250 calories per day on chocolate?
Options
Replies
-
@Greytfish - pls respond, I want to know what the hell I have been burning if it isn't fat... IS IT MY SPLEEN? MY PANCREAS? MY UVULA?! (I had a pretty fat uvula... It looks skinnier now).
If you read what I actually posted, you might understand.
I read exactly what you posted.
Calorie deficit = weight loss
Eating sugar means I won't burn fat
So if I am eating sugar on a calorie deficit and lose weight, what is it I am losing?
pls respond, I am scared for my organs.
Well, you read, I'll give you that. You apparently didn't understand the plain meaning.
And you appear to be masterfully adept at being condescending and avoiding the question.
Please explain what I am burning to lose weight if I am not burning fat.0 -
Is it acceptable to eat 250 calories worth of chocolate per day when you are trying to lose weight, as long as you are still in your calorie limit? I have tried to have just one small piece or swap it for dark but it just isnt working and i keep failing! I was reading somewhere that eating chocolate or other junk food is really bad for weight loss as a calorie is not just a calorie, but i always thought it didn't matter in terms of weight loss as long as you are at a calorie deficit. Have any of you had chocolate daily and managed to use a significant amount of weight? I have 100 pounds to lose and chocolate is my nemesis
It won't be giving you any vital nutrients it is basically empty calories. However that said chocolate does give you Phenylethylamine and antioxidants (the dark stuff that is) but the milk and other chemicals do negate these (to a degree) in milk chocolate.
If your getting your protein, fats and other essential nutrients from the other food your eating - why not indulge ( as long as your eating a deficit it won't be doing you any harm).
If you can try the dark chocolate again it would be beneficial (I find a glass of Merlot takes the edge off the bitterness)????0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
But if the OP stays under her calorie allowance she is still in a deficit and will still lose weight... SOOOO she can still have some chocolate.
The post you dispute didn't assert otherwise. Caloric deficit will always result in weight loss absent a metabolic or specific health condition interfering. And that may very well be the goal for many overeaters without a history of health and fitness since they have a tendency to focus exclusively on losing weight ratehr than a healthy body composition or remaining injury free.
Caloric deficit will cause weight loss, yes. If you want to lose existing body fat, you have to be conscious of how much of your dietary intake with further or thwart those goals. Your body will burn the sugars, then the carbs before it ever gets to burning more than a small amount of fat, let alone the bodyfat one is already carrying.
Ok. Let's say you are driving from Washington DC to Washington state in a hybrid car. You have 120 miles of electricity and a 20 gallon tank. At some point, you are going to have to stop for a recharge and some gas. However, in the context of a long distance trip, it's not going to matter what the car uses first: gas or electric. You'll still have to stop.
City driving - yes. Your options are different and how your car uses the fuel is going to impact your choices. But for long distance. you aren't going to get significantly farther whichever fuel burns first, because you are going to use all of it.0 -
@Greytfish - pls respond, I want to know what the hell I have been burning if it isn't fat... IS IT MY SPLEEN? MY PANCREAS? MY UVULA?! (I had a pretty fat uvula... It looks skinnier now).
If you read what I actually posted, you might understand.
I read exactly what you posted.
Calorie deficit = weight loss
Eating sugar means I won't burn fat
So if I am eating sugar on a calorie deficit and lose weight, what is it I am losing?
pls respond, I am scared for my organs.
Well, you read, I'll give you that. You apparently didn't understand the plain meaning.
And you appear to be masterfully adept at being condescending and avoiding the question.
Please explain what I am burning to lose weight if I am not burning fat.
As long as you are eating a healthy enough portion of protein and a calorific deficit your weight loss should be coming from your stored body fat ( adipose tissue).
If your eating too much of a deficit and not getting the required amount of protein when you liver kicks in to produce glycogen and there is not enough amino acid from dietary protein it will take it from your lean mass.
In any calorie deficit diet substantial protein and ideal resistance train will be lean mass sparring.
,0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.0 -
Yes......the great sugar debate. The question was: can the OP eat 250 calories (of chocolate) and lose weight. Answer: If it fits into your calorie limit, yes! Now.......I'm off to measure my uvula :bigsmile:
0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.
I think this is why everybody was careful to say that meeting macros was first and then chocolate.
If somebody is meeting their macro targets and still in a deficit, will a small amount of sugar and fat cause a noticible change in the ability to lose weight?0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.
This is true - a 3500 calorie deficit a week should equal in loss.
1lb - 100% body fat
1.7lb - 50/50 body fat and lean mass
5.8lb - 100% lean mass
Lean mass is muscle, bone, sinew, connective tissue and organs.
It's always healthier to take it slow and just burn the body fat. As long as you've got the right diet it's simple (not always easy - but simple)0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.
Okay, so are you saying I have been losing muscle mass and not fat, because I consume sugar?
I eat about 1g protein per lb of lean body mass, do three days a week of HITT running intervals and walk an hour a day. I also do about 35 minutes of circuits three times a week with weights. On my "rest" days I am still pretty active walking and doing yoga/mobility exercises (I have poor mobility in my hips due to being overweight for so long).
I have been doing this (or some variation of) for about two years. I meet my macronutrients and I eat chocolate, candy, honey, fruit. I cook with sugar (I make a lot of Japanese food) and it always fits into my carb macro allowance.
I have lost 70lbs.
Was that whole 70lbs muscle? If so, I must look like the Michelin man!!
-checks profile pic-
Nope, looks like I have pretty muscular legs and much less fat.
Explain again, I clearly missed the part where you're right.0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.
I think this is why everybody was careful to say that meeting macros was first and then chocolate.
If somebody is meeting their macro targets and still in a deficit, will a small amount of sugar and fat cause a noticible change in the ability to lose weight?
Not at all. You may not get to where your going as quick, but you will still get there.0 -
I think this is why everybody was careful to say that meeting macros was first and then chocolate.
If somebody is meeting their macro targets and still in a deficit, will a small amount of sugar and fat cause a noticible change in the ability to lose weight?
Not at all. You may not get to where your going as quick, but you will still get there.
Define quick?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1201887-a-love-song-for-my-barbell-50-lbs-down0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.
Okay, so are you saying I have been losing muscle mass and not fat, because I consume sugar?
I eat about 1g protein per lb of lean body mass, do three days a week of HITT running intervals and walk an hour a day. I also do about 35 minutes of circuits three times a week with weights. On my "rest" days I am still pretty active walking and doing yoga/mobility exercises (I have poor mobility in my hips due to being overweight for so long).
I have been doing this (or some variation of) for about two years. I meet my macronutrients and I eat chocolate, candy, honey, fruit. I cook with sugar (I make a lot of Japanese food) and it always fits into my carb macro allowance.
I have lost 70lbs.
Was that whole 70lbs muscle? If so, I must look like the Michelin man!!
-checks profile pic-
Nope, looks like I have pretty muscular legs and much less fat.
Explain again, I clearly missed the part where you're right.
With one gram of protein per lb of lean mass and all that training sounds spot on (are you limiting your other carbs and eating enough fat)?0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.
I think this is why everybody was careful to say that meeting macros was first and then chocolate.
If somebody is meeting their macro targets and still in a deficit, will a small amount of sugar and fat cause a noticible change in the ability to lose weight?
Not at all. You may not get to where your going as quick, but you will still get there.
Define quick?
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1201887-a-love-song-for-my-barbell-50-lbs-down
No.0 -
Figures. I guess 8 months is too long. All that sugar, right? Rats.0
-
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.
No. Priority of fuel usage doesn't mean a thing in a consistent deficit. Adequate protein and protein-sparing stimulus do, but splitting hairs between different types of carbs is pointless if you are maintaining a consistent moderate deficit.0 -
Wrong wrong wrong wrong !!
Yes eat within your calories sure that's fine but all that sugar is going to be burnt before the fat is so the more sugar intake you have the less fat you will burn overall it goes like this
Sugar---- carbs----fat
The less sugar you have the quiker carbs are burnt for energy the wuicker fat is birnt so sure eat tons of sugar but don't exoect a huge fat loss anytime soon
Um..... Sugar is a carb....
Everybody loves the semantics that enable them to feel better about their choices.
Yes, both sugar and carbs are each a sugar and a carb, but that doesn't make him incorrect in his assertion that the body burns "simple" sugars, then carb "sugars," then fat, and later protein.
But, by all means, assert the unimportant minutia. It's always sooo helpful.
Ok. The body burn simple carbs. Then complex carbs. Then blah blah blah. And then, being in a 250 calorie deficit, what does it do? And how does the order of the energy that the body uses before it commits to using body fat matter?
Eat a balanced diet. Stay at a reasonable deficit. Get exercise that included resistance training.
If you have 100 pounds to lose, everything else is over complicating the situation.
No, basic biology is not overcomplicating the situation, though I can see why someone with 100 lbs. to lose might be of the view that any progress toward a healthy weight, even without a healthy body composition, is an improvement.
A 250 calorie deficit will create weight loss at a rate of about 1/2 lb. of weight per week. The composition of the calories taken in by the body and the exercise performed dictate whether that loss will be in body fat, muscle mass, etc.
Lots of obese and morbidly obese people focus solely on the calories and nothing else. If all you want to do is move the number on the scale, yes, that will do it. But, when you do it without hitting a decent protein target (usually at least twice the MFP recommendation for someone exercising even moderately) you're losing weight by catabolizing muscle and making youself more injury prone. The fastest way to drop weight quickly is cardio, calorie deficit, and deficient protein levels. You drop muscle fast and lose a lot more weight than if you were losing body fat. It makes you weigh less, it doesn't make you healthier.
The order in which your body prioritizes fuel usage matters if you want to be healthy. It, and the food you take in, determines whether the body is losing primarily fat or primarily muscle mass.
Okay, so are you saying I have been losing muscle mass and not fat, because I consume sugar?
I eat about 1g protein per lb of lean body mass, do three days a week of HITT running intervals and walk an hour a day. I also do about 35 minutes of circuits three times a week with weights. On my "rest" days I am still pretty active walking and doing yoga/mobility exercises (I have poor mobility in my hips due to being overweight for so long).
I have been doing this (or some variation of) for about two years. I meet my macronutrients and I eat chocolate, candy, honey, fruit. I cook with sugar (I make a lot of Japanese food) and it always fits into my carb macro allowance.
I have lost 70lbs.
Was that whole 70lbs muscle? If so, I must look like the Michelin man!!
-checks profile pic-
Nope, looks like I have pretty muscular legs and much less fat.
Explain again, I clearly missed the part where you're right.
With one gram of protein per lb of lean mass and all that training sounds spot on (are you limiting your other carbs and eating enough fat)?
I'm on a 40/30/30 split. I do very well. I just don't understand how the "expert" on this post is trying to explain that by eating processed sugars (which I actually CANNOT track as they're not listed separately on most foods in this country) I cannot be burning fat. Everyone in the post has said, if it fits your calories and macros, eat it. This is a sensible approach.
I honestly can't see why there is any argument here.0 -
So, I think we're all in agreement that it is important to pay attention to your calorie sources to ensure that you are getting sufficient amounts of protein, fat and carbs
How much energy sources matter after "sufficient" has been reached (and probably how to define sufficient) is something we could argue until the thread gets shut down.0 -
Figures. I guess 8 months is too long. All that sugar, right? Rats.
The pikachu in your ticker has the right idea. I got some carbs left, wanna split a lollipop?0 -
So, I think we're all in agreement that it is important to pay attention to your calorie sources to ensure that you are getting sufficient amounts of protein, fat and carbs
How much energy sources matter after "sufficient" has been reached (and probably how to define sufficient) is something we could argue until the thread gets shut down.
Or until the end of time, whichever comes first!0 -
Figures. I guess 8 months is too long. All that sugar, right? Rats.
The pikachu in your ticker has the right idea. I got some carbs left, wanna split a lollipop?
Haha absolutely! Though chocolate tootsie pops are my favorite
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 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
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions