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.

Options
1234689

Replies

  • mk2fit
    mk2fit Posts: 730 Member
    Options
    Ha. CICO worked for me. I lost over 70# without paying attention to micros/macros. BUT. I do think protein is great for building muscle and carbs are great for feeding the beast.
    That being said, I also believe a calorie is a calorie.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    AnvilHead 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.

    This makes total sense to me, especially the satisfaction bit. And I think that people trying to get to a diet on which they can sustain for a lifetime need to take that part seriously. I know that when I get in a frame of mind (and I have) where I think "must not eat donut, must eat more kale to have a perfect day," it generally did not lead anywhere good longer term for a health perspective.

    Even now, when I am (for my own reasons) avoiding most dessert type foods and participating in a eat 10+ servings of veg and fruit a day challenge (which is fun and basically how I normally eat anyway), I would NEVER think that prioritizing nutrition and calories (low) over satisfaction is the right way to eat. I know I won't sistain how I am eating if I think of it as purely for nutrition, so I experiment with cooking different cuisines, add spices and herbs and -- gasp! -- oil and salt purely for taste. When I was eating more meat I would almost always choose skin on, bone in chicken over boneless skinless breast (unless I had a specific plan with OTHER ingredients the breast would work well with). I'd add in cheese (for taste) and higher cal options like pulled pork sometimes, so on.

    I really think the idea that kale is always better than something more indulgent is wrong, if we are talking holistically, looking at the broad perspective as you so beautifully illustrated. (And I quite like kale, prepared properly.)

    Also, getting neurotic about eating kale instead of ever having a donut is going to not do nearly so much for health as getting a broadly healthful diet (with some indulgences if you like), eating calorically appropriate, exercising, and not getting overly stressed about nothing (if you can manage to avoid it). Also a bunch of other things, of course.

    I really am frustrated that people don't seem to be engaging, so I will note that I would LOVE it if NorthCascades or someone else who found dismissable or stupid the idea that context would ever dictate something other than the kale would actually respond to your post and explain why they disagree (if they do). Because I found it pretty darned convincing, and if there is another side I'd like to understand and am not just pretending not to get it.
  • ryenday
    ryenday Posts: 1,540 Member
    Options
    Keep your Kale and Donuts! I want ALL the cantaloupe! Lol.

    But honestly I’m a bit different here. I have given up bread, pasta, most processed foods like crackers and cookies, etc. I don’t demonize them, but I don’t have enough calories to spend on calorie dense foods which most of these are. I find it easier to give these up than try to to do the advanced calculus necessary to fit them into my calorie allotment. (Ok, that is an exaggeration- but with a maintenance number of 1450 cal it is not simple to fit those items with next to no nutritional value but high caloric value into my day. ). If I could eat 2000 to 2500 calories a day without gaining weight I would happily fit some of those (especially crackers!) back into my diet. But 1450 is my maintenance (not nweight loss) number, and I think I’m better off getting used to not having those foods if I want to stay a healthy weight.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    Options
    ryenday wrote: »
    Keep your Kale and Donuts! I want ALL the cantaloupe! Lol.

    But honestly I’m a bit different here. I have given up bread, pasta, most processed foods like crackers and cookies, etc. I don’t demonize them, but I don’t have enough calories to spend on calorie dense foods which most of these are. I find it easier to give these up than try to to do the advanced calculus necessary to fit them into my calorie allotment. (Ok, that is an exaggeration- but with a maintenance number of 1450 cal it is not simple to fit those items with next to no nutritional value but high caloric value into my day. ). If I could eat 2000 to 2500 calories a day without gaining weight I would happily fit some of those (especially crackers!) back into my diet. But 1450 is my maintenance (not nweight loss) number, and I think I’m better off getting used to not having those foods if I want to stay a healthy weight.

    Ugh, cantaloupe used to be one of my favourite fruits but you can't seem to find it fresh anymore and it tastes like cardboard now.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    ryenday wrote: »
    Keep your Kale and Donuts! I want ALL the cantaloupe! Lol.

    But honestly I’m a bit different here. I have given up bread, pasta, most processed foods like crackers and cookies, etc. I don’t demonize them, but I don’t have enough calories to spend on calorie dense foods which most of these are. I find it easier to give these up than try to to do the advanced calculus necessary to fit them into my calorie allotment. (Ok, that is an exaggeration- but with a maintenance number of 1450 cal it is not simple to fit those items with next to no nutritional value but high caloric value into my day. ). If I could eat 2000 to 2500 calories a day without gaining weight I would happily fit some of those (especially crackers!) back into my diet. But 1450 is my maintenance (not nweight loss) number, and I think I’m better off getting used to not having those foods if I want to stay a healthy weight.

    I'm talking about finding what's most sustainable, especially longterm. Clearly at 1200 cal, you will be making sacrifices, but I don't think that means giving up on a satisfying diet.

    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).

    It's also worth noting that what people consider good choices will vary. For example, you said you cut out bread and pasta. I personally am in a phase where I'm actively trying to eat at least 2 servings of whole grains a day, in part just to see how that affects me, and because I think the evidence is that for many whole grains can be a positive addition (I don't care much about grains, especially bread, so for a long time ate little bread, although I did have occasional pasta -- and I find it can be the base for a super nutrient dense meal, just as the bread I had with a super packed with veg soup actually made me feel more satisfied and less like I wanted something else after dinner). So it can depend on the person and the goals. But I'd say all of us do well paying some attention to what feels satisfying -- whatever that may be -- and working that in as it makes sense. NOT just saying that all that matters is picking the most objectively nutrient-dense food (especially as you have to have some variety anyway to have a good diet overall, and I'd obviously agree that donuts fit in the "if it helps you feel happy and satisfied overall," as occasional good restaurant meals do for me, and not in the "needs this for a balanced diet" category). Anyway, I thought that was AnvilHead's point.

    When I (briefly) ate 1250, I actually made a huge effort to fit in small amounts of more indulgent ingredients that made my meals feel satisfying, delicious, and normal, not diety. That included (as mentioned above) a bit of feta cheese in an omelet, still cooking with a little olive oil (not a whole lot), some occasional dark chocolate, chicken roasted with skin on, bone in, a huge variety of meats and vegetable preparations (when people say they eat only chicken breast and plain veg I can't imagine it, and don't think it's necessary, but if they like it, that's cool).

    Also, when I first ran the numbers and got 1200, I thought something must be wrong and checked every calculator until I realized it was probably right -- at 5'3, 120 (my goal), maintenance would likely be 1550 when sedentary. But then I realized I wasn't really sedentary and did not have to me, and made it my goal to walk enough daily to get normal maintenance to 1800 pre exercise and, of course, to make things like running and biking hobbies. So it's certainly not true that being smaller or older dooms one to a tiny maintenance. Of course, I actually had fewer issues with feeling deprived when I was regularly eating 1500 and losing than now (or even at first when I did 1250 and had no issues, although I think increasing my TDEE and calories made losing over a period of a year easier than it would have been). That's one reason why I think it's important to have a diet that is enjoyable and satisfying when you don't have that exciting "I'm losing weight" thing to pull you through. Or at least that has been my experience.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited January 2018
    Options
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    ryenday wrote: »
    Keep your Kale and Donuts! I want ALL the cantaloupe! Lol.

    But honestly I’m a bit different here. I have given up bread, pasta, most processed foods like crackers and cookies, etc. I don’t demonize them, but I don’t have enough calories to spend on calorie dense foods which most of these are. I find it easier to give these up than try to to do the advanced calculus necessary to fit them into my calorie allotment. (Ok, that is an exaggeration- but with a maintenance number of 1450 cal it is not simple to fit those items with next to no nutritional value but high caloric value into my day. ). If I could eat 2000 to 2500 calories a day without gaining weight I would happily fit some of those (especially crackers!) back into my diet. But 1450 is my maintenance (not nweight loss) number, and I think I’m better off getting used to not having those foods if I want to stay a healthy weight.

    Ugh, cantaloupe used to be one of my favourite fruits but you can't seem to find it fresh anymore and it tastes like cardboard now.

    I adore cantaloupe when I buy it fresh and locally grown (same basic thing) in the summer. In the winter it's in every pre made fruit salad that you get at a lunch meeting or the like and it has no flavor. Never even crosses my mind to buy it. But it's beautiful and delicious and pretty low cal (IMO) for that pleasure in the summer!

Categories