Does it matter what foods make up my daily calorie intake?
Replies
-
For me it didn't matter. As long as my calories were met. However I was also looking at macros too to balance out my meals.0
-
Not really but take it this way my kids have a biscuit 4by2 inches with 502 calories and it's just 4 piece consuming that would no satisfy my hunger I could use that 502 calories on grilled chicken and salad which will be bigger in size plus added nutritional benefits3
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »All good advice. And not one reply that didn't answer the question with a "yes", but then go on to talk about nutrition as well.
still waiting for that mystery person that advocates a diet of 100% junk, I see...:)
OP - yes you can eat 1800 calories of candy, cookies, ice cream, and lose weight. However, you will probably not be satiated and your body composition will suffer. I would suggest eating the foods you like but also adding in vegetables, fruits etc, so that you get adequate nutrition.
I'm waiting for an actual definition of what foods are "junk" and what foods are "clean".
Here you go -
Junk Food: Anything that doesn't fit into my way of eating
Clean Food: Anything that's a part of my food plan6 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »It does matter because some food will provide you with more satiety than other food. Find the foods that you enjoy and fill you up. It will make your life a lot easier.
Everyone is different. If I eat a 350-calorie donut I might as well have eaten nothing. But a 250-calorie omelet stuffed with all sorts of stuff (the eggs contain 150 calories) keeps me full for a long time.
A 350 cal donut (I'm looking at you apple fritter) would totally fill me up. So you see, it's all individual.
Oh yeah, once a month I treat myself to a Bavarian creme doughnut and black coffee from the Mennonite market for breakfast. And I don't even think about eating until dinner. Granted its prob more like 500 cals but still. Mmmm
0 -
I am going to differ from the majority (where the answer appears to be 'no') and say that it does. Now, that is not a clear cut 'yes'. Here is what I mean!
First and foremost, calories in | calories out will be the most important 'counter' for your success (whatever it might be....cut, maintain, bulk). So, be within 5% ever day of your caloric in-take goal and you stand a really good chance of being successful.
So, for easy math, if your caloric intake goal is 2,000 calories a day, if you are within 100 calories - either way - then you are essentially good. Remember, this is really more a weekly thing....well, at least how I do things. So, if you are 100 calories over today then maybe you can balance that out with a 100 calories under tomorrow.
So, first and foremost - calories.
Secondly, macro-nutrient and micro-nutrients. Be within 10% of your target goals for each. Now, mostly talking macro-nutrients here. So, your protein, carbs, fats (and please do not forget about fiber). Well, that is assuming that you have some macro numbers.
Can you eat at McDonalds everyday - as long as you get the calories right? Sure! Can you eat pop tarts all day long as long as you get the calories right? Sure! Absolutely. Will you loose weight (assuming that you are eating that stuff in a caloric deficit)? Sure will.
Is that optimal? No - not likely. But, if all you care about is loosing weight, can you do it? Yes, you can.
I do things according to a very flexible flexible diet kinda way. So, there is a structured flexibility in how I do things. I do not shy away from wings and beer, if that is what I want to eat that night. I try not to deny myself all of the fun foods so that my chances of adherence are pretty dang good. As long as the wings and beer are properly budgeted for that day.....no worries. Shoot, even if that just happens (get a text from my favorite Hooters girl and go see her) then I am okay. I just make sure that I maintain self control with this. And, self-control might mean one thing to me (like having a 'planned' night of wings and beer a week and allowing for one 'unplanned' night of wings and beer a month) and something entirely different to you.
How dedicated or hard-core or lax do you want to be? What fits your life-style?3 -
Yes. Hence why I am able to eat 150 calories of ice cream every night and lose 46lbs.3
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »All good advice. And not one reply that didn't answer the question with a "yes", but then go on to talk about nutrition as well.
still waiting for that mystery person that advocates a diet of 100% junk, I see...:)
OP - yes you can eat 1800 calories of candy, cookies, ice cream, and lose weight. However, you will probably not be satiated and your body composition will suffer. I would suggest eating the foods you like but also adding in vegetables, fruits etc, so that you get adequate nutrition.
I'm waiting for an actual definition of what foods are "junk" and what foods are "clean".
Here you go -
Junk Food: Anything that doesn't fit into my way of eating
Clean Food: Anything that's a part of my food plan
I'll have to add this one to my list of clean eating definitions (assuming you're serious). It's not one I've come across before.2 -
diannethegeek wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Tacklewasher wrote: »All good advice. And not one reply that didn't answer the question with a "yes", but then go on to talk about nutrition as well.
still waiting for that mystery person that advocates a diet of 100% junk, I see...:)
OP - yes you can eat 1800 calories of candy, cookies, ice cream, and lose weight. However, you will probably not be satiated and your body composition will suffer. I would suggest eating the foods you like but also adding in vegetables, fruits etc, so that you get adequate nutrition.
I'm waiting for an actual definition of what foods are "junk" and what foods are "clean".
Here you go -
Junk Food: Anything that doesn't fit into my way of eating
Clean Food: Anything that's a part of my food plan
I'll have to add this one to my list of clean eating definitions (assuming you're serious). It's not one I've come across before.
I'm serious in that when I see the junk food vs. clean food wars raging, a lot of the definitions seem to align with the poster's preferred way of eating. I mean there's general consensus that twinkies are junk food and kale from the farmer's market is clean, but after that it's up for grabs.1 -
Well, you could have a single plate piled up with 1800 calories (like Poutine) and eat nothing else all day. You will still lose weight.
I'm betting it will be hard to stick to.
When you log your foods you will quickly find out which meals suck up all your calories for a day and which don't.
I suggest that newbies just get used to logging their meals just the way they are used to eating to start.
You will quickly discover which foods are calorie bombs.2 -
CWShultz27105 wrote: »I am going to differ from the majority (where the answer appears to be 'no') and say that it does.
Reading your whole answer, I'm not really sure why you think it differs from the majority of answers given.
But whatever, I guess.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »CWShultz27105 wrote: »I am going to differ from the majority (where the answer appears to be 'no') and say that it does.
Reading your whole answer, I'm not really sure why you think it differs from the majority of answers given.
But whatever, I guess.
My thought exactly.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.
What you said is totally reasonable. And you get a bunch of "woo" votes for saying something totally reasonable.
The "woo" voters are saying, with 100% confidence, that the word satiety doesn't matter. It matters a lot. In fact, it is probably the most important factor when it comes to weight loss if you are counting calories and have greatly reduced the amount of food you were eating prior to counting.
FTR, some of the things he listed as simple carbohydrates are complex carbohydrates. Sugar is a simple carb. The starches (potatoes, white flour, and white rice) are complex carbs.
Some people, and I'm one of them, are quite satiated by starches. There are quite a few of us who post on these forums who find the combination of starch and protein very satiating and don't find fat satiating in the least. There's no rise and plummet and hunger spike for us, just lasting satiety and easy compliance with our deficit.
Why does what he said get woo votes? Because satiety is individual, and making statements about it that are meant to apply in a universal sense is woo. There's no one size fits all formula that's true.
So no, what he said isn't totally reasonable, it's just what low-carb gurus tell everyone.8 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.
What you said is totally reasonable. And you get a bunch of "woo" votes for saying something totally reasonable.
The "woo" voters are saying, with 100% confidence, that the word satiety doesn't matter. It matters a lot. In fact, it is probably the most important factor when it comes to weight loss if you are counting calories and have greatly reduced the amount of food you were eating prior to counting.
(1) You have no idea what the woo voters were thinking.
(2) What GottaBurnEm said. Specifically:
(a) it's NOT reasonable to claim that starches (like potatoes and grains) are "simple" carbs, that demonstrates a lack of understanding of what simple carb means.
(b) it's NOT reasonable to claim that someone who eats specific foods will be hungrier. Like GottaBurnEm, potatoes always make me less, not more hungry.
(c) it's NOT reasonable to ignore the premise of the question, which was that calories would be the same on whatever diet was chosen. Nor is it reasonable to suggest that if one eats white rice, pasta, or potatoes that one will necessarily overeat, as that's obviously not true.
If you disagree, I'd LOVE to hear why these claims are reasonable.7 -
This content has been removed.
-
There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.5 -
Strictly speaking, it shouldn't affect weight loss, as long as you stick to your calorie goals. However, it could affect body composition, if you aren't getting enough nutrition to support muscle growth and repair. Also, high levels of sodium might contribute to bloating and weight fluctuations.
I think it's much harder to stick with your calorie goals if you aren't getting adequate nutrition. Your body has had enough calories, but not enough nutrients, so there is a physiological drive to keep eating. That said, too austere of a diet can make you feel deprived. I recommend an overall balanced diet with regular treats.
3 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.
What you said is totally reasonable. And you get a bunch of "woo" votes for saying something totally reasonable.
The "woo" voters are saying, with 100% confidence, that the word satiety doesn't matter. It matters a lot. In fact, it is probably the most important factor when it comes to weight loss if you are counting calories and have greatly reduced the amount of food you were eating prior to counting.
FTR, some of the things he listed as simple carbohydrates are complex carbohydrates. Sugar is a simple carb. The starches (potatoes, white flour, and white rice) are complex carbs.
Some people, and I'm one of them, are quite satiated by starches. There are quite a few of us who post on these forums who find the combination of starch and protein very satiating and don't find fat satiating in the least. There's no rise and plummet and hunger spike for us, just lasting satiety and easy compliance with our deficit.
Why does what he said get woo votes? Because satiety is individual, and making statements about it that are meant to apply in a universal sense is woo. There's no one size fits all formula that's true.
So no, what he said isn't totally reasonable, it's just what low-carb gurus tell everyone.
Well it is interesting that the MFP low-carb group has 46,000 members. The low-fat group? Is there a low-fat group?
Maybe those of us who are satiated by carbs don't need a group. We just eat what we like and what keeps us energized and hit our calorie goal. We don't eat "low fat" on purpose. I eat moderate everything. Sometimes my fat comes in a little low, sometimes a little high. Really doesn't affect me either way.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
^This.
And to further to address the PP, the vast majority of forum posters don't belong to groups, and the vast majority of forum posters simply eat balanced macros.
I happen to eat low fat since I have familial hypercholesterolemia, but most MFP'ers who aren't low-carbing get more fat than I do. I also am not satiated by fat and don't particularly feel that I want to spend calories on it.
Furthermore, what is this, a popularity contest now? This isn't about fads or popularity, for goodness sake. We don't need groups or support to just eat what we like and control our calories. Weight loss is a complicated process and people approach it from all sorts of perspectives. The single perspective that I find most mystifying is that of finding a certain way of eating to be a belief system that everyone else needs to share or it upsets the belief holders world view.3 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »Strictly speaking, no, it doesn't matter; as long as you consume fewer calories than you burn, you will lose weight. However, I would point out that eating an enormous amount of simple carbohydrates (sugar, potatoes, white flour, white rice, etc.) would cause your blood sugar to rise and then to plummet, causing you to feel much hungrier during the day and perhaps making it much more difficult to only consume the amount of calories you want... which could indirectly cause you to gain weight rather than lose it as a result of what you're eating.
What you said is totally reasonable. And you get a bunch of "woo" votes for saying something totally reasonable.
The "woo" voters are saying, with 100% confidence, that the word satiety doesn't matter. It matters a lot. In fact, it is probably the most important factor when it comes to weight loss if you are counting calories and have greatly reduced the amount of food you were eating prior to counting.
FTR, some of the things he listed as simple carbohydrates are complex carbohydrates. Sugar is a simple carb. The starches (potatoes, white flour, and white rice) are complex carbs.
Some people, and I'm one of them, are quite satiated by starches. There are quite a few of us who post on these forums who find the combination of starch and protein very satiating and don't find fat satiating in the least. There's no rise and plummet and hunger spike for us, just lasting satiety and easy compliance with our deficit.
Why does what he said get woo votes? Because satiety is individual, and making statements about it that are meant to apply in a universal sense is woo. There's no one size fits all formula that's true.
So no, what he said isn't totally reasonable, it's just what low-carb gurus tell everyone.
Well it is interesting that the MFP low-carb group has 46,000 members. The low-fat group? Is there a low-fat group?
Why does not low carb = low fat? I'm not low carb. I'm not low fat either. I'm normal everything. I find protein, fat and starchy carbs in combination the most satisfying and i am most compliant with my deficit when I make sure most of my meals contain all three of those things.
I must be lying though right because I don't got me a special group to play in.9 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Unless you really think that their culture of fat shaming is the sole reason they aren't obese. If you really think that, I'm just going to walk away shaking my head.6 -
This content has been removed.
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.1 -
This content has been removed.
-
Re macros and obesity, on average increased obesity in developing countries goes along with increased protein and fat. Is that because protein and fat make you fat? No, it's because they are moving from a subsistence diet to one that might, in some ways, be healthier, but also has unhealthy aspects and goes along with diseases of surplus.
Anyone who claims that a particular macro breakdown can't be satiating or leads to obesity, inherently, isn't looking at the evidence of human diets (which are extremely diverse, and obesity is not attached to any particular mix, nor is health).
There are particular issues with diets that can be unhealthy, obviously, but other than being so low on fat and protein as to suggest one may be generally nutrient deficient or struggling on a low cal or mononutrient diet, in large part, macros is the wrong place to look.
Among other things, there are huge differences in sources of all three macros.
Someone who insists that a particular macro or foods that have long been the staple food of most human diets (essentially, starch) cannot be filling or healthy and will necessarily lead to obesity seems to me to be uneducated on nutrition and perhaps to be too much buying into some low carb hooey.
That's not a slam on low carbing, which I often do and quite enjoy. It's a slam on the idea that CARBS are unhealthy or eating carbs will make everyone hungry and fat.3 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.2 -
This content has been removed.
-
Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.
Never claimed low-fat is great for everyone and low-fat is bad for everyone. It just seems to me that there are more successes with a higher-fat, lower carb diet than the other way around.
You seem to be relying on anecdotal evidence from sources that are promoting that conclusion.
This is interesting: https://deniseminger.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/
Also, again, look at traditional diets. Healthy diets are all over the place with macros, but if you focus on blue zones you see some commonalities like not a lot of sat fat/animal products (but not none), a good amount of veg, high fiber.4 -
Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Ericnutrition wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There are various groups for specific ways of eating that are low fat (like Fuhrman), but no question that low carb is currently much more trendy than low fat.
The alternative to low carb is not low fat, however, that's a false dichotomy. Some enjoy eating lower fat, some enjoy eating moderate fat, some enjoy eating higher fat. What is more satiating depends on the person and what else the person eats, obviously.
The Japanese diet is WAY lower fat than the US diet, and yet the Japanese obesity stats are better (and were even better when the diet was even lower fat, and more traditional). I don't think the Japanese perceive themselves as constantly starving, but perhaps you do.
It is socially unacceptable to be fat in Japan. Real fat shaming there.
That's a non sequitur that really doesn't address why the Japanese obesity stats are better.
Precisely.
Especially if the contention is that they are constantly starving.
I suspect that the average Japanese person would not say he or she is starving.
What does not being overweight have to do with starving?
Go back to how this particular side discussion began: the contention that staple starchy carbs (specifically, rice) will make you so hungry you will not be able to help overeating and that eating a low fat/high carb diet therefore leads to obesity. That was the contention you claimed was so reasonable plus your implication in claiming that low carb is good for weight loss and low fat is bad.
I don't like low fat for me, but it works well for various groups of humans (plenty of traditional healthy diets were lower fat), and for individuals even in the US. The US diet on average (the one followed on average by obese people in the US) is certainly not low fat.
Never claimed low-fat is great for everyone and low-fat is bad for everyone. It just seems to me that there are more successes with a higher-fat, lower carb diet than the other way around.
Evidence for this other than your feels?7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions