IIFYM vs "a calorie is a calorie"
Replies
-
I see the confusion now. The bolded part I never looked at that and was just responding to your dismay at no labels. I also have no problem with frozen pizza, just for the record..........
You seemed confused that some meat was packaged without labels and I mentiopned butcher shops normally don't have labels, that's all, it wasn't meant to be confusing and <i still don't really see how it came to this, oh well, carry on.
Ok, you lost me........superior?
Well, nothing is accurate regardless of how careful we are, so using the USDA or Nutrition Data will be as good as we can get. Even the calculators we use for BMR/TDEE are not accurate so it's all just an estimate anyway. Adjusting to incoming personal data is really the only way we can keep it going in the right direction, whichever it may be
Buther shops normally wrap in brown wax paper, no nutritional labels.this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.
How can you be sure of what the nutritional content is? Does one really just trust that all cows and chickens are the same and that cut blah from cow B isn't just a little bit fattier naturally? Because it seems there would be some wiggle room there as far as that goes.
Not you, as in you, of course, but the general you that would imply that because their food doesn't have labels the assumed calorie count can't be off.
Well I know that. I'm just saying in regards to "My food is superior and doesn't have labels and thus isn't subject to the same question mark as everyone else's food." line of reasoning, not as a personal question.
The word superior was added by me, in reference to the tone I took from the parts I bolded above. It was a mocking dig.
I think you're taking my question too seriously and getting confused.
I think you found my original question to be a serious one (it wasn't) and have been working under that pretense since. I don't have a problem with your response, all of my mocking was and still is aimed at the person I was replying to originally. I'm not confused, but I think you made a misstep and it took you somewhere odd.
If you stop viewing my comments through a serious lens I think you'll find yourself less lost.0 -
I think you found my original question to be a serious one (it wasn't) and have been working under that pretense since. I don't have a problem with your response, all of my mocking was and still is aimed at the person I was replying to originally. I'm not confused, but I think you made a misstep and it took you somewhere odd.
So now you guys are flaming each other??? You're supposed to be hurling insults at me! Stay focused, guys. Teamwork...
Ahh, you gotta love these what-is-a-calorie debates on MFP. Always a good time :-)0 -
I guess you missed my comment then.I think you found my original question to be a serious one (it wasn't) and have been working under that pretense since. I don't have a problem with your response, all of my mocking was and still is aimed at the person I was replying to originally. I'm not confused, but I think you made a misstep and it took you somewhere odd.
So now you guys are flaming each other? You're supposed to be hurling insults at me! Stay focused, guys. Teamwork...
Ahh, you gotta love these what-is-a-calorie debates on MFP. Always a good time :-)0 -
I guess you missed my comment then.I think you found my original question to be a serious one (it wasn't) and have been working under that pretense since. I don't have a problem with your response, all of my mocking was and still is aimed at the person I was replying to originally. I'm not confused, but I think you made a misstep and it took you somewhere odd.
So now you guys are flaming each other? You're supposed to be hurling insults at me! Stay focused, guys. Teamwork...
Ahh, you gotta love these what-is-a-calorie debates on MFP. Always a good time :-)
Also I thought we did a fairly good job of being polite and not flaming each other. A misunderstanding happened, hardly the first occurrence of such in human history.
I'm even willing to laugh at it over pizza and beer. Assuming that's okay with the guy we're supposed to be flaming.0 -
TEF is accounted for in the out side if the EBE.......you know where the calories come into the picture.those 10 or 20 or 30 calories due to thermic effect that you are worrying about is background noise.
I don't know how you came up with those numbers. Yes, that would be meaningless. But 1000 calories of protein at 25% thermic effect is 250 calories burned in digestion. The same number of fat calories at 5% is 50 calories. The delta is 200 calories -- and you totally disregarded the effect of dietary fiber I mentioned in the original post, which could easily account for another 100 calories (that wouldn't be absorbed at all).
So, yes -- 10-30 calories is noise. 200-300 is not. Sure, 1000 calories of protein might be considered high, but that's just an example. Many fruits and vegetables are similarly high in thermic effect.0 -
People seem to be ignorant and not understand the concept of IIFYM.
Meet your macros, eating what you enjoy, but don't binge on junk if you haven't met your basic daily essentials first. The ACTUAL concept of this is, to not follow a set diet plan of eating __ and __ at lunch, and __ and __ at dinner. You eat what you want, when you want, just ensure it meets your daily macro requirements.
You need to reach your fibre requirements, along with your vitamin and minerals.
What is so hard to understand?0 -
http://youtu.be/VCCDTJYUWsg
Interview with Alan Aragon regarding where it started, what it meant, and what it has turned in to, and how to regain some sense about it.
There is no VS, one is really a subset.0 -
I'm even willing to laugh at it over pizza and beer. Assuming that's okay with the guy we're supposed to be flaming.
Give me a slice of pizza and a beer and you can call me whatever you want :-)0 -
I'm even willing to laugh at it over pizza and beer. Assuming that's okay with the guy we're supposed to be flaming.
Give me a slice of pizza and a beer and you can call me whatever you want :-)
It's my peace offering to Neander, so you'll have to ask him.0 -
As long as it clean pizza and beer then we all can be happy with tomato sauce on our faces. :bigsmile:I'm even willing to laugh at it over pizza and beer. Assuming that's okay with the guy we're supposed to be flaming.
Give me a slice of pizza and a beer and you can call me whatever you want :-)
It's my peace offering to Neander, so you'll have to ask him.0 -
HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
For example, a milkshake is VERY nutrient dense.
Wouldn't a milkshake be "energy dense"? High calories with minimal nutrients.
Protein and fat do more than provide energy.0 -
bump0
-
so if you just want to lose weight inicially then tone later in other words concentrate on one thing at a time surely if a cal in protein and carbs are the same then you would need to be eating equal amounts 35/30/35 pro/fat/carb0
-
Where did you get those numbers? Every study I've read shows TEF as 23% for protein, 10% for carbs, and 3% for fat.Just like a mile is a mile, a gallon is a gallon, and an hour is an hour.
I disagree -- a gallon of gas is not the same as a gallon of kerosene. Likewise, the "calorie is a calorie" school of thought disregards the thermic effect of food. The body has to expend more energy digesting some foods than others -- protein, 20-35%; carbohydrates, 5-15%; fat, 5-15%. It also disregards the fact that dietary fiber is not absorbed by the body and converted to energy.
So while it may be true that calorie is a calorie once it has been digested and absorbed, it's not true of calories that are consumed. Consuming 300 calories of protein and high-fiber carbohydrates will result in fewer of those calories being converted to energy in the body than 300 calories of chocolate, since some of the calories will be used in the digestion process itself, and some will move through the digestive tract without being absorbed at all.
Also, in a typical diet, TEF is completely irrelevant. In fact, due to the much lower TEF of fat, low carb high fat diets usually produce a lower TEF than a higher carb, lower fat diet, even if the LCHF diet has slightly higher protein. In the real world, you're talking about a difference of 10-30 calories at most.0 -
Where did you get those numbers? Every study I've read shows TEF as 23% for protein, 10% for carbs, and 3% for fat.Just like a mile is a mile, a gallon is a gallon, and an hour is an hour.
I disagree -- a gallon of gas is not the same as a gallon of kerosene. Likewise, the "calorie is a calorie" school of thought disregards the thermic effect of food. The body has to expend more energy digesting some foods than others -- protein, 20-35%; carbohydrates, 5-15%; fat, 5-15%. It also disregards the fact that dietary fiber is not absorbed by the body and converted to energy.
So while it may be true that calorie is a calorie once it has been digested and absorbed, it's not true of calories that are consumed. Consuming 300 calories of protein and high-fiber carbohydrates will result in fewer of those calories being converted to energy in the body than 300 calories of chocolate, since some of the calories will be used in the digestion process itself, and some will move through the digestive tract without being absorbed at all.
Also, in a typical diet, TEF is completely irrelevant. In fact, due to the much lower TEF of fat, low carb high fat diets usually produce a lower TEF than a higher carb, lower fat diet, even if the LCHF diet has slightly higher protein. In the real world, you're talking about a difference of 10-30 calories at most.
this was my understanding as well..that TEF has only a marginal impact on calories burned, and not enough to be significant...0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
The calories aren't "treated differently". 1g pro = 4 cals, 1g carbs = 4 cals, 1g fat = 9 cals. It's all calories. But you need protein for retaining lean body mass and you need fat for proper vitamin absorption.
ETA: I don't think ANYONE has ever argued these two AGAINST each other. They aren't mutually exclusive by any means. Calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, proper macronutrition can impact what that weight loss looks like, i.e. retention of lean body mass. Proper macronutrition is also a pretty important issue when it comes to those who are training, whether it's powerlifting, endurance racing, bodybuilding, or other more traditional sports.
We are essentially saying the same thing..that the body utilizes different types of food differently.
True, but calories are still calories. And roughly 3500 calories equals a pound so I don't really see why you're hoping for some educational debate to occur. Both camps say the same thing regarding WEIGHT loss.
I have read and read this 3500 equals a lb of fat, and not seen one shred of evidence. and I have looked. It actually doesn't make much sense to me either.0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
The calories aren't "treated differently". 1g pro = 4 cals, 1g carbs = 4 cals, 1g fat = 9 cals. It's all calories. But you need protein for retaining lean body mass and you need fat for proper vitamin absorption.
ETA: I don't think ANYONE has ever argued these two AGAINST each other. They aren't mutually exclusive by any means. Calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, proper macronutrition can impact what that weight loss looks like, i.e. retention of lean body mass. Proper macronutrition is also a pretty important issue when it comes to those who are training, whether it's powerlifting, endurance racing, bodybuilding, or other more traditional sports.
We are essentially saying the same thing..that the body utilizes different types of food differently.
True, but calories are still calories. And roughly 3500 calories equals a pound so I don't really see why you're hoping for some educational debate to occur. Both camps say the same thing regarding WEIGHT loss.
I have read and read this 3500 equals a lb of fat, and not seen one shred of evidence. and I have looked. It actually doesn't make much sense to me either.
Convert a pound to grams, multiply by the estimate of cals per gram of fat, multiply by estimated lipid content of human fat. Woah crazy crazy0 -
Where did you get those numbers? Every study I've read shows TEF as 23% for protein, 10% for carbs, and 3% for fat.
Also, in a typical diet, TEF is completely irrelevant. In fact, due to the much lower TEF of fat, low carb high fat diets usually produce a lower TEF than a higher carb, lower fat diet, even if the LCHF diet has slightly higher protein. In the real world, you're talking about a difference of 10-30 calories at most.
With respect to point #1, it's a range. Complex carbs have a higher TEF than sugar, for example. Regarding the second point, can you show how you got to 10-30 calories? I think that's incorrect. You're also only comparing high-carb vs. high-fat diets. The mix of carbohydrates is significant (lots of fruits and vegetables vs. lots of refined carbs). This study found a significant difference in the thermic effect of processed foods vs. whole foods: http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
"The goal was to determine if a particular PF meal has a greater thermodynamic efficiency than a comparable WF meal, thereby conferring a greater net-energy intake.... Conclusion: Ingestion of the particular PF meal tested in this study decreases postprandial energy expenditure by nearly 50% compared with the isoenergetic WF meal. This reduction in daily energy expenditure has potential implications for diets comprised heavily of PFs and their associations with obesity."0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
The calories aren't "treated differently". 1g pro = 4 cals, 1g carbs = 4 cals, 1g fat = 9 cals. It's all calories. But you need protein for retaining lean body mass and you need fat for proper vitamin absorption.
ETA: I don't think ANYONE has ever argued these two AGAINST each other. They aren't mutually exclusive by any means. Calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, proper macronutrition can impact what that weight loss looks like, i.e. retention of lean body mass. Proper macronutrition is also a pretty important issue when it comes to those who are training, whether it's powerlifting, endurance racing, bodybuilding, or other more traditional sports.
We are essentially saying the same thing..that the body utilizes different types of food differently.
True, but calories are still calories. And roughly 3500 calories equals a pound so I don't really see why you're hoping for some educational debate to occur. Both camps say the same thing regarding WEIGHT loss.
Not really. Weight loss and body composition are not two different things. I think that the idea that a 3500 calorie deficit will lose you a pound is over simplified. If I eat at a 500 calorie a day deficit for a month but I eat nothing but carbs I will probably not end up in the same place as if I ate at the same deficit eating nothing but protein. I just don't see it. It flies in the face of IIFYM.
yes, they are two different things..
you can lose weight and not care about body composition, see skinny fat..
where as, you can care about losing weight, maintaining muscle mass, and then transiting to a body recomp, i.e. body composition…
So they are not the same ...
Sure you can lose weight and not care about body composition, but that doesn't mean that your body composition isn't changing as you lose weight. During weight loss, most people don't lose only fat, they also lose muscle. Don't the same physiological processes that drive body recomposition also drive weight loss? Are they really that different? I completely understand that a calorie deficit is essential to weight loss. And that you will lose weight if you eat at a deficit, regardless of the kinds of calories you consume. But is it really that straight forward? If someone trying to achieve a body recomp should care about the source of their calories, why shouldn't somebody simply trying to lose weight? How can the quality of the calories make a difference to one person and not the other?0 -
In my experience, I have different results depending on what food sources I turn to. Also, putting weight loss aside, I know my athletic performance and my overall health improves when I get my calories from cleaner sources. I wouldn't give a crap if I lost 10lbs eating chocolate, at the end of the day I would feel like **** all the time.
Calories are not equal. Anyone who says they are doesn't practice what they preach. I would love to see a couple of the guys on here who don't agree with this logic eat the same amount of calories from burgers, chips, ice cream etc and report back to me. People like to say a calorie is a calorie but then they wouldn't dare try out the theory.
Exactly.
I eat more calories than this site or any other site recommends I eat and I am losing weight without doing any exercise at the moment.
The QUALITY of the foods we eat trumps the QUANTITY of some arbitrary number of calories.
If you are losing weight you are in a deficet.
Quality of food is about health...
Quantity is about weight loss.0 -
All calories are the same in a lab. They aren't the same in the human body. That is easily proven in studies with same calorie diets showing different results.0
-
All calories are the same in a lab. They aren't the same in the human body. That is easily proven in studies with same calorie diets showing different results.
All the studies I have read have shown that a low carb vs. low fat vs. balanced low calorie diet have extremely similar results as long as protein/fat needs are met.0 -
I don't see an actual "versus" here...
If I want to lose weight I create a calorie deficet...
If I want to lose mainly fat I create a calorie deficet while ensuring I meet my macros (protine...fat...carbs in that order)
If I have 700 calories left in at dinner time and I need 40g of protien to meet my goal..
I can either eat some chicken breast and steamed veggies at home and have calories left for chocolate later...
or I can go to a fast food joint get some meat and a salad and not have calories left for later...
How is one different, I met my macros, I am still in a deficet so I will lose weight.
Where is the versus????0 -
I think `calorie is a calorie` idea only works for people that has at least 25lbs+ to loose.
When you get down to a certain weight you will have to start watching the quality of your food to help your body get a hormonal balance to lose more weight.
I believe this is the reason why this topic is so 50-50. For heavier people `calorie is a calorie` idea works because just by reducing their intake they can loose weight…0 -
HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
For example, a milkshake is VERY nutrient dense.
Wouldn't a milkshake be "energy dense"? High calories with minimal nutrients.
Protein and fat do more than provide energy.
Really? Never would've guessed that.
I have no problem with milkshakes. In fact, I'd like one now since we are talking about it. However, it really doesn't matter what food item you use to try to make a point here. Someone is going to find fault with it.
Bottom line: Eat whatever the hell you want. Make sure to hit protein and fat targets. Get in enough fiber so you can take a nice dump.0 -
HUH!?
ETA: How about we change "whole, nutritious" to "nutrient dense"? Would that work for you?
That would also be incorrect.
Most foods touted as being nutrient dense are anything but, usually quite the opposite.
Micronutrients are just that, micronutrients. Relatively unimportant, especially in the western diet, where deficiencies are rare.
Nutrients; macronutrients, the important nutrients, are almost always in short supply in supposed "nutrient dense" foods.
For example, a milkshake is VERY nutrient dense.
Wouldn't a milkshake be "energy dense"? High calories with minimal nutrients.
Protein and fat do more than provide energy.
Really? Never would've guessed that.
I have no problem with milkshakes. In fact, I'd like one now since we are talking about it. However, it really doesn't matter what food item you use to try to make a point here. Someone is going to find fault with it.
Bottom line: Eat whatever the hell you want. Make sure to hit protein and fat targets. Get in enough fiber so you can take a nice dump.
I actively chose an item that was high in fat/carbs/protein but could also seen as "unhealthy" in order to illustrate the point about how various people define "nutrient dense."0 -
I don't see an actual "versus" here...
If I want to lose weight I create a calorie deficet...
If I want to lose mainly fat I create a calorie deficet while ensuring I meet my macros (protine...fat...carbs in that order)
Exactly! Who doesn't want to lose mainly fat? That's the point. Why is the concept of protein vs. fat vs. carb calories only reserved for "body builders"? It's a little misleading to those new to weight loss to suggest that the type of calories do not matter, don't you think? Yes, I get that when you have a great deal of weight to lose, you are going to lose mostly fat and the impact of the macros is less significant. But the principles of macros should still be understood by those trying to lose weight, because it does matter eventually. The advice to eat whatever you want as long as you are in a deficit is thrown around so casually. The notion that " I need to worry about what I eat because I am more concerned with my body composition, but you don't need to worry about it because you are not there yet" kind of annoys me. This is why some people end up so misinformed.0 -
I think `calorie is a calorie` idea only works for people that has at least 25lbs+ to loose.
When you get down to a certain weight you will have to start watching the quality of your food to help your body get a hormonal balance to lose more weight.
I believe this is the reason why this topic is so 50-50. For heavier people `calorie is a calorie` idea works because just by reducing their intake they can loose weight…
I started with a normal range BMI ( on the heavy side but nonetheless "average") and I only wanted to lose 20 lbs. I've lost 11 so far...doing the calorie is a calorie idea. EXCEPT I make sure I reach my protein goal so that I am not losing as much muscle.
I don't think it matters necessarily what you are putting in your mouth unless you are trying to accomplish a very low body fat %.0 -
I just started with iifym (not in its entirety, a lower carb version)
There are no versions. IIFYM is not a diet. It was a shorthand, created to not have to say "if it fits your macros" every single time someone asked, "can I eat (insert food) on a cut?0 -
On the surface, these two concepts appear to be in direct opposition to one another. One says that it is important to have your nutrition coming from specific places. The other appears to say "Eat whatever you want as long as you don't go over on calories". Of course, I understand there is a big difference between general weight loss and body composition, but I don't think they are mutually exclusive. I have some opinions on the subject (which I will reserve, at least for now), but I was wanting to open the topic up for general discussion. I know both topics have been beat to death on the forums, but I rarely see them being compared to one another. For the record, this post was inspired by an MFP friend who just posted that she finally understands that IIFYM is more than just meeting a daily calorie goal and it got me thinking.
I m confused by your comparison, because if you eat according to IIFYM a calorie is still a calorie. No matter how you eat for weight loss; dirty, clean, vegetarian, vegan, primal, paleo or East Cashubian modiefied caveman, or IIFYM, a calorie ( as a measurement of energy ) is always a calorie.
As I understand it, IIFYM relies on your calories coming from a specific combination (ratio) of protein, fat and carbs, which implies that the body will treat these types of calories differently.
The calories aren't "treated differently". 1g pro = 4 cals, 1g carbs = 4 cals, 1g fat = 9 cals. It's all calories. But you need protein for retaining lean body mass and you need fat for proper vitamin absorption.
ETA: I don't think ANYONE has ever argued these two AGAINST each other. They aren't mutually exclusive by any means. Calorie deficit is necessary for weight loss, proper macronutrition can impact what that weight loss looks like, i.e. retention of lean body mass. Proper macronutrition is also a pretty important issue when it comes to those who are training, whether it's powerlifting, endurance racing, bodybuilding, or other more traditional sports.
We are essentially saying the same thing..that the body utilizes different types of food differently.
True, but calories are still calories. And roughly 3500 calories equals a pound so I don't really see why you're hoping for some educational debate to occur. Both camps say the same thing regarding WEIGHT loss.
Not really. Weight loss and body composition are not two different things. I think that the idea that a 3500 calorie deficit will lose you a pound is over simplified. If I eat at a 500 calorie a day deficit for a month but I eat nothing but carbs I will probably not end up in the same place as if I ate at the same deficit eating nothing but protein. I just don't see it. It flies in the face of IIFYM.
yes, they are two different things..
you can lose weight and not care about body composition, see skinny fat..
where as, you can care about losing weight, maintaining muscle mass, and then transiting to a body recomp, i.e. body composition…
So they are not the same ...
Sure you can lose weight and not care about body composition, but that doesn't mean that your body composition isn't changing as you lose weight. During weight loss, most people don't lose only fat, they also lose muscle. Don't the same physiological processes that drive body recomposition also drive weight loss? Are they really that different? I completely understand that a calorie deficit is essential to weight loss. And that you will lose weight if you eat at a deficit, regardless of the kinds of calories you consume. But is it really that straight forward? If someone trying to achieve a body recomp should care about the source of their calories, why shouldn't somebody simply trying to lose weight? How can the quality of the calories make a difference to one person and not the other?
I think now you are just referring to a personal choice that people make.
Person A - I want to lose weight and eat in a calorie deficit but I do not want to strength train and do not care about muscle loss...< have heard this before..
Person B - I want to lose weight, maintain muscle mass, and work out/lift heavy ..
person A will just lose weight and not care if it is muscle loss = personal choice
Person B will lose weight and maintain muscle = personal choice...
At least I think that is what you are referring to ...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions