Dieting, Nutrition, Losing Weight and Myths Debunked

13

Replies

  • mangirl
    mangirl Posts: 93
    Diet is all the matters in fat/weight loss. Eating a deficit is all that matters in dieting. If you aren't losing weight you are eating too much.
  • chrisdavey
    chrisdavey Posts: 9,834 Member
    bumping to read
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    The less you eat the more weight you will lose.

    Not always. I'm walking talking proof of that.

    When I ate 700-800 calories a day (I didn't know better) I lost at most a half pound a week.

    When I ate around 1200 net calories a day, I lost about a pound a week.

    When I ate around 1300 net calories a day, I lost about a pound a week.

    When I ate around 1400 net calories a day, I lost about a pound a week.

    And now eating 1500 net calories a day, I've STILL been losing about a pound a week.

    Less isn't always more.
  • shaunsta1
    shaunsta1 Posts: 5
    So shall i stick to the 1200 that my fitness pal recommends then? and i will loose weight?

    thanks guys
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    So shall i stick to the 1200 that my fitness pal recommends then? and i will loose weight?

    thanks guys

    Well that depends on what you burn everyday. MFP is not exactly accurate when it comes to what people should eat everyday, calorie wise.

    Ever notice there are ALOT of people on this site that MFP tells them to eat 1200 calories? Everyone has different daily lifestyles. Some people burn way more than others even at the same height and weight. It all depends.

    You need to find out how much you burn FIRST, and then we can go from there.

    I was extremely busy at work today and I still need to work out a few plans for some people.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    The less you eat the more weight you will lose.

    Not always. I'm walking talking proof of that.

    When I ate 700-800 calories a day (I didn't know better) I lost at most a half pound a week.

    When I ate around 1200 net calories a day, I lost about a pound a week.

    When I ate around 1300 net calories a day, I lost about a pound a week.

    When I ate around 1400 net calories a day, I lost about a pound a week.

    And now eating 1500 net calories a day, I've STILL been losing about a pound a week.

    Less isn't always more.

    I'm certainly not suggesting that anyone eat only 700-800 calories a day but the above doesn't really prove anything even on a personal level. It shows only what it shows. But it what it doesn't show is that whether you would have had a similar increase in weight loss had you continued with the 700-800 calories, or perhaps an even greater loss. Was the increase in calories what caused the weight loss or was it some other factor not related to calories eaten (calories burned, time, other??) All factors are not accounted for so nothing can be proved. BUT I do think your way is much better!!
  • LorinaLynn
    LorinaLynn Posts: 13,247 Member
    Was the increase in calories what caused the weight loss or was it some other factor not related to calories eaten (calories burned, time, other??)

    That's why I said my NET calories. :smile: My calories burned have averaged around 300 a day, sometimes more, sometimes less. I have to do a lot MORE to burn those calories than I used to, though, and I have been eating more protein lately.

    When I did the low calorie thing, which was about 5 years ago, it was over the course of several months. I'm thinking maybe 5 or 6? I eventually got down to about the weight I am now (130#) but I was larger and had a lot more body fat. Clothes I wore then are too big on me now.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Bump because it's Thursday and it's 103 degrees outside at 9:20am.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    Bumpy McBump
  • sl1mmy
    sl1mmy Posts: 185
    bump
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Bump to suit taste.
  • sl1mmy
    sl1mmy Posts: 185
    bump
  • akyoung217
    akyoung217 Posts: 1
    Awesome Post!! I wish everyone were forced to read over this. You answered most of my questions/concerns without having to do the research myself.
    Thanks!
  • wonrob
    wonrob Posts: 66 Member
    Saturated fats actually are bad for you, your body has to work harder to break them down. And they do cause CVD/CHD if ingested excessively. Just because trans fats are -worse- for the diet, it doesn't mean that sat fats aren't bad.

    edit: but I did enjoy reading your post and find it very informative :)
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Saturated fats actually are bad for you, your body has to work harder to break them down. And they do cause CVD/CHD if ingested excessively. Just because trans fats are -worse- for the diet, it doesn't mean that sat fats aren't bad.

    edit: but I did enjoy reading your post and find it very informative :)

    You're incredibly misguided and incorrect. Sat fats are not bad for you when you keep your intake to .35-.75g per lb of bodyweight like I have suggested in many of my threads/posts. They do NOT cause CVD and CHD. Being overweight and not exercising, diabetes, high LDL blood cholesterol levels, smoking, high blood pressure, bad genes, alcohol abuse...do I need to really continue this?
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Saturated fats actually are bad for you, your body has to work harder to break them down. And they do cause CVD/CHD if ingested excessively. Just because trans fats are -worse- for the diet, it doesn't mean that sat fats aren't bad.

    edit: but I did enjoy reading your post and find it very informative :)

    You're incredibly misguided and incorrect. Sat fats are not bad for you when you keep your intake to .35-.75g per lb of bodyweight like I have suggested in many of my threads/posts. They do NOT cause CVD and CHD. Please do research.

    There is plenty of research showing that eating saturated fat can raise LDL leveles, which can lead to CVD. But not all saturated fats are the same.

    http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Truth-about-fats.shtml
    Saturated fats.
    There are about 24 different saturated fats. Not all of them are equally bad for your health. The saturated fat found in butter, whole milk, cheese, and other dairy products increases LDL levels the most, followed by the saturated fat in beef. Curiously, the saturated fat called stearic acid, found in pure chocolate, is more like unsaturated fat in that it lowers LDL levels. Even some vegetable oils, such as palm oil and coconut oil, contain saturated fat.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):535-46. Epub 2010 Jan 13.
    Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.
    Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM.
    SourceChildren's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute Oakland, CA, USA.

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health.

    OBJECTIVE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies.

    DESIGN: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD.

    RESULTS: During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

    CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

    I'll rely on the National Institues of Health moreover Harvard University to be honest. No offense to you bcat. NIH does research and directly report to the Federal Health and Human Services department in Washington DC.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):535-46. Epub 2010 Jan 13.
    Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.
    Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM.
    SourceChildren's Hospital, Oakland Research Institute Oakland, CA, USA.

    Abstract
    BACKGROUND: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health.

    OBJECTIVE: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies.

    DESIGN: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD.

    RESULTS: During 5-23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

    CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

    I'll rely on the National Institues of Health moreover Harvard University to be honest. No offense to you bcat. NIH does research and directly report to the Federal Health and Human Services department in Washington DC.

    I agree. The NIH sets the standards not only for the HHS but for other government funded health care as well. Their standards are based on what the majority of evidence shows. And they recommend a diet low in saturated fat for healthy living:

    http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/better_health.htm

    A healthy eating plan:

    - Emphasizes fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and fat-free or low-fat milk and milk products.
    - Includes lean meats, poultry, fish, beans, eggs, and nuts.
    - Is low in saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, salt (sodium), and added sugars.

    http://win.niddk.nih.gov/publications/changing-habits.htm

    Revisit your goals and think of ways to expand them. For example, if you are comfortable walking 5 days a week, consider adding strength training twice a week. If you have successfully limited your saturated fat intake, try cutting back on added sugars too.

    http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002468.htm

    SATURATED FATS

    These are the biggest dietary cause of high LDL levels ("bad cholesterol"). When looking at a food label, pay very close attention to the percentage of saturated fat and avoid or limit any foods that are high. Saturated fat should be limited to 10% of calories. Saturated fats are found in animal products such as butter, cheese, whole milk, ice cream, cream, and fatty meats. They are also found in some vegetable oils -- coconut, palm, and palm kernel oils. (Note: Most other vegetable oils contain unsaturated fat and are healthy.)
  • gardenimp
    gardenimp Posts: 185 Member
    bump
  • Richard170
    Richard170 Posts: 37
    Yes! I said that in my first reply. A "good" unhealthy diet is an oxymoron. BUT, that doesn't mean you can't lose weight on a bad diet. Unhealthy food = bad food, what quantities are eaten doesn't change that.

    Lots of people eat all the "right" or "good" foods and their diet is still unhealthy simply because they eat to much and get fat. The most important factor in a healthy diet is not what you eat, but how much you eat and it is healthier to eat an appropriate caloric intake of junk food than it is to eat an excessive caloric intake of nuts, flaxseed, vegetables, fresh fruits, complex carbohydrates and lean meats or anything else that is considered "good" or "healthy". A thin person eating Twinkies is healthier than an obese person eating only "healthy" foods.

    The first priority should be to get the calories right.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Yes! I said that in my first reply. A "good" unhealthy diet is an oxymoron. BUT, that doesn't mean you can't lose weight on a bad diet. Unhealthy food = bad food, what quantities are eaten doesn't change that.

    Lots of people eat all the "right" or "good" foods and their diet is still unhealthy simply because they eat to much and get fat. The most important factor in a healthy diet is not what you eat, but how much you eat and it is healthier to eat an appropriate caloric intake of junk food than it is to eat an excessive caloric intake of nuts, flaxseed, vegetables, fresh fruits, complex carbohydrates and lean meats or anything else that is considered "good" or "healthy". A thin person eating Twinkies is healthier than an obese person eating only "healthy" foods.

    The first priority should be to get the calories right.

    Not necessarily. There are many factors to consider. Someone thin that lives on Twinkies could easily become insulin resistant or develop Diabetes. Likewise a person can be overweight, maybe even obese, but still exercise and eat healthy food and suffer no health problems other than the weight.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Likewise a person can be overweight, maybe even obese, but still exercise and eat healthy food and suffer no health problems other than the weight.

    Being overweight IS a health problem Bcat. Not really sure where you're going with this.
  • bcattoes
    bcattoes Posts: 17,299 Member
    Likewise a person can be overweight, maybe even obese, but still exercise and eat healthy food and suffer no health problems other than the weight.

    Being overweight IS a health problem Bcat. Not really sure where you're going with this.

    Yes, I said that ("other than the weight"). Where I was going, or rather what I was doing, is disputing the claim that simply because one person is thinner than another doesn't make them automatically healthier even if they eat an unhealthy diet.
  • Huskeryogi
    Huskeryogi Posts: 578 Member

    8 glasses of water a day is a low end estimate for most people. We should roughly consume half our body weight in ounces of water daily Caffeine is a diuretic meaning it causes you to expel water. For hydration purposes it's not the best choice. Today i probably consumed 18 cups of water/drinks if not more. and i wasn't urinating real frequently. About once an hour which is optimum in high heat conditions. Properly hydrated your urine should be clear. My consumption changes depending on circumstances be it heat, exercise. 100 ounces of water on top of all other fluids is about normal for my daily intake.

    Tea has many healthy benifits. Hydration doesn't top the list. Water of course helps with fat metabolism. So yes it does assist in fat loss which in turn equals weight loss.

    Do you have any research that backs this up? I think an alarming amount of the confusion when trying to lose weight comes from something being said repeatedly with no scientific back up. I was trying to drink half my body weight in ounces of water for awhile and yes I had to pee all the time. I ended up trying to find research/studies that said how much water we should be drinking and was shocked that their really aren't any.

    The closest there is to a study for the 8 ounces a day was a study done in the 1950s that gave an amount of water that should be consumed in reference to the calories eaten. When you did the math, a 2000 calorie diet came out ot about 64 ounces of water - BUT the same study said you get half of that in your food.

    And this study looked at the hyrdrating effect of beverages other than water and found that the only one with a net water loss is alcohol. Everything else, including soda, is hydrating.
    http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/full/19/5/591

    The following study showed that the "by the time you are thirsty you are already dehydrated" thing is a myth.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6514825?dopt=Abstract

    Since doing this research I have quit forcing water and I just drink when I'm thirsty. Most work days I drink about 48 ounces of water. On heavy exercise days or hot days I notice that I drink a little more. And when I do pee it's clear and odorless so I know I'm hydrated.

    I will say I'm glad I forced the water for a little while (about a week) because I think it did kind of "reset" my thirst triggers. I had a really bad diet pepsi habit and I'm addicted to carbonation so I was drinking that for the fizz not the hydration.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Bump - it's hump day.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Friday bump
  • kennethmgreen
    kennethmgreen Posts: 1,759 Member
    Lots of people eat all the "right" or "good" foods and their diet is still unhealthy simply because they eat to much and get fat. The most important factor in a healthy diet is not what you eat, but how much you eat and it is healthier to eat an appropriate caloric intake of junk food than it is to eat an excessive caloric intake of nuts, flaxseed, vegetables, fresh fruits, complex carbohydrates and lean meats or anything else that is considered "good" or "healthy". A thin person eating Twinkies is healthier than an obese person eating only "healthy" foods.

    The first priority should be to get the calories right.

    So true. I have eaten so-called "good" foods and healthy stuff for years, but simply ate too much of it and got fat. Very little fried foods, lots of fruit and vegetables, not much sugar/sweets.

    Overall health/feeling good is definitely affected by the kinds of food we eat. But weight loss is pure math.
  • joejccva71
    joejccva71 Posts: 2,985 Member
    Awesome bump!
  • killagb
    killagb Posts: 3,280 Member
    Great post, bumpin like the uglies. :bigsmile:
  • _gwen
    _gwen Posts: 501 Member
    I was even told by my nutrionist i saw, 85% diet and 15% exercise is the key to lose weight!

    great post.

    to paraphrase above:" weight loss starts in the kitchen, not the gym."
This discussion has been closed.

Categories