A Calorie is NOT just a Calorie
Options
Replies
-
*double post*0
-
congrats to me for starting the most controversial thread of all time apparently....
the funniest part is, I don't believe the article 100% but I thought it was very interesting and helpful talking about the way the body processes food.
and everyone just started arguing with an article that can't argue back0 -
congrats to me for starting the most controversial thread of all time apparently....
the funniest part is, I don't believe the article 100% but I thought it was very interesting and helpful talking about the way the body processes food.
and everyone just started arguing with an article that can't argue back
Oh, you're new around here, huh? :laugh:
It's very cool that you wanted to contribute, btw. It just happens to be a subject that gets people's dander up.0 -
"I guess 42lbs and 8% BF loss is not sucess...how much do I have to lose to be considered a success?"
First, to be a success, by your own criteria, you would have to meet your goals. From what I remember, you are 8 lbs away from your goal, and thus still short of success, as you yourself define it.
Second, and more important, losing the weight is the easy part. I wouldn't call anyone a success until they had maintained a healthy goal weight for at least two years, and three years would be better. If you still think of yourself as being in a maintenance phase, then you haven't yet succeeded. Success is actually when you reach the point where you have stabilized your weight at a desired level, and you stop thinking of yourself as dieting.
Short of that, I would say that you are on track and doing very well. But, alas, success is still a long way off.
Don't quit your day job.0 -
But a "calorie is a calorie" as generic as it is, actually addresses that willpower issue IMO.
It lets people know they don't have to waste willpower cutting out wide swaths of food and/or demonizing entire macros. If the goal is to reduce willpower to the lowest level (i tend to agree) then I see "Calories in/Calories Out" as an important part of that equation.
For sure.
We know that as a dieting model anything which puts high levels of restriction against willpower generally tends to fail. Our stores of willpower are finite and if it constantly has to fight the tension created by deprivation it will buckle most times. People then feel they have failed and go on to hoover up everything palatable food item in a ten mile radius. That is why the idea of CICO really helps as it reduces feelings of deprivation as you understand that you can incorporate pretty much anything and still succeed.
The problem comes when you have foods which people have tremendously difficult regulating their intake of properly. Knowing intellectually that CICO will work ("twinkie diet yo!") doesn't give you the skills, particularly psychological, to do so, especially when eating them has become autonomous. Moderation may not even be the best solution in the short term. Giving some people alternative strategies to deal with their "kryptonite"may be necessary.
I think the detailed discussions of physiology are good but not when it crowds out discussions about dieting psychology. Addressing both are important.0 -
congrats to me for starting the most controversial thread of all time apparently....
the funniest part is, I don't believe the article 100% but I thought it was very interesting and helpful talking about the way the body processes food.
and everyone just started arguing with an article that can't argue back
While I will give you credit for a topic that rolled, there are plenty of others worst than this... start a thread saying you are addicted to sugar and all hell breaks loose.
I do hope you have learned from this thread though. While there was a lot of fighting/bickering, there has been some solid information. A calories is just a unit of measure and calories in vs out is weight loss, but macro and micro management is for satiety, energy, fitness goals, etc... As I stated, my priorities are to hit my protein goals daily, give enough calories to push hard during my workout (around 2400) and if I have left over, I get a Klondike bar. I keep my sodium between 3000 and 4000mg. Even through all of this, my body fat % has decrease, my weight has lowered, I have become stronger and fast, and my blood pressure is 110/70, resting hr has dropped form 78 down to 70 and all my cholesterol numbers have improved. Do I eat dirty, yea, 20% of the time, but I also eat fruits, veggies and meats daily.0 -
congrats to me for starting the most controversial thread of all time apparently....
the funniest part is, I don't believe the article 100% but I thought it was very interesting and helpful talking about the way the body processes food.
and everyone just started arguing with an article that can't argue back
Oh, you're new around here, huh? :laugh:
It's very cool that you wanted to contribute, btw. It just happens to be a subject that gets people's dander up.
what I have learned from this website is most people cannot have a logical debate without putting other people down. sad really. that should definitely be a rule on mfp to ban people who are rude to others.0 -
This is a very generic and incorrect sentence. I would question your ability to show me a group of fit people that have these issues. I would think obesity and genetics play a much larger role in these medical conditions compared to the types of food. A perfect indication for high cholesterol is me. While my LDL levels are acceptable and have improved, they are at a higher level that many people. A few years ago, it was discovered that both my mom and dad have higher LDL's. My mom is skinny (5'4, 120 lbs) and my dad is overeight. I am fairly lean and fit and still have similar LDL. Multiple doctors I have dealt with agree that genetics is the reason for that LDL's being high.Eat crap and you will reap the 'rewards' years from now...Lets see...how does diabetes, high cholesterol, fatty liver, organ inflammation, poor immunity and medication to help you cope sound?0 -
But a "calorie is a calorie" as generic as it is, actually addresses that willpower issue IMO.
It lets people know they don't have to waste willpower cutting out wide swaths of food and/or demonizing entire macros. If the goal is to reduce willpower to the lowest level (i tend to agree) then I see "Calories in/Calories Out" as an important part of that equation.
For sure.
We know that as a dieting model anything which puts high levels of restriction against willpower generally tends to fail. Our stores of willpower are finite and if it constantly has to fight the tension created by deprivation it will buckle most times. People then feel they have failed and go on to hoover up everything palatable food item in a ten mile radius. That is why the idea of CICO really helps as it reduces feelings of deprivation as you understand that you can incorporate pretty much anything and still succeed.
The problem comes when you have foods which people have tremendously difficult regulating their intake of properly. Knowing intellectually that CICO will work ("twinkie diet yo!") doesn't give you the skills, particularly psychological, to do so, especially when eating them has become autonomous. Moderation may not even be the best solution in the short term. Giving some people alternative strategies to deal with their "kryptonite"may be necessary.
I think the detailed discussions of physiology are good but not when it crowds out discussions about dieting psychology. Addressing both are important.
Great post.0 -
congrats to me for starting the most controversial thread of all time apparently....
the funniest part is, I don't believe the article 100% but I thought it was very interesting and helpful talking about the way the body processes food.
and everyone just started arguing with an article that can't argue back
Oh, you're new around here, huh? :laugh:
It's very cool that you wanted to contribute, btw. It just happens to be a subject that gets people's dander up.
what I have learned from this website is most people cannot have a logical debate without putting other people down. sad really. that should definitely be a rule on mfp to ban people who are rude to others.
MFP does have a rule about attacking people. If people feel they have been attacked or they feel someone else has been attacked they can use the report feature for the below rule. There has been a few people deleted in this thread because of that. But to keep an unbias, I do not mod threads I am in. Also understand there that disagreement =/= attack.
I won't deny there has been borderline attacks or blatant attacks, which I would hope people would report so another mod can evaluate the situation.
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.0 -
I feel we're beating a dead horse...:yawn:0
-
But a "calorie is a calorie" as generic as it is, actually addresses that willpower issue IMO.
It lets people know they don't have to waste willpower cutting out wide swaths of food and/or demonizing entire macros. If the goal is to reduce willpower to the lowest level (i tend to agree) then I see "Calories in/Calories Out" as an important part of that equation.
For sure.
We know that as a dieting model anything which puts high levels of restriction against willpower generally tends to fail. Our stores of willpower are finite and if it constantly has to fight the tension created by deprivation it will buckle most times. People then feel they have failed and go on to hoover up everything palatable food item in a ten mile radius. That is why the idea of CICO really helps as it reduces feelings of deprivation as you understand that you can incorporate pretty much anything and still succeed.
The problem comes when you have foods which people have tremendously difficult regulating their intake of properly. Knowing intellectually that CICO will work ("twinkie diet yo!") doesn't give you the skills, particularly psychological, to do so, especially when eating them has become autonomous. Moderation may not even be the best solution in the short term. Giving some people alternative strategies to deal with their "kryptonite"may be necessary.
I think the detailed discussions of physiology are good but not when it crowds out discussions about dieting psychology. Addressing both are important.
Yes - agreed 100% :drinker:0 -
It's not like we're psychiatrists. If someone truly physically can't muster their own strength to eat in moderation, maybe they're better off seeking professional help instead of an internet forum.I think it's a cult.
Have you met the Church of Heavy Lifting yet? That's always fun...
On a serious note I do think that people are genuinely trying to help. However they seem to forget, do not care or do not even know perhaps that knowing something intellectually does not mean the person they are giving the advice to has the skills or psychological profile to even implement the idea.
I get the impression that some people think if they give a dieter valid but generic information such as a "calorie is a calorie" or balance your macros that this will somehow help that person magically to overcome their issues with food or over eating. Sometimes this does work. In many instances it does not. And the instances where it does not is where these forums are severely lacking in quality advice because the only solution appears to be "use willpower" (when in fact having a dietary set up where the need for willpower is reduced to the lowest level possible is far, far better. How that set up is achieved is as much art as science).0 -
Wow, this was an unforgettable reading...
It's very interesting how so many defend the way of losing weight on a diet that includes ice cream, cookies etc.
I still push for clean diets to lose weight, and to get a lean or ripped physique.
