You NEED to stop calorie counting and restricting!
Replies
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
You're right, nothing is being sold but it is a recommendation to watch "Fed Up." I have and from what I remember, it's about a bunch of parents that want to blame their children's obesity on anything but themselves.
Try reading this, and then get back to us:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-the-movie-fed-up-make-sense/
The conclusion of your article (from 10/14/2014) - "The film’s thesis, that sugar has caused the obesity epidemic, is not well supported by evidence." Sorry, but that is very dated.
You must have missed all the recent announcements about the government's goal to limit sugar consumption. Here's one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/01/07/sugar-new-u-s-dietary-guidelines-adds-upper-limit-to-recommended-consumption-of-added-sugars/
2014 is very dated? A government recommendation =/= science.
Given what has come out in the last 9 months, it is very dated. Not sure if she would have written this article today. That blog relies heavily on the USDA and the FDA.
Fair enough. You don't like my source. I don't like your source, either. Fed Up is bunk. Sugar in and of itself does not make you fat.4 -
WHO dietary fat recommendations say:
There was convincing evidence that energy balance is critical to maintaining healthy
body weight and ensuring optimal nutrient intakes, regardless of macronutrient
distribution expressed in energy percentage (%E).
http://foris.fao.org/preview/25553-0ece4cb94ac52f9a25af77ca5cfba7a8c.pdf
I chose this one for the good wording, their other recommendations for specific nutrients all say the same. For example the one about added sugars.
WHO added sugar recommendations recommend less than 10% of your total calories come from added sugar for the sole reasons of tooth decay and calories better spent elsewhere for nutrition purposes. NOT that it's itself directly harmful in any way, shape or form.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/149782/1/9789241549028_eng.pdf9 -
I have stated somewhere else on this site that my daughter's new registered dietician emphatically stated to not count calories. I assume she tells all her patients. So you can lose weight without counting calories.
My assumption is that unlike most people on this site, who apparently have had good success counting calories, it does not reflect the overall population. I doubt most people could weigh and measure food and count calories for more than a couple of weeks.3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
You're right, nothing is being sold but it is a recommendation to watch "Fed Up." I have and from what I remember, it's about a bunch of parents that want to blame their children's obesity on anything but themselves.
Try reading this, and then get back to us:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/does-the-movie-fed-up-make-sense/
The conclusion of your article (from 10/14/2014) - "The film’s thesis, that sugar has caused the obesity epidemic, is not well supported by evidence." Sorry, but that is very dated.
You must have missed all the recent announcements about the government's goal to limit sugar consumption. Here's one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/01/07/sugar-new-u-s-dietary-guidelines-adds-upper-limit-to-recommended-consumption-of-added-sugars/
I must have missed it but where in the sugar recommendations does it say it directly causes obesity, outside of calorie content?
This one is from Harvard. I can just keep pumping out these articles. Nobody is saying not to eat sugar. Lots of experts are saying to limit sugar consumption.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
And nobody here is saying to eat unlimited sugar. What are we debating about?8 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I have stated somewhere else on this site that my daughter's new registered dietician emphatically stated to not count calories. I assume she tells all her patients. So you can lose weight without counting calories.
My assumption is that unlike most people on this site, who apparently have had good success counting calories, it does not reflect the overall population. I doubt most people could weigh and measure food and count calories for more than a couple of weeks.
How old is your daughter?
ETA: I ask because if she's young it's likely that the dietician wants her to learn to focus on portion size rather than calories.
Of course you can lose weight without counting calories.
I'm not going to make assumptions about the overall population. You know what they say about assumptions.3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I have stated somewhere else on this site that my daughter's new registered dietician emphatically stated to not count calories. I assume she tells all her patients. So you can lose weight without counting calories.
My assumption is that unlike most people on this site, who apparently have had good success counting calories, it does not reflect the overall population. I doubt most people could weigh and measure food and count calories for more than a couple of weeks.
I didn't mean to imply counting calories is the only way to lose weight. I just meant that it aids in the CICO method for weight loss, which is based in scientific fact.3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I have stated somewhere else on this site that my daughter's new registered dietician emphatically stated to not count calories. I assume she tells all her patients. So you can lose weight without counting calories.
My assumption is that unlike most people on this site, who apparently have had good success counting calories, it does not reflect the overall population. I doubt most people could weigh and measure food and count calories for more than a couple of weeks.
If you gained weight not counting calories, just being told "don't do it" is not going to change the situation.
You need to reduce calories to lose weight, if you do it consciously or not, but you have to do something to reduce them.12 -
The first time I measured my portions I was floored as to what MY serving size was compared to a true serving. I was like Whoa! No wonder why I'm in this situation?12
-
Most people (including myself) don't like to think they are over-eating. If a person has to portion and weigh food.....It's an eye-opener!14
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Actually, yes. Weight loss would result if 1500 calories puts both people in a calorie deficit and food has been weighed. Nutrition isn't the same (of course), but calories are. I thought the twinkie study/diet confirmed that.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
I lost over 80lbs eating nutritious as well as snacks and treats that include chocolate, cake, donuts....etc..
A calorie is a calorie.
A calorie is a unit of energy.
"A calorie is a unit of energy." True, but don't you think it's possible that eating crappy food for extended periods can screw up your metabolism over time, and result in weight gain? Unit of energy does not reflect changes in metabolism.
If our metabolism slows with age, why couldn't change based on what you eat?
5 Foods That Slow Down Your Metabolism - http://annagodfrey.com/5-foods-that-slow-down-your-metabolism/
again, this is not science.
OK, how about this one. Conclusion - "Saying that weight (or health for that matter) is simply a function of “calories in, calories out” is completely wrong. It is a drastic oversimplification that doesn’t account for the complex metabolic pathways that different foods go through, or the effects that foods have on our brain and hormones."
"https://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
From your article:
This only tells half the story, as if everyone who counts calories pays no attention to nutrition.Bottom Line: Proponents of the “Calories in, Calories out” way of thinking say that the only thing that matters when it comes to weight loss is calories, disregarding completely the metabolic and hormonal impact of foods.
Good analogy in this section, but it doesn't mean that a calorie is not a calorie.Bottom Line: Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause.
This is why you pay attention to eating a balanced diet. It does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie.Bottom Line: Different foods go through different metabolic pathways. Some foods can cause hormone changes that encourage weight gain, while other foods can increase satiety and boost the metabolic rate.
Just as you say that counting calories is not necessary for everyone, neither is cutting carbs necessary for everyone. We don't need cookie cutter recommendations, thanks.Bottom Line: Being aware of your calorie intake is NOT necessary to lose weight, as long as you eat in a certain way. Cutting carbs while increasing fat and protein is proven to lead to automatic calorie restriction and weight loss.
I'm pretty sure that the set point idea is not proven yet.Bottom Line: The body tries to resist changes in body fat levels by increasing hunger and reducing calorie expenditure.
Wut?? If this is true, then how does the fat gain even begin?Bottom Line: It is possible that we are confusing cause and effect. Perhaps it’s not the increased calorie intake that drives the fat gain, but the fat gain that drives the increased calorie intake.
Nope. Maybe some people need more education, support, or help learning proper eating behaviors; maybe some people will have a life long struggle. But downright impossible to control our eating behavior? No.Bottom Line: Eating behavior is largely subconscious, controlled by hormones and neural circuits. It can be downright impossible to control these sorts of behaviors in the long term.
And again, none of this has to do with a calorie not being a calorie. Should we be sure to eat a nutrition diet? Absolutely. But CICO is still a fact of life.9 -
The criticism I've seen regarding the counting of calories has made two points. The first is that it can get obsessive and foster eating disorders, which IMO is putting the cart before the horse. The second is that people who use calorie counting to lose weight won't bother eating healthy. Some people eat healthy while calorie counting and some don't, but even if they don't, they're still losing weight and that's a step in the right direction.
Nobody needs to count calories to lose weight, but it helps me, so I do. I don't have an ED and I do pay attention to nutrients. It works for me.10 -
I always get such negative commentary when people ask me how I lost weight and I say I used MFP to calorie count.
It's SUCH a good tool if you're not obsessive with it.4 -
People can lose weight differently. Some lucky folks have the metabolism to do so. Some people say it don't matter what you eat, as looking as you work it off. However, you just can't go wrong with calories counting. Maybe tough at times but now that I think about, it's probably the most simple thing to do. I'd die if I had to work everything I WANT to eat off. Lol.4
-
shortvixen09 wrote: »People can lose weight differently. Some lucky folks have the metabolism to do so. Some people say it don't matter what you eat, as looking as you work it off. However, you just can't go wrong with calories counting. Maybe tough at times but now that I think about, it's probably the most simple thing to do. I'd die if I had to work everything I WANT to eat off. Lol.
My sister is one of the "lucky" ones she can eat whatever she wants but she stays a stick, it's not sustainable though her metabolism will slow as she gets older and she's going to start gaining if she doesn't start eating at maintenance instead of a surplus2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »I have stated somewhere else on this site that my daughter's new registered dietician emphatically stated to not count calories. I assume she tells all her patients. So you can lose weight without counting calories.
My assumption is that unlike most people on this site, who apparently have had good success counting calories, it does not reflect the overall population. I doubt most people could weigh and measure food and count calories for more than a couple of weeks.
Nor does LCHF. I doubt most people can give up so much of their carbs for more than a couple of weeks. Some can, many cannot. I will even agree that without the right tools, calorie counting can be a PITA. With MFP, it's quite simple. I am not sure why "to each his own" is such a difficult concept.
1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Actually, yes. Weight loss would result if 1500 calories puts both people in a calorie deficit and food has been weighed. Nutrition isn't the same (of course), but calories are. I thought the twinkie study/diet confirmed that.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
I lost over 80lbs eating nutritious as well as snacks and treats that include chocolate, cake, donuts....etc..
A calorie is a calorie.
A calorie is a unit of energy.
"A calorie is a unit of energy." True, but don't you think it's possible that eating crappy food for extended periods can screw up your metabolism over time, and result in weight gain? Unit of energy does not reflect changes in metabolism.
If our metabolism slows with age, why couldn't change based on what you eat?
5 Foods That Slow Down Your Metabolism - http://annagodfrey.com/5-foods-that-slow-down-your-metabolism/
again, this is not science.
OK, how about this one. Conclusion - "Saying that weight (or health for that matter) is simply a function of “calories in, calories out” is completely wrong. It is a drastic oversimplification that doesn’t account for the complex metabolic pathways that different foods go through, or the effects that foods have on our brain and hormones."
"https://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
From your article:
This only tells half the story, as if everyone who counts calories pays no attention to nutrition.Bottom Line: Proponents of the “Calories in, Calories out” way of thinking say that the only thing that matters when it comes to weight loss is calories, disregarding completely the metabolic and hormonal impact of foods.
Good analogy in this section, but it doesn't mean that a calorie is not a calorie.Bottom Line: Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is true, but meaningless. It tells you nothing about the actual cause.
This is why you pay attention to eating a balanced diet. It does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie.Bottom Line: Different foods go through different metabolic pathways. Some foods can cause hormone changes that encourage weight gain, while other foods can increase satiety and boost the metabolic rate.
Just as you say that counting calories is not necessary for everyone, neither is cutting carbs necessary for everyone. We don't need cookie cutter recommendations, thanks.Bottom Line: Being aware of your calorie intake is NOT necessary to lose weight, as long as you eat in a certain way. Cutting carbs while increasing fat and protein is proven to lead to automatic calorie restriction and weight loss.
I'm pretty sure that the set point idea is not proven yet.Bottom Line: The body tries to resist changes in body fat levels by increasing hunger and reducing calorie expenditure.
Wut?? If this is true, then how does the fat gain even begin?Bottom Line: It is possible that we are confusing cause and effect. Perhaps it’s not the increased calorie intake that drives the fat gain, but the fat gain that drives the increased calorie intake.
Nope. Maybe some people need more education, support, or help learning proper eating behaviors; maybe some people will have a life long struggle. But downright impossible to control our eating behavior? No.Bottom Line: Eating behavior is largely subconscious, controlled by hormones and neural circuits. It can be downright impossible to control these sorts of behaviors in the long term.
And again, none of this has to do with a calorie not being a calorie. Should we be sure to eat a nutrition diet? Absolutely. But CICO is still a fact of life.
Those were a lot of bottom lines.4 -
Because common sense left the planet.5
-
I agree... Mfp and calorie counting has really worked for me. There are no shortcuts that can beat it4
-
No.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Actually, yes. Weight loss would result if 1500 calories puts both people in a calorie deficit and food has been weighed. Nutrition isn't the same (of course), but calories are. I thought the twinkie study/diet confirmed that.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
I lost over 80lbs eating nutritious as well as snacks and treats that include chocolate, cake, donuts....etc..
A calorie is a calorie.
A calorie is a unit of energy.
"A calorie is a unit of energy." True, but don't you think it's possible that eating crappy food for extended periods can screw up your metabolism over time, and result in weight gain? Unit of energy does not reflect changes in metabolism.
If our metabolism slows with age, why couldn't change based on what you eat?
5 Foods That Slow Down Your Metabolism - http://annagodfrey.com/5-foods-that-slow-down-your-metabolism/
There are no foods that slow down the metabolism. I agree with this:
^This. I personally trust actual proof from science.rainbowbow wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Actually, yes. Weight loss would result if 1500 calories puts both people in a calorie deficit and food has been weighed. Nutrition isn't the same (of course), but calories are. I thought the twinkie study/diet confirmed that.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
I lost over 80lbs eating nutritious as well as snacks and treats that include chocolate, cake, donuts....etc..
A calorie is a calorie.
A calorie is a unit of energy.
"A calorie is a unit of energy." True, but don't you think it's possible that eating crappy food for extended periods can screw up your metabolism over time, and result in weight gain? Unit of energy does not reflect changes in metabolism.
If our metabolism slows with age, why couldn't change based on what you eat?
5 Foods That Slow Down Your Metabolism - http://annagodfrey.com/5-foods-that-slow-down-your-metabolism/
again, this is not science.
The only way to gain weight is to be in a caloric surplus.The end. Eating the 'wrong' foods does not equal weight gain. I include so-called 'wrong foods' in my diet and have lost 85lbs so far and continue to lose. I am not gaining weight (I haven't gained since I started losing weight 1-2 years ago), my blood panels are perfect, I am HAPPY and not stressed.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »
Actually, yes. Weight loss would result if 1500 calories puts both people in a calorie deficit and food has been weighed. Nutrition isn't the same (of course), but calories are. I thought the twinkie study/diet confirmed that.gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
I lost over 80lbs eating nutritious as well as snacks and treats that include chocolate, cake, donuts....etc..
A calorie is a calorie.
A calorie is a unit of energy.
"A calorie is a unit of energy." True, but don't you think it's possible that eating crappy food for extended periods can screw up your metabolism over time, and result in weight gain? Unit of energy does not reflect changes in metabolism.
If our metabolism slows with age, why couldn't change based on what you eat?
5 Foods That Slow Down Your Metabolism - http://annagodfrey.com/5-foods-that-slow-down-your-metabolism/
again, this is not science.
OK, how about this one. Conclusion - "Saying that weight (or health for that matter) is simply a function of “calories in, calories out” is completely wrong. It is a drastic oversimplification that doesn’t account for the complex metabolic pathways that different foods go through, or the effects that foods have on our brain and hormones."
"https://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/
Calories in/calories out is exactly how I and everyone else lost weight.
Did I imagine my 85lb weight loss, then?
8 -
Because common sense left the planet.huntersmom2016 wrote: »I agree... Mfp and calorie counting has really worked for me. There are no shortcuts that can beat it
Amen!0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
A blog post. And why for the love of all things does it always wind up being "Well if you're going to only eat donuts"?!?!?! Do you know that someone right here on MFP put the known science and physiology to the test?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
6 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
What are these bad carbs? Do they so happen to be the same ones that contain high levels of fat like donuts, cookies and cake? Because with the exception of soda and hard candy, goods have a mixture of macronutrients...
Second, there is more than one hormone to store fat. The human body is a very adaptive machine designed to store fats and doesnt need carbs to store fat. Dietary fats cause in increas in an enzyme called acylation stimulating protein which suppress hormone sensitive lipase which is a fat burning hormone. And then if you have both carbs and fat, your body producea and enzyme called glucose-dependent insulinotrophic peptide.
What you may not realize is insulin is released to regulate blood glucose levels and suppresses hunger. Also, insulin stimulates muscle protein synthesis which helps you build muscle. Which is why if yoi low carb while bulking, you need to cycle or time your carbs.
Btw, when most of us talk carbs, its thing like whole grains, oats, legumes, fruits, vegetables, quinoa and more. We all understand the benefits from a highly nutritious diet and solid training.6 -
shortvixen09 wrote: »People can lose weight differently. Some lucky folks have the metabolism to do so. Some people say it don't matter what you eat, as looking as you work it off. However, you just can't go wrong with calories counting. Maybe tough at times but now that I think about, it's probably the most simple thing to do. I'd die if I had to work everything I WANT to eat off. Lol.
My sister is one of the "lucky" ones she can eat whatever she wants but she stays a stick, it's not sustainable though her metabolism will slow as she gets older and she's going to start gaining if she doesn't start eating at maintenance instead of a surplus
She doesn't eat at surplus, she eats at maintanece now. She is not lucky unless she is tall. Her maintenance will go down as she gets older.13 -
Blanket generalizations are never a good thing. While I can see how counting calories may be extra effort for some people, I cook only for myself and eat out maybe twice a month. Counting calories, for me, is a breeze. I have absolutely no reason not to. Bottom Line: Do what works for you, but don't assume that it will work or be the best option for everyone.
2 -
I'm confused. Why are people cheering for someone who ate a diet composed almost entirely of junk food?MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
A blog post. And why for the love of all things does it always wind up being "Well if you're going to only eat donuts"?!?!?! Do you know that someone right here on MFP put the known science and physiology to the test?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
He says he did this unhealthy thing because he didn't believe it was possible and wanted to see for himself - is that why they're applauding? Because he didn't believe it and now does?
3 -
OP, MFP and calorie counting are just tools. Some dont like that tool and would prefer a different tool or method. As a numbers person i enjoyed calorie counting. And since i never had a poor relationship with food, it wasnt an issue. Now i just focus on solid nutrition and training.2
-
shortvixen09 wrote: »People can lose weight differently. Some lucky folks have the metabolism to do so. Some people say it don't matter what you eat, as looking as you work it off. However, you just can't go wrong with calories counting. Maybe tough at times but now that I think about, it's probably the most simple thing to do. I'd die if I had to work everything I WANT to eat off. Lol.
My sister is one of the "lucky" ones she can eat whatever she wants but she stays a stick, it's not sustainable though her metabolism will slow as she gets older and she's going to start gaining if she doesn't start eating at maintenance instead of a surplus
She doesn't eat at surplus, she eats at maintanece now. She is not lucky unless she is tall. Her maintenance will go down as she gets older.
I find that INCREDIBLY hard to believe as she eats actual crap and never exercises...she's around 5"5? Or 5"6? She just has an extremely thin body type0 -
Once again I ask you to explain: How did I lose 85lbs from eating these so called bad carbs?gonetothedogs19 wrote: »When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
I wasn't secretly low carb. Sometimes my carbs were around the 200g mark, yet I still lost weight.
Okay now, you MUST be kidding.It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet.
I did a little experiment while I was LCHF for 2 months a while back. I purposely ate over my TDEE since so many 'blogs' and lchf-ers claimed calorie counting was not necessary, and you know what?
I. Gained. Weight.
11 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
And didnt some guy lose weight eating only Twinkies?9 -
I'm confused. Why are people cheering for someone who ate a diet composed almost entirely of junk food?MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Here's a guy who ate a huge caloric surplus (high fat, little carb) for a month, and didn't gain weight. How can that be?
Summary: "Here is a difference between overeating and overeating.
When eating bad carbohydrates it’s easy to gain weight quickly. You’ll get plenty of the fat-storing hormone insulin in your blood.
It’s generally hard to gain weight on an LCHF diet. It’s even difficult to eat too much food, as you then usually have to eat more than you want. Even if you force down large amounts of LCHF-food, against your will, the result is usually as it was for Feltham. It’s a constant struggle and weight gain will likely be modest.
Overweight people eating as much as they want on an LCHF diet will typically lose weight."
http://thehealthhelp.co/what-happens-if-you-eat-5800-calories-daily-on-an-lchf-diet/
The claims in this link are just that: claims. Unless this person is working out enough to maintain they are not consuming that much without gaining weight. No one can defy science.
I was eating LCHF and it got me to Obese II. Meats, cheeses, nuts, avocados. Very little refined sugar, and flour and rice products were an extreme rarity.
The "science" this dude spouts is woo. Nutritionally speaking a calorie is not a calorie. But with weight, your body processes a calorie from any source the same way. It is an EXCESS of anything that causes fat storage. There are a lot of articles and such. There is no solid science unless you are talking about a few very specific health issues.
TL;DR version: Subject of the article is not being honest.
Well if you want to believe that eating 1,500 calories of donuts for six months (yes, I know nobody is recommending that) or 1,500 calories of mostly healthy food for six months will result in the same weight loss, be my guest.
Here is one of thousands of articles that says you are absolutely wrong. And he's not selling anything.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/09/fed-up-asks-are-all-calories-equal/
A blog post. And why for the love of all things does it always wind up being "Well if you're going to only eat donuts"?!?!?! Do you know that someone right here on MFP put the known science and physiology to the test?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
He says he did this unhealthy thing because he didn't believe it was possible and wanted to see for himself - is that why they're applauding? Because he didn't believe it and now does?
Because it affirmed that CICO is what weight is based on. As stated probablly six point seven billion times, no one is advocating for an all garbage diet. But, as a wise man said....
18
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
- 96.4K 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