Not all calories are equal
Replies
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Because life was far harder and food didn't come in a microwave packet?7 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.5 -
It's weight fairies at work I tell ya.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
There are countless people who maintain a perfectly healthy weight throughout their life and never count a calorie, I think you will find many of them are doing exactly this.3 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
As I said before, I grew up eating mostly whole foods, and cook that way now. I went through a period in my mid 20 to around 30 when I did not (I didn't cook that much then and worked a lot and got a lot of food through take out -- lots of options where I live, which was exciting, just pizza or Chinese wouldn't have interested me) and work-related dining opportunities. I gained weight and changed my lifestyle around age 30 to go back to mostly home cooking and also added exercise back in. Lost weight and maintained it for a while. Went through some stuff, including depression, in my late 30s, stopped being active, and gained a bunch of weight, despite the fact I still ate basically the same kinds of foods (whole foods -- I've never been interested in much premade stuff, the sweets I like are homemade, not much for packaged chips or the like). Changed my habits and lost again, including logging and counting (which was fun) and adding back in activity. Maintaining now without logging.
So can changing how you eat help? Sure, but not because it is impossible to gain on whole foods -- it's not, indeed, I could gain really fast if I had a restaurant chef to cook for me regularly, even from whole foods and traditional stuff, as the calories would still be quite high. Same if I chose to cook that way on my own.
What has changed is that the prevalence of cheap and, to most, reasonably tasty premade/packaged stuff makes it super available and our cultural restrictions on eating (regular meals only or specific snack times) are gone, and people seem much more often to eat throughout the day or to eat a whole lot of not very filling stuff, resulting in -- yes! -- them eating way more calories.
I think home cooking from whole foods is a great way for many to control calories (even without counting) and if that tends to go along with a more sensible schedule (not eating all the time if you are someone who overeats when you do, like me), even better. But not because I gain more if eating a diet of Lean Cuisines (which simply don't appeal to me) than home-cooked.
I think there's more to it -- for example, I think we tend to have our palate formed by what we eat and even though I liked vegetables okay growing up learning to cook them and getting excited about them in my late 20s (through good restaurant cooking) and then really learning to enjoy them when I got into cooking at 30 and started going to farmers markets and gardening and all that tended to make me crave vegetables more than some higher cal things I used to be more likely to crave, sure. But none of this means that calories aren't ultimately what matters for weight.
I'm a huge proponent of eating a healthy diet, but not because you can't get fat doing so (you can) or because packaged junk food (however you define it) are magically fattening.1 -
ominousdusk wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
How you are addressing the topic is more useful I think.
Language can often be inflammatory and incite frustation. I think a calorie from x food and a calorie from y food is of course equal or else they would be called something else if they weren't equal. A unit of whatever measurement is just what it is. And I think attacking that fact can really piss off a lot of people.
I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?
Yes I agree. After my second baby I did CICO, worked out, weighed my food, and tracked the calories. I lost the 30lbs but it took me a year to do so. After this last baby, I am doing keto. Exactly the same amount of calories just different macros. I lost 30lbs in 4 months. Same calories, different macros, but the weight loss was MUCH quicker this time. Not only that but i noticed a few changes in how I feel in terms of energy and hunger levels. so I do think that changing what you eat effects weight loss.
You "do" CICO regardless of the diet you are on. CICO is not a diet, it is an energy equation...10 -
ominousdusk wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
How you are addressing the topic is more useful I think.
Language can often be inflammatory and incite frustation. I think a calorie from x food and a calorie from y food is of course equal or else they would be called something else if they weren't equal. A unit of whatever measurement is just what it is. And I think attacking that fact can really piss off a lot of people.
I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?
Yes I agree. After my second baby I did CICO, worked out, weighed my food, and tracked the calories. I lost the 30lbs but it took me a year to do so. After this last baby, I am doing keto. Exactly the same amount of calories just different macros. I lost 30lbs in 4 months. Same calories, different macros, but the weight loss was MUCH quicker this time. Not only that but i noticed a few changes in how I feel in terms of energy and hunger levels. so I do think that changing what you eat effects weight loss.
You "do" CICO regardless of the diet you are on. CICO is not a diet, it is an energy equation...
And it applies to keto just as it applies to any other diet/way of eating.7 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
Sure, lots of people.
Others had good results with doing attempts of sustained "cardio" that interrupt prolonged sedentariness because their job is that way.
Others had good results not wasting a thought about whether their food is whole foods or not.
Others had good results counting calories.
And others have combined multiple of those things. We've had plenty success stories of all kinds of people. Including a guy who ate almost exclusively junk food for half a year and counted calories and lost weight just to show that you can do that.
The one thing all of those successful people have in common is that their calorie burns were greater than their intake either from eating less, moving more or both.4 -
ominousdusk wrote: »Keto is still CICO. We're you weighing and measuring food when you weren't on Keto?
yes i said i was. the only difference was macros
eta to add the only difference in what i ate was macros. my activity level was a little higher after my second. so technically I was eating at a slightly larger deficit when I was losing weight at a slower rate.
One other thing to keep in mind is that an extra kid means by default your day to day activity level is going to be higher, which is burning more calories. You mentioned being more active, but I don't know if you meant more exercise or just more mommy craziness lol
1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
My family tree is filled with overweight/ obese people, going back several generations. These are people who were farmers and manual laborers mostly, and had demanding physical lifestyles. My great grandma died, having never eaten a fast food meal. She died obese. I've seen first hand how a whole foods diet can lead to weight gains. Ironically, I eat a lot of fast food, processed foods, foods with hfcs/sugar etc and I'm the only one in my family who's reversed high glucose numbers and stopped the progression of pre-diabetes. Type 2 diabetes has wreaked havoc in my family and when I was diagnosed with pre-type2, my doctor told me is was genetics. But fast forward 50lbs lost, and my glucose numbers are consistently under 100 now. All my other blood work/blood pressure is great too. Go figure
3 -
This content has been removed.
-
stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
Sure, lots of people.
Others had good results with doing attempts of sustained "cardio" that interrupt prolonged sedentariness because their job is that way.
Others had good results not wasting a thought about whether their food is whole foods or not.
Others had good results counting calories.
And others have combined multiple of those things. We've had plenty success stories of all kinds of people. Including a guy who ate almost exclusively junk food for half a year and counted calories and lost weight just to show that you can do that.
The one thing all of those successful people have in common is that their calorie burns were greater than their intake either from eating less, moving more or both.
Yes, agreed. There are many ways to weight loss. Including genetics. I think we all know a string bean that pigs out day and night and just gets leaner.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to the whole health picture when I asked about results. That includes weight, but I also include management of chronic disease, energy, mental focus in the overall picture of "health".
Regarding that last guy that you mentioned, I have no doubt that one can lose weight (fat and I'm sure other crucial tissue) almost exclusively on junk food by counting calories. Many factors probably give rise to such a possibility. I'm curious. Do people still count that as a success story?0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
Sure, lots of people.
Others had good results with doing attempts of sustained "cardio" that interrupt prolonged sedentariness because their job is that way.
Others had good results not wasting a thought about whether their food is whole foods or not.
Others had good results counting calories.
And others have combined multiple of those things. We've had plenty success stories of all kinds of people. Including a guy who ate almost exclusively junk food for half a year and counted calories and lost weight just to show that you can do that.
The one thing all of those successful people have in common is that their calorie burns were greater than their intake either from eating less, moving more or both.
Yes, agreed. There are many ways to weight loss. Including genetics. I think we all know a string bean that pigs out day and night and just gets leaner.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to the whole health picture when I asked about results. That includes weight, but I also include management of chronic disease, energy, mental focus in the overall picture of "health".
Regarding that last guy that you mentioned, I have no doubt that one can lose weight (fat and I'm sure other crucial tissue) almost exclusively on junk food by counting calories. Many factors probably give rise to such a possibility. I'm curious. Do people still count that as a success story?
You can look at him and ask him yourself if he lost "other crucial tissue".
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
The answer to all your concerns is yes, as a multitude of successful people can assure you.
Regarding the bolded, that's another can of worms that has been discussed to death. They don't actually exist.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
Sure, lots of people.
Others had good results with doing attempts of sustained "cardio" that interrupt prolonged sedentariness because their job is that way.
Others had good results not wasting a thought about whether their food is whole foods or not.
Others had good results counting calories.
And others have combined multiple of those things. We've had plenty success stories of all kinds of people. Including a guy who ate almost exclusively junk food for half a year and counted calories and lost weight just to show that you can do that.
The one thing all of those successful people have in common is that their calorie burns were greater than their intake either from eating less, moving more or both.
Yes, agreed. There are many ways to weight loss. Including genetics. I think we all know a string bean that pigs out day and night and just gets leaner.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to the whole health picture when I asked about results. That includes weight, but I also include management of chronic disease, energy, mental focus in the overall picture of "health".
Regarding that last guy that you mentioned, I have no doubt that one can lose weight (fat and I'm sure other crucial tissue) almost exclusively on junk food by counting calories. Many factors probably give rise to such a possibility. I'm curious. Do people still count that as a success story?
You can look at him and ask him yourself if he lost "other crucial tissue".
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
The answer to all your concerns is yes, as a multitude of successful people can assure you.
Regarding the bolded, that's another can of worms that has been discussed to death. They don't actually exist.
Ok, fair enough. I wasn't just talking about muscle tissue as crucial tissue (internal organs are more important to me), but you made your point that he's not physically incapacitated that's for sure. I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides.
Regardless, I am interested in what people define as success in this area of life, so thanks for taking the time to answer. It seems that my background is a bit different than the majority here, but I think no matter what path you choose, if the way you do things and the way you think about things makes you happy and satisfied, and at the end of the day, you feel good, then what you are doing is working and worth your time and effort.0 -
I'm not a fan of that "you do you" mentality. A person can be happy and satisfied with something that's an absolute scam that doesn't work as multiple threads every single day on here prove. Something that doesn't do anything isn't worth your time and effort and in many of those cases your money. That's when the longterm successful people come in and try to explain to those people the matter at hand. Sometimes the person actually is open to what other people say but unfortunately, often they already made up their mind before posting and just wanted to hear their own opinion in a different voice. Still good to explain how things work to them, since other people might be reading those threads.5
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
Sure, lots of people.
Others had good results with doing attempts of sustained "cardio" that interrupt prolonged sedentariness because their job is that way.
Others had good results not wasting a thought about whether their food is whole foods or not.
Others had good results counting calories.
And others have combined multiple of those things. We've had plenty success stories of all kinds of people. Including a guy who ate almost exclusively junk food for half a year and counted calories and lost weight just to show that you can do that.
The one thing all of those successful people have in common is that their calorie burns were greater than their intake either from eating less, moving more or both.
Yes, agreed. There are many ways to weight loss. Including genetics. I think we all know a string bean that pigs out day and night and just gets leaner.
Sorry, I should have been more specific. I was referring to the whole health picture when I asked about results. That includes weight, but I also include management of chronic disease, energy, mental focus in the overall picture of "health".
Regarding that last guy that you mentioned, I have no doubt that one can lose weight (fat and I'm sure other crucial tissue) almost exclusively on junk food by counting calories. Many factors probably give rise to such a possibility. I'm curious. Do people still count that as a success story?
You can look at him and ask him yourself if he lost "other crucial tissue".
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it#latest
The answer to all your concerns is yes, as a multitude of successful people can assure you.
Regarding the bolded, that's another can of worms that has been discussed to death. They don't actually exist.
Ok, fair enough. I wasn't just talking about muscle tissue as crucial tissue (internal organs are more important to me), but you made your point that he's not physically incapacitated that's for sure. I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides.
Regardless, I am interested in what people define as success in this area of life, so thanks for taking the time to answer. It seems that my background is a bit different than the majority here, but I think no matter what path you choose, if the way you do things and the way you think about things makes you happy and satisfied, and at the end of the day, you feel good, then what you are doing is working and worth your time and effort.
This is how I define success:
-38 years old-female/5'6"/mom of 3 kids
OCTOBER 2016 Blood Panel/Health Screening Results:
-total cholesterol: 143
-cholesterol/HDL Ratio: 2.6 (anything under 5 is optimal)
-HDL: 55
-LDL: 84
-glucose: 95 (used to be labeled a pre-diabetic)
-blood pressure: 102/74
-waist circumference: 25
-bmi 21
-no health issues and I don't take any medications
-the only one in my family who has reversed the progression of high glucose numbers. I've lost several relatives to Type 2 diabetes, and currently have several relatives in declining health due to it. I'm also the only one in my family who's successfully lost and maintained the excess weight for any amount of time (going on 4 years of maintenance).
I eat fast food several times a week, foods with sugar/hfcs, 'processed' foods, frozen foods, foods that come in cans and boxes and bags and even canisters I also eat veggies and whole grains every day. I focus on having a varied diet, haven't cut out any foods that I enjoy and only track one thing-calorie intake.
My idea of success may not be someone elses and that's ok. But, I'm now healthy on the inside, look good in my size 4 jeans, and have a positive and healthy outlook on life. So for me personally, I'm doing things the right way 6 -
Yes, for me success is being a healthy weight and able to sustain it happily, feeling energetic, having no medical issues that could be influenced by diet, being able to pursue my exercise/training goals (mostly running and biking, but some weight stuff). In the long term, to keep up muscle mass as I age, continue improving BF% and to stay active.
I doubt choosing one creamer over another is going to make a difference to these goals, but since I like my coffee black I have not given it much thought! ;-)
I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides. What I have found is that for me, at least, focusing solely on eating a super healthy (or "clean" or "natural" or "whole foods based") diet in all ways but calories, well, does not always allow me to meet all my goals, as I can still get fat. The assumption that someone who gets fat must be making specific stereotypical food choices (as opposed to simply choosing too much food) is unwarranted. And putting that in a thread about the vast superiority of Nestle chocolate syrup+cream to creamer in coffee is particularly puzzling to me.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, for me success is being a healthy weight and able to sustain it happily, feeling energetic, having no medical issues that could be influenced by diet, being able to pursue my exercise/training goals (mostly running and biking, but some weight stuff). In the long term, to keep up muscle mass as I age, continue improving BF% and to stay active.
I doubt choosing one creamer over another is going to make a difference to these goals, but since I like my coffee black I have not given it much thought! ;-)
I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides. What I have found is that for me, at least, focusing solely on eating a super healthy (or "clean" or "natural" or "whole foods based") diet in all ways but calories, well, does not always allow me to meet all my goals, as I can still get fat. The assumption that someone who gets fat must be making specific stereotypical food choices (as opposed to simply choosing too much food) is unwarranted. And putting that in a thread about the vast superiority of Nestle chocolate syrup+cream to creamer in coffee is particularly puzzling to me.
If someone's opinion is different than yours, you find that annoying? Your opinion is different than mine, and I don't find myself annoyed by that.
I always thought that if one is comfortable in their knowledge, hearing a difference of opinion should open the mind and peak curiosity, not elicit negative emotions.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, for me success is being a healthy weight and able to sustain it happily, feeling energetic, having no medical issues that could be influenced by diet, being able to pursue my exercise/training goals (mostly running and biking, but some weight stuff). In the long term, to keep up muscle mass as I age, continue improving BF% and to stay active.
I doubt choosing one creamer over another is going to make a difference to these goals, but since I like my coffee black I have not given it much thought! ;-)
I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides. What I have found is that for me, at least, focusing solely on eating a super healthy (or "clean" or "natural" or "whole foods based") diet in all ways but calories, well, does not always allow me to meet all my goals, as I can still get fat. The assumption that someone who gets fat must be making specific stereotypical food choices (as opposed to simply choosing too much food) is unwarranted. And putting that in a thread about the vast superiority of Nestle chocolate syrup+cream to creamer in coffee is particularly puzzling to me.
Furthering on this, I think it's important that those of us who have eaten what many consider "a healthy diet" for a long time speak up on this issue.
I eat "dirtier" now that I've reached an ideal weight than I did when I was reaching my highest weight. I got to the fattest point ever in this last stretch of my life eating plenty of whole foods.5 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, for me success is being a healthy weight and able to sustain it happily, feeling energetic, having no medical issues that could be influenced by diet, being able to pursue my exercise/training goals (mostly running and biking, but some weight stuff). In the long term, to keep up muscle mass as I age, continue improving BF% and to stay active.
I doubt choosing one creamer over another is going to make a difference to these goals, but since I like my coffee black I have not given it much thought! ;-)
I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides. What I have found is that for me, at least, focusing solely on eating a super healthy (or "clean" or "natural" or "whole foods based") diet in all ways but calories, well, does not always allow me to meet all my goals, as I can still get fat. The assumption that someone who gets fat must be making specific stereotypical food choices (as opposed to simply choosing too much food) is unwarranted. And putting that in a thread about the vast superiority of Nestle chocolate syrup+cream to creamer in coffee is particularly puzzling to me.
If someone's opinion is different than yours, you find that annoying? Your opinion is different than mine, and I don't find myself annoyed by that.
I always thought that if one is comfortable in their knowledge, hearing a difference of opinion should open the mind and peak curiosity, not elicit negative emotions.
She didn't say that she was annoyed by a difference of opinion, she said she was annoyed by the implicit judgment in that opinion. There's a bit of a difference there.9 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, for me success is being a healthy weight and able to sustain it happily, feeling energetic, having no medical issues that could be influenced by diet, being able to pursue my exercise/training goals (mostly running and biking, but some weight stuff). In the long term, to keep up muscle mass as I age, continue improving BF% and to stay active.
I doubt choosing one creamer over another is going to make a difference to these goals, but since I like my coffee black I have not given it much thought! ;-)
I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides. What I have found is that for me, at least, focusing solely on eating a super healthy (or "clean" or "natural" or "whole foods based") diet in all ways but calories, well, does not always allow me to meet all my goals, as I can still get fat. The assumption that someone who gets fat must be making specific stereotypical food choices (as opposed to simply choosing too much food) is unwarranted. And putting that in a thread about the vast superiority of Nestle chocolate syrup+cream to creamer in coffee is particularly puzzling to me.
If someone's opinion is different than yours, you find that annoying? Your opinion is different than mine, and I don't find myself annoyed by that.
No, not at all. (As I am sure you know, as it was clear.) Not even sure what the alleged difference in opinion is -- that calories are equal? you haven't actually argued against that so I wasn't aware you were disagreeing, but I would be happy to discuss such a claim if you really believe it is not true (hint: calories is not a synonym for food, obviously no one thinks foods are identical). What I found annoying, as I said, was that you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides. That's not a disagreement, that's a direct misrepresentation of our position.
To be extra clear: I said calories are equal, but of course what you eat matters for lots of reasons. If you want to disagree with that I'd be happy to debate it, but saying I am saying health doesn't matter or what one eats completely does not matter is rather obviously not the claim, and I certainly don't agree that you care more about health or nutrition than me, that our goals are different in that respect. You can only get there by making up stuff that I have not said.I always thought that if one is comfortable in their knowledge, hearing a difference of opinion should open the mind and peak curiosity, not elicit negative emotions.
And unsurprisingly you are doing it again by pretending (even though I suspect strongly that you know better) that what I was objecting to was actual disagreement.
What's the point of this? Do you think we are too slow to catch on to what you are doing or the misrepresentations? Because it's quite transparent.
If you'd ever like to focus on whatever the actual disagreements are (like about the calorie) then I am interested. As I have talked about how eating a healthy diet is something important to me (indeed, something I did in many ways even when fat, although eating too many calories made it not so healthy after all), the disagreement is obviously not about whether nutrition matters.
Then again, if you think nutrition means choosing Nestle syrup rather than creamer as a major thing (I don't think you do, but that IS what this thread is about), then I think your understanding of nutrition isn't that great.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yes, for me success is being a healthy weight and able to sustain it happily, feeling energetic, having no medical issues that could be influenced by diet, being able to pursue my exercise/training goals (mostly running and biking, but some weight stuff). In the long term, to keep up muscle mass as I age, continue improving BF% and to stay active.
I doubt choosing one creamer over another is going to make a difference to these goals, but since I like my coffee black I have not given it much thought! ;-)
I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides. What I have found is that for me, at least, focusing solely on eating a super healthy (or "clean" or "natural" or "whole foods based") diet in all ways but calories, well, does not always allow me to meet all my goals, as I can still get fat. The assumption that someone who gets fat must be making specific stereotypical food choices (as opposed to simply choosing too much food) is unwarranted. And putting that in a thread about the vast superiority of Nestle chocolate syrup+cream to creamer in coffee is particularly puzzling to me.
Furthering on this, I think it's important that those of us who have eaten what many consider "a healthy diet" for a long time speak up on this issue.
I eat "dirtier" now that I've reached an ideal weight than I did when I was reaching my highest weight. I got to the fattest point ever in this last stretch of my life eating plenty of whole foods.
Yes, this is the same with me.3 -
Anyway, your body doesn't really give a hoot if you ate fast food or something else.
http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/103277
Who'd have thought? Almost as if your body doesn't have a concept of "junk food" and is simply taking out the nutrition that is contained in the food regardless, and if it has the same nutrition your body doesn't care.8 -
You wrote: "What I found annoying, as I said, was that you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
Did I say this? Or did you interpret it that way? Since this is annoying you, I'd suggest you rewind the tape and verify what it is exactly that I wrote.
0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »You wrote: "What I found annoying, as I said, was that you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
Did I say this? Or did you interpret it that way? Since this is annoying you, I'd suggest you rewind the tape and verify what it is exactly that I wrote.
"I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides."
Your words. Thinking that eating lots of junk food somehow destroys your insides.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »You wrote: "What I found annoying, as I said, was that you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
Did I say this? Or did you interpret it that way? Since this is annoying you, I'd suggest you rewind the tape and verify what it is exactly that I wrote.
"I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides."
Your words. Thinking that eating lots of junk food somehow destroys your insides.
Correct observation. So I guess this case is closed unless there is someone who agrees that:
"I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides."
=
"you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »You wrote: "What I found annoying, as I said, was that you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
Did I say this? Or did you interpret it that way? Since this is annoying you, I'd suggest you rewind the tape and verify what it is exactly that I wrote.
"I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides."
Your words. Thinking that eating lots of junk food somehow destroys your insides.
Correct observation. So I guess this case is closed unless there is someone who agrees that:
"I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides."
=
"you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
That's pretty much what it means.
Calories are equal = it's okay to consume junk food.
You: junk food destroys your insides. I take better care of my body than that.
Therefore: people who consume junkfood don't take care of their bodies.
Also you're wrong in your initial assumption, as posted above.6 -
Calories are equal, food is not, it does not matter as long as you get adequate nutrients...8
-
This discussion has been closed.
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