Good vs bad CICO
Replies
-
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.
lol...I read that in what I think is his voice!0 -
A calorie is just a unit of energy...your body is going to use that unit of energy the same regardless of source. From a nutritional standpoint, obviously there are foods that are more nutritious than others...but that has nothing to do with the energy aspect.
Understand what a calorie actually is and then it makes sense...a calorie has jack crap to do with how nutritious something is or isn't.16 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »A calorie is just a unit of energy...your body is going to use that unit of energy the same regardless of source. From a nutritional standpoint, obviously there are foods that are more nutritious than others...but that has nothing to do with the energy aspect.
Understand what a calorie actually is and then it makes sense...a calorie has jack crap to do with how nutritious something is or isn't.
This. In a nutshell!0 -
mochachichi wrote: »
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.
It's not that hard to figure out what they're saying 200 calories of donut is 200 calories, but 200 calories of baked chicken breast is actually 174 calories because the calories aren't absorbed as much in whole foods, which means they actually aren't as energy dense as processed foods. The problem is when you look at 200 calories of raw, whole foods like apples - 200 calories of apples is 174 calories but when you look at 174 calories it's actually 150 calories which becomes 129 calories.
If you think like this long enough, you don't need to worry about your caloric intake because you should get plenty of cardio through mental gymnastics.5 -
mochachichi wrote: »
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.
It's not that hard to figure out what they're saying 200 calories of donut is 200 calories, but 200 calories of baked chicken breast is actually 174 calories because the calories aren't absorbed as much in whole foods, which means they actually aren't as energy dense as processed foods. The problem is when you look at 200 calories of raw, whole foods like apples - 200 calories of apples is 174 calories but when you look at 174 calories it's actually 150 calories which becomes 129 calories.
If you think like this long enough, you don't need to worry about your caloric intake because you should get plenty of cardio through mental gymnastics.
To my understanding, the parts of foods that we don't absorb are already accounted for in the calorie equation.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »To my understanding, the parts of foods that we don't absorb are already accounted for in the calorie equation.
Right, like calories from fiber. MOST of the time these are taken off on the label, but I think I've seen some times where they haven't been.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »To my understanding, the parts of foods that we don't absorb are already accounted for in the calorie equation.
Right, like calories from fiber. MOST of the time these are taken off on the label, but I think I've seen some times where they haven't been.
It depends on the labeling system. In the US, insoluble fiber may be counted as zero for calorie count purposes (it's optional, although most products do take this option, especially diet products). Soluble fiber is still counted as 4 calories/gram as with any carb.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »To my understanding, the parts of foods that we don't absorb are already accounted for in the calorie equation.
Right, like calories from fiber. MOST of the time these are taken off on the label, but I think I've seen some times where they haven't been.
My guess is that manufacturers will always use the equation that lets them report the fewest number of calories because it would help their product sell better.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »
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.
It's not that hard to figure out what they're saying 200 calories of donut is 200 calories, but 200 calories of baked chicken breast is actually 174 calories because the calories aren't absorbed as much in whole foods, which means they actually aren't as energy dense as processed foods. The problem is when you look at 200 calories of raw, whole foods like apples - 200 calories of apples is 174 calories but when you look at 174 calories it's actually 150 calories which becomes 129 calories.
If you think like this long enough, you don't need to worry about your caloric intake because you should get plenty of cardio through mental gymnastics.
To my understanding, the parts of foods that we don't absorb are already accounted for in the calorie equation.
There's some research that they may be imperfectly, though, so that we absorb less from meat and high fiber foods and nuts than we thought we did and than the calorie count indicates.
Trying to control for that seems, well, nuts to me, though, especially since there is some individual variation in amount absorbed and in any case we won't absorb MORE than the 200 calories listed. If you eat mostly foods where the calories are less well absorbed and lose a bit more on average, it's because you thought you were eating 1800 but were really eating, say, 1730, not because a calorie is not a calorie.
If one isn't happy with their loss on 1800, the solution is to eat less (maybe the 1730 the other person was really eating).
Satiety of foods depends on more than calories alone, so I don't see any particular benefit to maximizing one's calories based on stated calorie counts vs. the actual amount consumed. There's so much more to putting together a healthful and satisfying and workable to you diet; it seems a total majoring in the minors thing.
IMO, protein and fiber are typically more satiating than highly refined carbs (or same + fat), although people vary on that, of course. Therefore, my reason for suggesting more protein or vegetables or shifting to whole grains or the like if one is hungry or needs to cut calories is satiety. The fact that stated calorie count might be a little off when we are never completely exact in measuring calories in anyway seems irrelevant to me.2 -
queenliz99 wrote: »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!!
You don't have to believe me. My answer will mean something to some and not to others. If you don't believe me then take it from the folks from Precision Nutrition...they won't lie to you
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/metabolic-damage
1 -
I have a generally positive opinion of PN, but they have an ulterior motive for trying to suggest that counting is too hard or doesn't work for most -- they are trying to sell a different way of dieting using their methods (and costing a pretty penny).
Their criticisms of calorie counting add up to "it's always an estimate," which is of course true (and has 0 to do with metabolic adaptation), but simply means that if you aren't losing you need to adjust since the estimate of CI, CO, or both is off--so eat less or move more.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »mochachichi wrote: »
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.
It's not that hard to figure out what they're saying 200 calories of donut is 200 calories, but 200 calories of baked chicken breast is actually 174 calories because the calories aren't absorbed as much in whole foods, which means they actually aren't as energy dense as processed foods. The problem is when you look at 200 calories of raw, whole foods like apples - 200 calories of apples is 174 calories but when you look at 174 calories it's actually 150 calories which becomes 129 calories.
If you think like this long enough, you don't need to worry about your caloric intake because you should get plenty of cardio through mental gymnastics.
To my understanding, the parts of foods that we don't absorb are already accounted for in the calorie equation.
There's some research that they may be imperfectly, though, so that we absorb less from meat and high fiber foods and nuts than we thought we did and than the calorie count indicates.
Trying to control for that seems, well, nuts to me, though, especially since there is some individual variation in amount absorbed and in any case we won't absorb MORE than the 200 calories listed. If you eat mostly foods where the calories are less well absorbed and lose a bit more on average, it's because you thought you were eating 1800 but were really eating, say, 1730, not because a calorie is not a calorie.
If one isn't happy with their loss on 1800, the solution is to eat less (maybe the 1730 the other person was really eating).
Satiety of foods depends on more than calories alone, so I don't see any particular benefit to maximizing one's calories based on stated calorie counts vs. the actual amount consumed. There's so much more to putting together a healthful and satisfying and workable to you diet; it seems a total majoring in the minors thing.
IMO, protein and fiber are typically more satiating than highly refined carbs (or same + fat), although people vary on that, of course. Therefore, my reason for suggesting more protein or vegetables or shifting to whole grains or the like if one is hungry or needs to cut calories is satiety. The fact that stated calorie count might be a little off when we are never completely exact in measuring calories in anyway seems irrelevant to me.
This makes a lot of sense. To me, it's part of the inherent variability that is built into calorie counting. Like one day I may get a bunch of berries that are super-super sweet and I assume those will have slightly different calories than berries that taste more tart, but I log them the same. Or I use the recipe builder to create four portions of a stew with potatoes in it, but I accidently give myself more potatoes in a serving than a perfect 1/4 would be.
No calorie tracking system is going to be perfect because our foods aren't exactly uniform and we're not machines. But over time, I have confidence that it will balance out. Maybe I do absorb slightly more calories from a piece of white bread than I do from a piece of sprouted whole grain bread . . . but I agree this is majoring in the minors. I've also read that if I eat high fiber foods regularly, then I absorb less of *everything* I eat because my intestinal transit time is shorter. No idea if this is true or not, but if it is, it's just yet another variable.1 -
Some of the energy in the chicken is burned in getting the rest of the energy in the chicken available to your body. Much less of the energy in the donut is burned in getting the rest of the energy in the donut available to your body.0
-
jenniswylie wrote: »
OP, I always think of it like this:
Calories for weight loss / gain
Macros/micros (in other words, the type of food) for health and satiety
Exercise for fitness
In general, I eat probably 50/50 whole food/processed food. In a perfect world, it would be 80/20 but I can't even fake perfect
. I focus on getting enough protein (I aim for 100g and usually fall a little short), I naturally eat a moderate fat diet but I keep an eye that it isn't too low, and carbs take up the rest. I find on days my protein and fiber are up, I feel better on less calories. I really don't feel that the presence or lack of processed foods affects how I feel at all.
The problem with getting too specific on things like macros, meal timing, processed foods, etc is that they are really individual. You need to play around with your plan until you find the sweet spot where you are comfortably eating the right amount of calories and enjoying your food. It's a project, but it's worth it because you will be able to eat that way and maintain your weight for the rest of your life. Good luck!0 -
I'll play. I'm eating 1400 calories right now.
Let's use the classic strawman of eating nothing but Twinkies vs. the idea that I'm processing less calories from chicken (and that it hasn't already been factored into the calorie values I log).
I eat nothing but Twinkies for 4 weeks. I eat 1400 calories of Twinkies every day. I lose 3.2 lbs, exactly as I'd expect.
Then I eat nothing but chicken for a month. I eat what I think is 1400 calories of chicken. I lose 4.6 lbs, because I'm actually only absorbing 1225 calories of chicken.
In my first month, I lose weight exactly like I wanted to. In my second month, I lose bonus weight! Hooray! ...But it doesn't mean I still didn't lose weight my first month. Also, I'm dead because I'm so nutrient-deficient my body can't go about its regular processes.
When you're eating a balanced, nutrient-dense diet, the effects of having a donut now and then are going to be negligible.7 -
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.
1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% woo2 -
I'd like to know what a Boston cream doughnut with only 220 calories and 13 grams of sugar looks like.4
-
OP - CICO is just CICO it is not good, bad, heavenly, devilish, etc, it is just a mathematical equation to figure out how to get your CI VS CO balanced out and put you in a calorie deficit.
I would do the following:
put your stats into MFP and set for one pound per week loss
eat to that number
don't worry about good/bad foods, just make sure you get adequate nutrition and are hitting your macros.
get a food scale and weigh all solid foods
get on an exercise regimen that you enjoy and do it regularly.0 -
Actually TH's Boston Cream and Canadian Maple are really good. Some of my favorite donuts. Top Pot and Frost are great local donut companies, but the calories in their donuts are literally triple and not out of this world so much better to justify those calories. I'd rather have a small good whole donut then have to cut a slightly better one into thirds and pretend I could be as satisfied with that as with a whole donut. It is psychology.
A calorie is a calorie, but specific dynamic action is a thing too. It takes more energy for your body to process proteins as opposed to fats. You can lose up to 1 calorie in every gram of protein you eat just digesting it. So, in theory, you could eat 100g of protein and it would cost 100 cals to digest it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_dynamic_action1 -
Not all calories are created equal. Sorry. Your body uses chemistry to break down foods and it treats different nutrients differently. CICO is a great way to start losing weight. But listen to your body. When you eat junk calories then you feel like crap because your body is being deprived of nutrients. Will you lose some weight? If you keep with the CICO equation, sure thing. However, good luck maintaining that in the long run. Learning to eat good whole foods and nourish your body properly will give you the best results in the long run. You still need to pay attention to portion control, but it is much easier because eating nutrient dense foods fills you up much easier and doesn't leave you craving more. Listen to your body and enjoy the journey. Educate yourself and you will have success for years to come.2
-
Not all calories are created equal. Sorry. Your body uses chemistry to break down foods and it treats different nutrients differently. CICO is a great way to start losing weight. But listen to your body. When you eat junk calories then you feel like crap because your body is being deprived of nutrients. Will you lose some weight? If you keep with the CICO equation, sure thing. However, good luck maintaining that in the long run. Learning to eat good whole foods and nourish your body properly will give you the best results in the long run. You still need to pay attention to portion control, but it is much easier because eating nutrient dense foods fills you up much easier and doesn't leave you craving more. Listen to your body and enjoy the journey. Educate yourself and you will have success for years to come.
Saying that a calorie is a calorie for the purposes of weight loss isn't denying that macro- and micronutrient needs exists. Nobody is denying that our bodies have nutritional needs.7 -
OP I think everyone has already covered most of what I would advise, but I always feel compelled to make sure people know that this process isn't easy, but it is simple. You eat less than you burn, and you will lose weight. There are MANY ways of combining foods together which can make the process more sustainable and more enjoyable, and these are largely up to the individual and his/her goals and preferences.
My approach to this was not to cut anything out of my diet, other than calories. I worked on adding things: more protein, more vegetables, more whole grains, more exercise, more sleep. By doing that, and still leaving room for things I enjoy like wine and ice cream, I found the whole process of losing weight to be pretty straightforward.
Trying to look at foods as good vs bad, in my opinion, causes undue stress on someone trying to lose weight.
Trying to figure out precisely what percentage of calories are absorbed in certain foods is majoring in the minors.
Trying to find foods that offer a balance of different nutrients, that can be combined in a way that fills you up, allows you to achieve a calorie deficit, and leaves room for things that you enjoy (clearly donuts in your case) is a worthwhile endeavor.
2 -
mochachichi wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »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!!
You don't have to believe me. My answer will mean something to some and not to others. If you don't believe me then take it from the folks from Precision Nutrition...they won't lie to you
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/metabolic-damage
Why won't Precision Nutrition lie to me? Other for-profit companies have.8 -
"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."
I am not sure about the wouldn't feel like crap part here. Eat one of their doublecheeseburgers and you'll feel like crap in 10 minutes.
1 -
BiggDaddy58 wrote: »"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."
I am not sure about the wouldn't feel like crap part here. Eat one of their doublecheeseburgers and you'll feel like crap in 10 minutes.
Can't disagree with you on McDonald's as I would feel like crap the moment that sucker crossed my lips because that place is disgusting, but I can easily eat a double cheese burger from any decent restaurant (preferably slathered in guac) and feel freakin' AWESOME...aaaaand get a nice boost for my protein macro on a lift day. Burgers are our friends.
6 -
Thank you everyone for the advice and information - I am still reading and learning as I go. I appreciate it!1
-
I'd like to know what a Boston cream doughnut with only 220 calories and 13 grams of sugar looks like.
Ya, @kwtilbury I definitely questioned that nutritional information
Go Tim Hortons.
For the record * I do not usually eat 2 donuts a day lol. I just wanted to use the donut day as an example to explain my confusion. *0 -
CrabNebula wrote: »
Actually TH's Boston Cream and Canadian Maple are really good. Some of my favorite donuts. Top Pot and Frost are great local donut companies, but the calories in their donuts are literally triple and not out of this world so much better to justify those calories. I'd rather have a small good whole donut then have to cut a slightly better one into thirds and pretend I could be as satisfied with that as with a whole donut. It is psychology.
A calorie is a calorie, but specific dynamic action is a thing too. It takes more energy for your body to process proteins as opposed to fats. You can lose up to 1 calorie in every gram of protein you eat just digesting it. So, in theory, you could eat 100g of protein and it would cost 100 cals to digest it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_dynamic_action
Personally, I find a small portion of something truly delicious is wonderful, and I'd rather work that into my daily goal than some imitation that just doesn't cut it it when it comes to flavor.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.
Did you know that you can buy chicken and watermelon with money you earned at work, but you can buy it just as easily with money you stole? For weight loss purposes, the source of the calories doesn't matter; for buying stuff purposes, the source of the money doesn't matter. For other purposes, these things are important.3
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