can you really eat anything and remain fit?
Replies
-
wtf people- seriously- wtf.0
-
Dear person who is flagging people's post - MFP can see your userid and how frequently you are flagging valid post..0
-
For the person who is flagging everything in this thread. I highly encourage you to read the intentions for the flags. If you feel that someone is violating a guideline you can still report them by clicking the flag and clicking report.
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007789/flagged-content-reported-posts-warning-points#latest
0 -
jardimgirl wrote: »sorry, i meant fit like flat belly, nice toned legs etc
You can lose weight eating whatever you want. You are unlikely to stick to your calorie and macro goals eating just pizza and cake. You probably won't hit your micronutrient needs without fruits and vegetables. If you are hitting your macros, staying within your calorie goal, getting appropriate nutrients then there is no reason you have to miss out on cake or pizza or ice cream.
myfitnesspal.com/blog/usmcmp/view/good-vs-bad-foods-610144
this.
Who is the mad flagger for this thread?
wow- how do you get flagged for quoting and saying "this"
that's an all new low.
well I believe people have gotten warnings if not strikes for this in the past. certainly for "no"s. *shrugs*0 -
For the person who is flagging everything in this thread. I highly encourage you to read the intentions for the flags. If you feel that someone is violating a guideline you can still report them by clicking the flag and clicking report.
community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007789/flagged-content-reported-posts-warning-points#latest
this.
again.
<waist anxiously for flag>0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »jardimgirl wrote: »sorry, i meant fit like flat belly, nice toned legs etc
You can lose weight eating whatever you want. You are unlikely to stick to your calorie and macro goals eating just pizza and cake. You probably won't hit your micronutrient needs without fruits and vegetables. If you are hitting your macros, staying within your calorie goal, getting appropriate nutrients then there is no reason you have to miss out on cake or pizza or ice cream.
myfitnesspal.com/blog/usmcmp/view/good-vs-bad-foods-610144
this.
Who is the mad flagger for this thread?
wow- how do you get flagged for quoting and saying "this"
that's an all new low.
well I believe people have gotten warnings if not strikes for this in the past. certainly for "no"s. *shrugs*
^this0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »jardimgirl wrote: »sorry, i meant fit like flat belly, nice toned legs etc
You can lose weight eating whatever you want. You are unlikely to stick to your calorie and macro goals eating just pizza and cake. You probably won't hit your micronutrient needs without fruits and vegetables. If you are hitting your macros, staying within your calorie goal, getting appropriate nutrients then there is no reason you have to miss out on cake or pizza or ice cream.
myfitnesspal.com/blog/usmcmp/view/good-vs-bad-foods-610144
this.
Who is the mad flagger for this thread?
wow- how do you get flagged for quoting and saying "this"
that's an all new low.
well I believe people have gotten warnings if not strikes for this in the past. certainly for "no"s. *shrugs*
how do you get a strike for that- what's the logic behind it?0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »jardimgirl wrote: »sorry, i meant fit like flat belly, nice toned legs etc
You can lose weight eating whatever you want. You are unlikely to stick to your calorie and macro goals eating just pizza and cake. You probably won't hit your micronutrient needs without fruits and vegetables. If you are hitting your macros, staying within your calorie goal, getting appropriate nutrients then there is no reason you have to miss out on cake or pizza or ice cream.
myfitnesspal.com/blog/usmcmp/view/good-vs-bad-foods-610144
this.
Who is the mad flagger for this thread?
wow- how do you get flagged for quoting and saying "this"
that's an all new low.
well I believe people have gotten warnings if not strikes for this in the past. certainly for "no"s. *shrugs*
how do you get a strike for that- what's the logic behind it?
Strikes or flags? I've certainly gotten flagged for typing "hahaha". :huh:0 -
I want to sarcastically flag that- but sarcasm doesn't translate well through that LOL0
-
Burt_Huttz wrote: »jardimgirl wrote: »sorry, i meant fit like flat belly, nice toned legs etc
You can lose weight eating whatever you want. You are unlikely to stick to your calorie and macro goals eating just pizza and cake. You probably won't hit your micronutrient needs without fruits and vegetables. If you are hitting your macros, staying within your calorie goal, getting appropriate nutrients then there is no reason you have to miss out on cake or pizza or ice cream.
myfitnesspal.com/blog/usmcmp/view/good-vs-bad-foods-610144
this.
Who is the mad flagger for this thread?
wow- how do you get flagged for quoting and saying "this"
that's an all new low.
well I believe people have gotten warnings if not strikes for this in the past. certainly for "no"s. *shrugs*
how do you get a strike for that- what's the logic behind it?
Welcome to MFP. I got a strike for posting a picture of a side-by-side shotgun once. Not a warning, a strike. And I even appealed it and it was upheld. Apparently not an appropriate "side by side" picture, as was the theme of the thread in question.0 -
I know what flags are, I know what warnings are (obviously) but what are strikes? I don't these exist in the new forum format?0
-
JeffseekingV wrote: »jardimgirl wrote: »serious question.can you continue eating anything you'd like, with a deficit of course, and still remain fit?
The question as posed, the answer is "no". There are essential nutrients that must be taken in (as your body cannot synthesize them) through your food sources. Essential fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, etc., need to come from food sources.
Within the realm of "getting the nutrition that is biologically required", however, there is a lot of flexibility.
There is no "yes" or "no".
Anything you like could = getting your micro nutrients too. Even if not,
"fit" could mean cardiovascular. Which isn't necessarily tied to diet
Do there exist dietary compositions that could literally bring about sickness and possibly death?
If the answer to that is "yes" (which it is) then the answer to her question is "no" - unless you're attempting to make the argument that sick and/or dead could fall within the category of "fit". If she would like to redefine her question to exclude edge cases and disordered eating states, then the answer would likely be different.
Hence, the answer to the question, "as posed", is "no", you cannot eat anything you'd like, with a deficit, and still remain fit.
0 -
Faulty reasoning. You could say that eating too much sugar for too long could result in developing diabetes. (That's an INSANE oversimplification, btw, and it ignores so many other factors, but you could say that). You cannot say that, by avoiding sugar, you prevent diabetes. Just because one is true (increase A to cause B ) doesn't mean that the reverse is also true (decrease A to prevent B ).JeffseekingV wrote: »jardimgirl wrote: »serious question.can you continue eating anything you'd like, with a deficit of course, and still remain fit?
The question as posed, the answer is "no". There are essential nutrients that must be taken in (as your body cannot synthesize them) through your food sources. Essential fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, etc., need to come from food sources.
Within the realm of "getting the nutrition that is biologically required", however, there is a lot of flexibility.
There is no "yes" or "no".
Anything you like could = getting your micro nutrients too. Even if not,
"fit" could mean cardiovascular. Which isn't necessarily tied to diet
Do there exist dietary compositions that could literally bring about sickness and possibly death?
If the answer to that is "yes" (which it is) then the answer to her question is "no"
0 -
The Twinkie diet proved that calorie deficit makes you lose regardless of anything else. You might die in 5 years but you will lose weight.0
-
Faulty reasoning. You could say that eating too much sugar for too long could result in developing diabetes. (That's an INSANE oversimplification, btw, and it ignores so many other factors, but you could say that). You cannot say that, by avoiding sugar, you prevent diabetes. Just because one is true (increase A to cause B ) doesn't mean that the reverse is also true (decrease A to prevent B ).JeffseekingV wrote: »jardimgirl wrote: »serious question.can you continue eating anything you'd like, with a deficit of course, and still remain fit?
The question as posed, the answer is "no". There are essential nutrients that must be taken in (as your body cannot synthesize them) through your food sources. Essential fatty acids, amino acids, vitamins, etc., need to come from food sources.
Within the realm of "getting the nutrition that is biologically required", however, there is a lot of flexibility.
There is no "yes" or "no".
Anything you like could = getting your micro nutrients too. Even if not,
"fit" could mean cardiovascular. Which isn't necessarily tied to diet
Do there exist dietary compositions that could literally bring about sickness and possibly death?
If the answer to that is "yes" (which it is) then the answer to her question is "no"
I took her question to mean, as follows:
For the purposes of this, foods you like = dietary makeup.
"Can you eat any dietary makeup (at a calorie deficit), and still remain fit?"
The testable hypothesis for this, then is, "Any dietary makeup taken in by a human that exists at a caloric deficit to their TDEE, will allow them to remain fit."
To disprove this, you need to find one case where a given dietary makeup will result in a not-fit end state. That is very easy to do. If there's a fault, it's not a fault in logic, but a fault in the interpretation of her question -- "anything you'd like".
Even if not rephrasing the question, what if her "anything I like" diet is just diet soda? Clearly, that would put her at a deficit, which satisfies her other concern. However, she'd likely die relatively quickly, which wouldn't be "fit".
So, as I said, within the realm of non-disordered eating, the answer is different. But among all possible diets (which is the assumption as she hasn't mentioned what she likes)...nope.
0 -
The Twinkie diet proved that calorie deficit makes you lose regardless of anything else. You might die in 5 years but you will lose weight.
Given that diet improved his health markers, how do you know he would have lived longer being overweight and not eating twinkies? The results of that test indicates his health was better than it was before. Not worse0 -
Weight loss on it's own improves most health markers so the twinkies had little to do with that. Eating mostly twinkies at maintenance I'm sure would show a different story, and in a surplus I would suspect a whole mess of problems.JeffseekingV wrote: »The Twinkie diet proved that calorie deficit makes you lose regardless of anything else. You might die in 5 years but you will lose weight.
Given that diet improved his health markers, how do you know he would have lived longer being overweight and not eating twinkies? The results of that test indicates his health was better than it was before. Not worse
0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »jardimgirl wrote: »sorry, i meant fit like flat belly, nice toned legs etc
You can lose weight eating whatever you want. You are unlikely to stick to your calorie and macro goals eating just pizza and cake. You probably won't hit your micronutrient needs without fruits and vegetables. If you are hitting your macros, staying within your calorie goal, getting appropriate nutrients then there is no reason you have to miss out on cake or pizza or ice cream.
myfitnesspal.com/blog/usmcmp/view/good-vs-bad-foods-610144
this.
Who is the mad flagger for this thread?
wow- how do you get flagged for quoting and saying "this"
that's an all new low.
well I believe people have gotten warnings if not strikes for this in the past. certainly for "no"s. *shrugs*
how do you get a strike for that- what's the logic behind it?
Welcome to MFP. I got a strike for posting a picture of a side-by-side shotgun once. Not a warning, a strike. And I even appealed it and it was upheld. Apparently not an appropriate "side by side" picture, as was the theme of the thread in question.
I must be new here for not understand this.
for real. just epic facepalmery- oh well.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Weight loss on it's own improves most health markers so the twinkies had little to do with that. Eating mostly twinkies at maintenance I'm sure would show a different story, and in a surplus I would suspect a whole mess of problems.JeffseekingV wrote: »The Twinkie diet proved that calorie deficit makes you lose regardless of anything else. You might die in 5 years but you will lose weight.
Given that diet improved his health markers, how do you know he would have lived longer being overweight and not eating twinkies? The results of that test indicates his health was better than it was before. Not worse
He ate twinkies for 3/4 of his calories. How did the twinkies have a "little" do do with it? If he lost weight and then ate at twinkies at maintanance, his health markers would stay the same.0 -
Losing weight improves health markers regardless of what someone eats, so the twinkies really don't factor into improved health markers, but that's not to say that you don't believe twinkies improves a persons health. And no, if he replaced 75% of the normal foods that he ate, which I'm going to presume where mostly whole foods with twinkies his health markers would deteriorate at maintenance and in a surplus, well we know what happens when we eat too much regardless of the nutrient source, right?JeffseekingV wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Weight loss on it's own improves most health markers so the twinkies had little to do with that. Eating mostly twinkies at maintenance I'm sure would show a different story, and in a surplus I would suspect a whole mess of problems.JeffseekingV wrote: »The Twinkie diet proved that calorie deficit makes you lose regardless of anything else. You might die in 5 years but you will lose weight.
Given that diet improved his health markers, how do you know he would have lived longer being overweight and not eating twinkies? The results of that test indicates his health was better than it was before. Not worse
He ate twinkies for 3/4 of his calories. How did the twinkies have a "little" do do with it? If he lost weight and then ate at twinkies at maintanance, his health markers would stay the same.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Weight loss on it's own improves most health markers so the twinkies had little to do with that. Eating mostly twinkies at maintenance I'm sure would show a different story, and in a surplus I would suspect a whole mess of problems.JeffseekingV wrote: »The Twinkie diet proved that calorie deficit makes you lose regardless of anything else. You might die in 5 years but you will lose weight.
Given that diet improved his health markers, how do you know he would have lived longer being overweight and not eating twinkies? The results of that test indicates his health was better than it was before. Not worse
Mmmm, surplus of twinkies.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Losing weight improves health markers regardless of what someone eats, so the twinkies really don't factor into improved health markers, but that's not to say that you don't believe twinkies improves a persons health. And no, if he replaced 75% of the normal foods that he ate, which I'm going to presume where mostly whole foods with twinkies his health markers would deteriorate at maintenance and in a surplus, well we know what happens when we eat too much regardless of the nutrient source, right?JeffseekingV wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Weight loss on it's own improves most health markers so the twinkies had little to do with that. Eating mostly twinkies at maintenance I'm sure would show a different story, and in a surplus I would suspect a whole mess of problems.JeffseekingV wrote: »The Twinkie diet proved that calorie deficit makes you lose regardless of anything else. You might die in 5 years but you will lose weight.
Given that diet improved his health markers, how do you know he would have lived longer being overweight and not eating twinkies? The results of that test indicates his health was better than it was before. Not worse
He ate twinkies for 3/4 of his calories. How did the twinkies have a "little" do do with it? If he lost weight and then ate at twinkies at maintanance, his health markers would stay the same.
Again, how can a food that accounted for 3/4 of his caloric intake not have something to do with his improved health markers. If his health markers are what they are @ a specific weight, why would they get worse if the stays at this weight? His health markers improved because he went from a higher weight to this weight. You are ASSUMING he would eat over maintenance with twinkies. Here's the problem, if he ate over maintenance on ANYTHING and gained all the weight back, his health markers would probably get worse again. Whether it was twinkies or otherwise.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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