these forums to try and prove everyone wrong lol. Have a nice night peeps. I won't be participating in this debate anymore lol
I was not trying to attack you personally and I probably could have done without the "amusingly ironic" comment, but sometimes it's a reflex responsefrom the many people on here who are 100% certain that it's their way or the highway and to disagree with them is wrong. Many of them aren't willing to keep an open mind that maybe they had been previously exposed to misinformation. And that's what it boils down to for me, trying to help prevent the further spread of misinformation that could hinder or cause difficulty in someone's weight loss journey. There are a lot of people that come here looking for advice and I hate to see them given information that science has proven to be wrong. Especially when that information might lead the dieter to getting frustrated and giving up.
In all fairness, this goes for both sides. Just look a the 20 page debate threads, neither side will back down because it's obvious they think they are 100% right.
2 -
Eating clean will make sure you're eating foods that are higher in nutritional density, and (mostly) lower in calorie density. This can make it easier to maintain a calorie deficit. At the same time, a lower-carb, higher protein and fat diet can also make a deficit easier to maintain due to greater satiety, combined with eating clean or not. The mechanical aspect of losing weight (really body fat is what we're after) is still simply staying in a calorie deficit.1
-
Christine_72 wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »this is a short article that I found fairly easy by searching are all calories equal. there were a ton of other articles to read also.. maybe I'm wrong.. and if so I'm ok with that, but I like to try and give good advice so to be attacked while trying to help caught me off gaurd. It's amazing how quick people are on these forums to try and prove everyone wrong lol. Have a nice night peeps. I won't be participating in this debate anymore lol
I was not trying to attack you personally and I probably could have done without the "amusingly ironic" comment, but sometimes it's a reflex responsefrom the many people on here who are 100% certain that it's their way or the highway and to disagree with them is wrong. Many of them aren't willing to keep an open mind that maybe they had been previously exposed to misinformation. And that's what it boils down to for me, trying to help prevent the further spread of misinformation that could hinder or cause difficulty in someone's weight loss journey. There are a lot of people that come here looking for advice and I hate to see them given information that science has proven to be wrong. Especially when that information might lead the dieter to getting frustrated and giving up.
In all fairness, this goes for both sides. Just look a the 20 page debate threads, neither side will back down because it's obvious they think they are 100% right.
True, but I'm mostly referring to the debates where one side has peer-reviewed studies and published scientific articles backing up their "opinion" and the other side is quoting 'insert random fashion magazine'.1 -
ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
You're posting on the wrong site.
Not than anyone here believes or is suggesting that you eat donuts for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But just about everyone here believes that if you eat 1,800 calories of donuts for one year, five years or ten years, and exercise X amount, your weight will be exactly the same if you eat 1,800 calories of a balanced diet for one year, five years or ten years and exercise X amount.
Just intuitively, it makes no sense.0 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Eating clean will make sure you're eating foods that are higher in nutritional density, and (mostly) lower in calorie density. This can make it easier to maintain a calorie deficit. At the same time, a lower-carb, higher protein and fat diet can also make a deficit easier to maintain due to greater satiety, combined with eating clean or not. The mechanical aspect of losing weight (really body fat is what we're after) is still simply staying in a calorie deficit.
Will it? Why? Nobody has ever come up with a definition of eating clean ...I can easily see it being nutritiously inadequate as a diet...in fact there are many stories of serious nutritional deficiencies in those who take "healthy eating" fads to extreme ...
I don't have an issue with how anyone approaches their weight loss. Lower carb does indeed work for some, but again what definition are you using (I've heard everything from <150g to <25g) but it is very much personal and subjective in terms of what what is "easier" or creates greater satiety ...personally my most satisfying meals combine all macros and I lost and maintain on 200-300g carbs daily ...but that's just how it falls I only track my protein to ensure I hit 100g minimum1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
You're posting on the wrong site.
Not than anyone here believes or is suggesting that you eat donuts for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But just about everyone here believes that if you eat 1,800 calories of donuts for one year, five years or ten years, and exercise X amount, your weight will be exactly the same if you eat 1,800 calories of a balanced diet for one year, five years or ten years and exercise X amount.
Just intuitively, it makes no sense.
You seem to say that a lot. Have you researched what CICO is? Because last posts I saw from you, you seemed to be unclear on how that worked, too.3 -
I see people outrun a bad diet all the time, I actually did it in High-school myself.1
-
This content has been removed.
-
It comes down to feeding your body with what it needs. You can eat what you want. I can eat 2,600 calories in fast food, or 2,600 in food I prepared myself. It's still 2,600 calories. However, which is better nutrient wise, the food I prepared. I eat a lot of carbs so I have the energy to make it through my workouts. When I was eating in a higher defecit, I started feeling weak in the gym. So I upped my caloric intake. Which was mostly carbs. It all depends on what you are trying to accomplish.1
-
@aashish14914 I'm going to suggest you start over on your research and put the top ten Google hits on "how to lose weight fast" in the trash bin. Then I suggest you read a few expert articles (from a university or government agency website).
You will lose weight if you eat less than you burn daily. It can be any combination of macros but you will likely feel better if you eat a variety of foods.1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
You're posting on the wrong site.
Not than anyone here believes or is suggesting that you eat donuts for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But just about everyone here believes that if you eat 1,800 calories of donuts for one year, five years or ten years, and exercise X amount, your weight will be exactly the same if you eat 1,800 calories of a balanced diet for one year, five years or ten years and exercise X amount.
Just intuitively, it makes no sense.
For your intuition it might not make sense
But scientifically it does
So perhaps your intuition has been completely destroyed by tabloid, magazine, and celebrity money making weight loss schemes...I would almost bet that has happened to you, because it happens to everyone and you have to fight against it
Weight is scientifically relevant to calorie intake over calorie expenditure
The majority here advocate a balanced diet to hit nutritional markers, most people have just found success by following a way of eating that suits them, appeals to them and they can stick to long term ..but the overriding feature is calories in vs calories out
4 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
And yet we still have to remind people that weight loss and fitness are two separate things. You can be skinny and unfit. The "bad fuel" you're referring to doesn't change your weight loss, it changes your fitness. You're blending together two goals, that while commonly worked on together, are still two separate goals.
Whoa ... that isn't always true. There have been plenty of people experimenting and blogging about process food diets vs eating the same or more calories with healthier food. A lot of processed foods are loaded with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats and sometimes they are metabolized in unhealthy ways.
In my own case, just cutting back on added sugar in my diet made huge changes, although at least according to MFP I should be probably gaining weight most of the time. Maybe there are different triggers for different people. I wasn't having any problems with building muscle with the bad fuel, but dropping the bad fuel started my stalled weight loss again. The amount of calories involved were minor and now that I'm making progress I've been adding back calories. (Some extra calories helps with building muscle.)
Bad fuel can also impact weight loss as well as fitness. (Noted building muscle and gaining performance may not be the same as internal fitness.)
0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
And yet we still have to remind people that weight loss and fitness are two separate things. You can be skinny and unfit. The "bad fuel" you're referring to doesn't change your weight loss, it changes your fitness. You're blending together two goals, that while commonly worked on together, are still two separate goals.
Whoa ... that isn't always true. There have been plenty of people experimenting and blogging about process food diets vs eating the same or more calories with healthier food. A lot of processed foods are loaded with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats and sometimes they are metabolized in unhealthy ways.
In my own case, just cutting back on added sugar in my diet made huge changes, although at least according to MFP I should be probably gaining weight most of the time. Maybe there are different triggers for different people. I wasn't having any problems with building muscle with the bad fuel, but dropping the bad fuel started my stalled weight loss again. The amount of calories involved were minor and now that I'm making progress I've been adding back calories. (Some extra calories helps with building muscle.)
Bad fuel can also impact weight loss as well as fitness. (Noted building muscle and gaining performance may not be the same as internal fitness.)
So I'm supposed to believe random bloggers over peer-reviewed scientific studies? Nope, sorry.
5 -
ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
Evidence?2 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
And yet we still have to remind people that weight loss and fitness are two separate things. You can be skinny and unfit. The "bad fuel" you're referring to doesn't change your weight loss, it changes your fitness. You're blending together two goals, that while commonly worked on together, are still two separate goals.
Whoa ... that isn't always true. There have been plenty of people experimenting and blogging about process food diets vs eating the same or more calories with healthier food. A lot of processed foods are loaded with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats and sometimes they are metabolized in unhealthy ways.
In my own case, just cutting back on added sugar in my diet made huge changes, although at least according to MFP I should be probably gaining weight most of the time. Maybe there are different triggers for different people. I wasn't having any problems with building muscle with the bad fuel, but dropping the bad fuel started my stalled weight loss again. The amount of calories involved were minor and now that I'm making progress I've been adding back calories. (Some extra calories helps with building muscle.)
Bad fuel can also impact weight loss as well as fitness. (Noted building muscle and gaining performance may not be the same as internal fitness.)
So I'm supposed to believe random bloggers over peer-reviewed scientific studies? Nope, sorry.
What peer-reviewed scientific studies?
There are plenty of studies that show calories from sugar in sweetened beverages are very detrimental to weight loss. Here are just a few:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493538
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15668676
0 -
ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
Evidence?
What evidence do you have that all calories are the same? It simply can't possibly be true. There isn't any calorie counting going on in the human body. Different types of molecules are handled differently. If that isn't true there is no validity to many types of diets, however just the fact that changing a diet can cause ketosis proves that all calories are not the same.
Different types of calories have different effects on human metabolism. There is no doubt that some of the differences impact fitness and some of the differences impact weight loss.1 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
And yet we still have to remind people that weight loss and fitness are two separate things. You can be skinny and unfit. The "bad fuel" you're referring to doesn't change your weight loss, it changes your fitness. You're blending together two goals, that while commonly worked on together, are still two separate goals.
Whoa ... that isn't always true. There have been plenty of people experimenting and blogging about process food diets vs eating the same or more calories with healthier food. A lot of processed foods are loaded with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats and sometimes they are metabolized in unhealthy ways.
In my own case, just cutting back on added sugar in my diet made huge changes, although at least according to MFP I should be probably gaining weight most of the time. Maybe there are different triggers for different people. I wasn't having any problems with building muscle with the bad fuel, but dropping the bad fuel started my stalled weight loss again. The amount of calories involved were minor and now that I'm making progress I've been adding back calories. (Some extra calories helps with building muscle.)
Bad fuel can also impact weight loss as well as fitness. (Noted building muscle and gaining performance may not be the same as internal fitness.)
So I'm supposed to believe random bloggers over peer-reviewed scientific studies? Nope, sorry.
What peer-reviewed scientific studies?
There are plenty of studies that show calories from sugar in sweetened beverages are very detrimental to weight loss. Here are just a few:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/84/2/274.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26055949
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23493538
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1203039
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15668676
None of these show causation, they show correlation if anything at all..have you read these?
I only glanced at the first: shows correlation and the last: doesn't support your contention
The last one, which is a local study, even says "The percentage of children consuming sweetened beverages decreased from 1973 to 1994, particularly consumption of soft drinks and coffee with sugar. Data suggest that there was no linear relationship between sweetened-beverage consumption and BMI and total energy intake."
There has been no direct evidence that sugar consumption is the cause of obesity
There has merely been a "what's the lowest common denominator, easiest swallowed simple marketing comment to get people to reduce calorie intake ....sugar ...it is a prime ingredient in highly palatable, high calorie foods ..generally combined with fats and carbs and not in isolation...lets make this the message"
You know what for the uneducated it works, but when people show an interest in nutrition, in the science and ongoing studies there is no direct causation established...so excuse me, and possibly others, if we choose to rise above lowest common denominator marketing, because we are happy to put in the effort to understand and research what matters and what doesn't
If it works for you, go for it...but don't try to re-educate people with correlations when we are more interested in causation
5 -
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.pt/2015/11/carbohydrate-sugar-and-obesity-in.html
Neat little chart embedded in that blog piece
For studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11477496
greater weight loss in the higher added sugar group
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9094871
(Full text: http://www.conazucar.com/pdf/informes/sobrepeso/Metabolic-and-behavioral-effects-of-high-sucrose-diet-during-weight-loss.pdf)
"Results showed that a high sucrose content in a hypoenergetic, low-fat diet did not adversely affect weight loss, metabolism, plasma lipids, or emotional affect."
4 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
And yet we still have to remind people that weight loss and fitness are two separate things. You can be skinny and unfit. The "bad fuel" you're referring to doesn't change your weight loss, it changes your fitness. You're blending together two goals, that while commonly worked on together, are still two separate goals.
Whoa ... that isn't always true. There have been plenty of people experimenting and blogging about process food diets vs eating the same or more calories with healthier food. A lot of processed foods are loaded with sugar, salt and unhealthy fats and sometimes they are metabolized in unhealthy ways.
In my own case, just cutting back on added sugar in my diet made huge changes, although at least according to MFP I should be probably gaining weight most of the time. Maybe there are different triggers for different people. I wasn't having any problems with building muscle with the bad fuel, but dropping the bad fuel started my stalled weight loss again. The amount of calories involved were minor and now that I'm making progress I've been adding back calories. (Some extra calories helps with building muscle.)
Bad fuel can also impact weight loss as well as fitness. (Noted building muscle and gaining performance may not be the same as internal fitness.)
Funny for you to mention people experimenting and blogging, since there was an experiment RIGHT HERE by someone that showed it doesn't matter at all. Full, meticulous food diary and all, which is more than can be said about most bloggers that just go "trust me that's what I did, btw. buy my herbalife stuff."
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
Then we have another ton of people including anything they feel like into their diet who lose exactly as fast as they're supposed to for their deficit.5 -
ClementinaRusso wrote: »It's astonishing that we're still having an argument around "calories being calories," "burn more than you consume" - there's a mountain of real science pertaining to how the kinds of foods we consume directly affect out hormonal and metabolic pathways - 100 calories of sugar and 100 calories of grass fed beef are not the same 100 calories, and the resulting aftermath of the former is hormonal and metabolic fluctuations that serve to store more fat. No one can out-exercise a bad diet, our overall and general fitness will suffer as a result of fueling ourselves with bad fuel.
Evidence?
What evidence do you have that all calories are the same? It simply can't possibly be true. There isn't any calorie counting going on in the human body. Different types of molecules are handled differently. If that isn't true there is no validity to many types of diets, however just the fact that changing a diet can cause ketosis proves that all calories are not the same.
Different types of calories have different effects on human metabolism. There is no doubt that some of the differences impact fitness and some of the differences impact weight loss.
There is no different types of calories any more than there are different inches, grams or degrees celsius.4 -
There are no different inches ?
I am shocked4 -
No need to really complicate things. Diving into this whirlpool of carb vs fat would only make things more confusing with opinions playing tug-o-war.
All you need to know is this: make sure you are eating fewer calories than your body burns, adjusting for your activity level, but put a little bit more effort (without feeling like you are forcing it) into eating nutritious foods because many of these foods tend to be filling in addition to being nutritious. Eat the things you like within reason. See where your macros settle while eating the most comfortable diet to you then tweak from there if you happen to be too low on one of your macros.
Optimal intake for humans is a range, not a number. That's why we are so resilient and thrive on a variety of foods and macro distributions. If you hit your minimums in protein/fat/carbs you should be good to go regardless where the rest of your calories end up.2 -
I'm sorry..I am in the camp that all calories are not the same.1
-
Mention CICO doesn't really make sense and it brings out the clowns. I'm in fact losing weight when MFP claims my weight will go up in five weeks. The reason is simple, measuring calories in is problematic at best and measuring calories out is even harder. Calories out are also a function of how much you have been eating and what you've been eating. Additionally humans are not a closed system. For example human waste can be dried and burned, there is calories in it, sometimes a lot. In India many use cow patties as fuel ... how different do you think humans are?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYmd8IEHV4
There is no doubt that many people do loose weight by faithfully following CICO. There is also no doubt that it doesn't work all the time. There is no concept of counting calories inside the human body. The calorie is a concept that didn't even exist before 1824 and wasn't used widely until the mid-twentieth century. (Basically before obesity was a major issue.) The process of determining how many calories are in food doesn't even match how energy is extracted or used in the body. At some point there clearly is an energy balance, but it isn't something that is constant or probably even correctly measured.
CICO isn't a science here, it is a religion. Watch the posts and that will be proven.0 -
Mention CICO doesn't really make sense and it brings out the clowns. I'm in fact losing weight when MFP claims my weight will go up in five weeks. The reason is simple, measuring calories in is problematic at best and measuring calories out is even harder. Calories out are also a function of how much you have been eating and what you've been eating. Additionally humans are not a closed system. For example human waste can be dried and burned, there is calories in it, sometimes a lot. In India many use cow patties as fuel ... how different do you think humans are?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scYmd8IEHV4
There is no doubt that many people do loose weight by faithfully following CICO. There is also no doubt that it doesn't work all the time. There is no concept of counting calories inside the human body. The calorie is a concept that didn't even exist before 1824 and wasn't used widely until the mid-twentieth century. (Basically before obesity was a major issue.) The process of determining how many calories are in food doesn't even match how energy is extracted or used in the body. At some point there clearly is an energy balance, but it isn't something that is constant or probably even correctly measured.
CICO isn't a science here, it is a religion. Watch the posts and that will be proven.
Not understanding the use or inputs of the tool doesn't disprove that a calorie isn't a calorie. Like all other tools, it's based on some standard equations. If those calculations are wrong or the inputs are off, then it will not present you with the correct situation; also taking into consideration that even trainer professionals under-represent calories in by as much as 300+ calories and over-represent calories out, there is a lot of opportunity to be off on your inputs and outputs. In the end, personal verification and validation is required to see if your inputs align to the equations. If I go off MFP's numbers (which their BMR equations don't consider body composition), I would maintain at 2750 calories, but in fact, I maintain at 3000 calories. Does that disprove CICO, absolutely not, it means the tools algorithms don't utilize all variables or I am slightly outside the standard deviate but still fall within two stand deviations.
Even if we aren't as obtuse and expand the scope of what is meant by "is a calorie a calorie" to mean, that how different are macronutrients when it comes to weight loss, the answer is still very little (protein has a slightly higher impact on TEF, but nominal at best). Carbs vs fats have almost zero impact. If you look at metabolic ward studies, such as Kevin Hall's recent one you will find when protein is held constant and they highly vary carbs/fats, you will see there is almost no difference in fat loss over time. The fact is, over time, the body will always work to reach homeostasis. So any metabolic advantage that one would have, would largely disappear over a short period (6-12 months).
OP, at the end of the day, a calorie deficit is required. How you achieve that is very personal. Our bodies respond differently to macronutrient composition. So much better on high fat, while others much better on low fat. Generally, increase protein and fiber are the biggest items to support satiety. Protein also supports maintenance of muscle, which would give you a better appearance (more muscle = leaner body). Fats support hormone regulation/nutrient uptake and carbs support energy.
6
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