All calories may not be equal

Options
1232426282935

Replies

  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,200 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MrSimmers wrote: »
    A calorie is a unit of energy, not a food, so by definition the type of calorie makes no difference in terms of weight gain/loss. However as echoed by many others, the type of calories you consume perform vastly different biological roles. Proteins and carbohybrates have completely different functions and purposes. Maintaining good health can and does indirectly lead to the amount of weight you lose through many factors. Excess toxins in the diet may cause lethargy and fatigue, leading to lack of motivation and subsequent weight gain. So whilst "all calories are equal" is technically true, indirectly its not so simple, and the quality does matter for nutrition, but not for weight loss.

    I feel the added bold caveat makes that statement a bit more accurate.

    I think Psulemon made a valid point above in that the "quality" of calories does matter for weight loss in the sense of providing satiety and helping with adherence. I mean "quality" in the sense of setting one's macronutrient balance in a way that's most satisfying for them.

    Yes, technically one could lose weight subsisting mainly upon donuts, twinkies, potato chips, etc. as long as they maintained a caloric deficit. This has been proven by the "Twinkie Diet" experiment. However, there's a good chance that one would also spend a lot of time hungry and fighting off urges to binge/cheat on such a diet. No diet, no matter how "healthy" or "unhealthy", will result in weight loss if somebody can't stick to it and make it work for them.

    It's true that if you gave in to hunger because the food you ate didn't satiate you the same as the same calorific amount of a different food could and ate more, you might not lose as much or you might gain, but then we are no longer discussing equal amounts of calories. Which is what I'm addressing. I'm not addressing the fact that some people may or may not have more or less hunger with different sources for equal calories. I'm only discussing intake of equal calories from different sources. Calories are for weight loss. A calorie is a calorie regardless of source. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you choose to eat more because you don't feel full from your source of calorie, that has no bearing on what the calorie is doing.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,522 Member
    Options
    Maxematics wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @ndj1979

    I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.

    I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.

    http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf

    3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.

    How funny to read this now, as others have said. I'm an 108 pound woman who eats 2000 to 2500 just to maintain her weight, so I think it's interesting that despite your "eat like a horse" past you think 3000 calories is a lot. I guess you didn't eat as much as you thought.

    Deny, deny, deny. No such thing as fast metabolisms.

    Give 500 men who are age 22 and the same height, the same amount of calories for a year and have them do the same amount of exercise, and their weight results will be the same. Sure.
    No one's denied that metabolism's are different from person to person. The argument that's always been made to you is that if someone isn't gaining weight, then they aren't EATING ENOUGH to cause weight gain. There AREN'T naturally skinny people. What don't you understand about that?

    I'll make it easy for you:

    22 year old male with a TDEE of 3000
    22 year old male with a TDEE of 4000
    Both eat 4000 calories a day for 6 months.
    The one with the lower TDEE will GAIN weight, the one with the higher won't.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,522 Member
    Options
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @ndj1979

    I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.

    I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.

    http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf

    3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.

    Sorry, but not as hard as you may think for people that eat out.

    Cheesecake Factory The Bistro Shrimp Pasta - 3,120 calories
    Cheesecake Factory Bruleed French Toast - 2780 calories
    Cheesecake Factory - Farfalle With Chicken and Roasted Garlic - 2410 calories
    Sonic: Large Peanut Butter Caramel Pie Malt (just one milkshake) - 2170 calories
    Maggiano's Little Italy Veal Porterhouse - 2,710 calories
    Johnny Rockets Bacon & Cheddar Double Cheeseburger (just the burger) - 1,770 calories.

    I could go on.

    Of course all that factory made food is going to be dreadful for you.
    Only if you over consume. Do we want to discuss inmates in penitentiaries again?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,522 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    An efficient metabolism is able to do more work with less input.

    ETA: Just like an efficient car gets better gas mileage, so you need to fill it up less often.

    Some people convert their cars to run on grease trap leavings. They then collect the leavings for free so their car essentially is the best mileage of all when you think about the costs.
    Maybe some people's metabolisms are like that.
    Lol, when you say "convert" you're talking about someone changing their genetics? :D

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
    So explain how epigenetics changes DNA sequence. I'd like to hear it.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    I'm not sure you understand what DNA is when you ask that question.
    If your DNA doesn't change, then explain why people can even lose weight by exercising more or eating better, instead of their weight just being what their DNA says it should be.
    Lol, DNA DOESN'T say what your weight should be. Environment, lifestyle and habitual behavior contribute to that, but YOU'RE responsible for your own weight.
    Yes I understand DNA just fine.
    So again instead of avoiding questions like you have in the past, explain how epigentics changes DNA sequence? You brought it up.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,522 Member
    Options
    Mentali wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @ndj1979

    I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.

    I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.

    http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf

    3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.

    Sorry, but not as hard as you may think for people that eat out.

    Cheesecake Factory The Bistro Shrimp Pasta - 3,120 calories
    Cheesecake Factory Bruleed French Toast - 2780 calories
    Cheesecake Factory - Farfalle With Chicken and Roasted Garlic - 2410 calories
    Sonic: Large Peanut Butter Caramel Pie Malt (just one milkshake) - 2170 calories
    Maggiano's Little Italy Veal Porterhouse - 2,710 calories
    Johnny Rockets Bacon & Cheddar Double Cheeseburger (just the burger) - 1,770 calories.

    I could go on.

    Of course all that factory made food is going to be dreadful for you.

    I've personally never eaten at The Cheesecake Factory, I just know they have some very high calories menu items. Granted, I really don't think it would matter if I did or not. Not really if that was a serious comment or not.

    Breeze excels in making comments exaggerated just plausible enough to get responses - in this case, I think the hope was the response of "it's not a real factory!!" :D
    Breeze is just short for "full of air" when posting. He wants to be different, which is fine, and comes up with these wacky ideas, but no way to support them sensibly.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png
  • sjbuescher
    sjbuescher Posts: 45 Member
    Options
    I've done a whole 30 which follows a similar premise - not being afraid of healthy fats, eatingnnon gut disrupting nutritient dense food, etc. I'd never felt better and I lost weight in 30 days without tracking while eating whole full fat foods and nitrient dense foods. In the end, being so strict all the the time isnt sustainable long term for me, but I did learn alot about how my body reacts to different things through it.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MrSimmers wrote: »
    A calorie is a unit of energy, not a food, so by definition the type of calorie makes no difference in terms of weight gain/loss. However as echoed by many others, the type of calories you consume perform vastly different biological roles. Proteins and carbohybrates have completely different functions and purposes. Maintaining good health can and does indirectly lead to the amount of weight you lose through many factors. Excess toxins in the diet may cause lethargy and fatigue, leading to lack of motivation and subsequent weight gain. So whilst "all calories are equal" is technically true, indirectly its not so simple, and the quality does matter for nutrition, but not for weight loss.

    I feel the added bold caveat makes that statement a bit more accurate.

    I think Psulemon made a valid point above in that the "quality" of calories does matter for weight loss in the sense of providing satiety and helping with adherence. I mean "quality" in the sense of setting one's macronutrient balance in a way that's most satisfying for them.

    Yes, technically one could lose weight subsisting mainly upon donuts, twinkies, potato chips, etc. as long as they maintained a caloric deficit. This has been proven by the "Twinkie Diet" experiment. However, there's a good chance that one would also spend a lot of time hungry and fighting off urges to binge/cheat on such a diet. No diet, no matter how "healthy" or "unhealthy", will result in weight loss if somebody can't stick to it and make it work for them.

    It's true that if you gave in to hunger because the food you ate didn't satiate you the same as the same calorific amount of a different food could and ate more, you might not lose as much or you might gain, but then we are no longer discussing equal amounts of calories. Which is what I'm addressing. I'm not addressing the fact that some people may or may not have more or less hunger with different sources for equal calories. I'm only discussing intake of equal calories from different sources. Calories are for weight loss. A calorie is a calorie regardless of source. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you choose to eat more because you don't feel full from your source of calorie, that has no bearing on what the calorie is doing.

    We're in full agreement there.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,522 Member
    Options
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Mark Hyman, a known quack who shouldn't be taken seriously.

    http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=Mark+Hyman

    Quackwatch is a front for Big Pharma.
    Opinion. Got any evidence to show that they are fronted by any manufacturers/sellers of big pharma?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,522 Member
    Options
    Mentali wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @ndj1979

    I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.

    I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.

    http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf

    3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.

    Sorry, but not as hard as you may think for people that eat out.

    Cheesecake Factory The Bistro Shrimp Pasta - 3,120 calories
    Cheesecake Factory Bruleed French Toast - 2780 calories
    Cheesecake Factory - Farfalle With Chicken and Roasted Garlic - 2410 calories
    Sonic: Large Peanut Butter Caramel Pie Malt (just one milkshake) - 2170 calories
    Maggiano's Little Italy Veal Porterhouse - 2,710 calories
    Johnny Rockets Bacon & Cheddar Double Cheeseburger (just the burger) - 1,770 calories.

    I could go on.

    Of course all that factory made food is going to be dreadful for you.

    I've personally never eaten at The Cheesecake Factory, I just know they have some very high calories menu items. Granted, I really don't think it would matter if I did or not. Not really if that was a serious comment or not.

    Breeze excels in making comments exaggerated just plausible enough to get responses - in this case, I think the hope was the response of "it's not a real factory!!" :D

    Well of course not. It is a factory in the factory farm sense. I can't believe they make it that easy for you to know to avoid the place but people still go there.
    You discriminate against any food that's not to your liking. Just because you don't like or approve of it, doesn't mean it's dangerous. All you're doing here is showing newbies that your information isn't legit enough to believe regardless of how smart you try to make yourself seem. There's GROUPS you can hang with that believe like you do and will give you praise if that's what you're looking for.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png
  • Isabelle_1929
    Isabelle_1929 Posts: 233 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    I think that the obesity epidemic can be explained in part by this type of thread.

    The problem is that everybody is so sure to know all there is to know about weight and nutrition. Yet everyone and their dog is on a perpetual diet: gains, and loses, and gain and loses again.

    Our weight is out of control but man, do we HAVE the KNOWLEDGE or what?

    AND THE SCIENCE! AND FACTS !

    Crazy times.

    Ok, off to sleep.

    Qui dort, dîne ...
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    I think that the obesity epidemic can be explained in part by this type of thread.

    The problem is that everybody is so sure to know all there is to know about weight and nutrition. Yet everyone and their dog is on a perpetual diet: gains, and loses, and gain and loses again.

    Our weight is out of control but man, do we HAVE the KNOWLEDGE or what?

    AND THE SCIENCE! AND FACTS !

    Crazy times.

    Ok, off to sleep.

    Qui dort, dîne ...

    LOL If there really was but one true answer that worked for every single person on this planet, then this thread wouldn't have gotten to 18 pages..

    True, CICO is the basis of weight loss, but how people choose to get there varies on an individual basis.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Big Pharma is a life saver!

    Yes it is a life saver many times. But don't kid yourself, its main goal is profit.

    Tens of millions of Americans taking statins who don't need them. Tens of millions of Americans taking insulin and pills for Type 2 diabetes, when a simple diet switch along with exercise can often stop it or reverse it. A new psychiatric disorder invented every other year. Millions taking meds for depression when they're not clinically depressed.

    There's a CVS and Walgreen on every other corner not because of their junk food and cosmetic business. It's all because of Big Pharma.

    I'm 57 and I take nothing. Some luck, obviously, but I work at it. If most 55 to 60-year-olds took nothing, Big Pharma would be in Big Trouble.
  • gonetothedogs19
    gonetothedogs19 Posts: 325 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Maxematics wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @ndj1979

    I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.

    I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.

    http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf

    3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.

    How funny to read this now, as others have said. I'm an 108 pound woman who eats 2000 to 2500 just to maintain her weight, so I think it's interesting that despite your "eat like a horse" past you think 3000 calories is a lot. I guess you didn't eat as much as you thought.

    Deny, deny, deny. No such thing as fast metabolisms.
    No one's denied that metabolism's are different from person to person. The argument that's always been made to you is that if someone isn't gaining weight, then they aren't EATING ENOUGH to cause weight gain. There AREN'T naturally skinny people. What don't you understand about that?



    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You're right. I don't understand that.
  • Sloth2016
    Sloth2016 Posts: 846 Member
    edited August 2016
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Mentali wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @ndj1979

    I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.

    I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.

    http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf

    3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.

    Sorry, but not as hard as you may think for people that eat out.

    Cheesecake Factory The Bistro Shrimp Pasta - 3,120 calories
    Cheesecake Factory Bruleed French Toast - 2780 calories
    Cheesecake Factory - Farfalle With Chicken and Roasted Garlic - 2410 calories
    Sonic: Large Peanut Butter Caramel Pie Malt (just one milkshake) - 2170 calories
    Maggiano's Little Italy Veal Porterhouse - 2,710 calories
    Johnny Rockets Bacon & Cheddar Double Cheeseburger (just the burger) - 1,770 calories.

    I could go on.

    Of course all that factory made food is going to be dreadful for you.

    I've personally never eaten at The Cheesecake Factory, I just know they have some very high calories menu items. Granted, I really don't think it would matter if I did or not. Not really if that was a serious comment or not.

    Breeze excels in making comments exaggerated just plausible enough to get responses - in this case, I think the hope was the response of "it's not a real factory!!" :D

    Well of course not. It is a factory in the factory farm sense. I can't believe they make it that easy for you to know to avoid the place but people still go there.
    You discriminate against any food that's not to your liking. Just because you don't like or approve of it, doesn't mean it's dangerous. All you're doing here is showing newbies that your information isn't legit enough to believe regardless of how smart you try to make yourself seem. There's GROUPS you can hang with that believe like you do and will give you praise if that's what you're looking for.

    Is there really a group of people of like mind with Breeze?
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,522 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Big Pharma is a life saver!

    Yes it is a life saver many times. But don't kid yourself, its main goal is profit.

    Tens of millions of Americans taking statins who don't need them. Tens of millions of Americans taking insulin and pills for Type 2 diabetes, when a simple diet switch along with exercise can often stop it or reverse it. A new psychiatric disorder invented every other year. Millions taking meds for depression when they're not clinically depressed.

    There's a CVS and Walgreen on every other corner not because of their junk food and cosmetic business. It's all because of Big Pharma.

    I'm 57 and I take nothing. Some luck, obviously, but I work at it. If most 55 to 60-year-olds took nothing, Big Pharma would be in Big Trouble.
    This is something I'll agree with. Unfortunately society looks to pop a pill to solve whatever health issue they think they have. Same with weight loss. That's why even the supplement business is a billion dollar industry.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Options
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    Big Pharma is a life saver!

    Yes it is a life saver many times. But don't kid yourself, its main goal is profit.

    Tens of millions of Americans taking statins who don't need them. Tens of millions of Americans taking insulin and pills for Type 2 diabetes, when a simple diet switch along with exercise can often stop it or reverse it. A new psychiatric disorder invented every other year. Millions taking meds for depression when they're not clinically depressed.

    There's a CVS and Walgreen on every other corner not because of their junk food and cosmetic business. It's all because of Big Pharma.

    I'm 57 and I take nothing. Some luck, obviously, but I work at it. If most 55 to 60-year-olds took nothing, Big Pharma would be in Big Trouble.

    If people didn't regularly demand quick fixes, doctors would prescribe fewer medications. There is a lot of demand driving consumerism.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,522 Member
    Options
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Maxematics wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @ndj1979

    I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.

    I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.

    http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf

    3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.

    How funny to read this now, as others have said. I'm an 108 pound woman who eats 2000 to 2500 just to maintain her weight, so I think it's interesting that despite your "eat like a horse" past you think 3000 calories is a lot. I guess you didn't eat as much as you thought.

    Deny, deny, deny. No such thing as fast metabolisms.
    No one's denied that metabolism's are different from person to person. The argument that's always been made to you is that if someone isn't gaining weight, then they aren't EATING ENOUGH to cause weight gain. There AREN'T naturally skinny people. What don't you understand about that?



    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png


    You're right. I don't understand that.
    I know you don't because you keep ranting about "fast metabolisms". People can out eat a "fast metabolism". Ask Michael Phelps. Do you think he eats a pound of pasta when he's off season? Why not? Because he'd over consume over his TDEE and gain unwanted weight. And this is a guy with a "fast metabolism". His metabolism is based on his muscle mass, weight and physical activity. It slows when these are all reduced. Yes or no?

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,522 Member
    Options
    Sloth2016 wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Mentali wrote: »
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    @ndj1979

    I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.

    I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.

    http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf

    3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.

    Sorry, but not as hard as you may think for people that eat out.

    Cheesecake Factory The Bistro Shrimp Pasta - 3,120 calories
    Cheesecake Factory Bruleed French Toast - 2780 calories
    Cheesecake Factory - Farfalle With Chicken and Roasted Garlic - 2410 calories
    Sonic: Large Peanut Butter Caramel Pie Malt (just one milkshake) - 2170 calories
    Maggiano's Little Italy Veal Porterhouse - 2,710 calories
    Johnny Rockets Bacon & Cheddar Double Cheeseburger (just the burger) - 1,770 calories.

    I could go on.

    Of course all that factory made food is going to be dreadful for you.

    I've personally never eaten at The Cheesecake Factory, I just know they have some very high calories menu items. Granted, I really don't think it would matter if I did or not. Not really if that was a serious comment or not.

    Breeze excels in making comments exaggerated just plausible enough to get responses - in this case, I think the hope was the response of "it's not a real factory!!" :D

    Well of course not. It is a factory in the factory farm sense. I can't believe they make it that easy for you to know to avoid the place but people still go there.
    You discriminate against any food that's not to your liking. Just because you don't like or approve of it, doesn't mean it's dangerous. All you're doing here is showing newbies that your information isn't legit enough to believe regardless of how smart you try to make yourself seem. There's GROUPS you can hang with that believe like you do and will give you praise if that's what you're looking for.

    Is there really a group of people of like mind with Breeze?
    Any "clean eating" group would welcome him with open arms.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    Options
    "Why isn't it science? "

    Saying a calorie isn't always a calorie is like saying a meter isn't always a meter or a pound isn't always a pound. They are units of measurement, by definition they are equivalent in all cases. It is a silly nonsensical statement.