I'm just going to leave this here
baby05phat
Posts: 71 Member
When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/
http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/
2
Replies
-
What you put into your body is one thing. How you feel about the food you eat and your eating behavior is another. That's what a lot of people here miss: the behavioral component is as important as the dietary component (and in many cases more important). Sure, a calorie is a calorie -- but this isn't a great deal of help to those who have an unhealthy relationship to food. Which is true of a lot of us. You might find these approaches to behavioral modification helpful:
http://www.beckdietsolution.com
http://www.intuitiveeating.org
http://thecenterformindfuleating.org/Principles-Mindful-Eating9 -
I thought carbs, fats, and proteins were macros, not calories. Am I just dense and not made the connection?
A calorie is a calorie, like an inch is an inch or a gallon is a gallon. They're all units of measurement. Period.26 -
If you were to take those points into consideration where would you even begin?! You have a budget, spend it how you like.
For my own well being a calorie= a calorie is just fine for me. I eat as well as I can and am seeing steady results. Good luck with your amended plan.4 -
Cynthia Sass has a diet book to sell that promises fast weight loss without counting calories.
ETA: That means she is biased and not a good source of information.
8 -
-
baby05phat wrote: »When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/
losing weight is all about calories, and that's good news. it means eating "healthy" foods won't help you lose more weight than junk food if you eat the same amount of calories of junk food as of "healthy" food.
i include chocolate, pizza, potato chips, tortilla chips, cereal, ice cream, an occasional trip to a restaurant - but especially chocolate - in my daily diet. it satisfies me emotionally and allows me to continue on my weight loss and change of lifestyle in a way that works for me. half a blaze pizza as i eat mine is about 300 calories, and that fits easily into my day. if i want an entire pizza, i can cut some calories back from other meals (i eat 6 smaller meals rather than 3 larger ones), and voila - an entire blaze or udi's pizza fits my daily calorie budget
5 -
lemonychild wrote: »
Yes. And she doesn't want people to just count calories because then she couldn't sell her diet plan. Just like all the other diet book authors.5 -
lemonychild wrote: »
Yes. And she doesn't want people to just count calories because then she couldn't sell her diet plan. Just like all the other diet book authors.
Ah the ad hominem fallacy yet again. She's selling a book so anything she says can be ignored on that basis alone.
I wish people would make an attempt to stick to the evidence. I would be interested in a thoughtful critique of the points instead of a blanket statement that does no one any good.1 -
Cynthia Sass has a diet book to sell that promises fast weight loss without counting calories.
ETA: That means she is biased and not a good source of information.
So anyone who has a book out is by definition not a good source of information EVER, because they are "biased".....
Proof please?
1 -
You cannot blame anyone else for your lack of self-control or shortcomings. Your post sounds like you personally have a destructive/negative relationship with food and that's only something you can fix. Coming to a forum to do so isn't the way; you'd either have to do it on your own or seek out the help of a professional.
I have never seen anybody on this site encourage another poster to eat all of their calories in "junk" food. In fact, most posters advocate for an 80/20 balance of nutrient dense food vs treats. I eat fruit, vegetables, meat, nuts, and dairy, but I also have a small treat daily and I even eat a half to full thin crust large pizza every two weeks or so. It's all about balance.
If you cannot control yourself around certain types of food and you can't even limit them or omit them in an effort to remedy the issue, you would benefit from speaking to a qualified professional. This type of "told you so" post is uninformative and useless, especially seeing as the source article is written by someone who sells diet books. Of course people in the diet industry are going to blame everything under the sun. They need people to buy what they're selling.
The only useful points of the article were the fact that nutritional labels can be, and often are, off and that balancing carbs, fats, and proteins are helpful although the reasons given in the article are absolute bunk.32 -
For the most part I stay away from junk food myself. I prefer food I make myself or buy at a good restaurant. That doesn't mean I don't do junk food at times, in moderation.
Everyone needs to find what works for them. No particular food is inherently evil and what works for me may not work for someone else. I haven't seen anyone here say you must eat junk food. I think that sometimes get missed when people actually say junk food isn't a bad thing. When people talk about what they really eat what is considered "junk food" or "sweets" is almost always a minor percentage of their total intake, but one they allow for.2 -
I don't care for all that crap. If you are in a calorie deficit, you will lose weight. You cannot gain weight in a deficit regardless of how clean you eat or whatever else you eat. It's impossible. People look for the easy way out and believe these lies because they can't control their behavior and fail, so they place the blame on the truth. It's lies and it's only to sell the next fad diet that doesn't work. CICO is the only way and to do that, you need to count calories. You can not count calories if you want, but don't go crying because you think your body is broken.12
-
LMAO at CICO being "outdated".
Also from the article: When I hear people repeat notions like “a calorie is a calorie” I like to reply: “That’s like saying a cubic zirconia is the same as a sparkling diamond.”
Um, no. A calorie is calorie is like saying an inch is an inch or a yard is a yard. It's a unit of measure. Would you tell me that a foot of thread is longer or shorter than a foot of rope?
But nice job blaming other people (and a basic scientific principle) for your struggles. That lack of personal accountability will serve you well.30 -
Cynthia Sass has a diet book to sell that promises fast weight loss without counting calories.
ETA: That means she is biased and not a good source of information.
So anyone who has a book out is by definition not a good source of information EVER, because they are "biased".....
Proof please?
You mean apart from the laughable notion that 1 unit of measurement is somehow not equal to another identical unit of measurement? Are you the kind of person who picks the bag with a ton of feathers because it's lighter than the bag with a ton of bricks?6 -
This content has been removed.
-
Yeah, no.
2 -
That's taking the blame game to the extreme
I really am sorry you're experiencing such mental anguish around your weight and self image ...have you considered talking to a professional about this? Behavioural therapy may help
Best of luck OP5 -
baby05phat wrote: »When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/
How long did you try? Been here since July. Still having issues with moderating high calorie foods. It has gotten much better but still learning. I suspect I may be learning this forever.and will have to adjust constantly.
If I don't count calories I eat too much 99% of the time. I don't know if it's greed or what, I just know counting is an easy tool that keeps me accountable and honest with myself for how much I have consumed or not.
I read some of Cynthia's book descriptions. I don't believe that certain foods will allow me to eat more calories than my losing goal and still lose.
In general I prefer to read diet books by dieticians, doctors and memoirs of people who have lost a lot of weight. I could become a nutritionist easily through online courses. Wouldn't be qualified after that to write books about it.2 -
I'm sorry OP, but absolutely NOTHING in that article matters even nearly as much as getting less calories in than you use up.
There is absolutely NO possibility to gain fat while in a caloric deficit. The food you eat barely affects your metabolism, if at all. 96% of everyone is within +-300 calories in their basic metabolism https://examine.com/faq/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ and that is between people with vastly different diets.
You getting less calories than thought from some things because you can't properly digest them would only lead to MORE weight loss. Foods can't magically supply you with more energy than they contain, so what you get can only ever be less.
Numbers aren't 100% precise and they DON'T HAVE TO BE, because the difference between a 500 deficit that's the result of everything being correct and occasionally being anywhere between 200 and 800 deficit does nothing but give you your weight loss a few days faster or slower than you thought. Because that's the funny thing with inaccuracies, they go both ways and even each other out over time, that's why averages are a thing.
Counting calories works. There's nothing more to be said to that point. If you eat less calories than your body uses (and even considering every single inaccuracy everywhere, there's always an amount your body uses, even if you purposely stacked the deck against yourself), you'll lose weight. Every. Single. Time.
The point about absolutely needing precise amounts of all nutrients is just completely false and you'd know if you took 5 minutes to look at some ketoers who stuff themselves on mostly fat and ignore carbs and high carbers who stuff themselves on fruit and veggies and get barely the minimum of fat protein and both are fine and healthy.
There's only so much your body needs to work with, everything above that IS interchangable as any macronutrient can be converted to ATP which is the thing that actually provides you with energy, which the author completely ignores and instead uses "nutrient" and "calorie" interchangably.
And that last point she makes has more BS in it than the others combined.21 -
And another point, if only junk food induced dopamine in you, you need to work on your cooking
11 -
baby05phat wrote: »When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/
Two comments: 1) why have people flagged the original post? and 2) I am surprised the contents of the referenced article are a newsflash to anyone or is cause for debate. Does anyone actually believe that 100 calories from potato chips have the equivalent impact on the body or are used in the same was as 100 calories of spinach? Or that all that matters is calories (energy) and that nutritional value doesn't come into play?
To the OP: make sure you do your own research or ask people who offer you advice to provide references for the same. If they can't or won't, treat it with a grain of salt. Else it's all just opinion, and opinions rather than facts won't help you accomplish your goals, and can also hurt your quest in the long run.1 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »baby05phat wrote: »When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/
Two comments: 1) why have people flagged the original post? and 2) I am surprised the contents of the referenced article are a newsflash to anyone or is cause for debate. Does anyone actually believe that 100 calories from potato chips have the equivalent impact on the body or are used in the same was as 100 calories of spinach?
To the OP: make sure you do your own research or ask people who offer you advice to provide references for the same. If they can't or won't, treat it with a grain of salt. Else it's all just opinion, and opinions rather than facts won't help you accomplish your goals, and can also hurt your quest in the long run.
Anyone who knows how digestion works knows it just gets turned into its components.
Your body really doesn't give a single F*** if you had potato chips or baked potato with butter, it's both just potatoes and fat. In fact, your body doesn't even have a concept of "good" and "bad" foods, that's just you. It just doesn't care as long as it gets what it needs which is first and foremost calories and only secondly minimum amounts of nutrients. Most of the time you'd die of lack of calories a good while before you get problems because of lack of a nutrient.
And that's a good thing because it made us probably the most adaptable higher life form in the world. Slovenly said, as long as there is ANYTHING edible, we can work with that.
If someone who can eat mostly fat with little fruits and vegetables in their diet can achieve weight loss and health just as much as someone with balanced amounts or someone on the other side who almost only eats fruits and vegetables and little fat and protein, you should ask yourself why that is.24 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »I am surprised the contents of the referenced article are a newsflash to anyone or is cause for debate. Does anyone actually believe that 100 calories from potato chips have the equivalent impact on the body or are used in the same was as 100 calories of spinach? Or that all that matters is calories (energy) and that nutritional value doesn't come into play?
I can't believe it's cause for debate either, because a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.....when it comes to weight loss.
For weight loss, 100 calories of chips = 100 calories of spinach. To lose weight, you have consume fewer calories than you burn. The source of those calories matters naught, for weight loss. Google "The Twinkie Diet". (Disclaimer: this is not a recommended way to lose weight, but it does illustrate how, when it comes to weight loss, a calorie is, indeed, a calorie).
For health/nutrition, yes, obviously the source of the calories matters. But again...not for weight loss.
5 -
stevencloser wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »baby05phat wrote: »When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/
Two comments: 1) why have people flagged the original post? and 2) I am surprised the contents of the referenced article are a newsflash to anyone or is cause for debate. Does anyone actually believe that 100 calories from potato chips have the equivalent impact on the body or are used in the same was as 100 calories of spinach?
To the OP: make sure you do your own research or ask people who offer you advice to provide references for the same. If they can't or won't, treat it with a grain of salt. Else it's all just opinion, and opinions rather than facts won't help you accomplish your goals, and can also hurt your quest in the long run.
Anyone who knows how digestion works knows it just gets turned into its components.
Your body really doesn't give a single F*** if you had potato chips or baked potato with butter, it's both just potatoes and fat. In fact, your body doesn't even have a concept of "good" and "bad" foods, that's just you. It just doesn't care as long as it gets what it needs which is first and foremost calories and only secondly minimum amounts of nutrients. Most of the time you'd die of lack of calories a good while before you get problems because of lack of a nutrient.
And that's a good thing because it made us probably the most adaptable higher life form in the world. Slovenly said, as long as there is ANYTHING edible, we can work with that.
If someone who can eat mostly fat with little fruits and vegetables in their diet can achieve weight loss and health just as much as someone with balanced amounts or someone on the other side who almost only eats fruits and vegetables and little fat and protein, you should ask yourself why that is.
Posts like this are the reason people should do their own research and use credible sources in the process. (OP: I'm talking to you.)
4 -
stevencloser wrote: »Cynthia Sass has a diet book to sell that promises fast weight loss without counting calories.
ETA: That means she is biased and not a good source of information.
So anyone who has a book out is by definition not a good source of information EVER, because they are "biased".....
Proof please?
You mean apart from the laughable notion that 1 unit of measurement is somehow not equal to another identical unit of measurement? Are you the kind of person who picks the bag with a ton of feathers because it's lighter than the bag with a ton of bricks?
Actually I may well have as many disagreements with the author as you do. I just get frustrated when someone is discounted just because they wrote a book...0 -
-
http://www.amazon.com/Cynthia-Sass/e/B001JPC490/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1460924571&sr=8-2-ent
Oh there she is, look at that she's the co-author of a book called "Flat Belly Diet!".3 -
Opps she is a dietcian. Still wouldn't bother with her given the descriptions of what she has written.
No doubt in my mind that if there was a trick to eat more than you burn and lose weight, we'd all be doing it now.0 -
baby05phat wrote: »When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/
There are some interesting points in that article that I've seen recommended numerous times on this site, such as taking into account macro levels when dieting, the margin of error on packaged foods, how things can impact the calories out side, etc. I don't see anything in there that was really off the mark as far as things to consider during weight loss. I do wish they would have linked to that Wake Forest study though.0 -
PiperGirl08 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »PiperGirl08 wrote: »baby05phat wrote: »When I came on this forum, many of you preached to me "a calorie is just a calorie" leading to self laothing, destruction, binging, unhappiness because no matter how hard I tried I couldnt combine the dopamine inducing junk food with healthy food, and I'll just leave this link here for any others sturggling
http://news.health.com/2013/02/07/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-6-diet-myths-busted/
Two comments: 1) why have people flagged the original post? and 2) I am surprised the contents of the referenced article are a newsflash to anyone or is cause for debate. Does anyone actually believe that 100 calories from potato chips have the equivalent impact on the body or are used in the same was as 100 calories of spinach?
To the OP: make sure you do your own research or ask people who offer you advice to provide references for the same. If they can't or won't, treat it with a grain of salt. Else it's all just opinion, and opinions rather than facts won't help you accomplish your goals, and can also hurt your quest in the long run.
Anyone who knows how digestion works knows it just gets turned into its components.
Your body really doesn't give a single F*** if you had potato chips or baked potato with butter, it's both just potatoes and fat. In fact, your body doesn't even have a concept of "good" and "bad" foods, that's just you. It just doesn't care as long as it gets what it needs which is first and foremost calories and only secondly minimum amounts of nutrients. Most of the time you'd die of lack of calories a good while before you get problems because of lack of a nutrient.
And that's a good thing because it made us probably the most adaptable higher life form in the world. Slovenly said, as long as there is ANYTHING edible, we can work with that.
If someone who can eat mostly fat with little fruits and vegetables in their diet can achieve weight loss and health just as much as someone with balanced amounts or someone on the other side who almost only eats fruits and vegetables and little fat and protein, you should ask yourself why that is.
Posts like this are the reason people should do their own research and use credible sources in the process. (OP: I'm talking to you.)
See, when I think of credible sources I don't think of the article OP posted.
It's a fact that there's people all over the world who are healthy and thin on widely different diets caused by geographical availability and tradition, as well as choice.
East Asians? Eat a a ton of white rice. Lots of veggies, little meat and fish.
Keto people? Low carbohydrates, mostly going to vegetables, the lion's share of calories coming from fats, meats, eggs etc.
Veg*ans? No meats at all.
People who don't subscribe to anything particular? Whatever I feel like.
What do all of those have in common? They can all hold a healthy weight and overall health by keeping calories in check. The law of Conservation of Energy and very rudimentary knowledge of what the body does is all you need to know to understand that.
The Twinkie professor and John Cisna ate what many people would consider "crap", they did this to make a point, which was that they would be able to lose weight and improve their health because Calories are what matters the most. And that's exactly what happened and always happens if you put in less energy than leaves.7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions