CALORIE QUALITY

Options
sarahbe89
sarahbe89 Posts: 18 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I don't understand why there isn't more emphasis on the QUALITY of the calories people are eating. If you are eating 1,200 calories of JUNK like pizza ice cream and all kinds of processed foods it isn't going to give you the results of eating 1,200 calories of lean protein fruits and veggies and healthy fats. Just kind of agrivates me when I see people complain about not getting the results they want even when they are staying with in their calorie budget but than their food diary is filled with crap food. Thoughts? Do you think quality is just as important if not more so than quantity?
«134567…15

Replies

  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    edited August 2015
    Options
    This has been covered in literally thousands of threads.

    For weight loss, doesn't matter. For overall health, it matters. For most people in the real world, 80-90% from whole-type foods, the rest from treat-types of food.
  • melimomTARDIS
    melimomTARDIS Posts: 1,941 Member
    Options
    nope, its calories in vs calories out. I can get fat on natural foods too ya know, if I eat more than i burn.
  • ForestFairy022
    ForestFairy022 Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    Actually it will give you the same results. But the type of food you eat will determine how well satisfied your appetite is. I can eat 1 burger for 600cals but a few bowls of broccoli for the same amount. Plus the brocolli has more nutritional value. But you will lose weight on either option because you need to create an energy deficit to lose.

    Personally though, I would rather work in some foods I actually like and enjoy the weight loss. Even if I have to drink more water to keep me fuller then. :)
  • ForestFairy022
    ForestFairy022 Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    Oh and I wanted to add, weight loss can be stalled by junk food because it has more sodium. Which holds back water weight. :)
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    For fat loss, the quality of calories does not matter. CICO matters.

    For optimum nutrition and health, eating a diet with a sufficient amount of the necessary nutrients matters.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    For weight loss, it's calories in/calories out. If you eat high quantities (that is, in excess of what you burn) of high quality foods, you probably won't be pleased with your results.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Options
    ForestFairy022 wrote: »
    Actually it will give you the same results. But the type of food you eat will determine how well satisfied your appetite is. I can eat 1 burger for 600cals but a few bowls of broccoli for the same amount. Plus the brocolli has more nutritional value. But you will lose weight on either option because you need to create an energy deficit to lose.

    Personally though, I would rather work in some foods I actually like and enjoy the weight loss. Even if I have to drink more water to keep me fuller then. :)

    This.
  • DemoraFairy
    DemoraFairy Posts: 1,806 Member
    edited August 2015
    Options
    ForestFairy022 wrote: »
    Oh and I wanted to add, weight loss can be stalled by junk food because it has more sodium. Which holds back water weight. :)

    Only in the same way that a woman's menstrual cycle or starting a new exercise regime can stall weight loss. Both result in the body temporarily storing water and therefore the scale won't go down, but it doesn't actually stop fat loss.
  • Damien_Scott
    Damien_Scott Posts: 108 Member
    Options
    Whole foods tend to make you fuller and provide more nutrients. You can lose weight eating anything, even only Twinkies like that professor guy. you won't be healthy but you will be skinny :D
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    Options
    cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
  • ForestFairy022
    ForestFairy022 Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    DemoraFairy wrote: »
    ForestFairy022 wrote: »
    Oh and I wanted to add, weight loss can be stalled by junk food because it has more sodium. Which holds back water weight. :)

    Only in the same way that a woman's menstrual cycle or starting a new exercise regime can stall weight loss. Both result in the body temporarily storing water and therefore the scale won't go down, but it doesn't actually stop fat loss.

    Yes exactly. So people might *think* they aren't losing, but it's just because of water weight that the scale doesn't go down. And it will eventually
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    This has been covered in literally thousands of threads.

    For weight loss, doesn't matter. For overall health, it matters. For most people in the real world, 80-90% from whole-type foods, the rest from treat-types of food.

    This^

    I use my macros as guides, but I can have a piece of chocolate and I can have ice cream. Lifestyle changes for me are not about eating the "perfect" diet forever. My future (as a thin person) will not be zero chocolate and zero ice cream. I need to log ice cream (now) so I have a realistic idea of what a portion looks like.
  • DemoraFairy
    DemoraFairy Posts: 1,806 Member
    Options
    ForestFairy022 wrote: »
    DemoraFairy wrote: »
    ForestFairy022 wrote: »
    Oh and I wanted to add, weight loss can be stalled by junk food because it has more sodium. Which holds back water weight. :)

    Only in the same way that a woman's menstrual cycle or starting a new exercise regime can stall weight loss. Both result in the body temporarily storing water and therefore the scale won't go down, but it doesn't actually stop fat loss.

    Yes exactly. So people might *think* they aren't losing, but it's just because of water weight that the scale doesn't go down. And it will eventually

    Ah right, I thought you were saying that eating salty foods was bad for weight loss. Which I found a bit confusing since your post just before that one was saying that only calories matter lol.
  • sarahbe89
    sarahbe89 Posts: 18 Member
    Options
    Isn't the ultimate goal to be HEALTHY though? Or am I the only one who thinks like that? I'm all for having the occasional treat but I'm not going to fill up my daily calories with junk. But that's just me.
  • ForestFairy022
    ForestFairy022 Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    DemoraFairy wrote: »
    ForestFairy022 wrote: »
    DemoraFairy wrote: »
    ForestFairy022 wrote: »
    Oh and I wanted to add, weight loss can be stalled by junk food because it has more sodium. Which holds back water weight. :)

    Only in the same way that a woman's menstrual cycle or starting a new exercise regime can stall weight loss. Both result in the body temporarily storing water and therefore the scale won't go down, but it doesn't actually stop fat loss.

    Yes exactly. So people might *think* they aren't losing, but it's just because of water weight that the scale doesn't go down. And it will eventually

    Ah right, I thought you were saying that eating salty foods was bad for weight loss. Which I found a bit confusing since your post just before that one was saying that only calories matter lol.

    Sorry, haha I was walking and trying not to be run over by a truck while texting :smiley:
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    sarahbe89 wrote: »
    Isn't the ultimate goal to be HEALTHY though? Or am I the only one who thinks like that? I'm all for having the occasional treat but I'm not going to fill up my daily calories with junk. But that's just me.
    Where do you get the loony idea that it's "just you"?

  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    edited August 2015
    Options
    It's the other way around. If you are eating only junk, 1200 calories will not be much. Anyone claiming to eat only 1200 calories of only junk and not losing weight, is lying (I mean... "not in accordance with what is correct").

    Edit: You have to specify what you mean by "results". For weight loss, calories is everything. For health, it's more complex.
  • ForestFairy022
    ForestFairy022 Posts: 99 Member
    Options
    DeguelloTex wrote: »
    sarahbe89 wrote: »
    Isn't the ultimate goal to be HEALTHY though? Or am I the only one who thinks like that? I'm all for having the occasional treat but I'm not going to fill up my daily calories with junk. But that's just me.
    Where do you get the loony idea that it's "just you"?

    Nobody here has ever said to just eat junk. They said work it into your calories, eat it in moderation. Many people misinterpret that as them saying hey! Let's live of burgers and pizza!

    (I totally live of burgers and pizza but they are my own homemade healthy ones, so please reserve judgement) :tongue:
  • 3stepsahead
    3stepsahead Posts: 56 Member
    Options
    Let's take two guys of fairly equal size and fitness level. We put both guys on the same training program and allow each man to eat 3,000 calories per day.

    Guy A can only get his calories from lean meats and fish; fresh fruits and vegetables; and sweet potatoes and brown rice.
    Guy B can only get his calories from candy, ice cream and fast food.

    After eight weeks, who do you think is going to look and perform better?
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    Options
    "Healthy" can have many meanings. Check out the twinkie professor link. His LDLs went DOWN eating a diet of 67% foods from a convenience store. His body fat% went from 33 to 30%. His health markers basically all improved BECAUSE he lost weight (in this case 27 lbs) not because of what foods he ate. -- At least that's the take away I myself take away.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories