Calories in calories out is it that simple?
suenewberry81
Posts: 241 Member
Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?
0
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
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.19 -
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.13
-
That's the rule I'm following and it's treating me well so far
12 -
Caveat: Junk foods (like gummy bears) tend not to satisfy hunger for very long.16
-
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.23 -
suenewberry81 wrote: »Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?
Yes8 -
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!
35 -
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.21
-
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!1 -
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.11 -
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.11 -
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....9 -
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.12 -
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.5 -
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.17 -
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »Caveat: Junk foods (like gummy bears) tend not to satisfy hunger for very long.
They make a good pre workout though.12 -
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.19 -
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.
22 -
Conversely, I've noticed that when people encourage healthy eating, other members often assume that means a strict "clean" diet - whatever "clean" means.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.
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.
6 -
The answer simply is yes. Science!10
-
Conversely, I've noticed that when people encourage healthy eating, other members often assume that means a strict "clean" diet - whatever "clean" means.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.
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.
If you read back, this is about WinoGelato's point that janejellyroll's advice -- which DOES note that healthy eating is important for, well, health -- is exactly the kind of good advice that is normally given in these kinds of threads (and is consistent with explaining how CICO works) and yet some still seem to claim that people might be confused and think that eating only gummi bears is reasonable.
No one suggested that it was a bad thing to encourage healthy eating -- that seems to be your own strawman.9 -
Conversely, I've noticed that when people encourage healthy eating, other members often assume that means a strict "clean" diet - whatever "clean" means.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.
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.
I've actually not seen anyone dispute the advice that a person should try to eat a "healthy diet", is that what you're saying?
I will say, that "healthy eating" is a subjective term as well. Advocates for LCHF, Ketogenic diets, and even Carnivore diets - feel their diet is "healthy" yet many eat limited (or even no) fruits and vegetables. Freelee the Banana girl feels her diet is "healthy" and eats almost the complete opposite. I eat things like frozen meals, fast food, and even (gasp) Hamburger Helper on occasion, and I believe my diet is healthy, yet many would suggest that eating convenience foods automatically means that I disregard nutrition.
9 -
Almost a loaded question. Foods lower in calories yet higher in protein and or fiber will cause weight loss goals to be much easier and more sustainable. I don't deprive myself of the not so healthy foods. I eat them on special occasions so that they are the exception rather than the rule.2
-
Yes you can eat complete crap food only and still lose weight. You'll probably feel like garbage, and be hungry much sooner, but sure , you'll lose the weight.9
-
Yes you can eat complete crap food only and still lose weight. You'll probably feel like garbage, and be hungry much sooner, but sure , you'll lose the weight.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make upthread. Why did you feel the need to point out that eating ONLY "crap food" would make a person feel like garbage? Do you think OP intends to only eat junk food?14 -
suenewberry81 wrote: »Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?
Yes!
2 -
edlanglais wrote: »Almost a loaded question. Foods lower in calories yet higher in protein and or fiber will cause weight loss goals to be much easier and more sustainable. I don't deprive myself of the not so healthy foods. I eat them on special occasions so that they are the exception rather than the rule.
For me saving less healthy foods for "special occasions" is what will make me fail because I feel deprived. I try to eat a fairly balanced diet in general but I also eat something sweet everyday. I just make sure it fits into my kilojoule count.3 -
Yes. However there needs to be a disclaimer on the "honesty" factor. Like.... beer at the cookout on Saturday, the bag of skittles from the vending machine, the cupcake in the staff lounge, the fries from the drive thru, the bread basket at the restaurant. ALL. CONTAIN. CALORIES!!!!!!! Before saying that CICO doesn't work etc.... take an honest look at your eating habits. It's usually an eye opener!8
-
I'm going to a little against the grain here. For me, it was a yes and no answer. Yes, you still need to be within your calories, however, there are other factors that can stall weight loss. I did very well losing a lot of weight by simply staying within my calories. It was when I got closer to a healthy weight range when staying within my calories was no longer as simple as it seemed to be. My weight would not budge anymore and stayed that way for several months. It fluctuated a little bit, but I could not get past this plateau even with everything that I tried. I was still within my calories and my weight would not budge. Then I tried changing the way I eat. I use to eat 3 meals a day, smaller in the morning and bigger at dinner time (dinner time is about 3:30 PM for me) because that's what helped me feel satisfied. Now I eat 4 meals a day close to equal proportions. I'm not diabetic, but I found out by eating several small meals a day it can manage blood sugar and insulin spikes, which can affect fat storage. After changing how often I ate, the weight began to fall off again. I was even able to lose weight during my time of the month, which is a huge deal because before, I could easily gain 5 pounds during that time. So yes, you still need to be within your calories, but if you stall, there could be something else that is affecting your weight loss.27
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