Eat within calorie limit but it's all junk??

I love "junk food."

If you eat 1200 calories of chocolate every day, besides being very sick, you would lose weight. However, your body composition would not be good and you'd be sick. You wouldn't be getting nutrients you need.

But you would "lose weight." You wouldn't look good and you'd be sick, but you'd lose weight.

You would lose weight, but assuming your "junk" doesn't cover your nutrients very well a higher percentage of the weight lost would come from muscles and other body tissue. If you ate your calorie goal of nothing but graham crackers you would lose weight, then hair, skin tone, and vital signs.

They'd end up hungry, tired worn out and get to the heart attack a lot faster. If they didn't take vitamins and supplements, they'd end up with deficiencies at some point.

But they'd lose weight! And if they worked out, they'd look good.

You can absolutely lose the weight eating junk food.

You would still lose the same amount of weight. If you want to eat all your calories in rice, beans, and yogurt you can, or if you want to eat all of your calories in cheeseburgers and nachos you can do that too. Your weight loss won't be hindered at all, but you might have a few nutrient deficiencies lol.

OK so i don't do this but i was wondering how it would impact somebody. Like i'm guessing they would lose weight, but not as much as with healthy eating so i'm just wondering??? thanks

You guessed right. An all Twinkie diet could lead to weight loss as long as you had a calorie deficit. However, Twinkies are low protein, low fiber, have a lot of sugar, and few vitamins.

So - you would be hungry all the time, at risk for losing lean muscle, be "stopped" up, and be rather malnourished. You don't have to eat 100% "clean"...."healthy" foods to lose weight. But get enough protein, fiber, and fat is filling....and healthier.

I think this is somewhat deceptive. The type of calories you put in will affect the CO part of the equation, especially for those people with intolerances or other issues (like the 40+% of US adults that have insulin resistance at prediabetic or diabetic levels, many of whom are wholly unaware they have this issue).

Not to mention, many people are likely to feel very different on different diets -- some will fare better with more carbs, some with less, etc. -- and that will also ultimately affect the CO part of the equation.

Then, there is difference in macros that affect people differently. For example, a certain amount of protein has been shown to help maintain or reduce the loss of LBM in a caloric deficit. So, if you can lose more fat and maintain more LBM while you lose weight, that will both affect the total amount of weight lost and your body composition.

So CICO is a great guideline, but it has its limitations. But, for a hard and fast rule, it's a good place to start.

My only problem with that argument is that how the calories affect you is to some degree subjective, and it's rarely stated that way.

I'd agree with CICO, but say that of course you should care about the composition of the calories in, because if you eat in an unhealthy way you will likely not feel so good or have the energy to work out, and that if you eat certain combinations of food (too little protein or fat, too many carbs without fiber and on their own) my experience is that I have a harder time being satisfied and tend to be more hungry.

But there are other factors too--when I first started I was eating fewer than 100 grams of carbs and felt great, but when I increased my workouts I felt better with more carbs.

I personally felt WAY better not eating isolated sweet treats or a carb-focused breakfast, but I found that cutting out grains or sugary treats entirely made me feel no better than I feel now, etc., whereas others report a different experience.

Point is that HOW the foods affect you is going to be something for you to discover, not determined by "white foods, bad" or some such.

So I think you definitely should say that composition of calories will matter to most people's overall success. But how the "good calories" vs. "bad calories" discussions get phrased, more often than not, is not that, which is common sense I think everyone would agree with, but with prescriptions as to how certain foods or combinations allegedly affect everyone, and that's not accurate.

Also, it really does depend. I know someone who lost over 100 pounds by basically cutting back on the calories she was eating while continuing to eat almost exclusively fast food. That sounds miserable to me--I don't like fast food to start, but it seems terribly unsatisfying and just like deprivation (eat less) vs. what appeals to me (eat healthy). But for her it was the only way to do it, as she liked what she was eating and didn't want to cook. After she started losing, she started modifying her diet and ended up eating a much healthier mix of foods, in part because she started dealing with some food issues, but also, I think, just because she needed to once she cut her calories enough in order to be satisfied.

So I think it's a shame when people try to scare others (not saying Lindsay is doing this, I know she's not) with "you must eliminate sugar or you won't lose!"

My only problem with that argument is that how the calories affect you is to some degree subjective, and it's rarely stated that way.

I'd agree with CICO, but say that of course you should care about the composition of the calories in, because if you eat in an unhealthy way you will likely not feel so good or have the energy to work out, and that if you eat certain combinations of food (too little protein or fat, too many carbs without fiber and on their own) my experience is that I have a harder time being satisfied and tend to be more hungry.

But there are other factors too--when I first started I was eating fewer than 100 grams of carbs and felt great, but when I increased my workouts I felt better with more carbs.

I personally felt WAY better not eating isolated sweet treats or a carb-focused breakfast, but I found that cutting out grains or sugary treats entirely made me feel no better than I feel now, etc., whereas others report a different experience.

Point is that HOW the foods affect you is going to be something for you to discover, not determined by "white foods, bad" or some such.

So I think you definitely should say that composition of calories will matter to most people's overall success. But how the "good calories" vs. "bad calories" discussions get phrased, more often than not, is not that, which is common sense I think everyone would agree with, but with prescriptions as to how certain foods or combinations allegedly affect everyone, and that's not accurate.

Also, it really does depend. I know someone who lost over 100 pounds by basically cutting back on the calories she was eating while continuing to eat almost exclusively fast food. That sounds miserable to me--I don't like fast food to start, but it seems terribly unsatisfying and just like deprivation (eat less) vs. what appeals to me (eat healthy). But for her it was the only way to do it, as she liked what she was eating and didn't want to cook. After she started losing, she started modifying her diet and ended up eating a much healthier mix of foods, in part because she started dealing with some food issues, but also, I think, just because she needed to once she cut her calories enough in order to be satisfied.

So I think it's a shame when people try to scare others (not saying Lindsay is doing this, I know she's not) with "you must eliminate sugar or you won't lose!"

I agree with you, and I'm not trying to scare anyone. But, getting accurate information out there is important.

I disagree equally with those that say "you must eliminate sugar or you won't lose" as I do with those that say, as several posters did in this thread, is that it doesn't make a difference AT ALL. Both are simply wrong.

It does make a difference, to body composition at the very least -- which will directly affect that actual amount of weight lost (i.e. muscle versus fat). How much of a difference it makes will vary widely among people. Some may not see much of a difference, or at least not enough to make large scale changes. Others will notice HUGE differences and are more likely to make such big changes.

It's the two extremes of the spectrum that I'm trying to avoid and this silly differentiation between weight loss and health. They're not separate -- they do have significant areas of overlap.

i'd still lose weight, but there's no way i'd be able to workout fueled by 1700 calories of gummy bears and string cheese :laugh:

Take a food scale and your favorite variety of junkfood and weigh out your daily calorie allotment. I doubt you'll want to give it a try once you see just how little food you get to eat. Unless your idea of junkfood is spinach!