Metabolism

mmapags

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

tracybear86 wrote: »

Oh look, OP has yet another new screen name. *eyeroll*

Why the eye rolling? Atleast o.p. is still here. Probably wanting answers that validate her thoughts, but that's going to be hard with this group.

wmd1979 wrote: »

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

wmd1979 wrote: »

go52182 wrote: »

Justin_7272 wrote: »

go52182 wrote: »

wmd1979 wrote: »

go52182 wrote: »

Justin_7272 wrote: »

"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.

If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?

Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.

When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".

A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.

Do you understand macros?

I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believing IIFYM you're good to go.

Because generally, as long as your macro goals are balanced and your caloric goal is reasonable then this is true. As others have stated, simply losing weight is going to be healthier for the OP than anything else. That, and the fact that it should be done in a way that its sustainable are why people were focusing more on calculating calories accurately and less about what they were eating.

I agree calorie goals and reaching a healthy weight are a big factors in improving health markers. However balanced macro goals really don't mean a thing unless you also consider the composition of the macros. You can have a carb macro % goal that is in the range endorsed by any respected group of professionals, but if the calories included in the carb goal include few if any fruits or vegetables or whole grains one will most likely be nutritionally deficient long term.

Not so much an issue of carb quality, as that micros matter, too (not to mention fiber). Calories first, macros second, micros third . . . .

Micros in supplements are not a substitute; more like an insurance policy, at best (unless prescribed to remedy a diagnosed deficiency). Food is natural-selection-tested, and contains the micros science hasn't even discovered yet that we need, in addition to the known ones.

My point was with poor carb quality one is less likely to get the micos and fiber needed. Hope you are reading it that way .

Again, if someone has reasonable macro goals, and they are hitting those goals as well as their caloric goals, I would contend that they are most likely eating a healthy diet. Is it possible that they are missing on some of their micros? Sure, but I feel that most people who are taking the steps to track their calories and macros generally are not eating nothing but crap. I'm sure you could log a diary with balanced macros that is deficient in something, but that is also assuming that the person eats the exact same way every day. There are some days I don't hit all my micros, or fiber, but that doesn't mean my diet is deficient or unhealthy. Its that same tired argument that people shouldn't eat nothing but cheeseburgers or insert whatever food you want. Seriously, nobody eats that way, and if they do, I can almost guarantee they are aware it isn't healthy.

While completely agree that cico is king, op is most likely here because she is 1. Wanting validation her "metabolism" is broken, it's not really. 2. Her current WOE is not giving her the results she wants. 3. She is looking for a community of well... nut balls like us. We are the 1% who pays attention what we put in our bodies. While I agree that a calorie is a calorie for weight management, the "qualities" of said calories can decide how much we have to eat to reach fullness and satiety. If op's chronic intake of Hyperpalitable/Energy dense food is stopping her from eating less, then MAYBE a time of abstinence is needed. Jmho ramble ramble... lol

OP is male, not a she (at least from account info) and has been asking the same questions on the forum for at least the last 3 years I've been here under many different usernames. ETA - 2 usernames in this thread alone!

In @tracybear86 's defence I think when I brought this up in another thread her response was similar to yours, but has obviously had a change of heart.

Exactly. I'm amazed that people have not grown weary of responding and join in each time. He got the answers he seeks many times over yet still creates new accounts and asks the same basic questions.

PAV8888

tinkerbellang83 wrote: »

OP is male, not a she (at least from account info) and has been asking the same questions on the forum for at least the last 3 years I've been here under many different usernames. ETA - 2 usernames in this thread alone!

...

<edited... in the forlorn hope it was option #1 from the ones I had listed>

kshama2001

When in doubt of gender I check the person's profile. If they do not list gender, I use neutral pronouns or avoid them.

This OP's profile indicates male.

Carlos_421

psychod787 wrote: »

wmd1979 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

Justin_7272 wrote: »

go52182 wrote: »

Justin_7272 wrote: »

go52182 wrote: »

wmd1979 wrote: »

go52182 wrote: »

Justin_7272 wrote: »

"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.

If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?

Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.

When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".

A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.

Do you understand macros?

I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believe IIFYM, you're good to go.

Do you understand IIFYM means "If it fits your macros?" And if so, why do you think that's a bad idea?

For "general health," IIFYM is more than adequate as many don't even reach these goals.

If you're talking about diet restrictions due to health issues that's another ballgame, but you're clearly talking about general health. So yeah, IIFYM.

And it's wrong to say that using IIFYM inherently means ignoring everything beyond macros, such as micros and fiber, among other nutritionally useful things. That's just as silly as saying that calorie counting inherently means ignoring nutrition.

Of course using IIFYM and/or calorie counting doesn't inherently mean ignoring nutrition. Of course they don't mean someone is purposefully targeting good nutrition either.

Um, IIFYM kinda does imply that, at least to the level of macro goals.

This exactly^. I feel like anyone going to the lengths of counting macros and calories is being pretty cognizant of targeting good nutrition.

I actually prefer the term Flexible Dieting. Same thing, but some people take IIFYM to mean... if it fits your mouth...🤣

In one week, I shall adhere to this new IIFYM for a full day.