Would I still lose weight if my diet consisted of junk food but still under my weekly calorie limit?

Just need some sort of reassurance cause I’m kinda freaking out, I do calorie cycling so I eat more on 3 days of the week and the rest I eat less, and it’s been working since January I’ve already lost 20 pounds , but recently I’ve had no control and the whole week consisted of more junk food than healthy food but I’m still under my weekly calories.. . I’ve googled it and most say that I won’t lose weight/fat since it’s junk food … maybe someone here has gone thru this little bump and knows if it will affect my progress in a way 😭
«1

Replies

  • ReenieHJ
    ReenieHJ Posts: 9,725 Member
    It doesn't really matter what you eat, if you come in under calories you'll still lose. But it's not the most nutritional healthy way to do things.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 25,315 Member
    It's calories that directly determine fat gain or loss. Sub-par nutrition can indirectly affect fat loss if it makes a person fatigued (so they move less), or if it spikes appetite so that sticking with calorie goal becomes impossible.

    That doesn't make an all junk food way of eating a good idea, though . . . but with a caveat that some people define "junk food" so broadly that unless they're gnawing on a raw brussels sprout with a side of protein powder, they think they're screwing up. A burger has nutrition, y'know?

    What matters for nutrition is getting enough macronutrients, fiber, micronutrients, overall, on average, in total. What foods those nutrients come from is less important.
  • wilson10102018
    wilson10102018 Posts: 1,306 Member
    What most people refer to as junk food is not just Twinkies and Hohos. It is cheeseburgers and fries, chicken nuggets and Egg Muffins. Foods often actually more healthy than some of the concoctions you will see here. Within reasonable parameters you can eat anything you want and lose weight based on a calorie deficit. and, stay healthy.
  • azuki84
    azuki84 Posts: 177 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    A calorie is a uniform measure of energy and nothing else.
    Energy cannot be created from nowhere, if you are in an energy deficit, even if it's coming from nutritionally poor food choices, you must make up that shortfall from your body's energy reserves.

    No I haven't eaten purely junk food but have done the opposite and rapidly gained weight on just good home cooked food.

    "I’ve googled it and most say that I won’t lose weight/fat since it’s junk food" - That's actually a really sad commentary on how widespread ignorance is.

    Being slightly more charitable.....
    If someone isn't calorie counting (the majority of the population) then the chances of a person with a high proportion of junk food in their diet having a good grasp on their actual energy balance are probably far worse than someone preparing their own food.
    Ate a lot of junk food and gained weight is a totally believable tale but the cause isn't the food itself but the amount of food.

    Way too long of a post. The only term you need to use is thermogenesis.
  • nooshi713
    nooshi713 Posts: 4,842 Member
    Yes you will
  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 6,567 Member
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    glassyo wrote: »
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    Yes you will

    Still too long.

    "Yes."

    I do enjoy your sense of humor. :)

    Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww :)
  • lorib642
    lorib642 Posts: 1,942 Member
    Yes, if you are under the calorie limit you will lose weight, and it sounds like it was unusual for you.
    This is a link on the Twinkie diet where a professor ate mostly junk food and lost weight. http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 6,567 Member
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    glassyo wrote: »
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    glassyo wrote: »
    nooshi713 wrote: »
    Yes you will

    Still too long.

    "Yes."

    I do enjoy your sense of humor. :)

    Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww :)

    That'd be 'Aw'

    Ok, that TOTALLY made me laugh out loud.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,027 Member
    Just need some sort of reassurance cause I’m kinda freaking out, I do calorie cycling so I eat more on 3 days of the week and the rest I eat less, and it’s been working since January I’ve already lost 20 pounds , but recently I’ve had no control and the whole week consisted of more junk food than healthy food but I’m still under my weekly calories.. . I’ve googled it and most say that I won’t lose weight/fat since it’s junk food … maybe someone here has gone thru this little bump and knows if it will affect my progress in a way 😭

    Weight management is about energy balance. A calorie is a uniform measure of that energy. If you consume less energy (fewer calories) than your body requires then you will lose fat. Bodyfat is just stored energy. When you don't take in the energy required by your body, that deficiency has to be reconciled...so your body burns onboard energy stores.

    As to the bolded, the general population has very little clue as to what their energy needs are, nor do they track anything or really even think about it. "Junk food" tends to be calorie dense and often nutritionally sub-optimal. If someone isn't really paying attention it is very easy consume energy in excess of needs eating a diet that consists of a lot of "junk food". For most people, consuming home cooked, healthier meals and snacks will result in losing weight...thus there is a correlation made between healthier food and better weight management and weight loss, but it really isn't the food itself. Eating more nutritiously and consuming more whole foods, etc very often leads to a calorie deficit whether or not a particular individual is cognizant of that or not.

    I knew absolutely zero about calories when I first started losing weight. I lost about 20 Lbs before I even heard of MFP or understood anything about calories whatsoever. At the urging of my Dr. I just started eating a more nutritionally sound diet and exercising regularly. The biggest change for me was my lunch. I always ate out for lunch at either Taco Bell, Blakes Lottaburger, or Popeye's. I went from that to brown bagging my lunch everyday. There wasn't anything magical about just eating a sandwich or having some grilled chicken and vegetables. The "magic" if you will was that my average lunch went from being 1200+ calories everyday to around 500-600 calories. I did not understand that at the time so I made the assumption that Taco Bell is bad and my sandwich was good...but really, all I did was cut my lunch calories in half by making better nutritional choices.
  • westrich20940
    westrich20940 Posts: 539 Member
    A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If you are under your calories, you will still be in a deficit/thus still lose weight.

    The issue comes here: Say I want to have breakfast and I want it to be ~500 calories. I could have 2 Twinkies. Or I could have a potato/egg scramble with some bacon, some veggies, and some cheese on top. One of those things is definitely going to keep me satiated and fueled better than the other.

    So if I choose to eat the 2nd breakfast, then I won't be hungry until it's time for me to eat my next meal. If I eat the Twinkies...I'm probably going to be hungry in like 1-2 hours. So, overall, this is likely to cause someone to eat more (over their maintenance calories) and gain weight. Or at least struggle to stay within their calorie goal.

    So, calories are all the same -- but there are more efficient and less efficient ways to manage those calories.
  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 6,567 Member
    A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If you are under your calories, you will still be in a deficit/thus still lose weight.

    The issue comes here: Say I want to have breakfast and I want it to be ~500 calories. I could have 2 Twinkies. Or I could have a potato/egg scramble with some bacon, some veggies, and some cheese on top. One of those things is definitely going to keep me satiated and fueled better than the other.

    So if I choose to eat the 2nd breakfast, then I won't be hungry until it's time for me to eat my next meal. If I eat the Twinkies...I'm probably going to be hungry in like 1-2 hours. So, overall, this is likely to cause someone to eat more (over their maintenance calories) and gain weight. Or at least struggle to stay within their calorie goal.

    So, calories are all the same -- but there are more efficient and less efficient ways to manage those calories.

    4 Twinkies for 520 calories. They're only 130 each.

    *ducking*
  • ReenieHJ
    ReenieHJ Posts: 9,725 Member
    glassyo wrote: »
    A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If you are under your calories, you will still be in a deficit/thus still lose weight.

    The issue comes here: Say I want to have breakfast and I want it to be ~500 calories. I could have 2 Twinkies. Or I could have a potato/egg scramble with some bacon, some veggies, and some cheese on top. One of those things is definitely going to keep me satiated and fueled better than the other.

    So if I choose to eat the 2nd breakfast, then I won't be hungry until it's time for me to eat my next meal. If I eat the Twinkies...I'm probably going to be hungry in like 1-2 hours. So, overall, this is likely to cause someone to eat more (over their maintenance calories) and gain weight. Or at least struggle to stay within their calorie goal.

    So, calories are all the same -- but there are more efficient and less efficient ways to manage those calories.

    4 Twinkies for 520 calories. They're only 130 each.

    *ducking*

    I could never stop at 4 of anything like that. Maybe not Twinkies but....... :/
  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 6,567 Member
    ReenieHJ wrote: »
    glassyo wrote: »
    A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. If you are under your calories, you will still be in a deficit/thus still lose weight.

    The issue comes here: Say I want to have breakfast and I want it to be ~500 calories. I could have 2 Twinkies. Or I could have a potato/egg scramble with some bacon, some veggies, and some cheese on top. One of those things is definitely going to keep me satiated and fueled better than the other.

    So if I choose to eat the 2nd breakfast, then I won't be hungry until it's time for me to eat my next meal. If I eat the Twinkies...I'm probably going to be hungry in like 1-2 hours. So, overall, this is likely to cause someone to eat more (over their maintenance calories) and gain weight. Or at least struggle to stay within their calorie goal.

    So, calories are all the same -- but there are more efficient and less efficient ways to manage those calories.

    4 Twinkies for 520 calories. They're only 130 each.

    *ducking*

    I could never stop at 4 of anything like that. Maybe not Twinkies but....... :/

    I actually don't like Twinkies all that much. The golden cake part gives me low key indigestion.

    Little Debbie's Swiss cake rolls tho? I've done a box at a time. :)