0 Calories?

13»

Replies

  • melissapitts08
    melissapitts08 Posts: 1
    I really like that answer it really gives some great ideas.

    I like to eat cocktail cucumbers they have about 10 cal per cuc. and they are filling and have lots of water in them. I have also found that if you have a sweet craving using vanilla flavored lip gloss or smelling a vanilla candle helps reduce the craving. weird i know but every little bit helps. I have also found that i boil a 12 pk of eggs and just eat the egg whites when i am really hungry to give me some extra protein and only 17 cal each. My other favorite thing to do is if i get a sweet craving i will blend some ice and pour in some diet soda like diet root beer or diet orange ect...it is kind of like a snow cone. The other thing i like for breakfast is i eat a 4oz honey vanilla greek yogurt with 1/2 cup frozen mixed berries (i let mine thaw half way) and stir them right together and it is lower on the calories and tastes delish almost frozen yogurt.
  • STKari
    STKari Posts: 20 Member
    If you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. If you burn more calories than you eat you will lose weight.

    Then why when you exercise does My fitness pal tell you to add more calories? To me that is saying you aren't burning more calories than you eat. Also, if your diet contains less than 1200 calories no matter what your weight you likely aren't going to lose weight according to studies. This includes burning off say 400 on a 1500 calorie diet. What you are saying just doesn't make sense there about burning more calories than you eat and loosing weight based on scientific studies.
    Please site your studies you are referencing because they defy physics.

    I have access to medical journals not all would and you have to have a username and password. Paid journals. Anyway what I can share is this... http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-1200-Calories-Day-Important-When-Dieting-13080864 there are plenty of other articles on the internet to search. Here is also a blog post right on MFP http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/lillebanon/view/my-take-on-eating-more-to-weigh-less-254554
  • BondBomb
    BondBomb Posts: 1,781 Member
    If you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. If you burn more calories than you eat you will lose weight.

    Then why when you exercise does My fitness pal tell you to add more calories? To me that is saying you aren't burning more calories than you eat. Also, if your diet contains less than 1200 calories no matter what your weight you likely aren't going to lose weight according to studies. This includes burning off say 400 on a 1500 calorie diet. What you are saying just doesn't make sense there about burning more calories than you eat and loosing weight based on scientific studies.
    Please site your studies you are referencing because they defy physics.

    I have access to medical journals not all would and you have to have a username and password. Paid journals. Anyway what I can share is this... http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-1200-Calories-Day-Important-When-Dieting-13080864 there are plenty of other articles on the internet to search. Here is also a blog post right on MFP http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/lillebanon/view/my-take-on-eating-more-to-weigh-less-254554
    I have an undergrad in Biology and a MS in biochemistry. I work in the industry for a notified body. I have access to journals as well and actually browse journals as a hobby. (Give me specifics and if I don't have personal access I can access through my work computer.) Yet I have never seen a peer-reviewed study that says you are not going to lose weight if your diet contains less than 1200 calories. Granted the majority of my studies are in micro-arrays and yes I am published. However anyone with a background in basic science or even nutrition will tell you this is absolutely false. Even the theories that metabolism slows as a result of a prolonged VLCD are continually debated. The majority believing that its the loss of LBM that causes reduced metabolic activity. Which I agree with. But you won't simply cease to lose weight. You will catabolize muscle resulting in weight loss that is not optimal. Give me more specifics about what doesn't make sense to you and I will try to explain it. But weight loss is simply calories in vs calories out. Health an fitness however are impacted by more variables than calories alone.
  • BondBomb
    BondBomb Posts: 1,781 Member
    If you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. If you burn more calories than you eat you will lose weight.

    Then why when you exercise does My fitness pal tell you to add more calories? To me that is saying you aren't burning more calories than you eat. Also, if your diet contains less than 1200 calories no matter what your weight you likely aren't going to lose weight according to studies. This includes burning off say 400 on a 1500 calorie diet. What you are saying just doesn't make sense there about burning more calories than you eat and loosing weight based on scientific studies.
    Please site your studies you are referencing because they defy physics.

    I have access to medical journals not all would and you have to have a username and password. Paid journals. Anyway what I can share is this... http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-1200-Calories-Day-Important-When-Dieting-13080864 there are plenty of other articles on the internet to search. Here is also a blog post right on MFP http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/lillebanon/view/my-take-on-eating-more-to-weigh-less-254554
    And also if no one has explained this yet, MFP creates a deficit based on diet alone. What you said directly opposes the link to EMTWL that you provided. If your TDEE is 2000 an you eat 2000 cals you will stay the same. 2500 an you will gain. Anything less than 2000 and you will lose.
  • xbloomerbrigade
    xbloomerbrigade Posts: 58 Member
    Calories and points are not the same, at all, period. I am using the current weight watchers program which reformulated their entire points process! I have used it before and the points system is totally different now. On the new weight watchers programs all fruits and most vegetables are 0 points. Points are calculated by the amount of fat, carbs, protein, and fiber. Calories are not included in the current system points. Which is why I track here and with my weight watchers tracker and try to remain under both my calorie and points allotment.
  • BondBomb
    BondBomb Posts: 1,781 Member
    Calories and points are not the same, at all, period. I am using the current weight watchers program which reformulated their entire points process! I have used it before and the points system is totally different now. On the new weight watchers programs all fruits and most vegetables are 0 points. Points are calculated by the amount of fat, carbs, protein, and fiber. Calories are not included in the current system points. Which is why I track here and with my weight watchers tracker and try to remain under both my calorie and points allotment.
    I think that's a great idea to do both.
  • TheScarlettOHara
    TheScarlettOHara Posts: 49 Member
    That was the big shocker for me. I ate lots and lots of fruits on Weight Watchers and the first day on MFP I was out of calories by noon. Everything has sugar.

    Everyone is different. I don't count sugar from fruits.
  • Mermaidyo
    Mermaidyo Posts: 125 Member
    I remember when I did weight watchers there were some items that were considered 0 points. I assume you could consider them 0 calories? Does anyone know of any?

    Is it bad to say I can't stand weight watchers? Why would it be okay to drink soda? and still be able to over indulge on fruits and veggies. They are still calories also they promote those processed frozen foods and say they are :insert points: really?
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    If you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. If you burn more calories than you eat you will lose weight.

    Then why when you exercise does My fitness pal tell you to add more calories? To me that is saying you aren't burning more calories than you eat. Also, if your diet contains less than 1200 calories no matter what your weight you likely aren't going to lose weight according to studies. This includes burning off say 400 on a 1500 calorie diet. What you are saying just doesn't make sense there about burning more calories than you eat and loosing weight based on scientific studies.
    Please site your studies you are referencing because they defy physics.

    I have access to medical journals not all would and you have to have a username and password. Paid journals. Anyway what I can share is this... http://www.fitsugar.com/Why-1200-Calories-Day-Important-When-Dieting-13080864 there are plenty of other articles on the internet to search. Here is also a blog post right on MFP http://www.myfitnesspal.com/blog/lillebanon/view/my-take-on-eating-more-to-weigh-less-254554
    I have an undergrad in Biology and a MS in biochemistry. I work in the industry for a notified body. I have access to journals as well and actually browse journals as a hobby. (Give me specifics and if I don't have personal access I can access through my work computer.) Yet I have never seen a peer-reviewed study that says you are not going to lose weight if your diet contains less than 1200 calories. Granted the majority of my studies are in micro-arrays and yes I am published. However anyone with a background in basic science or even nutrition will tell you this is absolutely false. Even the theories that metabolism slows as a result of a prolonged VLCD are continually debated. The majority believing that its the loss of LBM that causes reduced metabolic activity. Which I agree with. But you won't simply cease to lose weight. You will catabolize muscle resulting in weight loss that is not optimal. Give me more specifics about what doesn't make sense to you and I will try to explain it. But weight loss is simply calories in vs calories out. Health an fitness however are impacted by more variables than calories alone.

    PhD in genetics here, and I work in a university, so I have access to pubmed. I'd also be interested in seeing those studies.
  • lbride
    lbride Posts: 248 Member
    I would eat something very low calorie (that would be considered ww if I was on that). I like to make soup with a box of chicken broth, add a bag of frozen green beans and a half jar of salsa. Each bowl is very filling, and in total, less than 40 cal each. Egg whites are also very low cal and filling.
  • Lt_Starbuck
    Lt_Starbuck Posts: 576 Member
    no
  • Lt_Starbuck
    Lt_Starbuck Posts: 576 Member
    oh wait ice
  • fatpanda96
    fatpanda96 Posts: 77
    That was the big shocker for me. I ate lots and lots of fruits on Weight Watchers and the first day on MFP I was out of calories by noon. Everything has sugar.

    Same here. I try not to even look at my sugar if I know I've been eating a lot of fruit that day because it's healthy sugar after all and it'll just make me less motivated.
  • jerryallegood
    jerryallegood Posts: 31 Member
    That was the big shocker for me. I ate lots and lots of fruits on Weight Watchers and the first day on MFP I was out of calories by noon. Everything has sugar.
    Did eating that much fruit allow you to still loose weight? The sugars in fruits are different from other sugars, but it is still sugar. Fruits are zero points, but I think the idea is to eat recommend amounts of fruits, not overindulging. You need some healthy sugars. Eating a balance is part of the total package in any nutrition plan. Just counting calories or points can lead to frustration in any weight loss nutrition plan. Balance your nutrition plan and rat the right carbohydrates, proteins, and fats (fuels). Also include in the balance fiber and pay attention to vitamins in the foods. Supplements may be used, if necessary. Even junk can be eaten occasionally, (I still eat too much,lol).
  • jerryallegood
    jerryallegood Posts: 31 Member
    I am going to have to find something I read so I don't look like an idiot here... but I didn't explain myself well either.

    I've read something negative calorie foods or something when eaten usually raw it takes more calories to eat them/digest or something like that than they are so they are sort of "free" foods (everything in moderation of course) and I seem to remember the list was similar to some I remember being 0 points on Weight Watchers.

    I am just sitting here hungry... I have over 600 calories left for today so I need to eat again but I am wondering what to do when you really really are hungry and have no calories left.

    Being hungry and used all calorie allotment happens when we eat the wrong things. Sugar (even in some seemingly "healthy" foods), refined flower, " enriched" bread (means sugar is added = white bread, don't let them fool you with "white wheat"), and junk foods cause us to be hungry soon after eating them, even if our bodies don't need more calories. This is why most of us Americans became obese. If you find yourself in this situation, eat something. Eat something that is filling and has calories that don't raise your blood sugar. Then burn some calories with exercise. (Did I say a bad word? The 'E' word, lol). No weight loss program is sustainable without some exercise.
  • jerryallegood
    jerryallegood Posts: 31 Member
    If you eat more calories than you burn you will gain weight. If you burn more calories than you eat you will lose weight.

    Then why when you exercise does My fitness pal tell you to add more calories? To me that is saying you aren't burning more calories than you eat. Also, if your diet contains less than 1200 calories no matter what your weight you likely aren't going to lose weight according to studies. This includes burning off say 400 on a 1500 calorie diet. What you are saying just doesn't make sense there about burning more calories than you eat and loosing weight based on scientific studies.
    To answer two related questions: MFP does not tell you to add calories because of exercise every time. Check my diary on the date of this post. Most of us burn about 2000 calories doing nothing. If we eat less than 2000 calories, subtracting calories for exercise, we create a deficit, which means we draw on the reserve, fat. If we net only 1600 calories, barring medical issues, we should lose a little over a pound a week. Actual result vary by a lot sometimes, due to physiological differences. But you are burning more than you eat.

    The other question: Your body goes into starvation mode (it starts burning protein and other things while hoarding fat when you starve it by not eating enough). 1200 is not a magic number. Some need more. Others can get by with less. I know a MFP member who does well on about 1000. 1200 is a good rule of thumb for the vast majority odd us. Your current weight is a factor. Heavier people, looked me, need at least 1200 to stay out of starvation mode. That is the eaten calories, not net calories. Yay, for exercise!!

    Recovery from starvation mode is scary. You have to go through a time of gaining weight before you can start loosing again. But trust me, you will end up with a more sustainable weight loss and weight management experience. Ben there, done that, and got the T-shirt to prove it, ouch.
  • 3laine75
    3laine75 Posts: 3,069 Member
    It might take more calories to burn them than they contain but this is irrelevant as the calories used to burn them is already included in your TDEE - that's the calories used throughout a normal day for you. If its not water it has calories and you should count them.

Categories