The Worst Nutrition Advice in History (article)
Options
Replies
-
It looks like I still need more practice on changing fonts. Thanks to Steph I can now turn on bold or italics, but I seem to be having problems turning them back off.
Ignore me while I experiment....
HELP!!![]
Did that work?0 -
No. []Looks like I'm going to have to go back to the children's section until I learn to play with the grown ups.[]0
-
One more time Please, please work...0
-
#3 is nonsense.
the people who believe it are people who do not understand simple physics and should not be allowed on the intertubes without adult supervision.
for weight loss/gain/maintenance, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT. period. this is undebatable. this is a metaphysical certainty. it's physics.
for nutrition, the types of foods (i.e. calories) matter. likely not as much as some zealots insist (e.g. the "clean" eaters), but this is why a varied diet is important. we don't have much malnutrition in the western world, so you don't have to go crazy on this point... but yes, the variety of foods you eat is somewhat important when it comes to nourishing your body properly.
so the people, like the author of that article, who attempt to conflate these two ideas, are mistaken.
I agree if it's for weight loss...but not nutrition.
CICO for weight loss doesn't matter where the calories come from...the twinkie diet proved that...
But this article is about nutrition...and for nutrition it does matter where you get those calories....to hit macro/micro targets for health you can't just eat commonly referred to "junk food" you need a wide variety of foods to get all those values in.
@jim the shut it off you type [ / letter]...end it with the slash.0 -
[ desired change letter] txt you want changed [ /desired change letter]It looks like I still need more practice on changing fonts. Thanks to Steph I can now turn on bold or italics, but I seem to be having problems turning them back off.
Ignore me while I experiment....
HELP!!![]
Did that work?
Don't forget the forward slash in the end bracket
Bingo!One more time Please, please work...0 -
Thanks. I was missing that but I think I got it right now.0
-
I don't think the article dissed calorie counting for weight loss. Instead it seemed to me that they pointed out that just meeting a calorie goal did not mean you met nutritional needs.
I think this statement is totally ON target. :happy:
It saddens me to know of people who stay within their calorie goals, but are eating a diet lacking in healthy, living foods, and suffering a myriad of health issues. :sick:0 -
#3 is nonsense.
the people who believe it are people who do not understand simple physics and should not be allowed on the intertubes without adult supervision.
for weight loss/gain/maintenance, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT. period. this is undebatable. this is a metaphysical certainty. it's physics.
for nutrition, the types of foods (i.e. calories) matter. likely not as much as some zealots insist (e.g. the "clean" eaters), but this is why a varied diet is important. we don't have much malnutrition in the western world, so you don't have to go crazy on this point... but yes, the variety of foods you eat is somewhat important when it comes to nourishing your body properly.
so the people, like the author of that article, who attempt to conflate these two ideas, are mistaken.
I agree if it's for weight loss...but not nutrition.
CICO for weight loss doesn't matter where the calories come from...the twinkie diet proved that...
But this article is about nutrition...and for nutrition it does matter where you get those calories....to hit macro/micro targets for health you can't just eat commonly referred to "junk food" you need a wide variety of foods to get all those values in.
@jim the shut it off you type [ / letter]...end it with the slash.
I appreciate your help. Thanks.
I'd also like to add that while CICO is valid, it fails to take into account that it takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest carbs, and it takes even less (far less) to digest fat; eating protein will raise your metabolism and burn more calories than eating fat.
And obese people digest food easier than thin people. It is unknown if people get obese because their digestive calorie burns are lower or if the lower digestive caloric burn causes obesity. Whatever the cause, we're not all on an equal playing field.
A better formula would be something like (calories in) * (digestive energy factor) - (calories out).0 -
I'm confused by where it's going really... it sort of tries to use science to claim science is incorrect. Makes no sense.
That's because it is a ideological rant more than anything else.0 -
#3 is nonsense.
the people who believe it are people who do not understand simple physics and should not be allowed on the intertubes without adult supervision.
for weight loss/gain/maintenance, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT. period. this is undebatable. this is a metaphysical certainty. it's physics.
for nutrition, the types of foods (i.e. calories) matter. likely not as much as some zealots insist (e.g. the "clean" eaters), but this is why a varied diet is important. we don't have much malnutrition in the western world, so you don't have to go crazy on this point... but yes, the variety of foods you eat is somewhat important when it comes to nourishing your body properly.
so the people, like the author of that article, who attempt to conflate these two ideas, are mistaken.
I agree if it's for weight loss...but not nutrition.
CICO for weight loss doesn't matter where the calories come from...the twinkie diet proved that...
But this article is about nutrition...and for nutrition it does matter where you get those calories....to hit macro/micro targets for health you can't just eat commonly referred to "junk food" you need a wide variety of foods to get all those values in.
@jim the shut it off you type [ / letter]...end it with the slash.
re-read point 3. it's clear the author lurched from nutrition to weight loss because they specifically tackle calorie counting and dismiss it as unimportant. in fact, point 3 is nothing more than the standard nonsensical talking point from any "clean" eating or paleo web blog.
that's why i responded.
you're also wrong about what foods allow you to hit your micro- and macro- targets. for the middle-aged woman eating rabbit food on 1300 calories a day, you may have a point. however, my TDEE is often 4000 calories and i can eat all sorts of foods and easily meet my nutritional needs. i eat plenty of processed and so-called "junk food" and i haven't dropped dead yet.0 -
#3 is nonsense.
the people who believe it are people who do not understand simple physics and should not be allowed on the intertubes without adult supervision.
for weight loss/gain/maintenance, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT. period. this is undebatable. this is a metaphysical certainty. it's physics.
for nutrition, the types of foods (i.e. calories) matter. likely not as much as some zealots insist (e.g. the "clean" eaters), but this is why a varied diet is important. we don't have much malnutrition in the western world, so you don't have to go crazy on this point... but yes, the variety of foods you eat is somewhat important when it comes to nourishing your body properly.
so the people, like the author of that article, who attempt to conflate these two ideas, are mistaken.
I agree if it's for weight loss...but not nutrition.
CICO for weight loss doesn't matter where the calories come from...the twinkie diet proved that...
But this article is about nutrition...and for nutrition it does matter where you get those calories....to hit macro/micro targets for health you can't just eat commonly referred to "junk food" you need a wide variety of foods to get all those values in.
@jim the shut it off you type [ / letter]...end it with the slash.
I appreciate your help. Thanks.
I'd also like to add that while CICO is valid, it fails to take into account that it takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest carbs, and it takes even less (far less) to digest fat; eating protein will raise your metabolism and burn more calories than eating fat.
And obese people digest food easier than thin people. It is unknown if people get obese because their digestive calorie burns are lower or if the lower digestive caloric burn causes obesity. Whatever the cause, we're not all on an equal playing field.
A better formula would be something like (calories in) * (digestive energy factor) - (calories out).
nope. the human body can be modeled as a closed system and the energy expended during digestion is already accounted for by approximating the calorie burn of all metabolic functions.0 -
#3 is nonsense.
the people who believe it are people who do not understand simple physics and should not be allowed on the intertubes without adult supervision.
for weight loss/gain/maintenance, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT. period. this is undebatable. this is a metaphysical certainty. it's physics.
for nutrition, the types of foods (i.e. calories) matter. likely not as much as some zealots insist (e.g. the "clean" eaters), but this is why a varied diet is important. we don't have much malnutrition in the western world, so you don't have to go crazy on this point... but yes, the variety of foods you eat is somewhat important when it comes to nourishing your body properly.
so the people, like the author of that article, who attempt to conflate these two ideas, are mistaken.
I agree if it's for weight loss...but not nutrition.
CICO for weight loss doesn't matter where the calories come from...the twinkie diet proved that...
But this article is about nutrition...and for nutrition it does matter where you get those calories....to hit macro/micro targets for health you can't just eat commonly referred to "junk food" you need a wide variety of foods to get all those values in.
@jim the shut it off you type [ / letter]...end it with the slash.
I appreciate your help. Thanks.
I'd also like to add that while CICO is valid, it fails to take into account that it takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest carbs, and it takes even less (far less) to digest fat; eating protein will raise your metabolism and burn more calories than eating fat.
And obese people digest food easier than thin people. It is unknown if people get obese because their digestive calorie burns are lower or if the lower digestive caloric burn causes obesity. Whatever the cause, we're not all on an equal playing field.
A better formula would be something like (calories in) * (digestive energy factor) - (calories out).
Except that is still "calories out". All of this parsing comes about because people don't really understand the terms.
It's like arguing that "gravity is a myth" because people can bounce on trampolines.0 -
You can totally get a good distribution of macros and micros even if you exclusively ate at McDonalds. But barely anyone does that anyway. Most people will have a good distribution of macros, maybe not always micros but you're hard pressed finding someone whose intake is 90% carbs or something like that. Excluding those 80/10/10 raw vegans and people like that.#3 is nonsense.
the people who believe it are people who do not understand simple physics and should not be allowed on the intertubes without adult supervision.
for weight loss/gain/maintenance, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT. period. this is undebatable. this is a metaphysical certainty. it's physics.
for nutrition, the types of foods (i.e. calories) matter. likely not as much as some zealots insist (e.g. the "clean" eaters), but this is why a varied diet is important. we don't have much malnutrition in the western world, so you don't have to go crazy on this point... but yes, the variety of foods you eat is somewhat important when it comes to nourishing your body properly.
so the people, like the author of that article, who attempt to conflate these two ideas, are mistaken.
I agree if it's for weight loss...but not nutrition.
CICO for weight loss doesn't matter where the calories come from...the twinkie diet proved that...
But this article is about nutrition...and for nutrition it does matter where you get those calories....to hit macro/micro targets for health you can't just eat commonly referred to "junk food" you need a wide variety of foods to get all those values in.
@jim the shut it off you type [ / letter]...end it with the slash.
I'd say fad diets like that are much worse for nutrition than anyone counting calories or not counting calories would do by themselves.0 -
This.The article isn't taking on calorie counting, it's taking on the mindset of people who think that calories are the only thing that matters. Eating junk just isn't very good for you, even if you only eat a little bit of it.
True, but "not good for you" has nothing to do with weight loss.
People need to stop shoving weight loss and nutrition together, because really they are two separate things.
When you are turning to refuel your body, the type of calories are important, but when you want to lose weight it's the amount of calories that count.0 -
#3 is nonsense.
the people who believe it are people who do not understand simple physics and should not be allowed on the intertubes without adult supervision.
for weight loss/gain/maintenance, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT. period. this is undebatable. this is a metaphysical certainty. it's physics.
for nutrition, the types of foods (i.e. calories) matter. likely not as much as some zealots insist (e.g. the "clean" eaters), but this is why a varied diet is important. we don't have much malnutrition in the western world, so you don't have to go crazy on this point... but yes, the variety of foods you eat is somewhat important when it comes to nourishing your body properly.
so the people, like the author of that article, who attempt to conflate these two ideas, are mistaken.
I agree if it's for weight loss...but not nutrition.
CICO for weight loss doesn't matter where the calories come from...the twinkie diet proved that...
But this article is about nutrition...and for nutrition it does matter where you get those calories....to hit macro/micro targets for health you can't just eat commonly referred to "junk food" you need a wide variety of foods to get all those values in.
@jim the shut it off you type [ / letter]...end it with the slash.
re-read point 3. it's clear the author lurched from nutrition to weight loss because they specifically tackle calorie counting and dismiss it as unimportant. in fact, point 3 is nothing more than the standard nonsensical talking point from any "clean" eating or paleo web blog.
that's why i responded.
you're also wrong about what foods allow you to hit your micro- and macro- targets. for the middle-aged woman eating rabbit food on 1300 calories a day, you may have a point. however, my TDEE is often 4000 calories and i can eat all sorts of foods and easily meet my nutritional needs. i eat plenty of processed and so-called "junk food" and i haven't dropped dead yet.
Oh trust me I eat the "junk" but not exclusively.
When I first saw point 3 I almost skipped the rest but decided to read the rest...
I agree that CICO part seems like a bash put in the middle of an article about nutrition and seems out of place...but on face value the type of calorie is important for nutrition just nutrition not weight loss...hence why I keep saying for nutrition not weight loss.
As for hitting macro/micro eating rabbit food and 1300 calories I wouldn't know..I doubt they could hit their macros esp their protien (what would be appropriate anyway)
there is no way I can get 120g of protien eating salad...I need that big hunk of meat...when I hit maintenance I suspect it will be easier to loosen up my own food choices and hit them easier eating more of those foods that I love.
IE quarter pounder blt...nom nom.
Trust me I am not one of those who believes the quality of the calories is more important for weight loss than the quantity...the complete opposite. I do not eat "clean" nor recommend anything of the sort...
I jsut responded on "face value" of the "intent" of the article based on the title..."...Nutrition..." not weight loss.0 -
#3 is nonsense.
the people who believe it are people who do not understand simple physics and should not be allowed on the intertubes without adult supervision.
for weight loss/gain/maintenance, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT. period. this is undebatable. this is a metaphysical certainty. it's physics.
for nutrition, the types of foods (i.e. calories) matter. likely not as much as some zealots insist (e.g. the "clean" eaters), but this is why a varied diet is important. we don't have much malnutrition in the western world, so you don't have to go crazy on this point... but yes, the variety of foods you eat is somewhat important when it comes to nourishing your body properly.
so the people, like the author of that article, who attempt to conflate these two ideas, are mistaken.
I agree if it's for weight loss...but not nutrition.
CICO for weight loss doesn't matter where the calories come from...the twinkie diet proved that...
But this article is about nutrition...and for nutrition it does matter where you get those calories....to hit macro/micro targets for health you can't just eat commonly referred to "junk food" you need a wide variety of foods to get all those values in.
@jim the shut it off you type [ / letter]...end it with the slash.
I appreciate your help. Thanks.
I'd also like to add that while CICO is valid, it fails to take into account that it takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest carbs, and it takes even less (far less) to digest fat; eating protein will raise your metabolism and burn more calories than eating fat.
And obese people digest food easier than thin people. It is unknown if people get obese because their digestive calorie burns are lower or if the lower digestive caloric burn causes obesity. Whatever the cause, we're not all on an equal playing field.
A better formula would be something like (calories in) * (digestive energy factor) - (calories out).
nope. the human body can be modeled as a closed system and the energy expended during digestion is already accounted for by approximating the calorie burn of all metabolic functions.
Yes, but you're completely ignoring the distinctions I posted. Digesting protein requires more energy than digesting carbs and fat requires the least amount of energy to digest. The calories on labels or in nutritional guides do not take into account the calories required to digest the food.
Your simple CICO formula ignores the complexities of real life. A person eating 50% protein 30% carbs and 20% fat will burn more calories than a person eating a 33/33/33 split, and that person will in turn burn more calories than a person on a 15/15/60 split. Further, if two people are eating the same macro split and one is obese and the other is thin, the thin person will burn more calories eating the same exact food.
Nutritionists generally ignore those factors because they are hard to measure and hard to apply to the population at large. It is easier to say CICO, and it's easier for the rest of us to repeat it and follow it. I follow it myself because I don't have a way to try to account for the factors. But the factors are real.
Repeating CICO over and over again as if it's the only thing people need to know doesn't make it any more valid though.0 -
I disagree with some points that the author made, but overall I think it was a good article.0
-
Except that is still "calories out". All of this parsing comes about because people don't really understand the terms.
It's like arguing that "gravity is a myth" because people can bounce on trampolines.
I agree, it is all calories out. But different foods result in different calories out, and different people get different calories out.
I'm not trying to discount CICO, I'm just saying it's an incomplete picture. On the other hand, CICO is simple and gives the rest of us a workable means to try to take control over one aspect of our health.0 -
#3 is nonsense.
the people who believe it are people who do not understand simple physics and should not be allowed on the intertubes without adult supervision.
for weight loss/gain/maintenance, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT. period. this is undebatable. this is a metaphysical certainty. it's physics.
for nutrition, the types of foods (i.e. calories) matter. likely not as much as some zealots insist (e.g. the "clean" eaters), but this is why a varied diet is important. we don't have much malnutrition in the western world, so you don't have to go crazy on this point... but yes, the variety of foods you eat is somewhat important when it comes to nourishing your body properly.
so the people, like the author of that article, who attempt to conflate these two ideas, are mistaken.
I agree if it's for weight loss...but not nutrition.
CICO for weight loss doesn't matter where the calories come from...the twinkie diet proved that...
But this article is about nutrition...and for nutrition it does matter where you get those calories....to hit macro/micro targets for health you can't just eat commonly referred to "junk food" you need a wide variety of foods to get all those values in.
@jim the shut it off you type [ / letter]...end it with the slash.
I appreciate your help. Thanks.
I'd also like to add that while CICO is valid, it fails to take into account that it takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest carbs, and it takes even less (far less) to digest fat; eating protein will raise your metabolism and burn more calories than eating fat.
And obese people digest food easier than thin people. It is unknown if people get obese because their digestive calorie burns are lower or if the lower digestive caloric burn causes obesity. Whatever the cause, we're not all on an equal playing field.
A better formula would be something like (calories in) * (digestive energy factor) - (calories out).
nope. the human body can be modeled as a closed system and the energy expended during digestion is already accounted for by approximating the calorie burn of all metabolic functions.
Yes, but you're completely ignoring the distinctions I posted. Digesting protein requires more energy than digesting carbs and fat requires the least amount of energy to digest. The calories on labels or in nutritional guides do not take into account the calories required to digest the food.
Your simple CICO formula ignores the complexities of real life. A person eating 50% protein 30% carbs and 20% fat will burn more calories than a person eating a 33/33/33 split, and that person will in turn burn more calories than a person on a 15/15/60 split. Further, if two people are eating the same macro split and one is obese and the other is thin, the thin person will burn more calories eating the same exact food.
Nutritionists generally ignore those factors because they are hard to measure and hard to apply to the population at large. It is easier to say CICO, and it's easier for the rest of us to repeat it and follow it. I follow it myself because I don't have a way to try to account for the factors. But the factors are real.
Repeating CICO over and over again as if it's the only thing people need to know doesn't make it any more valid though.
CICO is repeated so often because many people need a simple concept to understand. Not everyone is interested in learning about nutrition and physiology. Furthermore, in overweight individuals, the added calorie burn from digestion isn't important. And really only becomes important to people at a low weight who need to be as exact as possible.0 -
#3 is nonsense.
the people who believe it are people who do not understand simple physics and should not be allowed on the intertubes without adult supervision.
for weight loss/gain/maintenance, THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS CALORIES IN VS. CALORIES OUT. period. this is undebatable. this is a metaphysical certainty. it's physics.
for nutrition, the types of foods (i.e. calories) matter. likely not as much as some zealots insist (e.g. the "clean" eaters), but this is why a varied diet is important. we don't have much malnutrition in the western world, so you don't have to go crazy on this point... but yes, the variety of foods you eat is somewhat important when it comes to nourishing your body properly.
so the people, like the author of that article, who attempt to conflate these two ideas, are mistaken.
I agree if it's for weight loss...but not nutrition.
CICO for weight loss doesn't matter where the calories come from...the twinkie diet proved that...
But this article is about nutrition...and for nutrition it does matter where you get those calories....to hit macro/micro targets for health you can't just eat commonly referred to "junk food" you need a wide variety of foods to get all those values in.
@jim the shut it off you type [ / letter]...end it with the slash.
I appreciate your help. Thanks.
I'd also like to add that while CICO is valid, it fails to take into account that it takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest carbs, and it takes even less (far less) to digest fat; eating protein will raise your metabolism and burn more calories than eating fat.
And obese people digest food easier than thin people. It is unknown if people get obese because their digestive calorie burns are lower or if the lower digestive caloric burn causes obesity. Whatever the cause, we're not all on an equal playing field.
A better formula would be something like (calories in) * (digestive energy factor) - (calories out).
Except that is still "calories out". All of this parsing comes about because people don't really understand the terms.
It's like arguing that "gravity is a myth" because people can bounce on trampolines.
I love the calories in vs calorie out arguments.
I've worked out that some of my calories out today are from calories in (from November last year).0
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
- 401 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
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions