Question about the QUALITY (not the QUANTITY) of calories

Yep-I lost over 50lbs cutting back on calories and eating fast food 3-5 times a week, lots of frozen dinners, low fat/low calorie 'diet' foods, guzzling diet soda etc etc. I also didn't do any type of exercise while I was actively losing. Blood work done during this time has never been better, including no longer having a glucose level in the pre-diabetic range.


After I went into maintenance I tried 'clean eating' and the only thing I got out of it was I became obsessive over what I ate, for the first time in my life, stressed out and frustrated. I didn't magically feel better cutting out the foods I enjoyed and I didn't look better. I did lose my period and my hair started falling out though. My sleep got messed up too (I got sucked into the 'clean'/whole foods low meat/dairy thing and my fat intake dropped dramatically). I've ditched that and have gone back to eating how I like, watching calories, aiming to hit macros and enjoying life and maintenance.

The last time I was on MFP, I ate 1500 "clean" calories a day plus exercise calories. I lost an average of a lb a week for 12 weeks before I just couldn't handle the stress and expense anymore. This time, I eat whatever I want within 1750 calories (TDEE method) and have lost an average of just over a lb a week, with last week being week 15.

If we forgo the body's necessity for essential nutrients then my answer is below:


There is suggestive evidence that indicates there may be a link between certain nutrients and their ability to increase the body's motabolism. I'm not certain how legitimate this all is, but if there is truth, then it would make a difference in weightloss. If this is true, the the quality of the calories would matter greatly, however if this is false, then it wouldn't matter at all as your body breaks down most macro nutrients into the same pieces anyways regardless of their quality.... for the most part

However, from personal experience, I noticed significent differences when adjusting the quality of calories I consumed. the main one being, the amount of energy I had to actually go to the gym. After a few days of eating a more natural diet (fruits veggies etc) I found myself wanting to be active. This in turn boosted my weightloss. When I ate a more junk food style diet all I wanted to do was sleep. There were days that I would eat pizza and want to go to bed right after.


*both diets were at about the same caloric value, but I would a few more lbs eating healthy, which can most likely be attributed to my increased gym activity.

Will a person lose weight at the same rate if you eat 1500 cals of bacon and donuts per day, as if you ate 1500 cals of healthy foods (veggies, lean proteins, grains, whatever you deem to be healthy)?

In my experience, it is absolutely as simple as calories in, calories out.

I've lost 47 pounds in 25 weeks (1.9 pounds per week) eating fried breakfasts, drinking alcohol, sandwiches, crisps, fizzy pop andfocussing directly on calories.

I don't subscribe to "clean eating" and I think a calorie is a calorie. I believe the healthiest eating plan is one you are going to stick to for the rest of your life, which is why I don't subscribe to the WW, Atkins, paleo diets.

I have not denied myself anything, so no clean eating for me! (as my food diary testifies) I try to stick to about 2000 calories a day, and I have found that balancing my macros contributes more to wellbeing than what the actual food items are. As long as I get around 90g protein, at least 20g fibre and 50g fat, then any food goes. I'm very close to goal, so not losing very much weight at the moment (on purpose!)

I believe a calorie is a calorie as far as weightloss goes, but in terms of wellbeing, energy and body composition, macros is where its at.

Why do these questions always ignore macronutrients?

There is no such thing as calorie "quality."

The only things that matter are NUTRIENTS. There is no "healthy" food or "unhealthy" food. Nutrients are nutrients no matter what food they come from.

I think MICROnutrients are more commonly overlooked.

Why do these questions always ignore macronutrients?

There is no such thing as calorie "quality."

The only things that matter are NUTRIENTS. There is no "healthy" food or "unhealthy" food. Nutrients are nutrients no matter what food they come from.

I think MICROnutrients are more commonly overlooked.

I think micronutrients are overemphasized, actually. Macronutrients are far more critical to pay attention to. Insufficient micronutrient intake is exceedingly rare and usually caused by a medical disorder.

It's just a measure of energy...

A calorie is a unit of measurement for energy. That's it. If you provide your body with less units of energy than it needs to maintain your body weight, you will lose weight. If you provide your body with the exact number of units of energy to maintain weight, you will not lose weight. If you provide your body with more units of energy than it needs to maintain weight, you will gain weight. Period.

That said, it's harder to lose weight eating mostly "junk food" because junk food has a lot of calories, so you have to eat less compared to if you were to eat the same amount of calories coming from, say, leafy green vegetables. It's hard for people to eat less, so it's harder for them to lose weight if they ignore vegetables. Also, for the sake of good nutrition, healthy eating is obviously important. But for the sake of weight loss, it just comes down to food energy.

This is also why I hate the term "junk food." Even junk food has a purpose - ENERGY. If you already met all of your nutrition requirements for the day and have 100 calories left over, you can fill those calories with whatever you want. It doesn't matter. You simply need 100 more units of energy. It doesn't matter if those 100 units of energy don't come with micronutrients, because you already got everything you needed that day. There are no bonus points, your body filters out the excess.