I'm just going to leave this here
Replies
-
baby05phat 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? 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.
Perfect reply, thank you I 've overcome my eating issues by realizing this... for me a calorie just isn't a calorie, my body reacts completely differently. When I eat all healthy calories my shape becomes attractive and healthy looking as I lose weight. When I did all junk food but restricted calories.. yes I still lost weight, but my shape was skinny fat and unattractive + I'd just binge because I was addicted to heavy salt, sugar, fat and other chemicals in the food in today's world.
Today's food is brand new that's why we are seeing an epidemic of obesity, everything is new. Back in 1800s no such thing existed as modified food and McDonald's and junk food, and everyone was a lot healthier. So in 2016, I completely think a calorie is not a calorie anymore
This demonstrates that you don't fully understand what people mean when they say a "calorie is a calorie." When people say that, they mean one calorie as unit of measurement is the same as . . . . . . one calorie as a unit of measurement, regardless of which food that one calorie comes from.
You must not read the boards that much, because it is consistently stated that the choices one makes in eating those calories do matter - for health and satiety. But, since people have already said this same thing throughout this post, I suppose you will continue to think that others are wrong and led you astray. You clearly understand you lost weight eating whatever you want (so, 1 calorie = 1 calorie). You are just choosing to misunderstand what others say regarding calorie as a unit of measurement vs. the nutritional content of one's overall diet.12 -
baby05phat 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? 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.
Perfect reply, thank you I 've overcome my eating issues by realizing this... for me a calorie just isn't a calorie, my body reacts completely differently. When I eat all healthy calories my shape becomes attractive and healthy looking as I lose weight. When I did all junk food but restricted calories.. yes I still lost weight, but my shape was skinny fat and unattractive + I'd just binge because I was addicted to heavy salt, sugar, fat and other chemicals in the food in today's world.
Today's food is brand new that's why we are seeing an epidemic of obesity, everything is new. Back in 1800s no such thing existed as modified food and McDonald's and junk food, and everyone was a lot healthier. So in 2016, I completely think a calorie is not a calorie anymore
You do realize there were obese/overweight people in the1800s? There were still unhealthy and sick people back in the 'good old' days. The earliest record of diabetes was in 1552BC. There wasn't exactly a McDonalds and Starbucks at every corner back then
I am wondering though, from your original OP and now this one, if you perhaps have a history with eating disorders? The language you're using raises red flags. Seeing a licensed ED specialist may be able to help you work through your issues with food.7 -
I just did a spit take when I read the line "Back in 1800s [...] everyone was a lot healthier."12
-
baby05phat 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? 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.
Perfect reply, thank you I 've overcome my eating issues by realizing this... for me a calorie just isn't a calorie, my body reacts completely differently. When I eat all healthy calories my shape becomes attractive and healthy looking as I lose weight. When I did all junk food but restricted calories.. yes I still lost weight, but my shape was skinny fat and unattractive + I'd just binge because I was addicted to heavy salt, sugar, fat and other chemicals in the food in today's world.
Today's food is brand new that's why we are seeing an epidemic of obesity, everything is new. Back in 1800s no such thing existed as modified food and McDonald's and junk food, and everyone was a lot healthier. So in 2016, I completely think a calorie is not a calorie anymore
In the 1800's people were so much healthier---that they died younger. If you want to return to the 1800's, OK for you, but I'm 61 and would probably have been long dead.7 -
As with most things related to weight loss and maintaining a normal weight, find what works for you and stick with it. You know yourself better than anyone else. I am sure that not one is intentionally trying to mislead anyone. There are a lot of different factors that go into being successful at weight loss. Use all of the information available to find what works for you.0
-
snowflake954 wrote: »baby05phat 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? 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.
Perfect reply, thank you I 've overcome my eating issues by realizing this... for me a calorie just isn't a calorie, my body reacts completely differently. When I eat all healthy calories my shape becomes attractive and healthy looking as I lose weight. When I did all junk food but restricted calories.. yes I still lost weight, but my shape was skinny fat and unattractive + I'd just binge because I was addicted to heavy salt, sugar, fat and other chemicals in the food in today's world.
Today's food is brand new that's why we are seeing an epidemic of obesity, everything is new. Back in 1800s no such thing existed as modified food and McDonald's and junk food, and everyone was a lot healthier. So in 2016, I completely think a calorie is not a calorie anymore
In the 1800's people were so much healthier---that they died younger. If you want to return to the 1800's, OK for you, but I'm 61 and would probably have been long dead.
Fun facts: fad diets have been around since 1820, when Lord Byron came up with the 'water and vinegar' diet. He was also known to be a purger. And in the 1830s, Sylvester Graham developed a diet to "that eschewed strong drink and overly processed food." Part of his diet included a bread that later became known as the Graham cracker
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/first-age-reform/essays/sylvester-graham-and-antebellum-diet-reform
So yeah, the idea that 'back then' there were not overweight people is absolutely ridiculous.
5 -
Okay. I skimmed most of the posts. So forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else said.
The author of that article is cherry picking information. She does cite a few studies in her article. About one per point made. That being said, have those studies ever been replicated? Were the findings consistent with prior findings? Studies must be replicated. If they cannot be replicated, it's likely due to chance. However, I will admit I didn't search for more peer reviewed articles about those points to see if they were replicated. Too lazy.
Point being, this is confirmation bias. My thoughts on this are that if what everything she was saying were true, wouldn't there be a ton of studies backing that finding? Wouldn't calorie counting indeed be put on the back burner in favor of those other "methods"?
It's just like a cognitive study I remember. Two groups of people had taken a multitude of cognitive tests to develop a baseline for their cognitive abilities. Then, one group listened to classical music (Mozart or something of the like) and the other group did not. After that, the two groups took more cognitive tests.
Findings of that study were that the Mozart group scored better on cognitive tests after listening to the music than the group that did not listen to Mozart. Voila! Mozart enhances your cognitive abilities, right?
Not so fast, the study was never able to be replicated. Many tried, but none could find the same results. Why? It was due to chance. There is always chance involved in scientific studies.
sorry for the long drawn out rant!
7 -
The author says "Because each [Carbohydrates, protein, and fat] performs a unique function, they aren’t interchangeable, so getting the right amount of each is important." But she does not bother to posit what the "right amount" is, or even the right proportion.
I'm experiencing the most weight loss success of my adult life with CICO. In the past I've tried many things, including Zone and South Beach Diet; both talked a lot about protein intake, and carbs/sugar causing cravings for more of the same.
What I've learned is that calories matter most for weight loss. Protein intake matters most *to me* for mental clarity, and watching carbs/sugar (and the time of day I eat them) matter most *to me* for for sustained energy, and reduced hunger/cravings. But CICO is to thank for the actual weight loss.
3 -
RosieRose7673 wrote: »Okay. I skimmed most of the posts. So forgive me if I'm repeating what someone else said.
The author of that article is cherry picking information. She does cite a few studies in her article. About one per point made. That being said, have those studies ever been replicated? Were the findings consistent with prior findings? Studies must be replicated. If they cannot be replicated, it's likely due to chance. However, I will admit I didn't search for more peer reviewed articles about those points to see if they were replicated. Too lazy.
Point being, this is confirmation bias. My thoughts on this are that if what everything she was saying were true, wouldn't there be a ton of studies backing that finding? Wouldn't calorie counting indeed be put on the back burner in favor of those other "methods"?
It's just like a cognitive study I remember. Two groups of people had taken a multitude of cognitive tests to develop a baseline for their cognitive abilities. Then, one group listened to classical music (Mozart or something of the like) and the other group did not. After that, the two groups took more cognitive tests.
Findings of that study were that the Mozart group scored better on cognitive tests after listening to the music than the group that did not listen to Mozart. Voila! Mozart enhances your cognitive abilities, right?
Not so fast, the study was never able to be replicated. Many tried, but none could find the same results. Why? It was due to chance. There is always chance involved in scientific studies.
sorry for the long drawn out rant!
If I could I would give you a like AND an awesome.
Not only should there be tons of studies backing all the stuff up, but also about 99% of people who accurately log their calories would still fail because of all those "important" things the author tried to hammer in your head are the reasons why you shouldn't count calories.
Fact is, none of the things mentioned matter all that much for weight loss. The biggest one could arguably be labels being allowed a +-20% leeway (which isn't entirely correct to begin with if I remember right from when I read through the guidelines) which sounds scary and "OMG you'll never know how much you've actually eaten", until you realize that +-20% means it can be more or less and over the long term both even out as well as that isn't always 20% but most likely averages around 5% or so, the 20% is for the sake of manufacturers. If it was tighter, they'd probably have to reassess calorie amounts after every batch to be within the allowed range.
The author obviously doesn't follow the thought that far and instead only paints the worst case scenario (which is probably about as likely as winning the lottery or even less) of everything you eat being 20% more than it says forever. And her other points aren't much better.6 -
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 did understanding calories lead to loathing, destruction, binging and unhappiness?
You are trying to blame underlying psychology of eating and poor diet on calorie counting?
One can eat well or eat poorly while calorie counting.
That article isn't very good.
4 -
Triplestep wrote: »The author says "Because each [Carbohydrates, protein, and fat] performs a unique function, they aren’t interchangeable, so getting the right amount of each is important." But she does not bother to posit what the "right amount" is, or even the right proportion.
I'm experiencing the most weight loss success of my adult life with CICO. In the past I've tried many things, including Zone and South Beach Diet; both talked a lot about protein intake, and carbs/sugar causing cravings for more of the same.
What I've learned is that calories matter most for weight loss. Protein intake matters most *to me* for mental clarity, and watching carbs/sugar (and the time of day I eat them) matter most *to me* for for sustained energy, and reduced hunger/cravings. But CICO is to thank for the actual weight loss.
Because then she'd have to admit that the amounts needed for functions outside energy generation are only about 200 calories of protein (as per the 46 g for women and 56g for men minimum recommendation) and right now I'm looking for the minimum fat amounts and found this gem http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/FFA_summary_rec_conclusion.pdf containing the following conclusion:
There was convincing evidence that energy balance is critical to maintaining healthy body weight and
ensuring optimal nutrient intakes, regardless of macronutrient distribution of energy as % total fat and % total carbohydrates.
we now resume our scheduled program.
and about 300-400 calories from fats (from above link, 15-20% of energy consumed [maintenance] for a 2000 kcal diet) totalling a staggering 500-600 calories that your body actually might use for stuff other than just energy fuel (though the actual amounts are likely far lower because minimum recommendations are always a step higher than what is actually needed) and everything apart from that can be turned into energy as much as the other through different metabolic pathways that create ATP.2 -
"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.”
This reminds me of the "a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat" arguments.1 -
EvgeniZyntx 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/
How did understanding calories lead to loathing, destruction, binging and unhappiness?
You are trying to blame underlying psychology of eating and poor diet on calorie counting?
One can eat well or eat poorly while calorie counting.
That article isn't very good.
Agreed.
I get that "CICO" is only the first step, but the point of "preaching" it is to allow the individual to find their own path to achieving it rather than trying to force them into some some overly-restrictive prescribed diet that may not work for them. Do your own homework, experiment with your own macros, etc., do whatever you have to do to get there in a way that is sustainable for you, but CICO is still king.8 -
Once again, someone/many someones trying to make calories mean the same thing as nutrition. They are not. Calories are units of measurement, how much energy is contained in a food product. Nutrition is what we pay attention to for health and satiety. They are not the same thing.
And you will find that nearly everyone who hammers home the idea that you just need to stick to your calories for weight loss also generally adds a caveat that a diet high in nutrient dense foods that is wide and varied with the odd "treat" thrown in is the most sensible route to go down. NOBODY advocates eating your calorie allowance in chips and chocolate exclusively.
10 -
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.
Exactly what I wanted to say.
Someone blaming others and their advice for their own eating control problems is quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on here. We're all adults who are responsible for ourselves.6 -
baby05phat 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? 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.
Perfect reply, thank you I 've overcome my eating issues by realizing this... for me a calorie just isn't a calorie, my body reacts completely differently. When I eat all healthy calories my shape becomes attractive and healthy looking as I lose weight. When I did all junk food but restricted calories.. yes I still lost weight, but my shape was skinny fat and unattractive + I'd just binge because I was addicted to heavy salt, sugar, fat and other chemicals in the food in today's world.
Today's food is brand new that's why we are seeing an epidemic of obesity, everything is new. Back in 1800s no such thing existed as modified food and McDonald's and junk food, and everyone was a lot healthier. So in 2016, I completely think a calorie is not a calorie anymore
The bold part is your biggest eating issue. You have an all or nothing mindset and are missing the point entirely. Nobody on this site has ever advised eating all junk food as you seem to have interpreted "a calorie is a calorie" to mean.
And don't even get me started on the "Back in the 1800's" crap. Back in the 1800's you had to hunt down your food or grow and harvest and preserve it yourself. Not to mention the hours spent cutting and hauling wood to feed the fire to cook it. You had to WORK to eat. People ate fatback, lard, salted cod, corn meal and tons of other highly processed and fatty foods. Now you can just swing by the Whole Foods on your way home from Pilates to pick up a quinoa salad and organic rotisserie chicken and eat a meal in minutes with hardly any effort.12 -
A calorie is a calorie is about weight loss, it doesn't say anything about what you should eat. If you have self-control issues, work on that or take it into account.
I believe (of course) that a calorie is a calorie and that it is physically possible to lose weight eating lots of "junk" food, but I don't, because usually I like other foods better, because I care about how my overall diet makes me feel and nutrition, and because I want to (usually) eat in a way that helps benefit my training goals and maintain/gain muscle and all that.
I also eat some ice cream or cheese or the like (or really good fries on occasion) within the context of a nutritionally sensible diet, since I enjoy them. Has never hurt my weight loss.
As for the silly article, no one claims calorie counts are perfect (they don't need to be, it's still quite easy to be able to determine if you need to eat less and to do so) or that one must count to lose weight (although it can be helpful for many, and if you don't count and have become overweight you need another way to control calories, even if you never think about calories).0 -
For the purposes of weight loss, a calorie is just a calorie. But for people who struggle with issues like binge eating, food choices do matter. I honestly don't see the conflict between knowing both of those statements to be true.3
-
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »EvgeniZyntx 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/
How did understanding calories lead to loathing, destruction, binging and unhappiness?
You are trying to blame underlying psychology of eating and poor diet on calorie counting?
One can eat well or eat poorly while calorie counting.
That article isn't very good.
Agreed.
I get that "CICO" is only the first step, but the point of "preaching" it is to allow the individual to find their own path to achieving it rather than trying to force them into some some overly-restrictive prescribed diet that may not work for them. Do your own homework, experiment with your own macros, etc., do whatever you have to do to get there in a way that is sustainable for you, but CICO is still king.
Exactly this.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »For the purposes of weight loss, a calorie is just a calorie. But for people who struggle with issues like binge eating, food choices do matter. I honestly don't see the conflict between knowing both of those statements to be true.
The OP is projecting her own distorted issues with food and saying that CICO doesn't work for anyone. She's denying your first point, that CICO is the key for weight loss. That's what people are disagreeing with. The OP needs help beyond what this forum can give, probably with a professional who deals with EDs.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 907 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions