A calorie is a calorie ...
Options
Replies
-
sydney_bosque wrote: »
Weight loss (specifically) is about maintaining a negative energy balance, period, end of story...
Or more specifically, taking in slightly fewer calories then your body requires and allowing your body to access it's fat stores to bring itself into energy balance...8 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that losing weight is *not* about losing fat? <confused>
6 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »
Authority Nutrition is not a credible site.
However, not to leave it at that, the very first sentence reveals that the author is NOT talking about calories at all, but foods. Again, have you not read any of the other posts in this discussion? It strikes me as rather rude to basically ignore what everyone else has said and to pretend like you are arguing against something (all foods are the same) that no one has said. Apart from being rude, it just seems kind of pointless.
Probably pointless for me to even try to communicate at this point, but I'm an optimist.
_____________________________________________
Moving on to the meat of the, er, blog post:According to the “calories in, calories out” (CICO) way of thinking, obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories.
Well, strictly, sure. Most of us will of course say that what you eat will affect how much you want to eat or choose to eat, however, can make a deficit/maintenance harder or easier.Proponents of this often say that the types of foods you eat aren’t very important, that the caloric contribution of foods is the key.
This is a lie. Calories are what matter for weight loss, sure, but of course what you eat is important.They say that the only way to lose weight is to eat less, move more and that it is any individual’s responsibility to keep calories balanced.
Okay. The last bit is weird (I couldn't care less whether you keep calories balanced or not), but sure. Skipping ahead:Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving.
The next logical question to ask would be… why are people eating more?
Ah! Typical AN -- the site for people who want to be told that they didn't get fat from overeating.Is it a consequence of a series of logical decisions to eat a bit more and exercise a bit less, or is there something in our physiology that is causing it… such as hormones?
No one says weight gained is caused by people saying "hmm, I think I might choose to gain some weight by eating more and moving less." That's just stupid. We eat more because food is tasty (and sometimes for other reasons to) and we move less because life allows it and we often don't make an effort to counteract that. Yes, weight loss is about fixing these things.
It then goes on to mix up foods and calories, so that bit can be disregarded.Another thing to keep in mind that long-term dieting will reduce your metabolic rate.
Indeed, and this depends on how aggressive your deficit is, not what foods you eat.If you were to cut calorie intake by 10%, it would only work for some time until your metabolic rate would adapt and you would stop losing. Then you would have to cut calories again, then again…
No, it doesn't work like that. You stop losing because as a smaller person you burn fewer calories -- this is different from metabolic adaptation (which is also a thing but will not wipe out a loss).
It goes on to take things that have some truth to them and totally distort and misuse them. Typical AN.But what if we’ve got things backwards and the fat gain drives the increased calorie intake?
LOL, as I thought -- effort to appeal to those who don't want to take responsibility for their weight gain.
Anyway, though that whole long, tedious, confused article, it never once gives a basis for thinking that a calorie is not a calorie. It does argue that foods have different qualities which, again, no one disputes.9 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
You've lost a few pounds of mostly water weight. Nice job but you're just getting started. I lost 50lbs and in the process greatly improved all my health markers. Also, my 4 year anniversary is in April and it will also mark my 3rd year as a NWCR participant. I'm curious to see where you'll be at in 4 years
8 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
If you lost weight, CI<CO. How you went about it was up to you. Hint, there are many ways...
6 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
At this point, you are either willfully misunderstanding/trolling, or you are so convinced you are right that you aren't really reading the responses and linked threads/studies. You are telling multiple people who have lost a substantial amount of weight and kept it off that what they did isn't possible.
I'm out. Best of luck to you, hopefully you have it all as figured out as you think you do.9 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that losing weight is *not* about losing fat? <confused>
I'm saying there's a difference between losing fat and losing weight. You can starve yourself, eat crap, and lose muscle. Technically, you would lose weight. But, you wouldn't be losing fat.0 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that losing weight is *not* about losing fat? <confused>
I'm saying there's a difference between losing fat and losing weight. You can starve yourself, eat crap, and lose muscle. Technically, you would lose weight. But, you wouldn't be losing fat.
What have I lost 94 pounds of? Hmmm?
20 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that losing weight is *not* about losing fat? <confused>
I'm saying there's a difference between losing fat and losing weight. You can starve yourself, eat crap, and lose muscle. Technically, you would lose weight. But, you wouldn't be losing fat.
Yes you would lose fat! You'd lose fat AND muscle! Your body doesn't just bypass fat stores and start to use muscle because you're eating crap <bangs head against desk repeatedly>10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that losing weight is *not* about losing fat? <confused>
I'm saying there's a difference between losing fat and losing weight. You can starve yourself, eat crap, and lose muscle. Technically, you would lose weight. But, you wouldn't be losing fat.
What have I lost 94 pounds of? Hmmm?
You are absolutely inspiring!11 -
^Thanks0
-
sydney_bosque wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that losing weight is *not* about losing fat? <confused>
I'm saying there's a difference between losing fat and losing weight. You can starve yourself, eat crap, and lose muscle. Technically, you would lose weight. But, you wouldn't be losing fat.
A proper strength training program would rectify this. Honestly IMO, far too much emphasis is put on diet and not nearly enough put on exercise in this regard...10 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »You can starve yourself, eat crap,
Who is advocating starving oneself and eating crap?
9 -
-
sydney_bosque wrote: »You can starve yourself, eat crap,
Who is advocating starving oneself and eating crap?
It's all or nothing. Eat Twinkies for every meal or have the perfect nutrient dense diet.
Starve yourself or be chowing down on all the vitamin-filled foods in the perfect macro-nutrient ratio.
There is no middle ground.8 -
-
sydney_bosque wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that losing weight is *not* about losing fat? <confused>
I'm saying there's a difference between losing fat and losing weight. You can starve yourself, eat crap, and lose muscle. Technically, you would lose weight. But, you wouldn't be losing fat.
Nobody is advocating for a diet of nothing but crap...nobody is advocating starving one's self.8 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »and the advice should be to eat the good foods more and the bad foods less,” he said. “The notion that it’s O.K. to eat everything in moderation is just an excuse to eat whatever you want.”
No *kitten* to the first part...the second part doesn't even make sense given that if you're eating the bad foods less then you are, in fact, moderating the intake of those foods.10 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »
Are you even reading the blogs that you are posting? Or just reading the title and hoping no one else will bother reading it either and just acquiesce to your self-proclaimed superior knowledge base?
I have to say that there has only been one other poster who was so good a posting things that would counter their claims (RIP Breeze).
11 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »
The author is 28. I'll bet by the time he is 38 his views will refine, and again by 48.
Same goes for you. Live and learn...4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions