Dieting vs. exercising?

Options
1235789

Replies

  • heiliskrimsli
    heiliskrimsli Posts: 735 Member
    Options
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    Rufftimes wrote: »
    CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.

    You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.

    Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.

    Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.

    Honestly vitamin wise, you'd do best with a Whopper w/ cheese. But yeah, certainly not the worst thing to eat... as long as you're not overeating.

    That's down to the Whopper having tomatoes and lettuce, though. Makes it more comparable to the Big N Tasty.

    Either way, there's no inherent reason that a Burger King or McDonald's burger is nutritionally worse than the same ingredients prepared another way: as in a steak salad with cheese and a roll.

    Wow.... Couldn't be farther from the truth. Is this a joke?

    Protein is protein, carbs are carbs, fat is fat. vitamin C is vitamin C whether it comes from an organic tomato or a heritage tomato. Vitamin K is vitamin K whether it comes from kale or Burger king Lettuce.

    Exactly. You can indeed eat a steak salad that has the same fundamental nutrition as a Whopper with cheese.
  • ESinc1118
    ESinc1118 Posts: 19 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    It's "true" but not applicable in the way that people reference it. I'll have to find the link but I read up on the actual study that prompted the starvation mode thing..in a nutshell, the starvation mode only kicked in once the participants reached the most extreme state of starvation (we're talking skin and bones, after MONTHS and months of being starved) and even then, it only slightly lessened the rate at which they lost weight, hardly at all. You definitely won't gain because of starving, that part is a total myth. So for anyone with any sort of excess on their body, you can be assured that your body hasn't kicked into this mode yet (otherwise, you'd have zero visible excess).
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    Rufftimes wrote: »
    CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.

    You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.

    Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.

    Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.

    Honestly vitamin wise, you'd do best with a Whopper w/ cheese. But yeah, certainly not the worst thing to eat... as long as you're not overeating.

    That's down to the Whopper having tomatoes and lettuce, though. Makes it more comparable to the Big N Tasty.

    Either way, there's no inherent reason that a Burger King or McDonald's burger is nutritionally worse than the same ingredients prepared another way: as in a steak salad with cheese and a roll.

    Wow.... Couldn't be farther from the truth. Is this a joke?

    Protein is protein, carbs are carbs, fat is fat. vitamin C is vitamin C whether it comes from an organic tomato or a heritage tomato. Vitamin K is vitamin K whether it comes from kale or Burger king Lettuce.

    Exactly. You can indeed eat a steak salad that has the same fundamental nutrition as a Whopper with cheese.


    IF the sodium is an issue, drink an extra diet coke, if the vitamin/mineral balance is an issue, take a multivitamin. at 1.25 for a Mcdouble you can afford a multivitamin.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    ESinc1118 wrote: »
    It's "true" but not applicable in the way that people reference it. I'll have to find the link but I read up on the actual study that prompted the starvation mode thing..in a nutshell, the starvation mode only kicked in once the participants reached the most extreme state of starvation (we're talking skin and bones, after MONTHS and months of being starved) and even then, it only slightly lessened the rate at which they lost weight, hardly at all. You definitely won't gain because of starving, that part is a total myth. So for anyone with any sort of excess on their body, you can be assured that your body hasn't kicked into this mode yet (otherwise, you'd have zero visible excess).

    you are referring to the Minnesota starvation experiment..I believe.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    Rufftimes wrote: »
    CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.

    You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.

    Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.

    Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.

    Honestly vitamin wise, you'd do best with a Whopper w/ cheese. But yeah, certainly not the worst thing to eat... as long as you're not overeating.

    That's down to the Whopper having tomatoes and lettuce, though. Makes it more comparable to the Big N Tasty.

    Either way, there's no inherent reason that a Burger King or McDonald's burger is nutritionally worse than the same ingredients prepared another way: as in a steak salad with cheese and a roll.

    Wow.... Couldn't be farther from the truth. Is this a joke?

    Please explain how you think it's nutritionally worse.

    because BK = processed which always = bad ..not matter what
  • ESinc1118
    ESinc1118 Posts: 19 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 yes that was it!! thank you! :)
  • Rammer123
    Rammer123 Posts: 679 Member
    Options
    Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.

    Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.

    And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    ESinc1118 wrote: »
    ndj1979 yes that was it!! thank you! :)

    The Minnesota Starvation Experiment is referenced and discussed fairly extensively in the last 10 paragraphs of one of the links I provided upthread:
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/
  • BlueSkyShoal
    BlueSkyShoal Posts: 325 Member
    edited May 2017
    Options
    You don't need to exercise for weight loss, you just have to expend more energy (calories) than you're taking in (eating.)

    That said, exercise is good for you. It strengthens your muscles, it keeps your heart pumping efficiently, it has a lot of benefits beyond just "weight loss." And it will make you feel great! So definitely exercise. It doesn't have to be "in a gym" either, you can hike, bicycle, play a sport, etc.
  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,728 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.

    Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.

    And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.

    Someone already did!

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1

    You beat me to it.
  • Rammer123
    Rammer123 Posts: 679 Member
    Options
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.

    Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.

    And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.

    So you're telling me that if I get two steaks at the butcher shop, take them home, run one through the meat grinder thereby "processing" it, and then throw both of them on the grill and cook them both mid rare, the one I didn't grind is healthy, and the one I did is not?

    If you are going to go off on wording then this is useless. I am clearly talking about being chemically processed.

  • Rammer123
    Rammer123 Posts: 679 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.

    Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.

    And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.

    Someone already did!

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1

    Thanks for sending that over, actually pretty cool. I wasn't arguing that you couldn't lose weight by eating junk, I was trying to show that a nutrient is not a nutrient no matter the source. I was saying that the source of the food and the additives with it make a difference in progress, health and the type of weight loss.

    In terms of my experience and little study on myself I am talking about eating "maintenance" or roughly maintenance calories of the processed food in order to keep a specific weight, and then transfer over to a cleaner diet and track any weight loss/gain/ maintenance and I was saying that weight/fat loss would occur.

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.

    Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.

    And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.

    i guess you are not familiar with the twinkie diet...

    so you are saying that is Person A is in a 500 calorie deficit of processed food that they will not lose weight? Can you explain to me this magical process that makes processed foods cancel out the universal laws of math and physics????

    most people lose on a clean diet because clean foods are less calorie dense and they are replacing calorie dense foods with less calorie dense foods..

    for the record, which of the one million definitions of "clean eating" are you operating off??
  • Rammer123
    Rammer123 Posts: 679 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.

    Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.

    And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.

    So you're telling me that if I get two steaks at the butcher shop, take them home, run one through the meat grinder thereby "processing" it, and then throw both of them on the grill and cook them both mid rare, the one I didn't grind is healthy, and the one I did is not?

    If you are going to go off on wording then this is useless. I am clearly talking about being chemically processed.

    What's your definition of chemically processed?

    PS - I have a chemistry degree. Feel free to be as technical as you like.

    Again here with the wording? Regardless the word for it, I am talking about things that are added to food that would not need to be added if it were not required to last for an extended amount of time, to keep the soil fertile for extended amounts of time, or cause the food to grow more quickly!

    How's that?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.

    Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.

    And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.

    So you're telling me that if I get two steaks at the butcher shop, take them home, run one through the meat grinder thereby "processing" it, and then throw both of them on the grill and cook them both mid rare, the one I didn't grind is healthy, and the one I did is not?

    If you are going to go off on wording then this is useless. I am clearly talking about being chemically processed.

    What's your definition of chemically processed?

    PS - I have a chemistry degree. Feel free to be as technical as you like.

    Again here with the wording? Regardless the word for it, I am talking about things that are added to food that would not need to be added if it were not required to last for an extended amount of time, to keep the soil fertile for extended amounts of time, or cause the food to grow more quickly!

    How's that?

    so basically everything then...?
  • Rammer123
    Rammer123 Posts: 679 Member
    Options

    AnvilHead wrote: »
    rdridi12 wrote: »
    Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.

    Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.

    And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.

    It's already been tried. Under clinical conditions, no less. The results will probably surprise you: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/hormonal-responses-fast-food-meal.html/

    "Now, the study does have a few limitations that I want to mention explicitly.
    The study only looked at a single meal.   It’s entirely possible that a diet based completely around fast food would show different effects."