Dieting vs. exercising?
Replies
-
kshama2001 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.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.pdf
That's great, and we can all agree that a Cheeseburger from a quick service restaurant doesn't meet that definition.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....
I'd like to know as well. In tangible, measurable and relevant terms. Because "omgzz teh poizonzz!!1!" is not a valid metric, IMO.
Dude, he has PERSONAL EXPERIENCE!!!
6 -
kshama2001 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.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.pdf
For anyone who doesn't want to open and search - ultra-processed is defined here as : Ultra-processed foods include confectionery, drinks that are sweetened with sugar or artficial sweeteners, powders for juices, sausages and other products that are derived from meat and animal fat, pre-prepared frozen dishes, dried products such as cake mix, powdered soup, instant noodles, ready-seasonings, and an infinity of new products that arrive at the markets every year including packaged snacks, morning cereals, cereal bars, and ‘energy’ drinks. Breads and baked goods become ultraprocessed foods when, in addition to wheat flour, yeast, water, and salt, their ingredients include substances such as hydrogenated vegetable fat, sugar, starch, whey, emulsifiers, and other additives.1 -
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.
3 -
californiagirl2012 wrote: »...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]....
"Starvation mode" (or "preservation mode", or "emergency mode", or whatever other clever name people want to call it), as it's most commonly thrown around in this forum and silly magazine/website articles, is the theory that if you eat too few calories, your body will hang onto every possible ounce of fat, your weight loss will stop and you could even gain weight as a result of it. Which doesn't happen. It didn't happen in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, it doesn't happen with anorexics who voluntarily starve themselves, and it doesn't happen in third world countries where food scarcity is a fact of everyday life. In each of those cases, people continued/continue to lose weight - often until they die from it.
Losing lean body mass, OTOH, is a very real possible consequence when the calorie deficit is too great - but that's not "starvation mode" as it's most often discussed.3 -
When all else fails, just keep asking your debate adversary to go into overly detailed explanations, continue pretending like the point he is making is unclear, and he will eventually just give up and walk away. Of course, he will walk away unconvinced, but it matters little at that point, right?3
-
[ETA:] I will agree, though, that there's plenty of bad advice given on MFP. Almost invariably by people who parrot what they've read in silly magazine articles or woo websites, and have no actual idea about even the most basic concepts of nutrition and/or physiology.
No...
From browsing the forums you see a pattern of the same people with almost cut and paste replies. I tried to give an option / offer help once in a thread then people with six packs started spouting things from some dudes blog... one even refuted an article co-authored by a MD and nutritionist...0 -
[ETA:] I will agree, though, that there's plenty of bad advice given on MFP. Almost invariably by people who parrot what they've read in silly magazine articles or woo websites, and have no actual idea about even the most basic concepts of nutrition and/or physiology.
No...
From browsing the forums you see a pattern of the same people with almost cut and paste replies. I tried to give an option / offer help once in a thread then people with six packs started spouting things from some dudes blog... one even refuted an article co-authored by a MD and nutritionist...
There are plenty of MDs and nutritionists who offer total garbage as "facts", so I'm not at all surprised. Dr. Oz is an MD. So are Mercola, Hyman, Lustig and Fung, and they're all complete quacks.
Some of the people here have "almost cut and paste replies" because the facts are the facts. And when somebody chimes in with woo or pseudoscience, it's going to get rebutted.8 -
I was worried we might not have a mean people thread this Friday, but I see we've cleverly disguised it this week by derailing this poor thread.9
-
Dr. Oz... Touché0
-
[ETA:] I will agree, though, that there's plenty of bad advice given on MFP. Almost invariably by people who parrot what they've read in silly magazine articles or woo websites, and have no actual idea about even the most basic concepts of nutrition and/or physiology.
No...
From browsing the forums you see a pattern of the same people with almost cut and paste replies. I tried to give an option / offer help once in a thread then people with six packs started spouting things from some dudes blog... one even refuted an article co-authored by a MD and nutritionist...
Because the same questions get asked over and over, I keep a doc from which I literally cut and paste replies. So do several other posters that I know of.6 -
If you are going to go off on wording then this is useless. I am clearly talking about being chemically processed.
God, I love the internet. Is the above the MFP version of Godwin's law?
Also, yes...posting something in words on an online form does invite people to "go off on wording" because....you used words....
9 -
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 stickied "must read" posts at the top of each forum section have a wealth of information if you haven't had a chance to read them yet. They include these two posts about starvation mode:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1077746/starvation-mode-adaptive-thermogenesis-and-weight-loss/p1
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/761810/the-starvation-mode-myth-again/p12 -
Or simply watch an episode of Naked and Afraid and see what happens to their body weight at the end of the challenge.0
-
kshama2001 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.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.pdf
For anyone who doesn't want to open and search - ultra-processed is defined here as : Ultra-processed foods include confectionery, drinks that are sweetened with sugar or artficial sweeteners, powders for juices, sausages and other products that are derived from meat and animal fat, pre-prepared frozen dishes, dried products such as cake mix, powdered soup, instant noodles, ready-seasonings, and an infinity of new products that arrive at the markets every year including packaged snacks, morning cereals, cereal bars, and ‘energy’ drinks. Breads and baked goods become ultraprocessed foods when, in addition to wheat flour, yeast, water, and salt, their ingredients include substances such as hydrogenated vegetable fat, sugar, starch, whey, emulsifiers, and other additives.
Lol whatevs2 -
Good to know my homemade yeast bread is deemed 'ultra-processed' by the inclusion of a teaspoon of sugar to feed the yeast
3 -
Good to know my homemade yeast bread is deemed 'ultra-processed' by the inclusion of a teaspoon of sugar to feed the yeast
I really shouldn't talk though. I already had a Hot Pocket, 2 Oreos, and some diet soda today (among other things). So I'm just going to go sit in Time Out and wait for the chemicals to kill me.12 -
Not even organic. Plain old granulated sugar. But I use white flour, so I'm probably already well into unclean territory :laugh:
9 -
-
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
I am confused - you said estherdragon didnt know what micronutrients were when she posted her list - so you enlighten us by providing a list , all of which were also on her list.
I am befuddled
5 -
paperpudding wrote: »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
I am confused - you said estherdragon didnt know what micronutrients were when she posted her list - so you enlighten us by providing a list , all of which were also on her list.
I am befuddled
He commented in the comment saying the things on the list were all a part of macronutrients...0 -
Good to know my homemade yeast bread is deemed 'ultra-processed' by the inclusion of a teaspoon of sugar to feed the yeast
I really shouldn't talk though. I already had a Hot Pocket, 2 Oreos, and some diet soda today (among other things). So I'm just going to go sit in Time Out and wait for the chemicals to kill me.
I keep saying Hawwwwwt Pocket over and over4 -
80% of fat loss is from diet alone. Get that *kitten* figured out first. Then add working out.
Also starvation mode is basically a myth. Yes it is plausible but for long periods of times at very minimal calorie intake. But confuse your body on how, when, how much you eat. That will make sure you stay on course for fat loss
Abs come from the kitchen, not crunches people!0 -
What I love about the element of exercise.....
-I feel amazing afterwards.
-I set and accomplish goals daily.
-My muscles are beginning to show, tone.
-I am completely off a high blood pressure med I took for 20 years after four months of hard work.
-My skin is awesome.
-Forces me to make better food decisions because one hour of hardcore work is almost a whole cupcake.
-I felt it helped me lose faster. Allows me more options when I change things up.
-In my mind, sweat equals hard work and for me that means progress.
-i think clearer. I remember better.
This list could go on and on and on for me.
Others might tell you different but I can't imagine going back to a sedentary lifestyle and I started at 354lbs. I still have a way to go but I am not looking back!
I eat right (ish). I sleep good. I drink a ton of water. I put the work in. I get RESULTS.
No low carb for me, no pills, no shots...nothing but sheer determination. Friend me if you'd like.
1 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »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
I am confused - you said estherdragon didnt know what micronutrients were when she posted her list - so you enlighten us by providing a list , all of which were also on her list.
I am befuddled
He commented in the comment saying the things on the list were all a part of macronutrients...
Well, yes - all micronutrients are part of macronutrients, estherdragon wasnt disputing that either though
0 -
Tankiscool wrote: »80% of fat loss is from diet alone. Get that *kitten* figured out first. Then add working out.
Also starvation mode is basically a myth. Yes it is plausible but for long periods of times at very minimal calorie intake. But confuse your body on how, when, how much you eat. That will make sure you stay on course for fat loss
Abs come from the kitchen, not crunches people!
Weight loss can be 100% from diet alone if one chooses to go that route. I know it's not the popular method around here, but I lost the extra weight with no exercise factored in at all. At the time I was really overwhelmed (had never tried to lose weight before but was facing a health crisis if I didn't drop the extra pounds), so I decided to only focus on creating the calorie deficit I needed for my weight loss goals by reducing how many calories I was eating. Kept things really simple, and lost the weight I needed to lose and improved all my health markers at the same time.3
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