A calorie is a calorie ...
Options
Replies
-
sydney_bosque wrote: »
There are absolutely patterns of foods and behaviors that work to keep people healthy and fit without consciously counting calories. That doesn't mean that people can't successfully track their calories and exercise and use that to regulate their weight. Two different methods of controlling your calories; same outcome.
Is one method better than the other? My bias is towards good food and eating habits just because that's what I grew up with. But we see everyday that people are maintaining their weight counting calories regardless of food choice as well. They both work. And they both can compliment each other as well, it does not have to be all or nothing.9 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
There are absolutely patterns of foods and behaviors that work to keep people healthy and fit without consciously counting calories. That doesn't mean that people can't successfully track their calories and exercise and use that to regulate their weight. Two different methods of controlling your calories; same outcome.
Is one method better than the other? My bias is towards good food and eating habits just because that's what I grew up with. But we see everyday that people are maintaining their weight counting calories regardless of food choice as well. They both work. And they both can compliment each other as well, it does not have to be all or nothing.
And for the most part, that's what you learn from experience. Not books, studies and or blog posts...3 -
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...
I'm more boggled by the idea that a) your body can somehow detect if a food is "crap" (whatever that is defined as) as opposed to a bunch of mush mixed with gastric acid and b) that (somehow) leads your body to completely ignore its fat stores (for some reason that never gets explained)12 -
stevencloser 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.
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...
I'm more boggled by the idea that a) your body can somehow detect if a food is "crap" (whatever that is defined as) as opposed to a bunch of mush mixed with gastric acid and b) that (somehow) leads your body to completely ignore its fat stores (for some reason that never gets explained)
True and if this were the case, the human race would have become extinct long ago...6 -
To stop the further deterioration of all our intelects through the posting of more blog posts written by self-proclaimed nutrition authorities, here's what an actual nutrition authority has to say:
http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/FFA_summary_rec_conclusion.pdfThere was convincing evidence that energy balance is critical to maintaining healthy body weight and
ensuring optimal nutrient intakes, regardless of macronutrient distribution expressed in energy
percentage (%E).7 -
I don't understand why people are arguing about this, I thought the science of calories in calories out was a known fact? I learned this at high school?!
Of course if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight! I developed an eating disorder when I was 14 in which I only consumed a snickers bar and a handful of gummy bears a day and lost a lot of weight VERY fast. Dangerously fast, I've got no idea where this "starvation mode" myth comes from. (I'm not advocating anyone doing this by the way)
My metabolism is fine now I eat 1900-2000 cals a day and maintain my weight (54kg 164cm)
Weight loss is not an issue for me so I focus on hitting my macros for strength training and overall nutrition. What your eat makes no difference for weight loss13 -
I don't understand why people are arguing about this, I thought the science of calories in calories out was a known fact? I learned this at high school?!
Of course if you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight! I developed an eating disorder when I was 14 in which I only consumed a snickers bar and a handful of gummy bears a day and lost a lot of weight VERY fast. Dangerously fast, I've got no idea where this "starvation mode" myth comes from. (I'm not advocating anyone doing this by the way)
My metabolism is fine now I eat 1900-2000 cals a day and maintain my weight (54kg 164cm)
Weight loss is not an issue for me so I focus on hitting my macros for strength training and overall nutrition. What your eat makes no difference for weight loss
It's a myth in the context it is used here. "If I eat less then 1200 calories a day my body will go into starvation mode and hold on to the fat I want to lose..."
At least that's how I understand it...1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »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).
Oh, I remember a thread from a few years ago. I don't remember exactly what the debate was about, but the person posted a link to livestrong as "proof." Then mentioned that the article cited a particular study. Guess what? The study (data, conclusions, and abstract) literally said exactly the opposite of what livestrong and that poster was arguing.8 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »
Did you learn how to find legitimate research sources during your organic produce studies?
Tip: blog posts by clueless, self-proclaimed "experts" don't qualify as evidence.
Try finding some well conducted, peer reviewed studies with findings that indicate energy balance (cico) doesn't really dictate weight loss/gain/maintenance.there are none9 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
I need my 5 minutes back.
I didn't even spend that long.
I was interrupted
5 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »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).
Oh, I remember a thread from a few years ago. I don't remember exactly what the debate was about, but the person posted a link to livestrong as "proof." Then mentioned that the article cited a particular study. Guess what? The study (data, conclusions, and abstract) literally said exactly the opposite of what livestrong and that poster was arguing.
Media interpretation of scientific studies is so entertaining.4 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »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).
Oh, I remember a thread from a few years ago. I don't remember exactly what the debate was about, but the person posted a link to livestrong as "proof." Then mentioned that the article cited a particular study. Guess what? The study (data, conclusions, and abstract) literally said exactly the opposite of what livestrong and that poster was arguing.
Media interpretation of scientific studies is so entertaining idiotic.
FIFY8 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »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).
Oh, I remember a thread from a few years ago. I don't remember exactly what the debate was about, but the person posted a link to livestrong as "proof." Then mentioned that the article cited a particular study. Guess what? The study (data, conclusions, and abstract) literally said exactly the opposite of what livestrong and that poster was arguing.
Media interpretation of scientific studies is so entertaining idiotic.
FIFY
Same side of a different coin, or something like that :laugh:4 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »You can starve yourself, eat crap,
Who is advocating starving oneself and eating crap?
Good question. Probably won't get an answer.5 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »
LOL -- some anti carb guy's spiel about how to lose weight.
Do you have the ability to articulate why you think he supports the argument that a calorie is not a calorie? Because I don't think he does.
(I'm all for finding a way to eat that doesn't require counting. I happen to like counting (and playing around with macros) when losing, but I maintained for the past year and a half without counting and probably won't count long-term. But again this has zero to do with "a calorie is a calorie.")6 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »
This also does not support your argument. If you would maybe articulate why you think it does rather than making us guess we could have a conversation about it. So far, I am not even convinced that you could identify what you think we are saying that you disagree with. I'd love for you to show me I'm being unfair in that assumption, however.7 -
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »^^ This.
Perhaps it's time for one of my favourites:
Yes, but if we keep digging we may end up at the center of the Earth and disintegrate into fiery nothingness, which could be fun.6 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »LifeLongFoodLvr wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »LifeLongFoodLvr wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »LifeLongFoodLvr wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »Look, I have a degree in organic produce, and have since studied a LOT about nutrition.
All calories are not equal. That's like saying, "A pound is a pound!" When you lose weight. No. You could lose a pound of fat, and that would be awesome. Or, you could lose a pound of muscle, which is horrible. It's much more complex.
Put simply, the type of calories we eat determine how well our systems function. And, primarily important to weight loss, they determine blood sugar and insulin levels, along with other hormones that basically decide how you will use a calorie.
Bottom line: A calorie from white bread or refined sugar is most efficiently stored in your body Mas reserve energy in the form of glucose. Guess what the organ is for energy storage? Yep. Fat cells.
However, a calorie that comes from broccoli takes nearly double the energy to convert it into glucose, and is much more efficiently broken down into usable vitamins and minerals. Therefore, 100 calories from a donut will go directly to your waist. 100 calories from a vegetable will go towards fueling your systems. Mainly your excretory system; which is what actually gets stuff out of storage in your fat cells and eliminated from the body.
So, no. A calorie is not just a calorie.
I can't wait when they tear this post to shreds because you're wrong.
And your professional education on the matter is...?
I don't but others know more than both of us and they WILL prove you wrong.
There is no such thing as proof in this matter. There is so much evidence that can be taken in a number of ways. When you understand chemistry and the makeup of food, and how it reacts within your body, there is a lot of insight. However, there is still a great deal to learn and discover. So there will be no proof, because according to the scientific method, there is not enough information available to conclusively prove me wrong.
But you are and we all know that so that's enough for me NOT to take seriously anything you post.
To each their own. I understand science, and I've lost 11 lbs in 15 days. Because I know how hormones work. And I'm usually over my calorie goal. But nobody is forcing you to agree with me.
Do you actually think you've lost 11lbs of fat in 15 days? Like, seriously?
It's obviously not all fat. I didn't say I had lost 11 lbs of fat. I said I had lost 11 lbs. But there is also no real limit to how much you lose in a certain amount of time when you understand how the fat organ works, why it stores energy, and how you can overcome that process. I'm confused as to why there is such hostility towards basic scientific principles.
5 pages later and I still haven't seen an explanation of what the "fat organ" is. That is the part that confused me the most, .
8 -
sunburntgalaxy wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »LifeLongFoodLvr wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »LifeLongFoodLvr wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »LifeLongFoodLvr wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »Look, I have a degree in organic produce, and have since studied a LOT about nutrition.
All calories are not equal. That's like saying, "A pound is a pound!" When you lose weight. No. You could lose a pound of fat, and that would be awesome. Or, you could lose a pound of muscle, which is horrible. It's much more complex.
Put simply, the type of calories we eat determine how well our systems function. And, primarily important to weight loss, they determine blood sugar and insulin levels, along with other hormones that basically decide how you will use a calorie.
Bottom line: A calorie from white bread or refined sugar is most efficiently stored in your body Mas reserve energy in the form of glucose. Guess what the organ is for energy storage? Yep. Fat cells.
However, a calorie that comes from broccoli takes nearly double the energy to convert it into glucose, and is much more efficiently broken down into usable vitamins and minerals. Therefore, 100 calories from a donut will go directly to your waist. 100 calories from a vegetable will go towards fueling your systems. Mainly your excretory system; which is what actually gets stuff out of storage in your fat cells and eliminated from the body.
So, no. A calorie is not just a calorie.
I can't wait when they tear this post to shreds because you're wrong.
And your professional education on the matter is...?
I don't but others know more than both of us and they WILL prove you wrong.
There is no such thing as proof in this matter. There is so much evidence that can be taken in a number of ways. When you understand chemistry and the makeup of food, and how it reacts within your body, there is a lot of insight. However, there is still a great deal to learn and discover. So there will be no proof, because according to the scientific method, there is not enough information available to conclusively prove me wrong.
But you are and we all know that so that's enough for me NOT to take seriously anything you post.
To each their own. I understand science, and I've lost 11 lbs in 15 days. Because I know how hormones work. And I'm usually over my calorie goal. But nobody is forcing you to agree with me.
Do you actually think you've lost 11lbs of fat in 15 days? Like, seriously?
It's obviously not all fat. I didn't say I had lost 11 lbs of fat. I said I had lost 11 lbs. But there is also no real limit to how much you lose in a certain amount of time when you understand how the fat organ works, why it stores energy, and how you can overcome that process. I'm confused as to why there is such hostility towards basic scientific principles.
5 pages later and I still haven't seen an explanation of what the "fat organ" is. That is the part that confused me the most, .
This one looks pretty fat:
18
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions