The most annoying things said...
Options
Replies
-
I was 30 something weeks pregnant and was asked by a doctor ( not my regular one) if I had any issues with eating disorders.....I had gained 25 lbs at that point. I held it together but wanted to cry then and there, the whole pregnancy had been difficult and this doctor, although well meaning, made me want to crawl in a hole
i don't understand. What was wrong with that weight gain? isn't that the normal weight gain? was he suggesting you gained too much or not enough?
Nothing wrong with that weight gain, tummy was measuring small (not baby) for gestation. It's not something I can help, just hide babies really well...plus I was light but healthy when I got pregnant.0 -
MarziPanda95 wrote: »I think the most annoying thing I often see with gaining weight ( or anything with fitness.) People that state " sugar and sodium amounts do not matter, a calorie is just a calorie." Pretty annoying statements and really bad advice.
Technically, in terms of gaining weight, that advice is spot on. A calorie is a unit of measurement, so yes, a calorie is a calorie just like an inch is an inch. In terms of weight loss/maintenance/gain, calories are all that matter. In terms of nutrition, macros matter.
1. The energy cost to metabolize fat, carbs and protein is different
The body must use energy to digest, absorb and metabolize the energy in food. And it so happens that the body uses different amounts of energy to process different energy-containing nutrients. Generally, more energy is required to process protein than carbs, and more energy is required to process carbs than fat. What this means effectively is that a 2,500-calories-a-day high-protein diet adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-carb diet, which in turn adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-fat diet.
2. The biggest problem with using linear calorie equations for fat loss is that the fewer calories you consume, the fewer calories your body burns. Thus, if, based on the 3,500-calorie rule cited above, you decide to cut your daily energy intake by 500 calories in hopes of losing a pound a week (500 calories/day x 7 days = 3,500 calories), you will probably find that you do indeed lose a pound in the first week but less in each subsequent week. This phenomenon is believed to represent a metabolic adaptation to prevent starvation. Your body literally runs cooler to conserve the reduced number of calories you’re eating, thereby effectively increasing the value of each calorie.
A 2006 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that volunteers who maintained a very low-calorie diet for six months exhibited a significantly greater reduction in metabolic rate than could be explain by weight loss alone. A longer-term study on monkeys revealed that monkeys whose food intake was reduced by 30 percent for 11 years exhibited a 13-percent lower metabolic rate than weight loss alone could account for.
More relevant for our concerns as athletes is evidence that even small calorie deficits within a single day may alter our metabolism in ways that have negative effects on our body composition. A study involving elite female gymnasts and distance runners found a strong inverse relationship between the number and size of energy deficits throughout the day (that is, periods when the body’s calorie needs exceed the calorie supply from foods) and body fat percentage. In other words, the athletes who did the best job of matching their calorie intake with their calorie needs throughout the day were leaner than those who tended to fall behind.
What’s important to note about this study is that the effect of mini calorie deficits was independent of total caloric intake for the day. This means that a woman athlete who requires and consumes X calories a day is likely to have less muscle and more body fat if she does not time her eating well than if she takes in the same total number of calories but distributes them more evenly throughout the day.
3.Timing of eating affects calorie processing
Thermic effect of food (TEF) is a fancy name for the energy used up as a result of digesting and absorbing a meal. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that TEF is higher in the morning than in the evening. Volunteers were given an identical 544-calorie meal at one of three times. In subjects fed at 9 am, TEF increased by 16 percent; in those fed at 5 pm, TEF increased by 13.5 percent; and in those fed at 1 am, TEF increased by only 11 percent. So it’s clear that we burn more calories in the morning.
The effect of calories on body composition is also influenced by the size and frequency of meals. For example, a Japanese study found that boxers placed on a six-meals-a-day weight-control diet lowered their body fat percentage significantly more than boxers who ate exactly the same number of calories in just two meals.
Generally speaking, food calories are more likely to be stored as fat and less likely to be used immediately for energy, stored as glycogen, or used to synthesize new muscle proteins when they are consumed in excess of short-term needs. This is why six small meals totaling 2,500 calories are not equal to two large meals totaling 2,500 calories.
On the flipside, food calories are more likely to be used immediately for energy or stored as glycogen or used to synthesize muscle proteins when they are consumed at times of energy deficit, such as first thing in the morning after the overnight fast. Another such time is after exercise. Numerous studies have shown that people build more muscle and gain less body fat (or shed more body fat) when they consume adequate calories within two hours after exercise than when they do not, despite consuming the same total number of calories over the course of the day.
To be sure, counting calories has some value. However, for the reasons cited above, you can’t count on calories from any source to affect your body equally in all circumstances.
Nice copy/paste: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »MarziPanda95 wrote: »I think the most annoying thing I often see with gaining weight ( or anything with fitness.) People that state " sugar and sodium amounts do not matter, a calorie is just a calorie." Pretty annoying statements and really bad advice.
Technically, in terms of gaining weight, that advice is spot on. A calorie is a unit of measurement, so yes, a calorie is a calorie just like an inch is an inch. In terms of weight loss/maintenance/gain, calories are all that matter. In terms of nutrition, macros matter.
1. The energy cost to metabolize fat, carbs and protein is different
The body must use energy to digest, absorb and metabolize the energy in food. And it so happens that the body uses different amounts of energy to process different energy-containing nutrients. Generally, more energy is required to process protein than carbs, and more energy is required to process carbs than fat. What this means effectively is that a 2,500-calories-a-day high-protein diet adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-carb diet, which in turn adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-fat diet.
2. The biggest problem with using linear calorie equations for fat loss is that the fewer calories you consume, the fewer calories your body burns. Thus, if, based on the 3,500-calorie rule cited above, you decide to cut your daily energy intake by 500 calories in hopes of losing a pound a week (500 calories/day x 7 days = 3,500 calories), you will probably find that you do indeed lose a pound in the first week but less in each subsequent week. This phenomenon is believed to represent a metabolic adaptation to prevent starvation. Your body literally runs cooler to conserve the reduced number of calories you’re eating, thereby effectively increasing the value of each calorie.
A 2006 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that volunteers who maintained a very low-calorie diet for six months exhibited a significantly greater reduction in metabolic rate than could be explain by weight loss alone. A longer-term study on monkeys revealed that monkeys whose food intake was reduced by 30 percent for 11 years exhibited a 13-percent lower metabolic rate than weight loss alone could account for.
More relevant for our concerns as athletes is evidence that even small calorie deficits within a single day may alter our metabolism in ways that have negative effects on our body composition. A study involving elite female gymnasts and distance runners found a strong inverse relationship between the number and size of energy deficits throughout the day (that is, periods when the body’s calorie needs exceed the calorie supply from foods) and body fat percentage. In other words, the athletes who did the best job of matching their calorie intake with their calorie needs throughout the day were leaner than those who tended to fall behind.
What’s important to note about this study is that the effect of mini calorie deficits was independent of total caloric intake for the day. This means that a woman athlete who requires and consumes X calories a day is likely to have less muscle and more body fat if she does not time her eating well than if she takes in the same total number of calories but distributes them more evenly throughout the day.
3.Timing of eating affects calorie processing
Thermic effect of food (TEF) is a fancy name for the energy used up as a result of digesting and absorbing a meal. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that TEF is higher in the morning than in the evening. Volunteers were given an identical 544-calorie meal at one of three times. In subjects fed at 9 am, TEF increased by 16 percent; in those fed at 5 pm, TEF increased by 13.5 percent; and in those fed at 1 am, TEF increased by only 11 percent. So it’s clear that we burn more calories in the morning.
The effect of calories on body composition is also influenced by the size and frequency of meals. For example, a Japanese study found that boxers placed on a six-meals-a-day weight-control diet lowered their body fat percentage significantly more than boxers who ate exactly the same number of calories in just two meals.
Generally speaking, food calories are more likely to be stored as fat and less likely to be used immediately for energy, stored as glycogen, or used to synthesize new muscle proteins when they are consumed in excess of short-term needs. This is why six small meals totaling 2,500 calories are not equal to two large meals totaling 2,500 calories.
On the flipside, food calories are more likely to be used immediately for energy or stored as glycogen or used to synthesize muscle proteins when they are consumed at times of energy deficit, such as first thing in the morning after the overnight fast. Another such time is after exercise. Numerous studies have shown that people build more muscle and gain less body fat (or shed more body fat) when they consume adequate calories within two hours after exercise than when they do not, despite consuming the same total number of calories over the course of the day.
To be sure, counting calories has some value. However, for the reasons cited above, you can’t count on calories from any source to affect your body equally in all circumstances.
Nice copy/paste: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie
Thanks
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »MarziPanda95 wrote: »I think the most annoying thing I often see with gaining weight ( or anything with fitness.) People that state " sugar and sodium amounts do not matter, a calorie is just a calorie." Pretty annoying statements and really bad advice.
Technically, in terms of gaining weight, that advice is spot on. A calorie is a unit of measurement, so yes, a calorie is a calorie just like an inch is an inch. In terms of weight loss/maintenance/gain, calories are all that matter. In terms of nutrition, macros matter.
1. The energy cost to metabolize fat, carbs and protein is different
The body must use energy to digest, absorb and metabolize the energy in food. And it so happens that the body uses different amounts of energy to process different energy-containing nutrients. Generally, more energy is required to process protein than carbs, and more energy is required to process carbs than fat. What this means effectively is that a 2,500-calories-a-day high-protein diet adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-carb diet, which in turn adds fewer calories to the body than a 2,500-calories-a-day high-fat diet.
2. The biggest problem with using linear calorie equations for fat loss is that the fewer calories you consume, the fewer calories your body burns. Thus, if, based on the 3,500-calorie rule cited above, you decide to cut your daily energy intake by 500 calories in hopes of losing a pound a week (500 calories/day x 7 days = 3,500 calories), you will probably find that you do indeed lose a pound in the first week but less in each subsequent week. This phenomenon is believed to represent a metabolic adaptation to prevent starvation. Your body literally runs cooler to conserve the reduced number of calories you’re eating, thereby effectively increasing the value of each calorie.
A 2006 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that volunteers who maintained a very low-calorie diet for six months exhibited a significantly greater reduction in metabolic rate than could be explain by weight loss alone. A longer-term study on monkeys revealed that monkeys whose food intake was reduced by 30 percent for 11 years exhibited a 13-percent lower metabolic rate than weight loss alone could account for.
More relevant for our concerns as athletes is evidence that even small calorie deficits within a single day may alter our metabolism in ways that have negative effects on our body composition. A study involving elite female gymnasts and distance runners found a strong inverse relationship between the number and size of energy deficits throughout the day (that is, periods when the body’s calorie needs exceed the calorie supply from foods) and body fat percentage. In other words, the athletes who did the best job of matching their calorie intake with their calorie needs throughout the day were leaner than those who tended to fall behind.
What’s important to note about this study is that the effect of mini calorie deficits was independent of total caloric intake for the day. This means that a woman athlete who requires and consumes X calories a day is likely to have less muscle and more body fat if she does not time her eating well than if she takes in the same total number of calories but distributes them more evenly throughout the day.
3.Timing of eating affects calorie processing
Thermic effect of food (TEF) is a fancy name for the energy used up as a result of digesting and absorbing a meal. A study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that TEF is higher in the morning than in the evening. Volunteers were given an identical 544-calorie meal at one of three times. In subjects fed at 9 am, TEF increased by 16 percent; in those fed at 5 pm, TEF increased by 13.5 percent; and in those fed at 1 am, TEF increased by only 11 percent. So it’s clear that we burn more calories in the morning.
The effect of calories on body composition is also influenced by the size and frequency of meals. For example, a Japanese study found that boxers placed on a six-meals-a-day weight-control diet lowered their body fat percentage significantly more than boxers who ate exactly the same number of calories in just two meals.
Generally speaking, food calories are more likely to be stored as fat and less likely to be used immediately for energy, stored as glycogen, or used to synthesize new muscle proteins when they are consumed in excess of short-term needs. This is why six small meals totaling 2,500 calories are not equal to two large meals totaling 2,500 calories.
On the flipside, food calories are more likely to be used immediately for energy or stored as glycogen or used to synthesize muscle proteins when they are consumed at times of energy deficit, such as first thing in the morning after the overnight fast. Another such time is after exercise. Numerous studies have shown that people build more muscle and gain less body fat (or shed more body fat) when they consume adequate calories within two hours after exercise than when they do not, despite consuming the same total number of calories over the course of the day.
To be sure, counting calories has some value. However, for the reasons cited above, you can’t count on calories from any source to affect your body equally in all circumstances.
Nice copy/paste: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie
Thanks
Not to mention it is all totally irrelevant information considering we're discussing being in a caloric surplus with the intent to actually gain weight, while you go and post information pertaining to caloric deficits. Not one link to any of the studies, so we cannot even examine how they set set them up or anything of the sort?0 -
Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.
Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.0 -
Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.
Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.
Its not equal from a nutritional value standpoint, agreed (already mentioned by the person you had quoted in your irrelevant "rebuttal").
You're just spouting off without any context....
0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.
Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.
Its not equal from a nutritional value standpoint, agreed (already mentioned by the person you had quoted in your irrelevant "rebuttal").
You're just spouting off without any context....
It's not just about a nutritional standpoint, protein for a example is a calorie and is burned in the body differently from fats and carbs. Thus, making a "calorie not just a calorie."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calorie0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.
Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.
Its not equal from a nutritional value standpoint, agreed (already mentioned by the person you had quoted in your irrelevant "rebuttal").
You're just spouting off without any context....
It's not just about a nutritional standpoint, protein for a example is a calorie and is burned in the body differently from fats and carbs. Thus, making a "calorie not just a calorie."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calorie
TEF is already taken into consideration with TDEE method. Assuming you're holding calories and macros consistent it's irrelevant.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.
Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.
Its not equal from a nutritional value standpoint, agreed (already mentioned by the person you had quoted in your irrelevant "rebuttal").
You're just spouting off without any context....
It's not just about a nutritional standpoint, protein for a example is a calorie and is burned in the body differently from fats and carbs. Thus, making a "calorie not just a calorie."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calorie
TEF is already taken into consideration with TDEE method. Assuming you're holding calories and macros consistent it's irrelevant.
Sure, dude. Would love to argue with you but I won't.0 -
-
That I don't need to lose any more weight otherwise I'll look ill
It's being said because no one in my family has seen me this slim to them I probably do look too thin but really I still have a jiggly belly and thighs that need to go 0 -
Once again, context. This has nothing to do with what I said given context....HOLDING CALORIES & MACROS CONSTANT.0 -
Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.
Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.
nice straw man argument about eating pop tarts all day. No one is advocating that. Everyone in this thread said get adequate nutrition, hit macros, and fill in calories as needed from there.
most on these forums stress the important of carbs over protein when bulking, and then protein over carbs when cutting.
0 -
Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.
Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.
nice straw man argument about eating pop tarts all day. No one is advocating that. Everyone in this thread said get adequate nutrition, hit macros, and fill in calories as needed from there.
most on these forums stress the important of carbs over protein when bulking, and then protein over carbs when cutting.
To add to the bold.. the reason why carbs are stressed during a bulk is because its very easy to hit . 8 to 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass. Heck i do it all the time while on a cut.0 -
patcheslee wrote: »What are some of the most annoying thing people say to you about your weight? I've had my doctor give the advice "eat more food" when I asked what would help me gain. It seems a little ridiculous that a doctor would blow off giving advice.
Most doctors will provide generic advice because most of them have never had a nutrition class in their life. And unless they specialize in a field that would address nutrtion, they dont know what to say. Keep in mind that nutrition is very specialized.0 -
Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.
Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.
nice straw man argument about eating pop tarts all day. No one is advocating that. Everyone in this thread said get adequate nutrition, hit macros, and fill in calories as needed from there.
most on these forums stress the important of carbs over protein when bulking, and then protein over carbs when cutting.
To add to the bold.. the reason why carbs are stressed during a bulk is because its very easy to hit . 8 to 1g of protein per lb of lean body mass. Heck i do it all the time while on a cut.
agree, I never have a hard time hitting my protein macro …actually, I am constantly over….0 -
Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.
Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.
nice straw man argument about eating pop tarts all day. No one is advocating that. Everyone in this thread said get adequate nutrition, hit macros, and fill in calories as needed from there.
most on these forums stress the important of carbs over protein when bulking, and then protein over carbs when cutting.
Straw man argument?
One could say you're arguing to argue. My original statement:
"I think the most annoying thing I often see with gaining weight ( or anything with fitness.) People that state " sugar and sodium amounts do not matter, a calorie is just a calorie." Pretty annoying statements and really bad advice."
You have not debunked what I wrote, or proved anything wrong. I have left many examples of why I wrote what I wrote. You'll cherry pick a sentence or thought and run with it instead of some real reason why I am wrong, and keep telling me it's wrong.
If proteins fats and carbs are effected metabolically different in the body I am right. If I am wrong why can I go to other post you have talked about timing and when to eat carbs, proteins. Obviously because they they have a different effect when consumed. My statement was broad regardless It can't by wrong only for argumentative purposes or when it fits an agenda, it doesn't work like that.0 -
Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.
Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.
nice straw man argument about eating pop tarts all day. No one is advocating that. Everyone in this thread said get adequate nutrition, hit macros, and fill in calories as needed from there.
most on these forums stress the important of carbs over protein when bulking, and then protein over carbs when cutting.
Straw man argument?
One could say you're arguing to argue. My original statement:
"I think the most annoying thing I often see with gaining weight ( or anything with fitness.) People that state " sugar and sodium amounts do not matter, a calorie is just a calorie." Pretty annoying statements and really bad advice."
You have not debunked what I wrote, or proved anything wrong. I have left many examples of why I wrote what I wrote. You'll cherry pick a sentence or thought and run with it instead of some real reason why I am wrong, and keep telling me it's wrong.
If proteins fats and carbs are effected metabolically different in the body I am right. If I am wrong why can I go to other post you have talked about timing and when to eat carbs, proteins. Obviously because they they have a different effect when consumed. My statement was broad regardless It can't by wrong only for argumentative purposes or when it fits an agenda, it doesn't work like that.
what you said has been debunked several times. What everyone has already pointed out, and you choose to ignore, is that all calories are the same from an energy standpoint; however, they are not all nutritionally the same.
you then went on to make a straw man argument about eating 2000 calories of pop tarts, which no one in this thread has advocated. What we are saying is that one shout get adequate nutrition, hit macros, and then fill in with whatever calories one wants, as you don't get extra credit for additional micros and macros beyond what is required in ones day.
so to repeat…
1000 calories of pop tarts = 1000 calories of carrots from an energy standpoint; however, they are not nutritionally the same, and no is advocating a diet of strictly one or the other.
0 -
Yeah, because it can't work in reverse. Eating carbs which is highly recommended on these forums in a bulk or a cut after a work out is real irrelevant information, which is food timing. Or a person can just eat 2k calories worth of Poptarts because a" calorie is just a calorie" and see what happens.
Besides, if you go to my first post, it was about sodium and sugar as well, not just the saying a calorie is a calorie. To get big you have to eat, but not all food is equal as macros like carbs, fats, proteins and what they do, people just cherry picked what I wrote for their own reasons.
nice straw man argument about eating pop tarts all day. No one is advocating that. Everyone in this thread said get adequate nutrition, hit macros, and fill in calories as needed from there.
most on these forums stress the important of carbs over protein when bulking, and then protein over carbs when cutting.
Straw man argument?
One could say you're arguing to argue. My original statement:
"I think the most annoying thing I often see with gaining weight ( or anything with fitness.) People that state " sugar and sodium amounts do not matter, a calorie is just a calorie." Pretty annoying statements and really bad advice."
You have not debunked what I wrote, or proved anything wrong. I have left many examples of why I wrote what I wrote. You'll cherry pick a sentence or thought and run with it instead of some real reason why I am wrong, and keep telling me it's wrong.
If proteins fats and carbs are effected metabolically different in the body I am right. If I am wrong why can I go to other post you have talked about timing and when to eat carbs, proteins. Obviously because they they have a different effect when consumed. My statement was broad regardless It can't by wrong only for argumentative purposes or when it fits an agenda, it doesn't work like that.
what you said has been debunked several times. What everyone has already pointed out, and you choose to ignore, is that all calories are the same from an energy standpoint; however, they are not all nutritionally the same.
you then went on to make a straw man argument about eating 2000 calories of pop tarts, which no one in this thread has advocated. What we are saying is that one shout get adequate nutrition, hit macros, and then fill in with whatever calories one wants, as you don't get extra credit for additional micros and macros beyond what is required in ones day.
so to repeat…
1000 calories of pop tarts = 1000 calories of carrots from an energy standpoint; however, they are not nutritionally the same, and no is advocating a diet of strictly one or the other.
What you're saying is very untrue about 1000 calories of carrots being equal to a 1000 calories of Poptarts as a energy standpoint! The main reason is nutritional value, but the second reason how the energy is broken(absorbed) insulin spikes and other factors when being used in the body.
The vast amounts of sugar/calories from the Poptarts is burned quicker than the calories from the carrots, and because the carrot has fiber it slows down the process further. Stop stating what you think you know and go with what actual happens and some research. This is why you give bad advice.
Can you still have a Poptart over a carrot? Yes, but there is no DT who is going to agree with your statement. You're hanging too much on the energy aspect you complete miss the process of consumption. Yes, they both create energy but it's not even close to the same amount because of how the body absorbs it. And if it's not the same the effect it makes a calorie not just a calorie.
The argument of filling calories is also flawed, because the effect will still be the same no matter how many calories you are consuming. Insulin spikes aren't bias it's not like the body is going to go (well I already ate 1500 calories today, no more spikes for me). The body doesn't know your goal of gaining or losing weight, it just reacts to foods, aka calories you eat. The reaction can burn more calories or less. ( like working out)
Need another example, there was a recent study of soda and the effect it has on the body metabolically , go research it and you will see Milk will have no way have the same effect. 200 calories of soda is not =to 200 calories of Milk, thus not all energy is the same even though the calories are. So, a calorie is not just a calorie!
You can't debunk if there is facts.
So to repeat again, nothing debunked, just an opinion trying to counter facts.0 -
A calorie is a unit of measurement.
I don't understand what you don't understand about this.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
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions