Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Cals are NOT created equal. CICO isn't the whole story.
Replies
-
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.
Okay, let me apply some context to it then: I had spinach with my eggs for breakfast, a piece of fruit with lunch and a huge serving of brussels sprouts with dinner (listed as 3.5 servings on the bag, and I ate the whole bag along with 8 ounces of boneless skinless chicken breast). My macros look good - I've hit my protein for the day, I'm actually a bit low on fat and I have about 500 calories left below my goal from a combination of my diet and exercise for the day. I want a freaking donut with my cup of coffee tonight and kale isn't going to be anywhere even near a reasonable substitute for me in terms of satiety and enjoyment. There are no nutrients in either kale or the donut that I 'need' at the moment - but I have discretionary calories available to me and a donut sounds good and kale doesn't. Since I both lifted weights and ran today, the carbs in the donut will help replenish my glycogen stores, and since I'm a bit low on my fat macro, the fats in the donut aren't going to hurt anything.
I'm a believer in Eric Helms' saying that "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food". Therefore, I'm eating that freaking donut. And enjoying every bite of it. And I ain't even sorry.
Ok. We have an obesity epidemic because people don't eat enough donuts. The things I learn on MFP!
I think this is a vast over-simplification and mis-reading of what he was trying to say, but I will add my POV: I think one of the reasons we do have a problem with obesity is that too many people in this country think there are only two ways to eat: Eat perfectly and be slender or just throw in the towel and eat whatever.
For me, weight control became easy when I realized I never had to have a "perfect day" in order to manage my weight, I just had to match the calories I was consuming to the calories I was using. For years, I'd gone off-and-on the merry-go-round of too much restriction followed by eating "whatever" and that obviously wasn't working for me.
So maybe if more people (or at least people like me) realized that it was okay to eat a donut sometimes (insert your favorite "naughty food" here) and that it's possible to do it in a way that allows you to maintain a healthy weight, we would have less of a problem.
21 -
NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.
Okay, let me apply some context to it then: I had spinach with my eggs for breakfast, a piece of fruit with lunch and a huge serving of brussels sprouts with dinner (listed as 3.5 servings on the bag, and I ate the whole bag along with 8 ounces of boneless skinless chicken breast). My macros look good - I've hit my protein for the day, I'm actually a bit low on fat and I have about 500 calories left below my goal from a combination of my diet and exercise for the day. I want a freaking donut with my cup of coffee tonight and kale isn't going to be anywhere even near a reasonable substitute for me in terms of satiety and enjoyment. There are no nutrients in either kale or the donut that I 'need' at the moment - but I have discretionary calories available to me and a donut sounds good and kale doesn't. Since I both lifted weights and ran today, the carbs in the donut will help replenish my glycogen stores, and since I'm a bit low on my fat macro, the fats in the donut aren't going to hurt anything.
I'm a believer in Eric Helms' saying that "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food". Therefore, I'm eating that freaking donut. And enjoying every bite of it. And I ain't even sorry.
Ok. We have an obesity epidemic because people don't eat enough donuts. The things I learn on MFP!
:huh: how the hell do you go from what @AnvilHead wrote to that conclusion...10 -
The fact that @AnvilHead had unusually good exercise and food habits is commendable, but not representative of the masses.
When he said that there exist some contexts where a donut is less healthy than kale, I suggested that that's true almost all of the time, not some. A detailed account of his diet doesn't convince me that other people should choose donuts over kale half of the time.12 -
NorthCascades wrote: »...A detailed account of his diet doesn't convince me that other people should choose donuts over kale half of the time.
Feel free to point out where I ever said that. Or where I attributed the obesity epidemic to not eating enough donuts.
Or don’t bother. I won’t even engage any more in such a ridiculous argument.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.
Okay, let me apply some context to it then: I had spinach with my eggs for breakfast, a piece of fruit with lunch and a huge serving of brussels sprouts with dinner (listed as 3.5 servings on the bag, and I ate the whole bag along with 8 ounces of boneless skinless chicken breast). My macros look good - I've hit my protein for the day, I'm actually a bit low on fat and I have about 500 calories left below my goal from a combination of my diet and exercise for the day. I want a freaking donut with my cup of coffee tonight and kale isn't going to be anywhere even near a reasonable substitute for me in terms of satiety and enjoyment. There are no nutrients in either kale or the donut that I 'need' at the moment - but I have discretionary calories available to me and a donut sounds good and kale doesn't. Since I both lifted weights and ran today, the carbs in the donut will help replenish my glycogen stores, and since I'm a bit low on my fat macro, the fats in the donut aren't going to hurt anything.
I'm a believer in Eric Helms' saying that "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food". Therefore, I'm eating that freaking donut. And enjoying every bite of it. And I ain't even sorry.
Ok. We have an obesity epidemic because people don't eat enough donuts. The things I learn on MFP!
I think this is a vast over-simplification and mis-reading of what he was trying to say, but I will add my POV: I think one of the reasons we do have a problem with obesity is that too many people in this country think there are only two ways to eat: Eat perfectly and be slender or just throw in the towel and eat whatever.
For me, weight control became easy when I realized I never had to have a "perfect day" in order to manage my weight, I just had to match the calories I was consuming to the calories I was eating. For years, I'd gone off-and-on the merry-go-round of too much restriction followed by eating "whatever" and that obviously wasn't working for me.
Yeah, I too had a real problem with thinking that I was either eating "perfectly" or it didn't matter. I like veg and for the last 20 years have liked to cook, so didn't matter usually mean eating too much, and lots of extra stuff, not not eating veg, but same result when it comes to fat gain.
Did the same with working out -- was either super into it, training for triathlons, no more than one off day a week, or my leisure time was totally sedentary (I was just lucky that I STILL had to walk a decent amount in daily life and lived in a 4th floor walk up).
Realizing it didn't have to be that way was WAY helpful to me.3 -
ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.
Okay, let me apply some context to it then: I had spinach with my eggs for breakfast, a piece of fruit with lunch and a huge serving of brussels sprouts with dinner (listed as 3.5 servings on the bag, and I ate the whole bag along with 8 ounces of boneless skinless chicken breast). My macros look good - I've hit my protein for the day, I'm actually a bit low on fat and I have about 500 calories left below my goal from a combination of my diet and exercise for the day. I want a freaking donut with my cup of coffee tonight and kale isn't going to be anywhere even near a reasonable substitute for me in terms of satiety and enjoyment. There are no nutrients in either kale or the donut that I 'need' at the moment - but I have discretionary calories available to me and a donut sounds good and kale doesn't. Since I both lifted weights and ran today, the carbs in the donut will help replenish my glycogen stores, and since I'm a bit low on my fat macro, the fats in the donut aren't going to hurt anything.
I'm a believer in Eric Helms' saying that "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food". Therefore, I'm eating that freaking donut. And enjoying every bite of it. And I ain't even sorry.
Ok. We have an obesity epidemic because people don't eat enough donuts. The things I learn on MFP!
:huh: how the hell do you go from what @AnvilHead wrote to that conclusion...
This is what I mean when I say I'm frustrated with people not even trying to communicate.
I thought AnvilHead made a thoughtful point that could be relevant to a lot of people. I don't think he deserves to have it misrepresented and dismissed with a sarcastic response, but I do think there perhaps could be a thoughtful response that would further the understanding of why someone might not agree with AnvilHead, I dunno.10 -
NorthCascades wrote: »The fact that @AnvilHead had unusually good exercise and food habits is commendable, but not representative of the masses.
When he said that there exist some contexts where a donut is less healthy than kale, I suggested that that's true almost all of the time, not some. A detailed account of his diet doesn't convince me that other people should choose donuts over kale half of the time.
I think (as AnvilHead's comments pointed out), this idea that people are choosing donuts over kale is basically a strawman anyway.
When are people thinking "hmm, donuts or kale"?
If it's near Lent or specifically Fat Tuesday (sometimes called Paczki Day in Chicago) and my Polish-American assistant brings in a paczki, I might think "hmm, do I really want a donut today?" and I might have chosen to plan for it or not. Never, never, do I think "no, I think I'll snack, but instead go get some kale!" (Aside: Martin Luther's worst thesis, "Carnivale should be replaced with Kalenival." Yes, I'll be here all night, tip your waitness.)
On the other hand, I made soup last night and among other things added some kale to it -- I think kale is delicious in soup. Did it cross my mind to substitute a donut instead? No, it did not.
Americans, on average, eat too few vegetables. I would encourage an average American, if it came up, to eat more, although it's not like people don't know this. Indeed, I encourage people to eat more vegetables here, by saying so if they ask, recommending cooking methods, and participating in the veg and fruit challenge.
Americans, on average, also eat too many sweets and other types of added sugar (mainly in drinks, and this is a misleading stat since a small portion of the population consumes most of the sugary beverages, and old people like me on average consume less). That said, yes, I would encourage an average American, again, if I met one and was asked my opinion, to moderate or limit added sugar. I do that on MFP too, and my own added sugar is extremely limited at the moment, mainly because my taste for indulgent foods goes in a different direction more often than not.
Do I think a good way to help Americans get a better diet is by claiming you should ALWAYS choose kale over a donut? No, that's not relevant to how most eat. Maybe eat more veg and fewer sweets? Yeah, that might be relevant to many, although again not all.
Michael Pollan and Dr, Fuhrman represent two different positions on what I think we are talking about here, to some degree. Pollan deplores "nutritionism" and says don't think of foods as sources of nutrients, but think of them as food, but just eat mostly whole foods, use common sense. Fuhrman is into this nutritionism thing where you should limit your diet to the most nutrient dense foods and pick a more nutrient dense one over the other.
I'm sort of in the middle (closer to Pollan, though), in that I think structuring a diet for some who aren't working from good habits already should involve some understanding of nutrition, and that probably allows you more flexibility to fit in a cookie or whatever too. But the idea that we always choose the more nutrient dense choice or are making a bad choice seems unrealistic and silly to me, and Fuhrman aside, I think most who claim to do so (and would call a donut "bad" for that reason) don't in reality, since no one does. I mostly don't eat donuts, but might I cook something in olive oil purely for taste (even though it's less nutritious than something else I could use those calories on? Sure thing. I don't see why that is okay, but fitting in a donut (or ice cream or whatever) = bad.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.
Okay, let me apply some context to it then: I had spinach with my eggs for breakfast, a piece of fruit with lunch and a huge serving of brussels sprouts with dinner (listed as 3.5 servings on the bag, and I ate the whole bag along with 8 ounces of boneless skinless chicken breast). My macros look good - I've hit my protein for the day, I'm actually a bit low on fat and I have about 500 calories left below my goal from a combination of my diet and exercise for the day. I want a freaking donut with my cup of coffee tonight and kale isn't going to be anywhere even near a reasonable substitute for me in terms of satiety and enjoyment. There are no nutrients in either kale or the donut that I 'need' at the moment - but I have discretionary calories available to me and a donut sounds good and kale doesn't. Since I both lifted weights and ran today, the carbs in the donut will help replenish my glycogen stores, and since I'm a bit low on my fat macro, the fats in the donut aren't going to hurt anything.
I'm a believer in Eric Helms' saying that "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food". Therefore, I'm eating that freaking donut. And enjoying every bite of it. And I ain't even sorry.
Ok. We have an obesity epidemic because people don't eat enough donuts. The things I learn on MFP!
I think this is a vast over-simplification and mis-reading of what he was trying to say, but I will add my POV: I think one of the reasons we do have a problem with obesity is that too many people in this country think there are only two ways to eat: Eat perfectly and be slender or just throw in the towel and eat whatever.
For me, weight control became easy when I realized I never had to have a "perfect day" in order to manage my weight, I just had to match the calories I was consuming to the calories I was using. For years, I'd gone off-and-on the merry-go-round of too much restriction followed by eating "whatever" and that obviously wasn't working for me.
So maybe if more people (or at least people like me) realized that it was okay to eat a donut sometimes (insert your favorite "naughty food" here) and that it's possible to do it in a way that allows you to maintain a healthy weight, we would have less of a problem.
6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ladyreva78 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".
Only some contexts, huh? I'd say in 99.999% of real world diets especially among people using this site, not just every now and then at random.
Okay, let me apply some context to it then: I had spinach with my eggs for breakfast, a piece of fruit with lunch and a huge serving of brussels sprouts with dinner (listed as 3.5 servings on the bag, and I ate the whole bag along with 8 ounces of boneless skinless chicken breast). My macros look good - I've hit my protein for the day, I'm actually a bit low on fat and I have about 500 calories left below my goal from a combination of my diet and exercise for the day. I want a freaking donut with my cup of coffee tonight and kale isn't going to be anywhere even near a reasonable substitute for me in terms of satiety and enjoyment. There are no nutrients in either kale or the donut that I 'need' at the moment - but I have discretionary calories available to me and a donut sounds good and kale doesn't. Since I both lifted weights and ran today, the carbs in the donut will help replenish my glycogen stores, and since I'm a bit low on my fat macro, the fats in the donut aren't going to hurt anything.
I'm a believer in Eric Helms' saying that "once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food". Therefore, I'm eating that freaking donut. And enjoying every bite of it. And I ain't even sorry.
Ok. We have an obesity epidemic because people don't eat enough donuts. The things I learn on MFP!
:huh: how the hell do you go from what @AnvilHead wrote to that conclusion...
This is what I mean when I say I'm frustrated with people not even trying to communicate.
I thought AnvilHead made a thoughtful point that could be relevant to a lot of people. I don't think he deserves to have it misrepresented and dismissed with a sarcastic response, but I do think there perhaps could be a thoughtful response that would further the understanding of why someone might not agree with AnvilHead, I dunno.
So much this. When people don't care to take the time to respond to thoughtful, pragmatic, posts which require some critical thinking and assessment of one's own beliefs in order to provide a similarly well thought out rebuttal - but instead just willfully misrepresent what was stated in order to diminish their opponent's argument, it's incredibly frustrating.
I think we've hit a trifecta of logical fallacies here: ad hominem, false dilemma and straw man...5 -
Part of the issue here, IMO, is not views on nutrition, but more basic goals for being in a thread.
Some people are here to talk things out, try to understand others' perspectives, maybe reach a consensus, or at least clarify the differences. Some other people find this unnecessary, unhelpful, wordy, pedantic or tiresome.
Some people are here to argue and challenge, toss off pithy zingers, make points (i.e. likes, woos, etc), and amuse themselves or others. Some other people find this juvenile, unhelpful, puerile, void of logic and reasoning, or a waste of time.
Or something like that.
There is never going to be productive dialog between these different perspectives on a thread. Never, ever.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »...I didn't read AnvilHead as saying that it's important to always have a donut, or for everyone to have one (I don't even like most donuts, although I will fit in an apple cider donut in the fall, for sure, and he said it's a rare time that he wants one). I think it's about the fact that although some foods have more nutrients than others and there's a gradient between a low nutrient diet (which NO ONE is recommending), an adequate diet, and making every single choice about what has the most nutrients. For most people somewhere above adequate, but how much above may vary by day and who you are and how many cals you have, etc. (and some days will probably not be great and I think that's okay and not something to beat yourself up over)...
At least somebody got the point, lol.
No, I'm not saying it's important to eat donuts, or candy, or whatever other made-up "unclean" evil one cares to discuss. What I'm saying is that, speaking in terms of an overall healthy diet, context and dosage matter and are often ignored. A "healthy diet" is not nearly as black and white as some seem to think, and there's a huge middle ground between "orthorexically clean diet" and "filthy nasty diet". It's not a binary "one or the other" thing, although that's often how the argument is often presented.
Speaking in terms of weight loss - specifically about adherence (which is a separate topic from a healthy diet itself) - some people can 'do' moderation, others can't. For some, the mere presence of such foods will cause uncontrollable urges and binging, and for those people it's probably best to stay away from their 'trigger foods' entirely rather than fighting to moderate them. If eating one donut is going to cause you to dive face-first into the box and snarf the entire dozen, and you're then going to restrict your calorie intake for the rest of the day to make up for your 'sin', that creates an unhealthy situation and it's probably best that you just avoid the donuts altogether. Not because the one donut is 'bad' or 'unhealthy', but because the one donut creates other undesirable outcomes.
OTOH, if you're a person who likes <insert 'donuts' or other 'evil food' here> and you can partake in moderation and fit it into your calories/macros without creating adherence issues, I fail to see a problem.
This needs to be a sticky...6 -
Part of the issue here, IMO, is not views on nutrition, but more basic goals for being in a thread.
Some people are here to talk things out, try to understand others' perspectives, maybe reach a consensus, or at least clarify the differences. Some other people find this unnecessary, unhelpful, wordy, pedantic or tiresome.
Some people are here to argue and challenge, toss off pithy zingers, make points (i.e. likes, woos, etc), and amuse themselves or others. Some other people find this juvenile, unhelpful, puerile, void of logic and reasoning, or a waste of time.
Or something like that.
There is never going to be productive dialog between these different perspectives on a thread. Never, ever.
@AnnPT77 This makes me sad, because I think you are right.
I come into these threads because I often see a blanket statement purporting to be “truth” that doesn’t fit my experience or situation at all. I just want to say there are outliers, exceptions, and be more careful and perhaps charitable to those who differ. Well that is my good intention.
Through my own fault or the readers or both, what seems to occur is wasted words, often unpleasant or with unpleasant overtones exchanged until one “side” or the other gets tired of wasting time.
I think I participate looking for a spectrum of experiences and ideas that could spark new thoughts. What I actually find is an antagonistic win/lose argument. Is it me? Is us the forum posters who seem to respond to me most? Is it both of us? Is it just simply the nature of these boards (especially the debate sub)? I’ve drawn my own conclusions, and they are sad.
5 -
Part of the issue here, IMO, is not views on nutrition, but more basic goals for being in a thread.
Some people are here to talk things out, try to understand others' perspectives, maybe reach a consensus, or at least clarify the differences. Some other people find this unnecessary, unhelpful, wordy, pedantic or tiresome.
I tend to think this is why most would be in a thread in Debate, and certainly AnvilHead's post was of this type. I have trouble understanding why someone would bother participating in a thread of this sort if not an actual good faith exchange of ideas, and a good faith exchange of ideas would involve responding to points and explaining why you disagree, and not misrepresenting alternative views in order to mock them or make a cheap point. (I also think people who make cheap points must assume other people are dumber than they are and won't see through what is pretty obviously not a fair argument.)Some people are here to argue and challenge
This can be part of the exchange of ideas I mentioned, if done in good faith. I'm used to people who like to discuss or argue things that are normally much more controversial than food (or you would think!) and you can still listen and achieve some common ground and better understanding, IMO. Sometimes just seeing why you disagree can be useful.
I would say that one of the most egregious and longstanding examples of bad faith argument I see, over and over, is the portrayal of people who say that nutrition is more complicated than one single food choice (kale over a donut) or that calories are what matter for weight loss as people who don't care about nutrition. It's unfair, shows a lack of attention to what is actually said (and therefore rude and disrespectful), and simply untrue.
If someone thinks my approach to nutrition is wrong, I'm actually happy to discuss it, I think it's an interesting subject. There are people here who have very different ideas about nutrition who do discuss these things in a reasonable way, I think. But claiming that most people don't care about nutrition or are telling others to just eat tons of donuts is objectively wrong and intentionally (I think) insulting.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I would say that one of the most egregious and longstanding examples of bad faith argument I see, over and over, is the portrayal of people who say that nutrition is more complicated than one single food choice (kale over a donut) or that calories are what matter for weight loss as people who don't care about nutrition. It's unfair, shows a lack of attention to what is actually said (and therefore rude and disrespectful), and simply untrue.
It's a common problem regardless of the topic. No middle ground and arguing at extremes. Doesn't matter whether it is food choices or politics, life isn't black and white and it gets extremely frustrating to deal with folks who pretend it is.
14 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I would say that one of the most egregious and longstanding examples of bad faith argument I see, over and over, is the portrayal of people who say that nutrition is more complicated than one single food choice (kale over a donut) or that calories are what matter for weight loss as people who don't care about nutrition. It's unfair, shows a lack of attention to what is actually said (and therefore rude and disrespectful), and simply untrue.
It's a common problem regardless of the topic. No middle ground and arguing at extremes. Doesn't matter whether it is food choices or politics, life isn't black and white and it gets extremely frustrating to deal with folks who pretend it is.
Amen.....1 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I would say that one of the most egregious and longstanding examples of bad faith argument I see, over and over, is the portrayal of people who say that nutrition is more complicated than one single food choice (kale over a donut) or that calories are what matter for weight loss as people who don't care about nutrition. It's unfair, shows a lack of attention to what is actually said (and therefore rude and disrespectful), and simply untrue.
It's a common problem regardless of the topic. No middle ground and arguing at extremes. Doesn't matter whether it is food choices or politics, life isn't black and white and it gets extremely frustrating to deal with folks who pretend it is.
One of my favorite articles by Lyle McDonald: Excluding the Middle.
Excerpt relevant to this topic:In the clean freak’s mind, there are two binary options: you either eat clean 100% or you’re eating nothing but junk food at every meal every day. The idea that you might ‘eat clean’ (whatever those words mean to you) 80-90% of the time and include selective ‘unclean foods’ (whatever that means to you) the other 10-20% of the time is simply an inconceivable one to many.
They are excluding the middle: it’s clean 100% of the time (except when it’s not) or junk food 100% of the time, you can’t do anything in the middle. Even though you clearly can. And most do, and more probably should.8 -
When I was losing and eating 1200 calories/day, yes, I watched what I ate very closely. I wanted the most nutrition per calorie while keeping the calorie count low. Once I settled into maintenance, I was able to cut loose more. I am a fan of neither kale nor donuts so let us not go there. Like @AnvilHead I exercise a lot, therefore I have more calories to play with each day. On my big running days, I eat as much as 3000 calories. Sometimes I need fatty food like potato chips or a cheeseburger or (horrors) pizza to get there. I would have to eat low fat, low calorie food all day just to get the calories I need. Don't get me wrong, I eat plenty of nutritious, calorie dense food. I am still a believer in CICO. Yes, some calories are better for me than others.
FYI. I am a 59 year old female. I lost 70+ pounds over maybe a year and have been maintaining my weight for over two years. Except for the dam# snow, I run every day. Elliptical is my substitute. I also walk and do strength training.
@AnnPT77 and @ryenday I hope this post can help get this thread back on track. (Then again, who am I kidding?)1 -
A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The efficiency of usage of those calories differs based on the source of the calories. Different macros also have different effects on hunger (not everyone the same I think) and depending on how they effect you can effect how much you eat.16 -
OP: If a person said they weren't losing weight what would you have them do first? Would you have them ensure calorie accuracy or would you have them adjust their macros?
Some folks have fixed their calorie intake (without counting and measuring everything) by fixing their macros. They are more sated and the calories take care of themselves. I would say to watch the macros 1st (cut back on refined sugar and starch stuff) and see where that gets you. Most would lose weight. If that didn't work, then calorie counting could be employed to get there. Counting calories and measuring is only a tool to get the calories down. There are other methods also that might work just as good and not take nearly as much time or effort. I'm one of those people and I can control my calories very well by skipping breakfast, eating a low carb lunch, and then eating ad libitum in the evenings without measuring or counting any calories. I'm two lbs from my lowest weight in the last 28 months after losing 55-lbs without counting or measuring.14 -
When I was losing and eating 1200 calories/day, yes, I watched what I ate very closely. I wanted the most nutrition per calorie while keeping the calorie count low. Once I settled into maintenance, I was able to cut loose more. I am a fan of neither kale nor donuts so let us not go there. Like @AnvilHead I exercise a lot, therefore I have more calories to play with each day. On my big running days, I eat as much as 3000 calories. Sometimes I need fatty food like potato chips or a cheeseburger or (horrors) pizza to get there. I would have to eat low fat, low calorie food all day just to get the calories I need. Don't get me wrong, I eat plenty of nutritious, calorie dense food. I am still a believer in CICO. Yes, some calories are better for me than others.
FYI. I am a 59 year old female. I lost 70+ pounds over maybe a year and have been maintaining my weight for over two years. Except for the dam# snow, I run every day. Elliptical is my substitute. I also walk and do strength training.
@AnnPT77 and @ryenday I hope this post can help get this thread back on track. (Then again, who am I kidding?)
Yeah, my problem with this thread is largely the truth and Untruth I see at the same time In the title.
(Calories are not created equal) A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It is a measurement. A tablespoon is a tablespoon is a tablespoon... of course different things are different - a tablespoon of peanut butter is a very different thing than a tablespoon of water. Likewise a calorie of fat is different from a calorie of protein.
(CICO is not the whole story) This I believe. CICO is the common starting point, the bottom line, etc. But a WHOLE lot of things effect the CI and CO calculations. Every weight story starts and ends with CICO, but each individual has a different story from the next person.
That’s how I see it anyway.13 -
peckchris3267 wrote: »The best diet for rapid weight loss is the raw chicken diet. No matter how much you eat you are guaranteed to lose a lot of weight.
start a group!3 -
A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The efficiency of usage of those calories differs based on the source of the calories. Different macros also have different effects on hunger (not everyone the same I think) and depending on how they effect you can effect how much you eat.
None of which contradict his statements and essentially confirms the thesis of CICO that has been discussed. If you eat more you are more likely to be in a caloric surplus and thus gain fat.
Efficiency? What do you mean by this term? Every hypothesis of a macro advantage has been defeated. Some evidence points to a small, but rather insignificant inefficiency in conversion but there is little real affect, and this is often described in terms of net calories available, but in such cases whole grains would be among the best to eat since they have only yield around 70% of total calories in net calories available for use by the body. They are also highly satiating due to the fibre content.5 -
OP: If a person said they weren't losing weight what would you have them do first? Would you have them ensure calorie accuracy or would you have them adjust their macros?
Some folks have fixed their calorie intake (without counting and measuring everything) by fixing their macros. They are more sated and the calories take care of themselves. I would say to watch the macros 1st (cut back on refined sugar and starch stuff) and see where that gets you. Most would lose weight. If that didn't work, then calorie counting could be employed to get there. Counting calories and measuring is only a tool to get the calories down. There are other methods also that might work just as good and not take nearly as much time or effort. I'm one of those people and I can control my calories very well by skipping breakfast, eating a low carb lunch, and then eating ad libitum in the evenings without measuring or counting any calories. I'm two lbs from my lowest weight in the last 28 months after losing 55-lbs without counting or measuring.
Agreed here on much of this but not all. Many have success employing methods other than calorie counting but a lot of people have had great success by lowering fat rather than sugar. There are many ways to get to the goal including calorie counting, macro counting, portion control, low car, low fat, and so on.
I congratulate you on your success and may you continue in the future.
3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The efficiency of usage of those calories differs based on the source of the calories. Different macros also have different effects on hunger (not everyone the same I think) and depending on how they effect you can effect how much you eat.
None of which contradict his statements and essentially confirms the thesis of CICO that has been discussed. If you eat more you are more likely to be in a caloric surplus and thus gain fat.
Efficiency? What do you mean by this term? Every hypothesis of a macro advantage has been defeated. Some evidence points to a small, but rather insignificant inefficiency in conversion but there is little real affect, and this is often described in terms of net calories available, but in such cases whole grains would be among the best to eat since they have only yield around 70% of total calories in net calories available for use by the body. They are also highly satiating due to the fibre content.
Didn't say they were big effects, but they are not zero effects.5 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »OP: If a person said they weren't losing weight what would you have them do first? Would you have them ensure calorie accuracy or would you have them adjust their macros?
Some folks have fixed their calorie intake (without counting and measuring everything) by fixing their macros. They are more sated and the calories take care of themselves. I would say to watch the macros 1st (cut back on refined sugar and starch stuff) and see where that gets you. Most would lose weight. If that didn't work, then calorie counting could be employed to get there. Counting calories and measuring is only a tool to get the calories down. There are other methods also that might work just as good and not take nearly as much time or effort. I'm one of those people and I can control my calories very well by skipping breakfast, eating a low carb lunch, and then eating ad libitum in the evenings without measuring or counting any calories. I'm two lbs from my lowest weight in the last 28 months after losing 55-lbs without counting or measuring.
Agreed here on much of this but not all. Many have success employing methods other than calorie counting but a lot of people have had great success by lowering fat rather than sugar. There are many ways to get to the goal including calorie counting, macro counting, portion control, low car, low fat, and so on.
I congratulate you on your success and may you continue in the future.
Yep, more than one way to skin the cat! Thanks and best wishes to you also!1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »OP: If a person said they weren't losing weight what would you have them do first? Would you have them ensure calorie accuracy or would you have them adjust their macros?
Some folks have fixed their calorie intake (without counting and measuring everything) by fixing their macros. They are more sated and the calories take care of themselves. I would say to watch the macros 1st (cut back on refined sugar and starch stuff) and see where that gets you. Most would lose weight. If that didn't work, then calorie counting could be employed to get there. Counting calories and measuring is only a tool to get the calories down. There are other methods also that might work just as good and not take nearly as much time or effort. I'm one of those people and I can control my calories very well by skipping breakfast, eating a low carb lunch, and then eating ad libitum in the evenings without measuring or counting any calories. I'm two lbs from my lowest weight in the last 28 months after losing 55-lbs without counting or measuring.
Agreed here on much of this but not all. Many have success employing methods other than calorie counting but a lot of people have had great success by lowering fat rather than sugar. There are many ways to get to the goal including calorie counting, macro counting, portion control, low car, low fat, and so on.
I congratulate you on your success and may you continue in the future.
Yep, more than one way to skin the cat! Thanks and best wishes to you also!
Why is everyone picking on cats.
3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »OP: If a person said they weren't losing weight what would you have them do first? Would you have them ensure calorie accuracy or would you have them adjust their macros?
Some folks have fixed their calorie intake (without counting and measuring everything) by fixing their macros. They are more sated and the calories take care of themselves. I would say to watch the macros 1st (cut back on refined sugar and starch stuff) and see where that gets you. Most would lose weight. If that didn't work, then calorie counting could be employed to get there. Counting calories and measuring is only a tool to get the calories down. There are other methods also that might work just as good and not take nearly as much time or effort. I'm one of those people and I can control my calories very well by skipping breakfast, eating a low carb lunch, and then eating ad libitum in the evenings without measuring or counting any calories. I'm two lbs from my lowest weight in the last 28 months after losing 55-lbs without counting or measuring.
Agreed here on much of this but not all. Many have success employing methods other than calorie counting but a lot of people have had great success by lowering fat rather than sugar. There are many ways to get to the goal including calorie counting, macro counting, portion control, low car, low fat, and so on.
I congratulate you on your success and may you continue in the future.
Yep, more than one way to skin the cat! Thanks and best wishes to you also!
Why is everyone picking on cats.
There're tasty?
3 -
When I was losing and eating 1200 calories/day, yes, I watched what I ate very closely. I wanted the most nutrition per calorie while keeping the calorie count low. Once I settled into maintenance, I was able to cut loose more. I am a fan of neither kale nor donuts so let us not go there. Like @AnvilHead I exercise a lot, therefore I have more calories to play with each day. On my big running days, I eat as much as 3000 calories. Sometimes I need fatty food like potato chips or a cheeseburger or (horrors) pizza to get there. I would have to eat low fat, low calorie food all day just to get the calories I need. Don't get me wrong, I eat plenty of nutritious, calorie dense food. I am still a believer in CICO. Yes, some calories are better for me than others.
FYI. I am a 59 year old female. I lost 70+ pounds over maybe a year and have been maintaining my weight for over two years. Except for the dam# snow, I run every day. Elliptical is my substitute. I also walk and do strength training.
@AnnPT77 and @ryenday I hope this post can help get this thread back on track. (Then again, who am I kidding?)
Yeah, my problem with this thread is largely the truth and Untruth I see at the same time In the title.
(Calories are not created equal) A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It is a measurement. A tablespoon is a tablespoon is a tablespoon... of course different things are different - a tablespoon of peanut butter is a very different thing than a tablespoon of water. Likewise a calorie of fat is different from a calorie of protein.
(CICO is not the whole story) This I believe. CICO is the common starting point, the bottom line, etc. But a WHOLE lot of things effect the CI and CO calculations. Every weight story starts and ends with CICO, but each individual has a different story from the next person.
That’s how I see it anyway.
I get the impression you think you are arguing some kind of minority view, but I expect most would agree. I certainly see nothing controversial in that.
Yes, a calorie is a calorie.
Yes, when it comes to one's own weight loss or maintenance, CICO is just a building block, a basic thing it is helpful to understand, and something that is true. HOW we make that work for us is going to differ for different people. For me, it usually starts with being active. I know I could just cut calories and calories are what matter, but I find it much easier to eat the right number of calories when I am active, and I also tend to want to eat better (find it easier to make good food choices) when I have workout/training goals and am excited about them or just generally being energetic, moving more, being healthy in other ways. There are many other things that go into it too, this is just one of them.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »When I was losing and eating 1200 calories/day, yes, I watched what I ate very closely. I wanted the most nutrition per calorie while keeping the calorie count low. Once I settled into maintenance, I was able to cut loose more. I am a fan of neither kale nor donuts so let us not go there. Like @AnvilHead I exercise a lot, therefore I have more calories to play with each day. On my big running days, I eat as much as 3000 calories. Sometimes I need fatty food like potato chips or a cheeseburger or (horrors) pizza to get there. I would have to eat low fat, low calorie food all day just to get the calories I need. Don't get me wrong, I eat plenty of nutritious, calorie dense food. I am still a believer in CICO. Yes, some calories are better for me than others.
FYI. I am a 59 year old female. I lost 70+ pounds over maybe a year and have been maintaining my weight for over two years. Except for the dam# snow, I run every day. Elliptical is my substitute. I also walk and do strength training.
@AnnPT77 and @ryenday I hope this post can help get this thread back on track. (Then again, who am I kidding?)
Yeah, my problem with this thread is largely the truth and Untruth I see at the same time In the title.
(Calories are not created equal) A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It is a measurement. A tablespoon is a tablespoon is a tablespoon... of course different things are different - a tablespoon of peanut butter is a very different thing than a tablespoon of water. Likewise a calorie of fat is different from a calorie of protein.
(CICO is not the whole story) This I believe. CICO is the common starting point, the bottom line, etc. But a WHOLE lot of things effect the CI and CO calculations. Every weight story starts and ends with CICO, but each individual has a different story from the next person.
That’s how I see it anyway.
I get the impression you think you are arguing some kind of minority view...
Lol, no. Not arguing anything minority or majority. Lol.
3 -
Hmm, maybe I'm wrong about the chip on your shoulder I'm seeing in your posts? Part of this is based on your reaction to Ann's comment about people being here for different reasons when you called the discussions sad or something like that, and then here because you said "my problem with this thread" and then went on to say something that I think most would agree with. My impression from that is that you thought that was a position that you were going to get flack for saying or something. So I was trying to clarify that actually I think it's pretty much conventional wisdom in these parts (and also true).
So much of the disagreement (which is IMO interesting if respectfully expressed) sometimes relates to what seem to be misunderstandings. Here, if you (or anyone else) are assuming that in saying CICO is what matters that others are claiming strategies to get there are not also important for individuals, well, I think you are mistaken. I actually think that's pretty clear from much of the discussion.
I hate it when people claim their own strategy for getting to the CICO they want is right for all (i.e., everyone should be low carb, because carbs are the problem!), but most of the time people on MFP for more than a minute seem to get this and realize that there's a distinction between CICO (how weight loss works, period) and strategies to get there (which are often individual).
My own strategy is activity and not snacking, cooking largely from whole foods, eating a whole lot of veg (volume eating, maybe), focusing on food being enjoyable and eating a nutritious diet, avoiding mindless and emotional eating. I don't think those combinations of strategies are what all should do, and I totally see why things others do that I don't may work for them (IF, keto, lots of mini-meals, 50% protein, 80-10-10, other macro things, eating 50%+ of calories past 6 pm, doing DASH, whatever).
Sorry if this is all tedious and more than you are interested in, but with the LOLing I'm never sure if my point was understandable, and I have this weird desire to at least TRY to communicate effectively.10
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