Personal Trainer & Weight Management Certified here to help!
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
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
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
0 -
I can understand the comment about empty calories. When I started losing weight, I tracked everything I was eating and drinking pre calorie restriction.
When I looked at my numbers, I wasn't actually eating a huge amount, but I was creating quite a large calorie surplus through alcohol.
I was getting lots of calories from booze but it wasn't helping me hit any macros. A beer when I got in from work didn't help to stop me feeling hungry.
For me cutting out booze was a very simple way to get to my deficit and still enjoy the same foods. Now I am further along and have slowly got better at reducing portion size, understanding the amount of calories in various foods I am happy to add those "empty" calories back in to my diet.
I generally hit my macros, so it's not a problem to have something which just bumps up my calorie intake.0 -
I can understand the comment about empty calories. When I started losing weight, I tracked everything I was eating and drinking pre calorie restriction.
When I looked at my numbers, I wasn't actually eating a huge amount, but I was creating quite a large calorie surplus through alcohol.
I was getting lots of calories from booze but it wasn't helping me hit any macros. A beer when I got in from work didn't help to stop me feeling hungry.
For me cutting out booze was a very simple way to get to my deficit and still enjoy the same foods. Now I am further along and have slowly got better at reducing portion size, understanding the amount of calories in various foods I am happy to add those "empty" calories back in to my diet.
I generally hit my macros, so it's not a problem to have something which just bumps up my calorie intake.
OK I get that
But it doesn't make the food itself an 'Empty Calorie' - it just means it's not something that you can use as a building block to hitting your daily macro (and micro) targets or satisfying your overall hunger
Perhaps we are coming at it from a different angle?
I always look in terms of overall diet - and I really don't like labelling any food as bad inherently - 'empty calorie' to me sounds like a condemnation and it's a non-sequitur because you can go back to the food like I did with alcohol and identify individual beneficial effects.
I really think it is about choice - calling a food bad for you / empty is reducing choice0 -
Not sure how a calorie can be full or empty. It's like fuel for your car. Some gas is better than others, sure, but both run your car. Over time, the higher quality gas will allow your car's engine to last longer than the cheaper stuff. There's no such thing as empty gas though.
A calorie is a calorie. The stuff you get those calories from makes a difference in the long run, but the calories get used just the same.0 -
Totally agree, it doesn't make the food an empty calorie. Other people will identify totally different items in their diets which they are happy to cut out / down first. For some people, that drink when they get in from work is their chance to de-stress and probably has lots of mental and emotional benefits for them.
I'm current spending quite a bit of time explaining to my daughter that no foods are "bad" because she keeps on saying X is bad for you etc, which I guess is coming from school. I make a point of saying nothing is bad, it's more how much we eat of things which can be bad for our health.
I suppose I was saying I understand it concept behind the term. But thinking about it, the label of it isn't a great one. Why make people feel bad about consuming something which helps them. There is probably always a better option to you food, something with more protein, more/less carbs/fats depending on your need. Does that make the worse option an empty calorie because it isn't as good as something else.
My wife is almost coming around to the idea of joining MFP and I know 100% that she won't be creating her deficit from stopping the drink, she enjoys it too much. So she will look to get better bang for her buck from something else. Not have a packet of crisps for 130 cals and glass of wine instead.
0 -
Totally agree, it doesn't make the food an empty calorie. Other people will identify totally different items in their diets which they are happy to cut out / down first. For some people, that drink when they get in from work is their chance to de-stress and probably has lots of mental and emotional benefits for them.
I'm current spending quite a bit of time explaining to my daughter that no foods are "bad" because she keeps on saying X is bad for you etc, which I guess is coming from school. I make a point of saying nothing is bad, it's more how much we eat of things which can be bad for our health.
I suppose I was saying I understand it concept behind the term. But thinking about it, the label of it isn't a great one. Why make people feel bad about consuming something which helps them. There is probably always a better option to you food, something with more protein, more/less carbs/fats depending on your need. Does that make the worse option an empty calorie because it isn't as good as something else.
My wife is almost coming around to the idea of joining MFP and I know 100% that she won't be creating her deficit from stopping the drink, she enjoys it too much. So she will look to get better bang for her buck from something else. Not have a packet of crisps for 130 cals and glass of wine instead.
This is all very true. When one is working around a set calorie amount, especially if they are new to understanding the numbers that they need to manage in order to lose/maintain/gain, they have to prioritize. It may take a bit of trial and error to determine what mix of foods give you a good mix of nutrient dense, satiating calories, and allowing for a "treat" that you enjoy that helps with making the whole process more enjoyable. For me, I really enjoy wine and sweets, but especially when I was losing (currently maintaining), I had to choose one or the other to fit in my day. Wine almost always wins for me! I just look at this whole process as a math or chemistry equation. Figure out how to balance both sides (cals in and cals out), but there are a number of ways to do that. If you change one side of the equation, you make adjustments on the other. I really don't understand why people try to make it harder than it needs to be.
Also, my kids have been asking those questions too. "Are French fries healthy?" "Is milk healthy?" "Is sugar healthy?" I swear they must have been playing on my phone and stumbled across the MFP boards!
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »daniwilford wrote: »
You hang out, see who can back it up with science. You learn who you can trust. No one is infallible but there are some here that are darn close and if they say something that is incorrect it is usually minor. I trust @ninerbuff @rabbitjb @SLLRunner @usmcmp and many others here because they give great advice. Anyone who is newer, I always take a wait and see approach. There are others who have lots of posts, who are not as trustworthy, but they usually get called out. When someone calls someone else out, with science, it is the BEST!How are we suppose to know who's actually right and who's wrong.
I need proof please... Post it! Thanks.
Adding @SideSteel
Steve Troutman. . . .if I could I find the thread he had up over the winter I'd post it. . . .0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
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
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Yup this. Even with the 120 discretionary calories listed above. That's a glass of wine, a skinny cow ice cream bar, two squares of dark chocolate, half serving of chips and salsa.., It really is all about choices. It can be done, and with more activity/planning, it can be done often.
It seems that in addition to assuming that someone saying they eat "treats" that they are eating a vast amount of their calories in those treats, people also assume that if you can't eat massive amounts of those treats then it's not worth eating any of them.
0 -
There are benefits to consuming things considered to be "empty calories", beyond nutrition. I absolutely think they should be included in your diet even when you are aiming for a calorie deficit. I used to think differently, but that was before I tracked calories and aimed for a moderate deficit. My old style of dieting was always overly aggressive. I didn't count calories but I'm pretty sure I teetered on the edge of a VLCD. No room for anything that wasn't jam packed with nutrients then.
I use a sugary gel, or even just jelly beans, as a boost during a long intense tennis match, for instance. I have a drink or two in social situations. I have treats every day, just for the joy of it. I still have no problem with the term "empty calorie". They are calories that aren't delivering much in the way of nutrition, but they can still be a positive in moderation.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
That sounds more like an issue with interpretation than bragging...
If I say that I had wine tonight, or a piece of chocolate cake last night, and you interpret that as me bragging, or misconstrue that that I'm not focused on nutrition, then that's on you. It doesn't mean that I didn't eat other nutrient dense foods or that fitness isn't also a priority.
I never said that's how I took it. It was more a response to the poster above that mentioned coca-cola and how she possibly came up with that conclusion.
I thought when you said "that's how it sometimes comes across" that meant that's how you interpreted it.
0 -
MommyL2015 wrote: »Not sure how a calorie can be full or empty. It's like fuel for your car. Some gas is better than others, sure, but both run your car. Over time, the higher quality gas will allow your car's engine to last longer than the cheaper stuff. There's no such thing as empty gas though.
A calorie is a calorie. The stuff you get those calories from makes a difference in the long run, but the calories get used just the same.
You can't really use the fuel analogy though. It would be more like 1 fuel gave your car petrol, oil and water for the engine and one fuel just gave it petrol. That's how the "empty calorie" term is being used.
Alcohol on nutrient basis gives little to nothing other than calories. If you ate the same number of calories in a chicken and broccoli you would get calories, protein and various vitamins. Going on that basis, alcohol is "empty" because the calories are not made up of any worthwhile components.
But that doesn't mean that alcohol in itself is worthless.0 -
MommyL2015 wrote: »Not sure how a calorie can be full or empty. It's like fuel for your car. Some gas is better than others, sure, but both run your car. Over time, the higher quality gas will allow your car's engine to last longer than the cheaper stuff. There's no such thing as empty gas though.
A calorie is a calorie. The stuff you get those calories from makes a difference in the long run, but the calories get used just the same.
You can't really use the fuel analogy though. It would be more like 1 fuel gave your car petrol, oil and water for the engine and one fuel just gave it petrol. That's how the "empty calorie" term is being used.
Alcohol on nutrient basis gives little to nothing other than calories. If you ate the same number of calories in a chicken and broccoli you would get calories, protein and various vitamins. Going on that basis, alcohol is "empty" because the calories are not made up of any worthwhile components.
But that doesn't mean that alcohol in itself is worthless.
Now I've done the alcohol thing to death upthread (not in reality) and established that there are far greater benefits than nothing including just the giggles
you leave my wine alone
0 -
It also depends on the context. To many things like gummy bears would be conisdered worthless but to an endurance cycling or power lifter, they can be beneficial to restore glycogen quickly sinc they are mainly dextrose (fast absorbing sugar).0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Sometimes I think that MFP is one of those organizations funded by Coca Cola (you know the message -- all about exercise, and just eating "right" amount of calories, doesn't matter what you eat.) Go for it I say -- just try eating crap to your calorie macro and see how you feel, and how much exercise you are motivated to do. I eat to my calories AND my macros. The combination keeps me health and feeling satisfied. When my macros get out of balance for ME then I have a hard time sticking to my food plan and calorie plan. (PS my macros are higher protein/lower carb, cause that's how I feel best and most motivated to stick to my calorie macros).
Then i would suggest that is how you interpret the information. If you want to look at semantics, yes you can lose on a diet of junk food (i.e twinkie diet) but no one ever would suggest that. Commonly we promote a diet full of variety, foods that are nutrient dense (probably 80 to 90% of them), finding a diet that is sustainable and if you have calories left over then go ahead and have a treat.
Personally, i was eating a klondike on a nightly basis, but decided to give it up once i really bumped up my lifting routine. I made this decision as i needed greater volume of food. So now i do grapes with cool whip. Same calories, both good (obviously klondike > grapes) but the volume is much greater on the grapes.
Since there are so many people that "misinterpret" your message, I would suggest to rethink your communication strategy.
("your" of course is not referred specifically to you, but in general to those that promote IIFYM/flexible dieting/moderation and are "misinterpreted")
If the greater you cant read past my first setence then its not an interpretation issue.. its a reading issue.
These are your moderators, @Alex
What's wrong with what i wrote? I wasnt insulting anyone. Common problems is people dont read the entire paragraph and they make assumptions.
That way i wrote my first statement is a perfect example of how i write. I provided a clear understanding of how people typically take responses and then i clarified the context of what is actually said.
The fact that you can't see "what's wrong" is part of the problem.
I've heard of this game!! It's so fun!!
If this were the normal version of the game, there'd be about 20% chance of psulemon being baited into at least a strike or warning.0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Sometimes I think that MFP is one of those organizations funded by Coca Cola (you know the message -- all about exercise, and just eating "right" amount of calories, doesn't matter what you eat.) Go for it I say -- just try eating crap to your calorie macro and see how you feel, and how much exercise you are motivated to do. I eat to my calories AND my macros. The combination keeps me health and feeling satisfied. When my macros get out of balance for ME then I have a hard time sticking to my food plan and calorie plan. (PS my macros are higher protein/lower carb, cause that's how I feel best and most motivated to stick to my calorie macros).
Then i would suggest that is how you interpret the information. If you want to look at semantics, yes you can lose on a diet of junk food (i.e twinkie diet) but no one ever would suggest that. Commonly we promote a diet full of variety, foods that are nutrient dense (probably 80 to 90% of them), finding a diet that is sustainable and if you have calories left over then go ahead and have a treat.
Personally, i was eating a klondike on a nightly basis, but decided to give it up once i really bumped up my lifting routine. I made this decision as i needed greater volume of food. So now i do grapes with cool whip. Same calories, both good (obviously klondike > grapes) but the volume is much greater on the grapes.
Since there are so many people that "misinterpret" your message, I would suggest to rethink your communication strategy.
("your" of course is not referred specifically to you, but in general to those that promote IIFYM/flexible dieting/moderation and are "misinterpreted")
If the greater you cant read past my first setence then its not an interpretation issue.. its a reading issue.
These are your moderators, @Alex
What's wrong with what i wrote? I wasnt insulting anyone. Common problems is people dont read the entire paragraph and they make assumptions.
That way i wrote my first statement is a perfect example of how i write. I provided a clear understanding of how people typically take responses and then i clarified the context of what is actually said.
The fact that you can't see "what's wrong" is part of the problem.
I've heard of this game!! It's so fun!!
If this were the normal version of the game, there'd be about 20% chance of psulemon being baited into at least a strike or warning.
I bet I could raise those odds with a few well-chosen words 0 -
MommyL2015 wrote: »Not sure how a calorie can be full or empty. It's like fuel for your car. Some gas is better than others, sure, but both run your car. Over time, the higher quality gas will allow your car's engine to last longer than the cheaper stuff. There's no such thing as empty gas though.
A calorie is a calorie. The stuff you get those calories from makes a difference in the long run, but the calories get used just the same.
You can't really use the fuel analogy though. It would be more like 1 fuel gave your car petrol, oil and water for the engine and one fuel just gave it petrol. That's how the "empty calorie" term is being used.
Alcohol on nutrient basis gives little to nothing other than calories. If you ate the same number of calories in a chicken and broccoli you would get calories, protein and various vitamins. Going on that basis, alcohol is "empty" because the calories are not made up of any worthwhile components.
But that doesn't mean that alcohol in itself is worthless.
Now I've done the alcohol thing to death upthread (not in reality) and established that there are far greater benefits than nothing including just the giggles
you leave my wine alone
Totally agree, which is why I said only on a nutrient basis it gives little to nothing A decent glass of quality red with a steak is a wonderful thing
I can also say, with 100% certainty that after a 100km run, there is no food in the word which would have compared the the ice cold beer I had at the finish line.
0 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »daniwilford wrote: »
You hang out, see who can back it up with science. You learn who you can trust. No one is infallible but there are some here that are darn close and if they say something that is incorrect it is usually minor. I trust @ninerbuff @rabbitjb @SLLRunner @usmcmp and many others here because they give great advice. Anyone who is newer, I always take a wait and see approach. There are others who have lots of posts, who are not as trustworthy, but they usually get called out. When someone calls someone else out, with science, it is the BEST!How are we suppose to know who's actually right and who's wrong.
I need proof please... Post it! Thanks.
Adding @SideSteel
Steve Troutman. . . .if I could I find the thread he had up over the winter I'd post it. . . .
@stroutman81 , I think.0 -
Sometimes I think that MFP is one of those organizations funded by Coca Cola (you know the message -- all about exercise, and just eating "right" amount of calories, doesn't matter what you eat.) Go for it I say -- just try eating crap to your calorie macro and see how you feel, and how much exercise you are motivated to do. I eat to my calories AND my macros. The combination keeps me health and feeling satisfied. When my macros get out of balance for ME then I have a hard time sticking to my food plan and calorie plan. (PS my macros are higher protein/lower carb, cause that's how I feel best and most motivated to stick to my calorie macros).
What exactly makes you think the diet you describe leads to "feeling bad" and performing poorly athletically? I have a muffin for breakfast every week day and half a payday candy bar for a mid afternoon snack, and I'm probably fitter than you and definitely don't "feel bad". Eyes on your own lane
0 -
.WinoGelato wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
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
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Yup this. Even with the 120 discretionary calories listed above. That's a glass of wine, a skinny cow ice cream bar, two squares of dark chocolate, half serving of chips and salsa.., It really is all about choices. It can be done, and with more activity/planning, it can be done often.
It seems that in addition to assuming that someone saying they eat "treats" that they are eating a vast amount of their calories in those treats, people also assume that if you can't eat massive amounts of those treats then it's not worth eating any of them.
I suspect the reason some people interpret it as all or none is because that's how *they* see things. They can't imagine being able to eat certain foods at an amount that fits within heir calorie constraints, so no one else could possibly be able to.
It's similar to the "you wouldn't say things like that if you weren't hiding behind a keyboard." While that *may* be true in that case, I have an even greater degree of certainty that it is true for *the person saying that*. It's a reflection of their own personal ethos that they assume apply to all others.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
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
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Take a 1200 calorie a day diet to a registered dietician where 20% of the calories are from nutritionally less dense food (chips, cookies, candy, cake, etc) and get their thoughts .
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
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
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Take a 1200 calorie diet to a registered dietician where 20% of the calories are from nutritionally less dense food (chips, cookies, candy, cake, etc) and get their thoughts .
Why would their thoughts matter? If you are hitting your macro requirements, it doesn't mater how your intake is made up.
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
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
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Take a 1200 calorie a day diet to a registered dietician where 20% of the calories are from nutritionally less dense food (chips, cookies, candy, cake, etc) and get their thoughts .
Why?
Do you think I'm too ignorant to know that I'm hitting my macro and micro targets?
Do you think I'm unaware of my current state of health?
Anyway I worked that out on 1500 you specified which was a calorie allowance I used to have not on 1200Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
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
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Take a 1200 calorie diet to a registered dietician where 20% of the calories are from nutritionally less dense food (chips, cookies, candy, cake, etc) and get their thoughts .
Why would their thoughts matter? If you are hitting your macro requirements, it doesn't mater how your intake is made up.
Ahhh what he said
0 -
Sometimes I think that MFP is one of those organizations funded by Coca Cola (you know the message -- all about exercise, and just eating "right" amount of calories, doesn't matter what you eat.) Go for it I say -- just try eating crap to your calorie macro and see how you feel, and how much exercise you are motivated to do. I eat to my calories AND my macros. The combination keeps me health and feeling satisfied. When my macros get out of balance for ME then I have a hard time sticking to my food plan and calorie plan. (PS my macros are higher protein/lower carb, cause that's how I feel best and most motivated to stick to my calorie macros).
Yep i reckon alot of these guys posting are being paid to advertise coco cola and mcdonalds when i think about it.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
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
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Take a 1200 calorie diet to a registered dietician where 20% of the calories are from nutritionally less dense food (chips, cookies, candy, cake, etc) and get their thoughts .
Why would their thoughts matter? If you are hitting your macro requirements, it doesn't mater how your intake is made up.
Well, macros, micros and sufficient variety. Oh, and low nitrates, low trans fats, not too much iron, mix your vegetables (not too much kale or broccoli)....
Yeah, it doesn't matter. :sick:0 -
Sometimes I think that MFP is one of those organizations funded by Coca Cola (you know the message -- all about exercise, and just eating "right" amount of calories, doesn't matter what you eat.) Go for it I say -- just try eating crap to your calorie macro and see how you feel, and how much exercise you are motivated to do. I eat to my calories AND my macros. The combination keeps me health and feeling satisfied. When my macros get out of balance for ME then I have a hard time sticking to my food plan and calorie plan. (PS my macros are higher protein/lower carb, cause that's how I feel best and most motivated to stick to my calorie macros).
What exactly makes you think the diet you describe leads to "feeling bad" and performing poorly athletically? I have a muffin for breakfast every week day and half a payday candy bar for a mid afternoon snack, and I'm probably fitter than you and definitely don't "feel bad". Eyes on your own lane
Eek. Based on her profile pic, Merrysix looks to be an unusually fit 61 year old. Kudos Merrysix! Perhaps you are unusually fit for your age too, JaneiR36, but I have to say "probably fitter than you" seemed unnecessary to make your point.
If one's calorie goal is only 1200 calories, it's tough to meet your micro nutrient targets in only 80% of those calories. Theoretically possible of course, but much more difficult than with a higher goal. I might argue though, that 1200 calorie diets are rarely a good idea for any length of time (unless you are quite short I guess).
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
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
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Take a 1200 calorie diet to a registered dietician where 20% of the calories are from nutritionally less dense food (chips, cookies, candy, cake, etc) and get their thoughts .
Why would their thoughts matter? If you are hitting your macro requirements, it doesn't mater how your intake is made up.
Well, macros, micros and sufficient variety. Oh, and low nitrates, low trans fats, not too much iron, mix your vegetables (not too much kale or broccoli)....
Yeah, it doesn't matter. :sick:
are you saying it does matter or it doesn't - my filter is off
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
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
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Take a 1200 calorie diet to a registered dietician where 20% of the calories are from nutritionally less dense food (chips, cookies, candy, cake, etc) and get their thoughts .
Why would their thoughts matter? If you are hitting your macro requirements, it doesn't mater how your intake is made up.
Well, macros, micros and sufficient variety. Oh, and low nitrates, low trans fats, not too much iron, mix your vegetables (not too much kale or broccoli)....
Yeah, it doesn't matter. :sick:
are you saying it does matter or it doesn't - my filter is off
I'm not sure, but I feel that the appropriate face was made after use of the word "kale"...0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
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
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Take a 1200 calorie diet to a registered dietician where 20% of the calories are from nutritionally less dense food (chips, cookies, candy, cake, etc) and get their thoughts .
Why would their thoughts matter? If you are hitting your macro requirements, it doesn't mater how your intake is made up.
so what is your thought on this statement @psulemon ?
does it fit with your 80/20 rule, or it is just me struggling again with reading comprehension?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »
Possibly. I get people that comment all the time that they can't believe I can eat pizza, fast food, and processed foods and not gain. But, then again they are only hearing about the junk food and not the other 80% of the time of nutritious eating.christinev297 wrote: »I guess it may sometimes be seen as bragging?? "I eat all the junk I can fit into my calories". Obviously not in those exact words, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
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
I think one of the challenges is you're a active in shape individual that burns a bunch of calories. You or someone like yourself can get proper nutrition (your macros and micros) eating 80% nutritious. For someone on a lower calorie diet, it's going to be much more difficult to get needed nutrition if 20% of say 1500 calories come from candy, cakes, chips, ice cream, etc.
Well I can hit my macro requirements in 1200 calories if I chose to. Leaving the 20% (300 calories) for chips (85 cals), Ice cream (90 cals), cookies (72 cals) because I choose the ones I like (eg Walkers pops / Quavers - Solero / Fab, McVities Rich Tea)
And it's not like the less nutritiously rich foods you mention don't help with hitting macros too
But it's about choice - there's no reason why people can't manage it - even if it's difficult - if they choose to / if it's important to their wellbeing
Take a 1200 calorie diet to a registered dietician where 20% of the calories are from nutritionally less dense food (chips, cookies, candy, cake, etc) and get their thoughts .
Why would their thoughts matter? If you are hitting your macro requirements, it doesn't mater how your intake is made up.
Well, macros, micros and sufficient variety. Oh, and low nitrates, low trans fats, not too much iron, mix your vegetables (not too much kale or broccoli)....
Yeah, it doesn't matter. :sick:
are you saying it does matter or it doesn't - my filter is off
I'm saying intake matters - it isn't just macros.
One of the great ironies of trying to get healthy are those people that decide to go all natural and end up eating too much monolithic foods:
too much carrots -- make you ill
too much kale and broccoli -- make you ill
too much vitamins - I think you get where this is going
A phrase like "If you are hitting your macro requirements, it doesn't mater (sic) how your intake is made up." is wrong. Dietary composition matters, what doesn't matter is dat der donut or dat der sushi. Total composition matters, single items do not.
There is a difference in context.
0 -
12 hours later and the same people are still having the same argument. No one else is keeping track of this thread since they'd have to go back and read 10 pages of "Prove it. Prove it. Prove it."
I think it's safe to say this "empty calories" subjects has been beaten to death and both sides provided great arguments.
It's a shame no new MFP members would get a chance to benefit from the original post.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions