CALORIE QUALITY
Replies
-
Main point was that I understood the post. I don't want that poster to think that it was hard to understand.UltimateRBF wrote: »So the point is that you don't like pizza and don't understand why people like it. I feel like so many arguments could have been avoided by this revelation.
I added the thin about not liking pizza because I felt like it.
I really had no idea it was going to upset some people so much.
0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »How did that "call me out?" it's a reputable resource and explains the process of carb metabolism which you would find is the same process anywhere you look.
If you consumed 1200 cals and 80% were from carbs, 10% protein and 10% fat did that for a week and then tried doing 1200 cals with 25% carbs, 40% protein and 35% fat you would get very different results.
0 -
UltimateRBF wrote: »
Post studies?
http://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
0 -
And moderation worked for me.
That is mainly what it is all about...each of us finding what works.
0 -
Which is exactly what I said when I posted:LolBroScience wrote: »
That's not calorie quality, that's macronutrient breakdown.
The whole "calories in- calories out" is old school thinking. There have been a multitude of studies that show consumption of certain macros will influence your weight especially for those who are overweight/obese. Excess carbs will prevent those people from losing weight.0 -
Excess carbs would be excess calories. You're contradicting yourself.0
-
AlexisUPenn wrote: »
From the first study: The low-carbohydrate diet produced a greater weight loss (absolute difference, approximately 4 percent) than did the conventional diet for the first six months, but the differences were not significant at one year. The low-carbohydrate diet was associated with a greater improvement in some risk factors for coronary heart disease. Adherence was poor and attrition was high in both groups. Longer and larger studies are required to determine the long-term safety and efficacy of low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diets.
Your own source shows that long-term, it doesn't work.0 -
JS Volek, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism (London), 2004.
Details: A randomized, crossover trial with 28 overweight/obese individuals. Study went on for 30 days (for women) and 50 days (for men) on each diet, that is a very low-carb diet and a low-fat diet. Both diets were calorie restricted.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost significantly more weight, especially the men. This was despite the fact that they ended up eating more calories than the low-fat group.
Conclusion: The low-carb group lost more weight. The men on the low-carb diet lost three times as much abdominal fat as the men on the low-fat diet.
0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »Which is exactly what I said when I posted:
The whole "calories in- calories out" is old school thinking. There have been a multitude of studies that show consumption of certain macros will influence your weight especially for those who are overweight/obese. Excess carbs will prevent those people from losing weight.
and... you didn't read my response to your previous post, where I said you're talking about two different things. Again, in a deficit, it's impossible to gain weight. Even if carbs are the only source of calories. It's been proven in more than one college study. Macronutrients is about balance while in the calorie deficit, which is about health.0 -
I had always believed in calories in vs calories out. It's worked for me. But I went 4 months on a MFP calorie level that should have had me losing a pound and a half a week while doing between an hour and an hour and a half of cardio daily. For the last six weeks I even added in TRX workouts. I'd lost 3 pounds. Total.
Then a friend shared info with me about how sugar - from any source - affects insulin. Insulin has a direct effect on metabolism. So, using MFP, I looked back over my nutrition tab at average grams of sugar a day. It was almost spot-on to what MFP said it should be, but from my reading I decided it was too high. So, just by making a few simple changes, I cut my sugar in half. Same total calories. Same daily exercise routine. I've dropped 5 pounds in the past week.
What this says to me is that while CI/CO generally is valid, there is such a thing as making better weight-loss choices about where those calories come from.
You might be surprised where your sugar calories come from. You don't have to be a saint to reduce them. MFP is really helpful to identify them for you.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
Why do people think pizza is junk? Well, for one thing, the USDA has labeled it empty calories.
http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calories/empty-calories.html
So let me get this straight. Foods that the USDA says have empty calories are junk food. The USDA says solid fats and added sugar are empty calories.
So if I buy some fresh strawberries that are wonderfully ripe and sweet, and eat them as they are, that's fine. That's a healthy food. But if I buy some more strawberries that aren't so ripe, and aren't so sweet, and sprinkle a little sugar on them, so that the sugar content of both batches of strawberries is exactly the same, although one is from a higher level of naturally occurring sugars and the other includes some added sugar, the second batch of strawberries are now junk.
The "solid fat" (saturated fat) thing is even sillier. Most foods with fat have a combination of saturated and unsaturated fats. I'm surprised eggs aren't on their list of foods with empty calories. A large egg gets 1.5 grams, or about a third of its fat grams, from saturated fat. Maybe it's only bad if you cook it until the yolk is "solid" -- e.g., hard-boiled, or dry-scrambled.
100 grams of raw Atlantic salmon contains about 6 grams of fat, 1 gram of which is saturated (solid fat). Is salmon junk?
Plus, fats are an essential nutrient, so saying solid fats contain "few or no nutrients" is pretty absurd. This is apparently just a disguised continuation of the attack on saturated fat as a risk factor for heart disease, which has become a pretty controversial claim in recent years.
Stupidity is still stupidity, even when it comes from the government.0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »Which is exactly what I said when I posted:
The whole "calories in- calories out" is old school thinking. There have been a multitude of studies that show consumption of certain macros will influence your weight especially for those who are overweight/obese. Excess carbs will prevent those people from losing weight.
Excess carbs in an energy deficit, ok.0 -
I had always believed in calories in vs calories out. It's worked for me. But I went 4 months on a MFP calorie level that should have had me losing a pound and a half a week while doing between an hour and an hour and a half of cardio daily. For the last six weeks I even added in TRX workouts. I'd lost 3 pounds. Total.
Then a friend shared info with me about how sugar - from any source - affects insulin. Insulin has a direct effect on metabolism. So, using MFP, I looked back over my nutrition tab at average grams of sugar a day. It was almost spot-on to what MFP said it should be, but from my reading I decided it was too high. So, just by making a few simple changes, I cut my sugar in half. Same total calories. Same daily exercise routine. I've dropped 5 pounds in the past week.
What this says to me is that while CI/CO generally is valid, there is such a thing as making better weight-loss choices about where those calories come from.
You might be surprised where your sugar calories come from. You don't have to be a saint to reduce them. MFP is really helpful to identify them for you.
1- were you weighing all your food to ensure your calorie counts were accurate? Otherwise, it's quite possible your were undersestimating your calorie intake. Now that you're eating fewer carbs, you've eliminated a calorie source, so you're eating fewer calories.
2 - carbs can make you retain water, so reducing them can help you eliminate a source of water retention. I'd be pretty positive the five pounds you've lost is water weight. It takes 3,500 calories to lose a pound of fat, and it's highly unlikely you've lost five pounds of fat in the last week.
0 -
Please post a link to these multitude of studies that state this.....
*waits*
Yeah. Nope.
Excess CALORIES will prevent people from losing weight.
Body composition is a function of both what is consumed and how much is consumed.
CO is a function of body composition.
Deficit at isocaloric intake is a function of CO.
Weight loss is a function of deficit.
Therefore weight loss is also a function of what is consumed.
0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »Which is exactly what I said when I posted:
The whole "calories in- calories out" is old school thinking. There have been a multitude of studies that show consumption of certain macros will influence your weight especially for those who are overweight/obese. Excess carbs will prevent those people from losing weight.
So I didn't really start out severely obese and lose 30 lbs eating around 225 grams of carbs a day? Or does that not meet your threshold for excess carbs?0 -
I think the question is do you want to lose weight just to look good or do you want to lose weight and get healthy. Yes you will lose weight as long as CI are less than CO but if you want to be healthy you also have to take notice of what you eat. Just losing weight does not mean that your cholesterol is where it should be or your blood pressure. And thanks AlexisUPenn for the information whether you forgot to give credit or not as you tried to share valuable information. So to sum it up yes you can lose weight and look better by just paying attention to CI/CO but if you also want to be healthy you have to look at the bigger picture of what you are consuming. Balance.
0 -
Isocaloric? Iso- as what? You mean day-to-day?
Body composition is a function of both what is consumed and how much is consumed.
CO is a function of body function.
Deficit at isocaloric intake is a function of CO.
Weight loss is a function of deficit.
Therefore weight loss is also a function of what is consumed.
0 -
0
-
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
So I didn't really start out severely obese and lose 30 lbs eating around 225 grams of carbs a day? Or does that not meet your threshold for excess carbs?
225 grams of carbs and weight loss is possible depending on the persons weight and the source/quality of carbs they're eating. Also, in comparison to how you were eating before plays a big role. Over time, high levels of carbs- especially if from processed foods- can lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome in those who are overweight/obese. Over time as your weight decreases so will your calorie and macronutrient goals... if you want to continue to lose weight.0 -
If it doesn't, maybe 400 does. I'm eating more than 400 grams of carbs a day and am losing weight despite cranking up my calorie intake twice in three weeks.lynn_glenmont wrote: »
So I didn't really start out severely obese and lose 30 lbs eating around 225 grams of carbs a day? Or does that not meet your threshold for excess carbs?
0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »Which is exactly what I said when I posted:
The whole "calories in- calories out" is old school thinking. There have been a multitude of studies that show consumption of certain macros will influence your weight especially for those who are overweight/obese. Excess carbs will prevent those people from losing weight.
just sayin...don't really matter
http://news.yahoo.com/fat-loss-calories-may-matter-more-fat-carbs-161720413.html0 -
This content has been removed.
-
AlexisUPenn wrote: »
225 grams of carbs and weight loss is possible depending on the persons weight and the source/quality of carbs they're eating. Also, in comparison to how you were eating before plays a big role. Over time, high levels of carbs- especially if from processed foods- can lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome in those who are overweight/obese. Over time as your weight decreases so will your calorie and macronutrient goals... if you want to continue to lose weight.
I lost 121 pounds eating around 250 carbs, I also reverse my heart disease and have excellent blood work. Am I medical miracle??0 -
Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview, “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0&referrer=
Study:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC#results0 -
AlexisUPenn wrote: »
225 grams of carbs and weight loss is possible depending on the persons weight and the source/quality of carbs they're eating. Also, in comparison to how you were eating before plays a big role. Over time, high levels of carbs- especially if from processed foods- can lead to insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome in those who are overweight/obese. Over time as your weight decreases so will your calorie and macronutrient goals... if you want to continue to lose weight.
I am currently cutting on 335g carbs and rather lean, and that's with no cardio built into my programming. I know people who are cutting on an even greater amount of carbs. So, we must be unicorns.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »
I am currently cutting on 335g carbs and rather lean, and that's with no cardio built into my programming. I know people who are cutting on an even greater amount of carbs. So, we must be unicorns.
Extra special snowflake unicorn.
0 -
SergeantSausage wrote: »
For most average folks, losing the extra 60 or 80 pounds is the *healthiest* thing they can do, irrespective of what they're eating or how they lose it.
But if you lose it eating appropriate amounts of healthy food isn't that better?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I lost 122 pounds. What does he mean by "the kinds of calories" because counting calories mattered quite a bit to me.AlexisUPenn wrote: »Harvard School of Public Health and lead author of the study, said in an interview, “What you eat makes quite a difference. Just counting calories won’t matter much unless you look at the kinds of calories you’re eating.”
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0&referrer=
Study:
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1014296?query=TOC#results
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions