Does it matter what foods make up my daily calorie intake?
Replies
-
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.
(1) You have no idea what the woo voters were thinking.
(2) What GottaBurnEm said. Specifically:
(a) it's NOT reasonable to claim that starches (like potatoes and grains) are "simple" carbs, that demonstrates a lack of understanding of what simple carb means.
(b) it's NOT reasonable to claim that someone who eats specific foods will be hungrier. Like GottaBurnEm, potatoes always make me less, not more hungry.
(c) it's NOT reasonable to ignore the premise of the question, which was that calories would be the same on whatever diet was chosen. Nor is it reasonable to suggest that if one eats white rice, pasta, or potatoes that one will necessarily overeat, as that's obviously not true.
If you disagree, I'd LOVE to hear why these claims are reasonable.7 -
There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.5 -
Strictly speaking, it shouldn't affect weight loss, as long as you stick to your calorie goals. However, it could affect body composition, if you aren't getting enough nutrition to support muscle growth and repair. Also, high levels of sodium might contribute to bloating and weight fluctuations.
I think it's much harder to stick with your calorie goals if you aren't getting adequate nutrition. Your body has had enough calories, but not enough nutrients, so there is a physiological drive to keep eating. That said, too austere of a diet can make you feel deprived. I recommend an overall balanced diet with regular treats.
3 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Well it is interesting that the MFP low-carb group has 46,000 members. The low-fat group? Is there a low-fat group?
Maybe those of us who are satiated by carbs don't need a group. We just eat what we like and what keeps us energized and hit our calorie goal. We don't eat "low fat" on purpose. I eat moderate everything. Sometimes my fat comes in a little low, sometimes a little high. Really doesn't affect me either way.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
^This.
And to further to address the PP, the vast majority of forum posters don't belong to groups, and the vast majority of forum posters simply eat balanced macros.
I happen to eat low fat since I have familial hypercholesterolemia, but most MFP'ers who aren't low-carbing get more fat than I do. I also am not satiated by fat and don't particularly feel that I want to spend calories on it.
Furthermore, what is this, a popularity contest now? This isn't about fads or popularity, for goodness sake. We don't need groups or support to just eat what we like and control our calories. Weight loss is a complicated process and people approach it from all sorts of perspectives. The single perspective that I find most mystifying is that of finding a certain way of eating to be a belief system that everyone else needs to share or it upsets the belief holders world view.3 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Well it is interesting that the MFP low-carb group has 46,000 members. The low-fat group? Is there a low-fat group?
Why does not low carb = low fat? I'm not low carb. I'm not low fat either. I'm normal everything. I find protein, fat and starchy carbs in combination the most satisfying and i am most compliant with my deficit when I make sure most of my meals contain all three of those things.
I must be lying though right because I don't got me a special group to play in.9 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Unless you really think that their culture of fat shaming is the sole reason they aren't obese. If you really think that, I'm just going to walk away shaking my head.6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.1 -
Re macros and obesity, on average increased obesity in developing countries goes along with increased protein and fat. Is that because protein and fat make you fat? No, it's because they are moving from a subsistence diet to one that might, in some ways, be healthier, but also has unhealthy aspects and goes along with diseases of surplus.
Anyone who claims that a particular macro breakdown can't be satiating or leads to obesity, inherently, isn't looking at the evidence of human diets (which are extremely diverse, and obesity is not attached to any particular mix, nor is health).
There are particular issues with diets that can be unhealthy, obviously, but other than being so low on fat and protein as to suggest one may be generally nutrient deficient or struggling on a low cal or mononutrient diet, in large part, macros is the wrong place to look.
Among other things, there are huge differences in sources of all three macros.
Someone who insists that a particular macro or foods that have long been the staple food of most human diets (essentially, starch) cannot be filling or healthy and will necessarily lead to obesity seems to me to be uneducated on nutrition and perhaps to be too much buying into some low carb hooey.
That's not a slam on low carbing, which I often do and quite enjoy. It's a slam on the idea that CARBS are unhealthy or eating carbs will make everyone hungry and fat.3 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.2 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.
Never claimed low-fat is great for everyone and low-fat is bad for everyone. It just seems to me that there are more successes with a higher-fat, lower carb diet than the other way around.
You seem to be relying on anecdotal evidence from sources that are promoting that conclusion.
This is interesting: https://deniseminger.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/
Also, again, look at traditional diets. Healthy diets are all over the place with macros, but if you focus on blue zones you see some commonalities like not a lot of sat fat/animal products (but not none), a good amount of veg, high fiber.4 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.
Never claimed low-fat is great for everyone and low-fat is bad for everyone. It just seems to me that there are more successes with a higher-fat, lower carb diet than the other way around.
Evidence for this other than your feels?7 -
Long term probably as many as can do keto.
Which means some.7 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.
Never claimed low-fat is great for everyone and low-fat is bad for everyone. It just seems to me that there are more successes with a higher-fat, lower carb diet than the other way around.
And it seems that way to you based on what? Your own N=1 experience/ bias. If you believe this is true, there must be nutritional studies that prove it, no? Feel free to show a peer reviewed study of a good number of subjects where calories and protein were held constant and high fat/ low carb diet demonstrated any metabolic advantage over any other dietary method.6 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.
Never claimed low-fat is great for everyone and low-fat is bad for everyone. It just seems to me that there are more successes with a higher-fat, lower carb diet than the other way around.
Evidence for this other than your feels?
PubMed. And besides PubMed, I like to listen to dozens or hundreds doctors and nutritionists who know what they are talking about (and not selling anything).
Actually, a very low-fat plant-based/vegan diet will also do the trick. But how many people can do a plant-based/vegan diet?
I've been an ovo-lacto vegetarian for over 25 years. These days, generally high-carb and lower (not 'very low') fat. I focus on hitting protein and iron, let the rest fall where it falls and that's pretty much where it falls. Down 83 lbs as of today. But please continue to tell me how this isn't successful.8 -
Like others, I would be interested in OPs motivation for posting this in the first place. Was it merely a hypothetical to provoke discussion? Or are you considering filling your 1800 calorie days with nothing but "junk" food? And what does that mean to you OP? What would your ideal 1800 calorie day look like?1
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Unless you really think that their culture of fat shaming is the sole reason they aren't obese. If you really think that, I'm just going to walk away shaking my head.
The Japanese have the same fast-food restaurants and high-calorie packaged junk food offerings that we have, yet the remain just about the thinnest country on the planet. Meanwhile, obesity and T2 diabetes are soaring in China.
WHY?
More non sequiturs from you.
When I was growing up in the 60's, we had fast food restaurants and packaged convenience foods too.
The population was much thinner then.
The answer to your question is that people avail themselves of these things as occasional indulgences rather than regular parts of their daily diets.
This isn't rocket science.
Energy balance is still king.3 -
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.
Pssst....apple fritter is closer to 410
3 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.
Never claimed low-fat is great for everyone and low-fat is bad for everyone. It just seems to me that there are more successes with a higher-fat, lower carb diet than the other way around.
Evidence for this other than your feels?
PubMed. And besides PubMed, I like to listen to dozens or hundreds doctors and nutritionists who know what they are talking about (and not selling anything).
Actually, a very low-fat plant-based/vegan diet will also do the trick. But how many people can do a plant-based/vegan diet?
Say what? You did a research review of every study in Pub Med and came to this conclusion?
I doubt it.
Sarcasm aside, people who know what they're doing (the ones with actual research backgrounds), without bias involved know the following things
1. Protein is the most satiating macro
2. Dietary satisfaction is the most important key to dietary compliance
3. Dietary compliance is the most important key to dietary success
4. When protein and calories are equated, people do just as well on low carb as they do on high carb
5. Bottom line? The BEST diet for any individual is the one they can stick to
So you can keep trying to find some way to assert superiority in some objective sense for something that's merely your personal preference. We've all been down this route before, you're not the first person following low carb who's been passionate about it to come to these boards trying to argue this.
You're as wrong as everyone else was.
You do you, and keep doing what works for you. I'm glad you found something you enjoy. Guess what? You don't need the rest of us to convert to doing things your way to validate it as being right for you. You can just go ahead and keep doing it. Let us keep doing what's working for us.15 -
It matters in how it affects your satiety. But no, it doesn't matter in terms of weight loss. I know this because most days I eat alot of sweets- donuts, ice cream, ect. I still lose as long as I'm in deficit. You could eat an entire box of cereal and still lose, but will you feel good or satiated for long? That's the problem..1
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