A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE

mccindy72

Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.

Our body needs quality food.

after ten pages that is all you got, really?

so cow meat vs cow meat is not cow meat????

OT, but sadly, I read something recently that said McDonald's patties were something like 15% meat/protein. The rest was binders and whatnot. I'll see if I can find the article. It was pretty scary.

15% protein is pretty good seeing as pure raw meat is something like 22% protein.

http://www.snopes.com/business/market/allbeef.asp

McDonald's uses 100% USDA inspected beef in their patties.

Yep, just higher fat content (85/15) which is what most burger patties are made of in grocery stores as well, as most people prefer, as they hold together in the patty better that way, and 'taste" better due to the fat content. (juicy burger, anyone?)

lindsey1979

Maybe I can help.

I think that what nearly everyone here is trying to get across, is that weight loss happens in an calorie deficit.

The reason that people started going in is because she said it is the phrase "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY". All that matters in weight loss when it comes to calories, is quantity. That's it.

Then you came in talking about how calories are acutally used in the body. This is a different topic. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, because honestly, I don't know enough about that to argue that point. But I, along with the rest of us here, know that for weight loss, only quantity matters. And from her oringinal statement, OP was talking about weight loss. If she wasn't, then she didn't specify. Or if she did, idk cause that was like 47 pages ago

That's all.

I appreciate that, but it's not true. A deficit is necessary for weight loss -- yes -- I'm in total agreement with you there. But how you create that deficit (i.e which calories you consume) will impact how much weight you actually lose.

For example (again):

--- 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. So, if you are able to catabolize only fat and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 1 lb.
--- 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals (I've seen various numbers). If you only catabolize muscle and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 2.3-5.8 lbs.

The good news is that no one loses 100%, unless something is very medically wrong. So, most lose some percentage of fat and some percentage of muscle. Ideally, you want to maximize fat loss and minimize muscle loss. Eating a certain amount of protein and lifting heavy will help you do this is in a caloric deficit.

So, in conclusion, what you eat to create that deficit most certainly impacts your amount and type weight loss (although you will lose weight in a deficit regardless -- just how much of fat vs. muscle and how much total weight will be vary based on what you eat).

Ehh...Ok- I don't have the background to argue with you. But I WILL say is that I just started about 4 months ago getting serious about losing weight. I started with about 10-15lbs to lose. I've lost 8 of it so far, by eating whatever I want, hitting my macros, and staying in a calorie deficit. I don't care where the calories come from as long as I stay under my limit. I have gained muscle from doing resistance training, and I feel great.

If all of what you are saying is true; with the results that I've gotten, how did it happen then? I eat fast food 4 and 5 times a week. All I do is stay under my calorie goal. Because of my results, I can without a doubt say, that for weight loss; it just doesn't matter.

You just said a calorie deficit is neccesary for weight loss. That's really all that matters.

I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.

As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).

eric_sg61

Curious to see the "experts" results...........since no ticker and no avi.

mccindy72

Maybe I can help.

I think that what nearly everyone here is trying to get across, is that weight loss happens in an calorie deficit.

The reason that people started going in is because she said it is the phrase "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY". All that matters in weight loss when it comes to calories, is quantity. That's it.

Then you came in talking about how calories are acutally used in the body. This is a different topic. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, because honestly, I don't know enough about that to argue that point. But I, along with the rest of us here, know that for weight loss, only quantity matters. And from her oringinal statement, OP was talking about weight loss. If she wasn't, then she didn't specify. Or if she did, idk cause that was like 47 pages ago

That's all.

I appreciate that, but it's not true. A deficit is necessary for weight loss -- yes -- I'm in total agreement with you there. But how you create that deficit (i.e which calories you consume) will impact how much weight you actually lose.

For example (again):

--- 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. So, if you are able to catabolize only fat and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 1 lb.
--- 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals (I've seen various numbers). If you only catabolize muscle and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 2.3-5.8 lbs.

The good news is that no one loses 100%, unless something is very medically wrong. So, most lose some percentage of fat and some percentage of muscle. Ideally, you want to maximize fat loss and minimize muscle loss. Eating a certain amount of protein and lifting heavy will help you do this is in a caloric deficit.

So, in conclusion, what you eat to create that deficit most certainly impacts your amount and type weight loss (although you will lose weight in a deficit regardless -- just how much of fat vs. muscle and how much total weight will be vary based on what you eat).

Ehh...Ok- I don't have the background to argue with you. But I WILL say is that I just started about 4 months ago getting serious about losing weight. I started with about 10-15lbs to lose. I've lost 8 of it so far, by eating whatever I want, hitting my macros, and staying in a calorie deficit. I don't care where the calories come from as long as I stay under my limit. I have gained muscle from doing resistance training, and I feel great.

If all of what you are saying is true; with the results that I've gotten, how did it happen then? I eat fast food 4 and 5 times a week. All I do is stay under my calorie goal. Because of my results, I can without a doubt say, that for weight loss; it just doesn't matter.

You just said a calorie deficit is neccesary for weight loss. That's really all that matters.

I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.

As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).

basically your claims that people can lose weight faster by eating only muscle and no fat are preposterous. Losing weight too fast is unhealthy and hard on the organs, regardless of the source of the calories you are taking in.

lindsey1979

OT, but sadly, I read something recently that said McDonald's patties were something like 15% meat/protein. The rest was binders and whatnot. I'll see if I can find the article. It was pretty scary.

15% protein is pretty good seeing as pure raw meat is something like 22% protein.

http://www.snopes.com/business/market/allbeef.asp

McDonald's uses 100% USDA inspected beef in their patties.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the link -- bummer it was only a hoax (or probably good that it was).

lindsey1979

Lindsey, if you're at the same deficit, the weight loss will be the same. The quality does not play into that.
What the article was talking about, as seen especially in that one paragraph that was quoted a lot in here already, is that the quality is a means to an end. The end being a calorie deficit. It's easier to have a calorie deficit on quality food than on not quality food, simply because it's more filling and you won't feel hungry as much.
So it doesn't actually play into the weight loss directly, it just helps you staying in the calorie restrictions (quantity) you set for yourself.

Steven -- I appreciate what you're saying, but I disagree. Weight loss will be directly impacted by whether you catabolize more muscle than fat. Whether you do so is affected by many factors, including what you're eating to reach that deficit.

As I said earlier, they've shown that a certain level of protein impacts this. If you get that threshold amount, you'll either maintain LBM while in a caloric deficit or minimize its loss. So, you'll lose weight more slowly as you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle, but overall that's a good thing as you'll lose more fat and maintain more muscle (i.e. better body fat percentage and likely look better as the same volume of fat weighs less than the same volume of muscle).

That's very reason people advocate various macros -- because they're important (though what the balance is is hotly debated).

DamePiglet

OT, but sadly, I read something recently that said McDonald's patties were something like 15% meat/protein. The rest was binders and whatnot. I'll see if I can find the article. It was pretty scary.

15% protein is pretty good seeing as pure raw meat is something like 22% protein.

http://www.snopes.com/business/market/allbeef.asp

McDonald's uses 100% USDA inspected beef in their patties.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the link -- bummer it was only a hoax (or probably good that it was).

No prob.
Very good for me... All this talk of Mickey D's has me jonesin' for a burger.

Holly_Roman_Empire

I finally read through all 11 pages.

Lindsey, no one is arguing that nutrients aren't important.

A calorie is a calorie. Eat less, move more to lose weight. That's it.

lindsey1979

Not really true either. If you just wanted to lose weight, then you'd actually want to increase your muscle loss as that will produce the most bang for your buck for your deficit. So, it matters there as well (though, obviously, I think that's a horrible strategy).

Not to mention if you don't get some baseline protein and fat in, you'll hurt your weight loss efforts as the body needs some essential fatty acids and essential amino acids on a regular basis. You'll totally screw up your system if you only ate 100% carbs, calorie deficit or not.

Okay what you just said makes no sense as a response to what I said...honestly...again you are talking about the quality of weight loss not just weight loss...

You always seem to "twist" things to make it "appear' you are correct...you are wrong...so dead wrong even zombies think you are one of them...

We are talking about losing weight..not the quality of the weight...

If I want to lose 10lbs and I don't care where it comes from I will eat in a calorie deficet...
if I want to lose 10lbs of fat I will eat in a calorie deficet and watch my macros and lift heavy, and I can do that while eating all my protien from Dairy Queen or MacDonalds or KFC or Taco bell...

I really don't understand how you can't follow this.

You need to be in a deficit either way. But depending on what you eat, you will achieve different results.

If you only want to lose weight -- but don't care how much or what percentage is fat versus LBM -- then, yes, you only need a deficit.

If you want to impact HOW you lose the weight or HOW MUCH weight you lose, then you need to focus on what you're eating as well as the deficit. That's all I'm saying -- that what you eat affects weight loss.

lindsey1979

I stand corrected. Thanks for the link -- bummer it was only a hoax (or probably good that it was).

No prob.
Very good for me... All this talk of Mickey D's has me jonesin' for a burger.

Do you have In-N-Outs where you live? Their burgers are the BEST!

SezxyStef

I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.

As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).

really because earlier in this thread you said that the quality counts to ensure you don't lose muscle and wouldn't lose as fast if the quality was there...

ETA: quote so Im not called a liar

Wrong. Health impacts weight loss. How much weight you lose is DIRECTLY affected by what sort of tissue you're catabolizing -- whether it's muscle or fat. The more muscle you catabolize, the greater your weight loss will be. The more fat you catabolize, the less weight you'll lose.

Once again, you'll lose weight in both scenarios. But, if you want to maximize your efforts, you want to focus on fat loss, not weight loss generally as you want to retain as much muscle as possible.

Do you want to work hard? Or work both hard and smart? If it's the latter, then you want to focus on quality as well as quantity to maximize your efforts. Period.

Teenie71

I finally read through all 11 pages.

Lindsey, no one is arguing that nutrients aren't important.

A calorie is a calorie. Eat less, move more to lose weight. That's it.

+1

levitateme

If a calorie falls in a forest and no one is around to see it, does it make a sound?

stevencloser

Lindsey, if you're at the same deficit, the weight loss will be the same. The quality does not play into that.
What the article was talking about, as seen especially in that one paragraph that was quoted a lot in here already, is that the quality is a means to an end. The end being a calorie deficit. It's easier to have a calorie deficit on quality food than on not quality food, simply because it's more filling and you won't feel hungry as much.
So it doesn't actually play into the weight loss directly, it just helps you staying in the calorie restrictions (quantity) you set for yourself.

Steven -- I appreciate what you're saying, but I disagree. Weight loss will be directly impacted by whether you catabolize more muscle than fat. Whether you do so is affected by many factors, including what you're eating to reach that deficit.

As I said earlier, they've shown that a certain level of protein impacts this. If you get that threshold amount, you'll either maintain LBM while in a caloric deficit or minimize its loss. So, you'll lose weight more slowly as you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle, but overall that's a good thing as you'll lose more fat and maintain more muscle (i.e. better body fat percentage and likely look better as the same volume of fat weighs less than the same volume of muscle).

That's very reason people advocate various macros -- because they're important (though what the balance is is hotly debated).

But hitting your macros doesn't have to be achieved by quality foods. I could eat McNuggets and cheeseburgers for my protein if I wanted.

lindsey1979

basically your claims that people can lose weight faster by eating only muscle and no fat are preposterous. Losing weight too fast is unhealthy and hard on the organs, regardless of the source of the calories you are taking in.

Oh, I agree that it's unhealthy and a terrible strategy. I'm just pointing out the biological reality of what actually happens.

And that is how it all fits together and why people are generally discouraged from using the scale as the most important measuring device for weight loss because it's deceptive -- what gets you the lowest numbers the quickest is not good for you in the longterm.

QuietBloom

I'm starting to think OP is incapable of reading and writing and has been dictating what to write to someone else this whole time.

Oooh. That theory has merit I believe.

lindsey1979

It is ignorance. Period. This isn't actually an area of legitimate debate. How those different calories affect those areas -- now that is up for debate. But to state that there is literally no difference is incorrect.

The point is that the OP is correct, in part, as are others correct, in part. But, both ends of the spectrum (i.e. only quality matters vs. only quantity matters) are wrong. They're both important and affect the overall equation.

It would be better if people just acknowledged that than rather trying to extrapolate to non-sense like you said with ignoring the whole calorie in calorie out equation. That too would be incorrect.

^ I am reposting this so that everyone can see you clearly said "it is is Ignorance. Period" You did not put a qualifier on it.

Yes, I did and stand behind it. What what does "it" refer to? Not people. To the concept of ignoring the biological reality that I was explaining. Choosing to ignore that is willful ignorance.

Once again, please stop misquoting and mischaracterizing me.

DamePiglet

I stand corrected. Thanks for the link -- bummer it was only a hoax (or probably good that it was).

No prob.
Very good for me... All this talk of Mickey D's has me jonesin' for a burger.

Do you have In-N-Outs where you live? Their burgers are the BEST!

Naw. And I have a pack of ground beef thawed in the fridge, so I'll probably use that. (kicks rocks)
:grumble: really want McDonald's.

lindsey1979

I finally read through all 11 pages.

Lindsey, no one is arguing that nutrients aren't important.

A calorie is a calorie. Eat less, move more to lose weight. That's it.

That's where I disagree with you. Which calories you choose will impact your weight loss. To pretend otherwise is simply incorrect.

ndj1979

It is ignorance. Period. This isn't actually an area of legitimate debate. How those different calories affect those areas -- now that is up for debate. But to state that there is literally no difference is incorrect.

The point is that the OP is correct, in part, as are others correct, in part. But, both ends of the spectrum (i.e. only quality matters vs. only quantity matters) are wrong. They're both important and affect the overall equation.

It would be better if people just acknowledged that than rather trying to extrapolate to non-sense like you said with ignoring the whole calorie in calorie out equation. That too would be incorrect.

^ I am reposting this so that everyone can see you clearly said "it is is Ignorance. Period" You did not put a qualifier on it.

Yes, I did and stand behind it. What what does "it" refer to? Not people. To the concept of ignoring the biological reality that I was explaining. Choosing to ignore that is willful ignorance.

Once again, please stop misquoting and mischaracterizing me.

you said it is ignorant and there is no room for debate ...now you want to backtrack ..

I think you have a "I am never wrong complex" Because even when people quote what you said, you then come back and say that is not what you said...

SezxyStef

Not really true either. If you just wanted to lose weight, then you'd actually want to increase your muscle loss as that will produce the most bang for your buck for your deficit. So, it matters there as well (though, obviously, I think that's a horrible strategy).

Not to mention if you don't get some baseline protein and fat in, you'll hurt your weight loss efforts as the body needs some essential fatty acids and essential amino acids on a regular basis. You'll totally screw up your system if you only ate 100% carbs, calorie deficit or not.

Okay what you just said makes no sense as a response to what I said...honestly...again you are talking about the quality of weight loss not just weight loss...

You always seem to "twist" things to make it "appear' you are correct...you are wrong...so dead wrong even zombies think you are one of them...

We are talking about losing weight..not the quality of the weight...

If I want to lose 10lbs and I don't care where it comes from I will eat in a calorie deficet...
if I want to lose 10lbs of fat I will eat in a calorie deficet and watch my macros and lift heavy, and I can do that while eating all my protien from Dairy Queen or MacDonalds or KFC or Taco bell...

I really don't understand how you can't follow this.

You need to be in a deficit either way. But depending on what you eat, you will achieve different results.

If you only want to lose weight -- but don't care how much or what percentage is fat versus LBM -- then, yes, you only need a deficit.

If you want to impact HOW you lose the weight or HOW MUCH weight you lose, then you need to focus on what you're eating as well as the deficit. That's all I'm saying -- that what you eat affects weight loss.

I didn't say I didn't follow it I said it made no sense in response to what I said...in other words you are reaching again.

And no you wont have different results as far as weight loss goes.

If people eat 500 calories a day below maintenance regardless of where the food comes from and regardless of if they watch their macros will average 1lb a week weight loss...period.

What the weight is that is lost is defined by the macros...

lindsey1979

I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.

As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).

really because earlier in this thread you said that the quality counts to ensure you don't lose muscle and wouldn't lose as fast if the quality was there...

ETA: quote so Im not called a liar

Wrong. Health impacts weight loss. How much weight you lose is DIRECTLY affected by what sort of tissue you're catabolizing -- whether it's muscle or fat. The more muscle you catabolize, the greater your weight loss will be. The more fat you catabolize, the less weight you'll lose.

Once again, you'll lose weight in both scenarios. But, if you want to maximize your efforts, you want to focus on fat loss, not weight loss generally as you want to retain as much muscle as possible.

Do you want to work hard? Or work both hard and smart? If it's the latter, then you want to focus on quality as well as quantity to maximize your efforts. Period.

What I've been saying over and over again is what you eat (i.e the type of calorie) impacts your weight loss. Period. Whether you lose more fat versus muscle is impacted by what you eat. Whether you lose more weight is based on whether you lose more muscle or fat (given the same caloric deficit). The more muscle you catabolize, the greater the actual weight loss is because a pound of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals whereas a lb of fat releases 3500 kcals.

Teenie71

I finally read through all 11 pages.

Lindsey, no one is arguing that nutrients aren't important.

A calorie is a calorie. Eat less, move more to lose weight. That's it.

That's where I disagree with you. Which calories you choose will impact your weight loss. To pretend otherwise is simply incorrect.

Is there anything or anybody you ever agree with? Seems like your always on these threads arguing with people. Its really annoying to say the least. that's why i love the Ignore user button. Just used it on you....peace

wumba84

For weight loss: calories in < calories out

For body composition: get enough protein and lift heavy

For overall health: get enough micronutrients

For your sanity: don't eliminate a whole group of foods for no medical reason

This!!!!

ndj1979

I finally read through all 11 pages.

Lindsey, no one is arguing that nutrients aren't important.

A calorie is a calorie. Eat less, move more to lose weight. That's it.

That's where I disagree with you. Which calories you choose will impact your weight loss. To pretend otherwise is simply incorrect.

Is there anything or anybody you ever agree with? Seems like your always on these threads arguing with people. Its really annoying to say the least. that's why i love the Ignore user button. Just used it on you....peace

then you will miss out on all the fun...

ndj1979

I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.

As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).

really because earlier in this thread you said that the quality counts to ensure you don't lose muscle and wouldn't lose as fast if the quality was there...

ETA: quote so Im not called a liar

Wrong. Health impacts weight loss. How much weight you lose is DIRECTLY affected by what sort of tissue you're catabolizing -- whether it's muscle or fat. The more muscle you catabolize, the greater your weight loss will be. The more fat you catabolize, the less weight you'll lose.

Once again, you'll lose weight in both scenarios. But, if you want to maximize your efforts, you want to focus on fat loss, not weight loss generally as you want to retain as much muscle as possible.

Do you want to work hard? Or work both hard and smart? If it's the latter, then you want to focus on quality as well as quantity to maximize your efforts. Period.

What I've been saying over and over again is what you eat (i.e the type of calorie) impacts your weight loss. Period. Whether you lose more fat versus muscle is impacted by what you eat. Whether you lose more weight is based on whether you lose more muscle or fat (given the same caloric deficit). The more muscle you catabolize, the greater the actual weight loss is because a pound of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals whereas a lb of fat releases 3500 kcals.

once again, even when you are wrong, you are right = hilarious...

lindsey1979

Lindsey, if you're at the same deficit, the weight loss will be the same. The quality does not play into that.
What the article was talking about, as seen especially in that one paragraph that was quoted a lot in here already, is that the quality is a means to an end. The end being a calorie deficit. It's easier to have a calorie deficit on quality food than on not quality food, simply because it's more filling and you won't feel hungry as much.
So it doesn't actually play into the weight loss directly, it just helps you staying in the calorie restrictions (quantity) you set for yourself.

Steven -- I appreciate what you're saying, but I disagree. Weight loss will be directly impacted by whether you catabolize more muscle than fat. Whether you do so is affected by many factors, including what you're eating to reach that deficit.

As I said earlier, they've shown that a certain level of protein impacts this. If you get that threshold amount, you'll either maintain LBM while in a caloric deficit or minimize its loss. So, you'll lose weight more slowly as you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle, but overall that's a good thing as you'll lose more fat and maintain more muscle (i.e. better body fat percentage and likely look better as the same volume of fat weighs less than the same volume of muscle).

That's very reason people advocate various macros -- because they're important (though what the balance is is hotly debated).

But hitting your macros doesn't have to be achieved by quality foods. I could eat McNuggets and cheeseburgers for my protein if I wanted.

Steven, that's a separate debate. Just paying attention to macros shows that you do believe that not all calories are the same. A calorie of carbs is not the same as a calorie of protein or a calorie of fat. That's what I was getting at more than anything.

lemonsnowdrop

Lindsey, if you're at the same deficit, the weight loss will be the same. The quality does not play into that.
What the article was talking about, as seen especially in that one paragraph that was quoted a lot in here already, is that the quality is a means to an end. The end being a calorie deficit. It's easier to have a calorie deficit on quality food than on not quality food, simply because it's more filling and you won't feel hungry as much.
So it doesn't actually play into the weight loss directly, it just helps you staying in the calorie restrictions (quantity) you set for yourself.

Steven -- I appreciate what you're saying, but I disagree. Weight loss will be directly impacted by whether you catabolize more muscle than fat. Whether you do so is affected by many factors, including what you're eating to reach that deficit.

As I said earlier, they've shown that a certain level of protein impacts this. If you get that threshold amount, you'll either maintain LBM while in a caloric deficit or minimize its loss. So, you'll lose weight more slowly as you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle, but overall that's a good thing as you'll lose more fat and maintain more muscle (i.e. better body fat percentage and likely look better as the same volume of fat weighs less than the same volume of muscle).

That's very reason people advocate various macros -- because they're important (though what the balance is is hotly debated).

But hitting your macros doesn't have to be achieved by quality foods. I could eat McNuggets and cheeseburgers for my protein if I wanted.

Steven, that's a separate debate. Just paying attention to macros shows that you do believe that not all calories are the same. A calorie of carbs is not the same as a calorie of protein or a calorie of fat. That's what I was getting at more than anything.

Do you even know what a calorie is?

SezxyStef

I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.

As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).

really because earlier in this thread you said that the quality counts to ensure you don't lose muscle and wouldn't lose as fast if the quality was there...

ETA: quote so Im not called a liar

Wrong. Health impacts weight loss. How much weight you lose is DIRECTLY affected by what sort of tissue you're catabolizing -- whether it's muscle or fat. The more muscle you catabolize, the greater your weight loss will be. The more fat you catabolize, the less weight you'll lose.

Once again, you'll lose weight in both scenarios. But, if you want to maximize your efforts, you want to focus on fat loss, not weight loss generally as you want to retain as much muscle as possible.

Do you want to work hard? Or work both hard and smart? If it's the latter, then you want to focus on quality as well as quantity to maximize your efforts. Period.

What I've been saying over and over again is what you eat (i.e the type of calorie) impacts your weight loss. Period. Whether you lose more fat versus muscle is impacted by what you eat. Whether you lose more weight is based on whether you lose more muscle or fat (given the same caloric deficit). The more muscle you catabolize, the greater the actual weight loss is because a pound of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals whereas a lb of fat releases 3500 kcals.

But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.

Then explain this statement in reference to them eating at MacDonalds 4-5x a week...based on this you believe that better quality foods help you lose weight faster but yet you say previous to this...it makes the weight loss slower as you are just losing fat not muscle...

so which is it? you lose weight faster by quality or is it the quality that makes you lose fat only therefore slowing weight loss????

Edit to fix quote

lindsey1979

It is ignorance. Period. This isn't actually an area of legitimate debate. How those different calories affect those areas -- now that is up for debate. But to state that there is literally no difference is incorrect.

The point is that the OP is correct, in part, as are others correct, in part. But, both ends of the spectrum (i.e. only quality matters vs. only quantity matters) are wrong. They're both important and affect the overall equation.

It would be better if people just acknowledged that than rather trying to extrapolate to non-sense like you said with ignoring the whole calorie in calorie out equation. That too would be incorrect.

^ I am reposting this so that everyone can see you clearly said "it is is Ignorance. Period" You did not put a qualifier on it.

Yes, I did and stand behind it. What what does "it" refer to? Not people. To the concept of ignoring the biological reality that I was explaining. Choosing to ignore that is willful ignorance.

Once again, please stop misquoting and mischaracterizing me.

you said it is ignorant and there is no room for debate ...now you want to backtrack ..

I think you have a "I am never wrong complex" Because even when people quote what you said, you then come back and say that is not what you said...

Nope. Anyone can go back and read the original page and see what I said. I stand behind it 100%.

You just attempt to twist things to fit your argument.