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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

But still, didn't start losing weight till I started counting calories.

That's because no matter what you MUST to have a calorie deficit to lose weight.

Not true. Well, not in the way that most people think it is. You have to consider not only the calories that go into your mouth, but how much USABLE energy your body is able to extract through digestion. You mentioned TEF which is another part of this equation. As one example I recall reading about, study patients were divided into two groups: one was a calorie-restricted, low-fat group (cut by 300 kcal/day), and another was a high-fat diet where participants ate 300 kcal MORE than their BMR+daily routine required. Guess which group lost more weight over a 6-month period? The ones who ate more calories than they required. The bottom line is, it's never as simple as "calories in < calories out."

I'd love to see that study, however I think your memory is betraying you or it is a reading comprehension fail vs special snowflakes that lost in a surplus

Thanks, but my reading comprehension is just fine. Also, one thing medical journals do really well is statistics. If you publish a study of a "few special snowflakes" and base results on those with any confidence, you're going to get laughed out of the field.
I spent a little time searching for the study; I read it a few years ago while on a health kick and unfortunately I don't remember the journal. But here's a study along similar lines: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0708681
Participants were assigned to either a low-fat, calorie restricted diet, a Mediterranean diet, or a low-carb, high-fat, non-calorie restricted diet. This study might be even a bit stronger than the original one I'd read, as they followed the participants for 2 years, adherence to the program was high, and they worked with a registered dietician.

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.

lolz

when the heck are you people going to realize that weight loss =/= healthy?

you can lose weight eating well. you can lose weight eating crap. are those people equally healthy? nope. that's where the KINDS of calories come into play.

Losing weight, in and of itself, regardless of blood work or other health markers, reduces risk of disease. But you are correct in saying that losing weight is no guarantee of health. Neither is eating a healthy diet. There are no guarantees.

But the study was not about what was healthier. It purported that the type of calorie affected weight loss, not health.

good point - which i'd gotten away from. yes, i definitely agree that eating a whole food diet will get you better results weight-loss-wise as well, and it's cool to see that supported in this study.

That would be interesting if you had ANY science to support such a claim. but you don't. This study does not support such a claim either.

*sigh* are you guys really arguing that the typical american diet (but just eating less of it) is as good for you, and gets you just as many nutrients, as a fruit/veggie/whole grain heavy diet?

this is the argument? just trying to clarify for myself.

Not one person made that argument.

when the heck are you people going to realize that weight loss =/= healthy?

you can lose weight eating well. you can lose weight eating crap. are those people equally healthy? nope. that's where the KINDS of calories come into play.

Losing weight, in and of itself, regardless of blood work or other health markers, reduces risk of disease. But you are correct in saying that losing weight is no guarantee of health. Neither is eating a healthy diet. There are no guarantees.

But the study was not about what was healthier. It purported that the type of calorie affected weight loss, not health.

good point - which i'd gotten away from. yes, i definitely agree that eating a whole food diet will get you better results weight-loss-wise as well, and it's cool to see that supported in this study.

That would be interesting if you had ANY science to support such a claim. but you don't. This study does not support such a claim either.

The study said a Low GI diet helps with weight loss. Whole, unprocessed foods generally are also Low GI foods.

bump

You mean i can be healthier eating meat and veggies rather than fat and carbs? Amazing!

Ohhhhh, Lustig's study again? Must stop eating my candy necklace. sigh.....

lustig

Definition: funny

Pronunciation: [ˈlʊstɪç] listen

Examples: Dieser Clown ist gar nicht lustig - This clown is not at all funny.

Antonym: traurig - sad

fast
nearly {adv}
almost {adv}
just about {adv}
little short of {adv}
all but {adv} [almost]

fast essen, doch. (essen == food)

(Ich habe für 15 Jahre in Deutschland gewohnt)

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.

/sigh

There may be a marginal benefit to cutting out this type of stuff, but the reality for many of us is that trying to completely cut out the foods we love results in massive failure. I yo yo dieted all my life, until I started thinking of calories as a budget and allowing myself to eat the foods I like as long as they stay in that budget. Would the weight have come off slightly faster if I had eaten the diet suggested by this study? Maybe. Would I be able to stick to it as a lifestyle change? For me, never.

I eat some of the foods you describe as "crap" every day, and I neither look nor feel like it.

I also think that what weight you are at matters. If you are 400lbs and you cut your calories in 1/2 but are still eating the same types of fatty/sugary fast food types of food you will still lose weight. And since you are probably more likely to stick to a diet that allows you to eat the food you are used to then I say don't worry to much about what 'kind of calories' you are eating. If you are 150lbs trying to lose the last 5 pounds and are already on the minimal amount of calories, then what kind of calories you are putting in your body matters much more. If you are somewhere inbetween 150 and 400 - most likely you have a combination of 'good' calories and 'not so good' calories.