Calories in calories out is it that simple?

suenewberry81

Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?

janejellyroll

Yes. For weight loss, it is that simple.

You meet nutritional goals for general health (and you don't need to eat "clean" or perfectly to do this), but weight loss is created by a calorie deficit. Many people find certain eating patterns make it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit (some people prefer fewer carbohydrates, some prefer more fiber, some prefer more protein, etc), but that doesn't change that a calorie deficit will work no matter what you're eating.

usmcmp

Yes, you would still lose. The other thing you want to consider is adherence. It tends to be easier for most people to stick to their calorie goal when they eat a larger percentage of their calories from nutrient dense foods (lean meats, fruits, vegetables). Nothing is off limits though.

Panda8ach

That's the rule I'm following and it's treating me well so far

Old_Cat_Lady

Caveat: Junk foods (like gummy bears) tend not to satisfy hunger for very long.

janejellyroll

TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »

Caveat: Junk foods (like gummy bears) tend not to satisfy hunger for very long.

But don't most people get this outside of the context of a calorie deficit? People aren't commonly building their meals around candy under the impression this will satisfy their hunger.

Even when I was overweight, I ate candy *in addition* to the other things I was eating, not as a replacement for it.

TavistockToad

suenewberry81 wrote: »

Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?

Yes

LadyLilion

TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »

Caveat: Junk foods (like gummy bears) tend not to satisfy hunger for very long.

But what about Snickers? Those commercials swear that Snickers really satisfy!

estherdragonbat

I know you're joking, but in all seriousness, I would imagine that the protein and fat in the nuts WOULD satisfy more than gummy bears for most people.

mulecanter

LadyLilion wrote: »

TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »

Caveat: Junk foods (like gummy bears) tend not to satisfy hunger for very long.

But what about Snickers? Those commercials swear that Snickers really satisfy!

Yeah, somebody should sue them!

OliveGirl128

janejellyroll wrote: »

Yes. For weight loss, it is that simple.

You meet nutritional goals for general health (and you don't need to eat "clean" or perfectly to do this), but weight loss is created by a calorie deficit. Many people find certain eating patterns make it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit (some people prefer fewer carbohydrates, some prefer more fiber, some prefer more protein, etc), but that doesn't change that a calorie deficit will work no matter what you're eating.

This is spot on.

kgirlhart

LadyLilion wrote: »

TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »

Caveat: Junk foods (like gummy bears) tend not to satisfy hunger for very long.

But what about Snickers? Those commercials swear that Snickers really satisfy!

As candy goes, Snickers is pretty satisfying because it has peanuts. Anytime I find myself in a situation where I am truly hungry and the only available option is a vending machine I will always go for Snickers or peanut M&Ms.

OP, you can lose weight as long as you stay at a calorie deficit even if you include "junk" foods. If you were to only eat candy then your health would suffer and you would be hungry a lot, but you could still lose weight. But if you enjoy candy or ice cream or what ever type of "junk" food you like then you can add moderate portions of those into your daily goal and still enjoy them on occasion.

annaskiski

mulecanter wrote: »

LadyLilion wrote: »

TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »

Caveat: Junk foods (like gummy bears) tend not to satisfy hunger for very long.

But what about Snickers? Those commercials swear that Snickers really satisfy!

Yeah, somebody should sue them!

Don't mess with Snickers....I'll come for you....

cwolfman13

suenewberry81 wrote: »

Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?

Yes. A calorie is a unit of energy. Our bodies require so much energy every day to exist, go about our day to day, exercise, etc. When you consume a balance of energy you will maintain the status quot. When you consume more energy than your body requires, that excess energy is stored as body fat...it's like your backup generator. When you consume less energy than your body requires, your back up generator kicks on and you burn body fat (stored energy) to make up the difference.

middlehaitch

LadyLilion wrote: »

TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »

Caveat: Junk foods (like gummy bears) tend not to satisfy hunger for very long.

But what about Snickers? Those commercials swear that Snickers really satisfy!

I always liked the '60's - 'a Mars a day helps you work, rest, and play.'

Of course now one can get protein MarsBars in the UK so it may be true.

Cheers, h.

WinoGelato

janejellyroll wrote: »

Yes. For weight loss, it is that simple.

You meet nutritional goals for general health (and you don't need to eat "clean" or perfectly to do this), but weight loss is created by a calorie deficit. Many people find certain eating patterns make it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit (some people prefer fewer carbohydrates, some prefer more fiber, some prefer more protein, etc), but that doesn't change that a calorie deficit will work no matter what you're eating.

Just wanted to point out that this is the second post in the thread (and probably the first serious one as I think Noel was being facetious) and it perfectly summarizes the advice and tone of what the supposed "CICO Crowd" would advocate in threads just like this. Yet still, in subsequent posts, others raise the idea that eating nothing but gummy bears wouldn't be a good idea. Which why someone thinks that the OP was considering eating nothing but gummy bears is beyond me. And I suspect even further still, others will suggest that anyone who follows your post and says "yep! Calories are all that matter for weight loss" are somehow giving the OP the impression that nutrition isn't important and that obviously negates the succinct and sage advice that you provided and will imply that anyone who is in the "CICO Crowd" is saying to ignore nutrition.

psuLemon

TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »

Caveat: Junk foods (like gummy bears) tend not to satisfy hunger for very long.

They make a good pre workout though.

Rebecca0224

WinoGelato wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Yes. For weight loss, it is that simple.

You meet nutritional goals for general health (and you don't need to eat "clean" or perfectly to do this), but weight loss is created by a calorie deficit. Many people find certain eating patterns make it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit (some people prefer fewer carbohydrates, some prefer more fiber, some prefer more protein, etc), but that doesn't change that a calorie deficit will work no matter what you're eating.

Just wanted to point out that this is the second post in the thread (and probably the first serious one as I think Noel was being facetious) and it perfectly summarizes the advice and tone of what the supposed "CICO Crowd" would advocate in threads just like this. Yet still, in subsequent posts, others raise the idea that eating nothing but gummy bears wouldn't be a good idea. Which why someone thinks that the OP was considering eating nothing but gummy bears is beyond me. And I suspect even further still, others will suggest that anyone who follows your post and says "yep! Calories are all that matter for weight loss" are somehow giving the OP the impression that nutrition isn't important and that obviously negates the succinct and sage advice that you provided and will imply that anyone who is in the "CICO Crowd" is saying to ignore nutrition.

I think people assume that if people don't eat "clean" they must be eating like a 5 year old in a candy store. It aggravates me when people act as if everyone is either eating lean meat and vegetables or donuts, candy, and chips. I have trouble believing that a majority of the population is eating nothing but low nutrient high calorie foods, in my experience people who are overweight eat a varity of foods but in excess amounts.

WinoGelato

Rebecca0224 wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

Yes. For weight loss, it is that simple.

You meet nutritional goals for general health (and you don't need to eat "clean" or perfectly to do this), but weight loss is created by a calorie deficit. Many people find certain eating patterns make it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit (some people prefer fewer carbohydrates, some prefer more fiber, some prefer more protein, etc), but that doesn't change that a calorie deficit will work no matter what you're eating.

Just wanted to point out that this is the second post in the thread (and probably the first serious one as I think Noel was being facetious) and it perfectly summarizes the advice and tone of what the supposed "CICO Crowd" would advocate in threads just like this. Yet still, in subsequent posts, others raise the idea that eating nothing but gummy bears wouldn't be a good idea. Which why someone thinks that the OP was considering eating nothing but gummy bears is beyond me. And I suspect even further still, others will suggest that anyone who follows your post and says "yep! Calories are all that matter for weight loss" are somehow giving the OP the impression that nutrition isn't important and that obviously negates the succinct and sage advice that you provided and will imply that anyone who is in the "CICO Crowd" is saying to ignore nutrition.

I think people assume that if people don't eat "clean" they must be eating like a 5 year old in a candy store. It aggravates me when people act as if everyone is either eating lean meat and vegetables or donuts, candy, and chips. I have trouble believing that a majority of the population is eating nothing but low nutrient high calorie foods, in my experience people who are overweight eat a varity of foods but in excess amounts.

Yes, exactly. I don't know if the people who are responding who take exception to the advice that "eat whatever you want within your calorie limit for weight loss" are eating a diet that is made up primarily of low nutrient/high calorie "junk" foods, or they were at one point in time, and so they assume that because that's what they wanted to eat then everyone else must want that as well?

I was overweight from eating a little too much of a lot of different foods. I didn't binge eat, I didn't eat only junk food. I ate bigger servings than I needed to... I felt the need to eat an appetizer, and a meal, and a dessert at a restaurant.... I wanted to try everything on the buffet or at the holiday party regardless of whether or not it even looked appealing to me. I ate meals: meat, starch, fruits or vegetables. I never would have eaten just gummy bears, or just cookies for dinner - and I don't know really anyone who would - at least not on a consistent basis.

So yes, I think the constant attempt to categorize people on either end of an extreme spectrum of zero nutrition to zero junk is just not a realistic way to look at the majority of the population. And I think to presume that when someone like OP asks: Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?

that they intend to eat nothing but cookies, or donuts, or doritos simply because people say "calories are all that matter for weight loss" is insulting to this OP and all the others that ask that. Most of these threads start because an OP wants to eat A dessert, and has been convinced that by doing so, they will negate all their weight loss. Or that you MUST eat clean (whatever that means) in order to lose weight. Or, a lot of times, an OP starts these threads simply to see what people will say - in a thread a week or so ago that started very similarly, when asked to qualify what OP meant when she asked if it was possible to eat ice cream and cookies and still lose weight, if she really meant that she wanted to eat nothing but ice cream and cookies, she said, "gosh, of course not. I would still eat all the normal healthy food, I just wanted to know if it was ok because I heard it wasn't". And that's why the "CICO crowd" continues to try to bang the drum that YES it is ok to eat ice cream, and cookies. You can eat those AND chicken, asparagus and quinoa; and as long as you are in a calorie deficit, you will still lose weight. Because that's how must people would define "eat whatever I want", what I want, and I really believe most others as well, is to eat a varied, satiating, healthy diet that includes foods I love.

dfwesq

Rebecca0224 wrote: »

[I think people assume that if people don't eat "clean" they must be eating like a 5 year old in a candy store. It aggravates me when people act as if everyone is either eating lean meat and vegetables or donuts, candy, and chips.

Conversely, I've noticed that when people encourage healthy eating, other members often assume that means a strict "clean" diet - whatever "clean" means.

When I read "whatever," I see it as very open-ended. It could mean anything to anyone who posts it or reads it. It includes healthy diets, average diets, and very unhealthy diets. It's not a safe assumption that it means a healthy diet, though.