Disappointing Realization of Maintenance Calories
Replies
-
Jane, I liked your comment, and agree, 100%. It's not the foods themselves, it's how they affect us. And we're all different.
If we only have a certain amount of calories we can consume to lose/maintain, it makes sense that most of those should come from healthy, nutrient-dense sources, most of the time. What those macro nutrients end up looking like will vary between individuals, and that's a good thing.0 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »Yet, it's not a statement that I made, that "carbohydrates cause fat storage".
Carbs do cause greater rises in blood glucose, which trigger more insulin to be released. That can inhibit fat metabolism. Fat and protein have a negligible effect on circulating blood glucose although they can also lead to a rise in insulin. How much of that is a problem (or not) would depend on the individual, and the circumstances. Are they in a caloric deficit? Are they running a marathon? Are they glycogen-depleted? In Ketosis? At risk for metabolic disease?
For those who are pre-diabetic or have Type II diabetes this would most certainly be an issue. Obviously, we need insulin, as it plays an important role in metabolism. It's hardly the enemy, and neither are carbs.
Insulin itself doesn't seem to be the issue as much as higher circulating blood glucose can be. But it's more complicated than that, I agree. I apologize if I sounded like I was over-simplifying things.
People who are perfectly healthy and feeling well can get by on all kinds of diets. As I've said from the beginning.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
I really don't enjoy this, but:ThinnerLiz wrote: »I know many of you may disagree with me, but I have to agree with Emily Enough, above, generally speaking.
As an almost 60-year-old woman, it was hard to lose the weight that had slowly crept in over a few decades.
The one thing that made the biggest difference was pretty much giving up alcohol in the weight loss phase (now I enjoy a bit in maintenance).
The other was cutting waaaaaaaay down on grains/starches and eliminating any obvious sugar. So, bread, pasta, corn, potatoes....were had in very small portions—-maybe 1/4 cup serving—and instead I focused on non-starchy veg, protein, and healthy fats. (Olive oil, real butter, full-fat dairy, in measured amounts.)
I believe whatever benefits there may be for a Ketogenic diet may be had with a lower carb diet.
The biggest boon for me was satiety. I was/am rarely hungry because I don’t require a steady supply of carbs every few hours. This allows me to wait until I have good options to eat and a I’m not at the mercy of whatever is available.
Personally, I would never be interested in things like OneMealADay made of low-quality lunch meats and pickle juice, as I’ve seen some do. Not for me. I like real, nutritious foods. Not going to waste precious calories on Easy-Mac and hot dogs unless I’m having a junk food treat, which I do on occasion.
But a nice piece of wild salmon, or grass fed beef, with fresh veggies, and a bit of rice, topped off with a few teaspoons of olive oil? There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a perfectly healthy meal. Even if the fancy varieties are unaffordable, it’s still better than skrimping on pizza.
I feel great eating this way, and my skin is glowing. No carb comas nor crashes, and my body composition is changing on its own without the bloat that too many processed carbs can bring.
Carbs are not the enemy. But too many refined starches are just like sugar to the body. They drive up insulin, which causes the body to store fat. Exactly the opposite of what we want.
There is solid science behind it, and as a skeptic, I’m living proof. The idea that we need 6+ servings a day of grains is counterproductive, from a metabolic, weight-loss point of view. 200+ grams of carbs per day just keeps the insulin flowing.
The only way to know if this works for you is to try it! Try a few days, or a month, with only fresh veg for carbs and see how you feel.
Unless you’re a serious athlete just burning up those carbs like crazy, they may just be making your weight loss a lot harder than it needs to be, and we want everyone here to succeed.
so....
6 -
nm, would take explanation, not up for it...2
-
I stand by what I said.0
-
ThinnerLiz wrote: »Yet, it's not a statement that I made, that "carbohydrates cause fat storage".
Carbs do cause greater rises in blood glucose, which trigger more insulin to be released. That can inhibit fat metabolism. Fat and protein have a negligible effect on circulating blood glucose although they can also lead to a rise in insulin. How much of that is a problem (or not) would depend on the individual, and the circumstances. Are they in a caloric deficit? Are they running a marathon? Are they glycogen-depleted? In Ketosis? At risk for metabolic disease?
For those who are pre-diabetic or have Type II diabetes this would most certainly be an issue. Obviously, we need insulin, as it plays an important role in metabolism. It's hardly the enemy, and neither are carbs.
Insulin itself doesn't seem to be the issue as much as higher circulating blood glucose can be. But it's more complicated than that, I agree. I apologize if I sounded like I was over-simplifying things.
People who are perfectly healthy and feeling well can get by on all kinds of diets. As I've said from the beginning.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
Honestly it's mostly that this conversation has been had over and over, as cmsriverside noted, and many of the things you said sounded like those said by people arguing that it's carbs, not calories. Thus, I thought the suggestion that people disagreed with common sense advice to eat mostly nutrient dense foods was wrong and wanted to highlight the specific things I thought people were likely disagreeing with.
When you say above that carbs inhibit fat metabolism, it certainly SEEMS still like you are saying that eating too many carbs (which you had previously suggested 200 g were) will prevent fat loss, and that's not true. If they are in a calorie deficit, they will lose weight (and not gain fat).
I also don't believe that eating 50% carbs or even somewhat higher in the context of a nutrient dense diet with plenty of healthy fats and protein will lead to metabolic disease. The latter is much more likely to be a result of excess weight, as well as genetics, of course. Some who have developed metabolic disease may find eating fewer carbs (not necessarily low carb) will make their condition easier to control, of course.
Insulin also plays a positive role in gaining muscle.
I don't think we are really in any substantial disagreement, but carbs do get really demonized from time to time using pretty similar arguments as those you were using, and thus I think it's important to clarify that carbs alone aren't going to cause weight gain or preclude weight loss, and that higher carb diets can still be nutrient dense and overall healthy for people.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »ThinnerLiz wrote: »For the record, I never said that "carbs were bad", or "insulin" is bad, or "carbs make you fat". That was all inferred.
What I said was: For some people, a diet lower in carbohydrate might be beneficial (health and weight loss) because of how their bodies react to large amounts of carbs.
I think you need to go back and reread your posts. You stated multiple times that insulin causes fat storage and once your stated to caused obesity and T2D. Based on the posts, I'm not the only one who interpreted your posts this way.
It's how I read this statement (from an earlier post in this thread by the user): "Carbs drive up insulin, which effects blood sugar, and ultimately, fat storage."
It sounds like a statement that carbohydrates cause fat storage.
That was my take as well, and similarly the statement about 200 g of carbs being bad because it keeps the insulin flowing.
I wouldn't have bothered going through it in detail except that another poster claimed that the disagrees (none of which came from me) must be disagreements with advice to eat a more nutrient dense diet. I don't personally think that eating 200 g of carbs must mean a less nutrient dense diet than one with 70 g of carbs. High and lower carb diets can both be extremely nutrient dense and not nutrient dense at all. For me, cutting back BOTH fat and carbs were part of my "focus on more satiating and nutrient dense foods and cut cals without feeling like you are sacrificing anything" strategy.
With the clarifications I do think people are largely in agreement, and of course I know that for some eating fewer carbs can be helpful for satiety reasons.
Maybe I'm weird, but I don't think my carb percentage when gaining was particularly high. I do think I ate less protein and more carbs and fat than I did when losing, and that I was less active than I should have been.
When I look at periods where I've gained weight, I think it's always because my fat intake has crept up. It's not carbohydrates. This is probably because the carbohydrates I eat are pretty nutrient dense and I personally find them very filling. They're also pretty visible on the plate, where the fat I eat is more "invisible" (it's harder to notice an extra tablespoon of oil spread out across a whole dish and I'm not someone who is really satiated by extra fat in a meal).
It comes back to the bottom line that looking at what you're eating and making adjustments from there is usually going to be way more helpful than making changes based on abstract concepts. If I was planning my meals around the idea that carbohydrates aren't nutrient-dense and they cause fat storage, I'd be failing. And I'd be hungry!
You can plan wonderfully nutritious and delicious low carbohydrate diets. You can also have some pretty bleak and non-nutrient rich ones. Same for higher carbohydrate ways of eating.
What I don't see in this thread is anyone arguing that we shouldn't eat a nutrient-dense diet or that there is anything extreme about finding the way to do so that works best for your lifestyle and food preferences.
Yes, agree. I think my excess cals tend to be more from fat too, although I think the bigger issue is a lack of mindfulness. When I thought through where my excess cals were coming from a lot of it was portion creep and using too heavy a hand with oil in cooking. Realizing that (and that I often did some mindless eating when at work late) made losing it much easier than it otherwise might have been, as I was able cut back on those things without it feeling like I was really eating less, and being more mindful made me make sure the cals I did eat were ones I really enjoyed.
I also was able to take stock of my activity levels and I realized that although I still walked a decent amount (big city, I walk all the time), I wasn't nearly as active as I'd once been and so my TDEE was lower than I'd realized. Getting that up was as important as anything for me.1 -
Thank you, lemurcat, for your measured response. I try to be very clear in what I mean, and it can be frustrating when people make incorrect inferences. Cutting out important qualifiers like "may/might/could" means my words take on an entirely different meaning.
When I said that "Carbs are not the enemy", and "different people benefit from different diets", that's exactly what I meant.
I never said that carbs are solely responsible for weight gain, nor did I say that they are lacking in nutrients. I like my carbs just as much as the next person.
There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein. I wouldn't imagine most here believe that, because there is a lot of information out there, and on this forum, that deals with how the body responds to food on a metabolic level and not all calories are created equal in terms of how they affect and nourish our bodies.
But enough. I understand that people can be very sensitive to these issues and if a bunch of Low-Carb Keto Fans have been tromping all over with the "Carbs Will Kill Ya" mindset, I can see why people might react negatively to anything with a whiff of that.
But it's never been my intent to either push a way of eating on anyone, nor make light of anyone else's food choices. (Okay. Except for the Hot Dogs and Pickle Juice. I admit it, I think that's bizarre!
) I merely agreed with the suggestion that it might be worth experimenting with lower carbs if people are kind of stuck and looking for something different to try.
To be honest, I was skeptical when I first tried The Zone Diet back in the 90s. I was sort of shocked to find I felt a lot better. I should have stuck with it, or something like it, because I got back in the same ruts and started to feel crappy again. (Wash, rinse, and repeat.) That led me here, eating the way I do now.
I feel great, and I wanted to share that, in case anyone else might benefit from it. That's all.
3 -
There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.
Where are you coming up with this stuff?4 -
cmriverside wrote: »There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.
Where are you coming up with this stuff?
Exactly. The fallacy in this kind of statement is it equates calories for weight loss with nutrition. For weight loss, calories are what matter. For health and satiety, nutrient dense foods are what matter. It's an apples/ oranges comparison.
6 -
cmriverside wrote: »There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.
Where are you coming up with this stuff?
And (as you'd expect coming from me) it's pedantic, but a calorie really is just a calorie.
I get that people say otherwise, and are treating it as a figure of speech; but it's not literally true, and can confuse people who have limited nutritional knowledge.
Different foods have different nutritional values, and also different calorie values. But calories and nutrient levels are different measurements of the one substance.
A mile of highway is the same mile as a mile of rough streamside footpath. It's not "asphalt miles" and "uneven gravel miles".
/Pedant7 -
cmriverside wrote: »There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.
Where are you coming up with this stuff?
Exactly. The fallacy in this kind of statement is it equates calories for weight loss with nutrition. For weight loss, calories are what matter. For health and satiety, nutrient dense foods are what matter. It's an apples/ oranges comparison.
Yep....I said that above too.3 -
I really miss the gif days...2
-
cmriverside wrote: »There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.
Where are you coming up with this stuff?
Exactly. The fallacy in this kind of statement is it equates calories for weight loss with nutrition. For weight loss, calories are what matter. For health and satiety, nutrient dense foods are what matter. It's an apples/ oranges comparison.
Yep....I said that above too.
Yes, you did!0 -
I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.
Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!
I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?
When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?0 -
PS: AnnPT77, In case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit pedantic myself.;)
#pedanticandproud1 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.
Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!
I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?
When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
There is not a nutritional value to a calorie, literally. Foods, not calories, have nutritional values. You're using the term 'calorie' as a figure of speech, possibly a synechdoche or metonomy.
I believe a calorie is a calorie, in the same way an inch is an inch. Always. No matter what substance it's used to measure.
Calories, in a literal sense, don't have nutritional atributes, any more than miles or inches have texture or color.
Pedantic, literally true.
I believe in nutrition. I believe that jelly beans, lard, green beans, steak, etc., have different nutritional qualities (and satiation value to individuals, etc,), just as they have different calories. Figures of speech make for colorful writing, but confusing their scope and definitions can lead to fuzzy thinking.
Nutrients are not "contained in calories" just as "asphalt" or "gravel" are not "contained in miles".9 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
When you understand it's a unit of energy and not a unit of nutrition.
Making up new meanings for words just gives your arguments even less credibility.10 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.
Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!
I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?
When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
There is not a nutritional value to a calorie, literally. Foods, not calories, have nutritional values. You're using the term 'calorie' as a figure of speech, possibly a synechdoche or metonomy.
I believe a calorie is a calorie, in the same way an inch is an inch. Always. No matter what substance it's used to measure.
Calories, in a literal sense, don't have nutritional atributes, any more than miles or inches have texture or color.
Pedantic, literally true.
I believe in nutrition. I believe that jelly beans, lard, green beans, steak, etc., have different nutritional qualities (and satiation value to individuals, etc,), just as they have different calories. Figures of speech make for colorful writing, but confusing their scope and definitions can lead to fuzzy thinking.
Nutrients are not "contained in calories" just as "asphalt" or "gravel" are not "contained in miles".
An inch is not just an inch, though. An inch in the wrong direction is an inch in the wrong direction. That’s not just a figure of speech. A phone screen an inch too big to fit in my pocket is an inch too big, whereas in most situations an additional inch of screen is a good thing. Context matters. And it seems nonsensical to say that nutrients aren’t contained in calories when the only possible way to consume nutrients is to consume calories. You have x number of calories you’re allowed to eat if you want to lose weight; within those, you have to consume y amount of nutrients.2 -
I like to eat, so I move more!2
-
rheddmobile wrote: »ThinnerLiz wrote: »I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.
Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!
I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?
When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
There is not a nutritional value to a calorie, literally. Foods, not calories, have nutritional values. You're using the term 'calorie' as a figure of speech, possibly a synechdoche or metonomy.
I believe a calorie is a calorie, in the same way an inch is an inch. Always. No matter what substance it's used to measure.
Calories, in a literal sense, don't have nutritional atributes, any more than miles or inches have texture or color.
Pedantic, literally true.
I believe in nutrition. I believe that jelly beans, lard, green beans, steak, etc., have different nutritional qualities (and satiation value to individuals, etc,), just as they have different calories. Figures of speech make for colorful writing, but confusing their scope and definitions can lead to fuzzy thinking.
Nutrients are not "contained in calories" just as "asphalt" or "gravel" are not "contained in miles".
An inch is not just an inch, though. An inch in the wrong direction is an inch in the wrong direction. That’s not just a figure of speech. A phone screen an inch too big to fit in my pocket is an inch too big, whereas in most situations an additional inch of screen is a good thing. Context matters. And it seems nonsensical to say that nutrients aren’t contained in calories when the only possible way to consume nutrients is to consume calories. You have x number of calories you’re allowed to eat if you want to lose weight; within those, you have to consume y amount of nutrients.
Anything we can't point at is an abstraction. Confusing the relationships among abstractions is fuzzy thinking. Confusing one unit of measurement with the thing measured, or with unrelated attributes of the thing measured, is an example.
Figures of speech are interesting, useful, colorful. I think it's good (but pedantic ) to know if/when they're in play.
I respect you, and your advice, across many threads. On this, we may need to agree to disagree. :flowerforyou:5 -
rheddmobile wrote: »ThinnerLiz wrote: »I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.
Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!
I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?
When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
There is not a nutritional value to a calorie, literally. Foods, not calories, have nutritional values. You're using the term 'calorie' as a figure of speech, possibly a synechdoche or metonomy.
I believe a calorie is a calorie, in the same way an inch is an inch. Always. No matter what substance it's used to measure.
Calories, in a literal sense, don't have nutritional atributes, any more than miles or inches have texture or color.
Pedantic, literally true.
I believe in nutrition. I believe that jelly beans, lard, green beans, steak, etc., have different nutritional qualities (and satiation value to individuals, etc,), just as they have different calories. Figures of speech make for colorful writing, but confusing their scope and definitions can lead to fuzzy thinking.
Nutrients are not "contained in calories" just as "asphalt" or "gravel" are not "contained in miles".
An inch is not just an inch, though. An inch in the wrong direction is an inch in the wrong direction. That’s not just a figure of speech. A phone screen an inch too big to fit in my pocket is an inch too big, whereas in most situations an additional inch of screen is a good thing. Context matters. And it seems nonsensical to say that nutrients aren’t contained in calories when the only possible way to consume nutrients is to consume calories. You have x number of calories you’re allowed to eat if you want to lose weight; within those, you have to consume y amount of nutrients.
I think "food" is the word you are searching for - nutrients are contained in foods, not calories.
9 -
rheddmobile wrote: »ThinnerLiz wrote: »I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.
Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!
I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?
When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
There is not a nutritional value to a calorie, literally. Foods, not calories, have nutritional values. You're using the term 'calorie' as a figure of speech, possibly a synechdoche or metonomy.
I believe a calorie is a calorie, in the same way an inch is an inch. Always. No matter what substance it's used to measure.
Calories, in a literal sense, don't have nutritional atributes, any more than miles or inches have texture or color.
Pedantic, literally true.
I believe in nutrition. I believe that jelly beans, lard, green beans, steak, etc., have different nutritional qualities (and satiation value to individuals, etc,), just as they have different calories. Figures of speech make for colorful writing, but confusing their scope and definitions can lead to fuzzy thinking.
Nutrients are not "contained in calories" just as "asphalt" or "gravel" are not "contained in miles".
An inch is not just an inch, though. An inch in the wrong direction is an inch in the wrong direction. That’s not just a figure of speech. A phone screen an inch too big to fit in my pocket is an inch too big, whereas in most situations an additional inch of screen is a good thing. Context matters. And it seems nonsensical to say that nutrients aren’t contained in calories when the only possible way to consume nutrients is to consume calories. You have x number of calories you’re allowed to eat if you want to lose weight; within those, you have to consume y amount of nutrients.
No matter whether an inch is in the right direction or the wrong, it doesn't change the size of the inch. It may seem nonsensical to you, but the unit of measure that is a "calorie" is just a unit of measure of energy. Nutrients in food is a whole different measure.8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions