Buzzfeed Calories Article
robynmoosehead
Posts: 66 Member
I am shamefully an avid Buzzfeed reader and I've just noticed they've posted another "X things you didn't know about y".
Why am I telling you guys this? It's all about cutting calories. Thought you'd all quite like to have a little gander at it. What do you think?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/sallytamarkin/how-to-cut-calories#.gtXrrDgwOZ
Why am I telling you guys this? It's all about cutting calories. Thought you'd all quite like to have a little gander at it. What do you think?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/sallytamarkin/how-to-cut-calories#.gtXrrDgwOZ
0
Replies
-
I disagree with several of their points...but it's a buzzfeed article so it's not surprising that it's full of misinformation.0
-
My personal fave from that
"Just eyeball it"
THAT'S WHAT GOT ME IN THIS DAMN MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »I disagree with several of their points...but it's a buzzfeed article so it's not surprising that it's full of misinformation.
Which points do you disagree with?
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I disagree with several of their points...but it's a buzzfeed article so it's not surprising that it's full of misinformation.
Which points do you disagree with?
Are you trying to make me click on it again??
OK...
2 "First of all, your body adapts to losing weight, so that 500-calorie deficit has incrementally less effect as time goes on" (no - a 500 calorie deficit is a 500 calorie deficit)
3 "Since there’s no mathematic equation for weight loss" (umm...no, it's entirely a mathematic equation)
7 "But you should not eat less than 1,000–1,200 calories per day" (well...technically I agree I guess, but I'd set the threshhold much higher)
8 " You want to cut them from highly processed foods." (no...makes no difference which calories you cut)
9 "Replace the calories you’re cutting with foods that are less processed (and as a result not as calorie-dense)." (Again, 'processing' isn't the determining factor...and I have to laugh that the picture accompanying this point is of a half of an avocado - perhaps one of THE most calorie dense foods there is)
11 "Low-fat diets (technically any diet where less than 30% of your calories come from fat) are tough to stick to" (for SOME people)
12 "Be on the lookout for products that are labeled as low fat or reduced fat, because they tend to have more added sugar than the full-fat versions...In those products, they’ve “replaced fat — which the body needs and mouth likes — with sugar, which is not needed and not satiating," (for SOME people)
14 "When possible, don’t start your meal with a starch" (huh???)
0 -
Fair call @juggernaut1974 Thanks for clarifying
I agree with their number 11 point. Low fat does not work for me at all.
yeah and your body getting used to the same deficit hasn't rung true for me. so agree with you there.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I disagree with several of their points...but it's a buzzfeed article so it's not surprising that it's full of misinformation.
Which points do you disagree with?
Are you trying to make me click on it again??
OK...
2 "First of all, your body adapts to losing weight, so that 500-calorie deficit has incrementally less effect as time goes on" (no - a 500 calorie deficit is a 500 calorie deficit)
3 "Since there’s no mathematic equation for weight loss" (umm...no, it's entirely a mathematic equation)
7 "But you should not eat less than 1,000–1,200 calories per day" (well...technically I agree I guess, but I'd set the threshhold much higher)
8 " You want to cut them from highly processed foods." (no...makes no difference which calories you cut)
9 "Replace the calories you’re cutting with foods that are less processed (and as a result not as calorie-dense)." (Again, 'processing' isn't the determining factor...and I have to laugh that the picture accompanying this point is of a half of an avocado - perhaps one of THE most calorie dense foods there is)
11 "Low-fat diets (technically any diet where less than 30% of your calories come from fat) are tough to stick to" (for SOME people)
12 "Be on the lookout for products that are labeled as low fat or reduced fat, because they tend to have more added sugar than the full-fat versions...In those products, they’ve “replaced fat — which the body needs and mouth likes — with sugar, which is not needed and not satiating," (for SOME people)
14 "When possible, don’t start your meal with a starch" (huh???)
Just jumping in to say cool new profile pic!
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Fair call @juggernaut1974 Thanks for clarifying
I agree with their number 11 point. Low fat does not work for me at all.
yeah and your body getting used to the same deficit hasn't rung true for me. so agree with you there.
Yeah I agree some people don't do well on it. My disagreement is with the blanket statement that the author made.
And thanks @strong_curves 0 -
The other thing that prevents weight loss from happening in this simple, linear way is that over time, the body's response to weight loss causes hormonal changes that make it harder to burn calories. "Those hormonal changes become more significant as you get leaner," St. Pierre says.
...0 -
#7 should have been a lot more clearer that there are different calorie minimums for men. Since the 'article' mentioned MFP I wonder how many new users are going to come believing some of the misinformation and spouting it off as truth.0
-
#7 should have been a lot more clearer that there are different calorie minimums for men. Since the 'article' mentioned MFP I wonder how many new users are going to come believing some of the misinformation and spouting it off as truth.
In my experience, a lot. There's always waves of threads about certain topics, I'm pretty sure they're caused because some magazine, TV show or website came out with a new thing on weight loss.0 -
Their thing about "counting calories isn't for everyone" didn't jive too well with their follow up "find room for things you love." I would be left feeling very confused as to how I would find room for my peanut butter oreos if I didn't have a good grasp of my calories for the day. You have to count the calories to learn the calorie density of foods and how you can fit in the foods you love. I guess the phrase "you'll miss it and feel deprived AF" was included to make sure we remembered we were reading a buzzfeed article. Upping your journalistic quality would be stupid AF! Amirite?!
Basically I think they presented some correct and some incorrect info in a very confusing manner. But, it's buzzfeed...so...0 -
soulofgrace wrote: »Their thing about "counting calories isn't for everyone" didn't jive too well with their follow up "find room for things you love." I would be left feeling very confused as to how I would find room for my peanut butter oreos if I didn't have a good grasp of my calories for the day. You have to count the calories to learn the calorie density of foods and how you can fit in the foods you love. I guess the phrase "you'll miss it and feel deprived AF" was included to make sure we remembered we were reading a buzzfeed article. Upping your journalistic quality would be stupid AF! Amirite?!
Basically I think they presented some correct and some incorrect info in a very confusing manner. But, it's buzzfeed...so...
now i want peanut butter oreos.....
thanks.
LOLOLOL0 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »
now i want peanut butter oreos.....
thanks.
LOLOLOL
I didn't even know peanut butter Oreos were a thing?!
WANT. WANT NOW
0 -
PB Oreos are my favorite of all the flavors! I like to eat the top cookie first so I can. get the full hit of PB goodness from the other cookie. I like anything peanut butter. All time favorite is a delicious PB&J.
0 -
robynmoosehead wrote: »My personal fave from that
"Just eyeball it"
THAT'S WHAT GOT ME IN THIS DAMN MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE
Haha exactly! I saw the article last night and that was the biggest thing I noticed...telling people who are overweight and trying to cut calories to "eyeball" it is ridiculous.0 -
Point 2 is totally dumb. A 500 calorie deficit will always be a 500 calorie deficit. You just have to adjust your calorie goal as you go...
Otherwise, doesn't sound so crazy to me.0 -
The 'eating off small plates' thing makes no sense to me. If you're counting your calories and carefully measuring out your portions then you know how much you're eating regardless of plate size.0
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I disagree with several of their points...but it's a buzzfeed article so it's not surprising that it's full of misinformation.
Which points do you disagree with?
Are you trying to make me click on it again??
OK...
2 "First of all, your body adapts to losing weight, so that 500-calorie deficit has incrementally less effect as time goes on" (no - a 500 calorie deficit is a 500 calorie deficit)
3 "Since there’s no mathematic equation for weight loss" (umm...no, it's entirely a mathematic equation)
7 "But you should not eat less than 1,000–1,200 calories per day" (well...technically I agree I guess, but I'd set the threshhold much higher)
8 " You want to cut them from highly processed foods." (no...makes no difference which calories you cut)
9 "Replace the calories you’re cutting with foods that are less processed (and as a result not as calorie-dense)." (Again, 'processing' isn't the determining factor...and I have to laugh that the picture accompanying this point is of a half of an avocado - perhaps one of THE most calorie dense foods there is)
11 "Low-fat diets (technically any diet where less than 30% of your calories come from fat) are tough to stick to" (for SOME people)
12 "Be on the lookout for products that are labeled as low fat or reduced fat, because they tend to have more added sugar than the full-fat versions...In those products, they’ve “replaced fat — which the body needs and mouth likes — with sugar, which is not needed and not satiating," (for SOME people)
14 "When possible, don’t start your meal with a starch" (huh???)
With regard to #9, the article says:
"Super-processed foods like soda, chips, and sweetened coffees have lots of calories but don’t really help you feel full (or provide, you know, nutrition). They also enter and leave the body quickly — they require less chewing and digestion, which means they just don’t leave you feeling like you really actually ate, says Lofton. They also tend to be high in carbs with no protein, which means your blood sugar spikes and drops, leaving you hungry.
So, the thing you want to do is cut calories from the stuff that doesn’t contribute to your nutrition or help you feel full — sugary drinks, sweets, alcohol and mixers, and any ultraprocessed foods. The good news is that you actually can cut this stuff and still feel full and satisfied, which isn’t really the case when you cut out whole foods. Craving sugary stuff is a whole other thing, but there are ways to deal with those cravings."
This is absolutely correct. The author is NOT saying cutting "super-processed" calories makes one lose weight more quickly than cutting other calories. Rather, she refers to other benefits. There is an odd hostility on these boards to those of us who are anti-"junk food." I'm not sure I understand it.
0 -
It's not a well written article. I think they were trying to say that the number that is a 500 calorie deficit when you start will not remain a 500 cal. deficit as you lose weight.0
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I disagree with several of their points...but it's a buzzfeed article so it's not surprising that it's full of misinformation.
Which points do you disagree with?
Are you trying to make me click on it again??
OK...
2 "First of all, your body adapts to losing weight, so that 500-calorie deficit has incrementally less effect as time goes on" (no - a 500 calorie deficit is a 500 calorie deficit)
3 "Since there’s no mathematic equation for weight loss" (umm...no, it's entirely a mathematic equation)
7 "But you should not eat less than 1,000–1,200 calories per day" (well...technically I agree I guess, but I'd set the threshhold much higher)
8 " You want to cut them from highly processed foods." (no...makes no difference which calories you cut)
9 "Replace the calories you’re cutting with foods that are less processed (and as a result not as calorie-dense)." (Again, 'processing' isn't the determining factor...and I have to laugh that the picture accompanying this point is of a half of an avocado - perhaps one of THE most calorie dense foods there is)
11 "Low-fat diets (technically any diet where less than 30% of your calories come from fat) are tough to stick to" (for SOME people)
12 "Be on the lookout for products that are labeled as low fat or reduced fat, because they tend to have more added sugar than the full-fat versions...In those products, they’ve “replaced fat — which the body needs and mouth likes — with sugar, which is not needed and not satiating," (for SOME people)
14 "When possible, don’t start your meal with a starch" (huh???)
With regard to #9, the article says:
"Super-processed foods like soda, chips, and sweetened coffees have lots of calories but don’t really help you feel full (or provide, you know, nutrition). They also enter and leave the body quickly — they require less chewing and digestion, which means they just don’t leave you feeling like you really actually ate, says Lofton. They also tend to be high in carbs with no protein, which means your blood sugar spikes and drops, leaving you hungry.
So, the thing you want to do is cut calories from the stuff that doesn’t contribute to your nutrition or help you feel full — sugary drinks, sweets, alcohol and mixers, and any ultraprocessed foods. The good news is that you actually can cut this stuff and still feel full and satisfied, which isn’t really the case when you cut out whole foods. Craving sugary stuff is a whole other thing, but there are ways to deal with those cravings."
This is absolutely correct. The author is NOT saying cutting "super-processed" calories makes one lose weight more quickly than cutting other calories. Rather, she refers to other benefits. There is an odd hostility on these boards to those of us who are anti-"junk food." I'm not sure I understand it.
My contention was with the verbiage I listed. "Processing" is not the determining factor as to whether a food is calorie dense or not, nor is it a good gauge for the types of food(s) one may need to increase in or decrease from one's diet.
That...and the point that they illustrated an example of a 'less processed (hence, less calorie dense food using THEIR words) food' with an avocado.0 -
Technically, processing isn't the determining factor but I think most people realize that by processed foods they mean things like Twinkies, Oreos and Cheetos, not protein powder or pre-made salads.0
-
2 and 3 are hilarious
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »Technically, processing isn't the determining factor but I think most people realize that by processed foods they mean things like Twinkies, Oreos and Cheetos, not protein powder or pre-made salads.
That's right. Those of us who say we try to avoid processed foods, we are actually referring to a certain type of processed food. Technically, cooking is a process; so anyone who eats anything beyond eating raw whole foods is eating something that has been "processed."0 -
Meh, I pretty much agreed with the article. I like that it didn't really present the stuff as facts and while a lot of the "things" it said to do is probably the first step for most.0
-
I'm with @juggernaut1974 on all the points he made. But all said and done I think it was a good article. Compared to a lot of the crap popping up out there about sugar "addiction" and other obvious bullsh**, it's nice to see an article about how things really are.
I just wish it was on the cover of the New York Times and not buried on Buzzfeed between "14 Signs You're Really Nailing Life" and "Which Friends Character Are You Least Like?"0 -
Knowing where and how they get people to write for them, this is actually an improvement from the normal Buzzfeed fair. There is definitely some misinformation (agreed about the avocado thing), but at least it actually addresses calorie intake instead of trying to push a new fad diet.
It's a step in the right direction.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I disagree with several of their points...but it's a buzzfeed article so it's not surprising that it's full of misinformation.
Which points do you disagree with?
Are you trying to make me click on it again??
OK...
2 "First of all, your body adapts to losing weight, so that 500-calorie deficit has incrementally less effect as time goes on" (no - a 500 calorie deficit is a 500 calorie deficit)
3 "Since there’s no mathematic equation for weight loss" (umm...no, it's entirely a mathematic equation)
7 "But you should not eat less than 1,000–1,200 calories per day" (well...technically I agree I guess, but I'd set the threshhold much higher)
8 " You want to cut them from highly processed foods." (no...makes no difference which calories you cut)
9 "Replace the calories you’re cutting with foods that are less processed (and as a result not as calorie-dense)." (Again, 'processing' isn't the determining factor...and I have to laugh that the picture accompanying this point is of a half of an avocado - perhaps one of THE most calorie dense foods there is)
11 "Low-fat diets (technically any diet where less than 30% of your calories come from fat) are tough to stick to" (for SOME people)
12 "Be on the lookout for products that are labeled as low fat or reduced fat, because they tend to have more added sugar than the full-fat versions...In those products, they’ve “replaced fat — which the body needs and mouth likes — with sugar, which is not needed and not satiating," (for SOME people)
14 "When possible, don’t start your meal with a starch" (huh???)
With regard to #9, the article says:
"Super-processed foods like soda, chips, and sweetened coffees have lots of calories but don’t really help you feel full (or provide, you know, nutrition). They also enter and leave the body quickly — they require less chewing and digestion, which means they just don’t leave you feeling like you really actually ate, says Lofton. They also tend to be high in carbs with no protein, which means your blood sugar spikes and drops, leaving you hungry.
So, the thing you want to do is cut calories from the stuff that doesn’t contribute to your nutrition or help you feel full — sugary drinks, sweets, alcohol and mixers, and any ultraprocessed foods. The good news is that you actually can cut this stuff and still feel full and satisfied, which isn’t really the case when you cut out whole foods. Craving sugary stuff is a whole other thing, but there are ways to deal with those cravings."
This is absolutely correct. The author is NOT saying cutting "super-processed" calories makes one lose weight more quickly than cutting other calories. Rather, she refers to other benefits. There is an odd hostility on these boards to those of us who are anti-"junk food." I'm not sure I understand it.
One problem is that "processed" doesn't mean "junk" and "processed" says nothing about how nutritious or high cal it is.
My understanding of the slang term "junk" is that it means high cal/low nutrient (other than calorie, carb, fat) food. So my homemade cherry crisp might qualify (329 calories per serving), but it's not particularly "processed." On the other hand, cottage cheese or smoked salmon are breakfast staples for me, and both are processed, but the nutrition profile is quite helpful. Others might feel the same way about a protein bar or protein powder or those powdered greens or a V-8 or a store-bought salad or sandwich. I don't think they automatically become bad for weight loss or unhealthy because "processed." Obviously, understand what's in what you are buying and how many calories it has, as well as how filling it is likely to be.
And I'm not hostile to people being anti-"junk food" for themselves. I'm hostile to the idea that being "processed" makes something bad for me and to the misuse of words in a way that makes communication different (nearly everyone I've seen on MFP talk about the horrors of processed food has lots of foods in their diary that are processed or even highly processed).
As for what to cut, on the whole I think cutting things like soda are good ways to start (although it wouldn't have helped me, since I didn't eat a lot of super processed snack foods). But more than that, or black and white categorizations, I think people should think about how they are eating, identify foods that help them stay full or add to the healthfulness of their diets (i.e., I always ate lots of vegetables but made an effort to eat more and to increase my protein, mostly from whole foods), and what they are eating that they don't care that much about. Often cutting something they really love is harder. For example, I don't care about bread or rice (usually). I do care about cheese and olive oil and prefer having a wide variety of meat, including skin-on chicken and red meat. Making room for the foods I find more satisfying (even if they are supposedly less healthy or "processed" (the cheese and olive oil)) vs. others that some might consider healthier (or at least as healthy) was important for my own satisfaction and not feeling deprived.
For the same reason, now that I have plenty of calories, I'll save room for ice cream and cheese while eating skim cottage cheese and greek yogurt. The latter are as satisfying to me as full fat, so I'd rather use my dairy fat calories in other ways.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I disagree with several of their points...but it's a buzzfeed article so it's not surprising that it's full of misinformation.
Which points do you disagree with?
Are you trying to make me click on it again??
OK...
2 "First of all, your body adapts to losing weight, so that 500-calorie deficit has incrementally less effect as time goes on" (no - a 500 calorie deficit is a 500 calorie deficit)
3 "Since there’s no mathematic equation for weight loss" (umm...no, it's entirely a mathematic equation)
7 "But you should not eat less than 1,000–1,200 calories per day" (well...technically I agree I guess, but I'd set the threshhold much higher)
8 " You want to cut them from highly processed foods." (no...makes no difference which calories you cut)
9 "Replace the calories you’re cutting with foods that are less processed (and as a result not as calorie-dense)." (Again, 'processing' isn't the determining factor...and I have to laugh that the picture accompanying this point is of a half of an avocado - perhaps one of THE most calorie dense foods there is)
11 "Low-fat diets (technically any diet where less than 30% of your calories come from fat) are tough to stick to" (for SOME people)
12 "Be on the lookout for products that are labeled as low fat or reduced fat, because they tend to have more added sugar than the full-fat versions...In those products, they’ve “replaced fat — which the body needs and mouth likes — with sugar, which is not needed and not satiating," (for SOME people)
14 "When possible, don’t start your meal with a starch" (huh???)
Good comments. Another problem with 12 is that the most common example of low fat or reduced fat is dairy, and they simply DO NOT have sugar added (or anything). It's shocking how many people think skim milk has sugar added to it (as I have learned from the MFP forums), because of these kinds of ignorant and irresponsible comments.0 -
Overall, for this type of article, this is one of the better ones I have seen. They rely on registered dietitians for the most part rather that "fitness experts". Some things are simplified, as you would expect for a article written for a general audience, but for there are no glaring errors and they provide explanations for the points they make (which a lot of people seem to have overlooked or didn't understand).
For example--the section on "eyeballing it" gave a very specific explanation about why that might be a better choice for some people and presented the option of a more simple food journal, a tool that RDs have used for decades and which most of them still prefer.
Usually, I am pretty critical of these articles, but, in this case, it compares favorably to the comments here.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »I disagree with several of their points...but it's a buzzfeed article so it's not surprising that it's full of misinformation.
Which points do you disagree with?
Are you trying to make me click on it again??
OK...
2 "First of all, your body adapts to losing weight, so that 500-calorie deficit has incrementally less effect as time goes on" (no - a 500 calorie deficit is a 500 calorie deficit)
3 "Since there’s no mathematic equation for weight loss" (umm...no, it's entirely a mathematic equation)
7 "But you should not eat less than 1,000–1,200 calories per day" (well...technically I agree I guess, but I'd set the threshhold much higher)
8 " You want to cut them from highly processed foods." (no...makes no difference which calories you cut)
9 "Replace the calories you’re cutting with foods that are less processed (and as a result not as calorie-dense)." (Again, 'processing' isn't the determining factor...and I have to laugh that the picture accompanying this point is of a half of an avocado - perhaps one of THE most calorie dense foods there is)
11 "Low-fat diets (technically any diet where less than 30% of your calories come from fat) are tough to stick to" (for SOME people)
12 "Be on the lookout for products that are labeled as low fat or reduced fat, because they tend to have more added sugar than the full-fat versions...In those products, they’ve “replaced fat — which the body needs and mouth likes — with sugar, which is not needed and not satiating," (for SOME people)
14 "When possible, don’t start your meal with a starch" (huh???)
Good comments. Another problem with 12 is that the most common example of low fat or reduced fat is dairy, and they simply DO NOT have sugar added (or anything). It's shocking how many people think skim milk has sugar added to it (as I have learned from the MFP forums), because of these kinds of ignorant and irresponsible comments.
Agreed. Drives me a bit nuts when people assume that low fat dairy has sugar added to it. But if something has sugar added in the first place, it probably does have extra sugar.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