Does it matter what foods make up my daily calorie intake?
Replies
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I never see anyone advocating for it, but I sure see a lot of people asking if they *can* eat their calorie allotment in junk food and lose weight. What I'm not always sure of is if they are asking for arguments sake, hypothetically, or because they want to know if *they* can.Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »All good advice. And not one reply that didn't answer the question with a "yes", but then go on to talk about nutrition as well.
still waiting for that mystery person that advocates a diet of 100% junk, I see...:)
Ayup!
People get confused when they start out and are trying to come to terms with not having to eat "diet" or "rabbit" food 100% of the time. Yes, they ask the question in kinda the wrong way, but the gist is "you mean I can have Ice Cream?" What gets me is those who are trying to promote a "Clean" or "healthy" way of eating always seem to bring up the phantom poster that says it's only calories that matter. That poster doesn't exist, as evidenced (in part) by this thread and the answers given.
I really doubt the OP is going to eat 1800 cals of junk. But they are trying to understand the weight loss process and think it is harder than it needs to be.
I agree, granted, the OP asked if they could eat their 1800 in junk food, and asked for advice, and they got GREAT advice. Which is what's so great about MFP.0 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »It does matter because some food will provide you with more satiety than other food. Find the foods that you enjoy and fill you up. It will make your life a lot easier.
Everyone is different. If I eat a 350-calorie donut I might as well have eaten nothing. But a 250-calorie omelet stuffed with all sorts of stuff (the eggs contain 150 calories) keeps me full for a long time.
A 350 cal donut (I'm looking at you apple fritter) would totally fill me up. So you see, it's all individual.2 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I never see anyone advocating for it, but I sure see a lot of people asking if they *can* eat their calorie allotment in junk food and lose weight. What I'm not always sure of is if they are asking for arguments sake, hypothetically, or because they want to know if *they* can.Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »All good advice. And not one reply that didn't answer the question with a "yes", but then go on to talk about nutrition as well.
still waiting for that mystery person that advocates a diet of 100% junk, I see...:)
Ayup!
My personal theory is that about half are argument's sake/curiosity/that can't be.
The other half (which tend to be phrased a bit differently) are about whether they can eat *some* junk food without it screwing them up, or whether their diet can be less than perfect which depending on the person could be not that bad at all (I think the usual OP who falls in this category tends to fear that they will be judged as having a bad diet for any imperfection.)
But who knows.1 -
I also think, as Tacklewasher suggested, that a lot of the "do I have to eat only healthy foods" threads are from an OP with a messed up idea (based on stereotypical diet food) of what's healthy. That's actually one reason I don't really like to encourage that dichotomy, as so many people think "healthy" means "diet" or "low fat" or really bland and utilitarian or only juice ;-) or all sorts of weird things.
I think it's super great if people want to improve their diets and focusing on nutrition has always helped me and also helped me years ago learn that I really love the foods I eat when eating a healthful diet and they need not be bland and utilitarian and some things added just for pleasure (like olive oil) can be healthy too. But I do think that being really worried that if you eat a "bad food" it will screw things up is not helpful. (And I say this as someone who just doesn't ever eat lots of junk foods or fast food, etc., but if for some reason I wanted or needed to on a particular day I wouldn't freak, because I understand it's context, dosage, overall diet, just food, etc.)0 -
No - Doesn't matter in the short term but in the long term you need to be healthy for long term. Vegs. Fruits. Vitamins. Limit crap/junk food that will affect you blood pressure, heart, etc...1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I never see anyone advocating for it, but I sure see a lot of people asking if they *can* eat their calorie allotment in junk food and lose weight. What I'm not always sure of is if they are asking for arguments sake, hypothetically, or because they want to know if *they* can.Tacklewasher wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »All good advice. And not one reply that didn't answer the question with a "yes", but then go on to talk about nutrition as well.
still waiting for that mystery person that advocates a diet of 100% junk, I see...:)
Ayup!
My personal theory is that about half are argument's sake/curiosity/that can't be.
The other half (which tend to be phrased a bit differently) are about whether they can eat *some* junk food without it screwing them up, or whether their diet can be less than perfect which depending on the person could be not that bad at all (I think the usual OP who falls in this category tends to fear that they will be judged as having a bad diet for any imperfection.)
But who knows.
I get that. and it makes sense. I guess I also think about the thousands of folks, members here or not, likely not, who casually google "does it matter how I fill my calories, can I still lose weight" or the like, and get *that* post.
So when folks remind whomever (as you eloquently did) that quality matters for health, I feel like it all works out in the end.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I also think, as Tacklewasher suggested, that a lot of the "do I have to eat only healthy foods" threads are from an OP with a messed up idea (based on stereotypical diet food) of what's healthy. That's actually one reason I don't really like to encourage that dichotomy, as so many people think "healthy" means "diet" or "low fat" or really bland and utilitarian or only juice ;-) or all sorts of weird things.
I think it's super great if people want to improve their diets and focusing on nutrition has always helped me and also helped me years ago learn that I really love the foods I eat when eating a healthful diet and they need not be bland and utilitarian and some things added just for pleasure (like olive oil) can be healthy too. But I do think that being really worried that if you eat a "bad food" it will screw things up is not helpful. (And I say this as someone who just doesn't ever eat lots of junk foods or fast food, etc., but if for some reason I wanted or needed to on a particular day I wouldn't freak, because I understand it's context, dosage, overall diet, just food, etc.)
Agreed, and as we've discussed, I'm from the "can I eat all day all the time crap under X calories" background, so I usually go there first. I **literally**, I'm not kidding or exaggerating, went through a phase in my 20s where I rationalized NOT eating fruits or vegetables BECAUSE they bought me more calories for crap.
So in my "nutrient dense 21st century, I can still look back and see my "eat all the crap, and save calories for the crap" me from the 20th century. Which leads me to be more cautious in these threads (as you know).2 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »All good advice. And not one reply that didn't answer the question with a "yes", but then go on to talk about nutrition as well.
still waiting for that mystery person that advocates a diet of 100% junk, I see...:)
OP - yes you can eat 1800 calories of candy, cookies, ice cream, and lose weight. However, you will probably not be satiated and your body composition will suffer. I would suggest eating the foods you like but also adding in vegetables, fruits etc, so that you get adequate nutrition.
I'm waiting for an actual definition of what foods are "junk" and what foods are "clean".2 -
For me it didn't matter. As long as my calories were met. However I was also looking at macros too to balance out my meals.0
-
Not really but take it this way my kids have a biscuit 4by2 inches with 502 calories and it's just 4 piece consuming that would no satisfy my hunger I could use that 502 calories on grilled chicken and salad which will be bigger in size plus added nutritional benefits3
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »All good advice. And not one reply that didn't answer the question with a "yes", but then go on to talk about nutrition as well.
still waiting for that mystery person that advocates a diet of 100% junk, I see...:)
OP - yes you can eat 1800 calories of candy, cookies, ice cream, and lose weight. However, you will probably not be satiated and your body composition will suffer. I would suggest eating the foods you like but also adding in vegetables, fruits etc, so that you get adequate nutrition.
I'm waiting for an actual definition of what foods are "junk" and what foods are "clean".
Here you go -
Junk Food: Anything that doesn't fit into my way of eating
Clean Food: Anything that's a part of my food plan6 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »It does matter because some food will provide you with more satiety than other food. Find the foods that you enjoy and fill you up. It will make your life a lot easier.
Everyone is different. If I eat a 350-calorie donut I might as well have eaten nothing. But a 250-calorie omelet stuffed with all sorts of stuff (the eggs contain 150 calories) keeps me full for a long time.
A 350 cal donut (I'm looking at you apple fritter) would totally fill me up. So you see, it's all individual.
Oh yeah, once a month I treat myself to a Bavarian creme doughnut and black coffee from the Mennonite market for breakfast. And I don't even think about eating until dinner. Granted its prob more like 500 cals but still. Mmmm
0 -
I am going to differ from the majority (where the answer appears to be 'no') and say that it does. Now, that is not a clear cut 'yes'. Here is what I mean!
First and foremost, calories in | calories out will be the most important 'counter' for your success (whatever it might be....cut, maintain, bulk). So, be within 5% ever day of your caloric in-take goal and you stand a really good chance of being successful.
So, for easy math, if your caloric intake goal is 2,000 calories a day, if you are within 100 calories - either way - then you are essentially good. Remember, this is really more a weekly thing....well, at least how I do things. So, if you are 100 calories over today then maybe you can balance that out with a 100 calories under tomorrow.
So, first and foremost - calories.
Secondly, macro-nutrient and micro-nutrients. Be within 10% of your target goals for each. Now, mostly talking macro-nutrients here. So, your protein, carbs, fats (and please do not forget about fiber). Well, that is assuming that you have some macro numbers.
Can you eat at McDonalds everyday - as long as you get the calories right? Sure! Can you eat pop tarts all day long as long as you get the calories right? Sure! Absolutely. Will you loose weight (assuming that you are eating that stuff in a caloric deficit)? Sure will.
Is that optimal? No - not likely. But, if all you care about is loosing weight, can you do it? Yes, you can.
I do things according to a very flexible flexible diet kinda way. So, there is a structured flexibility in how I do things. I do not shy away from wings and beer, if that is what I want to eat that night. I try not to deny myself all of the fun foods so that my chances of adherence are pretty dang good. As long as the wings and beer are properly budgeted for that day.....no worries. Shoot, even if that just happens (get a text from my favorite Hooters girl and go see her) then I am okay. I just make sure that I maintain self control with this. And, self-control might mean one thing to me (like having a 'planned' night of wings and beer a week and allowing for one 'unplanned' night of wings and beer a month) and something entirely different to you.
How dedicated or hard-core or lax do you want to be? What fits your life-style?3 -
Yes. Hence why I am able to eat 150 calories of ice cream every night and lose 46lbs.3
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »All good advice. And not one reply that didn't answer the question with a "yes", but then go on to talk about nutrition as well.
still waiting for that mystery person that advocates a diet of 100% junk, I see...:)
OP - yes you can eat 1800 calories of candy, cookies, ice cream, and lose weight. However, you will probably not be satiated and your body composition will suffer. I would suggest eating the foods you like but also adding in vegetables, fruits etc, so that you get adequate nutrition.
I'm waiting for an actual definition of what foods are "junk" and what foods are "clean".
Here you go -
Junk Food: Anything that doesn't fit into my way of eating
Clean Food: Anything that's a part of my food plan
I'll have to add this one to my list of clean eating definitions (assuming you're serious). It's not one I've come across before.2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »All good advice. And not one reply that didn't answer the question with a "yes", but then go on to talk about nutrition as well.
still waiting for that mystery person that advocates a diet of 100% junk, I see...:)
OP - yes you can eat 1800 calories of candy, cookies, ice cream, and lose weight. However, you will probably not be satiated and your body composition will suffer. I would suggest eating the foods you like but also adding in vegetables, fruits etc, so that you get adequate nutrition.
I'm waiting for an actual definition of what foods are "junk" and what foods are "clean".
Here you go -
Junk Food: Anything that doesn't fit into my way of eating
Clean Food: Anything that's a part of my food plan
I'll have to add this one to my list of clean eating definitions (assuming you're serious). It's not one I've come across before.
I'm serious in that when I see the junk food vs. clean food wars raging, a lot of the definitions seem to align with the poster's preferred way of eating. I mean there's general consensus that twinkies are junk food and kale from the farmer's market is clean, but after that it's up for grabs.1 -
Well, you could have a single plate piled up with 1800 calories (like Poutine) and eat nothing else all day. You will still lose weight.
I'm betting it will be hard to stick to.
When you log your foods you will quickly find out which meals suck up all your calories for a day and which don't.
I suggest that newbies just get used to logging their meals just the way they are used to eating to start.
You will quickly discover which foods are calorie bombs.2 -
CWShultz27105 wrote: »I am going to differ from the majority (where the answer appears to be 'no') and say that it does.
Reading your whole answer, I'm not really sure why you think it differs from the majority of answers given.
But whatever, I guess.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CWShultz27105 wrote: »I am going to differ from the majority (where the answer appears to be 'no') and say that it does.
Reading your whole answer, I'm not really sure why you think it differs from the majority of answers given.
But whatever, I guess.
My thought exactly.0 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.
What you said is totally reasonable. And you get a bunch of "woo" votes for saying something totally reasonable.
The "woo" voters are saying, with 100% confidence, that the word satiety doesn't matter. It matters a lot. In fact, it is probably the most important factor when it comes to weight loss if you are counting calories and have greatly reduced the amount of food you were eating prior to counting.
FTR, some of the things he listed as simple carbohydrates are complex carbohydrates. Sugar is a simple carb. The starches (potatoes, white flour, and white rice) are complex carbs.
Some people, and I'm one of them, are quite satiated by starches. There are quite a few of us who post on these forums who find the combination of starch and protein very satiating and don't find fat satiating in the least. There's no rise and plummet and hunger spike for us, just lasting satiety and easy compliance with our deficit.
Why does what he said get woo votes? Because satiety is individual, and making statements about it that are meant to apply in a universal sense is woo. There's no one size fits all formula that's true.
So no, what he said isn't totally reasonable, it's just what low-carb gurus tell everyone.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions