Calories vs calories
Replies
-
harryfrankham1 wrote: »A calorie is not a just a calorie, for all the people out there who preach " iifiym " name me one pro bodybuilder who uses this approach? Your body will utilize what your eating totally differently depending on when its eaten
Layne Norton
That.
And as I am not a pro bodybuilder and I have my own specific goals, I'm not sure why I'd care regardless.
0 -
You're lying. Cite one time -- one single time -- where I've ever said the only important thing about food is the calorie content. Ever.KittensMaster wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Who says that about food, though? Ever?KittensMaster wrote: »Food substances have many properties.
The calorie measurement is just one of them.
There are the nutrients, fiber content to leave you filled feeling, water content, minerals and electrolytes, the anti inflammatory index, cholesterol content, sodium, simple or complex carbs, on and on.
So this idea that for weight loss, only calories matter is still incomplete.
It all matters. Nobody wants to lose weight to the detriment of their health. Of course not.
A calorie is just one attribute of food. Learn more about food to better manage your own health. It is your life and the only body you are gonna get.
Saying a calorie is the only important thing about food is like saying the color is the only important thing in selecting a new car.
Learn about food and manage it as a tool to meet your personal goals.
I mean, sure, you pummeled that strawman into submission, but why?
It happens all the time
You do it constantly
Arguing to not explain to new people how to view food makes no sense.
Newbies have the ability to grasp the basics of food and nutrition. Especially when they ask that direct question
0 -
Wow there's some crazy debating going on here, don't get your knickers in a twist folks.. Just to clarify I do not intend to use my calories on 'junk' food I was merely wondering as I see that many people eating said 'junk' food and losing weight, I just couldn't get my head round it but I get it now, dumb question really thinking about it. And about the pizza 'junk' food comment, since it caused a bit of drama I sincerely apologise yes I'm sure there's healthy pizza options BUT my idea of a pizza and what id have is a 'choose your own 5 toppings' kebab meat, bbq chicken, pepperoni, bacon and jalapeños with extra cheese, gross right? NOT! Haha which is why I refered to it as junk0
-
KittensMaster wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Who says that about food, though? Ever?KittensMaster wrote: »Food substances have many properties.
The calorie measurement is just one of them.
There are the nutrients, fiber content to leave you filled feeling, water content, minerals and electrolytes, the anti inflammatory index, cholesterol content, sodium, simple or complex carbs, on and on.
So this idea that for weight loss, only calories matter is still incomplete.
It all matters. Nobody wants to lose weight to the detriment of their health. Of course not.
A calorie is just one attribute of food. Learn more about food to better manage your own health. It is your life and the only body you are gonna get.
Saying a calorie is the only important thing about food is like saying the color is the only important thing in selecting a new car.
Learn about food and manage it as a tool to meet your personal goals.
I mean, sure, you pummeled that strawman into submission, but why?
It happens all the time
You do it constantly
Arguing to not explain to new people how to view food makes no sense.
Newbies have the ability to grasp the basics of food and nutrition. Especially when they ask that direct question
No one ever says this... You are grasping at straws.0 -
Poor. poor pizza. It always gets miscast as the villain. Every. Single. Time.
It would be hard to come up with a more nutritionally complete food than pizza is. Calorically dense? It can be. The debil? Hardly. That's reserved for sugar, apparently.
0 -
Wow there's some crazy debating going on here, don't get your knickers in a twist folks.. Just to clarify I do not intend to use my calories on 'junk' food I was merely wondering as I see that many people eating said 'junk' food and losing weight, I just couldn't get my head round it but I get it now, dumb question really thinking about it. And about the pizza 'junk' food comment, since it caused a bit of drama I sincerely apologise yes I'm sure there's healthy pizza options BUT my idea of a pizza and what id have is a 'choose your own 5 toppings' kebab meat, bbq chicken, pepperoni, bacon and jalapeños with extra cheese, gross right? NOT! Haha which is why I refered to it as junk
Your pizza sounds delicious0 -
-
@slaite1 you and I... We got good taste haha, I would hardly call it nutritional though I can practically feel the fat oozing from my pores when I've eaten it
It has a good amount of fat, a good amount of protein and a good amount of carbs (ie...nutrition). Yes, it is calorie dense so you would need to keep an eye on that, but the nutrition is there.0 -
Disagree. People everyday do insane dieting techniques at the risk of their health to lose just 5lbs to 10lbs.KittensMaster wrote: »Nobody wants to lose weight to the detriment of their health. Of course not.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
@slaite1 you and I... We got good taste haha, I would hardly call it nutritional though I can practically feel the fat oozing from my pores when I've eaten it
Yea you'll probably get a days worth of fat in a pizza like that-but some fat is good. Plus tomato sauce, cheese and meat= lycopene, calcium, protein!
The idea is that everything has nutritional value-pizza can actually be pretty nutrient dense.0 -
Lol, you're speaking of a section of people who aren't really a big percentage of the general population.harryfrankham1 wrote: »A calorie is not a just a calorie, for all the people out there who preach " iifiym " name me one pro bodybuilder who uses this approach? Your body will utilize what your eating totally differently depending on when its eaten
Broscience don't work here. A calorie is a unit of measurement. Just like a cm is a cm or a liter is a liter.
Not to mention amateur and pro bodybuilders use a lot more "stuff" to get where they are along with training and consuming thousands of calories a day. Sitting around the house and eating 8 meals a day doesn't work for everyone nor will most people even try that regimen.
If we're sticking to the OP, a calorie is a calorie. What makes up those calories is different, but in terms of measurement, a calorie is a calorie. You'll not find any institute of science that would disagree. Bodybuilders, yes.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Look at the articles by nutritionists on the MFP blog. Here's a good one:
https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/ask-the-dietitian-is-a-calorie-a-calorie-2/
There are related articles on protein, fat, sugar, etc.0 -
Well I'll try not to feel as guilty when I demolish my "special" pizza lol I've only got about another 8 lb to go though and uv been stuck at this for a few month so I'm trying to be strict x0
-
IsaackGMOON wrote: »harryfrankham1 wrote: »A calorie is not a just a calorie, for all the people out there who preach " iifiym " name me one pro bodybuilder who uses this approach? Your body will utilize what your eating totally differently depending on when its eaten
Jay Cutler...
Lol.
+Mike Mentzer
+Dorian Yates
+all the clean eaters that meticulously hit their macros and don't even realize they are doing IIFYM
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?
The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.
However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.
But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.
I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO? I stated what I see as the truth: If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie. I don't think a average sized woman will gain weight on 1200 calories per day but her health could be affected if the calories are not (usually) from a healthy source, especially if there are any health problems to begin with (or they are on the way to developing health problems).
If she was eating more calories, say 1800 per day, then the choice of food could very well make a difference in her weight. I'm losing weight (about 2lbs / week) with a diet that is usually between 1300 and 2000 calories per day by avoiding foods that are not healthy for me. I know I do not lose (any substantial) weight when my caloric intake is around those numbers, and I am eating pizza and buns. At 1200 calories, I would lose weight (if I could maintain that long enough).lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm eating low carb to improve my health. Pizza would not be as good as a burger patty or the nuts - for me.
Sure. And saying "a calorie is a calorie" is not inconsistent with that.
I think it's important to eat a variety of vegetables, other sources of fiber, fish, and non-saturated fats. Those are among my goals. So similarly I don't think what foods I choose are irrelevant. But I'd also say a calorie is a calorie, for weight loss. (Personally, though, if I ate only cake--or only meat, for that matter--I'd feel like crap and couldn't sustain it.)
If someone had insulin resistance or other health problems, the type of calorie consumed will make some difference - not all of the difference, but some.
For a perfectly healthy person, the type of calorie consumed may not make any noticeable difference.0 -
Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?
The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.
However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.
But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.
I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.0 -
KittensMaster wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Who says that about food, though? Ever?KittensMaster wrote: »Food substances have many properties.
The calorie measurement is just one of them.
There are the nutrients, fiber content to leave you filled feeling, water content, minerals and electrolytes, the anti inflammatory index, cholesterol content, sodium, simple or complex carbs, on and on.
So this idea that for weight loss, only calories matter is still incomplete.
It all matters. Nobody wants to lose weight to the detriment of their health. Of course not.
A calorie is just one attribute of food. Learn more about food to better manage your own health. It is your life and the only body you are gonna get.
Saying a calorie is the only important thing about food is like saying the color is the only important thing in selecting a new car.
Learn about food and manage it as a tool to meet your personal goals.
I mean, sure, you pummeled that strawman into submission, but why?
It happens all the time
You do it constantly
Arguing to not explain to new people how to view food makes no sense.
Newbies have the ability to grasp the basics of food and nutrition. Especially when they ask that direct question
OP asked whether calories are the only important thing about food? Where?
I prefer to treat even newbies as if they are not, in fact, completely stupid, and therefore to assume that they know that the nutritional profiles of broccoli and a Ding Dong are not identical. YMMV, I guess.0 -
CICO... pesky physics.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?
The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.
However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.
But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.
I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.
If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
I agree that most everybody will lose weight at 1200 kcal per day though.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?
The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.
However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.
But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.
I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO? I stated what I see as the truth: If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie is a calorie does not mean that foods are identical and just as good for all purposes, so you still seem to be misunderstanding what the claim is, willfully or not. (I am sorry if it was unkind to accuse you of willful misunderstanding, but I believe people have been really, really clear that NO ONE is saying foods are identical. A calorie is a calorie has nothing to do with a food being a food or nutritional content not also being important.)I don't think a average sized woman will gain weight on 1200 calories per day but her health could be affected if the calories are not (usually) from a healthy source, especially if there are any health problems to begin with (or they are on the way to developing health problems).
Yes, of course I agree, which I why I always recommend that people eat healthy diets (although as we have discussed you and I have different ideas about what a healthy diet is). But again this has nothing, zero, to do with what OP asked or whether "a calorie is a calorie." Well, except, as you yourself said, an average-sized woman won't gain on 1200 calories. She might feel like crap and be unable to sustain the 1200, which are two of many reasons not to eat a poor diet.If she was eating more calories, say 1800 per day, then the choice of food could very well make a difference in her weight. I'm losing weight (about 2lbs / week) with a diet that is usually between 1300 and 2000 calories per day by avoiding foods that are not healthy for me. I know I do not lose (any substantial) weight when my caloric intake is around those numbers, and I am eating pizza and buns. At 1200 calories, I would lose weight (if I could maintain that long enough).
I am skeptical of this. I think the evidence is that people with IR simply tend to overeat if they eat too many carbs, since they aren't satiated. But I am sure there can be differences on the margins--I know there is a study that showed that metabolically normal women and IR women did better on different macro breakdowns, although as I recall the differences weren't translated into all that many lbs lost (none of the studies do when compared to what people get just by being consistent with a calorie deficit on MFP, or so it seems to me).
Anyway, OP didn't ask about what would happen if she had a medical issue, she asked whether you could gain on 1200 lbs of "junk." That you can seems to be a popular misconception and is worth clearing up, even though I certainly would never advise someone that what they eat doesn't matter (and OP seems to realize that also, already).0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?
The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.
However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.
But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.
I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.
If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
I agree that most everybody will lose weight at 1200 kcal per day though.
Describe what you think would happen to the additional energy that is not used. It gets used, or it gets stored. Type of foods and macros may change how the body uses the energy (affecting the CO side of the equation), but ultimately what doesn't get used get stored. That is what CICO is, and why CICO is always the answer. CO can vary for a multitude of reasons, but that is no reason to suggest CICO doesn't always happen.0 -
How would this work, exactly? From where would the extra energy come? Where would the extra energy go?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?
The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.
However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.
But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.
I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.
If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
How, exactly, will different types of food or macros cause a weight loss if calories in exceed calories out?
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?
The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.
However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.
But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.
I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.
If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
I agree that most everybody will lose weight at 1200 kcal per day though.
It seems important to note here that we have no way of determining TDEE without accurately logging food and then seeing the resulting weight loss/gain/maintenance over time; doing this with a low margin for error is actually quite challenging.
We can *estimate* TDEE based on a this formula or that formula, but that's just using statistical models. It's just educated guesswork.
So if someone were to say something like, "I ate over my TDEE, and I still lost weight," that is impossible by definition. That person's calculated (read estimated) TDEE was simply off, or their logging was off...or some combination of the two.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How would this work, exactly? From where would the extra energy come? Where would the extra energy go?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?
The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.
However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.
But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.
I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.
If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
How, exactly, will different types of food or macros cause a weight loss if calories in exceed calories out?
I'm thinking in terms of insulin. If you have a lot of insulin coursing through your system, that can slow weight loss by storing carbs as fat even if they should not be, as is the case with those who are IR. That won't happen if you reduce your insulin levels.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »KittensMaster wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Who says that about food, though? Ever?KittensMaster wrote: »Food substances have many properties.
The calorie measurement is just one of them.
There are the nutrients, fiber content to leave you filled feeling, water content, minerals and electrolytes, the anti inflammatory index, cholesterol content, sodium, simple or complex carbs, on and on.
So this idea that for weight loss, only calories matter is still incomplete.
It all matters. Nobody wants to lose weight to the detriment of their health. Of course not.
A calorie is just one attribute of food. Learn more about food to better manage your own health. It is your life and the only body you are gonna get.
Saying a calorie is the only important thing about food is like saying the color is the only important thing in selecting a new car.
Learn about food and manage it as a tool to meet your personal goals.
I mean, sure, you pummeled that strawman into submission, but why?
It happens all the time
You do it constantly
Arguing to not explain to new people how to view food makes no sense.
Newbies have the ability to grasp the basics of food and nutrition. Especially when they ask that direct question
OP asked whether calories are the only important thing about food? Where?
I prefer to treat even newbies as if they are not, in fact, completely stupid, and therefore to assume that they know that the nutritional profiles of broccoli and a Ding Dong are not identical. YMMV, I guess.[/lemurcat12 wrote: »KittensMaster wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
Who says that about food, though? Ever?KittensMaster wrote: »Food substances have many properties.
The calorie measurement is just one of them.
There are the nutrients, fiber content to leave you filled feeling, water content, minerals and electrolytes, the anti inflammatory index, cholesterol content, sodium, simple or complex carbs, on and on.
So this idea that for weight loss, only calories matter is still incomplete.
It all matters. Nobody wants to lose weight to the detriment of their health. Of course not.
A calorie is just one attribute of food. Learn more about food to better manage your own health. It is your life and the only body you are gonna get.
Saying a calorie is the only important thing about food is like saying the color is the only important thing in selecting a new car.
Learn about food and manage it as a tool to meet your personal goals.
I mean, sure, you pummeled that strawman into submission, but why?
It happens all the time
You do it constantly
Arguing to not explain to new people how to view food makes no sense.
Newbies have the ability to grasp the basics of food and nutrition. Especially when they ask that direct question
OP asked whether calories are the only important thing about food? Where?
I prefer to treat even newbies as if they are not, in fact, completely stupid, and therefore to assume that they know that the nutritional profiles of broccoli and a Ding Dong are not identical. YMMV, I guess.
I don't understand, are you calling me stupid? For asking a question on a motivational/ help forum.
I've said several time I wasn't asking because I wanted to use my calories on burgers, I was just curious, I have lost 50lb to date eating healthily with the occasional treat, I'm new to calorie counting though so sometimes it's hard to switch my way of thinking from eating healthy foods 95% of the time to basically you can eat what you want within your calorie limit, that said I still wouldn't opt for loads of "burgers" I was just curious.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?
The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.
However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.
But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.
I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.
If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
I agree that most everybody will lose weight at 1200 kcal per day though.
It seems important to note here that we have no way of determining TDEE without accurately logging food and then seeing the resulting weight loss/gain/maintenance over time; doing this with a low margin for error is actually quite challenging.
We can *estimate* TDEE based on a this formula or that formula, but that's just using statistical models. It's just educated guesswork.
So if someone were to say something like, "I ate over my TDEE, and I still lost weight," that is impossible by definition. That person's calculated (read estimated) TDEE was simply off, or their logging was off...or some combination of the two.
Yes, that could very well be.0 -
No, she wasn't calling you stupid. Not at all. Please reread.0
-
That's a change in CO, isn't it? It doesn't mean they'll lose on a surplus or gain on a deficit does it?DeguelloTex wrote: »
How would this work, exactly? From where would the extra energy come? Where would the extra energy go?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Because CICO is, literally, the only way to lose weight, perhaps?lemurcat12 wrote: »If you are eating for a specific health goal, a calorie is not just a calorie.
A calorie=a calories DOES NOT mean foods are the same and it makes no difference what you eat. Why do people willfully misunderstand this?
The OP asked if she would gain weight if she ate 1200 calories of junk food (which some on the thread have apparently decided means pizza, although pizza can actually meet a balanced set of macros and include lots of vegetables and some lean protein, depending on how you make it). The fact is that she would not.
However, if she eats low nutrient items (or just an unbalanced diet) to make up those 1200 calories, of course that's not a healthy diet and it would be probably hard to sustain such low calories on a low volume of non nutritious food. I've never seen anyone at MFP disagreeing about that.
But that doesn't change the answer to OP's question or mean that a calorie (a unit of measurement) is not a calorie.
I don't think I willfully misunderstood anything; why do people get so defensive about CICO?
How one achieves CICO is a different question, but it must be done. No way of eating can provide weight loss without CICO. It seems important for people to understand that there's no magic involved in Diet X or Low-X Diets. They're just different ways to try to achieve the necessary deficit.
If the calorie count close to a person's TDEE, I would have to disagree that CICO is literally (always) the only way to lose weight. Type of foods and macros will make a difference.
How, exactly, will different types of food or macros cause a weight loss if calories in exceed calories out?
I'm thinking in terms of insulin. If you have a lot of insulin coursing through your system, that can slow weight loss by storing carbs as fat even if they should not be, as is the case with those who are IR. That won't happen if you reduce your insulin levels.
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
- 427 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