All about calories
Replies
-
TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
When did anyone suggest a mono diet of doughnuts? I believe you're the only one.
My blood work improved greatly from just losing some weight, and that's before I ever got serious about actual nutrition or exercise. I basically cut out soda and lost 20 Lbs...still ate my Taco Bell for lunch, pizza, etc.
And yeah, if you're eating an iron deficient diet you're going to be iron deficient...I'd think that's a no brainer. I think what is being referred to is more along the lines of cholesterol, blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, etc. All of those markers will typically improve with losing weight.
So my point stands, Cico for weight loss but there is a whole ton more when it comes to being healthy. And I think that’s a fair warning as the whole eat CICO and you’ll be healthy that is preached on here is only a half truth.
Did anyone on this thread say otherwise (than the bold)? If so, it was a minority report. (Sometimes folks who come to a thread chime in with "calories determine weight loss" without repeating caveats and qualifiers that have already been mentioned.)
"CICO only" certainly isn't the only advice given on any of these threads I've ever seen, nor would I say it's said as isolated advice often enough to be accurately described as "preached around here". I feel like you're assuming that most of us eat like fools, just paying attention to calories but nothing else, and I think that's quite rare.
Personally, I've typed some version of this into more threads than I can count:Appropriate calories for weight management + well-rounded eating for nutrition (plus a few treats for joy) + exercise for fitness = Best odds of continuing long-term good health and attractive appearance
. . . and upthread said this:I have no scientific justification for this, but I suspect that persistently very poor nutrition, at reduced calories, would eventually have a negative effect on health and energy level (in addition to body composition), so be counterproductive for weight management in the long run. Poor nutrition leading to poor energy leading to being less active and resting more because of fatigue . . . reduces TDEE.
The foods you named wouldn't strike me as an example of very poor nutrition, but (if that was all that a person was eating) could be somewhat less than ideal in ways others have mentioned. Would that come home to roost? If it did, how long would it take? Dunno.
But for the short run, for sure, calories are the only thing that really matters for weight management (except for how food choices affect satiety and compliance). In the long run, most of us want to be healthy, not just thin, so reasonable overall nutrition does matter.
I think you're reading what you think people are saying, not what we're actually saying. I just re-read this whole blippin' thread. Only two people I saw on a skim-through mentioned just calories (not nutrition/health), and even one of them qualified it with "Taking nothing else into consideration" (when others had already mentioned nutrition).
WTHeck?
Yes the reply to original post was that exactly what I said was debatable. So that was the point I argued. I’m not reading anymore or any less than all I said was CICo for weight loss and it’s a whole lot more complicated when we are talking about being healthy. That point isn’t really debatable.
Why is it complicated? It is eating. We have been doing it all our lives. Our bodies are amazingly complicated though and able to sustain proper nutrition from a variety of sources.
6 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
People always say that “try eating (insert straw man mono diet here) “ and then suggest that there is some widely known, proven conclusion that will result. Has there been a study where a person ate only donuts? There was the Twinkie diet, and guess what, his markers did improve just as @psuLemon suggested.
First of all the only person talking about mono extreme diets is you. OP asked about pizza and a burger, neither of which is devoid of nutrition (nor are donuts for that matter) . Everyone told her that nutrition and satiety are important too. But you claimed if you eat this eat you’d be in “terrible health”. How are you defining terrible health? Like Lemon said, regardless of dietary context - simply losing weight especially if a person has a significant amount to lose, results in marked health improvements.
I'd like to see said study. I've seen first hand what fad diets or poor nutrition can do. For example, the one I gave about eating a diet deficient in iron actually resulted in this woman's body no longer processing iron correctly and she now will live with a lifelong issue of having to have iron supplementation because of the poor diet choices. This isn't a study or some internet read, this is an actual life example. There are proven scientific conclusions that can be reached about eating any fad diet. For example eating purely vegetables results in the need to make sure you get certain supplementation or ensure that you are eating very specific vegetables or you'll become sick. So its not as simple as CICO for health, yes for weight loss it is, but health incorporates all areas of our bodies. These aren't me just suggesting things, these are scientific facts. This can be seen that even with the fact that MFP tracks Macros and suggests limits on levels of different categories of nutrition.
