Fat/sugar calories vs. "good" calories

No. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

robinjoyc wrote: »

Hi Folks - wondering about the general opinion on good vs. bad calories. I have done Weight Watchers off and on throughout my life and have been mostly successful - generally I'm only trying to lose about 5-20 lbs at a time. Their latest points plan pretty much allows you all the fruit and veggies you want - they are free points! I liked that alot.
Now that I've swtiched to MFP and counting calories - no matter what - it's a little bit limiting to have to worry about eating an apple, etc. I have been successful on MFP as well - when I actually track stuff - some times I count the fruit, some times I do not. When I stray, I generally stray towards "bad" foods and weight gain comes quickly. Bad foods like cookies, high fat stuff....you know what I mean. And I feel like I can almost FEEL the fat accumulating in my already fatty areas.
So - trying to formulate this question - Does anyone feel like some calories are worse than others?

Nope.

from what i understand ww allows you less calories in general and gives you 5 "Free" fruits and veggies so you will make it up with what they want you to eat. like say you can have 1500 on MFP. .on ww you would have the equivalent of 1000 but the 5 "free" over that.

Calories are calories. Everything has calories, except water.
Volume wise, you can eat more fruits and veggies (as long as you stay away from high calorie dressings and toppings) than what you consider "bad foods". Your body, your life, your choice on how you want to spend your daily calorie allotment.

There are no "bad" foods (well except maybe trans fats). There are however, some foods that are more filling, and contain more nutrients than other foods. While eating less it's important to maximize the filling, high nutrient foods. Dietary fat does not make you fat, it's just calorie dense.

What I try to do is IMPROVE my eating habits. I'm not trying for perfection. I will eat a cookie here and there even when I am trying to lose weight. I won't have a perfect diet in the future, so I need to learn portion sizes and calorie counts. As long as I log these things, I'm ok.

WW starts at a lower calorie goal....thus fruits & veggies are "free." They're not free, it's assumed you will eat some of them.

MFP doesn't assume anything, so you need to log these foods.

Definitely log your fruit and vegetables.

For weight loss? No.

Listen, you have to log your fruits and veggies if you're going to use this. You can eat your sweets, but log them, make them fit in your day.

I totally understand what you are saying OP. I try to stay good in my fats and sugars macros because I tend to want to eat more of that type of stuff too. And I also get that you can feel the fat accumulating in your already fat storing areas because I swear I can too. I think (and this is only my opinion) that it is totally better to try and stay within your macro goals. Lower on fat, lower on sugar. I have been doing ok in the sugar area a lot of my days but the fat area is still a little bit of a problem for me. When I am really good, watching sugar intake, watching fat intake, staying at a good carb balance (mostly with fresh vegies there) and getting lots of protein. The weight just falls off for me. It's sticking to that that is a bit harder but it can be done. Good luck to you!

robinjoyc wrote: »

Does anyone feel like some calories are worse than others?

No, for weight loss/gain a calorie is a calorie. For nutritional purposes and other goals, obviously foods are different and not interchangeable, but that doesn't mean that the calories in them do or don't contribute to weight gain depending on what they are.

However, some ways of eating may lead to more calories more easily. Fat is not unhealthy (many high fat foods have lots of nutritional positives), but it adds up to lots of calories more quickly, because fat is 9 cal/gram. So olive oil isn't bad for you, but add a lot and you may be eating a lot more calories than you realized.

Similarly, if you gravitate toward high cal/low nutrient foods (which many of us find not that filling), it may be easy to consume far more calories than you would have thought, without hardly noticing.

I personally think it's important to eat a healthy diet for reasons unrelated to weight loss, and also because for me it makes weight loss/maintenance easier (I tend to be more satisfied and it helps me stay motivated and energetic and feel like I'm getting my all from workouts). But I also think it's important to pay attention to all calories and foods I eat. I dislike the WW approach personally, since it seems to say that fruits and vegetables are irrelevant, only high cal foods (and limiting them) matter, whereas I like to think of constructing a healthy diet as about actively seeking out foods that are good to include in my diet (and tasty). I like to track vegetables to make sure I'm eating enough and a good variety of them.

So I don't equate logging with limiting and that I log my apple doesn't mean I won't eat it (although I don't eat crazy amounts of fruit because it is higher cal -- I pretty much eat unlimited vegetables, though). But if I ate 100 calories from an apple or banana I'd want to know that in deciding how many potatoes to eat that night or when trying to calculate what my maintenance calories are or if I'd eaten enough to fuel my workouts. It's about information, not simply cutting out calories.

I think it highly depends on the person. For some people HOW they create their caloric deficit doesn't matter. For them, it's all about the total numbers. For others, it can make quite a difference.

For example, there was a study done a couple years ago with obese women who were insulin resistant and those who were insulin sensitive. The insulin sensitive women lost nearly twice as much weight with more carbs. It was the exact opposite for the insulin resistant women. They lost nearly twice as much with less carbs. The protein and caloric deficits were the same across all groups -- so same amount of calories proportionally, but how they created their respective deficits yielded dramatically different results. If I could lose nearly twice as much weight by simply adjusting my carbs, I'd definitely want to know about that!

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/oby.2005.79/full

Almost half of the US adult population has insulin resistance (at prediabetic or diabetic levels) and the vast majority of them don't know it. That's why it can feel like a magic bullet or a small miracle for people who didn't realize they were insulin resistant and reduce carbs and see dramatically improved results.

I know for me personally, when I hit my protein macros, I'm much more satisfied and able to keep my deficit MUCH MUCH easier. Same with if I'm getting my carbs from primarily whole food source (vegetables and fruits). If I don't eat as much protein and eat more carbs -- especially the super tasty fast acting carbs like cookies, bread, etc. -- it's much more difficult. They aren't nearly as satisfying for me and it's much easier to overeat them. I suspect this is what happens for a LOT of people -- it's just harder for them to keep a caloric deficit with those types of foods in abundance. Some can't even do the moderation thing because it's slippery slope, so they prefer to avoid them altogether.

There is no doubt that the food industry does a LOT of research on figuring out what is the perfect combination of fat/sugar to hit those pleasure centers and have some ingredients that spark appetite (or decrease satiety) -- so you want to eat more and more of their foods. That makes perfect sense from a seller-viewpoint, but not so great for someone that is trying to manage their calories. But, once again, it really does come down the individual. Some will notice no difference and others of us will notice BIG differences.