Clean diets BUT with the space to reward yourself when you're reaching your goals.
Losing weight and eating cookies and fast food once a day - or more - because you it fits your calories, is a easy way. Of course it is. You don't have to be so hard on yourself. You're allowed to cheat! But it's not as effective as a clean diet with cheat meals occasionly, when for example, you're reaching your goals.
A clean diet is tougher but more effective. You will BURN FAT in faster tempo. You will feel healther. You will be healthier.
Losing weight. Who care's about the weight anyway? In my world it's all about the BF% and the waist measure.
You can contine to eat whatever you want, eat your chocolate bar and cookies every day and loose weight on a calorie deficit.
You may reach your goals. You lost your weight. But whats the look of your body? Skinny with fat? Lost a lot of weight, but how about your muscles?
On a clean diet, with more protein and healthy fats, you can also reach your goals. But you will lose more fat, spare muscles and get a toned, lean or ripped body. You will probably look great!
Do you think Mark Anthony Wingson was eating one or two chocolate bars in the evening on his diet, because it fit his calories...? Do you think he had look this fit if he could eat WHATEVER he wanted on his diet...?
http://cdn-w.musculardevelopment.com/photos/transferred/IMG_5102 copy_TDSCBGMCMD.jpg
NO. He hadn't lookt that way at all, if he was allowed to eat whater he wanted on his diet, even if it was on a calorie deficit diet.
If you just want to lose weight and that's the only goal. You don't care about the overall look of your body, estethics, your muscles, your healt etc. Then it's all fine. You can continue to eat crap all day long as long as you are in a calorie deficit. In that way you can say that a calorie is a calorie.
But if you have higher goals and expectations regarding your body, then you should keep a cleaner and better diet. In that way a calorie is NOT just a calorie.0 -
It's not like we're psychiatrists. If someone truly physically can't muster their own strength to eat in moderation, maybe they're better off seeking professional help instead of an internet forum.
Well most people here aren't doctors or scientists either, but we still share our knowledge of weight loss. Don't see how sharing psychological tips and thoughts is any different.
Plus, social support is a big part of the psychological puzzle IMO, so the forum seems like the perfect place to discuss it.0 -
Wow, this was an unforgettable reading...
It's very interesting how so many defend the way of losing weight on a diet that includes ice cream, cookies etc.
I still push for clean diets to lose weight, and to get a lean or ripped physique.
Clean diets BUT with the space to reward yourself when you're reaching your goals.
Losing weight and eating cookies and fast food once a day - or more - because you it fits your calories, is a easy way. Of course it is. You don't have to be so hard on yourself. You're allowed to cheat! But it's not as effective as a clean diet with cheat meals occasionly, when for example, you're reaching your goals.
A clean diet is tougher but more effective. You will BURN FAT in faster tempo. You will feel healther. You will be healthier.
Losing weight. Who care's about the weight anyway? In my world it's all about the BF% and the waist measure.
You can contine to eat whatever you want, eat your chocolate bar and cookies every day and loose weight on a calorie deficit.
You may reach your goals. You lost your weight. But whats the look of your body? Skinny with fat? Lost a lot of weight, but how about your muscles?
On a clean diet, with more protein and healthy fats, you can also reach your goals. But you will lose more fat, spare muscles and get a toned, lean or ripped body. You will probably look great!
Do you think Mark Anthony Wingson was eating one or two chocolate bars in the evening on his diet, because it fit his calories...? Do you think he had look this fit if he could eat WHATEVER he wanted on his diet...?
http://cdn-w.musculardevelopment.com/photos/transferred/IMG_5102 copy_TDSCBGMCMD.jpg
NO. He hadn't lookt that way at all, if he was allowed to eat whater he wanted on his diet, even if it was on a calorie deficit diet.
If you just want to lose weight and that's the only goal. You don't care about the overall look of your body, estethics, your muscles, your healt etc. Then it's all fine. You can continue to eat crap all day long as long as you are in a calorie deficit. In that way you can say that a calorie is a calorie.
But if you have higher goals and expectations regarding your body, then you should keep a cleaner and better diet. In that way a calorie is NOT just a calorie.
After all that you said, it takes me back to your first sentence and makes me really wonder if you really read the thread...0 -
Do you think Mark Anthony Wingson was eating one or two chocolate bars in the evening on his diet, because it fit his calories...? Do you think he had look this fit if he could eat WHATEVER he wanted on his diet...?
http://cdn-w.musculardevelopment.com/photos/transferred/IMG_5102 copy_TDSCBGMCMD.jpg
He is an IFBB pro, so he is prolly on a stack of steroids that some of us can't even afford...
I won't touch the rest of your post tho.0 -
Wow, this was an unforgettable reading...
It's very interesting how so many defend the way of losing weight on a diet that includes ice cream, cookies etc.
I still push for clean diets to lose weight, and to get a lean or ripped physique.
Clean diets BUT with the space to reward yourself when you're reaching your goals.
Losing weight and eating cookies and fast food once a day - or more - because you it fits your calories, is a easy way. Of course it is. You don't have to be so hard on yourself. You're allowed to cheat! But it's not as effective as a clean diet with cheat meals occasionly, when for example, you're reaching your goals.
A clean diet is tougher but more effective. You will BURN FAT in faster tempo. You will feel healther. You will be healthier.
Losing weight. Who care's about the weight anyway? In my world it's all about the BF% and the waist measure.
You can contine to eat whatever you want, eat your chocolate bar and cookies every day and loose weight on a calorie deficit.
You may reach your goals. You lost your weight. But whats the look of your body? Skinny with fat? Lost a lot of weight, but how about your muscles?
On a clean diet, with more protein and healthy fats, you can also reach your goals. But you will lose more fat, spare muscles and get a toned, lean or ripped body. You will probably look great!
Do you think Mark Anthony Wingson was eating one or two chocolate bars in the evening on his diet, because it fit his calories...? Do you think he had look this fit if he could eat WHATEVER he wanted on his diet...?
http://cdn-w.musculardevelopment.com/photos/transferred/IMG_5102 copy_TDSCBGMCMD.jpg
NO. He hadn't lookt that way at all, if he was allowed to eat whater he wanted on his diet, even if it was on a calorie deficit diet.
If you just want to lose weight and that's the only goal. You don't care about the overall look of your body, estethics, your muscles, your healt etc. Then it's all fine. You can continue to eat crap all day long as long as you are in a calorie deficit. In that way you can say that a calorie is a calorie.
But if you have higher goals and expectations regarding your body, then you should keep a cleaner and better diet. In that way a calorie is NOT just a calorie.
BOOM. thank you. and I'm already pretty thin..i would not call 125 fat. its about building muscle and getting toned for me. THANK YOU0 -
He is an IFBB pro, so he is prolly on a stack of steroids that some of us can't even afford...
I won't touch the rest of your post tho.
Yes, he is am IFBB Pro. But not in bodybuilding. IF he would use any type of steroid - or clen, DNP or whatever, he still hadn't get that ripped eating whater he wanted as long as he was on a calorie deficit.0 -
Neither of which is going to happen if you continue to eat 900 calories or less a day.Wow, this was an unforgettable reading...
It's very interesting how so many defend the way of losing weight on a diet that includes ice cream, cookies etc.
I still push for clean diets to lose weight, and to get a lean or ripped physique.
Clean diets BUT with the space to reward yourself when you're reaching your goals.
Losing weight and eating cookies and fast food once a day - or more - because you it fits your calories, is a easy way. Of course it is. You don't have to be so hard on yourself. You're allowed to cheat! But it's not as effective as a clean diet with cheat meals occasionly, when for example, you're reaching your goals.
A clean diet is tougher but more effective. You will BURN FAT in faster tempo. You will feel healther. You will be healthier.
Losing weight. Who care's about the weight anyway? In my world it's all about the BF% and the waist measure.
You can contine to eat whatever you want, eat your chocolate bar and cookies every day and loose weight on a calorie deficit.
You may reach your goals. You lost your weight. But whats the look of your body? Skinny with fat? Lost a lot of weight, but how about your muscles?
On a clean diet, with more protein and healthy fats, you can also reach your goals. But you will lose more fat, spare muscles and get a toned, lean or ripped body. You will probably look great!
Do you think Mark Anthony Wingson was eating one or two chocolate bars in the evening on his diet, because it fit his calories...? Do you think he had look this fit if he could eat WHATEVER he wanted on his diet...?
http://cdn-w.musculardevelopment.com/photos/transferred/IMG_5102 copy_TDSCBGMCMD.jpg
NO. He hadn't lookt that way at all, if he was allowed to eat whater he wanted on his diet, even if it was on a calorie deficit diet.
If you just want to lose weight and that's the only goal. You don't care about the overall look of your body, estethics, your muscles, your healt etc. Then it's all fine. You can continue to eat crap all day long as long as you are in a calorie deficit. In that way you can say that a calorie is a calorie.
But if you have higher goals and expectations regarding your body, then you should keep a cleaner and better diet. In that way a calorie is NOT just a calorie.
BOOM. thank you. and I'm already pretty thin..i would not call 125 fat. its about building muscle and getting toned for me. THANK YOU0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions