New study out of Harvard -- TYPE of calories matters more

bcattoes

I never did like Harvard :frown:

Crazy talk. Harvard is my go to source. Look to the Willett, I say!

Willett? lol

D*mn skippy, Willett!!

Acg67

I never did like Harvard :frown:

Crazy talk. Harvard is my go to source. Look to the Willett, I say!

Willett? lol

D*mn skippy, Willett!!

I put his wisdom on par with Lustig and the like

ArroganceInStep

[quote[
2) Become Healthier - as in, I just want to be a healthier, happier person who's more resistant to illness, injury, fatigue, etc, and if/when I lose weight, that will be a bonus. With this goal, your food choices do become more limited, but since they fit in with your goal, you don't feel like you're restricting anything. You're eating whole foods because you WANT to, and thus the weight falls off as a bi-product of being a healthier person.
[/quote]

But that's the issue that I think a lot of folks don't get when they adopt elimination diets.

Assume you need nutrients A, B, and C nutrients to run optimally, but have to eat less than X calories in doing so to lose weight:

1) Person A gets nutrients A, B, and C from entirely whole food sources, and eats fewer than X calories
2) Person B gets nutrients A, B, and C but also eats a cupcake, and eats fewer than X calories.

Person A isn't magically somehow healthier than person B.

To get adequate nutrition on a calorie restricted diet, you need to eat food from nutrient dense sources. That often means whole foods and such. If, on that diet, you can still fit in treats or whatever, more power to you there's no problem with that.

If two people lose weight and each gets adequate nutrition, it doesn't matter what they ate.

bcattoes

This thread is looking rather more like a food fight, too bad really as the study was interesting.

It's certainly worth a read, but one study in isolation means little. These studies are often put forth on here to prove some specific point or another to back up a larger agenda or axe to grind by a few who post constantly demonizing this food or that. If you go through the profiles of the people supporting the consumption of fast food as part of a well balanced diet you will see quite a few very athletic MFP members. I think that should give anyone pause. It certainly did for me once I got serious about things and stopped making assumptions.

and you will also find many more who aren't. what's your point? you've never heard of an athlete having a heart attack? it happens. Fitness =/= Health. That's why they're two different words.

Fitness is a huge health marker. Anyone can become ill, regardless of diet, age, genetics or fitness level. There are some things beyond our control. The only thing that = health, is health.

bcattoes

I never did like Harvard :frown:

Crazy talk. Harvard is my go to source. Look to the Willett, I say!

Willett? lol

D*mn skippy, Willett!!

I put his wisdom on par with Lustig and the like

I don't care.

drchimpanzee

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/09/10/160757730/low-and-slow-may-be-the-way-to-go-when-it-comes-to-dieting

I think this NPR story might be about the same study. My favorite line from the story:

But equally important, she says, is a "part of the equation often ignored": exercise. She points to research that shows people who were successful in maintaining their weight a year after losing it added a significant ingredient to their daily regimen: at least 60 to 90 minutes of moderate exercise every single day.

MaraDiaz

Low carb makes me happy because low carb makes me less hungry. I do not care how much energy it does or doesn't take to burn protein and fat versus carbs versus processed carbs.

Okay, I care in that it's kind of neat to try to understand these things and not nearly enough is known about human nutrition, but otherwise, meh. Don't care. Doing what works for me.

The politics and economics of these things are infinitely fascinating, however. Let's say you have a workforce and you don't care about their health except when it impacts production. You just want them to live on the cheapest possible food sources and then you want them to die when they get too sick to work and certainly before they can collect any retirement. So you'd want a bunch of bread eaters, you'd want to eliminate healthcare, and you'd want to eliminate subsidies for things like beef (which is hugely subsidized; if it weren't the average American would never be able to afford it).

But if you want a truly healthy workforce with longevity, you would make unhealthy food expensive and healthy food cheap. The opposite of what we have now, not due to any nefarious plot, mind you, but because human nutrition is poorly understood and policy makers are just too short sighted.

kanadian_bear

get ready for the "I eat crap and still lost 50 pound crowd"

That would be me ... and still losing right on schedule.

sunsnstatheart

This thread is looking rather more like a food fight, too bad really as the study was interesting.

It's certainly worth a read, but one study in isolation means little. These studies are often put forth on here to prove some specific point or another to back up a larger agenda or axe to grind by a few who post constantly demonizing this food or that. If you go through the profiles of the people supporting the consumption of fast food as part of a well balanced diet you will see quite a few very athletic MFP members. I think that should give anyone pause. It certainly did for me once I got serious about things and stopped making assumptions.

and you will also find many more who aren't. what's your point? you've never heard of an athlete having a heart attack? it happens. Fitness =/= Health. That's why they're two different words.

The question is whether it is possible to be fit and eat fast food, no one is arguing that eating fast food is essential. Further, a person who is not fit and who eats fast food is actually irrelevant to that question. You really should take some time to understand logic before engaging in this type of argumentation.

rm7161

I don't care.

Same

I don't care if there are athletic people who eat McDonalds. They probably don't have an autoimmune disease either, which I do.

CoachReddy

2) Become Healthier - as in, I just want to be a healthier, happier person who's more resistant to illness, injury, fatigue, etc, and if/when I lose weight, that will be a bonus. With this goal, your food choices do become more limited, but since they fit in with your goal, you don't feel like you're restricting anything. You're eating whole foods because you WANT to, and thus the weight falls off as a bi-product of being a healthier person.

But that's the issue that I think a lot of folks don't get when they adopt elimination diets.

Assume you need nutrients A, B, and C nutrients to run optimally, but have to eat less than X calories in doing so to lose weight:

1) Person A gets nutrients A, B, and C from entirely whole food sources, and eats fewer than X calories
2) Person B gets nutrients A, B, and C but also eats a cupcake, and eats fewer than X calories.

Person A isn't magically somehow healthier than person B.

To get adequate nutrition on a calorie restricted diet, you need to eat food from nutrient dense sources. That often means whole foods and such. If, on that diet, you can still fit in treats or whatever, more power to you there's no problem with that.

If two people lose weight and each gets adequate nutrition, it doesn't matter what they ate.

so you're saying person B is eating whole foods AND a cupcake right? that's awesome! that's what I advocate. I'm all about a 90/10 (or thereabouts) ratio of 1-ingredient foods/whatever you want

I'm comparing someone on a TYPICAL American Diet (which is almost entirely processed) to a person on a whole foods diet. Your comparison is not the argument I was making.

I agree with your comparison.

sunsnstatheart

I don't care.

Same

I don't care if there are athletic people who eat McDonalds. They probably don't have an autoimmune disease either, which I do.

You have a specific medical issue and that's certainly relevant. Not everyone has this medical issue and no one, to my knowledge, is advocating you ignore that issue. This debate has been raging for some time between those that argue that fast food, if part of an overall balanced diet (say 80% or 90% what you might call whole foods, and 10-20% "other") is perfectly fine, and those that seem to say that any amount of fast food or "junk food" is going to harm you. Some people on MFP seem to have success even with high percentages of what others call "junk" so it makes many of us very curious about the anti-fast food arguments. These arguments also seem to morph into whatever is convenient at the time (environmental arguments etc.), so it's hard to tell what certain posters arguing against fast food actually mean at any given point in time.

prov31jd

** yawn **

CoachReddy

This thread is looking rather more like a food fight, too bad really as the study was interesting.

It's certainly worth a read, but one study in isolation means little. These studies are often put forth on here to prove some specific point or another to back up a larger agenda or axe to grind by a few who post constantly demonizing this food or that. If you go through the profiles of the people supporting the consumption of fast food as part of a well balanced diet you will see quite a few very athletic MFP members. I think that should give anyone pause. It certainly did for me once I got serious about things and stopped making assumptions.

and you will also find many more who aren't. what's your point? you've never heard of an athlete having a heart attack? it happens. Fitness =/= Health. That's why they're two different words.

The question is whether it is possible to be fit and eat fast food, no one is arguing that eating fast food is essential. Further, a person who is not fit and who eats fast food is actually irrelevant to that question. You really should take some time to understand logic before engaging in this type of argumentation.

no, that wasn't the question. you're the one who brought the word "athletic" to the table. we were all talking about health and weight loss, and the diets required to accomplish both.

Kelly_Runs_NC

The study tried to answer why so few of us are able to lose weight, and keep it off. The answer? It's not enough to simply count calories. It matters what kinds of food those calories come from.

Thank you for taking the time to post this.

This has always been the case regardless of what others say on here.

Now, maybe those who insist in eating burgers, ice cream, cakes and all kinds of rubbish they shove down their throat will realise that when they say "I'm under my calories" , doesn't mean you have achieved your goal for the day of eating correctly.

Eat healthy to stay healthy. Eat crap to look and feel like it.

Amen

ArroganceInStep

2) Become Healthier - as in, I just want to be a healthier, happier person who's more resistant to illness, injury, fatigue, etc, and if/when I lose weight, that will be a bonus. With this goal, your food choices do become more limited, but since they fit in with your goal, you don't feel like you're restricting anything. You're eating whole foods because you WANT to, and thus the weight falls off as a bi-product of being a healthier person.

But that's the issue that I think a lot of folks don't get when they adopt elimination diets.

Assume you need nutrients A, B, and C nutrients to run optimally, but have to eat less than X calories in doing so to lose weight:

1) Person A gets nutrients A, B, and C from entirely whole food sources, and eats fewer than X calories
2) Person B gets nutrients A, B, and C but also eats a cupcake, and eats fewer than X calories.

Person A isn't magically somehow healthier than person B.

To get adequate nutrition on a calorie restricted diet, you need to eat food from nutrient dense sources. That often means whole foods and such. If, on that diet, you can still fit in treats or whatever, more power to you there's no problem with that.

If two people lose weight and each gets adequate nutrition, it doesn't matter what they ate.

so you're saying person B is eating whole foods AND a cupcake right? that's awesome! that's what I advocate. I'm all about a 90/10 (or thereabouts) ratio of 1-ingredient foods/whatever you want

I'm comparing someone on a TYPICAL American Diet (which is almost entirely processed) to a person on a whole foods diet. Your comparison is not the argument I was making.

I agree with your comparison.

No, I'm saying if a person has sufficient nutrients it doesn't matter where those nutrients came from. It's generally easiest to achieve sufficient nutrients from whole foods and such, but beyond that there's no superiority between them and 'junk' food.

CoachReddy

You know what, at this point I echo the "i don't care" sentiment. Haha

Nice to see a study from a quite reputable source confirming that eating better will make you healthier and lose weight faster.

If you still don't buy it, that's your choice to make!

CoachReddy

2) Become Healthier - as in, I just want to be a healthier, happier person who's more resistant to illness, injury, fatigue, etc, and if/when I lose weight, that will be a bonus. With this goal, your food choices do become more limited, but since they fit in with your goal, you don't feel like you're restricting anything. You're eating whole foods because you WANT to, and thus the weight falls off as a bi-product of being a healthier person.

But that's the issue that I think a lot of folks don't get when they adopt elimination diets.

Assume you need nutrients A, B, and C nutrients to run optimally, but have to eat less than X calories in doing so to lose weight:

1) Person A gets nutrients A, B, and C from entirely whole food sources, and eats fewer than X calories
2) Person B gets nutrients A, B, and C but also eats a cupcake, and eats fewer than X calories.

Person A isn't magically somehow healthier than person B.

To get adequate nutrition on a calorie restricted diet, you need to eat food from nutrient dense sources. That often means whole foods and such. If, on that diet, you can still fit in treats or whatever, more power to you there's no problem with that.

If two people lose weight and each gets adequate nutrition, it doesn't matter what they ate.

so you're saying person B is eating whole foods AND a cupcake right? that's awesome! that's what I advocate. I'm all about a 90/10 (or thereabouts) ratio of 1-ingredient foods/whatever you want

I'm comparing someone on a TYPICAL American Diet (which is almost entirely processed) to a person on a whole foods diet. Your comparison is not the argument I was making.

I agree with your comparison.

No, I'm saying if a person has sufficient nutrients it doesn't matter where those nutrients came from. It's generally easiest to achieve sufficient nutrients from whole foods and such, but beyond that there's no superiority between them and 'junk' food.

beyond having more nutrients, there's no superiority between whole foods and junk.

is... what you said.




I think with that I'll say case closed.

Acg67

You know what, at this point I echo the "i don't care" sentiment. Haha

Nice to see a study from a quite reputable source confirming that eating better will make you healthier and lose weight faster.

If you still don't buy it, that's your choice to make!

Ah I forgot a single study (that you did not even read or comprehend), means case closed it's a "fact"

rm7161

You have a specific medical issue and that's certainly relevant. Not everyone has this medical issue and no one, to my knowledge, is advocating you ignore that issue. This debate has been raging for some time between those that argue that fast food, if part of an overall balanced diet (say 80% or 90% what you might call whole foods, and 10-20% "other") is perfectly fine, and those that seem to say that any amount of fast food or "junk food" is going to harm you. Some people on MFP seem to have success even with high percentages of what others call "junk" so it makes many of us very curious about the anti-fast food arguments. These arguments also seem to morph into whatever is convenient at the time (environmental arguments etc.), so it's hard to tell what certain posters arguing against fast food actually mean at any given point in time.

I see, thanks.

I just incorporate things that slow down digestion of sugars and starches, there's several ways to skin that cat. Whole grains is one of those ways... I am merely being practical. I have nothing against fast food, aside the fact I can't eat it. I didn't get fat on it... I got fat on high GI gluten free foods, most of which you could even buy in a health food store (so much for that).

If I go to McD's, I'll have a small chocolate milkshake ... that is nearly the only thing I can have there! It does happen sometimes when I am out with friends or family that they want to stop in, it's always a bit of an issue for me what I can/cannot eat. Welcome to my life I guess.