Personal Trainer & Weight Management Certified here to help!
Replies
-
I hate to see butter unfairly maligned. It does not contain trans fat, unsalted butter is usually available right beside salted butter if sodium is a concern, and gram for gram or tablespoon for tablespoon it has fewer calories than olive oil because of the water content.
I don't eat butter myself (for reasons that aren't related to health), but my husband does. He and I have noticed that it really seems to contribute to his satiety more than an equivalent amount of olive oil. As he's trying to add more vegetables to his diet, the flavor and satiety butter contributes has been absolutely key.
Not to say this would work for everyone, but I don't see why someone trying to lose weight would have to avoid it. It's just fat, which is something that we all need.0 -
Anecdotes aren't evidence. And googling something doesn't prove it. There's lots of articles written by "gurus" of exercise that have no background in nutrition or physiology. Peer reviewed clinical studies provide more accurate information. And a calorie is a calorie. No Journal of Science will dispute that.asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Wrong. Scientists challenge fixed ideas and evaluates evidence from a variety of possible positions. The term "a calorie is not a calorie" has no syllogistic sense if the statement is only a negation of "all X are not X." It is intended in the sense that foodstuff contains energy and quality of food matters to diet ( for example - a deficit diet with 90% protein will have different mood and satiny effects than the same deficit with 10% protein) or health (for example - a 2000 calorie diet rich in packaged meats vs a 2000 calorie diet with limited packaged meats might have different health outcomes). The OP just uses a poorly structured phrase, a sound bite, to express this and then defends herself even more poorly. One would expect by now that people her would understand this.
As to scientific journals that express this? Oh look:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26303602
http://www.nature.com/nrendo/journal/v11/n10/full/nrendo.2015.144.html
Anecdotal evidence IS evidence but not highly valued.
0 -
debrakgoogins wrote: »asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
You are making claims that I am sure you believe to be true. You seem to honestly want to help. The problem is that you absolutely do not HAVE to eat clean to lose weight. If I eat 100 calories of vegetables with no protein or fats, I will be hungry again with no energy in half an hour and be eating again. If I eat a cup of pasta, I will stay full for a few hours; a cup of broccoli, half an hour tops. That's the way my body works. Not everyone fits your perfect scenario mold where they can simply change their eating habits overnight and have miraculous results. The reality is each person has to find a balance that works for them. When they follow a diet that allows no comfort foods, they won't be able to sustain it over the long term and will usually gain the weight back. It's better to learn portion control and how to fit the foods you love into an overall healthy diet so that it is sustainable for life, not just a few months. All calories are created equal...just like all pounds are created equal. Butter is not the enemy.
Some very good points right there. Its about what works for you and getting a balance and still being able to enjoy life0 -
So you're saying eating fructose doesn't raise insulin? Or consuming protein doesn't either? If so, you're not well versed in nutrition.Refined carbs are usually something that people easily over eat. This would be your whites (pasta, white bread, etc). The reason is because the body absorbs these simple sugars relatively quickly and a few hours later you are hungry again. The body increases blood sugar, triggers a release of insulin and you eat again. It is MUCH better to get your carbs from fruit, veggies, legumes. These carbs are higher in volume and tends to be more filling.
See this is what drives me to consider leaving this place - as a mod, one would think you'd take some responsibility for explaining things properly and not just scoring points.
She happens to be partially right. Refined carbs, along with other calorie rich food, ARE something people easily tend to overeat. The reasoning is a bit off, the hunger, satiety process is related to absorption but more so to insulin overshoot - while fruit and proteins both raise blood sugar - insulin overshoot is likelier when sugars are highly available for cell absorption and lipogenesis. Post rebound hunger is certainly a documented phenomenon.
However, it isn't a reason to stop eating "white foods" - just suggests that meals should be mixed. Or understanding that rapid glucose availability might be a good strategy for feeding during exercise, etc...
And it IS usually better to assure your diet mixes in fruit, veggies, legumes. I hope you aren't opposed to that.0 -
Hi,
Welcome to these forums, hope you stick around. Don't be put off by all the 'a calorie is a calorie' pedants - I do agree with them in principal, but I'm happy to listen to all views on the best balance of macros, low/high GI, and meal timings for optimum comfort in a calorie deficit. What does wind me up is reading posts from people claiming you HAVE to give up a certain food in order to lose ANY weight - poor old bread and cereals are often the brunt of this BS accusation.0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »No, a calorie is not created equal. Your body treats the foods you eat differently. A protein burns slower than a carb. This is because it takes 20% to 30% more energy to burn that calorie. Energy in is just as complex as energy out. You can look it up if you would like.
BMR is not temperature neutral. For every 0.5 degree celsius increase in internal body temperature, the BMR increases approximately 7%. Physical activity significantly increases body temper
Refined carbs are usually something that people easily over eat. This would be your whites (pasta, white bread, etc). The reason is because the body absorbs these simple sugars relatively quickly and a few hours later you are hungry again. The body increases blood sugar, triggers a release of insulin and you eat again. It is MUCH better to get your carbs from fruit, veggies, legumes. These carbs are higher in volume and tends to be more filling.
Butter is another additive people use too much of. While it has fats (trans fat) it is also high in cholesterol. Most butter people consume is also loaded with sodium and induces the need for more. Olive oil is a better alternative since while it still has fats, it actually has additional benefits including lowering ldl and triglycerides, it is rich in antioxidants, especially vitamin e. The fats in olive oil are monounsaturated which doesn't oxidize in the body and its lower in polyunsaturated fat which does oxidize in the body. It also reduces blood pressure. So....why use butter when you can get actual health benefits from olive oil?
Your metabolic burn increases. BMR is defined as at neutral temperature. Your statement is like saying lines aren't straight when you bend them. Of course, because it is no longer a line! If you measure calorie burn in a non neutral temperature, you no longer measure BMR!
Also, dietary cholesterol isn't an issue for most people. Some seem to have a gene where dietary cholesterol impacts body cholesterol but it is rare. Calorie restriction tends trump other factors anyway, so it is doubly unnecessary when losing weight.
The energy expenditure to break down protein is already accounted for in dietary calorie count - purely burning protein produces around 5.7 kcal /g in energy.
Euclidean geometry is so 2000-late.0 -
I stand corrected. Without disputes in science, there wouldn't be study and observations. Reacting to the "calorie is not a calorie" phrase, I could have been more concise and less absolute.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Anecdotes aren't evidence. And googling something doesn't prove it. There's lots of articles written by "gurus" of exercise that have no background in nutrition or physiology. Peer reviewed clinical studies provide more accurate information. And a calorie is a calorie. No Journal of Science will dispute that.asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Wrong. Scientists challenge fixed ideas and evaluates evidence from a variety of possible positions. The term "a calorie is not a calorie" has no syllogistic sense if the statement is only a negation of "all X are not X." It is intended in the sense that foodstuff contains energy and quality of food matters to diet ( for example - a deficit diet with 90% protein will have different mood and satiny effects than the same deficit with 10% protein) or health (for example - a 2000 calorie diet rich in packaged meats vs a 2000 calorie diet with limited packaged meats might have different health outcomes). The OP just uses a poorly structured phrase, a sound bite, to express this and then defends herself even more poorly. One would expect by now that people her would understand this.
As to scientific journals that express this? Oh look:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26303602
http://www.nature.com/nrendo/journal/v11/n10/full/nrendo.2015.144.html
Anecdotal evidence IS evidence but not highly valued.
Generally speaking, anecdotes don't get value because they are hardly ever under a scientific setting, hence the reason I made the statement.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »Often referred to as an empty calorie are foods high in calories but very lacking in nutritional value, like fast food. If the harm to your body outweighs the benefits by a long shot then it's what is known as an empty calorie. You can be at a "healthy weight" but have high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol,etc bc of the foods in which you choose to consume. Again, backing my statement that calories are not created equal. Have you heard of skinny fat? This is a person who eats within calorie range but not the right foods. This person is not actually healthy and their body fat percentage is of an unhealthy range. I see it all day at the gym training and taking body fat analysts.
Well, thanks for your opinion. Glad now that I didn't take time to read the whole post!0 -
Except none of the things you list are in any way in conflict with what the "pedants" say.hamlet1222 wrote: »Hi,
Welcome to these forums, hope you stick around. Don't be put off by all the 'a calorie is a calorie' pedants - I do agree with them in principal, but I'm happy to listen to all views on the best balance of macros, low/high GI, and meal timings for optimum comfort in a calorie deficit. What does wind me up is reading posts from people claiming you HAVE to give up a certain food in order to lose ANY weight - poor old bread and cereals are often the brunt of this BS accusation.0 -
lemonlionheart wrote: »asimmons26 wrote: »Often referred to as an empty calorie are foods high in calories but very lacking in nutritional value, like fast food. If the harm to your body outweighs the benefits by a long shot then it's what is known as an empty calorie. You can be at a "healthy weight" but have high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol,etc bc of the foods in which you choose to consume. Again, backing my statement that calories are not created equal. Have you heard of skinny fat? This is a person who eats within calorie range but not the right foods. This person is not actually healthy and their body fat percentage is of an unhealthy range. I see it all day at the gym training and taking body fat analysts.
I don't have any qualifications, but I was under the impression that 'skinny fat' was just when you have a relatively low weight but a high body fat percentage. Never heard it defined as anything to do with the 'right foods' or eating 'clean'.
You're correct but they often go together
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemonlionheart wrote: »asimmons26 wrote: »Often referred to as an empty calorie are foods high in calories but very lacking in nutritional value, like fast food. If the harm to your body outweighs the benefits by a long shot then it's what is known as an empty calorie. You can be at a "healthy weight" but have high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol,etc bc of the foods in which you choose to consume. Again, backing my statement that calories are not created equal. Have you heard of skinny fat? This is a person who eats within calorie range but not the right foods. This person is not actually healthy and their body fat percentage is of an unhealthy range. I see it all day at the gym training and taking body fat analysts.
I don't have any qualifications, but I was under the impression that 'skinny fat' was just when you have a relatively low weight but a high body fat percentage. Never heard it defined as anything to do with the 'right foods' or eating 'clean'.
You're correct but they often go together
According to what?0 -
And they often don't. That's why it makes no sense to try to link the two.Packerjohn wrote: »lemonlionheart wrote: »asimmons26 wrote: »Often referred to as an empty calorie are foods high in calories but very lacking in nutritional value, like fast food. If the harm to your body outweighs the benefits by a long shot then it's what is known as an empty calorie. You can be at a "healthy weight" but have high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol,etc bc of the foods in which you choose to consume. Again, backing my statement that calories are not created equal. Have you heard of skinny fat? This is a person who eats within calorie range but not the right foods. This person is not actually healthy and their body fat percentage is of an unhealthy range. I see it all day at the gym training and taking body fat analysts.
I don't have any qualifications, but I was under the impression that 'skinny fat' was just when you have a relatively low weight but a high body fat percentage. Never heard it defined as anything to do with the 'right foods' or eating 'clean'.
You're correct but they often go together0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »
Ultimately, it's always about calories. I've bulked eating the cleanest of clean foods (at a caloric surplus) and I've cut eating mostly
Fast food (at a caloric deficit).
Exactly. That's why last year I wasn't losing weight and this year I am. This year I'm counting calories and last year I wasn't.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »The term "a calorie is not a calorie" has no syllogistic sense if the statement is only a negation of "all X are not X." It is intended in the sense that foodstuff contains energy and quality of food matters to diet ( for example - a deficit diet with 90% protein will have different mood and satiny effects than the same deficit with 10% protein) or health (for example - a 2000 calorie diet rich in packaged meats vs a 2000 calorie diet with limited packaged meats might have different health outcomes).
This is why I pointed out that OP is confusing "foods" and "calories." Absolutely no one here claims all foods are the same.
I'm not sure why this makes OP's statement defensible at all.0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »Hey guys!!! I'm a certified personal trainer and weight management coach here to help. If you need help losing weight/gaining muscle/work out help etc. please post it! No reason my knowledge should go to waste right?
Have a great day and go out there and reach your dreams!!
I am curious about your certification. I see on your profile you only list that you are a Zumba instructor.0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
Google is not a reliable source.
I've eaten 100 calories of french fries before and I have enough energy, but I do prefer the veggies more often.
However, this does not speak to a calorie not being a calorie, but to the nutritional side of things. The calorie content is still exactly the same.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
So you're saying eating fructose doesn't raise insulin? Or consuming protein doesn't either? If so, you're not well versed in nutrition.Refined carbs are usually something that people easily over eat. This would be your whites (pasta, white bread, etc). The reason is because the body absorbs these simple sugars relatively quickly and a few hours later you are hungry again. The body increases blood sugar, triggers a release of insulin and you eat again. It is MUCH better to get your carbs from fruit, veggies, legumes. These carbs are higher in volume and tends to be more filling.
See this is what drives me to consider leaving this place - as a mod, one would think you'd take some responsibility for explaining things properly and not just scoring points.
She happens to be partially right. Refined carbs, along with other calorie rich food, ARE something people easily tend to overeat. The reasoning is a bit off, the hunger, satiety process is related to absorption but more so to insulin overshoot - while fruit and proteins both raise blood sugar - insulin overshoot is likelier when sugars are highly available for cell absorption and lipogenesis. Post rebound hunger is certainly a documented phenomenon.
However, it isn't a reason to stop eating "white foods" - just suggests that meals should be mixed. Or understanding that rapid glucose availability might be a good strategy for feeding during exercise, etc...
And it IS usually better to assure your diet mixes in fruit, veggies, legumes. I hope you aren't opposed to that.
Yes, healthy diets tend to be better for lots of reasons.
Focusing on demonizing specific foods vs. actual nutrition is not helpful. Eating white pasta is not the issue -- I tend to eat whole wheat pasta at home (and limited amounts, since I like the toppings better anyway), but if faced with a choice between white pasta with a sauce of tomatoes, shrimp, and vegetables, vs. whole wheat mac & cheese, normally the first would be healthier (depending on one's overall diet, of course). Obsessing about not eating "white foods" would obscure that. Better for people to understand how to construct a healthy diet which isn't so hard one must make up rules or "eat clean" or whatever.
I am very much in favor of people improving their diets and try to eat a healthy diet myself.0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »If you want to continue reading the other five reasons, you can look it up very easily.
Whoa. Your the expert here. Please provide peer reviewed studies to back up your claims. This does not include google, unless it takes you directly to a medical website that has said studies. 0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
I generally eat "empty" calories daily, even while prepping for a bodybuilding competition. 100 calories is a drop in the bucket for the amount of calories I eat while cutting. It's about overall context of the diet, not some random 100 calories.0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
I generally eat "empty" calories daily, even while prepping for a bodybuilding competition. 100 calories is a drop in the bucket for the amount of calories I eat while cutting. It's about overall context of the diet, not some random 100 calories.
I think I get the spirit of what she is saying. I thought I would eat a doughnut before a run once. It has a high carb content, so I thought why not? Well there is obviously a lot of fat also. I burped and refluxed that damn thing for a good three miles. I was miserable. I would have been better off eating oranges. That's a content problem though.0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
I generally eat "empty" calories daily, even while prepping for a bodybuilding competition. 100 calories is a drop in the bucket for the amount of calories I eat while cutting. It's about overall context of the diet, not some random 100 calories.
I think I get the spirit of what she is saying. I thought I would eat a doughnut before a run once. It has a high carb content, so I thought why not? Well there is obviously a lot of fat also. I burped and refluxed that damn thing for a good three miles. I was miserable. I would have been better off eating oranges. That's a content problem though.
Pre-workout fuel would be different than everything else you eat during the day. Just like I said, context of the diet. 100 calories is a much larger portion of 1200 calories than it is of 2100 calories. Eating some candy every day along with lean protein, quality fats and vegetables could make the difference between staying on track or failing for some people (like me, a binge eater).0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
I generally eat "empty" calories daily, even while prepping for a bodybuilding competition. 100 calories is a drop in the bucket for the amount of calories I eat while cutting. It's about overall context of the diet, not some random 100 calories.
I think I get the spirit of what she is saying. I thought I would eat a doughnut before a run once. It has a high carb content, so I thought why not? Well there is obviously a lot of fat also. I burped and refluxed that damn thing for a good three miles. I was miserable. I would have been better off eating oranges. That's a content problem though.
If I ate chili before I run, I'd be really uncomfortable. But it's a great dinner.0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
I generally eat "empty" calories daily, even while prepping for a bodybuilding competition. 100 calories is a drop in the bucket for the amount of calories I eat while cutting. It's about overall context of the diet, not some random 100 calories.
I think I get the spirit of what she is saying. I thought I would eat a doughnut before a run once. It has a high carb content, so I thought why not? Well there is obviously a lot of fat also. I burped and refluxed that damn thing for a good three miles. I was miserable. I would have been better off eating oranges. That's a content problem though.
Pre-workout fuel would be different than everything else you eat during the day. Just like I said, context of the diet. 100 calories is a much larger portion of 1200 calories than it is of 2100 calories. Eating some candy every day along with lean protein, quality fats and vegetables could make the difference between staying on track or failing for some people (like me, a binge eater).
True, very good point about staying on track. I couldn't survive clean eating all the time. I've tried to do challenges with my sister before, and I can't do it. I eat a lot of veggies, but the limitation is just too much for me to sustain.0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »Butter is another additive people use too much of. While it has fats (trans fat) it is also high in cholesterol. Most butter people consume is also loaded with sodium and induces the need for more. Olive oil is a better alternative since while it still has fats, it actually has additional benefits including lowering ldl and triglycerides, it is rich in antioxidants, especially vitamin e. The fats in olive oil are monounsaturated which doesn't oxidize in the body and its lower in polyunsaturated fat which does oxidize in the body. It also reduces blood pressure. So....why use butter when you can get actual health benefits from olive oil?
Margarine has trans fat, not butter. Maybe you meant to say saturated fat instead of trans fat?
I wouldn't call 90 mg of sodium loaded with sodium. Now fish sauce, THAT'S loaded with sodium. And consuming it has no adverse effects on my health. In fact, I did have adverse effects when I STOPPED cooking Thai food regularly as I was no longer getting enough iodine.
0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
I generally eat "empty" calories daily, even while prepping for a bodybuilding competition. 100 calories is a drop in the bucket for the amount of calories I eat while cutting. It's about overall context of the diet, not some random 100 calories.
I think I get the spirit of what she is saying. I thought I would eat a doughnut before a run once. It has a high carb content, so I thought why not? Well there is obviously a lot of fat also. I burped and refluxed that damn thing for a good three miles. I was miserable. I would have been better off eating oranges. That's a content problem though.
Pre-workout fuel would be different than everything else you eat during the day. Just like I said, context of the diet. 100 calories is a much larger portion of 1200 calories than it is of 2100 calories. Eating some candy every day along with lean protein, quality fats and vegetables could make the difference between staying on track or failing for some people (like me, a binge eater).
True, very good point about staying on track. I couldn't survive clean eating all the time. I've tried to do challenges with my sister before, and I can't do it. I eat a lot of veggies, but the limitation is just too much for me to sustain.
I would never have competed in a bodybuilding competition if my trainer had put me on a strict diet with zero sweets in it. Some people don't mind eating that way, for others it's a recipe for failure. Sometimes 100 or 200 "empty" calories saves me from 3,000 calories worth of whatever is within reach.0 -
Wow, she never did explain her qualifications and experience. Maybe the lack thereof explains her comments?
I don't think qualifications and experience make any difference. Here's a sample of various BS I've heard from qualified and experience trainers.
--One trainer at my gym told me my hill running, hill hikes etc don't count as strength training as they were only cardio and would not help in muscle retention. Instead, months later, those same hills are now easier and my legs don't tire as much. How's that not an increase in strength?
--Another told me that muscle burns 50 calories per pound per day (at rest). The correct answer is about 6. If 50 were true, my BMR would be at least several times more than the more accurate 1300-1400.
--An online trainer told me my BodyPump gym class is not strength training either. Apparently you need to be doing deadlifts and such for low reps and maximum weight for it to count as proper strength training. Rubbish.
--Another one here at mfp insisted that exercise is not necessary for weight loss and focus must be on calories in. They argued when I countered saying that by that logic, calorie restriction is also not necessary if instead one chooses to derive their calorie deficit from exercise, which is how I lost my weight. In fact, I ate and still eat more than I was eating when I was overweight. I simply went from being sedentary to very active.
--Lastly, a true expert, Biggest Loser Australia trainer Commando, Steve Willis. On an episode a few weeks ago, his black team had been assigned by the red team, to eat grains for the week (the others had meat, fish or fruits). Commando was upset and explained that cows are fed grains to fatten them up and so they're bad for weight loss. He's wrong. I eat a lot of grains - rice, oatmeal, pasta, corn flour, wheat, quinoa etc ever since I started losing weight 30 lbs ago. Now, at 125, I still eat them daily and maintaining just fine.
So, yeah, it doesn't seem to matter how qualified or experienced these folks are, they still spew a ton of misinformation.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »asimmons26 wrote: »Butter is another additive people use too much of. While it has fats (trans fat) it is also high in cholesterol. Most butter people consume is also loaded with sodium and induces the need for more. Olive oil is a better alternative since while it still has fats, it actually has additional benefits including lowering ldl and triglycerides, it is rich in antioxidants, especially vitamin e. The fats in olive oil are monounsaturated which doesn't oxidize in the body and its lower in polyunsaturated fat which does oxidize in the body. It also reduces blood pressure. So....why use butter when you can get actual health benefits from olive oil?
Margarine has trans fat, not butter. Maybe you meant to say saturated fat instead of trans fat?
I wouldn't call 90 mg of sodium loaded with sodium. Now fish sauce, THAT'S loaded with sodium. And consuming it has no adverse effects on my health. In fact, I did have adverse effects when I STOPPED cooking Thai food regularly as I was no longer getting enough iodine.
Don't use the MFP database as proof. It is often wrong. Like this time. One tablespoon has about 0.5 g of TF.
I personally would not worry about it or the salt.
0 -
It's responses like this that......remind me I do love this community because of the knowledgeable people who fight against the woo, fads, and constant misinformation that plagues the health and fitness industry.0
-
Now i want to know what OP's qualifications are as far as "Weight Management coach". Where did you get your education that allows you to give specific diet advice?
I can only assume that you are both a CPT and have an additional qualification. I'd like to know what qualification that is so i can promptly research why they are teaching broscience.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
Anecdotes aren't evidence. And googling something doesn't prove it. There's lots of articles written by "gurus" of exercise that have no background in nutrition or physiology. Peer reviewed clinical studies provide more accurate information. And a calorie is a calorie. No Journal of Science will dispute that.asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Wrong. Scientists challenge fixed ideas and evaluates evidence from a variety of possible positions. The term "a calorie is not a calorie" has no syllogistic sense if the statement is only a negation of "all X are not X." It is intended in the sense that foodstuff contains energy and quality of food matters to diet ( for example - a deficit diet with 90% protein will have different mood and satiny effects than the same deficit with 10% protein) or health (for example - a 2000 calorie diet rich in packaged meats vs a 2000 calorie diet with limited packaged meats might have different health outcomes). The OP just uses a poorly structured phrase, a sound bite, to express this and then defends herself even more poorly. One would expect by now that people her would understand this.
As to scientific journals that express this? Oh look:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26303602
http://www.nature.com/nrendo/journal/v11/n10/full/nrendo.2015.144.html
Anecdotal evidence IS evidence but not highly valued.
Any chance you know of a free copy of this study? Definitely would be interested in reading it.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions