Calories are NOT the enemy!
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »
So again, I and others have asked you in several threads today, what is your recommendation then for people who want to lose weight. In some posts you have said that you agree that CI<CO will result in weight loss, but you've challenged the long term sustainability of counting calories. Any time the twinkie diet is mentioned, you vehemently proclaim that it is a hoax and reference posters on this site who claim to be on a calorie deficit and not losing. I'm not sure what those two things have to do with each other, but what would your advice to those people be?
He also believes recomp pictures are a hoax. I don't believe he's arguing anything in good faith and is ignoring questions and articles in favor of looking for a loose thread he can pull that will stir up reactions.
ETA: I had my facts wrong. It wasn't Staci: powerlifter hero being used as a recomp example but Kelsey Wells of mysweatlife.6 -
diannethegeek wrote: »
He also believes Staci of the New Powerlifting Hero article is a hoax. I don't believe he's arguing anything in good faith and is ignoring questions and articles in favor of looking for a loose thread he can pull that will stir up reactions.
Wait, you mean, like someone who is intentionally derailing a thread, flamebaiting, or trolling if you will? I can't possibly believe that is the case!4 -
Haub wasn't losing at a faster than expected rate. His goal was to eat LESS THAN 1800 calories.
He did.
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2010/11/16/the-twinkie-diet/2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »
He also believes Staci of the New Powerlifting Hero article is a hoax. I don't believe he's arguing anything in good faith and is ignoring questions and articles in favor of looking for a loose thread he can pull that will stir up reactions.
What is supposed to be fake about Staci?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »
Thanks for the post. It completely debunked the notion that he was on anything that approached a Twinkie Diet.
"Overall, it looks like an interesting experiment, and it’s certainly generated a lot of media buzz. It’s just too bad the buzzing media reporters aren’t taking a little closer look at the professor’s online food log. There’s certainly junk food in this diet, but it is not (as one headline described it) a Junk Food Binge. When you consume fewer than 1500 calories and 175 carbohydrates on an average day, it’s not any kind of binge."
October 29
Hostess cupcake
Coffee
Sesame chicken
Teriyaki chicken
Egg roll
Chicken nachos
Broccoli
Lemon zingers
Kit Kat
Yeah, heaven forbid you take any personal accountability for your mistaken assumptions based on incomplete information.8 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »
Thanks for the post. It completely debunked the notion that he was on anything that approached a Twinkie Diet.
"Overall, it looks like an interesting experiment, and it’s certainly generated a lot of media buzz. It’s just too bad the buzzing media reporters aren’t taking a little closer look at the professor’s online food log. There’s certainly junk food in this diet, but it is not (as one headline described it) a Junk Food Binge. When you consume fewer than 1500 calories and 175 carbohydrates on an average day, it’s not any kind of binge."
October 29
Hostess cupcake
Coffee
Sesame chicken
Teriyaki chicken
Egg roll
Chicken nachos
Broccoli
Lemon zingers
Kit Kat
It debunked nothing.
Are you familiar with the concept of nicknames?10 -
I'd like to point out that this side journey into "he wasn't on the Twinkie diet" moved the goalposts from the point of Haub's endeavor.
The point initially was that calories were what mattered in the execution of a calorie deficit to achieve weight loss. Food choice isn't important for weight loss itself, though it has other impacts (which are important, but I'm not posting about those right now). The subsequent weight loss improved Haub's health markers as well.
From the reading I did, it seems that only people on the web who vociferously are anti-Haub are those who are either low carb zealots (but insulin! but sugar!) and those who think that the calories don't matter.
None of these people have apparently ever read a metabolic ward study, I guess.8 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »
So you eat chicken and broccoli and called it a Twinkie diet.
Why didn't he call it a chicken and broccoli diet?
Your goalpost moving is tiring. My fifteen year old wouldn't play this game. It's obvious you're just trolling at this point.
Speaking of points, would you care to get back to the point that the guy lost weight and improved his health markers eating a less than optimal diet?8 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »The name of his diet was totally misleading. That's all.
So's the "Military Diet".
Care to stop dodging @GottaBurnEmAll 's point?7 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »
The Military Diet can mean anything. What does it mean?
I'm not dodging anything. The only point I am making is you can't call something a Twinkie Diet when it's not close to being a Twinkie Diet. The only possible reason for calling it a Twinkie Diet was to help his patron, the Coca Cola company.
It's like claiming you lost weight on a vegan diet, except you ate lamb chops on October 5th, and Eggs Benedict on October 8th.
Dodging the point again, and bringing up another straw man that was demolished up thread.
Coca Cola is not his "patron".
That's a lie perpetrated by dubious sources on the web. Learn to vet them.
It's obvious you read nothing about his purpose in doing the diet.8 -
So's the "Military Diet".
You mean they don't eat exclusively militaries?!???!Care to stop dodging @GottaBurnEmAll 's point?
Yeah, that.
And also @WinoGelato's, to wit:what is your recommendation then for people who want to lose weight.
7 -
Thank god the Rosemary Conley diet doesn't involve eating Rosemary Conley.
<< Shudder >>9 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »
OK. I give up. You can call a diet a Twinkie Diet when it's a diet that is not extreme at all. Why not?
I'm on keto diet. Tomorrow I'm eating a bagel for breakfast.
Did you actually, seriously, believe that he ate nothing but twinkies?
Also, yeah, you can have a bagel for breakfast if you are keto.8 -
double post0
-
This content has been removed.
-
You mean they don't eat exclusively militaries?!???!
I know! Shocking, ain't it?1 -
Has anybody ever had a pumpkin spice donut...that sounds awesome4
-
Your hypothetically comment is ridiculous. I'm trying to make the point that added sugar is not good for you and it's a fact that too much sugar can cause weight gain. So mfp tells me on a 1800 calorie a day diet that I should only eat 100 grams MAXIMUM of sugar a day. So if I don't exercise or workout at all, eat only say 1500 calories a day but ingest 400 grams of sugar in my diet every day staying under my calories, I won't gain weight? I can't wait to go tell my two daughter's to drink all the pepsi, sunnyd and apple juice as much as they want because sugar won't make them fat. (lol) You should try googling and doing your research about sugar because it will make you gain weight if you have too much.
I lost a ton of weight without ever paying one bit of attention to how much sugar I was consuming. I did however pay attention to my calories. Sugar does not make you fat.5 -
I lost a ton of weight without ever paying one bit of attention to how much sugar I was consuming. I did however pay attention to my calories. Sugar does not make you fat.
I was curious so I checked my reports - sure enough, over the past 90 days there have only been a handful of days where I ate less than 60g of sugar. (I don't even track it, replaced it with fibre in my diary.) I presume that my level of sugar consumption has been pretty much the same throughout my journey, so yeah - I'm gonna say that calories are what was most important to losing 66lbs.
@oilphins I do have to applaud you, though, on your willingness to examine the evidence and change your point of view, especially considering how firmly you held to it at the start! Too many people are not prepared to do that, so I admire you for it.
3 -
Goal posts moved. Point deflected. Again.
The whole thing started because @BrianSharpe wondered about good and bad calories and the Twinkie diet and how Haub even lost weight on it.
To deflect from the fact that the foods that supply the calorie quality don't matter when it comes to weight loss, Ericnutrition has been setting up smoke screen after smoke screen.
So, I'd like to get back to the real point.
No, for weight loss, it doesn't matter. There are no "good" or "bad" calories. A calorie IS a calorie.
Now, for nutrition, satiety, dietary compliance, body composition? Food choice is going to matter.
This doesn't mean that 100% of your diet needs to be perfect food. A good approach is 80%-20% or something like that. You can get all the nutrition you need from the 80%, and some satisfaction for your inner child from the 20%.8 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »
Please don't cite the Twinkie Diet.
This was based on ONE professor, who was on Coca Cola's payroll, who was not monitored or supervised. He gave hundreds of interview and never mentioned the Coca Cola funding. Sadly for him, he was outed and embarrassed several years later.
He lost 27 lbs. in eight weeks(!), which is considered unhealthy by most posters here.
And he had this incredible weight loss not by going from 2,500 calories to 1,200 calories, but by going from 2,500 calories to 1,800 calories. Just a little suspicious I would say.
And does anyone really believe someone can eat Twinkies (supplemented reportedly by Doritos and Oreos) for eight weeks straight?
Adios, Twinkie Diet.
I did reply to this, but after reading the other replies I realized you are a troll, so I will simply leave the other replies already given as sufficient to show your constant goal post moving, nit picking, and all the rest.7 -
This content has been removed.
-
Me: Hey I think I'll drop into myfitnesspal forums. It's been a while I wonder if anyth
*sees this thread*
*smashes computer with a hammer*16 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »
The Military Diet can mean anything. What does it mean?
I'm not dodging anything. The only point I am making is you can't call something a Twinkie Diet when it's not close to being a Twinkie Diet. The only possible reason for calling it a Twinkie Diet was to help his patron, the Coca Cola company.
It's like claiming you lost weight on a vegan diet, except you ate lamb chops on October 5th, and Eggs Benedict on October 8th.
Why would Coca-Cola want to help promote Twinkies? Corporate altruism?
And please, don't drag veganism into this again.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 446 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.9K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions