Calories are NOT the enemy!

12346»

Replies

  • Unknown
    Unknown
    edited September 2017
    This content has been removed.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    SueSueDio wrote: »
    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?

    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.

    To make the point that sugar is not the enemy. And you can't call a diet a Coca Cola diet.

    Why not?

    Look, *if* Coca-Cola had this grand design to sponsor an individual's weight loss attempt, it'd be incredibly easy for someone to lose weight while drinking soda regularly. There's no need for them to promote a different product so your conspiracy theory makes no sense.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,454 Member
    wow. You guys are still arguing with this one guy? Why?
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Go Jane! Awesome for doing a marathon. I am wishing I knew more about real running when I was younger. I was under the misconception then that it was all about being as fast as you could be and just hated it when I tried it in the 80's.

    Now that I love it, my body hates me. I'm afraid my joints will never allow me to build quite as much endurance as I aspire to, but I'll keep plugging at it. Slow and steady.
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    CALORIE ARNT REAL!!! PHYSICS STUFF IS STUDF

    Surely you meant CAAORIES?

    Ah, that guy! :laugh:
  • singingflutelady
    singingflutelady Posts: 8,736 Member
    cerise_noir wrote: »
    jdlobb wrote: »
    CALORIE ARNT REAL!!! PHYSICS STUFF IS STUDF

    Surely you meant CAAORIES?

    Ah, that guy! :laugh:

    And PHSYCS
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    Ericnutrition wrote: »
    BrianSharpe wrote: »
    So what's a "good" calorie and what's a "bad" calorie?

    Explain how the twinkie diet worked (I would assume that would be all bad calories).

    Personally I would commend someone who looked at the menu at the golden arches and upon seeing that their big mac combo is about a zillion calories made a more sensible choice.

    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.

    You don't even know what his diet actually looked like and you're willing to condemn the whole story? Just to help get the facts straight:
    For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
    Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.

    From: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    I know that you aren't arguing in good faith, but could we at least not spread further misinformation about this guy's intake? It was not just twinkies, doritos, and oreos. That "fact" gets repeated too often around here, on both sides of this debate.

    Therefore, he did not eat a Twinkie diet. Thanks for the head's up.

    Again - know how we know you didn't actually read the article? It looks pretty silly and futile to argue against something when one doesn't even know what they're arguing against.

    But, it's totally hilarious though!! :laugh:
  • cerise_noir
    cerise_noir Posts: 5,468 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    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*
    So, a normal day then?
  • mysteps2beauty
    mysteps2beauty Posts: 493 Member
    Calories is like money.

    Counting calories is not bad just like counting money is not bad. Just need an awareness. You have to manage it so that you know where you are and where you want to get to.

    When I look at ingredients and their caloric count, I ask myself do I want to spend my calories on this or save it for something else. Just like money do I want to spend money on crap items when I can save up for a quality item.

  • collectingblues
    collectingblues Posts: 2,541 Member
    oilphins wrote: »
    I sort of understand where he's coming from in a sense but wouldn't it be more of sugar to worry about which is our biggest enemy and not so much the calories?

    For Example:
    19 pieces of candy corn only 140 calories but 30 grams of sugar
    1 can of pepsi only 150 calories but 41 grams of sugar.

    1 Chicken breast 140 calories but no sugar
    1 can of tuna 160 calories and no sugar

    Both similar but one loaded with sugar and the other none. I think that's sort of what he means by bad and good calories? Correct me if I'm wrong but I think we all know sugar is what makes us all gain weight. Maybe I'm wrong but I think this is sort of what he's getting at?

    But what's the context? I'm not cooking some nebulously sized chicken breast or opening a can of tuna if I have room in my calorie budget for a sweet treat. And for me, the candy corn would be more satisfying than soda, but that's simply because for the most part (cocktails and coffee aside), I don't like to drink my calories.

    For a meal? The candy corn's not going to get me very far. Alone. But a chicken breast or a can of tuna won't either.
  • SueSueDio
    SueSueDio Posts: 4,796 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    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*

    C'mon now Patrick, did you really expect it to change...? ;)

    suzannesimmons3 wrote: »
    filbo132 wrote: »
    What a moron this guy is.

    It's Friday. ....they all crawl from under the rock on fridays

    Oh, Eric doesn't bother to wait for Fridays!
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1qaHehOD6339ubxgKuCwUOMC6hB3FYu9QxtWvjFqx8xK9ko5rWA
This discussion has been closed.

Categories