Does quality of food matter if you remain within calories?
Replies
-
/sigh must we really indulge this idiocy. XD
Some poor persons topic has gotten seriously derailed.
And in answer to THAT topic. Yes nutrition matters if you don't want to go from looking like a fat sack of crap to looking like a thin sack of crap. I am sorry but yes you CAN lose weight on junk food and sofa sitting if you restrict enough. But you will NOT like the results.
The thread wasn't derailed. It's been dead for months until someone ressurected it to argue. That person has now deactivated.0 -
I appreciate your explanation, you don't know what he's trying to do. People with aspergers have some control over their behavior, and there is no excuse for the words he chose to use. Besides this, he just might have been a troll who was making an excuse for his behavior by saying he had aspergers. This is the internet, people lie all the time and take advantage of the "they can't see my face" element.This thread is like rotten milk. You know it's bad but you still have to smell it. Then you smell it again to see if it really smells as bad as it does.
Also, I think we have seen trolling taken to a new level. I know its only July but I'm making my vote for troll of the year now.
He (or she, I didn't actually look at the profile info) isn't a troll.. He has Aspergers... It's on the autism spectrum and results in social and communication difficulties (hence the long wall of what feels like ranting with limited grammar and punctuation) a lack of empathy and insight and similar traits to autism in that people get highly fixated on specific subjects.. Like this one. Hopefully he will find someone to share his passionate view with elsewhere but if not, just remember he isn't trying to inflame or agitate people.. It's just a different way of seeing and interacting with the world.
0 -
I appreciate your explanation, you don't know what he's trying to do. People with aspergers have some control over their behavior, and there is no excuse for the words he chose to use. Besides this, he just might have been a troll who was making an excuse for his behavior by saying he had aspergers. This is the internet, people lie all the time and take advantage of the "they can't see my face" element.This thread is like rotten milk. You know it's bad but you still have to smell it. Then you smell it again to see if it really smells as bad as it does.
Also, I think we have seen trolling taken to a new level. I know its only July but I'm making my vote for troll of the year now.
He (or she, I didn't actually look at the profile info) isn't a troll.. He has Aspergers... It's on the autism spectrum and results in social and communication difficulties (hence the long wall of what feels like ranting with limited grammar and punctuation) a lack of empathy and insight and similar traits to autism in that people get highly fixated on specific subjects.. Like this one. Hopefully he will find someone to share his passionate view with elsewhere but if not, just remember he isn't trying to inflame or agitate people.. It's just a different way of seeing and interacting with the world.
Furthermore, there are MANY highly successful individuals in academia who have Aspergers, but they are all still expected to learn and follow the norms for communication and respectful dialogue. I can accept that this individual may still be learning these skills, it does not excuse them or prevent the necessity of criticizing and/or correcting their behavior when they violate these norms.0 -
How much does it exactly matter. I mean I get my protein and fat in though various sources but the bulk of my carb sources see from what you guys might label crap. As far as I know i don't look like a thin sack of crap./sigh must we really indulge this idiocy. XD
Some poor persons topic has gotten seriously derailed.
And in answer to THAT topic. Yes nutrition matters if you don't want to go from looking like a fat sack of crap to looking like a thin sack of crap. I am sorry but yes you CAN lose weight on junk food and sofa sitting if you restrict enough. But you will NOT like the results.
Well it's kind of a weird argument truth me told. The key is you have to get all your micronutrients, antioxidants et all in. Macro nutrients are hardly the whole story if you are getting all those in you are probably still just fine. I didn't really mean to say that you can't ever eat "crap" you should know me by now. I indulge in ice cream and stuff quite regularly and though i restrict junk food I am hardly a "my body is a temple no bad calorie shall pass!" kind of guy. However come on ... be real eating 1200 calories of junk and sitting on the couch all day is totally a recipe for disaster.
It's not a black and white argument and achieving good nutrition does not mean disavowing anything labeled as bad. It means achieving good nutrition. End of story XD.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
OF COURSE IT MATTERS! (yes, I'm shouting).
This cite is loaded with CICOPATHS (CICO stands for calories in calories out).
This concept has been totally disproven, especially in the last five years. Google Gary Taubes and buy his book A Calorie is not a Calorie.
DO NOT LISTEN TO THE CICOPATHS!
This site is loaded with people who post because they can't lose weight despite exercising and only eating 1,300 calories a day.
THIS CITE DISPROVES CICO BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE FAILING!
:noway:0 -
LOL Taubes.OF COURSE IT MATTERS! (yes, I'm shouting).
This cite is loaded with CICOPATHS (CICO stands for calories in calories out).
This concept has been totally disproven, especially in the last five years. Google Gary Taubes and buy his book A Calorie is not a Calorie.
DO NOT LISTEN TO THE CICOPATHS!
This site is loaded with people who post because they can't lose weight despite exercising and only eating 1,300 calories a day.
THIS CITE DISPROVES CICO BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE FAILING!0 -
I'm trying to think of an analogy outside food, to compare this question to.
You've got a friend. Does the quality of friend matter, or is it great just because that spot is filled?
You've got a lover. Does the quality of your lover count? Or is any ole thang OK?
No drama, people.
chill
unless you love drama or are you 'huangry" ???
He he new word I learned today.0 -
OF COURSE IT MATTERS! (yes, I'm shouting).
This cite is loaded with CICOPATHS (CICO stands for calories in calories out).
This concept has been totally disproven, especially in the last five years. Google Gary Taubes and buy his book A Calorie is not a Calorie.
DO NOT LISTEN TO THE CICOPATHS!
This site is loaded with people who post because they can't lose weight despite exercising and only eating 1,300 calories a day.
THIS CITE DISPROVES CICO BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE FAILING!
:noway:
Actually this site is loaded with people who HAVE lost lots of weight by counting calories myself included. It's not our fault if a lot of people do it wrong and won't be told that. Yes the human body is more complicated than just a thermodynamic equation. But smart calorie counting is totally the way forward. As I mentioned in my previous post. Some people are just idiotic about it and starve themselves refuse to do any exercise and eat tiny amounts of only vaguely nutritious foods. Calorie accounting is not the route to bodily health but it IS the route to weight loss. Bodily health is more complicated than CICO. Weight loss or gain is NOT.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
OF COURSE IT MATTERS! (yes, I'm shouting).
This cite is loaded with CICOPATHS (CICO stands for calories in calories out).
This concept has been totally disproven, especially in the last five years. Google Gary Taubes and buy his book A Calorie is not a Calorie.
DO NOT LISTEN TO THE CICOPATHS!
This site is loaded with people who post because they can't lose weight despite exercising and only eating 1,300 calories a day.
THIS CITE DISPROVES CICO BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE FAILING!
:noway:
So if I give someone some tools, and give them NO training and NO explanation in how to use these tools, and they fail to build a house, I should blame the tools?
People fail on this site because they don't understand how the tools work. Those who take the time to educate themselves on proper use and technique, have been very successful using the exact same tools.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I ONLY logged on here to let you know how RIDICULOUS you all sound to someone who knows how the body works and maybe plant a seed to stop the "calorie brainwash" out there. call me what u will, just proves how "Juvenile" you are, you give nothing but personal attacks like a professional keyboard expert. its fine, stay in the dark and just think you know, imagine how dumb you will feel when 5-10 years from now they are telling EVERYONE in the media that calories DONT MATTER. mark my words.
So great to see this post. I also got attacked for saying the same thing. 0 -
This concept has been totally disproven, especially in the last five years. Google Gary Taubes and buy his book A Calorie is not a Calorie.
Gary is in no doubt a smart scientist and physicist, but is gaining fame and popularity by writing books about whats discussed on MFP on a weekly basis. You see that everyone, we should be getting paid for THIS!
This is the 2nd physicist I have seen being promoted claiming they know all about how the human body handles the consumption of food and the breakdown of it into energy here on MFP this week. I was also just reading some of the research that Gary and his other friends cite as pertaining to the Quality of Calories. So Wake Forest does a study on monkeys and concludes that the calorie exchange is different for monkeys who have more saturated fat than others. THEY ARE MONKEYS!!!!! THEY DONT EVEN NEED TO LIFT FFS! *smh* Referencing studies on monkeys and applying it to humans? Please come at me when you use an actual human being to study. Its bad enough when research with human beings as participants pertaining to diet/exercise, have so many other different holes (either the sample isnt representative of the general population, or the methods conducted could not yield a specific hypothesis being discussed but can only be applied to that particular study etc.) it makes me want a ham sandwich with extra baby swiss on it. But thankfully when we discuss studies we normally at least try to use ones with human beings, not goats, panda bears, or platypuses.
Anyway, I dont know what material you are reading but I dont think you or Gary understand what CICO is as his first book was Good Calorie, Bad Calorie. As a physicist I am kinda disappointed in Gary.....A calorie is a calorie, AND a macro is also a macro. He should know that how much you weigh isnt just some arbitrary number in pounds, kilos, or stones. Well in fact is none of those. Our weight is determined from the force of gravity on the mass of our bodies which is measured in Newtons. 1lb = ~4.45 Newtons. Scientifically speaking you could be overweight (body mass index), but also not be considered "fat" . It all depends upon the amount of volume your mass takes up (looser or tighter pants at the same weight). aka body fat percentage.
All this is information is covered in this video which was made by a Bodybuilding Engineer (I trust more engineers than physicists at this point to be giving exercise and fitness advice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C80W7vmvZ0
Please share this with your friend Gary. You also missed the discussion yesterday where a young man ate the same diet (5,279) for 21 days. He had the same claim as you. Wanted to debunk calories in and out. The funny thing is if CICO doesnt count, then why predict a weight gain? He predicted he would gain 12lbs in 21 days. If CICO doest matter, then shouldnt he have gained nothing? That doesnt really matter either because at the end of the 21 days he gained 15lbs. 25% more weight (3 lbs) than he originally predicted. Thats pretty bad science. His hypothesis was disproved, but his body fat percentage stayed the same or might even decreased so you twist that into a success? The good news was he looked great. He did gain lean mass. So maybe you and Gary might want to change your tune and say CICO matters and finding the macro profile matters even more? 10% carbohydrates, 50% fat and 40% protein. <--Which keeps in line with what Gary says. Carbs Iz Da Debil.
But you, Gary, and your band of merry pizza and bagel haters can believe what you want......at a caloric surplus, you will still gain weight. Just like this guy did
http://live.smashthefat.com/the-21-day-5000-calorie-challenge/0 -
This concept has been totally disproven, especially in the last five years. Google Gary Taubes and buy his book A Calorie is not a Calorie.
Gary is in no doubt a smart scientist and physicist, but is gaining fame and popularity by writing books about whats discussed on MFP on a weekly basis. You see that everyone, we should be getting paid for THIS!
This is the 2nd physicist I have seen being promoted claiming they know all about how the human body handles the consumption of food and the breakdown of it into energy here on MFP this week. I was also just reading some of the research that Gary and his other friends cite as pertaining to the Quality of Calories. So Wake Forest does a study on monkeys and concludes that the calorie exchange is different for monkeys who have more saturated fat than others. THEY ARE MONKEYS!!!!! THEY DONT EVEN NEED TO LIFT FFS! *smh* Referencing studies on monkeys and applying it to humans? Please come at me when you use an actual human being to study. Its bad enough when research with human beings as participants pertaining to diet/exercise, have so many other different holes (either the sample isnt representative of the general population, or the methods conducted could not yield a specific hypothesis being discussed but can only be applied to that particular study etc.) it makes me want a ham sandwich with extra baby swiss on it. But thankfully when we discuss studies we normally at least try to use ones with human beings, not goats, panda bears, or platypuses.
Anyway, I dont know what material you are reading but I dont think you or Gary understand what CICO is as his first book was Good Calorie, Bad Calorie. As a physicist I am kinda disappointed in Gary.....A calorie is a calorie, AND a macro is also a macro. He should know that how much you weigh isnt just some arbitrary number in pounds, kilos, or stones. Well in fact is none of those. Our weight is determined from the force of gravity on the mass of our bodies which is measured in Newtons. 1lb = ~4.45 Newtons. Scientifically speaking you could be overweight (body mass index), but also not be considered "fat" . It all depends upon the amount of volume your mass takes up (looser or tighter pants at the same weight). aka body fat percentage.
All this is information is covered in this video which was made by a Bodybuilding Engineer (I trust more engineers than physicists at this point to be giving exercise and fitness advice.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C80W7vmvZ0
Please share this with your friend Gary. You also missed the discussion yesterday where a young man ate the same diet (5,279) for 21 days. He had the same claim as you. Wanted to debunk calories in and out. The funny thing is if CICO doesnt count, then why predict a weight gain? He predicted he would gain 12lbs in 21 days. If CICO doest matter, then shouldnt he have gained nothing? That doesnt really matter either because at the end of the 21 days he gained 15lbs. 25% more weight (3 lbs) than he originally predicted. Thats pretty bad science. His hypothesis was disproved, but his body fat percentage stayed the same or might even decreased so you twist that into a success? The good news was he looked great. He did gain lean mass. So maybe you and Gary might want to change your tune and say CICO matters and finding the macro profile matters even more? 10% carbohydrates, 50% fat and 40% protein. <--Which keeps in line with what Gary says. Carbs Iz Da Debil.
But you, Gary, and your band of merry pizza and bagel haters can believe what you want......at a caloric surplus, you will still gain weight. Just like this guy did
http://live.smashthefat.com/the-21-day-5000-calorie-challenge/
To be fair, the studies are done on lower primates because we can't lock humans in cages and force them to follow experimental protocol.
0 -
I ONLY logged on here to let you know how RIDICULOUS you all sound to someone who knows how the body works and maybe plant a seed to stop the "calorie brainwash" out there. call me what u will, just proves how "Juvenile" you are, you give nothing but personal attacks like a professional keyboard expert. its fine, stay in the dark and just think you know, imagine how dumb you will feel when 5-10 years from now they are telling EVERYONE in the media that calories DONT MATTER. mark my words.
So great to see this post. I also got attacked for saying the same thing.
Genuine question, why are you using a tool that's most commonly used for calorie counting if you don't in fact think calorie counting works as a tool for weight loss?0 -
OF COURSE IT MATTERS! (yes, I'm shouting).
This cite is loaded with CICOPATHS (CICO stands for calories in calories out).
This concept has been totally disproven, especially in the last five years. Google Gary Taubes and buy his book A Calorie is not a Calorie.
DO NOT LISTEN TO THE CICOPATHS!
This site is loaded with people who post because they can't lose weight despite exercising and only eating 1,300 calories a day.
THIS CITE DISPROVES CICO BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE ARE FAILING!
Shocking considering this site is a calorie counting website.
And lol Taubes.0 -
lol @ cicopaths.
I've never heard that one before.0 -
To be fair, the studies are done on lower primates because we can't lock humans in cages and force them to follow experimental protocol.
We already have volunteers!! They are called prisoners
The IRB is totally slowing progress 0 -
That poster went pages and pages arguing against CICO. Turns out they eat less than 800 cals a day after their diary was exposed. It was a great thread lots of lolz were had.I ONLY logged on here to let you know how RIDICULOUS you all sound to someone who knows how the body works and maybe plant a seed to stop the "calorie brainwash" out there. call me what u will, just proves how "Juvenile" you are, you give nothing but personal attacks like a professional keyboard expert. its fine, stay in the dark and just think you know, imagine how dumb you will feel when 5-10 years from now they are telling EVERYONE in the media that calories DONT MATTER. mark my words.
So great to see this post. I also got attacked for saying the same thing.
Genuine question, why are you using a tool that's most commonly used for calorie counting if you don't in fact think calorie counting works as a tool for weight loss?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Oh boy, my favorite topic. So in.0
-
my eyes hurt0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Well it's better than the buttmy eyes hurt
Says you, I love the day after squat day.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Well it's better than the buttmy eyes hurt
I thought this said "it's better IN the butt"
I guess thats better than if you thought it said "its butter IN the butt" ?0 -
Well this topic sure got weird in a hurry lol.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
If your only goal is to lose weight then you will still lose weight as long as you're within calories.
But for long-term that is a bad idea. Type 2 diabetes. Heart problems. General fatigue/low energy. You'll wish you'd eaten healthier foods.
ETA: CICO does work. It's math, not magic. There are small variations based on metabolism, but not enough to cancel out CICO.
My guess is that #1 people aren't measuring their calories correctly. #2 People on here are always telling each other to eat back all or "at least half of" their exercise calories. Exercise does not burn as much as people think it does and eating back what it says you burned (especially when said calories aren't properly measured) will lead to plateau or weight gain. I always advise up to half and only if you're actually hungry. Eating just to eat is not a good habit (unless your calories consumed is under 1200 where you won't be getting proper nutrition).
I'm telling you, in a controlled study, where you aren't allowed to leave and can only eat what they give you (food which is actually measured correctly), and they had them run or walk a certain number of miles each day, those people did lose weight...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K 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
- 96.4K 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