All calories are not created equal
Options
Replies
-
dpgalbreath wrote: »Lol!!! at you all. Get over yourselves people. These are just MY observations about MY experiences, I did not just fall off the cabbage truck and I'm not telling anyone how to eat. If it OFFENDS you that I'm telling you what I have noticed then I guess you all will have to GET OVER IT!!!
If it offends you that people respond to your observations, perhaps you should get over it.0 -
I prefer the term green over "new"
You made a statement in the title like that and thought no one would comment on it disagreeing with you? You must be new here.dpgalbreath wrote: »Lol!!! at you all. Get over yourselves people. These are just MY observations about MY experiences, I did not just fall off the cabbage truck and I'm not telling anyone how to eat. If it OFFENDS you that I'm telling you what I have noticed then I guess you all will have to GET OVER IT!!!
0 -
"Cabbage truck"?
Anyway OP - as others have pointed out, bumping up carbohydrate intake beyond "normal" (whatever it means for the person at issue) can often "stall" or "slow" weight loss. But this is water weight fluctuation as opposed to fat gains or reduction in fat losses. Just like a big increase in sodium can add some water retention, which affects scale weight but not necessarily fat loss efforts. The scale weight isn't the be-all, end-all measurement for one's weight loss efforts.0 -
Hm. My carb intake has been WAYYYY over 30% (More like between 50-60%, and I've still managed to lose an average of 2 pounds a week in the 71 days I've been using MFP.
That's just my observation
0 -
CharlieRuns7225 wrote: »About 25% of the adult population produces excessive insulin in response to rapidly absorbed carbohydrates. These insulin-resistant individuals increase their risk for obesity by consistently consuming such a diet. Weight gain occurs because excessive insulin facilitates glucose oxidation at the expense of fatty acid oxidation; it also stimulates fat storage in adipose tissue. The insulin surge in response to high-glycemic carbohydrate intake often abnormally decreases blood glucose. This “rebound hypoglycemia” sets off hunger signals that may trigger overeating. A repetitive scenario of high blood sugar followed by low blood sugar exerts the most profound effect on sedentary obese individuals who show the greatest insulin resistance and an exaggerated insulin response to a blood glucose challenge.
Great to have such an educated individual as one of my support group!0 -
dpgalbreath wrote: »Lol!!! at you all. Get over yourselves people. These are just MY observations about MY experiences, I did not just fall off the cabbage truck and I'm not telling anyone how to eat. If it OFFENDS you that I'm telling you what I have noticed then I guess you all will have to GET OVER IT!!!
So, I'm taking it you're not going to take suggestions and observations from people in this thread that aren't subscribing to what you're saying?
I've noticed I lost more weight when I stick to my calorie goal that keeps me in a deficit. Which includes ice cream a lot.
It just mean ice cream= weight loss.0 -
dpgalbreath wrote: »I have noticed when my carb count is above 30% on any given day my weight loss stops. Just counting calories isn't the only deciding factor for success in my weight loss.
I'm sure if I were more active that the carbs would burn off quickly and not affect the weight loss as much.
So now that the weather is clearing up the dogs and I are going to be
Out there pouring on the steam and it is back to spinach salads and chicken breast, boiled eggs, and grapefruit and less bread and potatoes.
Even though my calorie count has been 100-300 lower Than suggested before any activity has been calculated everyday my weight loss stopped, and it is way to early in the game for that to be happening.
I run into the same issue. i stay away from refined sugars and processed food most of the time but i find that any breads (even if i make them myself) or pastas in particular stiffle my weightloss. Other carbs dont have the same effect. Everyone's body is different. Listen to the signals that your body sends you. Nobody knows better than you how certain foods are impacting you. Best of luck!
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »From what you wrote in the OP you do not know how this process works. Macro distribution does not matter for weight loss. Unless there is a medical issue.
That's not really correct outside of a narrow theoretical sense, as many people find certain macro ratios easies to handle than others, especially when in a state of caloric deficit.
Macro distribution may not matter for working out CICO equations, but in the real world where real people have to implement and stick to actual meal plans, macros absolutely do matter, for many (possibly most) people.
0 -
dpgalbreath wrote: »Lol!!! at you all. Get over yourselves people. These are just MY observations about MY experiences, I did not just fall off the cabbage truck and I'm not telling anyone how to eat. If it OFFENDS you that I'm telling you what I have noticed then I guess you all will have to GET OVER IT!!!
You had replies that were not offensive or rude.0 -
dpgalbreath wrote: »Lol!!! at you all. Get over yourselves people. These are just MY observations about MY experiences, I did not just fall off the cabbage truck and I'm not telling anyone how to eat. If it OFFENDS you that I'm telling you what I have noticed then I guess you all will have to GET OVER IT!!!
Ironically, that's the first genuinely rude post in the thread.
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »From what you wrote in the OP you do not know how this process works. Macro distribution does not matter for weight loss. Unless there is a medical issue.
That's not really correct outside of a narrow theoretical sense, as many people find certain macro ratios easies to handle than others, especially when in a state of caloric deficit.
Macro distribution may not matter for working out CICO equations, but in the real world where real people have to implement and stick to actual meal plans, macros absolutely do matter, for many (possibly most) people.
OP talking about optimal health? Or is she talking about weight loss?
Are you going to lose more weight eating same calorie deficit with different marco %?0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »From what you wrote in the OP you do not know how this process works. Macro distribution does not matter for weight loss. Unless there is a medical issue.
That's not really correct outside of a narrow theoretical sense, as many people find certain macro ratios easies to handle than others, especially when in a state of caloric deficit.
Macro distribution may not matter for working out CICO equations, but in the real world where real people have to implement and stick to actual meal plans, macros absolutely do matter, for many (possibly most) people.
OP talking about optimal health? Or is she talking about weight loss?
Doesn't matter.Are you going to lose more weight eating same calorie deficit with different marco %?
That's the wrong question. It is, in fact, a meaningless question that begs its own answer.
If a macro ratio cannot be adhered to, it will not lead to weight loss. Since adherence is a major component of weight loss success, macros matter for weight loss - by definition.
The question that matters is "will this macro distribution, at this caloric intake and this level of caloric output, allow me to maintain a caloric deficit long enough to lose the weight I plan to lose".
0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »From what you wrote in the OP you do not know how this process works. Macro distribution does not matter for weight loss. Unless there is a medical issue.
That's not really correct outside of a narrow theoretical sense, as many people find certain macro ratios easies to handle than others, especially when in a state of caloric deficit.
Macro distribution may not matter for working out CICO equations, but in the real world where real people have to implement and stick to actual meal plans, macros absolutely do matter, for many (possibly most) people.
OP talking about optimal health? Or is she talking about weight loss?
Doesn't matter.Are you going to lose more weight eating same calorie deficit with different marco %?
That's the wrong question. It is, in fact, a meaningless question that begs its own answer.
If a macro ratio cannot be adhered to, it will not lead to weight loss. Since adherence is a major component of weight loss success, macros matter for weight loss - by definition.
The question that matters is "will this macro distribution, at this caloric intake and this level of caloric output, allow me to maintain a caloric deficit long enough to lose the weight I plan to lose".
I said calorie deficit so the CI part of the equation has already been stated. Also the calorie deficit covers the CO part too. Calorie deficit equals lose fat/muscle/water right or does it have some complex meaning now?
You seem to make questions more complex than they are. My question was perfectly fine.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »From what you wrote in the OP you do not know how this process works. Macro distribution does not matter for weight loss. Unless there is a medical issue.
That's not really correct outside of a narrow theoretical sense, as many people find certain macro ratios easies to handle than others, especially when in a state of caloric deficit.
Macro distribution may not matter for working out CICO equations, but in the real world where real people have to implement and stick to actual meal plans, macros absolutely do matter, for many (possibly most) people.
OP talking about optimal health? Or is she talking about weight loss?
Doesn't matter.Are you going to lose more weight eating same calorie deficit with different marco %?
That's the wrong question. It is, in fact, a meaningless question that begs its own answer.
If a macro ratio cannot be adhered to, it will not lead to weight loss. Since adherence is a major component of weight loss success, macros matter for weight loss - by definition.
The question that matters is "will this macro distribution, at this caloric intake and this level of caloric output, allow me to maintain a caloric deficit long enough to lose the weight I plan to lose".
I said calorie deficit so the CI part of the equation has already been stated. Also the calorie deficit covers the CO part too. Calorie deficit equals lose fat/muscle/water right or does it have some complex meaning now?
You seem to make questions more complex than they are. My question was perfectly fine.
It's the other way around - you're making the question to simple to make the answers useful in real world application.
0 -
If macros affect body composition over time, then yes, they obviously affect weight loss, LBM is metabolically more active. But within a reasonable set of parameters they are secondary to calories consumed.
0 -
Lezavargas wrote: »dpgalbreath wrote: »I have noticed when my carb count is above 30% on any given day my weight loss stops. Just counting calories isn't the only deciding factor for success in my weight loss.
I'm sure if I were more active that the carbs would burn off quickly and not affect the weight loss as much.
So now that the weather is clearing up the dogs and I are going to be
Out there pouring on the steam and it is back to spinach salads and chicken breast, boiled eggs, and grapefruit and less bread and potatoes.
Even though my calorie count has been 100-300 lower Than suggested before any activity has been calculated everyday my weight loss stopped, and it is way to early in the game for that to be happening.
I run into the same issue. i stay away from refined sugars and processed food most of the time but i find that any breads (even if i make them myself) or pastas in particular stiffle my weightloss. Other carbs dont have the same effect. Everyone's body is different. Listen to the signals that your body sends you. Nobody knows better than you how certain foods are impacting you. Best of luck!
I also lose weight faster if I reduce starchy carbs.
I'm sure for plenty of people that's not an issue, but we all do what works for us.
So, OP, you carry on with what works for you.0 -
Well I wasn't trying to be rude. I am Not claiming to be dietitian. I'm just a person who joined a group of others who are supposedly doing the same thing and I suppose looking for support from each other, not ridicule because I made a statement that in some opinions was not "scientifically correct". I simply was making an observation on my diary sight under the nutritional breakdown that this sight provides based on my diet record which as I stated before "on the days where I ate less then 30% carbs I consistently lost from 1/4-1/2 of a pound. But on those days that I ate more carbs than that my weight did not go down. Whether it was water weight or fat I don't know and neither do you. So please don't turn it into a question it was simply an OBSERVATION.0
-
DawnieB1977 wrote: »Lezavargas wrote: »dpgalbreath wrote: »I have noticed when my carb count is above 30% on any given day my weight loss stops. Just counting calories isn't the only deciding factor for success in my weight loss.
I'm sure if I were more active that the carbs would burn off quickly and not affect the weight loss as much.
So now that the weather is clearing up the dogs and I are going to be
Out there pouring on the steam and it is back to spinach salads and chicken breast, boiled eggs, and grapefruit and less bread and potatoes.
Even though my calorie count has been 100-300 lower Than suggested before any activity has been calculated everyday my weight loss stopped, and it is way to early in the game for that to be happening.
I run into the same issue. i stay away from refined sugars and processed food most of the time but i find that any breads (even if i make them myself) or pastas in particular stiffle my weightloss. Other carbs dont have the same effect. Everyone's body is different. Listen to the signals that your body sends you. Nobody knows better than you how certain foods are impacting you. Best of luck!
I also lose weight faster if I reduce starchy carbs.
I'm sure for plenty of people that's not an issue, but we all do what works for us.
So, OP, you carry on with what works for you.
0 -
not sure if you are willing to, but if you open diary you might get some more precise advice0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions