Does what you eat matter?
Replies
-
My boyfriend is the same way with allergies. He can't have milk or eggs or cheese. Have you tried Soy milk or Almond milk? I hear they're both are really good and last longer than regular milk. Cereal is great too. You can have it whenever. I used to eat Easy Mac all the time that and Top Ramen. Both of them are so unhealthy. I am on a broke budget too but I have some healthy alternatives. Annie's Mac N Cheese are a better option and not that expensive. She has a lil bunny on the label. Whole wheat crackers are great with hummus. If you are getting hot dogs get the Kosher All Beef kind with whole wheat buns. Grocery Outlet has great deals on canned veggies and fruit and you can get frozen for cheap too.0
-
I'm right there with you on the allergy front. I'm severely allergic to natural latex proteins, which eliminates a surprising number of healthy foods: bananas, pears, kiwis, zucchini, avocados, soy, celery, mangoes, wheat grass, all nuts except for almonds and pecans... the list goes on and on and freakin' on. As I'm rather keen on avoiding death, I have to watch what I eat very closely and, unfortunately, it seems the healthier a menu item is the less likely I'll be able to eat it.
Hamburgers and hot dogs with a side of greasy crisps? No problem. Pesto Tofu? Painful death. *sighs*
For the most part, a calorie deficit of 500 calories per day will result in a weight loss of one pound per week; regardless of what you're eating. Do keep an eye on specific nutritional deficiencies related to your allergies though (for example, I have difficulty getting enough potassium in my diet), and try your best to eat a balanced diet.
Also, feel free to add me to your friend list if you'd like a partner in allergy purgatory.
0 -
Oh yeah, you can buy almond, soy, hemp, or coconut milk in the natural food sections of grocery stores. They are pricey, so stock up when they are on sale. Hemp is my fave on cereal.0
-
I think a lot of people aren't reading your post correctly. I live with allergies to A LOT of the really common ingredients in our food system (corn, wheat, soy...etc). I understand how hard it is to buy things without allergens in it and how expensive it can be. I really think that eating macaroni and hot dogs will make it harder for you to lose weight very fast...but do what you can with what your money allows. I looked up your allergy (I had never heard of it before). Could you maybe buy fresh vegetables and steam them or stir fry them? Can you also try frozen veggies? Canned/frozen may not be the BEST, but they still contain nutrients and will help you tremendously with your diet. I understand that you don't have a lot of money, but try to think outside the box. Instead of macaroni, try getting a cheap box of brown rice and a can of stewed tomatoes and put that together with some cooked chicken breasts (most of the time there are some chicken breasts on sale!) There are also a lot of inexpensive soups out there that aren't very calorie dense, although you've got to watch out for crazy sodium content. I hope this starts to get easier for you!!0
-
When you eat less than your body needs to survive, you won't lose weight. I guess I should say when you net less, because there are many people who net 500 calories a day and wonder why they're having problems. Say your BMR is about 1800. If you eat slightly less than that, enough to equal 3500 calories per week, you'll lose weight. If you cut too drastically, you won't. The idea of eating more still involves a calorie deficit, just a less severe one, like eating 1600 per day instead of 1200 per day. You're still at a deficit for your BMR, but not so much so that you're shocking your body.
I looked at all your posts for nearly a month and I'm pretty sure I've never posted in any of those threads.
Anyway, what you are saying is much different than "if you eat less calories than you burn than you will lose weight no matter what" I guess you were the wrong person to ask since you don't actually believe that. Their are people who will claim that the law of thermodynamics can not be broken and so it must be true.
These constant contradictions have me spinning in circles with no real idea on what I am supposed to do.
By the way, I'm a gamer too. I have played WOW since 2004 and just recently started playing Rift. :happy:
No, what I am saying is exactly what I've been saying, the amount of detail I put into the post is what changes. MFP uses the system of deficits, eating less than you burn. My BMR is around 1700 cal per day. I set mine to lose 1 lb per week, and I am netting 1600 per day, or attempting to. My point being that you'll lose weight eating 1200 calories of twinkies (as some dude proved on a documentary), but you won't be healthy. I could live off of 1200 calories of cereal and milk a day and lose weight, but I wouldn't be very healthy. There is a huge difference between dieting and health. Bigger than most people want to realize. That is why it is important to make a lifestyle change if you are determined to keep the weight off.
Edit: I apologize if I mistook you for someone else. It is very frustrating when people post and make you feel like you're stupid because your opinion is different from theirs.0 -
I think a lot of people aren't reading your post correctly. I live with allergies to A LOT of the really common ingredients in our food system (corn, wheat, soy...etc). I understand how hard it is to buy things without allergens in it and how expensive it can be. I really think that eating macaroni and hot dogs will make it harder for you to lose weight very fast...but do what you can with what your money allows. I looked up your allergy (I had never heard of it before). Could you maybe buy fresh vegetables and steam them or stir fry them? Can you also try frozen veggies? Canned/frozen may not be the BEST, but they still contain nutrients and will help you tremendously with your diet. I understand that you don't have a lot of money, but try to think outside the box. Instead of macaroni, try getting a cheap box of brown rice and a can of stewed tomatoes and put that together with some cooked chicken breasts (most of the time there are some chicken breasts on sale!) There are also a lot of inexpensive soups out there that aren't very calorie dense, although you've got to watch out for crazy sodium content. I hope this starts to get easier for you!!
For lunches I've been having some campbell's chunky soups and saltine crackers. It fills me up really well and is only around 400 calories.0 -
when I was in college I nannied for a kid with lots of the same issues, can you eat root veggies? he could, carrots, potatoes, onions, sweet potatoes, rutabega, etc. How about fruits with a nonedible skin? frozen veggies? I cooked a lot of rice, which it cheap, also I don't know if your grocery has them but those giant bulk bags of 10-15 chicken breasts are about 11 dollars at walmart here, I boil up a few at a time and keep in the fridge to toss in with other things or put on sandwhiches etc.
Make sure you get a multivitamin0 -
When you eat less than your body needs to survive, you won't lose weight. I guess I should say when you net less, because there are many people who net 500 calories a day and wonder why they're having problems. Say your BMR is about 1800. If you eat slightly less than that, enough to equal 3500 calories per week, you'll lose weight. If you cut too drastically, you won't. The idea of eating more still involves a calorie deficit, just a less severe one, like eating 1600 per day instead of 1200 per day. You're still at a deficit for your BMR, but not so much so that you're shocking your body.
I looked at all your posts for nearly a month and I'm pretty sure I've never posted in any of those threads.
Anyway, what you are saying is much different than "if you eat less calories than you burn than you will lose weight no matter what" I guess you were the wrong person to ask since you don't actually believe that. Their are people who will claim that the law of thermodynamics can not be broken and so it must be true.
These constant contradictions have me spinning in circles with no real idea on what I am supposed to do.
By the way, I'm a gamer too. I have played WOW since 2004 and just recently started playing Rift. :happy:
No, what I am saying is exactly what I've been saying, the amount of detail I put into the post is what changes. MFP uses the system of deficits, eating less than you burn. My BMR is around 1700 cal per day. I set mine to lose 1 lb per week, and I am netting 1600 per day, or attempting to. My point being that you'll lose weight eating 1200 calories of twinkies (as some dude proved on a documentary), but you won't be healthy. I could live off of 1200 calories of cereal and milk a day and lose weight, but I wouldn't be very healthy. There is a huge difference between dieting and health. Bigger than most people want to realize. That is why it is important to make a lifestyle change if you are determined to keep the weight off.
Edit: I apologize if I mistook you for someone else. It is very frustrating when people post and make you feel like you're stupid because your opinion is different from theirs.
No problemo.
Here's the thing, you say that if you maintain a deficit you will lose weight. But you also said that if you maintain a deficit that is too large you won't lose weight. Does this not seem confusing to you?
i don't want to make you feel bad so if these questions are bothering you i will stop.0 -
1) Moderate calories for weight loss.
2) Moderate macronutrients for body recomposition.
3) Moderate micronutrients for general health.0 -
There is no one food that will hinder/accelerate weight loss. Weight loss/gain is determined by energy balance (calories in vs. calories out). Body composition, or the amount of fat/lean mass you have, is determined by the amounts of MACROnutrients you ingest (carbs/fat/protein). Foods also contain MICROnutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc) that are important for overall health, but do not rule weight loss/gain.
Using this post you can get a general idea of calculating your calorie and macronutrient needs. All of the calculations have been gathered from empirical studies that are peer reviewed:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=436716771&postcount=1
In regards to hormones, everyone wants to look at the immediate post meal fluctuations and never bother to look at the LONG term levels and effects of those hormones. Transient hormonal fluctations such as insulin, glucagon, IGF-1, GH, etc. are largely irrelevent in terms of weight loss/gain.
The main problem IMO is people get defensive when what they believe to be true about dieting comes crashing down. The fact that losing weight is much simpler that it is made out to be. Why is it hard to accept the fact losing weight is as simple as counting your calories and maintaining a deficit? Common sense IMO would tell you to eat mostly whole foods, but for God's sake don't tell me that my weight loss is going to be slowed or hindered by sugar.
CLIFFS:
1. Energy balance determines weight loss
2. Macronutrients determine body compostion
3. MICROnutrients are important for overall health, but have no play in weight loss0 -
That 99 cent packet of hotdogs is probably about 8-10 oz. of "meat." Don't get me wrong. I like a good weiner now and then. But they're not exactly health food.
If you watch your store circulars (I check them online) you can get boneless skinless chicken breast for around $2 a pound. About the same cost as the hotdogs, and a lot better for you. And a lot more versatile. Sometimes you can find beef or pork at lower costs, too. You'll usually need to buy larger packages to get the best price, but pick up some freezer bags and freeze what you won't use right away. Or go halfsies with a friend and split the food.
Bags of brown rice, lentils and beans are dirt cheap. Look into getting frozen bags of the veggies you can eat. They'll keep longer than fresh and are sometimes a better price.0 -
There is no one food that will hinder/accelerate weight loss. Weight loss/gain is determined by energy balance (calories in vs. calories out). Body composition, or the amount of fat/lean mass you have, is determined by the amounts of MACROnutrients you ingest (carbs/fat/protein). Foods also contain MICROnutrients (vitamins, minerals, etc) that are important for overall health, but do not rule weight loss/gain.
Using this post you can get a general idea of calculating your calorie and macronutrient needs. All of the calculations have been gathered from empirical studies that are peer reviewed:
http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showpost.php?p=436716771&postcount=1
In regards to hormones, everyone wants to look at the immediate post meal fluctuations and never bother to look at the LONG term levels and effects of those hormones. Transient hormonal fluctations such as insulin, glucagon, IGF-1, GH, etc. are largely irrelevent in terms of weight loss/gain.
The main problem IMO is people get defensive when what they believe to be true about dieting comes crashing down. The fact that losing weight is much simpler that it is made out to be. Why is it hard to accept the fact losing weight is as simple as counting your calories and maintaining a deficit? Common sense IMO would tell you to eat mostly whole foods, but for God's sake don't tell me that my weight loss is going to be slowed or hindered by sugar.
CLIFFS:
1. Energy balance determines weight loss
2. Macronutrients determine body compostion
3. MICROnutrients are important for overall health, but have no play in weight loss
I agree with everything you said but I am not just concerned about losing weight. I want to be healthy. I want to lower my chances for Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. If weight loss was all that mattered I would just starve myself, results are guaranteed.0 -
I agree with everything you said but I am not just concerned about losing weight. I want to be healthy. I want to lower my chances for Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. If weight loss was all that mattered I would just starve myself, results are guaranteed.
Absolutely understood, that's why I included the bits about micronutrients.
BUT, the general understanding of disease stemming from a "poor" diet is largely misunderstood. Poor health from diet can be mostly attributed to an indefinite and irresponsible caloric surplus leading to things such as a sustained elevation of insulin levels. You cannot blame processed foods, carbs, sucrose, saturated fat, etc. alone for bad overall health.0 -
Then what the heck are you arguing about with me in the other thread.I agree with everything you said but I am not just concerned about losing weight. I want to be healthy. I want to lower my chances for Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. If weight loss was all that mattered I would just starve myself, results are guaranteed.0 -
Then what the heck are you arguing about with me in the other thread.I agree with everything you said but I am not just concerned about losing weight. I want to be healthy. I want to lower my chances for Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. If weight loss was all that mattered I would just starve myself, results are guaranteed.
Let's not bring that ugliness over here, one thread is enough.0 -
I agree with everything you said but I am not just concerned about losing weight. I want to be healthy. I want to lower my chances for Diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. If weight loss was all that mattered I would just starve myself, results are guaranteed.
Absolutely understood, that's why I included the bits about micronutrients.
BUT, the general understanding of disease stemming from a "poor" diet is largely misunderstood. Poor health from diet can be mostly attributed to an indefinite and irresponsible caloric surplus leading to things such as a sustained elevation of insulin levels. You cannot blame processed foods, carbs, sucrose, saturated fat, etc. alone for bad overall health.
I have create a discussion in the General forums to discuss this issue called "Starvation mode and Plateaus, what is the real story?" I welcome Untz to come defend his position and Mapex, i would love to hear your opinion.0 -
but whole chickens and roast them. They are cheap amd have a lot of meat. Buy large bags of brown rice- much cheaper than the small boxes and lasts forever. Beans, lentils, barley, quinoa... all very cheap and hypoallergenic. Eat the fruits and veggies that don't bother you. Also know that weakened immunity exasterbates allergies. In order to strengthen your immunity you need your vitamins (esp C) minerals and antioxidants. The healthier you are the less your allergies will bother you basically. Carbs amd processed foods will only clog your colon and make your allergies worse.0
-
Edit: I'll post in new thread....0
-
Anyway, what you are saying is much different than "if you eat less calories than you burn than you will lose weight no matter what" I guess you were the wrong person to ask since you don't actually believe that. Their are people who will claim that the law of thermodynamics can not be broken and so it must be true.
These constant contradictions have me spinning in circles with no real idea on what I am supposed to do.
I'm intrigued by the notion that starvation mode somehow violates thermodynamic law... I have to assume the unnamed "they" are referring to the first law (that energy can be neither created nor destroyed), as it's the only one that could possibly be referenced in this type of metabolic exchange, but I'm baffled as to how it's being applied.
In fact, one can't claim that starvation mode violates the first law of thermodynamics without conceeding that weight gain violates it as well; they operate on the exact same metabolic principal of caloric storage. Oddly enough, I've yet to see anyone claim that weight gain is impossible.
I'm too much of a nerd to just let this go, so here's a full explanation:
**DISCLAIMER: I'm not a nutritional, metabolic, medical, or any other kind of authority - just a nerd. None of what follows constitutes professional advice.**
In a perfect (and therefore unattainable) metabolic exchange, the number of calories taken in is perfectly equivalent to the number of calories burned/eliminated. 100 units of energy in, 100 units of energy out = 0 energy created/destroyed.
SURPLUS METABOLIC SYSTEM = WEIGHT GAIN:
When the number of calories taken in exceeds the number of calories burned/eliminated, our bodies compensate by storing those extra calories as fat. 120 units of energy in, 100 units of energy out, 20 units of energy stored = 0 energy created/destroyed.
DEFICIENT METABOLIC SYSTEM = WEIGHT LOSS:
When the number of calories taken in is less than the number of calories burned/eliminated, our bodies compensate by burning fat and/or muscle. 80 units of energy in, 100 units of energy out (80 units from direct exchange, 20 units converted from reserves) = 0 energy created/destroyed.
STARVATION MODE:
A SEVERELY deficient metabolic system can trigger the adapted metabolic strategy commonly referred to as "starvation mode". In starvation mode, the body attempts to protect against a dangerous metabolic deficit by decreasing the number of calories burned/eliminated rather than burning caloric reserves. Instead of the 50 units of energy in, 100 units of energy out (50 units from direct exchange and 50 units converted from reserves) one might expect, starvation mode results in 50 units of energy in, 50 units of energy out = 0 energy created/destroyed.
Additionally, while in starvation mode, all calories consumed above the decreased metabolic burn rate may be converted to fat, resulting in weight gain. 60 units of energy in, 50 units of energy out, 10 units of energy stored = 0 energy created/destroyed.
It's important to note that, should the severe metabolic deficit continue beyond the body's tolerance, starvation mode will eventually give way to actual starvation... which eventually gives way to organ failure and death.
So, there you go. Thermodynamic law is apparently safe from the onslaughts of adaptive metabolic strategy. 0 -
@Weofui: THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!
Oh... and just so you can say someone said it: ZOMG WEIGHT GAIN IS IMPOSSIBLE! :laugh:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions