Good fats and bad fats?
Replies
-
A calorie does equal a calorie when it comes to weight loss, but not when it comes to nutritional needs. Countless other people, including me, are proof of that. Look at my ticker and look at what I eat. I successfully lost 44 pounds eating foods I love and have been keeping it off successfully for almost a year now still eating the foods I love.prettykitty1515 wrote: »ShelbyLynS wrote: »I'm in the Fats are Good camp. 6 months ago I stopped eating sugar (no sucrose, nothing added, no honey, no artificial sweeteners, etc.) and I started eat whole fat foods. Foods labeled Low Fat have a ton of added sugar. I lost 13 pounds. My LDL went down 18 points and my HDL went up 6 point. I stopped eating most processed foods and no fast food. I eat what I cook. I read a lot on My Fitness Pal about low-fat foods. I hope that everyone will catch up with the science and come to understand fat doesn't make you fat--sugar makes you fat (and sick).
Sorry, Shelby. 99% of the people on this site think a calorie equals a calorie. So theoretically, you could eat 2,000 calories of Twinkies for three months and your weight would be exactly the same if you ate 2,000 calories of vegetables, nuts, fish and chicken for three months.
There is no thought of the possibility that what you eat could slow down your metabolism, effectively making calories unequal. This suggestion on MFP is the equivalent of suggesting that the earth is flat.
Congratulations. Continue avoiding refined sugar.
This comes from a girl who tried almost every type of diet out there in order to "jump start" weight loss, or I ate only certain foods because I thought they would help me lose weight faster. Gee, two years ago I was going to buy some green tea to help my metabolism so I could get this darned extra 30 pounds off.
Instead, I started logging food again (learned food logging from a trainer about ten years ago), found MFP, started researching, weighing food, and learned all about portion control. While this worked for me, I realize that it does not work for everyone.
Also, type of food does not slow your metabolism, or even make it your metabolism any faster.
As to good/bad fats: while I suppose there could be good and bad fats, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to it but I try to eat fat in my diet because it helps fill me up. Plus, I like things like nuts, avocados (haven't had any in a long time, time to buy one!
), bacon, eggs, and the list goes on.
0 -
Why, that's just not true.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
And again, you are throwing out opinions using extreme examples to try and prove a point which you don't have. You for some reason can't seem to grasp the concept of CICO.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »ShelbyLynS wrote: »I'm in the Fats are Good camp. 6 months ago I stopped eating sugar (no sucrose, nothing added, no honey, no artificial sweeteners, etc.) and I started eat whole fat foods. Foods labeled Low Fat have a ton of added sugar. I lost 13 pounds. My LDL went down 18 points and my HDL went up 6 point. I stopped eating most processed foods and no fast food. I eat what I cook. I read a lot on My Fitness Pal about low-fat foods. I hope that everyone will catch up with the science and come to understand fat doesn't make you fat--sugar makes you fat (and sick).
Sorry, Shelby. 99% of the people on this site think a calorie equals a calorie. So theoretically, you could eat 2,000 calories of Twinkies for three months and your weight would be exactly the same if you ate 2,000 calories of vegetables, nuts, fish and chicken for three months.
There is no thought ever going into the possibility that what you eat could slow down your metabolism, effectively making all calories unequal. Anyone who suggests something like this is the equivalent to suggesting that the earth is flat.
Congratulations. Continue avoiding refined sugar.
Knock it off already with you BS that people are recommending 2000 calories in Twinkies. Every single time you get called out on your nonsense to show us where people are recommending that and you alway fail to show your evidence.
You are criticizing other people's beliefs, yet you lack even the basics. Time to go do some actual research.
Apparently, you do not know what the word theoretically means. Let me assist you:
- of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from applied ). -
Get it? Not practical, not applied.
I never said that anyone on this site recommended 2000 calories of Twinkies. What I did say is that you and others believe that eating 2000 calories of Twinkies WOULD result in the same weight gain or weight loss as 2000 calories of healthy food. And that notion is beyond absurd.
You are constantly throwing out theoretical situations but can never have a debate in reality because you feel using those extreme examples helps you sound like you know what you're talking about. Learn what CICO is. No one is telling others to go eat Twinkies all day or donuts but you constantly feel the need to use that. It'd be nice to see if you can come back with actual facts sometimes. I know it's hard since you don't get it but it's never to late to learn.
OK, let's change it. If you have everyday for 3 months a large bagel with OJ for breakfast, a big bowl of pasta for lunch, pork fried rice for dinner, and ice cream for desert, your weight will be different than if you eat eggs for breakfast, tuna fish and veggies for lunch, grilled chicken for dinner, and berries for desert, given the same number of calories.
Is that better?
And, given that your activity stays the same, it would only be true if one of those meals had more calories than the other. You might be surprised....it could be the second meal that has more calories, depending on the volume of food.
Your post is too generalized.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Nobody is saying all calories are equal under all circumstances.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Why, that's just not true.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
And again, you are throwing out opinions using extreme examples to try and prove a point which you don't have. You for some reason can't seem to grasp the concept of CICO.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »ShelbyLynS wrote: »I'm in the Fats are Good camp. 6 months ago I stopped eating sugar (no sucrose, nothing added, no honey, no artificial sweeteners, etc.) and I started eat whole fat foods. Foods labeled Low Fat have a ton of added sugar. I lost 13 pounds. My LDL went down 18 points and my HDL went up 6 point. I stopped eating most processed foods and no fast food. I eat what I cook. I read a lot on My Fitness Pal about low-fat foods. I hope that everyone will catch up with the science and come to understand fat doesn't make you fat--sugar makes you fat (and sick).
Sorry, Shelby. 99% of the people on this site think a calorie equals a calorie. So theoretically, you could eat 2,000 calories of Twinkies for three months and your weight would be exactly the same if you ate 2,000 calories of vegetables, nuts, fish and chicken for three months.
There is no thought ever going into the possibility that what you eat could slow down your metabolism, effectively making all calories unequal. Anyone who suggests something like this is the equivalent to suggesting that the earth is flat.
Congratulations. Continue avoiding refined sugar.
Knock it off already with you BS that people are recommending 2000 calories in Twinkies. Every single time you get called out on your nonsense to show us where people are recommending that and you alway fail to show your evidence.
You are criticizing other people's beliefs, yet you lack even the basics. Time to go do some actual research.
Apparently, you do not know what the word theoretically means. Let me assist you:
- of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from applied ). -
Get it? Not practical, not applied.
I never said that anyone on this site recommended 2000 calories of Twinkies. What I did say is that you and others believe that eating 2000 calories of Twinkies WOULD result in the same weight gain or weight loss as 2000 calories of healthy food. And that notion is beyond absurd.
You are constantly throwing out theoretical situations but can never have a debate in reality because you feel using those extreme examples helps you sound like you know what you're talking about. Learn what CICO is. No one is telling others to go eat Twinkies all day or donuts but you constantly feel the need to use that. It'd be nice to see if you can come back with actual facts sometimes. I know it's hard since you don't get it but it's never to late to learn.
OK, let's change it. If you have everyday for 3 months a large bagel with OJ for breakfast, a big bowl of pasta for lunch, pork fried rice for dinner, and ice cream for desert, your weight will be different than if you eat eggs for breakfast, tuna fish and veggies for lunch, grilled chicken for dinner, and berries for desert, given the same number of calories.
Is that better?
And, given that your activity stays the same, it would only be true if one of those meals had more calories than the other. You might be surprised....it could be the second meal that has more calories, depending on the volume of food.
Your post is too generalized.
It's a free country, we can believe what we want to believe. One of my guru's says this:
"It is often said that the only thing that matters for weight loss is “calories in, calories out.” The truth is that calories matter… but the types of foods we eat are just as important. That is because different foods go through different metabolic pathways in the body.
Additionally, the foods we eat can directly impact the hormones that regulate when and how much we eat, as well as the amount of calories we burn.
Here are two examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie:
Protein: Eating protein can boost the metabolic rate and reduce appetite compared to the same amount of calories from fat and carbs. It can also increase your muscle mass, which burns calories around the clock.
Fructose vs. glucose: Fructose can stimulate the appetite compared to the same number of calories from glucose.
Even though calories are important, saying that they are all that matters when it comes to weight (or health for that matter) is completely wrong.
Bottom Line: All calories are not created equal. Different foods go through different metabolic pathways and have varying effects on hunger, hormones and health."
Let's just say the science is not settled.
Calories in/calorie out is not a belief, it's a fact. When it comes to weight loss, all calories are indeed equal. Look at the countless people everywhere who lose weight simply restricting calories in and not the type of food they eat. Go look at the open diaries of people who have been successful at moderating food intake rather than food type. Is the fat loss an illusion? Is it luck? What caused the weight loss?
Anyone will gain weight on any diet if you eat more calories than they burn. If not, then we have some special snowflakes out there. That's settled science in my book.
As to nutritional needs, all calories are not created equal. It's age old common sense that some foods are more nutritional than others.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Why, that's just not true.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
And again, you are throwing out opinions using extreme examples to try and prove a point which you don't have. You for some reason can't seem to grasp the concept of CICO.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »ShelbyLynS wrote: »I'm in the Fats are Good camp. 6 months ago I stopped eating sugar (no sucrose, nothing added, no honey, no artificial sweeteners, etc.) and I started eat whole fat foods. Foods labeled Low Fat have a ton of added sugar. I lost 13 pounds. My LDL went down 18 points and my HDL went up 6 point. I stopped eating most processed foods and no fast food. I eat what I cook. I read a lot on My Fitness Pal about low-fat foods. I hope that everyone will catch up with the science and come to understand fat doesn't make you fat--sugar makes you fat (and sick).
Sorry, Shelby. 99% of the people on this site think a calorie equals a calorie. So theoretically, you could eat 2,000 calories of Twinkies for three months and your weight would be exactly the same if you ate 2,000 calories of vegetables, nuts, fish and chicken for three months.
There is no thought ever going into the possibility that what you eat could slow down your metabolism, effectively making all calories unequal. Anyone who suggests something like this is the equivalent to suggesting that the earth is flat.
Congratulations. Continue avoiding refined sugar.
Knock it off already with you BS that people are recommending 2000 calories in Twinkies. Every single time you get called out on your nonsense to show us where people are recommending that and you alway fail to show your evidence.
You are criticizing other people's beliefs, yet you lack even the basics. Time to go do some actual research.
Apparently, you do not know what the word theoretically means. Let me assist you:
- of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from applied ). -
Get it? Not practical, not applied.
I never said that anyone on this site recommended 2000 calories of Twinkies. What I did say is that you and others believe that eating 2000 calories of Twinkies WOULD result in the same weight gain or weight loss as 2000 calories of healthy food. And that notion is beyond absurd.
You are constantly throwing out theoretical situations but can never have a debate in reality because you feel using those extreme examples helps you sound like you know what you're talking about. Learn what CICO is. No one is telling others to go eat Twinkies all day or donuts but you constantly feel the need to use that. It'd be nice to see if you can come back with actual facts sometimes. I know it's hard since you don't get it but it's never to late to learn.
OK, let's change it. If you have everyday for 3 months a large bagel with OJ for breakfast, a big bowl of pasta for lunch, pork fried rice for dinner, and ice cream for desert, your weight will be different than if you eat eggs for breakfast, tuna fish and veggies for lunch, grilled chicken for dinner, and berries for desert, given the same number of calories.
Is that better?
And, given that your activity stays the same, it would only be true if one of those meals had more calories than the other. You might be surprised....it could be the second meal that has more calories, depending on the volume of food.
Your post is too generalized.
It's a free country, we can believe what we want to believe. One of my guru's says this:
"It is often said that the only thing that matters for weight loss is “calories in, calories out.” The truth is that calories matter… but the types of foods we eat are just as important. That is because different foods go through different metabolic pathways in the body.
Additionally, the foods we eat can directly impact the hormones that regulate when and how much we eat, as well as the amount of calories we burn.
Here are two examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie:
Protein: Eating protein can boost the metabolic rate and reduce appetite compared to the same amount of calories from fat and carbs. It can also increase your muscle mass, which burns calories around the clock.
Fructose vs. glucose: Fructose can stimulate the appetite compared to the same number of calories from glucose.
Even though calories are important, saying that they are all that matters when it comes to weight (or health for that matter) is completely wrong.
Bottom Line: All calories are not created equal. Different foods go through different metabolic pathways and have varying effects on hunger, hormones and health."
Let's just say the science is not settled.
I am baffled that you cannot see that there is absolutely no difference between your theory and CICO. Seriously confused, like whaaat.
I have not once seen anyone say that theoretically eating Twinkies is the same as eating fresh vegetables and lean meats. Not once. Why do you keep arguing against something that is not being said?
CICO is about WEIGHT LOSS. Not about health. Not about body composition. Not about the effect that certain foods have on your body. You've said this. Everyone agrees with you.
Almost everyone who is a proponent of CICO is also a proponent of IIFYM - if this isn't about tailoring your diet to ensure greater use of your macronutrients, and to direct certain foods through certain "metabolic pathways" then NOTHING is. Nobody is eating an-all Twinkies diet, because it is inefficient and makes no sense. Why are you presenting it like this is an actual option???
Do you feel better to continuously tear down this invisible argument like this?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
prettykitty1515 wrote: »Here are two examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie:
Protein: Eating protein can boost the metabolic rate and reduce appetite compared to the same amount of calories from fat and carbs. It can also increase your muscle mass, which burns calories around the clock.
What's the evidence that merely eating protein boosts the metabolic rate any appreciable degree (let alone in a way that it matters given the normal variation in diets)?
As for reducing appetite, I think that's common, although it varies from person to person. It's one of the reasons that I care about getting adequate protein and always recommend that to people. But that goes to the amount people eat. If you start by saying they are eating the same calories, it's not a factor by definition. (It might be a factor in them being dissatisfied and wanting to change their diet, despite losing fine. I think lots of people experience that.)Fructose vs. glucose: Fructose can stimulate the appetite compared to the same number of calories from glucose.
Again, that has nothing to do with CICO. You assumed that people are eating the same calories, so hunger is irrelevant. Hunger relates to whether people are satisfied or not on lower calories. No one denies that some diets are more satisfying than others, but it depends on the person. (Fat, for example, is quite satiating, IME, but on the other hand I do not find low fat dairy less satisfying than other dairy. Other people may have different experiences and should respond accordingly.)
Also everyone agrees that some diets are healthier than others and that might affect how good you feel, how active you are, and how much you are able to build muscle (when not at a deficit, anyway).
0 -
I am still on the fence about the health implications of large quantities of saturated fat. That said, it is hard to eliminate saturated fats without eliminating other fats because many sources of poly and mono unsaturated fats like peanuts, almonds, avocado, coconut, etc. contain some saturated fat as well. The idea that fat makes you fat is based on a false analogy much like the belief in the middle ages that a plant that is shaped like an ear cures ear aches.
I wasn't suggesting that they put 0 saturated fat, I'm aware it'd be extremely hard to avoid any saturated fat, just like I said. it confused me that the saturated fats goal was so much higher than the poly or monounsaturated fats, and also confused as to why those fats were 0 in the first place.
As others have said, there is a government recommended limit on saturated fat, while there is no such limitation on other types of fats, so it shows in the reports section as "0," but that doesn't you shouldn't consume them. There are plenty of other nutrients with no USDA recommended daily value that would also appear as 0.0 -
Fun thread. I learned that when some people say a calorie equals a calorie, some other people interpret what you are saying as "twinkies equal vegetables."
But back to the original question: I don't spend too much time worrying about types of fat. I don't think saturated fat is worth worrying about. The only kind of fat I really try to avoid is trans-fat. I also try to get plenty of Omega 3's at the same time as not overdoing the Omega 6's. Fish oil comes in handy for this.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
PK, why run?prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Why, that's just not true.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
And again, you are throwing out opinions using extreme examples to try and prove a point which you don't have. You for some reason can't seem to grasp the concept of CICO.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »ShelbyLynS wrote: »I'm in the Fats are Good camp. 6 months ago I stopped eating sugar (no sucrose, nothing added, no honey, no artificial sweeteners, etc.) and I started eat whole fat foods. Foods labeled Low Fat have a ton of added sugar. I lost 13 pounds. My LDL went down 18 points and my HDL went up 6 point. I stopped eating most processed foods and no fast food. I eat what I cook. I read a lot on My Fitness Pal about low-fat foods. I hope that everyone will catch up with the science and come to understand fat doesn't make you fat--sugar makes you fat (and sick).
Sorry, Shelby. 99% of the people on this site think a calorie equals a calorie. So theoretically, you could eat 2,000 calories of Twinkies for three months and your weight would be exactly the same if you ate 2,000 calories of vegetables, nuts, fish and chicken for three months.
There is no thought ever going into the possibility that what you eat could slow down your metabolism, effectively making all calories unequal. Anyone who suggests something like this is the equivalent to suggesting that the earth is flat.
Congratulations. Continue avoiding refined sugar.
Knock it off already with you BS that people are recommending 2000 calories in Twinkies. Every single time you get called out on your nonsense to show us where people are recommending that and you alway fail to show your evidence.
You are criticizing other people's beliefs, yet you lack even the basics. Time to go do some actual research.
Apparently, you do not know what the word theoretically means. Let me assist you:
- of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical (distinguished from applied ). -
Get it? Not practical, not applied.
I never said that anyone on this site recommended 2000 calories of Twinkies. What I did say is that you and others believe that eating 2000 calories of Twinkies WOULD result in the same weight gain or weight loss as 2000 calories of healthy food. And that notion is beyond absurd.
You are constantly throwing out theoretical situations but can never have a debate in reality because you feel using those extreme examples helps you sound like you know what you're talking about. Learn what CICO is. No one is telling others to go eat Twinkies all day or donuts but you constantly feel the need to use that. It'd be nice to see if you can come back with actual facts sometimes. I know it's hard since you don't get it but it's never to late to learn.
OK, let's change it. If you have everyday for 3 months a large bagel with OJ for breakfast, a big bowl of pasta for lunch, pork fried rice for dinner, and ice cream for desert, your weight will be different than if you eat eggs for breakfast, tuna fish and veggies for lunch, grilled chicken for dinner, and berries for desert, given the same number of calories.
Is that better?
And, given that your activity stays the same, it would only be true if one of those meals had more calories than the other. You might be surprised....it could be the second meal that has more calories, depending on the volume of food.
Your post is too generalized.
It's a free country, we can believe what we want to believe. One of my guru's says this:
"It is often said that the only thing that matters for weight loss is “calories in, calories out.” The truth is that calories matter… but the types of foods we eat are just as important. That is because different foods go through different metabolic pathways in the body.
Additionally, the foods we eat can directly impact the hormones that regulate when and how much we eat, as well as the amount of calories we burn.
Here are two examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie:
Protein: Eating protein can boost the metabolic rate and reduce appetite compared to the same amount of calories from fat and carbs. It can also increase your muscle mass, which burns calories around the clock.
Fructose vs. glucose: Fructose can stimulate the appetite compared to the same number of calories from glucose.
Even though calories are important, saying that they are all that matters when it comes to weight (or health for that matter) is completely wrong.
Bottom Line: All calories are not created equal. Different foods go through different metabolic pathways and have varying effects on hunger, hormones and health."
Let's just say the science is not settled.
I am baffled that you cannot see that there is absolutely no difference between your theory and CICO. Seriously confused, like whaaat.
I have not once seen anyone say that theoretically eating Twinkies is the same as eating fresh vegetables and lean meats. Not once. Why do you keep arguing against something that is not being said?
CICO is about WEIGHT LOSS. Not about health. Not about body composition. Not about the effect that certain foods have on your body. You've said this. Everyone agrees with you.
Almost everyone who is a proponent of CICO is also a proponent of IIFYM - if this isn't about tailoring your diet to ensure greater use of your macronutrients, and to direct certain foods through certain "metabolic pathways" then NOTHING is. Nobody is eating an-all Twinkies diet, because it is inefficient and makes no sense. Why are you presenting it like this is an actual option???
Do you feel better to continuously tear down this invisible argument like this?
Oh brother.
If a calorie is a calorie, then 2000 calories of Twinkies = 2000 calories of vegetables when it comes to weight loss. You are the one(s) who implies it.
I never said that a single solitary person on this site suggested eating Twinkies or junk food all day. Do you understand the definition of the word "theoretical?" Maybe I should have used the word "hypothetical."
And you will be happy to know that I am done with this sight. I met my goal weight with the help of counting calories (thank you) by limiting, but not excluding, certain foods from my diet. Once I reached my goal I stopped counting because there was no need to. I know what foods work for me and what foods don't. Counting calories for me was difficult. I don't know how anyone does it for a lifetime.
Good luck to you all.
The reason thst I am acting like 2000 calories of Twinkies is equal to 2000 calories of veggies when it cones to weight loss is because it is, but certainly not when it comes to nutritional value. These are two different issues.
I don't actually know any people who would eat 2000 calories of Twinkies or veggies.
I'm glad you found the foods that work for you in your diet plan. They work for you because they are foods you obviously like, that perhaps help you feel more satiated and/or don't trigger food issues, not because they have special properties that make you lose weight.
The onus is on you to provide peer reviewed studies backing up your claims.:)
0 -
You can go into "Nutrition Goals" and adjust the settings on Fats. Keeping track of fat consumption is helpful because fats are calorie dense. It allows you to make appropriate adjustments in your eating program.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions