Dieting vs. exercising?
Replies
-
Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
It's already been tried. Under clinical conditions, no less. The results will probably surprise you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-fast-food-meal.html/
"Now, the study does have a few limitations that I want to mention explicitly.
The study only looked at a single meal. It’s entirely possible that a diet based completely around fast food would show different effects."
So which poster here advocated a diet based completely around fast food? Or are you just positing the usual strawman in such discussions to bolster your position?
Context and dosage matter.
It was in response to making a point that a carb is not a carb and a micronutrient is not a micronutrient when it is ingested with things that have an effect on your body. Originally comparing eating a mcdonalds/burger king burger with a steak salad with cheese.
Okay. So you are just positing the usual strawman in such discussions to bolster your position, and are not interested in considering context and dosage as relevant factors. At least we have that clarified. Carry on.4 -
You'll find tons more information explaining why there is No "starvation mode" than you will supporting it. Exercise is for fitness and health - absolutely great. Eating less is for losing weight.
0 -
Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
i guess you are not familiar with the twinkie diet...
so you are saying that is Person A is in a 500 calorie deficit of processed food that they will not lose weight? Can you explain to me this magical process that makes processed foods cancel out the universal laws of math and physics????
most people lose on a clean diet because clean foods are less calorie dense and they are replacing calorie dense foods with less calorie dense foods..
for the record, which of the one million definitions of "clean eating" are you operating off??
Nope, I said you would be more efficient in losing fat specifically with the cleaner foods, the ones that are equally as calorically dense in total because the calorie count is the same.
ok, still wrong though...
You genuinely believe that taking in chemicals and additives which have been shown to cause disease and metabolic problems have no effect on your fat loss?
everything has "chemicals" in it..
I believe in eating a balanced diet where I hit my macros, micros, and calorie targets.
I don't worry about idiotic concepts like clean vs dirty, processed vs non-processed, etc, etc...
How do you track your micro's?
how do you track all the chemicals in your food?
Hahahahha I will give you that one
this app can track micros and there are others as well, I use MFP.
Yeah, like 4 of the 40 odd micro's?0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »
Well, my problem with "eat what you want within your calorie limit" is that these foods don't satiate me.
This makes no sense to me. When I decide what I WANT to eat, of course whether I will be hungry or satiated (and satisfied) will play a role. Thus, I would never WANT to use my 1500 calories on just a pint of ice cream (although I like ice cream a lot).
I don't know why people assume others would WANT to eat food that would not result in a healthful diet and would leave them hungry (especially the latter, since clearly lots of people do choose to eat less nutritious diets).
I suspect that to some extent people are talking past each other, but assuming that others WANT to eat something like only a pint of ice cream (because that's what overweight people want?) always rubs me the wrong way -- not from you, since I know you from the forums pretty well and don't think you make such assumptions, but more generally.
Thoughts?
There are occasionally days I use all of my calories on wings and beer. The key word there is "occasionally", though. If someone does something like that two or three times a year, it's not really the end of the world.
If someone else wants to do that with ice cream or chocolates or cheesecake, like have their semi-annual single day "junk food" feast, so what? On the longer timeline, 1/365 of your diet won't be what makes or breaks you.
I agree with this entirely.1 -
Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
It's already been tried. Under clinical conditions, no less. The results will probably surprise you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-fast-food-meal.html/
"Now, the study does have a few limitations that I want to mention explicitly.
The study only looked at a single meal. It’s entirely possible that a diet based completely around fast food would show different effects."
So which poster here advocated a diet based completely around fast food? Or are you just positing the usual strawman in such discussions to bolster your position?
Context and dosage matter.
It was in response to making a point that a carb is not a carb and a micronutrient is not a micronutrient when it is ingested with things that have an effect on your body. Originally comparing eating a mcdonalds/burger king burger with a steak salad with cheese.
Okay. So you are just positing the usual strawman in such discussions to bolster your position, and are not interested in considering context and dosage as relevant factors. At least we have that clarified. Carry on.
You're saying because you don't notice the effect of 1 meal at a fast food restaurant means that it must not have an effect?
1 cheeseburger or 1,000 cheeseburgers, doesn't change the effect of the first one.
0 -
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
For 4 years (1 year weight loss and transition period/3 years maintenance) I ate a very typical SAD diet filled with processed foods/meats/snacks etc, just in the correct calorie amounts for my weight management goals. Lost the extra weight/maintained the weight/had excellent feedback from doctor. This year I've gotten interested in blue zones and in the process switched to a more whole foods, plant based diet. My weight has stayed the same, I haven't felt any difference at all and nothing magical has happened. I've had a bmi of around a 20 for the past 4 years and a fairly low body fat %. What kinds of foods I eat has had no affect on that, nor does it have any affect of my health markers, (my last blood work panel done in October was when I was still eating a pretty typical SAD diet, and was great across the board-including a total cholesterol number of 143 etc). I go in for my next set of blood work next month and I'm curious to see if there's any difference, it's hard to improve on excellent.
You post your story in every one of these threads, and they ignore it because they don't want it to be true. They want to believe that it is difficult to be healthy and they are better, smarter people for eating a virtuous diet. So I just wanted to say please keep posting it because i KNOW there is a new lurker each time who sees it and has a huge burden taken off their shoulders
:drinker: 20 -
- Saturated Fat
- Polyunsaturated Fat
- Monounsaturated Fat
- Trans Fat
- Cholesterol
- Sodium
- Potassium
- Fiber
- Sugar
- Vitamin A
- Vitamin C
- Iron
- Calcium
While I'd like to see the B-vitamins in here, too, I'm really more concerned about my iron.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »
Well, my problem with "eat what you want within your calorie limit" is that these foods don't satiate me.
This makes no sense to me. When I decide what I WANT to eat, of course whether I will be hungry or satiated (and satisfied) will play a role. Thus, I would never WANT to use my 1500 calories on just a pint of ice cream (although I like ice cream a lot).
I don't know why people assume others would WANT to eat food that would not result in a healthful diet and would leave them hungry (especially the latter, since clearly lots of people do choose to eat less nutritious diets).
I suspect that to some extent people are talking past each other, but assuming that others WANT to eat something like only a pint of ice cream (because that's what overweight people want?) always rubs me the wrong way -- not from you, since I know you from the forums pretty well and don't think you make such assumptions, but more generally.
Thoughts?
A lot of my excess weight was from eating whole pints of premium ice cream on top of a balanced diet, especially premenstrually or as an emotional coping strategy. I do indeed want a whole pint at a time.
Well, that would be precluded by "eat what you want within your calories," right? I think everyone agrees that we can't eat the amounts we might want (or every single food it might cross our minds to want) on a particular day. What I'm objecting to is the idea that "eating what you want within your calorie" is "dangerous" because people are going to decide, on a regular basis, that what they WANT is to eat a junk food only diet that leaves them hungry and nutrient-starved. As I understand "want," it includes the fact that I don't want to eat food that leave me hungry (other than on a rare occasion when it's worth it), don't want to overeat, don't want to lack nutrients. So what I want is a reasonably nutrient-dense diet (of food I enjoy).
Might I have a piece of pie for breakfast the day after Thanksgiving or go to Pequods for some Chicago-style pizza occasionally? Sure thing!3 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »
- Saturated Fat
- Polyunsaturated Fat
- Monounsaturated Fat
- Trans Fat
- Cholesterol
- Sodium
- Potassium
- Fiber
- Sugar
- Vitamin A
- Vitamin C
- Iron
- Calcium
While I'd like to see the B-vitamins in here, too, I'm really more concerned about my iron.
I think you are mistaken about what micronutrients are0 -
Well, not really, unless you're talking about a very tiny salad with fatty steak and a couple of large bread rolls on the side. The vegetables in a normal salad have quite a different nutritional profile than a white bread bun. To illustrate, there aren't many salads with 675 calories plus 1.5g of trans fat, but only 1% of the RDA of vitamin C.heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.
Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.
Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.
Honestly vitamin wise, you'd do best with a Whopper w/ cheese. But yeah, certainly not the worst thing to eat... as long as you're not overeating.
That's down to the Whopper having tomatoes and lettuce, though. Makes it more comparable to the Big N Tasty.
Either way, there's no inherent reason that a Burger King or McDonald's burger is nutritionally worse than the same ingredients prepared another way: as in a steak salad with cheese and a roll.
Wow.... Couldn't be farther from the truth. Is this a joke?
Protein is protein, carbs are carbs, fat is fat. vitamin C is vitamin C whether it comes from an organic tomato or a heritage tomato. Vitamin K is vitamin K whether it comes from kale or Burger king Lettuce.
Exactly. You can indeed eat a steak salad that has the same fundamental nutrition as a Whopper with cheese.
Responding to OP, even people who believe in "starvation mode" (however that's defined) don't think that just reducing calories somewhat will cause it. They're concerned with more severe restrictions - which might or might not be a problem for all kinds of other reasons. Moderate calorie reductions are fine unless you have some kind of medical restriction.
You may not have to exercise or eat a healthy diet to lose weight temporarily. But if you want to lose weight safely and keep it off, and enjoy your weight loss, you'll need to be healthy. That requires some kind of exercise and a healthy diet.0 -
Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
i guess you are not familiar with the twinkie diet...
so you are saying that is Person A is in a 500 calorie deficit of processed food that they will not lose weight? Can you explain to me this magical process that makes processed foods cancel out the universal laws of math and physics????
most people lose on a clean diet because clean foods are less calorie dense and they are replacing calorie dense foods with less calorie dense foods..
for the record, which of the one million definitions of "clean eating" are you operating off??
Nope, I said you would be more efficient in losing fat specifically with the cleaner foods, the ones that are equally as calorically dense in total because the calorie count is the same.
ok, still wrong though...
You genuinely believe that taking in chemicals and additives which have been shown to cause disease and metabolic problems have no effect on your fat loss?
everything has "chemicals" in it..
I believe in eating a balanced diet where I hit my macros, micros, and calorie targets.
I don't worry about idiotic concepts like clean vs dirty, processed vs non-processed, etc, etc...
How do you track your micro's?
how do you track all the chemicals in your food?
Hahahahha I will give you that one
this app can track micros and there are others as well, I use MFP.
Yeah, like 4 of the 40 odd micro's?
cronometer tracks micros in pretty good depth.1 -
crazyycatladyy1 wrote: »Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
i guess you are not familiar with the twinkie diet...
so you are saying that is Person A is in a 500 calorie deficit of processed food that they will not lose weight? Can you explain to me this magical process that makes processed foods cancel out the universal laws of math and physics????
most people lose on a clean diet because clean foods are less calorie dense and they are replacing calorie dense foods with less calorie dense foods..
for the record, which of the one million definitions of "clean eating" are you operating off??
Nope, I said you would be more efficient in losing fat specifically with the cleaner foods, the ones that are equally as calorically dense in total because the calorie count is the same.
ok, still wrong though...
You genuinely believe that taking in chemicals and additives which have been shown to cause disease and metabolic problems have no effect on your fat loss?
everything has "chemicals" in it..
I believe in eating a balanced diet where I hit my macros, micros, and calorie targets.
I don't worry about idiotic concepts like clean vs dirty, processed vs non-processed, etc, etc...
How do you track your micro's?
how do you track all the chemicals in your food?
Hahahahha I will give you that one
this app can track micros and there are others as well, I use MFP.
Yeah, like 4 of the 40 odd micro's?
cronometer tracks micros in pretty good depth.
I was going to suggest cronometer as well. I'd use it but I'm too lazy to log in two places and I prefer the social aspect of MFP for now.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
estherdragonbat wrote: »
- Saturated Fat
- Polyunsaturated Fat
- Monounsaturated Fat
- Trans Fat
- Cholesterol
- Sodium
- Potassium
- Fiber
- Sugar
- Vitamin A
- Vitamin C
- Iron
- Calcium
While I'd like to see the B-vitamins in here, too, I'm really more concerned about my iron.
I think you are mistaken about what micronutrients are
please enlighten us then..1 -
Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
It's already been tried. Under clinical conditions, no less. The results will probably surprise you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-fast-food-meal.html/
"Now, the study does have a few limitations that I want to mention explicitly.
The study only looked at a single meal. It’s entirely possible that a diet based completely around fast food would show different effects."
So which poster here advocated a diet based completely around fast food? Or are you just positing the usual strawman in such discussions to bolster your position?
Context and dosage matter.
It was in response to making a point that a carb is not a carb and a micronutrient is not a micronutrient when it is ingested with things that have an effect on your body. Originally comparing eating a mcdonalds/burger king burger with a steak salad with cheese.
Okay. So you are just positing the usual strawman in such discussions to bolster your position, and are not interested in considering context and dosage as relevant factors. At least we have that clarified. Carry on.
You're saying because you don't notice the effect of 1 meal at a fast food restaurant means that it must not have an effect?
1 cheeseburger or 1,000 cheeseburgers, doesn't change the effect of the first one.
so what is this negative effect of one cheeseburger in a diet that is meeting micro, macro, and calorie targets??? Instant fat creation???4 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »
- Saturated Fat
- Polyunsaturated Fat
- Monounsaturated Fat
- Trans Fat
- Cholesterol
- Sodium
- Potassium
- Fiber
- Sugar
- Vitamin A
- Vitamin C
- Iron
- Calcium
While I'd like to see the B-vitamins in here, too, I'm really more concerned about my iron.
I think you are mistaken about what micronutrients are
please enlighten us then..
Saturated Fat
Polyunsaturated Fat
Monounsaturated Fat
Trans Fat
Fiber
Sugar
All apart of macronutrients0 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »
- Saturated Fat
- Polyunsaturated Fat
- Monounsaturated Fat
- Trans Fat
- Cholesterol
- Sodium
- Potassium
- Fiber
- Sugar
- Vitamin A
- Vitamin C
- Iron
- Calcium
While I'd like to see the B-vitamins in here, too, I'm really more concerned about my iron.
I think you are mistaken about what micronutrients are
please enlighten us then..
Saturated Fat
Polyunsaturated Fat
Monounsaturated Fat
Trans Fat
Fiber
Sugar
All apart of macronutrients
only 3 macros.. those are micros
Fat
Protein
Carbs
Micros are smaller than... and part of macros...5 -
Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
It's already been tried. Under clinical conditions, no less. The results will probably surprise you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-fast-food-meal.html/
"Now, the study does have a few limitations that I want to mention explicitly.
The study only looked at a single meal. It’s entirely possible that a diet based completely around fast food would show different effects."
So which poster here advocated a diet based completely around fast food? Or are you just positing the usual strawman in such discussions to bolster your position?
Context and dosage matter.
It was in response to making a point that a carb is not a carb and a micronutrient is not a micronutrient when it is ingested with things that have an effect on your body. Originally comparing eating a mcdonalds/burger king burger with a steak salad with cheese.
Okay. So you are just positing the usual strawman in such discussions to bolster your position, and are not interested in considering context and dosage as relevant factors. At least we have that clarified. Carry on.
You're saying because you don't notice the effect of 1 meal at a fast food restaurant means that it must not have an effect?
1 cheeseburger or 1,000 cheeseburgers, doesn't change the effect of the first one.
Another strawman demonstrating no grasp of context/dosage. Amusing.0 -
.0
-
Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
It's already been tried. Under clinical conditions, no less. The results will probably surprise you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-fast-food-meal.html/
"Now, the study does have a few limitations that I want to mention explicitly.
The study only looked at a single meal. It’s entirely possible that a diet based completely around fast food would show different effects."
So which poster here advocated a diet based completely around fast food? Or are you just positing the usual strawman in such discussions to bolster your position?
Context and dosage matter.
It was in response to making a point that a carb is not a carb and a micronutrient is not a micronutrient when it is ingested with things that have an effect on your body. Originally comparing eating a mcdonalds/burger king burger with a steak salad with cheese.
Okay. So you are just positing the usual strawman in such discussions to bolster your position, and are not interested in considering context and dosage as relevant factors. At least we have that clarified. Carry on.
You're saying because you don't notice the effect of 1 meal at a fast food restaurant means that it must not have an effect?
1 cheeseburger or 1,000 cheeseburgers, doesn't change the effect of the first one.
Another strawman demonstrating no grasp of context/dosage. Amusing.
I still want to know what this negative impact of one cheeseburger is....2 -
Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
It's already been tried. Under clinical conditions, no less. The results will probably surprise you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-fast-food-meal.html/
"Now, the study does have a few limitations that I want to mention explicitly.
The study only looked at a single meal. It’s entirely possible that a diet based completely around fast food would show different effects."
So which poster here advocated a diet based completely around fast food? Or are you just positing the usual strawman in such discussions to bolster your position?
Context and dosage matter.
It was in response to making a point that a carb is not a carb and a micronutrient is not a micronutrient when it is ingested with things that have an effect on your body. Originally comparing eating a mcdonalds/burger king burger with a steak salad with cheese.
Okay. So you are just positing the usual strawman in such discussions to bolster your position, and are not interested in considering context and dosage as relevant factors. At least we have that clarified. Carry on.
You're saying because you don't notice the effect of 1 meal at a fast food restaurant means that it must not have an effect?
1 cheeseburger or 1,000 cheeseburgers, doesn't change the effect of the first one.
Another strawman demonstrating no grasp of context/dosage. Amusing.
I still want to know what this negative impact of one cheeseburger is....
I'd like to know as well. In tangible, measurable and relevant terms. Because "omgzz teh poizonzz!!1!" is not a valid metric, IMO.3 -
when the calories are low your body does store fat. After all, your bodies main goal is survival and will do whatever it can to preserve.0
-
Sometimes when the calories are low your body does store fat. After all, your bodies main goal is survival and will do whatever it can to preserve.
No.
[Edit:] What "sometimes" are you specifically referring to? Can you give a scientifically supported example of what "sometimes" would make your body store fat while in a deficit? Because even in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, wherein the males reached essential (2% - 3%) levels of bodyfat, there was no fat storage observed.4 -
-
kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
The calorie deficit over time is how you lose weight. Maintenance calorie needs ebbs and flows daily, but it's always in that range within give or take a couple hundred calories. For some people that weight range is step on stage fitness model ready, for others it is just right to be at the higher end, or maybe in the middle. Do not get too hung up on those numbers, YOU decide where you are best healthy, not those numbers.
So maintenance calories are what your body needs to stay the same and never lose or gain. Anything over that is how you gain weight. So some days you might eat under, and other days over. If it's too much over that is how we gain. And even though it seems like we don't eat at or over every day, we go over some days and that is why we can have a weight plateau.
So the trick for fat loss is to stay at maintenance, but also have most days during the week UNDER maintenance to lose fat. If done consistently this is like paying off a debt. It happens slowly over time, just like paying off a mortgage debt. It is the consistent payments that pay it off.
What matters is the calories at the end of the day in the 24 hour period, extend that out 7 days, 30, 60, and 90 days for results.
When embarking on a diet for fat loss and eating at deficits, it is always good to eat up to maintenance at least one day a week to help keep hormones stable.
Exercise for health and of course there will be a little bit of calorie burn, but you can lose body fat with just the deficit over time.
You don't have to worry about starvation mode unless you are 12% body fat or under, but if you eat too low it WILL slow down your metabolism as they proved in the "Minnesota Starvation Study" if you look that up on the internet.
The Army did the best study ever on starvation mode. Unless you are a lean athlete quit worrying about it.
STARVATION MODE:
Here is the Army study on the Theory of Fat Availability:
The Theory of Fat Availability:
•There is a set amount of fat that can be released from a fat cell.
•The more fat you have, the more fat can be used as a fuel when dieting.
•The less fat you have, the less fat can be used as a fuel when dieting.
•Towards the end of a transformation, when body fat is extremely low you
may not have enough fat to handle a large caloric deficit anymore.
At the extreme low end, when your body fat cannot ‘keep up’ with the energy deficit you've imposed on your body, the energy MUST come from SOMEWHERE. This is when you are at risk of losing lean body mass during dieting (commonly referred to as ‘starvation mode’). This happens at extremely low levels of body fat, under 6% in men and 12% in women [Friedl K.E. J Appl Phsiol, 1994].
So some things to think about as you experiment with different calorie levels, fasting periods (or simply the time between meals), and exercise are:
How is your general feeling of well being?
How do you feel working out?
How well do you recover from workouts?
Do you have the energy to complete your daily responsibilities?
How well do you sleep at night?
Are you binging?
Usually it's the answers to those questions that tell you if you are too high or too low with your daily or even rolling daily average over time.
4 -
Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.heiliskrimsli wrote: »So you're telling me that if I get two steaks at the butcher shop, take them home, run one through the meat grinder thereby "processing" it, and then throw both of them on the grill and cook them both mid rare, the one I didn't grind is healthy, and the one I did is not?
@rdridi12 although everyone off of MFP forums knows what I mean by "processed foods", since running steak through the meat grinder technically is processing it, and there is a lot of this type of pushback here, on MFP I say "Ultra Processed Foods" and refer to the Brazilian definition: http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf1 -
MissusMoon wrote: »You can't outrun your fork. CICO is everything. It's not about certain foods, being "clean", carbs, none of it. The law of thermodynamics has not fallen. Exercise factors into CICO, but I highly recommend portion control and accurate calorie count coming first. Fitness is awesome, exercise makes you strong, turns up your "furnace" and makes you feel great. But it can only do so much when bombarded with calories.
I love the bolded. Might need to make that into a tattoo with accompanying stick figure and fork running after it.3 -
I read this article this morning and I think I does a good job of talking about CICO and explains a lot. Give it a read if you like.
http://www.bodyforwife.com/understanding-caloric-deficits-for-weight-loss/
0 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »
- Saturated Fat
- Polyunsaturated Fat
- Monounsaturated Fat
- Trans Fat
- Cholesterol
- Sodium
- Potassium
- Fiber
- Sugar
- Vitamin A
- Vitamin C
- Iron
- Calcium
While I'd like to see the B-vitamins in here, too, I'm really more concerned about my iron.
I think you are mistaken about what micronutrients are
Did you sign up just to tell everyone else how much smarter you are than them?4 -
80% of weight loss is what you put into your mouth. If you are getting good nutrition and enough calories you will not go into starvation mode. I have not worked out at the gym since March and still been averaging 10 pounds per month in April and May. So, it can be done. I do walk on my 15 minute breaks at work and walk my dogs after work if it's not raining but i have not had motivation for gym time recently. Just make sure you are eating enough. If you go by mfp guidelines (starts alot of people at 1200 calories) and eat back half of your exercise or activity calories that is a good rule of thumb.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions