Is 'eating at deficit' enough?

deksgrl

WendyTerry420

show previous quotes

And I don't believe they'd be serving anything healthy in those places either

They don't serve meat and vegetables at Brazilian steakhouses? I could've sworn the pounds of meat and vegetables I ate came from somewhere.....

I also washed it down with wine and Caramel Pecan Cheesecake.

Cooking methods and what's added to the food determine it's nutritional and health giving value. Vegetables that are charred and drowning in vegetable oil are no longer the health giving foods they were when they were fresh.

Oh see, that's perfect because I was referring to the salad bar.

As far are what is added to the food... you're telling me that adding in additional flavors, spices, oils and such makes the food devoid of nutrients then?

Yep. The addition of vegetable oil causes the nutrients to fly out of the food, presumably to Mars.

Cooking destroys nutrients. Vegetable oil causes oxidative damage in the body, reducing the effects of any nutrients in the vegetables. Please, it's not rocket science.

Actually the nutrients of certain vegetables is actually enhanced by cooking them...kale is a great example....

Some are, others aren't. Vitamin C is destroyed in cooking, but lycopene is activated by cooking. It depends on which nutrients are in which vegetables. Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting you should eat all your foods raw, but overcooking does more harm than good.

But vitamin C intake becomes a no-brainer when you are eating plenty of citrus fruits. And who cooks their orange before eating it?

I was giving an example...is that allowed? Many vegetables contain vitamin C too - it is ONE example of ONE nutrient that is destroyed in cooking. Jeez. And no, not everyone does eat a lot of fruit.

An example is fine. What's not ok is to assume that one particular food item, out of context of an overall diet, is either healthy or unhealthy.

I don't think I said that. I said that foods become less health giving (ie contain less nutrients) when overcooked with other unhealthy things added to it.

Several of your posts have described foods as being "healthy" without referencing any context.

MelodyandBarbells

show previous quotes

A bit of meat, fat and veg is enjoyable for many when eating out of hunger but it is not highly rewarding and does not make you want to eat and eat and eat. People don't binge on meat, veg and healthy fat.

^^ Speak for yourself.

This looks highly rewarding to me:

You gonna binge on that all day long and eat thousands upon thousands of calories?

http://www.healthylivingheavylifting.com/how-clean-eating-made-me-fat-but-ice-cream-and-subway-got-me-lean/

"[...] With the Paleo diet, there are no rules on how much you can eat. By that, I mean you’re not given a set calorie or macronutrient goal to hit each day, as the theory behind Paleo eating is that the low-carb, high-protein nature of the diet leads you to feeling naturally full, and prevents over-eating.

Well, say hello to the incredible eating machine. Also known as “bottomless pit Samuels,” or “the human bin.” I don’t seem to have a full setting. When I’m not given a set amount to eat, I just eat."

And your point is? Overeating is overeating. Bingeing is quite another thing. People generally don't "binge" on healthy foods, but yes they most certainly can and do overeat on them.

You should publish a dictionary of terms and then we can keep up with you!!

I didn't decide on what the word binge means. I used it in a sentence, if you don't understand the meaning then perhaps you need to consult a dictionary before responding.

And what did yours tell you the difference between binging and over eating was in the context you used it? Were you asking if the person who posted the pics had an eating disorder? Come on, share with us that amazing mind of yours!

Overeating can take place over long periods of time and can mean going over calorie needs by any amount. Binges are short bursts of excessive eating that are far above your calorie needs. It has nothing to do with an eating disorder, I mentioned it first when I said people don't binge on healthy food. I stand by that.

And how do you know Mike never binged?

"As you can see from the food pyramid, you’re supposed to eat the fat on meats, which meant I’d devour a hefty serving of full-fat beef or lamb mince, or a couple of salmon fillets, accompanied by four or five different veggies — all cooked in oil or grass-fed butter."

Hell by your definition people generally don't binge, so maybe again I missed the point of your question

Because that doesn't sound like a brief excessive indulgence to me, that is overeating.

"binge on that all day long"

ndj1979

this thread is giving me a headache..

Penny is all over the place and never wrong...reminds me of that Lindsey chick ..

I am out...but may check back in later to see how nuclear it has gone..

WendyTerry420

show previous quotes

Cooking destroys nutrients. Vegetable oil causes oxidative damage in the body, reducing the effects of any nutrients in the vegetables. Please, it's not rocket science.

Got it. I will eat raw potatoes moving forward.

Good. Raw potatoes contain high amounts of resistant starch. It's very good for you

So, eating something that is potentially toxic is "good for you"?

I was being facetious. But never mind, I'm sure you like arguing anyway.

No, but I like laughing at pretentious people.

WendyTerry420

pennyllayne

show previous quotes

You're confusing health with weight loss. Going over your calories doesn't make you unhealthy. Being fat makes you unhealthy. So eating that one tablespoon of olive oil might make an ever so slight dent in your weight loss progress, but it will positively affect your health. And what's wrong with planning your meals to allow for that olive oil? We need fat in our diets so why wouldn't you budget for it? And if you eat that salad alone with no fat you won't absorb all the nutrients either so I'd say you're always better off with the olive oil than without. You can make up for the extra 100 calories with exercise or the next day. Easy.

The term healthy really isn't as ambiguous as you make out. Either something is nutrient dense and contributes to health or it doesn't.

You were the one bashing the salad with plenty of olive oil on it, not me. I love giant salads. I'm simply pointing out that a rich salad with plenty of oil and meat is not necessarily "unhealthy" as you seem to be suggesting and adding a generous amount of olive oil will not destroy the nutritional content of the salad. For that matter, there are plenty of situations where a rich salad is going to be the better choice. Simply put, whether a rich salad is a better choice than a dainty salad you make at home with "a little" olive oil depends on your activity level for the day and what else you've eaten. You can't just proclaim it's always more or less "healthy."

For that matter, you seem to be contradicting yourself a bit with this line of thinking. First the rich salad was unhealthy... now you're saying it's healthy and you can make-up for surplus calories the next day. Which is it? Moreover, if being nutrient-dense is all that's required to make something "healthy" then you could eat healthy food all day long and get extremely fat from it. But wait, you're saying being fat isn't healthy, and yet you can easily get fat from eating only healthy foods by that definition of healthy... meaning you can damage your health by eating healthy foods. Why make it so confusing by trying to assign such labels to what you eat?

And I'd love to hear what "contributes to health" means, since you seem to be suggesting it's a separate factor from being nutrient dense... but other than providing macro and micronutrients, what exactly do foods contribute to your overall health? Perhaps an oversight, I don't know.

Honestly, it seems like you've done some research but you also have a pretty rigid view that needlessly overcomplicates things by assigning poorly defined labels to foods. I've defended calling certain foods "generally unhealthy" before but it seems like you're taking that to an extreme.

Not olive oil, vegetable oil (sunflower, rapeseed etc). Olives are a fruit . And I'd never say to put tons on...1 tablespoon is more than sufficient. I also didn't say anything about oil on salad destroying nutrients - that was in relation to overcooking vegetables and using oil with them. The health part comes in with the type of fats and oils you are using, not the amount.

So no I haven't contradicted myself...a salad drowning in a sunflower oil based dressing is not healthy, whereas a salad with a little olive oil IS healthy. It depends on what you add to it. Going over your calories does not make it unhealthy, but if you are trying to lose weight then you can lower your calories the next day to make up for the excess.

Yes you could eat healthy food all day long and get fat if you're not expending enough energy and eating too much. That doesn't affect health, it affects your weight. Once you gain weight, THAT then affects your health. So it's not the foods that are making the person unhealthy, it's the over consumption of them, as with anything. After all, healthy foods aren't calorie free, are they?

Something being nutrient dense obviously relates to contributing to health. Many foods that contain nutrients also negatively affect health in certain situations. I don't know why something being nutrient dense and contributing to health has to be 2 separate issues, that's just me stating the obvious I guess. But, if you want to know how else foods contribute to your health, well certain foods contain substances that block minerals which negatively affects health. There are also certain carbohydrates that some people can't digest and that negatively affects their health. Foods contain more than just micro and macro nutrients and everything that goes into our body affects it in some way.

I don't think I'm taking anything to the extreme...if any food is low in nutrient value and negatively affects health then it is unhealthy because is promotes poor health. That's not me, that's just a fact. Eating those foods occasionally in small amounts may not majorly impact your health, but it by no measure makes them health giving.

I think you're confusing calorie dense with unhealthy. Both salads, assuming the are made with identical ingredients besides the oils, have the same nutritional value but one has a higher calorie content. High calorie content does not automatically make a dish unhealthy. It's all relative. Perhaps the salad eater that bathed their salad in sunflower oil hadn't eaten any fats that day. If that person is eating at a deficit and hitting macros, that salad they ate was perfectly healthy.

Taken a step further, if the person who eats the salad with only a tiny amount of olive oil (your more 'healthy' salad) regularly doesn't get enough fats in their diet, they will be a less healthy individual than the other salad eater.

No, I'm not confusing calorie dense with healthy. Processed vegetable oils are not healthy. Not because of the calories, but because they are high in omega 6 fats which promote inflammation in the body and are damaged at high heats causing oxidative damage in the body. And I already said that more calories are not what makes something unhealthy. And I only gave the example of a tablespoon of olive oil in the case of not having any calories left for the day.

I'll keep quoting credible sources instead of my own imperfect memory.

Sunflower oil is 68% linoleic acid. http://www.news-medical.net/health/Oils-Rich-in-Linoleic-Acid.aspx

Linoleic acid:

Alpha-linolenic acid is an essential omega-3 fatty acid. It is called “essential” because it is needed for normal human growth and development. Nuts, such as walnuts, are good sources of alpha-linolenic acid. It is also found in vegetable oils such as flaxseed (linseed) oil, canola (rapeseed) oil, and soybean oil, as well as in red meat and dairy products.

Alpha-linolenic acid is popular for preventing and treating diseases of the heart and blood vessels. It is used to prevent heart attacks, lower high blood pressure, lower cholesterol, and reverse “hardening of the blood vessels” (atherosclerosis). There is some evidence that alpha-linolenic acid from dietary sources might be effective for all these uses except lowering cholesterol. Not enough is known yet to be able to rate alpha-linolenic acid’s effect on high cholesterol.

From: http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-1035-ALPHA-LINOLENIC ACID.aspx?activeIngredientId=1035&activeIngredientName=ALPHA-LINOLENIC ACID

Please stop spouting off information as though it is irrefutable fact that is set in dietary stone. This is science, ever changing as new information pops up. They once said that eggs were bad for us, now they say they're good for us.

The key is moderation when it comes to diet and what you have in it. Douse your salad with sunflower oil one day, eat some raw celery and spinach the next, fry some okra in peanut oil the next day and then enjoy some steamed broccoli after that.

Stop being dogmatic. You're not doing anyone any favors.

Alpha linoleic acid is not the same as linoleic acid. Linoleic acid is an omega 6 fatty acid, ALA is an omega 3 fatty acid. So sunflower oil is high in omega 6, not omega 3. Please check your facts before you quote things that prove my point

WendyTerry420

this thread is giving me a headache..

Penny is all over the place and never wrong...reminds me of that Lindsey chick ..

I am out...but may check back in later to see how nuclear it has gone..

Don't blame Penny. It's Carrie's fault, really.

pennyllayne

show previous quotes

Overeating can take place over long periods of time and can mean going over calorie needs by any amount. Binges are short bursts of excessive eating that are far above your calorie needs. It has nothing to do with an eating disorder, I mentioned it first when I said people don't binge on healthy food. I stand by that.

I would agree with the first two sentences, but disagree with the third sentence. It may not be an "eating disorder" because a binge might occur at a once-per-year visit to a buffet, or it might be a binge on Christmas Day when everyone is feasting. It could also be part of a compulsive behavioral disorder that has nothing to do with food specifically. Or it could be an eating disorder.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/binge-eating-disorder/basics/definition/con-20033155

https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/binge-eating-disorder

https://bedaonline.com/

When I was referring to bingeing I wasn't talking in the context of an eating disorder, that is all I meant.

parkscs

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the term "nutrient DENSE". That means it is a dense source of nutrients - not just protein, fat and carbs. A range of nutrients, macro and micro. Ice cream might have macronutrients, but very few micronutrients so it is not nutrient dense. It is also processed and contains many other substances that negatively effect health. Nutrient dense is something that contains more nutrients per calorie than other foods. Therefore ice cream does not fit the bill.

And the problem here is that the definitions of these terms in your head do not fit the plain meaning of the term. If you said dense in micronutrients, you'd have a point, but you said nutrient dense. In terms of volume, ice cream is very dense in nutrients. Just compare a cup of ice cream to a cup of chopped cabbage. You may find some additional micronutrients in the cabbage but overall it has significantly less nutrients for the same unit of volume. By the plain meaning of the word "dense", the ice cream is more nutrient-dense than the cabbage. Putting it in all caps doesn't change that.

If we go back to basics though, where people eat to survive according to hunger and for health then certain foods will always be healthy. It is not the food that changes the effect on our bodies, it is us.

The problem with your approach to labelling something as "healthy" is that it's almost always a trade-off. A food rich in micronutrients is not "healthy" if consumed in excess amounts. Health comes from the totality of what you eat and what you do, not any particular food you eat or do not eat. Labelling a single food as "healthy" in isolation, without any regarding to quantity or the overall make-up of someone's diet, is just silly. And that's my point with repeatedly pointing out that eating "healthy" foods, by your definition, can be completely unhealthy for a person - if that's the case, what the heck is so healthy about those foods? A healthy diet revolves around your aggregate nutrient intake, not eating "healthy" foods.

Now, you rightfully point out:

That's not the food's fault and it doesn't make the food unhealthy, it's our fault for eating more than we need because we should be listening to our bodies and eating when hungry.

However, extending that same train of thought a bit further, health does not come from any one food. Just like you shouldn't blame any one food and label it unhealthy because it led to fat gain when over-consumed, you shouldn't label any one food "healthy" because it can potentially be a part of a healthy diet. It can also be part of a diet that makes a person quite unhealthy. Foods are simply an assortment of nutrients and a healthy diet comes from getting proper amounts of said nutrients, but that's a "big picture" concept and not specific to any particular food. Again, if you say some foods are dense in micronutrients or "generally a healthy choice" we have no disagreement. But applying a blanket label of "healthy", implying that the food is always a healthy option, is silly.

And we'll ignore the whole eating when hungry bit, because that's horrible advice. :laugh:

pennyllayne

show previous quotes

A bit of meat, fat and veg is enjoyable for many when eating out of hunger but it is not highly rewarding and does not make you want to eat and eat and eat. People don't binge on meat, veg and healthy fat.

^^ Speak for yourself.

This looks highly rewarding to me:

You gonna binge on that all day long and eat thousands upon thousands of calories?

http://www.healthylivingheavylifting.com/how-clean-eating-made-me-fat-but-ice-cream-and-subway-got-me-lean/

"[...] With the Paleo diet, there are no rules on how much you can eat. By that, I mean you’re not given a set calorie or macronutrient goal to hit each day, as the theory behind Paleo eating is that the low-carb, high-protein nature of the diet leads you to feeling naturally full, and prevents over-eating.

Well, say hello to the incredible eating machine. Also known as “bottomless pit Samuels,” or “the human bin.” I don’t seem to have a full setting. When I’m not given a set amount to eat, I just eat."

And your point is? Overeating is overeating. Bingeing is quite another thing. People generally don't "binge" on healthy foods, but yes they most certainly can and do overeat on them.

You should publish a dictionary of terms and then we can keep up with you!!

I didn't decide on what the word binge means. I used it in a sentence, if you don't understand the meaning then perhaps you need to consult a dictionary before responding.

And what did yours tell you the difference between binging and over eating was in the context you used it? Were you asking if the person who posted the pics had an eating disorder? Come on, share with us that amazing mind of yours!

Overeating can take place over long periods of time and can mean going over calorie needs by any amount. Binges are short bursts of excessive eating that are far above your calorie needs. It has nothing to do with an eating disorder, I mentioned it first when I said people don't binge on healthy food. I stand by that.

And how do you know Mike never binged?

"As you can see from the food pyramid, you’re supposed to eat the fat on meats, which meant I’d devour a hefty serving of full-fat beef or lamb mince, or a couple of salmon fillets, accompanied by four or five different veggies — all cooked in oil or grass-fed butter."

Hell by your definition people generally don't binge, so maybe again I missed the point of your question

Because that doesn't sound like a brief excessive indulgence to me, that is overeating.

"binge on that all day long"

Yes, you can have 10 binges a day if you want to. But eating a large meal is not a binge, it is overeating.

pennyllayne

this thread is giving me a headache..

Penny is all over the place and never wrong...reminds me of that Lindsey chick ..

I am out...but may check back in later to see how nuclear it has gone..

Oh thank you . I wonder if your face is as nice as your physique...

pennyllayne

show previous quotes

Cooking destroys nutrients. Vegetable oil causes oxidative damage in the body, reducing the effects of any nutrients in the vegetables. Please, it's not rocket science.

Got it. I will eat raw potatoes moving forward.

Good. Raw potatoes contain high amounts of resistant starch. It's very good for you

So, eating something that is potentially toxic is "good for you"?

I was being facetious. But never mind, I'm sure you like arguing anyway.

No, but I like laughing at pretentious people.

Oh because you're such a nice agreeable person

rebalee8

Nutrition and weight loss are unrelated.

If you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight (over time, it's not a one to one / per day thing).

If eating "healthy" foods was the cause of weight loss, then we'd have to stop eating them once we hit our goals weights. This is clearly silly.

Depending on what you choose to eat and what if any exercise you choose to do... you may or may not be healthy. But you will lose weight.

What people advocating a certain range of foods (be it low carb or anything else) always neglect is that other people's tastes may not align with theres. I'm never going to eat a diet heavy in vegetables... because I don't actually like most vegetables. Yes they are excellent filler (fill the stomach relatively light in calories) but they taste like it too (to me).

Ideally people find a balance between what they like and what gives them the nutrients they need, but all the pontificating on the subject that goes on strikes me as just another way for people to feel superior.

.

Thank you for this.

I'm mostly vegetarian because I mostly don't like meat, yet I get assailed all the time (not on mfp) about how I need to be eating meat to be losing weight because I can't get enough protein from a vegetarian diet (as well as all the other anti-vegetarian stuff - which is annoying as I'm not vegetarian for health reasons or for animal rights).

It's simply that if you put a plate of chicken and a plate of tofu in front of me... I'll take the tofu because I actually LIKE it, and I don't like the chicken. And it's always been that way. I was the kid eating the broccoli and feeding the pork chop to the dog under the table (we had a really happy dog :laugh: )

So, while I'm thrilled for that person who tells me they've had great success with paleo or atkins or whatever high-protein incarnation they used, but it's not going to work for me because I don't like half the food, and I don't need them telling me that I need to follow their plan.

MelodyandBarbells

show previous quotes

A bit of meat, fat and veg is enjoyable for many when eating out of hunger but it is not highly rewarding and does not make you want to eat and eat and eat. People don't binge on meat, veg and healthy fat.

^^ Speak for yourself.

This looks highly rewarding to me:

You gonna binge on that all day long and eat thousands upon thousands of calories?

http://www.healthylivingheavylifting.com/how-clean-eating-made-me-fat-but-ice-cream-and-subway-got-me-lean/

"[...] With the Paleo diet, there are no rules on how much you can eat. By that, I mean you’re not given a set calorie or macronutrient goal to hit each day, as the theory behind Paleo eating is that the low-carb, high-protein nature of the diet leads you to feeling naturally full, and prevents over-eating.

Well, say hello to the incredible eating machine. Also known as “bottomless pit Samuels,” or “the human bin.” I don’t seem to have a full setting. When I’m not given a set amount to eat, I just eat."

And your point is? Overeating is overeating. Bingeing is quite another thing. People generally don't "binge" on healthy foods, but yes they most certainly can and do overeat on them.

You should publish a dictionary of terms and then we can keep up with you!!

I didn't decide on what the word binge means. I used it in a sentence, if you don't understand the meaning then perhaps you need to consult a dictionary before responding.

And what did yours tell you the difference between binging and over eating was in the context you used it? Were you asking if the person who posted the pics had an eating disorder? Come on, share with us that amazing mind of yours!

Overeating can take place over long periods of time and can mean going over calorie needs by any amount. Binges are short bursts of excessive eating that are far above your calorie needs. It has nothing to do with an eating disorder, I mentioned it first when I said people don't binge on healthy food. I stand by that.

And how do you know Mike never binged?

"As you can see from the food pyramid, you’re supposed to eat the fat on meats, which meant I’d devour a hefty serving of full-fat beef or lamb mince, or a couple of salmon fillets, accompanied by four or five different veggies — all cooked in oil or grass-fed butter."

Hell by your definition people generally don't binge, so maybe again I missed the point of your question

Because that doesn't sound like a brief excessive indulgence to me, that is overeating.

"binge on that all day long"

Yes, you can have 10 binges a day if you want to. But eating a large meal is not a binge, it is overeating.

And clearly each binge would need to occur in a time limited period like five minutes or forty minutes? I pick thirty!

prattiger65

show previous quotes

Gosh, I'm really confused by all the piles of quotes, the contradictory comments and whatnot.

I've read through some of the posts here, and some people are saying that calorie deficit is good enough by itself to lose weight, while other are saying that it's all about the calories going in vs. the ones going out.

Is there an answer for this topic, or does it simply matter on the person itself?
I just feel like it's dangerous and not really healthy for people to be commenting on these kinds of topics without having proper knowledge.
However that's just my opinion, and it's not meant to offend anyone in any way.
I'm just looking for some legitimate answers to help my weight loss.

I tried MFP last year and started out really great and then fell off very quickly and gained all my lost weight back because I got very obsessed and very confused with all the differing information regarding macros and micros and healthy vs. unhealthy and clean vs. unclean and IIFYM and IF and blah blah blah. I've started over and have decided to just go with calorie deficit. So far, so good. I'm less stressed out, I'm less obsessive. I try to eat a good variety of foods, but I don't freak out if I'm 20g over for fat or 40g under for protein in a given day. I've set my calories slightly lower than TDEE-20% because I'm also a food estimator instead of a weigher (oh the horror) and I want to have a little cushion.

Though I am disappointed to hear that cooking my vegetables apparently negates them being healthy anymore. SInce I can't stomach raw veggies (literally, they do a number on my stomach), I guess I should just not eat them(?). Nah, just kidding. I love me some roasted broccoli with olive oil, garlic, and parmesan out of a green can.

Calories in/calories out, you are doing it right. Cooking veggies is fine, it doesn't turn them into demon food. Again, keep doing what you are doing.

deksgrl

this thread is giving me a headache..

Penny is all over the place and never wrong...reminds me of that Lindsey chick ..

I am out...but may check back in later to see how nuclear it has gone..

johnboy1229

I checked out her food diary too. Awesome job done. Keep up the hard work, you clearly see value in eating healthy. There are definitely garbage foods in this world too.

krawhitham

If you look through the forums there is always talk about 'eating at deficit'. But, really it's more than just eating fewer calories than you burn. It's also about what you eat. Your body needs fuel. You can eat garbage and be at a calorie deficit, but you aren't going to feel good and it will probably hinder your weight loss/fitness goals.

Pay attention to those macro's and work on adding veggies and lean protein. Drink lots of water and move your body. If you 'eat at deficit' and the scale still isn't moving then it may not be how much you are eating but what you are eating that is holding you back.

Disagree.

I had half of a Digiorno pizza and a big bowl of ice cream last night and I'm losing weight just fine... because I'm eating at an overall calorie deficit. Simple as that.

pennyllayne

show previous quotes

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the term "nutrient DENSE". That means it is a dense source of nutrients - not just protein, fat and carbs. A range of nutrients, macro and micro. Ice cream might have macronutrients, but very few micronutrients so it is not nutrient dense. It is also processed and contains many other substances that negatively effect health. Nutrient dense is something that contains more nutrients per calorie than other foods. Therefore ice cream does not fit the bill.

And the problem here is that the definitions of these terms in your head do not fit the plain meaning of the term. If you said dense in micronutrients, you'd have a point, but you said nutrient dense. In terms of volume, ice cream is very dense in nutrients. Just compare a cup of ice cream to a cup of chopped cabbage. You may find some additional micronutrients in the cabbage but overall it has significantly less nutrients for the same unit of volume. By the plain meaning of the word "dense", the ice cream is more nutrient-dense than the cabbage. Putting it in all caps doesn't change that.

show previous quotes

If we go back to basics though, where people eat to survive according to hunger and for health then certain foods will always be healthy. It is not the food that changes the effect on our bodies, it is us.

The problem with your approach to labelling something as "healthy" is that it's almost always a trade-off. A food rich in micronutrients is not "healthy" if consumed in excess amounts. Health comes from the totality of what you eat and what you do, not any particular food you eat or do not eat. Labelling a single food as "healthy" in isolation, without any regarding to quantity or the overall make-up of someone's diet, is just silly. And that's my point with repeatedly pointing out that eating "healthy" foods, by your definition, can be completely unhealthy for a person - if that's the case, what the heck is so healthy about those foods? A healthy diet revolves around your aggregate nutrient intake, not eating "healthy" foods.

Now, you rightfully point out:

show previous quotes

That's not the food's fault and it doesn't make the food unhealthy, it's our fault for eating more than we need because we should be listening to our bodies and eating when hungry.

However, extending that same train of thought a bit further, health does not come from any one food. Just like you shouldn't blame any one food and label it unhealthy because it led to fat gain when over-consumed, you shouldn't label any one food "healthy" because it can potentially be a part of a healthy diet. It can also be part of a diet that makes a person quite unhealthy. Foods are simply an assortment of nutrients and a healthy diet comes from getting proper amounts of said nutrients, but that's a "big picture" concept and not specific to any particular food. Again, if you say some foods are dense in micronutrients or "generally a healthy choice" we have no disagreement. But applying a blanket label of "healthy", implying that the food is always a healthy option, is silly.

And we'll ignore the whole eating when hungry bit, because that's horrible advice. :laugh:

No, you somehow think that nutrients refers to either or and it doesn't. Nutrients refers to all nutrients, micro AND macro. So if something is nutrient dense, then it is dense in many nutrients, not just macro and not just micro. It's a silly point to argue.

A food does not become unhealthy because some person has decided to eat it in excessive amounts. By overeating you are going against common sense in a modern world, that is not nature's fault. A food is still healthy even if the rest of the food eaten is not. That does not change the health giving qualities of that food.

You obviously have an issue with me using a term you don't like and not what I'm actually saying and therefore this argument is actually getting a little silly. The world healthy can mean different things to different people, but I would assume that anyone would realise that the world healthy would refer to any food that contributes nutrients whilst limits harmful substances. And if not, well, I can't help that. The definition of healthy is actually conducive to good health. If that is really so hard to apply to foods, well what are you doing commenting?

pennyllayne

show previous quotes

Nutrition and weight loss are unrelated.

If you eat less calories than you burn you will lose weight (over time, it's not a one to one / per day thing).

If eating "healthy" foods was the cause of weight loss, then we'd have to stop eating them once we hit our goals weights. This is clearly silly.

Depending on what you choose to eat and what if any exercise you choose to do... you may or may not be healthy. But you will lose weight.

What people advocating a certain range of foods (be it low carb or anything else) always neglect is that other people's tastes may not align with theres. I'm never going to eat a diet heavy in vegetables... because I don't actually like most vegetables. Yes they are excellent filler (fill the stomach relatively light in calories) but they taste like it too (to me).

Ideally people find a balance between what they like and what gives them the nutrients they need, but all the pontificating on the subject that goes on strikes me as just another way for people to feel superior.

.

Thank you for this.

I'm mostly vegetarian because I mostly don't like meat, yet I get assailed all the time (not on mfp) about how I need to be eating meat to be losing weight because I can't get enough protein from a vegetarian diet (as well as all the other anti-vegetarian stuff - which is annoying as I'm not vegetarian for health reasons or for animal rights).

It's simply that if you put a plate of chicken and a plate of tofu in front of me... I'll take the tofu because I actually LIKE it, and I don't like the chicken. And it's always been that way. I was the kid eating the broccoli and feeding the pork chop to the dog under the table (we had a really happy dog :laugh: )

So, while I'm thrilled for that person who tells me they've had great success with paleo or atkins or whatever high-protein incarnation they used, but it's not going to work for me because I don't like half the food, and I don't need them telling me that I need to follow their plan.

There's very little point in any way of eating if you don't like it. Of course you can get enough protein from a vegetarian diet and if you are determined to eat that way then it may take some planning but it can be done of course. Anyone who does any way of eating just because there's a weight loss claim is not going to be able to sustain it if they get no meal satisfaction.

Strokingdiction

show previous quotes

You're confusing health with weight loss. Going over your calories doesn't make you unhealthy. Being fat makes you unhealthy. So eating that one tablespoon of olive oil might make an ever so slight dent in your weight loss progress, but it will positively affect your health. And what's wrong with planning your meals to allow for that olive oil? We need fat in our diets so why wouldn't you budget for it? And if you eat that salad alone with no fat you won't absorb all the nutrients either so I'd say you're always better off with the olive oil than without. You can make up for the extra 100 calories with exercise or the next day. Easy.

The term healthy really isn't as ambiguous as you make out. Either something is nutrient dense and contributes to health or it doesn't.

You were the one bashing the salad with plenty of olive oil on it, not me. I love giant salads. I'm simply pointing out that a rich salad with plenty of oil and meat is not necessarily "unhealthy" as you seem to be suggesting and adding a generous amount of olive oil will not destroy the nutritional content of the salad. For that matter, there are plenty of situations where a rich salad is going to be the better choice. Simply put, whether a rich salad is a better choice than a dainty salad you make at home with "a little" olive oil depends on your activity level for the day and what else you've eaten. You can't just proclaim it's always more or less "healthy."

For that matter, you seem to be contradicting yourself a bit with this line of thinking. First the rich salad was unhealthy... now you're saying it's healthy and you can make-up for surplus calories the next day. Which is it? Moreover, if being nutrient-dense is all that's required to make something "healthy" then you could eat healthy food all day long and get extremely fat from it. But wait, you're saying being fat isn't healthy, and yet you can easily get fat from eating only healthy foods by that definition of healthy... meaning you can damage your health by eating healthy foods. Why make it so confusing by trying to assign such labels to what you eat?

And I'd love to hear what "contributes to health" means, since you seem to be suggesting it's a separate factor from being nutrient dense... but other than providing macro and micronutrients, what exactly do foods contribute to your overall health? Perhaps an oversight, I don't know.

Honestly, it seems like you've done some research but you also have a pretty rigid view that needlessly overcomplicates things by assigning poorly defined labels to foods. I've defended calling certain foods "generally unhealthy" before but it seems like you're taking that to an extreme.

Not olive oil, vegetable oil (sunflower, rapeseed etc). Olives are a fruit . And I'd never say to put tons on...1 tablespoon is more than sufficient. I also didn't say anything about oil on salad destroying nutrients - that was in relation to overcooking vegetables and using oil with them. The health part comes in with the type of fats and oils you are using, not the amount.

So no I haven't contradicted myself...a salad drowning in a sunflower oil based dressing is not healthy, whereas a salad with a little olive oil IS healthy. It depends on what you add to it. Going over your calories does not make it unhealthy, but if you are trying to lose weight then you can lower your calories the next day to make up for the excess.

Yes you could eat healthy food all day long and get fat if you're not expending enough energy and eating too much. That doesn't affect health, it affects your weight. Once you gain weight, THAT then affects your health. So it's not the foods that are making the person unhealthy, it's the over consumption of them, as with anything. After all, healthy foods aren't calorie free, are they?

Something being nutrient dense obviously relates to contributing to health. Many foods that contain nutrients also negatively affect health in certain situations. I don't know why something being nutrient dense and contributing to health has to be 2 separate issues, that's just me stating the obvious I guess. But, if you want to know how else foods contribute to your health, well certain foods contain substances that block minerals which negatively affects health. There are also certain carbohydrates that some people can't digest and that negatively affects their health. Foods contain more than just micro and macro nutrients and everything that goes into our body affects it in some way.

I don't think I'm taking anything to the extreme...if any food is low in nutrient value and negatively affects health then it is unhealthy because is promotes poor health. That's not me, that's just a fact. Eating those foods occasionally in small amounts may not majorly impact your health, but it by no measure makes them health giving.

I think you're confusing calorie dense with unhealthy. Both salads, assuming the are made with identical ingredients besides the oils, have the same nutritional value but one has a higher calorie content. High calorie content does not automatically make a dish unhealthy. It's all relative. Perhaps the salad eater that bathed their salad in sunflower oil hadn't eaten any fats that day. If that person is eating at a deficit and hitting macros, that salad they ate was perfectly healthy.

Taken a step further, if the person who eats the salad with only a tiny amount of olive oil (your more 'healthy' salad) regularly doesn't get enough fats in their diet, they will be a less healthy individual than the other salad eater.

No, I'm not confusing calorie dense with healthy. Processed vegetable oils are not healthy. Not because of the calories, but because they are high in omega 6 fats which promote inflammation in the body and are damaged at high heats causing oxidative damage in the body. And I already said that more calories are not what makes something unhealthy. And I only gave the example of a tablespoon of olive oil in the case of not having any calories left for the day.

I'll keep quoting credible sources instead of my own imperfect memory.

Sunflower oil is 68% linoleic acid. http://www.news-medical.net/health/Oils-Rich-in-Linoleic-Acid.aspx

Linoleic acid:

Alpha-linolenic acid is an essential omega-3 fatty acid. It is called “essential” because it is needed for normal human growth and development. Nuts, such as walnuts, are good sources of alpha-linolenic acid. It is also found in vegetable oils such as flaxseed (linseed) oil, canola (rapeseed) oil, and soybean oil, as well as in red meat and dairy products.

Alpha-linolenic acid is popular for preventing and treating diseases of the heart and blood vessels. It is used to prevent heart attacks, lower high blood pressure, lower cholesterol, and reverse “hardening of the blood vessels” (atherosclerosis). There is some evidence that alpha-linolenic acid from dietary sources might be effective for all these uses except lowering cholesterol. Not enough is known yet to be able to rate alpha-linolenic acid’s effect on high cholesterol.

From: http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-1035-ALPHA-LINOLENIC ACID.aspx?activeIngredientId=1035&activeIngredientName=ALPHA-LINOLENIC ACID

Please stop spouting off information as though it is irrefutable fact that is set in dietary stone. This is science, ever changing as new information pops up. They once said that eggs were bad for us, now they say they're good for us.

The key is moderation when it comes to diet and what you have in it. Douse your salad with sunflower oil one day, eat some raw celery and spinach the next, fry some okra in peanut oil the next day and then enjoy some steamed broccoli after that.

Stop being dogmatic. You're not doing anyone any favors.

Alpha linoleic acid is not the same as linoleic acid. Linoleic acid is an omega 6 fatty acid, ALA is an omega 3 fatty acid. So sunflower oil is high in omega 6, not omega 3. Please check your facts before you quote things that prove my point

You're right. I made a mistake. See how you can admit to being incorrect about one point of a discussion and the forums don't burst into flame? You should try it sometime. That being admitted, I did not prove your point.

Omega 6 isn't automatically unhealthy for you. Too much of anything is not good for you. If your ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 is 3 to 1, you'll be perfectly healthy. If your ratio is 10 to 1 then an individual might experience that inflammation you keep talking about, though not everyone will be so affected. You don't have to cut vegetable oil or other omega 6 rich oils completely out of your diet in order to be healthy if you like them, you just have to moderate it.

As i said before, moderation is a good thing.

On the other hand, demonizing (or 'angelizing' for that matter) any food or nutrient is rarely a good idea.

pennyllayne

show previous quotes

Gosh, I'm really confused by all the piles of quotes, the contradictory comments and whatnot.

I've read through some of the posts here, and some people are saying that calorie deficit is good enough by itself to lose weight, while other are saying that it's all about the calories going in vs. the ones going out.

Is there an answer for this topic, or does it simply matter on the person itself?
I just feel like it's dangerous and not really healthy for people to be commenting on these kinds of topics without having proper knowledge.
However that's just my opinion, and it's not meant to offend anyone in any way.
I'm just looking for some legitimate answers to help my weight loss.

I tried MFP last year and started out really great and then fell off very quickly and gained all my lost weight back because I got very obsessed and very confused with all the differing information regarding macros and micros and healthy vs. unhealthy and clean vs. unclean and IIFYM and IF and blah blah blah. I've started over and have decided to just go with calorie deficit. So far, so good. I'm less stressed out, I'm less obsessive. I try to eat a good variety of foods, but I don't freak out if I'm 20g over for fat or 40g under for protein in a given day. I've set my calories slightly lower than TDEE-20% because I'm also a food estimator instead of a weigher (oh the horror) and I want to have a little cushion.

Though I am disappointed to hear that cooking my vegetables apparently negates them being healthy anymore. SInce I can't stomach raw veggies (literally, they do a number on my stomach), I guess I should just not eat them(?). Nah, just kidding. I love me some roasted broccoli with olive oil, garlic, and parmesan out of a green can.

Calories in/calories out, you are doing it right. Cooking veggies is fine, it doesn't turn them into demon food. Again, keep doing what you are doing.

Of course there's nothing wrong with cooking your veggies. Many of them can be harmful eaten raw. But it's not a simple "always eat raw" or "always cook" situation. You have to pay attention to cooking methods as well.

prattiger65

If you look through the forums there is always talk about 'eating at deficit'. But, really it's more than just eating fewer calories than you burn. It's also about what you eat. Your body needs fuel. You can eat garbage and be at a calorie deficit, but you aren't going to feel good and it will probably hinder your weight loss/fitness goals.

Pay attention to those macro's and work on adding veggies and lean protein. Drink lots of water and move your body. If you 'eat at deficit' and the scale still isn't moving then it may not be how much you are eating but what you are eating that is holding you back.

This is the OP, just in case folks missed it in all this fun.

Strokingdiction

show previous quotes

A bit of meat, fat and veg is enjoyable for many when eating out of hunger but it is not highly rewarding and does not make you want to eat and eat and eat. People don't binge on meat, veg and healthy fat.

^^ Speak for yourself.

This looks highly rewarding to me:

You gonna binge on that all day long and eat thousands upon thousands of calories?

http://www.healthylivingheavylifting.com/how-clean-eating-made-me-fat-but-ice-cream-and-subway-got-me-lean/

"[...] With the Paleo diet, there are no rules on how much you can eat. By that, I mean you’re not given a set calorie or macronutrient goal to hit each day, as the theory behind Paleo eating is that the low-carb, high-protein nature of the diet leads you to feeling naturally full, and prevents over-eating.

Well, say hello to the incredible eating machine. Also known as “bottomless pit Samuels,” or “the human bin.” I don’t seem to have a full setting. When I’m not given a set amount to eat, I just eat."

And your point is? Overeating is overeating. Bingeing is quite another thing. People generally don't "binge" on healthy foods, but yes they most certainly can and do overeat on them.

You should publish a dictionary of terms and then we can keep up with you!!

I didn't decide on what the word binge means. I used it in a sentence, if you don't understand the meaning then perhaps you need to consult a dictionary before responding.

And what did yours tell you the difference between binging and over eating was in the context you used it? Were you asking if the person who posted the pics had an eating disorder? Come on, share with us that amazing mind of yours!

Overeating can take place over long periods of time and can mean going over calorie needs by any amount. Binges are short bursts of excessive eating that are far above your calorie needs. It has nothing to do with an eating disorder, I mentioned it first when I said people don't binge on healthy food. I stand by that.

And how do you know Mike never binged?

"As you can see from the food pyramid, you’re supposed to eat the fat on meats, which meant I’d devour a hefty serving of full-fat beef or lamb mince, or a couple of salmon fillets, accompanied by four or five different veggies — all cooked in oil or grass-fed butter."

Hell by your definition people generally don't binge, so maybe again I missed the point of your question

Because that doesn't sound like a brief excessive indulgence to me, that is overeating.

"binge on that all day long"

Yes, you can have 10 binges a day if you want to. But eating a large meal is not a binge, it is overeating.

Eating a large meal, a very subjective description, is not overeating. Many people eat one large meal a day and are not overeating. Overeating is eating above your bodies caloric needs, not about portion size.

prattiger65

show previous quotes

Gosh, I'm really confused by all the piles of quotes, the contradictory comments and whatnot.

I've read through some of the posts here, and some people are saying that calorie deficit is good enough by itself to lose weight, while other are saying that it's all about the calories going in vs. the ones going out.

Is there an answer for this topic, or does it simply matter on the person itself?
I just feel like it's dangerous and not really healthy for people to be commenting on these kinds of topics without having proper knowledge.
However that's just my opinion, and it's not meant to offend anyone in any way.
I'm just looking for some legitimate answers to help my weight loss.

I tried MFP last year and started out really great and then fell off very quickly and gained all my lost weight back because I got very obsessed and very confused with all the differing information regarding macros and micros and healthy vs. unhealthy and clean vs. unclean and IIFYM and IF and blah blah blah. I've started over and have decided to just go with calorie deficit. So far, so good. I'm less stressed out, I'm less obsessive. I try to eat a good variety of foods, but I don't freak out if I'm 20g over for fat or 40g under for protein in a given day. I've set my calories slightly lower than TDEE-20% because I'm also a food estimator instead of a weigher (oh the horror) and I want to have a little cushion.

Though I am disappointed to hear that cooking my vegetables apparently negates them being healthy anymore. SInce I can't stomach raw veggies (literally, they do a number on my stomach), I guess I should just not eat them(?). Nah, just kidding. I love me some roasted broccoli with olive oil, garlic, and parmesan out of a green can.

Calories in/calories out, you are doing it right. Cooking veggies is fine, it doesn't turn them into demon food. Again, keep doing what you are doing.

Of course there's nothing wrong with cooking your veggies. Many of them can be harmful eaten raw. But it's not a simple "always eat raw" or "always cook" situation. You have to pay attention to cooking methods as well.

Penny, you are right......everyone of us are clearly wrong. You win the internet. Can we stop now? There was no reason for you to even comment on this with your flamethrower. Please just stop.

pennyllayne

show previous quotes

You're confusing health with weight loss. Going over your calories doesn't make you unhealthy. Being fat makes you unhealthy. So eating that one tablespoon of olive oil might make an ever so slight dent in your weight loss progress, but it will positively affect your health. And what's wrong with planning your meals to allow for that olive oil? We need fat in our diets so why wouldn't you budget for it? And if you eat that salad alone with no fat you won't absorb all the nutrients either so I'd say you're always better off with the olive oil than without. You can make up for the extra 100 calories with exercise or the next day. Easy.

The term healthy really isn't as ambiguous as you make out. Either something is nutrient dense and contributes to health or it doesn't.

You were the one bashing the salad with plenty of olive oil on it, not me. I love giant salads. I'm simply pointing out that a rich salad with plenty of oil and meat is not necessarily "unhealthy" as you seem to be suggesting and adding a generous amount of olive oil will not destroy the nutritional content of the salad. For that matter, there are plenty of situations where a rich salad is going to be the better choice. Simply put, whether a rich salad is a better choice than a dainty salad you make at home with "a little" olive oil depends on your activity level for the day and what else you've eaten. You can't just proclaim it's always more or less "healthy."

For that matter, you seem to be contradicting yourself a bit with this line of thinking. First the rich salad was unhealthy... now you're saying it's healthy and you can make-up for surplus calories the next day. Which is it? Moreover, if being nutrient-dense is all that's required to make something "healthy" then you could eat healthy food all day long and get extremely fat from it. But wait, you're saying being fat isn't healthy, and yet you can easily get fat from eating only healthy foods by that definition of healthy... meaning you can damage your health by eating healthy foods. Why make it so confusing by trying to assign such labels to what you eat?

And I'd love to hear what "contributes to health" means, since you seem to be suggesting it's a separate factor from being nutrient dense... but other than providing macro and micronutrients, what exactly do foods contribute to your overall health? Perhaps an oversight, I don't know.

Honestly, it seems like you've done some research but you also have a pretty rigid view that needlessly overcomplicates things by assigning poorly defined labels to foods. I've defended calling certain foods "generally unhealthy" before but it seems like you're taking that to an extreme.

Not olive oil, vegetable oil (sunflower, rapeseed etc). Olives are a fruit . And I'd never say to put tons on...1 tablespoon is more than sufficient. I also didn't say anything about oil on salad destroying nutrients - that was in relation to overcooking vegetables and using oil with them. The health part comes in with the type of fats and oils you are using, not the amount.

So no I haven't contradicted myself...a salad drowning in a sunflower oil based dressing is not healthy, whereas a salad with a little olive oil IS healthy. It depends on what you add to it. Going over your calories does not make it unhealthy, but if you are trying to lose weight then you can lower your calories the next day to make up for the excess.

Yes you could eat healthy food all day long and get fat if you're not expending enough energy and eating too much. That doesn't affect health, it affects your weight. Once you gain weight, THAT then affects your health. So it's not the foods that are making the person unhealthy, it's the over consumption of them, as with anything. After all, healthy foods aren't calorie free, are they?

Something being nutrient dense obviously relates to contributing to health. Many foods that contain nutrients also negatively affect health in certain situations. I don't know why something being nutrient dense and contributing to health has to be 2 separate issues, that's just me stating the obvious I guess. But, if you want to know how else foods contribute to your health, well certain foods contain substances that block minerals which negatively affects health. There are also certain carbohydrates that some people can't digest and that negatively affects their health. Foods contain more than just micro and macro nutrients and everything that goes into our body affects it in some way.

I don't think I'm taking anything to the extreme...if any food is low in nutrient value and negatively affects health then it is unhealthy because is promotes poor health. That's not me, that's just a fact. Eating those foods occasionally in small amounts may not majorly impact your health, but it by no measure makes them health giving.

I think you're confusing calorie dense with unhealthy. Both salads, assuming the are made with identical ingredients besides the oils, have the same nutritional value but one has a higher calorie content. High calorie content does not automatically make a dish unhealthy. It's all relative. Perhaps the salad eater that bathed their salad in sunflower oil hadn't eaten any fats that day. If that person is eating at a deficit and hitting macros, that salad they ate was perfectly healthy.

Taken a step further, if the person who eats the salad with only a tiny amount of olive oil (your more 'healthy' salad) regularly doesn't get enough fats in their diet, they will be a less healthy individual than the other salad eater.

No, I'm not confusing calorie dense with healthy. Processed vegetable oils are not healthy. Not because of the calories, but because they are high in omega 6 fats which promote inflammation in the body and are damaged at high heats causing oxidative damage in the body. And I already said that more calories are not what makes something unhealthy. And I only gave the example of a tablespoon of olive oil in the case of not having any calories left for the day.

I'll keep quoting credible sources instead of my own imperfect memory.

Sunflower oil is 68% linoleic acid. http://www.news-medical.net/health/Oils-Rich-in-Linoleic-Acid.aspx

Linoleic acid:

Alpha-linolenic acid is an essential omega-3 fatty acid. It is called “essential” because it is needed for normal human growth and development. Nuts, such as walnuts, are good sources of alpha-linolenic acid. It is also found in vegetable oils such as flaxseed (linseed) oil, canola (rapeseed) oil, and soybean oil, as well as in red meat and dairy products.

Alpha-linolenic acid is popular for preventing and treating diseases of the heart and blood vessels. It is used to prevent heart attacks, lower high blood pressure, lower cholesterol, and reverse “hardening of the blood vessels” (atherosclerosis). There is some evidence that alpha-linolenic acid from dietary sources might be effective for all these uses except lowering cholesterol. Not enough is known yet to be able to rate alpha-linolenic acid’s effect on high cholesterol.

From: http://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientmono-1035-ALPHA-LINOLENIC ACID.aspx?activeIngredientId=1035&activeIngredientName=ALPHA-LINOLENIC ACID

Please stop spouting off information as though it is irrefutable fact that is set in dietary stone. This is science, ever changing as new information pops up. They once said that eggs were bad for us, now they say they're good for us.

The key is moderation when it comes to diet and what you have in it. Douse your salad with sunflower oil one day, eat some raw celery and spinach the next, fry some okra in peanut oil the next day and then enjoy some steamed broccoli after that.

Stop being dogmatic. You're not doing anyone any favors.

Alpha linoleic acid is not the same as linoleic acid. Linoleic acid is an omega 6 fatty acid, ALA is an omega 3 fatty acid. So sunflower oil is high in omega 6, not omega 3. Please check your facts before you quote things that prove my point

You're right. I made a mistake. See how you can admit to being incorrect about one point of a discussion and the forums don't burst into flame? You should try it sometime. That being admitted, I did not prove your point.

Omega 6 isn't automatically unhealthy for you. Too much of anything is not good for you. If your ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 is 3 to 1, you'll be perfectly healthy. If your ratio is 10 to 1 then an individual might experience that inflammation you keep talking about, though not everyone will be so affected. You don't have to cut vegetable oil or other omega 6 rich oils completely out of your diet in order to be healthy if you like them, you just have to moderate it.

As i said before, moderation is a good thing.

On the other hand, demonizing (or 'angelizing' for that matter) any food or nutrient is rarely a good idea.

Where was I wrong but couldn't admit I was wrong? I've tried to be as accurate as possible - not to ne "pretentious" but because this is actually my line of work and I care about it. I do not want to be spouting misinformation and I don't think I have. But please point out anything I may have got wrong and I'll be prepared to take another look.

Well you did prove what I said about sunflower oil being high in omega 6 fats and omega 6 fats are found in a LOT of foods so you don't need to get them from processed oils that are damaged when used in cooking anyway. Too much omega 6 fat is bad for you and omega 3s are not as common and this is why you need to limit omega 6 oils. It might not be as bad if you're eating a lot of oily fish and on a daily basis, but that is rarely the case yet people are using omega 6 oils regularly and they are overly processed. Omega 6 oils are also used regularly in processed foods, fast foods and restaurant foods. Olive oil is damaged when cooked too. If you're only having omega 6s occasionally it might not be a problem, but that is not going to be the case unless you actively avoid them.

DebbieLyn63

show previous quotes

Gosh, I'm really confused by all the piles of quotes, the contradictory comments and whatnot.

I've read through some of the posts here, and some people are saying that calorie deficit is good enough by itself to lose weight, while other are saying that it's all about the calories going in vs. the ones going out.

Is there an answer for this topic, or does it simply matter on the person itself?
I just feel like it's dangerous and not really healthy for people to be commenting on these kinds of topics without having proper knowledge.
However that's just my opinion, and it's not meant to offend anyone in any way.
I'm just looking for some legitimate answers to help my weight loss.

And here it is!!!! This is why I was so adamantly digging my heels in. Pennylayne, would you agree with me to advise this lady to just worry about calories to get started? Because that is all that matters for weight loss?

I have only read up til this point now, because it is such a train wreck I am compelled to see when it eventually gets locked, but I will step in to comment on this last post.

The reason that you shouldn't tell someone starting out, that all that matters is staying under your calorie goal is because someone who is used to a diet of french fries, chips, donuts, etc, that decides to use their 1400 calories a day on those foods, then they are cutting out a lot of protein and nutrients that they would be getting on a diet of meats and veggies, etc. And they would be starving all day trying to stay under those cals that are mostly carbs that break down quickly and spike insulin.

So after trying to stay under their goal for a few days while starving and feeling like crap, they give up and decide that 'diets' don't work.

If people will just use some common sense and eat a variety of proteins, carbs, and healthy fats, with plenty of nutrient rich veggies and some fruit, then they can lose weight, feel great, and create a new way of eating that is sustainable for life. They can also have occasional high sugar/fat/calorie treat so that they don't feel deprived.

Telling someone new that they can eat whatever they want, as long as they eat in a deficit, is irresponsible.
Telling someone new that they can never have cake or cookies again, and must eat like a rabbit every day, is also irresponsible.

And the same people come into these threads with the same extreme arguments, just to nitpick at everything someone types, looking for an argument. Sheez. In the words of someone I have forgotten their name... "Can't we all just get along?" :flowerforyou:

1princesswarrior

show previous quotes

d I gained weight like no tomorrow.

I was in a steep deficit.

No.

You were in a calorie surplus.

If you are one of the 'special snowflakes' - and enough people out there do have bodies that behave significantly differently to the norm - then your body may have slowed down BMR and so, meaning you were in a surplus.

If you are gaining non-water weight, you are in a calorie surplus.

If you are in a deficit, you are losing weight (non-water) weight.

If you're suggesting otherwise, do explain where this mass has come from?

I was not in a calorie surplus. My TDEE was 2200, told to eat 1400 calories of low fat, high carb foods that were given to me, weighed, measured, etc. I gained almost 30 pounds in less than 8 weeks.

I eat almost 2400 calories per day of high fat, moderate protein, low carb and losing weight fine.

EXPLAIN THAT. I am eating MORE than my TDEE and have most 20 pounds over the past 31 days.

That doesn't explain where the extra mass came from.

Your body is not capable of producing lipid molecules without an external energy source to put into those molecules. THAT would in fact violate fundamental laws of physics. Clearly the weight you gained was something else not dependent on calories to produce. Something like water. The fact that it is melting off at such a high rate also is consistent with it being something like water. Because your body is not suddenly burning thousands of extra calories worth of fat every day.

I would agree that a lot of it could be water, especially if the person was eating low carb beforehand. But 30lbs of water?? In fact it's have to be MORE than 30lbs of water as you should still be losing fat so if you're losing fat and your weight increases by 30lbs then you have gained more than 30lbs overall if it negates the would be loss. And even with water weight, your body doesn't hold onto it for 8 weeks, it eventually adjusts and weight should decrease. On 1400 calories, how could anyone be eating enough carbs to warrant 30lbs of water weight? It doesn't add up.

Um, it's very possible to gain that much water weight if the kidneys and/or liver are not functioning properly, which in a scientific study should have been tested if that kind of gain occurred at that kind of deficit. If the said person's kidney's for some reason lowered in function or the liver became fatty due to carbs then yes that could have been water weight and could have been sustained for over eight weeks.

pennyllayne

show previous quotes

Gosh, I'm really confused by all the piles of quotes, the contradictory comments and whatnot.

I've read through some of the posts here, and some people are saying that calorie deficit is good enough by itself to lose weight, while other are saying that it's all about the calories going in vs. the ones going out.

Is there an answer for this topic, or does it simply matter on the person itself?
I just feel like it's dangerous and not really healthy for people to be commenting on these kinds of topics without having proper knowledge.
However that's just my opinion, and it's not meant to offend anyone in any way.
I'm just looking for some legitimate answers to help my weight loss.

I tried MFP last year and started out really great and then fell off very quickly and gained all my lost weight back because I got very obsessed and very confused with all the differing information regarding macros and micros and healthy vs. unhealthy and clean vs. unclean and IIFYM and IF and blah blah blah. I've started over and have decided to just go with calorie deficit. So far, so good. I'm less stressed out, I'm less obsessive. I try to eat a good variety of foods, but I don't freak out if I'm 20g over for fat or 40g under for protein in a given day. I've set my calories slightly lower than TDEE-20% because I'm also a food estimator instead of a weigher (oh the horror) and I want to have a little cushion.

Though I am disappointed to hear that cooking my vegetables apparently negates them being healthy anymore. SInce I can't stomach raw veggies (literally, they do a number on my stomach), I guess I should just not eat them(?). Nah, just kidding. I love me some roasted broccoli with olive oil, garlic, and parmesan out of a green can.

Calories in/calories out, you are doing it right. Cooking veggies is fine, it doesn't turn them into demon food. Again, keep doing what you are doing.

Of course there's nothing wrong with cooking your veggies. Many of them can be harmful eaten raw. But it's not a simple "always eat raw" or "always cook" situation. You have to pay attention to cooking methods as well.

Penny, you are right......everyone of us are clearly wrong. You win the internet. Can we stop now? There was no reason for you to even comment on this with your flamethrower. Please just stop.

I commented because I was trying to address the person you quoted who I believe was taking what I had said about cooking to an extreme. I apologise for using your quote to do it through. If you wish to avoid me, simply do so. I'm not here to argue.