Calories in calories out is it that simple?
Options
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »
Conversely, I've noticed that when people encourage healthy eating, other members often assume that means a strict "clean" diet - whatever "clean" means.Rebecca0224 wrote: »[I think people assume that if people don't eat "clean" they must be eating like a 5 year old in a candy store. It aggravates me when people act as if everyone is either eating lean meat and vegetables or donuts, candy, and chips.
When I read "whatever," I see it as very open-ended. It could mean anything to anyone who posts it or reads it. It includes healthy diets, average diets, and very unhealthy diets. It's not a safe assumption that it means a healthy diet, though.
I've actually not seen anyone dispute the advice that a person should try to eat a "healthy diet", is that what you're saying?
I will say, that "healthy eating" is a subjective term as well. Advocates for LCHF, Ketogenic diets, and even Carnivore diets - feel their diet is "healthy" yet many eat limited (or even no) fruits and vegetables. Freelee the Banana girl feels her diet is "healthy" and eats almost the complete opposite. I eat things like frozen meals, fast food, and even (gasp) Hamburger Helper on occasion, and I believe my diet is healthy, yet many would suggest that eating convenience foods automatically means that I disregard nutrition.
But I think there is a common perception that "eating healthy" is somehow DIFFERENT and requires special foods, special budgets, special ingredients.
Over and over, you'll see people posting "I can't afford healthy foods," or "I want to eat healthy, but my husband and kids don't need to lose weight."
We've demonized not just candy, not just chips, but whole classes of food as 'unhealthy." Read any magazine in the checkout line and you'll hear that "grains" are "Unhealthy." All grains, no exceptions. Other magazines in the same rack will tell you that milk is unhealthy, or meat is unhealthy, or vegetable oil is unhealthy. People really think you have to buy expensive ingredients to lose weight, or that they have to eat unpalatable crap that their families will reject.
We've trained ourselves to think that a healthful diet is one that we don't authentically enjoy, that it involves making choices that are divorced from considerations like the tastiness of a food or its affordability or convenience.9 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
It's a shame OP hasn't been back to clarify what he or she meant with the original question:
"Eating whatever even unhealthy staying within calories should you still lose weight?"
Many people assume that means that OP wants to eat nothing but junk (gummy bears, specifically and curiously).
I assume that means that OP wants to include less nutrient dense foods in their diet but does not intend to build the entire diet around these foods.
It would be helpful if @suenewberry81 would provide additional information and would help move the discussion forward so people might be able to offer more specific suggestions about how to balance nutrient dense foods with occasional indulgences.
2 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.3 -
beatyfamily1 wrote: »I'm going to a little against the grain here. For me, it was a yes and no answer. Yes, you still need to be within your calories, however, there are other factors that can stall weight loss. I did very well losing a lot of weight by simply staying within my calories. It was when I got closer to a healthy weight range when staying within my calories was no longer as simple as it seemed to be. My weight would not budge anymore and stayed that way for several months. It fluctuated a little bit, but I could not get past this plateau even with everything that I tried. I was still within my calories and my weight would not budge. Then I tried changing the way I eat. I use to eat 3 meals a day, smaller in the morning and bigger at dinner time (dinner time is about 3:30 PM for me) because that's what helped me feel satisfied. Now I eat 4 meals a day close to equal proportions. I'm not diabetic, but I found out by eating several small meals a day it can manage blood sugar and insulin spikes, which can affect fat storage. After changing how often I ate, the weight began to fall off again. I was even able to lose weight during my time of the month, which is a huge deal because before, I could easily gain 5 pounds during that time. So yes, you still need to be within your calories, but if you stall, there could be something else that is affecting your weight loss.
The more lean you get, the more you have to be vigilant and the harder it becomes. Things like diet breaks, adaptitive termogenesis and other factors do play.3 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
Edited: I would add that I believe a healthy diet to be consisting of mostly high nutrient dense foods, and an unhealthy diet to be consisting of mostly low nutrient dense foods. Again, a spectrum.4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
Conversely, I've noticed that when people encourage healthy eating, other members often assume that means a strict "clean" diet - whatever "clean" means.Rebecca0224 wrote: »[I think people assume that if people don't eat "clean" they must be eating like a 5 year old in a candy store. It aggravates me when people act as if everyone is either eating lean meat and vegetables or donuts, candy, and chips.
When I read "whatever," I see it as very open-ended. It could mean anything to anyone who posts it or reads it. It includes healthy diets, average diets, and very unhealthy diets. It's not a safe assumption that it means a healthy diet, though.
I've actually not seen anyone dispute the advice that a person should try to eat a "healthy diet", is that what you're saying?
I will say, that "healthy eating" is a subjective term as well. Advocates for LCHF, Ketogenic diets, and even Carnivore diets - feel their diet is "healthy" yet many eat limited (or even no) fruits and vegetables. Freelee the Banana girl feels her diet is "healthy" and eats almost the complete opposite. I eat things like frozen meals, fast food, and even (gasp) Hamburger Helper on occasion, and I believe my diet is healthy, yet many would suggest that eating convenience foods automatically means that I disregard nutrition.
But I think there is a common perception that "eating healthy" is somehow DIFFERENT and requires special foods, special budgets, special ingredients.
Over and over, you'll see people posting "I can't afford healthy foods," or "I want to eat healthy, but my husband and kids don't need to lose weight."
We've demonized not just candy, not just chips, but whole classes of food as 'unhealthy." Read any magazine in the checkout line and you'll hear that "grains" are "Unhealthy." All grains, no exceptions. Other magazines in the same rack will tell you that milk is unhealthy, or meat is unhealthy, or vegetable oil is unhealthy. People really think you have to buy expensive ingredients to lose weight, or that they have to eat unpalatable crap that their families will reject.
We've trained ourselves to think that a healthful diet is one that we don't authentically enjoy, that it involves making choices that are divorced from considerations like the tastiness of a food or its affordability or convenience.
Great points from you and @savithny .
Many people presume losing weight requires them to adopt a super restrictive diet. This is, in my opinion, one of the main reasons so many people fail to successfully lose weight and maintain that loss. Adopting too strict of an approach, either in total calorie consumption or in the absence of foods they enjoy, is just not sustainable.
They may ask a question about incorporating a food they thought was "bad" in their diet, and if that will derail their weight loss.
Posters will often say, "CICO for weight loss" (which again, is not a directive to ignore nutrition, it is just meant as a simple answer to an obviously confused OP that for weight loss, the single requirement is to be in a calorie deficit, period).
Other posters then may suggest that losing weight isn't good enough, that a poster should be striving to change their diet for something "healthier" right off the bat; but again, the vague directive of "eat healthier" is so confusing and overwhelming to many of these folks they either go right back to the super restrictive approach, or they give up altogether.
Again, telling someone, "of course it's ok to include a cookie, or some ice cream, I have something sweet every day" is meant as a reassurance, that weight loss doesn't have to be miserable. That it is ok to include foods you love in your diet. Many, many successful members here over the years have stated that the first priority for them was to get the weight off, and that along the way, they found that eating a varied, satiating, healthful diet that still includes the treats they love in moderation. It's just a shame that more people can't give posters the benefit of the doubt that they will find their way there and instead try to suggest that everyone needs to explicitly stress the benefits of nutrition with every single post on threads such as these.
8 -
janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....0 -
Professor_Fate wrote: »Nothing is simple, just do not obsess over calories. Just eat reasonably and exercise regularly & consistantly but do not fall into the trap of chasing the numbers on the scales or your fitness tracker.
I disagree. Counting calories is not obsessing over them, and 'eating reasonably' is what got a lot of us here in the first place. I started gaining weight when I was eating very reasonably (I thought). Mostly lean protein and veggies/fruits with some healthy fats, and yeah also cake and beer and French fries.
Counting calories was an eye opener. That chicken that made up large portions of my diet cost much more of my daily kcal budget than I thought! It allows me the freedom and peace of mind to KNOW what I'm consuming and to KNOW that 'reasonable' is subjective. Reasonable does not equal appropriate for my energy needs, not without paying attention to what I'm putting in.10 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Yes. For weight loss, it is that simple.
You meet nutritional goals for general health (and you don't need to eat "clean" or perfectly to do this), but weight loss is created by a calorie deficit. Many people find certain eating patterns make it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit (some people prefer fewer carbohydrates, some prefer more fiber, some prefer more protein, etc), but that doesn't change that a calorie deficit will work no matter what you're eating.
Just wanted to point out that this is the second post in the thread (and probably the first serious one as I think Noel was being facetious) and it perfectly summarizes the advice and tone of what the supposed "CICO Crowd" would advocate in threads just like this. Yet still, in subsequent posts, others raise the idea that eating nothing but gummy bears wouldn't be a good idea.
Does the app viewing of topics make it super simple to skip reading what's been written and just make your own post?
I kept thinking that was the excuse, laziness combined the app ease of supporting it.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
7 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Yes. For weight loss, it is that simple.
You meet nutritional goals for general health (and you don't need to eat "clean" or perfectly to do this), but weight loss is created by a calorie deficit. Many people find certain eating patterns make it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit (some people prefer fewer carbohydrates, some prefer more fiber, some prefer more protein, etc), but that doesn't change that a calorie deficit will work no matter what you're eating.
Just wanted to point out that this is the second post in the thread (and probably the first serious one as I think Noel was being facetious) and it perfectly summarizes the advice and tone of what the supposed "CICO Crowd" would advocate in threads just like this. Yet still, in subsequent posts, others raise the idea that eating nothing but gummy bears wouldn't be a good idea.
Does the app viewing of topics make it super simple to skip reading what's been written and just make your own post?
I kept thinking that was the excuse, laziness combined the app ease of supporting it.
I think a lot of people don't read through the thread before posting, they are responding to the original post.
I think some just want to chime in, regardless if their point has already been made, maybe they want to drive the point home or maybe they just want to elevate their post count.
I'm sure app performance and laziness is in there as well.
5 -
I wonder where the line is drawn. Are celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce bad foods? They all have less nutritional value than french fries.
I think the idea is flawed and that instead of looking at good, bad and nutritious. The idea should be to look at what you need to fill your daily goals combined with what you would like to eat that day for variety. You COULD make the perfect meal nutrition wise, How often do you think you could eat that meal before you never want to look at it again.8 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Yes. For weight loss, it is that simple.
You meet nutritional goals for general health (and you don't need to eat "clean" or perfectly to do this), but weight loss is created by a calorie deficit. Many people find certain eating patterns make it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit (some people prefer fewer carbohydrates, some prefer more fiber, some prefer more protein, etc), but that doesn't change that a calorie deficit will work no matter what you're eating.
Just wanted to point out that this is the second post in the thread (and probably the first serious one as I think Noel was being facetious) and it perfectly summarizes the advice and tone of what the supposed "CICO Crowd" would advocate in threads just like this. Yet still, in subsequent posts, others raise the idea that eating nothing but gummy bears wouldn't be a good idea. Which why someone thinks that the OP was considering eating nothing but gummy bears is beyond me. And I suspect even further still, others will suggest that anyone who follows your post and says "yep! Calories are all that matter for weight loss" are somehow giving the OP the impression that nutrition isn't important and that obviously negates the succinct and sage advice that you provided and will imply that anyone who is in the "CICO Crowd" is saying to ignore nutrition.
You interpreted that post as eating "nothing but gummy bears" but all the person said was that junk food like gummy bears doesn't satisfy hunger long. Nobody said anything about eating nothing but gummy bears.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Yes. For weight loss, it is that simple.
You meet nutritional goals for general health (and you don't need to eat "clean" or perfectly to do this), but weight loss is created by a calorie deficit. Many people find certain eating patterns make it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit (some people prefer fewer carbohydrates, some prefer more fiber, some prefer more protein, etc), but that doesn't change that a calorie deficit will work no matter what you're eating.
Just wanted to point out that this is the second post in the thread (and probably the first serious one as I think Noel was being facetious) and it perfectly summarizes the advice and tone of what the supposed "CICO Crowd" would advocate in threads just like this. Yet still, in subsequent posts, others raise the idea that eating nothing but gummy bears wouldn't be a good idea. Which why someone thinks that the OP was considering eating nothing but gummy bears is beyond me. And I suspect even further still, others will suggest that anyone who follows your post and says "yep! Calories are all that matter for weight loss" are somehow giving the OP the impression that nutrition isn't important and that obviously negates the succinct and sage advice that you provided and will imply that anyone who is in the "CICO Crowd" is saying to ignore nutrition.
You interpreted that post as eating "nothing but gummy bears" but all the person said was that junk food like gummy bears doesn't satisfy hunger long. Nobody said anything about eating nothing but gummy bears.
Fair, the post didn't say eat nothing but gummy bears.... but to feel the need to call out that gummy bears wouldn't stave off hunger seems to suggest they think the poster (or others, who knows) are building entire meals around gummy bears or other "complete crap food" as another poster suggested.
When I'm hungry, I don't look to gummy bears. To think that others do, and that it needs to be qualified, seems odd to me.6 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »I'm still trying to understand what "eat unhealthy" is.
An abundance of low nutrient dense foods.
That's too vague.
I disagree. It's a spectrum. Some foods are more nutrient dense than others, which for me would make them more unhealthy (to me). Not to say I do or others should only eat the healthiest (most nutrient dense foods) available to them. But if you're looking for a definition, I am willing to bet that's what most people consider to be the determining factor of how "unhealthy" something is.
If you disagree that's fine.
So how would you specifically determine if there was an "abundance" of these foods in someone's diet?
By looking at what they're eating....
I mean, how would you distinguish "an abundance" from "some"?
I said it was a spectrum.....
I am not sure what you're on about..... He asked for a definition of healthy foods and I said it was based on nutrient density. Do you disagree?
You can't measure an individual food in isolation. It is in the context of the overall diet. As I pointed out upthread, the phrase "healthy eating" is very subjective. Is Freelees diet healthy? She eats an awful lot of bananas, and those are nutrient dense, so her diet must be healthy, right? There are users on here who eat a carnivore diet - almost nothing but meat, nuts, and fat. Meat is healthy, right? So are nuts... So their diet is healthy, because they eat an abundance of foods that provide protein and healthy fats.
You guys keep twisting things like I am advocating some kind of a crazy clean healthy "only this not that" diet. I am not, I am merely responding to his question on what I believe "unhealthy" to mean. I believe a food that is low in nutrient density is unhealthy.
So you do think celery, cucumbers and iceberg lettuce are unhealthy.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 394 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions