Not all calories are equal
Options
Replies
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
How you are addressing the topic is more useful I think.
Language can often be inflammatory and incite frustation. I think a calorie from x food and a calorie from y food is of course equal or else they would be called something else if they weren't equal. A unit of whatever measurement is just what it is. And I think attacking that fact can really piss off a lot of people.
I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?
Of course...eating more whole foods or otherwise "cleaning up" one's diet for example is usually going to be beneficial to weight loss for the simple fact that it's harder to overeat whole foods...it's much easier to overeat a heavily processed food that has a high calorie to low nutrient ratio.
I don't count calories and eat a largely whole foods based diet for that very reason. I'm in a cut right now due to some weight gain while nursing and injury...all I'm doing is not drinking beer during the week. It absolutely still comes down to calories though...I'm cutting out about 800 calories worth of beer daily.3 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
How you are addressing the topic is more useful I think.
Language can often be inflammatory and incite frustation. I think a calorie from x food and a calorie from y food is of course equal or else they would be called something else if they weren't equal. A unit of whatever measurement is just what it is. And I think attacking that fact can really piss off a lot of people.
I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?
You don't have to count calories in order to create and benefit from a calorie deficit. Counting is the easiest way for some people to reach a deficit, but others find that changing the foods they eat can put them in a deficit reliably without the need to count. This is why some people will have success with non-counting plans that eliminate or limit certain types of food.
It's not weird at all -- it's just another way to get to the same destination.2 -
I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?
Most people WILL lose weight by "changing what they eat" if they actually stick with it. If I typically eat pizza for supper and replace that with a salad, of course I'll lose weight. I've drastically cut my calorie intake.
Same result if I went from eating 8 slices of pizza per meal to 2 though.
Sure you're changing "what you eat", but you still created a calorie deficit, whether that was your intent or not. You could just as easily do that by controlling portions.3 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
How you are addressing the topic is more useful I think.
Language can often be inflammatory and incite frustation. I think a calorie from x food and a calorie from y food is of course equal or else they would be called something else if they weren't equal. A unit of whatever measurement is just what it is. And I think attacking that fact can really piss off a lot of people.
I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?
Yes I agree. After my second baby I did CICO, worked out, weighed my food, and tracked the calories. I lost the 30lbs but it took me a year to do so. After this last baby, I am doing keto. Exactly the same amount of calories just different macros. I lost 30lbs in 4 months. Same calories, different macros, but the weight loss was MUCH quicker this time. Not only that but i noticed a few changes in how I feel in terms of energy and hunger levels. so I do think that changing what you eat effects weight loss.2 -
Keto is still CICO. We're you weighing and measuring food when you weren't on Keto?6
-
Keto is still CICO. We're you weighing and measuring food when you weren't on Keto?
yes i said i was. the only difference was macros
eta to add the only difference in what i ate was macros. my activity level was a little higher after my second. so technically I was eating at a slightly larger deficit when I was losing weight at a slower rate.0 -
I don't think we as humans can look back and say "last time I ate x calories and lost x pounds and now I lost faster" unless we have actually and honestly recorded everything 100% (which is basically impossible to do, we don't know accurate calories in EVERYTHING, and we aren't this honest with ourselves).
I have had months where I think "I ate the same 2000 calories a day as I did last time, why didn't I lose any weight this month?" Well, I've overlooked all the days I DIDN'T actually eat that much and in fact ate MUCH more, or skipped many workouts etc.
Sure I thought I was eating the same calories, but if I'm honest with myself I was eating more, doing less, and can't claim one to be better.2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.0 -
TresaAswegan wrote: »I don't think we as humans can look back and say "last time I ate x calories and lost x pounds and now I lost faster" unless we have actually and honestly recorded everything 100% (which is basically impossible to do, we don't know accurate calories in EVERYTHING, and we aren't this honest with ourselves).
I have had months where I think "I ate the same 2000 calories a day as I did last time, why didn't I lose any weight this month?" Well, I've overlooked all the days I DIDN'T actually eat that much and in fact ate MUCH more, or skipped many workouts etc.
Sure I thought I was eating the same calories, but if I'm honest with myself I was eating more, doing less, and can't claim one to be better.
no im pretty honest with myself and take my nutrition seriously. especially after having a baby because im nursing and would like to lose that extra weight quickly. I recorded everything religiously even use USDA values to be the most accurate. if there was any error it wouldn't have been enough to cause such a huge difference. I cannot eat at any more of a deficit than I am right now because my milk supply would suffer. so eating too much below my TDEE would not do me any favors.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Because life was far harder and food didn't come in a microwave packet?7 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.5 -
It's weight fairies at work I tell ya.
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
9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
1 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
There are countless people who maintain a perfectly healthy weight throughout their life and never count a calorie, I think you will find many of them are doing exactly this.3 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
As I said before, I grew up eating mostly whole foods, and cook that way now. I went through a period in my mid 20 to around 30 when I did not (I didn't cook that much then and worked a lot and got a lot of food through take out -- lots of options where I live, which was exciting, just pizza or Chinese wouldn't have interested me) and work-related dining opportunities. I gained weight and changed my lifestyle around age 30 to go back to mostly home cooking and also added exercise back in. Lost weight and maintained it for a while. Went through some stuff, including depression, in my late 30s, stopped being active, and gained a bunch of weight, despite the fact I still ate basically the same kinds of foods (whole foods -- I've never been interested in much premade stuff, the sweets I like are homemade, not much for packaged chips or the like). Changed my habits and lost again, including logging and counting (which was fun) and adding back in activity. Maintaining now without logging.
So can changing how you eat help? Sure, but not because it is impossible to gain on whole foods -- it's not, indeed, I could gain really fast if I had a restaurant chef to cook for me regularly, even from whole foods and traditional stuff, as the calories would still be quite high. Same if I chose to cook that way on my own.
What has changed is that the prevalence of cheap and, to most, reasonably tasty premade/packaged stuff makes it super available and our cultural restrictions on eating (regular meals only or specific snack times) are gone, and people seem much more often to eat throughout the day or to eat a whole lot of not very filling stuff, resulting in -- yes! -- them eating way more calories.
I think home cooking from whole foods is a great way for many to control calories (even without counting) and if that tends to go along with a more sensible schedule (not eating all the time if you are someone who overeats when you do, like me), even better. But not because I gain more if eating a diet of Lean Cuisines (which simply don't appeal to me) than home-cooked.
I think there's more to it -- for example, I think we tend to have our palate formed by what we eat and even though I liked vegetables okay growing up learning to cook them and getting excited about them in my late 20s (through good restaurant cooking) and then really learning to enjoy them when I got into cooking at 30 and started going to farmers markets and gardening and all that tended to make me crave vegetables more than some higher cal things I used to be more likely to crave, sure. But none of this means that calories aren't ultimately what matters for weight.
I'm a huge proponent of eating a healthy diet, but not because you can't get fat doing so (you can) or because packaged junk food (however you define it) are magically fattening.1 -
ominousdusk wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
How you are addressing the topic is more useful I think.
Language can often be inflammatory and incite frustation. I think a calorie from x food and a calorie from y food is of course equal or else they would be called something else if they weren't equal. A unit of whatever measurement is just what it is. And I think attacking that fact can really piss off a lot of people.
I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?
Yes I agree. After my second baby I did CICO, worked out, weighed my food, and tracked the calories. I lost the 30lbs but it took me a year to do so. After this last baby, I am doing keto. Exactly the same amount of calories just different macros. I lost 30lbs in 4 months. Same calories, different macros, but the weight loss was MUCH quicker this time. Not only that but i noticed a few changes in how I feel in terms of energy and hunger levels. so I do think that changing what you eat effects weight loss.
You "do" CICO regardless of the diet you are on. CICO is not a diet, it is an energy equation...10 -
ominousdusk wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
How you are addressing the topic is more useful I think.
Language can often be inflammatory and incite frustation. I think a calorie from x food and a calorie from y food is of course equal or else they would be called something else if they weren't equal. A unit of whatever measurement is just what it is. And I think attacking that fact can really piss off a lot of people.
I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss? I admit, I don't really count calories, but I found that I have had a sustained dramatic fat loss for about 4 years by changing what I ate (200 lbs at >35% body fat to 150 lbs at <15% body fat). I'm not denying CICO, nor am I denying that it's more complex than CICO. I'm just stating the action and consequence - that changing what I ate without any sort of calorie awareness whatsoever seemed to work well for me. And I guess I enjoyed it b/c I don't really like counting and measuring. I know that may be weird to some, but I dunno, it is what it is. Anyone else?
Yes I agree. After my second baby I did CICO, worked out, weighed my food, and tracked the calories. I lost the 30lbs but it took me a year to do so. After this last baby, I am doing keto. Exactly the same amount of calories just different macros. I lost 30lbs in 4 months. Same calories, different macros, but the weight loss was MUCH quicker this time. Not only that but i noticed a few changes in how I feel in terms of energy and hunger levels. so I do think that changing what you eat effects weight loss.
You "do" CICO regardless of the diet you are on. CICO is not a diet, it is an energy equation...
And it applies to keto just as it applies to any other diet/way of eating.7 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »I think the overall sentiment of OP's post was intended to be extrapolated to a generalization along the lines of "Some people have experienced that WHAT your diet is comprised of may make a difference towards health and fat loss."
No, it was based on an alleged difference between 42 calories per day of Nestle syrup+cream vs. 42 calories of creamer.
I'm still curious about the mechanism, or how that difference has any real effect on "what your diet is comprised of." In fact, this is one of many reasons posts like this get the reaction they do: OP is claiming that she lost weight or gained with the same calories based on using different stuff in her coffee. That is her evidence that "calories aren't equal." To extrapolate to a bigger point, the argument seems to be that consuming creamer (because "not real food" or what, I dunno) makes you gain, even if at a deficit, which I see no reason at all to believe. Moreover, it suggests that eating a good diet (a separate topic from weight loss, but one I am interested in) is not about consuming the majority of your calories from nutrient dense foods, getting adequate protein, healthy fats, plenty of fiber, and lots of vegetables, stuff like that, but about completely avoiding creamer. That approach to nutrition is, IMO, not particularly well-informed. (And certainly has nothing to do with calories not being equal, which they are, even though foods, of course, differ.)
But hey, I never eat creamer (like my coffee black), so maybe that's why I lost weight.
Then again, I never eat Nestle chocolate syrup. Maybe if I added it I'd magically start losing again, even without a deficit? Cool!
I guess I'm trying to steer the discussion away from that godforesaken creamer. Hard to believe such an infantesmal portion of one's diet can have any significant effects with other variables kept constant. I think we all agree on that.
But OP apparently doesn't, and I see such claims here all the time, so I am not sure that's at all clear.I guess on a more practical level, I wanted to take the discussion to a different place. Do some people find that changing what they eat affects weight loss?
It's a way to control calories, sure. But that doesn't support OP's statement, and I think it's important to show the fact that ideas of magic foods that make you fat (in any amount) and foods that make you thin (regardless of calories) needs to be combated, because it's so common.
If you wanted to start a thread about how food choice can be an approach to weight loss or maintenance or that one way to deal with societal obesity would be by encouraging healthy overall diets or some such, I'd probably agree with a lot that you say, but I see that as a separate topic and not support for OP's claims, either about the creamer or calories not being equal.
(Personally, I lost weight once by changing how I ate, really mostly going back to how I ate growing up (whole foods based, mostly, reasonable amount of protein, lots of vegetables) with some additional twists. I later learned that I could gain weight even eating the "wholesome" foods I was, for the most part, but find it easier to avoid doing so without counting if I focus on a healthy diet and portions and don't snack much. Sometimes I like counting, sometimes I don't. And calories ARE equal.) ;-)
Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Food was less available for a lot of reasons and activity was higher.
I think that's one explanation yes. It's one that addresses the issue of quantity (re: food and movement). But I think quality also plays a role. Maybe a big role.
I'm referring to foods that are more in line with what our body expect - whole foods vs "created" foods. That profile has changed over time.
I'm also referring to movement that is more in line with what our body expects - lots of varied low level movement throughout the day with occasional bursts of intense effort vs prolonged sedentary periods interrupted with attempts of sustained "cardio".
I guess what I'm asking is, has anyone tried to stick with whole foods, tried not to sit still for prolonged periods, and undertook the occasional intense brief workout.... without counting calories or really feeling too hungry or worn down....(essentially, not having to exert any willpower)... yet had good results?
Sure, lots of people.
Others had good results with doing attempts of sustained "cardio" that interrupt prolonged sedentariness because their job is that way.
Others had good results not wasting a thought about whether their food is whole foods or not.
Others had good results counting calories.
And others have combined multiple of those things. We've had plenty success stories of all kinds of people. Including a guy who ate almost exclusively junk food for half a year and counted calories and lost weight just to show that you can do that.
The one thing all of those successful people have in common is that their calorie burns were greater than their intake either from eating less, moving more or both.4 -
ominousdusk wrote: »Keto is still CICO. We're you weighing and measuring food when you weren't on Keto?
yes i said i was. the only difference was macros
eta to add the only difference in what i ate was macros. my activity level was a little higher after my second. so technically I was eating at a slightly larger deficit when I was losing weight at a slower rate.
One other thing to keep in mind is that an extra kid means by default your day to day activity level is going to be higher, which is burning more calories. You mentioned being more active, but I don't know if you meant more exercise or just more mommy craziness lol
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions