what you eat vs how much you eat

2»

Replies

  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    Everything is fine in moderation, a calories is a calorie but you want veggies, fruit, whole grain/wheat, meat, over junk.

    skip the whole grain wheat brainwashing and yes to the rest

    I'm curious... Care to elaborate? :smile:

    grains are ok but we dont need them and they are not an optimal food choice for weight loss. Many here will defend grains to death, but there is no real need to put them in your body. I do not have allergies to grains, but when I cut them out, everything got better. Give it a try.

    So you do think it matters what not just how much

    no..I dont think it matters if all you want is weight loss. A calorie is a calorie. If you want all the benefits of health AND weight loss, then yes, your choices matter.

    I'm not huge on whole grains, but I love whole wheat. =/

    if you love it then eat it. Its not terrible for you. But if you ever get into a situation where you can take three weeks or so without any grains, give it a try. I was really amazed at all the benefits I received.
  • linz1125
    linz1125 Posts: 441 Member
    Like a previous poster, I can only speak for myself. For me it mattered what type of calories I was consuming. I had tried previoiusly to stay under a certain calorie count, and it was always so difficult. I was always starving. I was miserable. Now I am concentrating on the nutritional value of food. I am happy, losing weight, and satisfied. I opt for more whole foods, and low glycemic index foods. I stay full longer, and therefore don't waste my calories on just snacking to tide me over until I can get a real meal. You have to find what works for you. If you can stay under your calorie count by just portion control while still being satisfied, then that's great. But try experimenting with different things to see what works for you and what your body responds to best.
  • karawRN
    karawRN Posts: 311
    both.

    i am focusing on portion control right now, and a little on what i am eating.

    but mostly portion control cause i think that was my problem
  • amanda_catherine
    amanda_catherine Posts: 101
    really? what about cal deficit foods? Like an apple? its about 100 cal but your body uses about 100 cals to digest it? I think it is better to eat the apple... than a cookie lol
  • GasGas450
    GasGas450 Posts: 11 Member
    This is a great qustion indeed, and my mind is open to see the best sceince. I have high hopes that someday NuSI can answer this question with certainty.
    http://www.redorbit.com/news/entertainment/1112692247/new-research-organization-could-mark-the-end-of-fad-diets/
    http://nusi.org/



    Conventional wisdom states that it is a calories in/calories out issue: A calorie is a calorie. My humble opinion, however, is that it is a bit more complex than that.

    I find the Alternative Hypothesis very intriqueing: Well argued by both Gary Taubes ( "Why We Get Fat") and Dr Peter Attia (EatingAcademy.com) Summarized by me:

    Excessive sugar and carbohydrate intake causes inulin spikes that result in fat being stored rather than fat being burned. i.,e, a hormonal issue due to the make up of the calories ingested- a calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie.

    As stated by Dr Peter Attia:

    "...chronically elevated levels of insulin — rather than excessive calorie consumption or lack of exercise — is at the heart of the most pervasive chronic diseases afflicting our society: obesity, heart disease, cancer, and even Alzheimer’s disease. Furthermore, as the title of this blog suggests, I believe that the key to peak performance and what I call “chronic health” is to reduce the secretion of insulin so that you can run your body on your own fat stores, which is what they’re there for."

    Dr Attia states that he has always been super fit yet still fat while eating what an athlete is "suppossed to eat". Now with his macronutrient consumption made up of ~75% fat, ~20 protein, ~5 carbohydrates, he has finally lost that 35 lbs. He eats about 4500 kcal/day.

    I can relate; I've lead a life of high athletic activity yet managed to gain a ton of weight over the years.

    Also, Dr Steve Gardner recently completed a year long study comparing 4 diets that are somewhat representative of the range of diets out there. Atkins lost the most by nearly double of what the others lost. (n~80 per group). At the 20 min mark, admitted 25 yr vegetarian Gardner says he was suprised to see that Atkins also had the best health markers out of all 4 diets.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREuZEdMAVo

    Mind you, I'm not saying these guys are correct. I'm saying their evidence is compelling.


    While I do find all that intriqueing, my own person weight loss was acheived through a combination of calorie restriction and careful calorie selection to still supply my body with the nutrients it needs. I lost 55 lbs in 3 months (5'11", from 240 to 185) by following Ideal Protein by Dr Tran Tien Chanh. Easiest thing I've ever done. It is a calorie restriction ketosis diet with 4 phases.

    I have been maintaining weight through a sort of Peter Attia high fat, low carb style, with sporatic mountain biking and weight lifting frequency. I've been consuming anywhere from 2k-3k cal/day and maintainiing @ 185-188 lbs.


    I really enjoy informative debate on this issue, hate the religious zealetry too often found.
  • Dave198lbs
    Dave198lbs Posts: 8,810 Member
    really? what about cal deficit foods? Like an apple? its about 100 cal but your body uses about 100 cals to digest it? I think it is better to eat the apple... than a cookie lol

    would love for this to be true but it isn't. Can't imagine where you heard this.
  • amanda_catherine
    amanda_catherine Posts: 101
    really? what about cal deficit foods? Like an apple? its about 100 cal but your body uses about 100 cals to digest it? I think it is better to eat the apple... than a cookie lol

    would love for this to be true but it isn't. Can't imagine where you heard this.

    Must have been from the same study that says our bodies burn refined sugar and lard at the same rate of fruits and veggies lol. I think the point is moderation... but honestly it does not take rocket science to prove healthy food is a better option... or maybe it does?! lol :wink:
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    really? what about cal deficit foods? Like an apple? its about 100 cal but your body uses about 100 cals to digest it? I think it is better to eat the apple... than a cookie lol

    would love for this to be true but it isn't. Can't imagine where you heard this.

    Must have been from the same study that says our bodies burn refined sugar and lard at the same rate of fruits and veggies lol. I think the point is moderation... but honestly it does not take rocket science to prove healthy food is a better option... or maybe it does?! lol :wink:

    I can't quite figure out what you're trying to say about negative calorie foods and burn rates of refined food vs fruits and veggies? :huh:
    I originally thought this post was dripping with sarcasm, but then I realized you were the one to suggest "cal deficit foods".
    There's no such thing as negative calorie foods, and the digestion rate of food is much more complicated than processed vs. non-processed.
  • Hrl1993
    Hrl1993 Posts: 106 Member
    I can only answer for myself here. For me it does matter just as much what I eat. My body does not process a lot of grains well or sugary things, even some fruit. I have found I can consume a bit more calories when they are not from these foods and still lose weight a bit easier.

    ^^ THIS

    I lost weight a few years ago doing the 1200 cals/day thing not paying attention to carbs, protein, fat, etc. I gained a good amount back and this second go-round trying to lose, I didn't lose a pound for 3 months (with lots of different calorie counts, different amts of exercise, etc.) until I started looking at carbs too. My carbs were even almost all from typically healthy sources (fruits, oats, some starchier veggies, beans, etc.) but I could not lose a thing on a "regular" carb diet. I switched to low-carb while doing the same amount of calories (and even significantly less exercise) and started losing immediately.

    Long story short....what you eat DOES matter for some people. And if you're having issues with doing calorie counting only, I'd say for most people, it revolves around carbs.
  • nxd10
    nxd10 Posts: 4,570 Member
    It matters what you eat. It matters for how healthy you are. It mattes how hungry you are. It matters how your body uses that calories to build fat or burn fat.

    And absolutely you have to stay within your calorie limits. But eat junk within it, and you're not going to stay healthy or lose weight.
  • Athena413
    Athena413 Posts: 1,709 Member
    calories are all that matters for weight loss.

    better foods, less junk for over all health

    I completely disagree with the first statement.

    I think the quality of your calories can greatly affect whether you lose weight or not. It's different for every person.

    no it really isnt. every person who is in a caloric deficit will lose weight.

    Well, since you evidently know everything there is to know about losing weight, I should have just kept to myself. :huh:

Categories