Oh and for the Iron thing, here's a link.
https://www.medicinenet.com/iron_and_iron_deficiency/article.htm#what_causes_iron_deficiency
That link doesn't say anything abouteating a diet deficient in iron actually resulted in this woman's body no longer processing iron correctly
The only thing on that page about something one consumes or doesn't consumer interfering with iron absorption isTaking antacids beyond the recommended dose or medicine used to treat peptic ulcer disease and acid reflux can reduce the amount of iron absorbed in the stomach
and there's no indication this is an irreversible, life-long problem.
9 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
When did anyone suggest a mono diet of doughnuts? I believe you're the only one.
My blood work improved greatly from just losing some weight, and that's before I ever got serious about actual nutrition or exercise. I basically cut out soda and lost 20 Lbs...still ate my Taco Bell for lunch, pizza, etc.
And yeah, if you're eating an iron deficient diet you're going to be iron deficient...I'd think that's a no brainer. I think what is being referred to is more along the lines of cholesterol, blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, etc. All of those markers will typically improve with losing weight.
So my point stands, Cico for weight loss but there is a whole ton more when it comes to being healthy. And I think that’s a fair warning as the whole eat CICO and you’ll be healthy that is preached on here is only a half truth.
Did anyone on this thread say otherwise (than the bold)? If so, it was a minority report. (Sometimes folks who come to a thread chime in with "calories determine weight loss" without repeating caveats and qualifiers that have already been mentioned.)
"CICO only" certainly isn't the only advice given on any of these threads I've ever seen, nor would I say it's said as isolated advice often enough to be accurately described as "preached around here". I feel like you're assuming that most of us eat like fools, just paying attention to calories but nothing else, and I think that's quite rare.
Personally, I've typed some version of this into more threads than I can count:Appropriate calories for weight management + well-rounded eating for nutrition (plus a few treats for joy) + exercise for fitness = Best odds of continuing long-term good health and attractive appearance
. . . and upthread said this:I have no scientific justification for this, but I suspect that persistently very poor nutrition, at reduced calories, would eventually have a negative effect on health and energy level (in addition to body composition), so be counterproductive for weight management in the long run. Poor nutrition leading to poor energy leading to being less active and resting more because of fatigue . . . reduces TDEE.
The foods you named wouldn't strike me as an example of very poor nutrition, but (if that was all that a person was eating) could be somewhat less than ideal in ways others have mentioned. Would that come home to roost? If it did, how long would it take? Dunno.
But for the short run, for sure, calories are the only thing that really matters for weight management (except for how food choices affect satiety and compliance). In the long run, most of us want to be healthy, not just thin, so reasonable overall nutrition does matter.
I think you're reading what you think people are saying, not what we're actually saying. I just re-read this whole blippin' thread. Only two people I saw on a skim-through mentioned just calories (not nutrition/health), and even one of them qualified it with "Taking nothing else into consideration" (when others had already mentioned nutrition).
WTHeck?
Yes the reply to original post was that exactly what I said was debatable. So that was the point I argued. I’m not reading anymore or any less than all I said was CICo for weight loss and it’s a whole lot more complicated when we are talking about being healthy. That point isn’t really debatable.
The post that initially replied to you (i.e, start of your quote string) said:That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
The initial post in the whole thread said:Only calories matter. For overall health and satiety, balance is important but weight loss is pretty simple.
I got obese eating primarily whole foods, just too much of them. I was very athletically active as an obese person for over a decade, the near-mythical pretty-fit fat person. But my blood pressure and lipids were still very high (HDL low), all in the danger zone. Then I lost weight, down to a healthy weight, counting calories, eating pretty much the same foods, just less of them. My blood pressure now is normal to low normal, my lipids are solidly in the normal zone (HDL actually above the reference range in a test a couple of weeks back) . . . all just from weight loss.
Same here. Well, my blood pressure, lipid numbers and blood glucose were right on the edge of "time to start taking meds," so I don't know if that's what you consider "very high" and "in the danger zone," but it scared the heck out of me. Lost weight by counting calories, didn't make any significant changes in the kinds of food I ate, and all my health markers went back to the normal/healthy range.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions