3 day Military Diet
Options
Replies
-
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"?!
Don't forget the ice cream!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.
Yep your preaching to the choir its silly, that's why I used it as an example to help make a drive home a point to the OP as to not just focus on losing weight but losing body Fat % 0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »
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
Seriously?!?!! Now I've heard it all!!!
0 -
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.
(This is actually an honest question, I'm not trying to play devil's advocate...)
Do you need to eat protein to maintain muscle? That seems to be the concept here on MFP. Or is that bro-science? Even the Guide or Sexypants says to eat 0.8g/LBM (don't quote me here I didn't actually read it again) protein daily.
By that logic, a Twinkly only diet (and yep, I realize no one actually means eat only Twinklies) which may not have much protein could result in muscle loss.... so if you're saying a particular food doesn't know how to cut fat over muscle, how does a different food know how to retain muscle over fat?
(I realize I said "Twinkly" and "Twinklies" but I decided it was too cute a mistake to fix).
My own unscientific opinion would be the fact that the chemical makeup of protein vs "Twinkly" food would react different with our body's chemical processes... wouldn't that make the difference? It's not the food that's the problem... just how our bodies use it...0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »
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
Seriously?!?!! Now I've heard it all!!!
Your welcome
but in seriousness if you don't understand basic biology please, no need to refer to sarcasm, I was helping the OP to focus on losing "body Fat %" and not just focus on the number on the scale....
0 -
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.
Do you need to eat protein to maintain muscle? That seems to be the concept here on MFP. Or is that bro-science? Even the Guide or Sexypants says to eat 0.8g/LBM (don't quote me here I didn't actually read it again) protein daily.
By that logic, a Twinkly only diet (and yep, I realize no one actually means eat only Twinklies) which may not have much protein could result in muscle loss.... so if a food doesn't know how to cut fat over muscle, how does a different food know how to retain muscle over fat?
(I realize I said "Twinkly" and "Twinklies" but I decided it was too cute a mistake to fix).
Protein is an essential macro, and yes, that gram to LBM ratio is recommended. What I was challenging was the original post saying that junk food consumption will lead to bone/muscle loss, rather than fat loss, which is not the case. Calories are calories. I can have a cheeseburger from McDonald's (regularly classified as "junk food") and stay within my fat and calories for the day, while getting 15g boost of protein from that sandwich.
Also, I agree that mistake is cute, and I agree with your decision not to fix it.
Edit: I will also add that maintenance and/or calorie surpluses are needed for gains. One won't build muscle in a deficit, so one goal should be to minimize LBM loss during weight loss. Making sure one is eating enough and getting a reasonable amount of protein in per day for their activity level is important. But bodies can't distinguish "junk" protein/calories from "healthy" protein/calories.0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »
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
Seriously?!?!! Now I've heard it all!!!
Your welcome but in seriousness if you don't understand basic biology please, no need to refer to sarcasm, I was helping the OP to focus on losing "body Fat %" and not just focus on the number on the scale....
Noob with 11 posts questioning one of the most knowledgeable posters on MFP about her understanding of basic biology...
0 -
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.
(This is actually an honest question, I'm not trying to play devil's advocate...)
Do you need to eat protein to maintain muscle? That seems to be the concept here on MFP. Or is that bro-science? Even the Guide or Sexypants says to eat 0.8g/LBM (don't quote me here I didn't actually read it again) protein daily.
By that logic, a Twinkly only diet (and yep, I realize no one actually means eat only Twinklies) which may not have much protein could result in muscle loss.... so if you're saying a particular food doesn't know how to cut fat over muscle, how does a different food know how to retain muscle over fat?
(I realize I said "Twinkly" and "Twinklies" but I decided it was too cute a mistake to fix).
My own unscientific opinion would be the fact that the chemical makeup of protein vs "Twinkly" food would react different with our body's chemical processes... wouldn't that make the difference? It's not the food that's the problem... just how our bodies use it...
I'm not saying a food "Knows" how to cut something over something else, this is a mechanism the body does based on what type of food and macro nutrients are entering the body. I can get into detail , but the body uses protein differently that carbs( Sugar , starch) at basic chemist biology type level.
Edit" also the bottom part of that quote wasn't in your post for some reason, but the last part of what you said is what I'm referring too 0 -
missiontofitness 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.
Do you need to eat protein to maintain muscle? That seems to be the concept here on MFP. Or is that bro-science? Even the Guide or Sexypants says to eat 0.8g/LBM (don't quote me here I didn't actually read it again) protein daily.
By that logic, a Twinkly only diet (and yep, I realize no one actually means eat only Twinklies) which may not have much protein could result in muscle loss.... so if a food doesn't know how to cut fat over muscle, how does a different food know how to retain muscle over fat?
(I realize I said "Twinkly" and "Twinklies" but I decided it was too cute a mistake to fix).
Protein is an essential macro, and yes, that gram to LBM ratio is recommended. What I was challenging was the original post saying that junk food consumption will lead to bone/muscle loss, rather than fat loss, which is not the case. Calories are calories. I can have a cheeseburger from McDonald's (regularly classified as "junk food") and stay within my fat and calories for the day, while getting 15g boost of protein from that sandwich.
Also, I agree that mistake is cute, and I agree with your decision not to fix it.
Oh yes, I see. Logically you would also lose fat. But you may lose more muscle than intended if you're missing protein. Gotcha.0 -
missiontofitness 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.
Do you need to eat protein to maintain muscle? That seems to be the concept here on MFP. Or is that bro-science? Even the Guide or Sexypants says to eat 0.8g/LBM (don't quote me here I didn't actually read it again) protein daily.
By that logic, a Twinkly only diet (and yep, I realize no one actually means eat only Twinklies) which may not have much protein could result in muscle loss.... so if a food doesn't know how to cut fat over muscle, how does a different food know how to retain muscle over fat?
(I realize I said "Twinkly" and "Twinklies" but I decided it was too cute a mistake to fix).
Protein is an essential macro, and yes, that gram to LBM ratio is recommended. What I was challenging was the original post saying that junk food consumption will lead to bone/muscle loss, rather than fat loss, which is not the case. Calories are calories. I can have a cheeseburger from McDonald's (regularly classified as "junk food") and stay within my fat and calories for the day, while getting 15g boost of protein from that sandwich.
Also, I agree that mistake is cute, and I agree with your decision not to fix it.
Oh yes, I see. Logically you would also lose fat. But you may lose more muscle than intended if you're missing protein. Gotcha.
I also just added some additional information in my response before you re-quoted it. Just about gains and LBM and stuff!
0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »
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
Seriously?!?!! Now I've heard it all!!!
Didn't you know that when you lost your weight (wasn't it over 100lbs), you only lost muscle and no fat because you ate sugar while losing?!0 -
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.
(This is actually an honest question, I'm not trying to play devil's advocate...)
Do you need to eat protein to maintain muscle? That seems to be the concept here on MFP. Or is that bro-science? Even the Guide or Sexypants says to eat 0.8g/LBM (don't quote me here I didn't actually read it again) protein daily.
By that logic, a Twinkly only diet (and yep, I realize no one actually means eat only Twinklies) which may not have much protein could result in muscle loss.... so if you're saying a particular food doesn't know how to cut fat over muscle, how does a different food know how to retain muscle over fat?
(I realize I said "Twinkly" and "Twinklies" but I decided it was too cute a mistake to fix).
My own unscientific opinion would be the fact that the chemical makeup of protein vs "Twinkly" food would react different with our body's chemical processes... wouldn't that make the difference? It's not the food that's the problem... just how our bodies use it...
I can't remember the study, but there have been studies that looked at this, and while adequate protein intake does decrease the amount of muscle lost during weight loss, this was vastly dwarfed by the ability of resistance training to reduce the amount of muscle loss.
So yes, you can optimize muscle retention by eating adequate protein and incorporating resistance training.
Saying eating a twinkie will negate fat loss is moronic.0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »Zmanning89 wrote: »
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
Seriously?!?!! Now I've heard it all!!!
Your welcome but in seriousness if you don't understand basic biology please, no need to refer to sarcasm, I was helping the OP to focus on losing "body Fat %" and not just focus on the number on the scale....
Noob with 11 posts questioning one of the most knowledgeable posters on MFP about her understanding of basic biology...
I'm not a Noob when it comes to Nutrition, I'm new to this site though, but so far everybody is very hostile and seem to not understand basic nutritional science.-1 -
A Twinkie actually DOES have a bit of protein (likely in the cream filling). I think it's something like 4% of the calories. So there are probably MUCH worse foods than Twinkies to fill up on.
This reminds me of an article I read that talked about how junk foods come in different levels. There is a lot of difference between candy (which is solid sugar) and chocolate (which has some protein and fat and other "nutritious" stuff). Cheeseburgers and pizza were put into a medium-junk bucket. They are not all bad . . . they have protein, and pizza even has vegetables! The point was that you're not going to kill yourself with a slice of pizza; there are worse things in the world. Just don't eat it (or Twinkies) all day long.0 -
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.
(This is actually an honest question, I'm not trying to play devil's advocate...)
Do you need to eat protein to maintain muscle? That seems to be the concept here on MFP. Or is that bro-science? Even the Guide or Sexypants says to eat 0.8g/LBM (don't quote me here I didn't actually read it again) protein daily.
By that logic, a Twinkly only diet (and yep, I realize no one actually means eat only Twinklies) which may not have much protein could result in muscle loss.... so if you're saying a particular food doesn't know how to cut fat over muscle, how does a different food know how to retain muscle over fat?
(I realize I said "Twinkly" and "Twinklies" but I decided it was too cute a mistake to fix).
My own unscientific opinion would be the fact that the chemical makeup of protein vs "Twinkly" food would react different with our body's chemical processes... wouldn't that make the difference? It's not the food that's the problem... just how our bodies use it...
I can't remember the study, but there have been studies that looked at this, and while adequate protein intake does decrease the amount of muscle lost during weight loss, this was vastly dwarfed by the ability of resistance training to reduce the amount of muscle loss.
So yes, you can optimize muscle retention by eating adequate protein and incorporating resistance training.
This. Bodies like adequate calories. And protein. And when you pick up heavy thing and put them down. They cannot distinguish your pizza calories/protein, from eating 6 ounces of chicken for dinner calories/protein.0 -
missiontofitness 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.
Do you need to eat protein to maintain muscle? That seems to be the concept here on MFP. Or is that bro-science? Even the Guide or Sexypants says to eat 0.8g/LBM (don't quote me here I didn't actually read it again) protein daily.
By that logic, a Twinkly only diet (and yep, I realize no one actually means eat only Twinklies) which may not have much protein could result in muscle loss.... so if a food doesn't know how to cut fat over muscle, how does a different food know how to retain muscle over fat?
(I realize I said "Twinkly" and "Twinklies" but I decided it was too cute a mistake to fix).
Protein is an essential macro, and yes, that gram to LBM ratio is recommended. What I was challenging was the original post saying that junk food consumption will lead to bone/muscle loss, rather than fat loss, which is not the case. Calories are calories. I can have a cheeseburger from McDonald's (regularly classified as "junk food") and stay within my fat and calories for the day, while getting 15g boost of protein from that sandwich.
Also, I agree that mistake is cute, and I agree with your decision not to fix it.
Edit: I will also add that maintenance and/or calorie surpluses are needed for gains. One won't build muscle in a deficit, so one goal should be to minimize LBM loss during weight loss. Making sure one is eating enough and getting a reasonable amount of protein in per day for their activity level is important. But bodies can't distinguish "junk" protein/calories from "healthy" protein/calories.
Also " One won't build muscle in a deficit" is false, you can build lean muscle while burning Fat, in a calorie defect. I'm gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time, and most day I'm in a Deficit, but yet my muscles keep getting bigger but you need resistance training and also adequate protein and fat (support normal hormone levels)
I like your passion, but calories are not equal, for example a Big Mac, and a grass fed steak and salad, lets say they had the same Protein , Fat, and Carbs (as example) the Calories you get the Grass Fed steak and salad are much better for the body than processed crap, like a big mac, even though you could still lose weight and body fat % it would not be as healthy of an option.
0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness 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.
Do you need to eat protein to maintain muscle? That seems to be the concept here on MFP. Or is that bro-science? Even the Guide or Sexypants says to eat 0.8g/LBM (don't quote me here I didn't actually read it again) protein daily.
By that logic, a Twinkly only diet (and yep, I realize no one actually means eat only Twinklies) which may not have much protein could result in muscle loss.... so if a food doesn't know how to cut fat over muscle, how does a different food know how to retain muscle over fat?
(I realize I said "Twinkly" and "Twinklies" but I decided it was too cute a mistake to fix).
Protein is an essential macro, and yes, that gram to LBM ratio is recommended. What I was challenging was the original post saying that junk food consumption will lead to bone/muscle loss, rather than fat loss, which is not the case. Calories are calories. I can have a cheeseburger from McDonald's (regularly classified as "junk food") and stay within my fat and calories for the day, while getting 15g boost of protein from that sandwich.
Also, I agree that mistake is cute, and I agree with your decision not to fix it.
Edit: I will also add that maintenance and/or calorie surpluses are needed for gains. One won't build muscle in a deficit, so one goal should be to minimize LBM loss during weight loss. Making sure one is eating enough and getting a reasonable amount of protein in per day for their activity level is important. But bodies can't distinguish "junk" protein/calories from "healthy" protein/calories.
Also " One won't build muscle in a deficit" is false, you can build lean muscle while burning Fat, in a calorie defect. I'm gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time, and most day I'm in a Deficit, but yet my muscles keep getting bigger but you need resistance training and also adequate protein and fat (support normal hormone levels)
I like your passion, but calories are not equal, for example a Big Mac, and a grass fed steak and salad, lets say they had the same Protein , Fat, and Carbs (as example) the Calories you get the Grass Fed steak and salad are much better for the body than processed crap, like a big mac, even though you could still lose weight and body fat % it would not be as healthy of an option.
A calorie is a unit of measurement . 1 calorie = 1 calorie just as 1 inch= 1 inch. The nutritional panels are different and someone may choose a different food based on the macro break down.....0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness 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.
Do you need to eat protein to maintain muscle? That seems to be the concept here on MFP. Or is that bro-science? Even the Guide or Sexypants says to eat 0.8g/LBM (don't quote me here I didn't actually read it again) protein daily.
By that logic, a Twinkly only diet (and yep, I realize no one actually means eat only Twinklies) which may not have much protein could result in muscle loss.... so if a food doesn't know how to cut fat over muscle, how does a different food know how to retain muscle over fat?
(I realize I said "Twinkly" and "Twinklies" but I decided it was too cute a mistake to fix).
Protein is an essential macro, and yes, that gram to LBM ratio is recommended. What I was challenging was the original post saying that junk food consumption will lead to bone/muscle loss, rather than fat loss, which is not the case. Calories are calories. I can have a cheeseburger from McDonald's (regularly classified as "junk food") and stay within my fat and calories for the day, while getting 15g boost of protein from that sandwich.
Also, I agree that mistake is cute, and I agree with your decision not to fix it.
Edit: I will also add that maintenance and/or calorie surpluses are needed for gains. One won't build muscle in a deficit, so one goal should be to minimize LBM loss during weight loss. Making sure one is eating enough and getting a reasonable amount of protein in per day for their activity level is important. But bodies can't distinguish "junk" protein/calories from "healthy" protein/calories.
I like your passion, but calories are not equal, for example a Big Mac, and a grass fed steak and salad, lets say they had the same Protein , Fat, and Carbs (as example) the Calories you get the Grass Fed steak and salad are much better for the body than processed crap, like a big mac, even though you could still lose weight and body fat % it would not be as healthy of an option.
What is healthy?
You're using a lot of terms that are debatable in these forums, as everyone's definition of "healthy" is different.
Additionally, I bolded the part that supports my original comment challenging the junk food/fat loss debate. So I'll consider that a moot point now.
0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness 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.
Do you need to eat protein to maintain muscle? That seems to be the concept here on MFP. Or is that bro-science? Even the Guide or Sexypants says to eat 0.8g/LBM (don't quote me here I didn't actually read it again) protein daily.
By that logic, a Twinkly only diet (and yep, I realize no one actually means eat only Twinklies) which may not have much protein could result in muscle loss.... so if a food doesn't know how to cut fat over muscle, how does a different food know how to retain muscle over fat?
(I realize I said "Twinkly" and "Twinklies" but I decided it was too cute a mistake to fix).
Protein is an essential macro, and yes, that gram to LBM ratio is recommended. What I was challenging was the original post saying that junk food consumption will lead to bone/muscle loss, rather than fat loss, which is not the case. Calories are calories. I can have a cheeseburger from McDonald's (regularly classified as "junk food") and stay within my fat and calories for the day, while getting 15g boost of protein from that sandwich.
Also, I agree that mistake is cute, and I agree with your decision not to fix it.
Edit: I will also add that maintenance and/or calorie surpluses are needed for gains. One won't build muscle in a deficit, so one goal should be to minimize LBM loss during weight loss. Making sure one is eating enough and getting a reasonable amount of protein in per day for their activity level is important. But bodies can't distinguish "junk" protein/calories from "healthy" protein/calories.
Also " One won't build muscle in a deficit" is false, you can build lean muscle while burning Fat, in a calorie defect. I'm gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time, and most day I'm in a Deficit, but yet my muscles keep getting bigger but you need resistance training and also adequate protein and fat (support normal hormone levels)
I like your passion, but calories are not equal, for example a Big Mac, and a grass fed steak and salad, lets say they had the same Protein , Fat, and Carbs (as example) the Calories you get the Grass Fed steak and salad are much better for the body than processed crap, like a big mac, even though you could still lose weight and body fat % it would not be as healthy of an option.
A calorie is a unit of measurement . 1 calorie = 1 calorie just as 1 inch= 1 inch. The nutritional panels are different and someone may choose a different food based on the macro break down.....
This.
0 -
Zmanning89 wrote: »missiontofitness 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.
Do you need to eat protein to maintain muscle? That seems to be the concept here on MFP. Or is that bro-science? Even the Guide or Sexypants says to eat 0.8g/LBM (don't quote me here I didn't actually read it again) protein daily.
By that logic, a Twinkly only diet (and yep, I realize no one actually means eat only Twinklies) which may not have much protein could result in muscle loss.... so if a food doesn't know how to cut fat over muscle, how does a different food know how to retain muscle over fat?
(I realize I said "Twinkly" and "Twinklies" but I decided it was too cute a mistake to fix).
Protein is an essential macro, and yes, that gram to LBM ratio is recommended. What I was challenging was the original post saying that junk food consumption will lead to bone/muscle loss, rather than fat loss, which is not the case. Calories are calories. I can have a cheeseburger from McDonald's (regularly classified as "junk food") and stay within my fat and calories for the day, while getting 15g boost of protein from that sandwich.
Also, I agree that mistake is cute, and I agree with your decision not to fix it.
Edit: I will also add that maintenance and/or calorie surpluses are needed for gains. One won't build muscle in a deficit, so one goal should be to minimize LBM loss during weight loss. Making sure one is eating enough and getting a reasonable amount of protein in per day for their activity level is important. But bodies can't distinguish "junk" protein/calories from "healthy" protein/calories.
Also " One won't build muscle in a deficit" is false, you can build lean muscle while burning Fat, in a calorie defect. I'm gaining muscle and losing fat at the same time, and most day I'm in a Deficit, but yet my muscles keep getting bigger but you need resistance training and also adequate protein and fat (support normal hormone levels)
I like your passion, but calories are not equal, for example a Big Mac, and a grass fed steak and salad, lets say they had the same Protein , Fat, and Carbs (as example) the Calories you get the Grass Fed steak and salad are much better for the body than processed crap, like a big mac, even though you could still lose weight and body fat % it would not be as healthy of an option.
A calorie is a unit of measurement . 1 calorie = 1 calorie just as 1 inch= 1 inch. The nutritional panels are different and someone may choose a different food based on the macro break down.....
Your correct, but That not what I ment,, a Calorie as a "measurement" is the same, but not all Calories are equal in terms of quality, for example 1 gram of processed pepperoni protein, has a different amino acid profile , 1g of protein from a natural chicken breast or a Grass Fed steak, they all have different Amino acids that build up these proteins, not all proteins are of the same quality is what I'm saying.
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