Good vs bad CICO
jenniswylie
Posts: 22 Member
I want to believe Calorie in Calorie out is "how to lose weight" - but I have a hard time grasping that 200 calories of delicious donut is burned off as easily as 200 calories of chicken breast, or I don't know... watermelon etc.
I am new to the science of nutrition, but not new to common sense (generally ha ha). I understand nutrition as in the Canadian food guide, and the general knowledge that too much of anything is bad for you, fast food is not as nutritious as fresh food, fruits and veggies = good, candy and soda = bad etc. etc. But I'm having a hard time trying to find the perfect balance for my body. I'm carrying all my weight like a spare tire in the middle. I feel like I need some guidance on what not to eat, or how to plan my meals, and that all calories are not created equal...
Perfect example - if I look at the macro breakdown for today, I am over in sugar - but haven't eaten anything "bad". It's from fruit, yogurt, veggies etc.
Two days ago, I ate 2 donuts, and it didn't put me over. I felt like crap, but I was under my calorie and sugar "goal". It doesn't make any sense...
FYI: I'm tracking honestly, not eating perfectly. I am learning.
I am new to the science of nutrition, but not new to common sense (generally ha ha). I understand nutrition as in the Canadian food guide, and the general knowledge that too much of anything is bad for you, fast food is not as nutritious as fresh food, fruits and veggies = good, candy and soda = bad etc. etc. But I'm having a hard time trying to find the perfect balance for my body. I'm carrying all my weight like a spare tire in the middle. I feel like I need some guidance on what not to eat, or how to plan my meals, and that all calories are not created equal...
Perfect example - if I look at the macro breakdown for today, I am over in sugar - but haven't eaten anything "bad". It's from fruit, yogurt, veggies etc.
Two days ago, I ate 2 donuts, and it didn't put me over. I felt like crap, but I was under my calorie and sugar "goal". It doesn't make any sense...
FYI: I'm tracking honestly, not eating perfectly. I am learning.
0
Replies
-
MFP and almost everybody who uses it will tell you a calorie is a calorie as far as losing weight. Foods are not equal nutrition wise (as you noted), and our body uses different micros and macros for various things. However, you lose just as much weight if the 1200 calories your aiming for is in donuts as you would if you ate just salad, you just won't have nutrients your body needs if you eat just donuts. Its ok to eat "bad" foods as long as you eat foods with a different variety of micro and macro nutrients too.
Also, not to be "that person," but are these pictures taken before your day is done? Cuz your calories in is really low. Also to get your most accurate calories in use one a cheapo food scale. Rather than .3 of cucumber.7 -
Fruit and dairy are relatively high in sugars. If you don't have a specific reason to track sugar, then just ignore it or switch it out for something else. I like to track fiber instead of sugar.4
-
LOL yes - 2 out of the 3 anyway - no dinner yet today and screen shots taken too early on the other - with the donut day being a hot mess of a day that no planning could account for
But that's just life with kids sometimes.
I generally get my calories "out" early in the day too - I run before work, and have gym classes at lunch.
Thank you for your response
1 -
-
When you burn 200 calories, your body doesn't care if those calories are coming from chicken or donut. Your body doesn't burn "good" calories faster. What many people *do* find, however, is that 200 calories of chicken is more filling and sustaining that 200 calories of donuts and it is easier for them to stay in a caloric deficit when they eat foods that are filling (this doesn't mean that one has to avoid less filling foods, it's just sometimes smart to be mindful about how many you're eating and when you're eating them).
Also, in addition to just being in a deficit, you want to make sure you're meeting your nutritional needs. A donut does have some things that your body needs, but they aren't things that are particularly hard for many of us to get today. If you always have a donut for breakfast, you may find yourself running low on protein or fiber (or, if you plan the rest of your meals to meet these needs, you may not).20 -
The day you were over it was largely because of the hemp protein smoothie -- is that a homemade recipe? What's in it?
More to the point, I think it's important to approach nutrition and a healthy diet in a broader way than overfocusing on MFP's numbers. The credible advice re sugar (if you don't have a need to balance carbs in general because of a health issue) has to do with added sugar, and is based on the concern that eating excessive added sugar typically results in too many calories (the typical North American source of added sugar is a low nutrient, high cal item), a non balanced diet (not enough micros or other things we need), and teeth. The WHO thus recommends no more than 10% of calories (less than 5% even better), and the US Guidelines now also say no more than 10%. Canada likely has something similar.
MFP can't distinguish (and has a 15% estimate based on the idea that people probably aren't eating lots of fruit and veg, since the truth is the average person tends not to be), but we can -- specifically, we can see if we are eating the right number of calories, filling foods, getting enough of what we need, and eating mostly higher nutrient foods with "treats" in moderation, given total calories.
How I approach this is by thinking about what I need (and I normally think about individual meals) -- adequate protein (.8 g/lb of goal weight when on a deficit to preserve muscle mass), adequate fiber (MFP's goal), lots of vegetables, and other foods to balance a meal, provide satisfaction and energy (like whole food starches, whole grains, fruit). Also healthy fats like fatty fish, olive oil, olives, nuts and seeds, avocados. Within this general framework I eat what I want, and if I have room for something extra like some good cheese or ice cream (I like having one or the other after dinner often), I include it.
That may sound more complicated than intended, but I think it works as a substitute for the focus on numbers and worrying about going over in anything on a particular day. Remember, it averages out, too.5 -
OP, do you regularly eat less than 1,000 calories?0
-
It looks like the dark chocolate almond milk is the likely culprit. Swap for unsweetened almond milk and then add a scoop of raw cocoa if you want chocolate.3
-
I would say that technically.. it would be easier to burn 200 calories of donut than chicken. Only because in a cardio workout, your body will burn carb energy first before protein energy. So I guess if your workout isn't very long, it would be technically true.
However you need that protein to keep that workout going at it's best. And you need fat too, which kicks in after protein.
But the thing is... I don't think it's even as simple as that. Your body will burn calories made from all sources throughout the day and night, whether you are exercising or sleeping. It burns it faster or slower, but doesn't stop. So in that sense, it doesn't matter where the calories come from - they are ALL getting broken down by your body. If your body doesn't need the energy, no matter which source, it will convert the calories to fat.
Health wise - it does matter. You need nutrients. Without a balanced diet, you won't have balanced nutrients. If your body is depleted on any nutrient, it's going to suffer in one way or another. This is why it is important to eat a variety of foods from every food group.4 -
-
Thank you guys - this is making sense to me
@lemurcat12 Thank you for your feedback - definitely helpful. The protein smoothie is 1 cup of dark chocolate almond milk, 1 cup frozen berry mix (blueberries, raspberry, blackberry & strawberry) 1/3 banana. tbsp hemp protein powder.0 -
jenniswylie wrote: »I want to believe Calorie in Calorie out is "how to lose weight" - but I have a hard time grasping that 200 calories of delicious donut is burned off as easily as 200 calories of chicken breast, or I don't know... watermelon etc.
I am new to the science of nutrition, but not new to common sense (generally ha ha). I understand nutrition as in the Canadian food guide, and the general knowledge that too much of anything is bad for you, fast food is not as nutritious as fresh food, fruits and veggies = good, candy and soda = bad etc. etc. But I'm having a hard time trying to find the perfect balance for my body. I'm carrying all my weight like a spare tire in the middle. I feel like I need some guidance on what not to eat, or how to plan my meals, and that all calories are not created equal...
Perfect example - if I look at the macro breakdown for today, I am over in sugar - but haven't eaten anything "bad". It's from fruit, yogurt, veggies etc.
Two days ago, I ate 2 donuts, and it didn't put me over. I felt like crap, but I was under my calorie and sugar "goal". It doesn't make any sense...
FYI: I'm tracking honestly, not eating perfectly. I am learning.
FIrst try not to label food as "good" and "bad" not a healthy view...it is fuel for your body.
You could hit all your macros and calories eating at McDonalds every day and not gain weigh if you stayed in a calorie deficit and wouldn't feel like crap because you are eating "bad" food.
Ignore sugar unless you have a medical reason not to...I am over most days due to my fruit smoothie
As for a good balance...I would give this advice.
Get a food scale and weigh all your solids to ensure you are eating what you log.
Choose correct entries.
Up your protein (dismal amount of protein you are getting)
Prelog your meals (which helps with days that explode with kids) how you may ask? cause you have already planned it and gotten it somewhat ready...
I always make enough to have for lunch the next day...
As for what to eat...eat what you want/love/crave...try the 80/20 rule...80% nutrient dense foods like chicken fish veggies and 20% treats...even if that treat is a big mac.
8 -
jenniswylie wrote: »I want to believe Calorie in Calorie out is "how to lose weight" - but I have a hard time grasping that 200 calories of delicious donut is burned off as easily as 200 calories of chicken breast, or I don't know... watermelon etc.
I am new to the science of nutrition, but not new to common sense (generally ha ha). I understand nutrition as in the Canadian food guide, and the general knowledge that too much of anything is bad for you, fast food is not as nutritious as fresh food, fruits and veggies = good, candy and soda = bad etc. etc. But I'm having a hard time trying to find the perfect balance for my body. I'm carrying all my weight like a spare tire in the middle. I feel like I need some guidance on what not to eat, or how to plan my meals, and that all calories are not created equal...
Perfect example - if I look at the macro breakdown for today, I am over in sugar - but haven't eaten anything "bad". It's from fruit, yogurt, veggies etc.
Two days ago, I ate 2 donuts, and it didn't put me over. I felt like crap, but I was under my calorie and sugar "goal". It doesn't make any sense...
FYI: I'm tracking honestly, not eating perfectly. I am learning.
FIrst try not to label food as "good" and "bad" not a healthy view...it is fuel for your body.
You could hit all your macros and calories eating at McDonalds every day and not gain weigh if you stayed in a calorie deficit and wouldn't feel like crap because you are eating "bad" food.
Ignore sugar unless you have a medical reason not to...I am over most days due to my fruit smoothie
As for a good balance...I would give this advice.
Get a food scale and weigh all your solids to ensure you are eating what you log.
Choose correct entries.
Up your protein (dismal amount of protein you are getting)
Prelog your meals (which helps with days that explode with kids) how you may ask? cause you have already planned it and gotten it somewhat ready...
I always make enough to have for lunch the next day...
As for what to eat...eat what you want/love/crave...try the 80/20 rule...80% nutrient dense foods like chicken fish veggies and 20% treats...even if that treat is a big mac.
Agree with all of this.3 -
When it comes to weight loss, it doesn't matter if those 200 cals are from a donut or chicken breast, spoonfuls of sugar or a bag of broccoli. 200 cals of donut makes me want to eat another 800 cals of donut though and doesn't do much to help me hit my protein macro goal.2
-
Weight loss is about calories.
Health and feeling good/satisfied is about the nutritional content of the food.
Don't eat below your calorie goal. Do eat a portion of the calories you earn from exercise.
It is smart to eat a variety of foods and get enough protein and plenty of vegetables and fruits. Protein, fats and fiber usually help people to feel more satisfied. It would be less smart to eat a large portion of your calories every day in low nutrition foods that leave you unsatisfied and don't meet your body's needs. Donuts can be part of a healthy diet though... just needs to be a smaller part especially if your calorie goal is only 1200. One donut would have been better. Keep that in mind for future.
I find prelogging my food for the whole day helpful to meeting my calorie and nutritional goals. You might try that.
I use my calories for food not drinks. I don't find drinking 100 calories as satisfying as chewing food with 100 calories. I drink water or unsweetened teas usually.1 -
The main issue with the whole 'all calories are not created equal' thing is that it's nice and dandy in theory, but in practice, it's just not sustainable for most people to ALWAYS pick the chicken breast and watermelon over the donut.
The key is to find the right balance so that your diet is both satisfying and sustainable. I don't even track sugar and sodium, but I track fiber... Fiber helps me stay full. What worked best for me when losing was to eat about 80% of whole foods and 20% of whatever I wanted (I put bread in that, as it doesn't fill me up much)... but always trying to meet my protein, fat, and fiber macros.
And for what it's worth - I really doubt it's the donut that made you 'feel like crap', but more the fact that you're eating way too little. And I strongly suggest that you weigh your food, because I highly doubt that your 'chicken' was only 2 oz (that, and what kind of chicken? raw, cooked, deli meat, what? Calories will vary... use accurate entries). And 3 strawberries is nowhere near 96 calories...
1 -
The main issue with the whole 'all calories are not created equal' thing is that it's nice and dandy in theory, but in practice, it's just not sustainable for most people to ALWAYS pick the chicken breast and watermelon over the donut.
The key is to find the right balance so that your diet is both satisfying and sustainable. I don't even track sugar and sodium, but I track fiber... Fiber helps me stay full. What worked best for me when losing was to eat about 80% of whole foods and 20% of whatever I wanted (I put bread in that, as it doesn't fill me up much)... but always trying to meet my protein, fat, and fiber macros.
And for what it's worth - I really doubt it's the donut that made you 'feel like crap', but more the fact that you're eating way too little. And I strongly suggest that you weigh your food, because I highly doubt that your 'chicken' was only 2 oz (that, and what kind of chicken? raw, cooked, deli meat, what? Calories will vary... use accurate entries). And 3 strawberries is nowhere near 96 calories...
plus 2 oz of chicken is so little! When i weigh 4oz im like what is this crap haha.0 -
Hey @jenniswylie While we are all bound by the science of calories in calories out, anyone that says it's as simple as that is just making it so simplistic that it's laughable (and not helpful at all to someone that might be looking for real advice they can use). A calorie may be a calorie but not all calories are created equal. It also comes down to how much of the food you absorb, how much energy it takes to digest the food and a host of other variables.
If it were as simple as calories in calories out then a person weighing 150 pounds that cuts their calories by 500 calories per day would weigh 46 pounds after 2 years.
I could take up pages talking about it because fitness and nutrition is what I do and I LOVE talking about it but I think you will be better served to take a look this article when you have time to sit back read it.
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/metabolic-damage
And when someone new comes onto these boards and asks how to lose weight, it's of no use to say "calories in calories out" and then leave it at that. When you ask that question expect a quality answer that resonates with you...weight loss is much more complicated than a 4 word answer.2 -
mochachichi wrote: »Hey @jenniswylie While we are all bound by the science of calories in calories out, anyone that says it's as simple as that is just making it so simplistic that it's laughable (and not helpful at all to someone that might be looking for real advice they can use). A calorie may be a calorie but not all calories are created equal. It also comes down to how much of the food you absorb, how much energy it takes to digest the food and a host of other variables.
If it were as simple as calories in calories out then a person weighing 150 pounds that cuts their calories by 500 calories per day would weigh 46 pounds after 2 years.
I could take up pages talking about it because fitness and nutrition is what I do and I LOVE talking about it but I think you will be better served to take a look this article when you have time to sit back read it.
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/metabolic-damage
And when someone new comes onto these boards and asks how to lose weight, it's of no use to say "calories in calories out" and then leave it at that. When you ask that question expect a quality answer that resonates with you...weight loss is much more complicated than a 4 word answer.
No, because 1) As you lose mass, your calorie needs go down and 2) You'd starve at some point if you kept reducing your calories to correspond to your new maintenance calories. Both those facts are part of CICO, so I don't see how that proves "it's not as simple".
Secondly, real "metabolic damage" is something only a fraction of people ever experience.
Thirdly, weight loss IS that simple. Ample examples and the science can be found all over the board. Like here http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it
How YOU specifically implement CICO in a sustainable way for YOU, can be hard. But the opposite of simple is not hard, it's complicated. And the idea behind weight loss is not complicated, it's simple: eat less than your body burns.
That's it.
The principle of weight loss CAN be boiled down to less than 10 words. The how you in particular achieve that optimally for you might take longer, but that doesn't make weight loss complicated, it makes it hard for you under circumstances because you might want to eat a certain way to stick with it.
However, any approach where you eat less would result in weight loss of near equal quality, if you stick with it. Hence it's not complicated, but not necessarily easy for certain people.
Complicated would be having to cut out X, Y and Z out of your diet, while doing a cinnamon detox and munching on superfoods all day because that's the only way anyone could ever lose weight. Basically the *puppy* the diet industry has been feeding the general dieting population for decades to keep them fat and coming back to buy the newest "breakthrough that will melt off your belly".8 -
Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.4 -
And for what it's worth - I really doubt it's the donut that made you 'feel like crap', but more the fact that you're eating way too little. And I strongly suggest that you weigh your food, because I highly doubt that your 'chicken' was only 2 oz (that, and what kind of chicken? raw, cooked, deli meat, what? Calories will vary... use accurate entries). And 3 strawberries is nowhere near 96 calories...
I agree with this. If you look at the donut day, you have barely any calories at lunch (assuming it was just a tiny amount of chicken) and then a dinner of donuts, which are generally not filling. Not much protein. Quite low calories well below the goal. A day like that would make me feel awful too. (Although we all have bad days on occasion, of course.)
A donut can work as part of a balanced healthy diet, but I'd focus on getting in basics (protein, vegetables, filling foods) at meals and then add it (or even specifically save room for it) as a dessert or snack. For example, on that day you could have easily had a normal dinner (for the same calories as the donuts) and then one of the donuts too.
Again, these days happen, so I'm not criticizing -- more just suggesting that it doesn't have to be all or nothing, and that there are more sustainable ways of fitting in treats if you want them.
Logging is really helpful in doing this and making gradual changes and learning what works for you, as you can look at the day after the fact and think about how you could have done things differently. For example (just hypothetically), if you had the donuts because you were really hungry and craving them and then felt guilty and didn't think you could have a real dinner, looking at that day would teach a couple of things. In that hypothetical case it might be that you need to eat more for lunch (or more filling foods like more protein) to avoid excess hunger or cravings later, if you knew you were having a sweet thing after dinner maybe it would help willpower earlier (and maybe not, just possibilities), and you had calories to have at least a little something more dinner-like for dinner after the donuts, like chicken and vegetables, which might have helped with how you felt (if you really didn't want anything and it wasn't a self-punishment thing, just move on to the next day). None of us are perfect or need to be, and this is all a learning experience.0 -
mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.7 -
The main issue with the whole 'all calories are not created equal' thing is that it's nice and dandy in theory, but in practice, it's just not sustainable for most people to ALWAYS pick the chicken breast and watermelon over the donut.
The key is to find the right balance so that your diet is both satisfying and sustainable. I don't even track sugar and sodium, but I track fiber... Fiber helps me stay full. What worked best for me when losing was to eat about 80% of whole foods and 20% of whatever I wanted (I put bread in that, as it doesn't fill me up much)... but always trying to meet my protein, fat, and fiber macros.
And for what it's worth - I really doubt it's the donut that made you 'feel like crap', but more the fact that you're eating way too little. And I strongly suggest that you weigh your food, because I highly doubt that your 'chicken' was only 2 oz (that, and what kind of chicken? raw, cooked, deli meat, what? Calories will vary... use accurate entries). And 3 strawberries is nowhere near 96 calories...
plus 2 oz of chicken is so little! When i weigh 4oz im like what is this crap haha.
I ate 220g of grilled chicken last night. It was delicious.
ETA: It was also the smallest breast in the package.3 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
2 -
mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.7 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
2 -
mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
6 -
mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
5 -
mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
I understand the point you are trying to make about calories being more available in more processed foods (cooking, etc), however CICO works and would work 100% of the time if you took out the mind factor. No one is going to lose weight if they don't have the right mindset to do so. That is the only factor that takes the simplicity out of weight loss.4 -
mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »Hey @stevencloser Don't quote "metabolic damage" as attributable to me having said that or even the article saying that. The article states that very few people have metabolic damage...that's not what the article is about (if it's confusing then blame the great people at Precision Nutrition for naming their article that) I'm merely stating my beliefs based on my studies and the weight loss clients I work with as well as the back up from Precision Nutrition.
I respect your side of the argument but still disagree with it. I never claimed CICO wasn't a real thing...in fact its the law of thermodynamics (and not a man made law that can be broken...it's a cosmic universal law that binds us all!!) I stated that in my original post. My point is if you ever worked with weight loss clients then you KNOW it's not that simple. There are a thousand factors at play and to tell someone that is struggling with weight loss that it's "simple" only makes someone feel like there is something wrong with them. If weight loss were simple, there would be nobody on these boards asking for advice or support. And the thing about science is that everything we know today, will be wrong tomorrow.
But it is that simple. It's the only thing I took into consideration when I started losing. What's not helpful is getting into microscopic details of how much energy it takes to digest a hot pocket vs. steamed broccoli. Not helpful at all. I would have given up in a week trying to sort out that mess.
Tell that to the person that has been consistently losing weight and then can't get the last 5 pounds. Everybody is different and the human body is an incredibly complex chemistry lab. It's not as simple as a calorie going through a toll gate and getting registered into the total calorie count. If counting calories worked for you (and the millions like you) that is fantastic...but for the other several billion people on the planet there may be more complexities.
Hey...I'm arguing with you but not fighting with you. I completely respect your opinion and you should feel proud of your progress. It's hard to tell when someone is just writing text and they aren't right in front of your face but please don't take my disagreement with your opinion as that I don't want to hear more of your side or your story. There is no anger or desperation in my words. I don't need to convert you
I would definitely tell the person who can't lose the last 5 pounds that they are eating too many calories to lose 5 pounds, because it's the truth.
Since weight loss clinics stay in business by perpetuating the idea that weight loss is super complicated, your experience working in one means nothing to me.
I don't work in a weight loss clinic...and to be fair, you are not my audience here because you are not the one asking the question. You already have an opinion and you wouldn't have asked me for help. @jenniswylie asked a question and to that, no Jennis...the 200 calories in a donut and a chicken breast are not the same. You will absorb more of the calories in processed foods that you will in whole foods. What calories you don't absorb don't get counted in the CICO equation.
Wow!! Not serious, I hope!!0
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