Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Right calories vs less calories
Replies
-
feisty_bucket wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
There are only a half-dozen threads on MFP - they just get recycled. The mods change the wording of the titles and delete half the responses so nobody figures it out.
There are exactly six original stories in human history. Everything else is a variation on them.
I like this line:
"Arthur Quiller-Couch possibly originally formulated seven basic plots as a series of conflicts: Human vs. Human, Human vs. Nature, Human against God, Human vs. Society, Human in the Middle, Woman & Man, Human vs. Himself."
I think I'd call this a "Human vs. Nature" conflict thread.
Let's examine MFP posts through this lens. It'll be fun!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Basic_Plots0 -
While I 100% agree that it is lower calories rather than the right foods that makes you lose weight, there are areas of scientific research that do argue towards certain calories being better for losing weight than others.
Firstly, satiety. Fat, protein and fibre increase satiety. The fuller you feel, the more likely you will maintain a deficit.
Also, certain foods require more calories to burn them than others, so the choice of certain foods increases the calories out. I believe the effect to be minimal, but it's there.
There are some foods that have specific ways in which they pass through the body. Apparently, when you eat low fat dairy you will expell more fat than you put in, thus that fat is not used by the body. And more recently, Sirtfoods seem an interesting idea (they may need their own thread).
So, while I 100% agree with lower calories creating weight loss, I don't think we should completely ignore scientific research to the contrary.0 -
feisty_bucket wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
There are only a half-dozen threads on MFP - they just get recycled. The mods change the wording of the titles and delete half the responses so nobody figures it out.
There are exactly six original stories in human history. Everything else is a variation on them.
Every book ever written is just a remix of the dictionary. Think about it.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »feisty_bucket wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
There are only a half-dozen threads on MFP - they just get recycled. The mods change the wording of the titles and delete half the responses so nobody figures it out.
There are exactly six original stories in human history. Everything else is a variation on them.
Every book ever written is just a remix of the dictionary. Think about it.
Reductionism is a failure of causal imagination.0 -
While I 100% agree that it is lower calories rather than the right foods that makes you lose weight, there are areas of scientific research that do argue towards certain calories being better for losing weight than others.
Firstly, satiety. Fat, protein and fibre increase satiety. The fuller you feel, the more likely you will maintain a deficit.
Also, certain foods require more calories to burn them than others, so the choice of certain foods increases the calories out. I believe the effect to be minimal, but it's there.
There are some foods that have specific ways in which they pass through the body. Apparently, when you eat low fat dairy you will expell more fat than you put in, thus that fat is not used by the body. And more recently, Sirtfoods seem an interesting idea (they may need their own thread).
So, while I 100% agree with lower calories creating weight loss, I don't think we should completely ignore scientific research to the contrary.
Personally, fat does not satiate me and I know it doesn't for a lot of others. Starches, especially potatoes have much greater satiety than most, if not all fats.
Regarding the bold, that is thermal effect of food. Proteins are significantly higher at 20-25% energy required to digest, carbs are 5-6% and fats are 2-3%. So if you are typically very low on protein, increasing protein to a moderate level can have a pretty good impact. Not only with TEF, but also satiety.
0 -
While I 100% agree that it is lower calories rather than the right foods that makes you lose weight, there are areas of scientific research that do argue towards certain calories being better for losing weight than others.
Firstly, satiety. Fat, protein and fibre increase satiety. The fuller you feel, the more likely you will maintain a deficit.
Also, certain foods require more calories to burn them than others, so the choice of certain foods increases the calories out. I believe the effect to be minimal, but it's there.
There are some foods that have specific ways in which they pass through the body. Apparently, when you eat low fat dairy you will expell more fat than you put in, thus that fat is not used by the body. And more recently, Sirtfoods seem an interesting idea (they may need their own thread).
So, while I 100% agree with lower calories creating weight loss, I don't think we should completely ignore scientific research to the contrary.
Personally, fat does not satiate me and I know it doesn't for a lot of others. Starches, especially potatoes have much greater satiety than most, if not all fats.
Regarding the bold, that is thermal effect of food. Proteins are significantly higher at 20-25% energy required to digest, carbs are 5-6% and fats are 2-3%. So if you are typically very low on protein, increasing protein to a moderate level can have a pretty good impact. Not only with TEF, but also satiety.
I suspect that protein TEF levels are highly linked to form - whey protein power is probably a lower TEF than say steak or casein. But I've seen no research to support my supposition.
EDIT: Apparently I'm full of cow dung. Whey likely has a higher TEF:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/3/525
Or possibly the TEF curve over time peaks more for whey and is overall higher for casein. Don't know.
But, given that Casein takes longer to digest I've a few doubts on this graph.
0 -
punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
Pretty much. I don't really uderstand why we've now got two different forums to discuss the same things in.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
Pretty much. I don't really uderstand why we've now got two different forums to discuss the same things in.
We set up this section for just debates. More often than not, threads where getting hijacked in other areas when the OP was asking a question (e.g. - how to beat sugar addiction). In most cases, in those threads, members were looking to find strategies to achieve their goals and didn't care about the semantics of sugar addiction.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »rhtexasgal wrote: »You know it really is about fewer calories as this has been debated for years and years. Just do a search here on MFP you find loads of threads..
And as I know it true, I do not believe that calories are just calories. I think I will store 1000 calories of twinkies differently than 1000 calories of chicken and veggies. It is sort of stupid for me to say this, because I really have been eating the chicken and veggies and laying off "twinkies" (not really twinkies but laying off calories that would come from something like this) and the calories are not the same, not on my body they aren't...
So from sciences standpoint, 1000 calories of twinkies are the same 1000 calories of chicken and veggies, but I have not dontated my body to science to test this theory.
This is kind of my mindset. I know overall that it is always CI/CO BUT the quality of those calories does matter, especially if you know your own body. For instance, I KNOW that my body bloats when I have too much dairy and/or grains. I can still be under my calorie goal but if I eat those things, I will feel worse overall and swell a bit. However, I can eat the same amount of calories from veggies, lean protein and healthy fat like coconut oil as that dairy and grain but I will feel great and not have the bloat.
Absolutely, but that's not inconsistent with the claim that a calorie is a calorie, which is why I often think people are talking past each other.
I don't seem to have many food sensitivities, so I tend to believe that if I were doing an experiment where I ate a terrible diet (but with adequate protein) for 1 month and then a great diet (same calories and protein) for the next month (assuming no difference in starting body composition and moderate exercise required for both) that I would be very close in my results. The problem is (1) I could not keep the same calories with the terrible diet, probably, absent an experiment, (2) without being required to do a certain amount of movement I'd likely choose to do less when eating the poor diet, and (3) it's often easy to overeat when eating a poor diet (because it's easy to underestimate and you tend to be able to use a higher percentage of the calories consumed) and likely easy to eat less than expected/intended when eating the good diet (hard to say what we absorb from certain foods, especially those with more fiber, and people seem to vary).
So in the real world, it absolutely matters what I eat, for compliance and motivation and how I feel. But to me that's a different question and not contrary to a calorie is a calorie (although a food is not a food).
Very well said. How your body performs can change based on the type of calorie you eat.0 -
While I 100% agree that it is lower calories rather than the right foods that makes you lose weight, there are areas of scientific research that do argue towards certain calories being better for losing weight than others.
Firstly, satiety. Fat, protein and fibre increase satiety. The fuller you feel, the more likely you will maintain a deficit.
Also, certain foods require more calories to burn them than others, so the choice of certain foods increases the calories out. I believe the effect to be minimal, but it's there.
There are some foods that have specific ways in which they pass through the body. Apparently, when you eat low fat dairy you will expell more fat than you put in, thus that fat is not used by the body. And more recently, Sirtfoods seem an interesting idea (they may need their own thread).
So, while I 100% agree with lower calories creating weight loss, I don't think we should completely ignore scientific research to the contrary.
Personally, fat does not satiate me and I know it doesn't for a lot of others. Starches, especially potatoes have much greater satiety than most, if not all fats.
Regarding the bold, that is thermal effect of food. Proteins are significantly higher at 20-25% energy required to digest, carbs are 5-6% and fats are 2-3%. So if you are typically very low on protein, increasing protein to a moderate level can have a pretty good impact. Not only with TEF, but also satiety.
I too find this true for myself. I prefer a low fat diet. I simply do not care for the taste of full fat foods such as yogurt or milk. I also have found that I adhere to my calorie goals if my fat is lower and I increase both protein and carbs.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
Pretty much. I don't really uderstand why we've now got two different forums to discuss the same things in.
Because if we could delete duplicate threads these forums would get a heck of a lot smaller. Oooh, lets all start reporting duplicate threads; we can call it a tribute to all the new mods...0 -
To lose weight, everyone needs to eat less calories than they require to maintain. To make weight loss sustainable, they will need to eat the calories right for them. There are lots of factors to consider: wide range of foods to optimize nutrients, satiety (which is very individualized), personal goals, medical conditions, etc.0
-
While I 100% agree that it is lower calories rather than the right foods that makes you lose weight, there are areas of scientific research that do argue towards certain calories being better for losing weight than others.
Firstly, satiety. Fat, protein and fibre increase satiety. The fuller you feel, the more likely you will maintain a deficit.
Also, certain foods require more calories to burn them than others, so the choice of certain foods increases the calories out. I believe the effect to be minimal, but it's there.
There are some foods that have specific ways in which they pass through the body. Apparently, when you eat low fat dairy you will expell more fat than you put in, thus that fat is not used by the body. And more recently, Sirtfoods seem an interesting idea (they may need their own thread).
So, while I 100% agree with lower calories creating weight loss, I don't think we should completely ignore scientific research to the contrary.
Personally, fat does not satiate me and I know it doesn't for a lot of others. Starches, especially potatoes have much greater satiety than most, if not all fats.
Regarding the bold, that is thermal effect of food. Proteins are significantly higher at 20-25% energy required to digest, carbs are 5-6% and fats are 2-3%. So if you are typically very low on protein, increasing protein to a moderate level can have a pretty good impact. Not only with TEF, but also satiety.
I too find this true for myself. I prefer a low fat diet. I simply do not care for the taste of full fat foods such as yogurt or milk. I also have found that I adhere to my calorie goals if my fat is lower and I increase both protein and carbs.
It's true for me too. I enjoy fat, and tend to eat about 30% fat because it makes my diet more sustainable in that I find it more delicious, but if I were struggling with hunger (which thank goodness I never have), I'd cut fat, because fat isn't satiating to me. And I like lowfat/skim dairy as much as full fat for things like milk (which I don't drink much anyway), cottage cheese, and yogurt, so I prefer to eat those, and save my animal fat calories for cheese (the good stuff, ideally) and ice cream or steak or chicken roasted in its skin.0 -
Weight loss is about less calories. Your health on the other hand is about right calories. So it's all about that balance
0 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »feisty_bucket wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
There are only a half-dozen threads on MFP - they just get recycled. The mods change the wording of the titles and delete half the responses so nobody figures it out.
There are exactly six original stories in human history. Everything else is a variation on them.
Every book ever written is just a remix of the dictionary. Think about it.
You've never read sci-fi, but my ability as a Kwisatz Haderach allowed me to know that, so I should have used my ansible to contact you out in cyberspace and let you know that, and the fact that droids will attack the Klingons soon.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »While I 100% agree that it is lower calories rather than the right foods that makes you lose weight, there are areas of scientific research that do argue towards certain calories being better for losing weight than others.
Firstly, satiety. Fat, protein and fibre increase satiety. The fuller you feel, the more likely you will maintain a deficit.
Also, certain foods require more calories to burn them than others, so the choice of certain foods increases the calories out. I believe the effect to be minimal, but it's there.
There are some foods that have specific ways in which they pass through the body. Apparently, when you eat low fat dairy you will expell more fat than you put in, thus that fat is not used by the body. And more recently, Sirtfoods seem an interesting idea (they may need their own thread).
So, while I 100% agree with lower calories creating weight loss, I don't think we should completely ignore scientific research to the contrary.
Personally, fat does not satiate me and I know it doesn't for a lot of others. Starches, especially potatoes have much greater satiety than most, if not all fats.
Regarding the bold, that is thermal effect of food. Proteins are significantly higher at 20-25% energy required to digest, carbs are 5-6% and fats are 2-3%. So if you are typically very low on protein, increasing protein to a moderate level can have a pretty good impact. Not only with TEF, but also satiety.
I suspect that protein TEF levels are highly linked to form - whey protein power is probably a lower TEF than say steak or casein. But I've seen no research to support my supposition.
EDIT: Apparently I'm full of cow dung. Whey likely has a higher TEF:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/3/525
Or possibly the TEF curve over time peaks more for whey and is overall higher for casein. Don't know.
But, given that Casein takes longer to digest I've a few doubts on this graph.
Whey is a fast absorbing protein, actually fairly likely to be used for fuel instead of building structure, which means the TEF being high makes sense - it is getting burned or converted to glucose pretty quick. Actually turning protein into other protein is going to be kind of background metabolism that's going to depend on actual activity more than diet.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »feisty_bucket wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
There are only a half-dozen threads on MFP - they just get recycled. The mods change the wording of the titles and delete half the responses so nobody figures it out.
There are exactly six original stories in human history. Everything else is a variation on them.
Every book ever written is just a remix of the dictionary. Think about it.
You've never read sci-fi, but my ability as a Kwisatz Haderach allowed me to know that, so I should have used my ansible to contact you out in cyberspace and let you know that, and the fact that droids will attack the Klingons soon.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
Pretty much. I don't really uderstand why we've now got two different forums to discuss the same things in.
Uh, I think it's because some made a post about it over there, and some one made a post about it over here. Or am I missing something?0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
Pretty much. I don't really uderstand why we've now got two different forums to discuss the same things in.
Uh, I think it's because some made a post about it over there, and some one made a post about it over here. Or am I missing something?
It's the breakout from GD&WL that I don't get. The justification seems to be based on some people opining on some of the nonsense posts, perhaps being unsupportive or something like that.
I'm just not sure which of the two is supposed to be the forum of woo nowadays.0 -
The research says not to eat less than 1200 calories a day. But to lose weight you need to burn more than you consume. So if I were to eat 1200 and burn 700. Does that mean I need to eat back 700 to keep at 1200? That's always confused me.0
-
The research says not to eat less than 1200 calories a day. But to lose weight you need to burn more than you consume. So if I were to eat 1200 and burn 700. Does that mean I need to eat back 700 to keep at 1200? That's always confused me.
provided that's your actual burn, then yes. That's exactly the truth. But, you might only eat back half or 3/4 of the calories mfp gives you. Many seem to feel it's highly exaggerating actual burn.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
Pretty much. I don't really uderstand why we've now got two different forums to discuss the same things in.
Uh, I think it's because some made a post about it over there, and some one made a post about it over here. Or am I missing something?
It's the breakout from GD&WL that I don't get. The justification seems to be based on some people opining on some of the nonsense posts, perhaps being unsupportive or something like that.
I'm just not sure which of the two is supposed to be the forum of woo nowadays.
I think this is for debates and some of the more contentious issues vs. the context in GD&WL, which is more often an OP asking a question about a particular issue he or she is struggling with or approach he or she is trying. I think information is still okay over there, but just that it should be tailored to the question and not fall into the general "sugar is bad!" or "sugar is not addictive!" stuff -- that's for here.
I also believe it's okay to link to threads here.
I don't think there's a bright line distinction in many cases, but there isn't between the other forums either.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
Pretty much. I don't really uderstand why we've now got two different forums to discuss the same things in.
Uh, I think it's because some made a post about it over there, and some one made a post about it over here. Or am I missing something?
It's the breakout from GD&WL that I don't get. The justification seems to be based on some people opining on some of the nonsense posts, perhaps being unsupportive or something like that.
I'm just not sure which of the two is supposed to be the forum of woo nowadays.
I think this is for debates and some of the more contentious issues vs. the context in GD&WL, which is more often an OP asking a question about a particular issue he or she is struggling with or approach he or she is trying. I think information is still okay over there, but just that it should be tailored to the question and not fall into the general "sugar is bad!" or "sugar is not addictive!" stuff -- that's for here.
I also believe it's okay to link to threads here.
I don't think there's a bright line distinction in many cases, but there isn't between the other forums either.
So GD&WL is now confirmed as the forum of woo because pointing out the realities of understanding rather than marketing guff is mean, presumably.
Are UA going into the fad diet business and wanting to shut down dissenting voices then? 0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »punkrockgoth wrote: »Is this not the same thread as this one?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
Pretty much. I don't really uderstand why we've now got two different forums to discuss the same things in.
Uh, I think it's because some made a post about it over there, and some one made a post about it over here. Or am I missing something?
It's the breakout from GD&WL that I don't get. The justification seems to be based on some people opining on some of the nonsense posts, perhaps being unsupportive or something like that.
I'm just not sure which of the two is supposed to be the forum of woo nowadays.
I think this is for debates and some of the more contentious issues vs. the context in GD&WL, which is more often an OP asking a question about a particular issue he or she is struggling with or approach he or she is trying. I think information is still okay over there, but just that it should be tailored to the question and not fall into the general "sugar is bad!" or "sugar is not addictive!" stuff -- that's for here.
I also believe it's okay to link to threads here.
I don't think there's a bright line distinction in many cases, but there isn't between the other forums either.
So GD&WL is now confirmed as the forum of woo because pointing out the realities of understanding rather than marketing guff is mean, presumably.
Are UA going into the fad diet business and wanting to shut down dissenting voices then?
I think the path is to keep on countering derp with facts eg keep on dissenting but if it turns into a debate then the entire debate part may end up here however that requires the split to happen at a point in the thread and not merely take specific posts out ...0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »Hi there seen you on here b4.
My opinion is calories did matter but right kind is far more important. Your body wants to good stuff and your brain regulates hunger not on a full feeling in tummy but biochemical response to nutrients it basically tells your brain what of what it needs came in and that is how satiation occurs. If you eat crap you won't be satisfied this still hungry and keep on going. This is obesity crisis 4 legs right there. Eat good stuff but less and you'll be fine. Then during maintaining it will get easier as you can slowly reintroduce that which you don't need
You may want to do some reading about ghrelin and leptin. It could help clear up your understanding of how hunger/satiety works.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »Hi there seen you on here b4.
My opinion is calories did matter but right kind is far more important. Your body wants to good stuff and your brain regulates hunger not on a full feeling in tummy but biochemical response to nutrients it basically tells your brain what of what it needs came in and that is how satiation occurs. If you eat crap you won't be satisfied this still hungry and keep on going. This is obesity crisis 4 legs right there. Eat good stuff but less and you'll be fine. Then during maintaining it will get easier as you can slowly reintroduce that which you don't need
You clearly don't know how this works and are making up your own theories.0 -
Losing weight is about eating fewer calories than your body uses each day.
Good nutrition (health) and feeling satisfied on fewer calories is about the "right" calories.
Find a balance.
This is so true. If you eat right, you will feel more satiated on fewer calories; try naturals and organics, they fill you up fast.
However, if youre eating well already, lower your caloric intake. Try sticking to 500 calories/day less, this will have you losing a pound or so per week; losing much more than per week will be hard on your skin to adjust properly and will result in more flab. Also remember considerable calorie cuts can actually be detrimental as your body will start storing energy as fat reserves rather than short term reserves to keep you stable for longer periods of time.0 -
Losing weight is about eating fewer calories than your body uses each day.
Good nutrition (health) and feeling satisfied on fewer calories is about the "right" calories.
Find a balance.
This is so true. If you eat right, you will feel more satiated on fewer calories; try naturals and organics, they fill you up fast.
However, if youre eating well already, lower your caloric intake. Try sticking to 500 calories/day less, this will have you losing a pound or so per week; losing much more than per week will be hard on your skin to adjust properly and will result in more flab. Also remember considerable calorie cuts can actually be detrimental as your body will start storing energy as fat reserves rather than short term reserves to keep you stable for longer periods of time.
Organic food has no greater satiety than conventional.
Natural food is a box buzzword to sell people stuff.0 -
Let me chew on some lettuce and have a think.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
- 426 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