3 day Military Diet
Options
Replies
-
missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Why does cico always boil down to eating twinkies all day. No one advocates this.
Not sure if this was directed at me; just woke up from a nap so still a bit groggy. If it is, I want to know the evidence showing that "junk" food causes bone and muscle loss over fat loss.0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Why does cico always boil down to eating twinkies all day. No one advocates this.
Nor was I saying that. I want to know the evidence showing that "junk" food causes bone and muscle loss over fat loss.
Sorry I quoted the wrong person I meant to quote above you. I was on mobile and failed0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Which Claim exactly ? I'm not really making a "Claim" just explaining that the goal is not to lose "weight" but rather "body fat" , as "Weight" can mean anything, like Muscle , Bone Density etc, heck I can lose weight by cutting of my leg, but most people when they say they want to lose weight they are asserting they want to lose body fat, while adding lean toned muscle.
What I want to know is how these foods know how to cut fat over muscle.
Please read what I wrote, I'm not sure which foods you are talking about ? Please elaborate on what your trying to assert. Your not making any sense.
"Twinkes" if I ate only that type of food, and was in a calorie defect , due to not getting enough protein and having not enough calories in my diet, the body would soon start to break down muscle tissue to help slow down and persevere energy is what I was explaining.
In simple terms I was saying not to get to caught up in "weight" or how many LBS you lose, since weight can mean "water , muscle tissue , Fat ,
" etc. Focus on losing Body Fat %
0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Why does cico always boil down to eating twinkies all day. No one advocates this.
Nor was I saying that. I want to know the evidence showing that "junk" food causes bone and muscle loss over fat loss.
Sorry I quoted the wrong person I meant to quote above you. I was on mobile and failed
It's ok! I also changed my wording a bit. Still waking up from a nap, lol.
0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Why does cico always boil down to eating twinkies all day. No one advocates this.
Nor was I saying that. I want to know the evidence showing that "junk" food causes bone and muscle loss over fat loss.
Sorry I quoted the wrong person I meant to quote above you. I was on mobile and failed
It's ok! I also changed my wording a bit. Still waking up from a nap, lol.
Here ya go!0 -
You stated that you cannot burn fat while eating twinkies. Really?Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Which Claim exactly ? I'm not really making a "Claim" just explaining that the goal is not to lose "weight" but rather "body fat" , as "Weight" can mean anything, like Muscle , Bone Density etc, heck I can lose weight by cutting of my leg, but most people when they say they want to lose weight they are asserting they want to lose body fat, while adding lean toned muscle.
What I want to know is how these foods know how to cut fat over muscle. Please read what I wrote, I'm not sure which foods you are talking about ? Please elaborate on what your trying to assert. Your not making any sense.or example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Why does cico always boil down to eating twinkies all day. No one advocates this.
Nor did I advocate this either lol
read what I said, I'm saying that losing "weight" is not always a good thing, it depends on what your body is losing (IE Body Fat, or Muscle Tissue, Bone Density etc)
I said for Example if I ate Twinkes all day , I could lose "weight" if I was in a calorie deficit, but most of the weight lost would be Water, and Muscle, and than some fat, I'm not advocating this, I'm saying to not look at it only as in CICO and "Weight" going down, but rather what type of weight is going down
- Cheers
Honestly, it's still a silly assumption because no one is going to eat there entire days worth of calories in twinkies.0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Why does cico always boil down to eating twinkies all day. No one advocates this.
Nor was I saying that. I want to know the evidence showing that "junk" food causes bone and muscle loss over fat loss.
Sorry I quoted the wrong person I meant to quote above you. I was on mobile and failed
It's ok! I also changed my wording a bit. Still waking up from a nap, lol.
Here ya go!
I've been resisting the urge for a second Dunks iced coffee all day. This is better!
0 -
At 135 calories each, I could only eat Twinkies for about 3 minutes before reaching my daily caloric goal. If I ate them ALL DAY, I think I would probably have trouble stepping on the scale the next morning.
0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Which Claim exactly ? I'm not really making a "Claim" just explaining that the goal is not to lose "weight" but rather "body fat" , as "Weight" can mean anything, like Muscle , Bone Density etc, heck I can lose weight by cutting of my leg, but most people when they say they want to lose weight they are asserting they want to lose body fat, while adding lean toned muscle.
What I want to know is how these foods know how to cut fat over muscle. Please read what I wrote, I'm not sure which foods you are talking about ? Please elaborate on what your trying to assert. Your not making any sense.
I did. Here's a quote from your original post :Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away.
You're saying "Twinkies and junk" will lead to weight loss, but that it will lead to bone density loss and muscle. Why is that? That's what I want to know.
0 -
missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Which Claim exactly ? I'm not really making a "Claim" just explaining that the goal is not to lose "weight" but rather "body fat" , as "Weight" can mean anything, like Muscle , Bone Density etc, heck I can lose weight by cutting of my leg, but most people when they say they want to lose weight they are asserting they want to lose body fat, while adding lean toned muscle.
What I want to know is how these foods know how to cut fat over muscle. Please read what I wrote, I'm not sure which foods you are talking about ? Please elaborate on what your trying to assert. Your not making any sense.
I did. Here's a quote from your original post :Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away.
You're saying "Twinkies and junk" will lead to weight loss, but that it will lead to bone density loss and muscle. Why is that? That's what I want to know.
Because of lack of Protein, not really due to eating junk, just the lack of quality protein.0 -
By the way . . . when I started reducing calories and running (not very much at first), I lost exactly 10 pounds in the first 3 days. And there were some other odd changes in bodily functions going on. (Not much action on the toilet, for example) When I talked to my doctor the next week, he assured me it was all normal. My first 10 pounds was likely mostly water, and yours probably is, too. There's nothing unhealthy about it, and you will not gain it back . . . because you will not LET yourself gain it back. Keep it up. Just don't expect to keep this kind of weight loss going. Keep reasonable expectations, and you'll do great!
And congratulations for making the changes!0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Which Claim exactly ? I'm not really making a "Claim" just explaining that the goal is not to lose "weight" but rather "body fat" , as "Weight" can mean anything, like Muscle , Bone Density etc, heck I can lose weight by cutting of my leg, but most people when they say they want to lose weight they are asserting they want to lose body fat, while adding lean toned muscle.
What I want to know is how these foods know how to cut fat over muscle. Please read what I wrote, I'm not sure which foods you are talking about ? Please elaborate on what your trying to assert. Your not making any sense.
"Twinkes" if I ate only that type of food, and was in a calorie defect , due to not getting enough protein and having not enough calories in my diet, the body would soon start to break down muscle tissue to help slow down and persevere energy is what I was explaining.
In simple terms I was saying not to get to caught up in "weight" or how many LBS you lose, since weight can mean "water , muscle tissue , Fat ," etc. Focus on losing Body Fat %
Pretty sure your claim that you can eat twinkies and lose weight but only be from muscle and bones, and not fat, is the part that doesn't make sense.
Any time someone loses weight they run the risk of losing lean muscle in addition to water and fat (not sure where bone density plays into this). This is why VLCD are not recommended and why strength training while losing weight in order to help preserve the lean muscle mass is recommended. That is regardless of whether or not someone is eating twinkies.
Also, just for the record, if anyone is advocating ridiculous dietary choices, it isn't the IIFYM pro-Twinkie crowd. Have you looked at the food recommendations on the Military Diet? Hot dogs and saltines?
0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Which Claim exactly ? I'm not really making a "Claim" just explaining that the goal is not to lose "weight" but rather "body fat" , as "Weight" can mean anything, like Muscle , Bone Density etc, heck I can lose weight by cutting of my leg, but most people when they say they want to lose weight they are asserting they want to lose body fat, while adding lean toned muscle.
What I want to know is how these foods know how to cut fat over muscle. Please read what I wrote, I'm not sure which foods you are talking about ? Please elaborate on what your trying to assert. Your not making any sense.
I did. Here's a quote from your original post :Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away.
You're saying "Twinkies and junk" will lead to weight loss, but that it will lead to bone density loss and muscle. Why is that? That's what I want to know.
Because of lack of Protein, not really due to eating junk, just the lack of quality protein.
So if I eat 1400 calories of nutritious food plus a single twinkie and I'm in a calorie deficit, I will only lose water, bone density, and muscle because "twinkie"?!0 -
You stated that you cannot burn fat while eating twinkies. Really?Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Which Claim exactly ? I'm not really making a "Claim" just explaining that the goal is not to lose "weight" but rather "body fat" , as "Weight" can mean anything, like Muscle , Bone Density etc, heck I can lose weight by cutting of my leg, but most people when they say they want to lose weight they are asserting they want to lose body fat, while adding lean toned muscle.
What I want to know is how these foods know how to cut fat over muscle. Please read what I wrote, I'm not sure which foods you are talking about ? Please elaborate on what your trying to assert. Your not making any sense.or example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
You can burn Fat, of course, just that your body in this state would break down more muscle than fat, due to no having enough protein to support protein synthesis. I was making an simple example to not just focus on weight, and focus more in Body Fat %
Whats with all the hostility 0 -
You stated that you cannot burn fat while eating twinkies. Really?Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Which Claim exactly ? I'm not really making a "Claim" just explaining that the goal is not to lose "weight" but rather "body fat" , as "Weight" can mean anything, like Muscle , Bone Density etc, heck I can lose weight by cutting of my leg, but most people when they say they want to lose weight they are asserting they want to lose body fat, while adding lean toned muscle.
What I want to know is how these foods know how to cut fat over muscle. Please read what I wrote, I'm not sure which foods you are talking about ? Please elaborate on what your trying to assert. Your not making any sense.or example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
You can burn Fat, of course, just that your body in this state would break down more muscle than fat, due to no having enough protein to support protein synthesis. I was making an simple example to not just focus on weight, and focus more in Body Fat %
Whats with all the hostility 0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Which Claim exactly ? I'm not really making a "Claim" just explaining that the goal is not to lose "weight" but rather "body fat" , as "Weight" can mean anything, like Muscle , Bone Density etc, heck I can lose weight by cutting of my leg, but most people when they say they want to lose weight they are asserting they want to lose body fat, while adding lean toned muscle.
What I want to know is how these foods know how to cut fat over muscle. Please read what I wrote, I'm not sure which foods you are talking about ? Please elaborate on what your trying to assert. Your not making any sense.
I did. Here's a quote from your original post :Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away.
You're saying "Twinkies and junk" will lead to weight loss, but that it will lead to bone density loss and muscle. Why is that? That's what I want to know.
Because of lack of Protein, not really due to eating junk, just the lack of quality protein.
A cheeseburger from McDonald's has 15g of protein per serving. Pretty generous amount per serving for something many classify as "junk".0 -
DaveAkeman wrote: »At 135 calories each, I could only eat Twinkies for about 3 minutes before reaching my daily caloric goal. If I ate them ALL DAY, I think I would probably have trouble stepping on the scale the next morning.
Lol same here, and I for one would have a Date with the porcelain throne 0 -
This is why the military diet suggest hot dogs and saltine crackers, way smarter choices.Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Which Claim exactly ? I'm not really making a "Claim" just explaining that the goal is not to lose "weight" but rather "body fat" , as "Weight" can mean anything, like Muscle , Bone Density etc, heck I can lose weight by cutting of my leg, but most people when they say they want to lose weight they are asserting they want to lose body fat, while adding lean toned muscle.
What I want to know is how these foods know how to cut fat over muscle. Please read what I wrote, I'm not sure which foods you are talking about ? Please elaborate on what your trying to assert. Your not making any sense.
I did. Here's a quote from your original post :Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away.
You're saying "Twinkies and junk" will lead to weight loss, but that it will lead to bone density loss and muscle. Why is that? That's what I want to know.
Because of lack of Protein, not really due to eating junk, just the lack of quality protein.
So if I eat 1400 calories of nutritious food plus a single twinkie and I'm in a calorie deficit, I will only lose water, bone density, and muscle because "twinkie"?!
0 -
This is why the military diet suggest hot dogs and saltine crackers, way smarter choices.Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away. While Fat would not be burning.
Any professional case studies to support this claim?
Which Claim exactly ? I'm not really making a "Claim" just explaining that the goal is not to lose "weight" but rather "body fat" , as "Weight" can mean anything, like Muscle , Bone Density etc, heck I can lose weight by cutting of my leg, but most people when they say they want to lose weight they are asserting they want to lose body fat, while adding lean toned muscle.
What I want to know is how these foods know how to cut fat over muscle. Please read what I wrote, I'm not sure which foods you are talking about ? Please elaborate on what your trying to assert. Your not making any sense.
I did. Here's a quote from your original post :Zmanning89 wrote: »Remember over time its about CICO Calories in , Calories Out, but remember not all "weight" is equal ... for example I could eat twinkes and Junk and still lose "Weight" but that "weight" would most of the time be my muscle and bones wasting away.
You're saying "Twinkies and junk" will lead to weight loss, but that it will lead to bone density loss and muscle. Why is that? That's what I want to know.
Because of lack of Protein, not really due to eating junk, just the lack of quality protein.
So if I eat 1400 calories of nutritious food plus a single twinkie and I'm in a calorie deficit, I will only lose water, bone density, and muscle because "twinkie"?!
Ah gotcha. :laugh:0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 404 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 987 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions