Weight loss with junk food

Weight loss is simple. You have to intake less calories that you use. It's the first law stuff. Just like an engine. So you could theoretically lose weight by doing exactly what you're doing. However, you'll find that you may not feel as great. Look at your macronutrients, and if you're over in any of them, you may reconsider your diet, because you want to keep the ratios close to about what they have for you, because your body does use each type differently, although it will eventually break down all of them into glucose for the cells to use.

I would advise talking to a dietitian or nutritionist if you want to lose weight and eat healthy. As a nutrition student currently, I think it's fascinating, and after my talk with a dietitian, I decided to go into my current field of study. I'm not qualified though to make any actual remarks on nutrition yet, and if that's true for me, then it's certainly true for at least 90% of the people on the forums giving advice. They can help you out and explain a lot more. Don't take advise from people here without consulting a dietitian, people on here are full of crap, but they want to help a lot.

Yes, you can lose that way. It's all about calories in vs. calories out to lose weight. That being said you would probably feel like you were starving all of the time if you actually managed to eat like that for very long and stay within your calories. Not to mention that you wouldn't see nearly as many of the health benefits that should come along with weight loss when done correctly.

While "Calories In < Calories Out " is the basic formula, I, personally have very limited success with this formula when the caloric deficit is solely from eating less, but if my caloric deficit comes from exercizing I do much better with weight loss.

I assume MFP just uses a formula based on numbers, not food types. So, if your numbers are less than your predicted amount needed to maintain, then MFP will deduce a loss. Wieght loss, even at it's best, is not linear for most. Some weeks you will lose more and some weeks less, even at the same deficit. I wish it were more straight forward. "If you eat exactly 355 calories under maintanace a day, you will lose exactly 0.8 pounds per week." ... But it seems to be more of a wiggly-wobbly guesstimates somewhere on the loss-spectrum.

Weight loss is simple. You have to intake less calories that you use. It's the first law stuff. Just like an engine. So you could theoretically lose weight by doing exactly what you're doing. However, you'll find that you may not feel as great. Look at your macronutrients, and if you're over in any of them, you may reconsider your diet, because you want to keep the ratios close to about what they have for you, because your body does use each type differently, although it will eventually break down all of them into glucose for the cells to use.

I would advise talking to a dietitian or nutritionist if you want to lose weight and eat healthy. As a nutrition student currently, I think it's fascinating, and after my talk with a dietitian, I decided to go into my current field of study. I'm not qualified though to make any actual remarks on nutrition yet, and if that's true for me, then it's certainly true for at least 90% of the people on the forums giving advice. They can help you out and explain a lot more. Don't take advise from people here without consulting a dietitian, people on here are full of crap, but they want to help a lot.

This is right. Calories in vs calories out. A person can eat nothing but ice cream and still lose weight. However, your body will suffer other health issues because of it I would believe. A dietition is your best bet on this though

MFP is a MODEL of the human body that is very simplistic - 3500 calorie deficit = 1 pound of weight loss.

That's not about nutrition or salt or bloat or health.

Is it realistic? Probably not. But it's a useful model for people who want to count calories and use it to help guide better food choices because they use the tools, look at their scale, mirror, and measurements, and adjust the model accordingly.

I know I'm being very dumb here...but I'm just a little confused and interested about nutrition. (Before I ask this don't think I'm saying I WANT to eat junk..I eat very clean and love it..I'm never even tempted to eat a big mac or anything.)
Anyway as an experiment I added onto MFP that all I ate today was KFC and Mcdonalds but put it so that I was still under my daily calorie goal by about 300cals. With this day of junk, it still said I was eating "too few calories" and would have lost a significant amount by january..that's where I'm confused. If I entered for the entire day a craaaaap load of fruit veggies and fish and went OVER my limit by 300cals..it would tell me I'm eating too many and would gain weight. Realistically..would one lose weight through eating junk if it was under their calorie limit?? Or is this where MFP isn't totally reliable?

Have you ever heard of the Twinkie Diet that a professor did to test this out. Not only did he lose weight, but his cholesterol, BP and all other health indicators improved.

The MFP predictor is a simple Calculator

Current weight-(((calories in - calories out) multiplied by 35 days) divided by 3500)...it is a tool that assumes you are doing your own nutrient and macro managing. You could eat twinkies all day and loose weight

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

You could also gain muscle and the predicted weight would not be read on your scale, as the muscle would compensate for the fat loss.

i look at eating like i do putting gas in a car. if you put in watered down gas or gas with oil in it in your car then your car will not work right..actually eventually it will either not work or break down. then you have to fix it which takes time and money. sure you are putting fuel in the car but its the wrong kind.

the same goes for your body. you can eat 1200 calories of junk food or 1200 calories of healthy food. which one do you think would make your body not work or break down eventually?

We're not cars.

It's not that this isn't good advice. YES it is better to eat healthy. But every meal every day does not have to be vegetables and organic, grass fed protein. Moderation. Live a little.

I'm a single guy who doesn't cook much and doesn't like too many vegetables. I still was able to lose weight and get in shape by watching my calories and exercising. Because that's the most important thing. Watch your calories, work out. Live your life. Moderation. No dieting, just a new way of managing your intake.

So instead of eating 1200 calories of junk food (not healthy) or 1200 calories of healthy food (not fun) find a balance. Also just eat more than 1200 calories, especially if you're exercising.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

This article is just insane! I can't wrap my head around it. It really makes you think if the only thing making people unhealthy is just that we cram too much food in our mouths.

Hey Bree, an easy way to think of it is this:

Weight loss is ENTIRELY in the numbers. Eat less energy than you use per day and you'll lose weight, doesn't matter if you do it on broccoli or big macs.

Health on the other hand, whether you define it as longevity, resistance to chronic disease, just feeling more energetic etc. - that depends on much more than the numbers.

The tricky thing is that other than a few generally-agreed upon factors, what is "healthy" to eat is very debatable.

The agreed upon factors (that I know of) are:

More fruit and vegetables = better
Less (preferably no) trans fat = better
Less red meat = better (but that's not because of saturated fat, no one really knows but I suspect it's a much more complicated interaction of things that link red meat to atherosclerosis.)
More omega 3s = better

Other things you might have heard but that aren't agreed on by the scientific community at all are:

Saturated fat = evil
Cholesterol = evil
Carbohydrates = evil

In my opinion, it's best to just keep it simple. Try to eat more fruit and veg, more water, more natural and less processed, and you'll be doing as good as you can. And a big-mac now and then isn't gonna hurt you one bit either.

A really great book that might help open your eyes about nutritionism and all the fads and falsities that it comes with is "In Defense of Food" by Michael Pollan.