Dieting, Nutrition, Losing Weight and Myths Debunked

Options
124

Replies

  • mangirl
    mangirl Posts: 93
    Options
    Diet is all the matters in fat/weight loss. Eating a deficit is all that matters in dieting. If you aren't losing weight you are eating too much.
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    Options
    bumping to read
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    Options
    The less you eat the more weight you will lose.

    Not always. I'm walking talking proof of that.

    When I ate 700-800 calories a day (I didn't know better) I lost at most a half pound a week.

    When I ate around 1200 net calories a day, I lost about a pound a week.

    When I ate around 1300 net calories a day, I lost about a pound a week.

    When I ate around 1400 net calories a day, I lost about a pound a week.

    And now eating 1500 net calories a day, I've STILL been losing about a pound a week.

    Less isn't always more.
  • shaunsta1
    shaunsta1 Posts: 5
    Options
    So shall i stick to the 1200 that my fitness pal recommends then? and i will loose weight?

    thanks guys
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Options
    So shall i stick to the 1200 that my fitness pal recommends then? and i will loose weight?

    thanks guys

    Well that depends on what you burn everyday. MFP is not exactly accurate when it comes to what people should eat everyday, calorie wise.

    Ever notice there are ALOT of people on this site that MFP tells them to eat 1200 calories? Everyone has different daily lifestyles. Some people burn way more than others even at the same height and weight. It all depends.

    You need to find out how much you burn FIRST, and then we can go from there.

    I was extremely busy at work today and I still need to work out a few plans for some people.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    The less you eat the more weight you will lose.

    Not always. I'm walking talking proof of that.

    When I ate 700-800 calories a day (I didn't know better) I lost at most a half pound a week.

    When I ate around 1200 net calories a day, I lost about a pound a week.

    When I ate around 1300 net calories a day, I lost about a pound a week.

    When I ate around 1400 net calories a day, I lost about a pound a week.

    And now eating 1500 net calories a day, I've STILL been losing about a pound a week.

    Less isn't always more.

    I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone eat only 700-800 calories a day but the above doesn't really prove anything even on a personal level. It shows only what it shows. But it what it doesn't show is that whether you would have had a similar increase in weight loss had you continued with the 700-800 calories, or perhaps an even greater loss. Was the increase in calories what caused the weight loss or was it some other factor not related to calories eaten (calories burned, time, other??) All factors are not accounted for so nothing can be proved. BUT I do think your way is much better!!
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    Options
    Was the increase in calories what caused the weight loss or was it some other factor not related to calories eaten (calories burned, time, other??)

    That's why I said my NET calories. :smile: My calories burned have averaged around 300 a day, sometimes more, sometimes less. I have to do a lot MORE to burn those calories than I used to, though, and I have been eating more protein lately.

    When I did the low calorie thing, which was about 5 years ago, it was over the course of several months. I'm thinking maybe 5 or 6? I eventually got down to about the weight I am now (130#) but I was larger and had a lot more body fat. Clothes I wore then are too big on me now.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Options
    Bump because it's Thursday and it's 103 degrees outside at 9:20am.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Options
    Bumpy McBump
  • sl1mmy
    sl1mmy Posts: 185
    Options
    bump
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Options
    Bump to suit taste.
  • sl1mmy
    sl1mmy Posts: 185
    Options
    bump
  • akyoung217
    akyoung217 Posts: 1
    Options
    Awesome Post!! I wish everyone were forced to read over this. You answered most of my questions/concerns without having to do the research myself.
    Thanks!
  • wonrob
    wonrob Posts: 66 Member
    Options
    Saturated fats actually are bad for you, your body has to work harder to break them down. And they do cause CVD/CHD if ingested excessively. Just because trans fats are -worse- for the diet, it doesn't mean that sat fats aren't bad.

    edit: but I did enjoy reading your post and find it very informative :)
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Options
    Saturated fats actually are bad for you, your body has to work harder to break them down. And they do cause CVD/CHD if ingested excessively. Just because trans fats are -worse- for the diet, it doesn't mean that sat fats aren't bad.

    edit: but I did enjoy reading your post and find it very informative :)

    You're incredibly misguided and incorrect. Sat fats are not bad for you when you keep your intake to .35-.75g per lb of bodyweight like I have suggested in many of my threads/posts. They do NOT cause CVD and CHD. Being overweight and not exercising, diabetes, high LDL blood cholesterol levels, smoking, high blood pressure, bad genes, alcohol abuse...do I need to really continue this?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Saturated fats actually are bad for you, your body has to work harder to break them down. And they do cause CVD/CHD if ingested excessively. Just because trans fats are -worse- for the diet, it doesn't mean that sat fats aren't bad.

    edit: but I did enjoy reading your post and find it very informative :)

    You're incredibly misguided and incorrect. Sat fats are not bad for you when you keep your intake to .35-.75g per lb of bodyweight like I have suggested in many of my threads/posts. They do NOT cause CVD and CHD. Please do research.

    There is plenty of research showing that eating saturated fat can raise LDL leveles, which can lead to CVD. But not all saturated fats are the same.

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Truth-about-fats.shtml
    Saturated fats.
    There are about 24 different saturated fats. Not all of them are equally bad for your health. The saturated fat found in butter, whole milk, cheese, and other dairy products increases LDL levels the most, followed by the saturated fat in beef. Curiously, the saturated fat called stearic acid, found in pure chocolate, is more like unsaturated fat in that it lowers LDL levels. Even some vegetable oils, such as palm oil and coconut oil, contain saturated fat.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Options
    Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):535-46. Epub 2010 Jan 13.
    Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.
    Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM.
    SourceChildren's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute Oakland, CA, USA.

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health.

    OBJECTIVE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies.

    DESIGN: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD.

    RESULTS: During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

    CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

    I'll rely on the National Institues of Health moreover Harvard University to be honest. No offense to you bcat. NIH does research and directly report to the Federal Health and Human Services department in Washington DC.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Options
    Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):535-46. Epub 2010 Jan 13.
    Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.
    Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM.
    SourceChildren's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute Oakland, CA, USA.

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health.

    OBJECTIVE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies.

    DESIGN: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD.

    RESULTS: During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

    CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

    I'll rely on the National Institues of Health moreover Harvard University to be honest. No offense to you bcat. NIH does research and directly report to the Federal Health and Human Services department in Washington DC.

    I agree. The NIH sets the standards not only for the HHS but for other government funded health care as well. Their standards are based on what the majority of evidence shows. And they recommend a diet low in saturated fat for healthy living:

    http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/better_health.htm

    A healthy eating plan:

    - Emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products.
    - Includes lean meats, poultry, fish, beans, eggs, and nuts.
    - Is low in saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, salt (sodium), and added sugars.

    http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/changing-habits.htm

    Revisit your goals and think of ways to expand them. For example, if you are comfortable walking 5 days a week, consider adding strength training twice a week. If you have successfully limited your saturated fat intake, try cutting back on added sugars too.

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002468.htm

    SATURATED FATS

    These are the biggest dietary cause of high LDL levels ("bad cholesterol"). When looking at a food label, pay very close attention to the percentage of saturated fat and avoid or limit any foods that are high. Saturated fat should be limited to 10% of calories. Saturated fats are found in animal products such as butter, cheese, whole milk, ice cream, cream, and fatty meats. They are also found in some vegetable oils -- coconut, palm, and palm kernel oils. (Note: Most other vegetable oils contain unsaturated fat and are healthy.)
  • gardenimp
    gardenimp Posts: 185 Member
    Options
    bump
  • Richard170
    Richard170 Posts: 37
    Options
    Yes! I said that in my first reply. A "good" unhealthy diet is an oxymoron. BUT, that doesn't mean you can't lose weight on a bad diet. Unhealthy food = bad food, what quantities are eaten doesn't change that.

    Lots of people eat all the "right" or "good" foods and their diet is still unhealthy simply because they eat to much and get fat. The most important factor in a healthy diet is not what you eat, but how much you eat and it is healthier to eat an appropriate caloric intake of junk food than it is to eat an excessive caloric intake of nuts, flaxseed, vegetables, fresh fruits, complex carbohydrates and lean meats or anything else that is considered "good" or "healthy". A thin person eating Twinkies is healthier than an obese person eating only "healthy" foods.

    The first priority should be to get the calories right.

Categories