We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Found a diet that works
cheese60
Posts: 6 Member
I've been on the Calorie-Restriction (CR) Diet for a bit more than 2 months and I've lost 20lbs. The CR diet is based on this idea:
When I was first getting started, I did some research online and found lots of people saying this diet doesn't work. I felt like physics could prove this diet always works so I gave it a shot. Maybe it doesn't work for everyone, but it's been working for me. Just wanted to post a few things I learned and solicit some feedback.
First, chocolate cake and sugary foods make me very hungry. I had some. I weighed out a slice, I was meticulous and logged exactly how many calories the cake itself had. On the days I ate cake (there have been 3), I overate, but the cake was only 40% of the extra calories. The other 60% was from all the other food I ate because I had an irresistible drive to eat more! So I learned, sugar makes me hungry. I cannot stay on the Calorie-Restriction Diet if I eat sugar, so I don't.
Second, other carbs don't seem that bad. I eat sandwiches, tacos, burgers, and burritos. Not all at once, but one of those foods might be my main meal of the day. As long as I eat less than I burn, I've still been able to lose weight. I really like these foods and I appreciate that I can still eat them.
Third, measuring food by weight is by far the easiest way to measure how much food I'm really eating. A kitchen scale is essential! I like to figure out how many calories a food has by weighing it. I take the weight of the food and plug it into a math formula to figure out how many calories I'm getting. Here is the formula:
Here is a real-life example. I measured an apple weighs 109 grams. I Googled "calories in apple" and found 52 calories per 100 grams. If I plug in all the numbers:
So I log that apple as 57 calories.
This approach also works with the information on a nutrition label. For example, today I ate 77 grams of salami. The label says a serving size is 28 grams and that a serving contains 100 calories. To find the number of calories I use this formula:
for the salami example:
This way of figuring calories seems to be working for me (when I eat at home).
Fourth, for best results, log calories electronically. I started off by logging my calories on a whiteboard. This worked but having to add up my calories was a hassle.
Fifth, get a smart scale. I started off using the dumb scale I already had. I would manually log my weight in the google fit app. I decided to upgrade to a smart scale. I got the scale that wirecutter picked. It logs my weight and a bunch of other stats on my phone automatically. This is really nice. I highly recommend this (it makes diet and exercise more fun). Also, I highly recommend weighing yourself every day. I started off weighing myself once a week but that wasn't as fun. Now I weigh daily.
Sixth, only drink water. This makes life easier. You can enjoy all the water you want without having to log anything. I don't log how much water I drink, I just drink it when I'm thirsty. My smart scale says my water levels are perfect (57.3% of my mass).
Okay now for the controversial part.
I use an appetite suppressant. I am young, active (3000 kcal BMR; 4 hours of activity daily), and healthy. I don't think I'd be able to do this without the suppressant. I did a google search for "best appetite suppressant" and ordered the first one I found. It's been working.
Final thoughts
I have 24 lbs left to lose before I've hit my goal. My target weight is 167lb. I'm 6ft 2in tall, by the way. If anyone has any feedback, I'm open to learning more and trying new things. My plan is to hit my target weight, then I want to gain 7 lbs of muscle. Muscle diets are kinda at odds with weight loss diets though. So I will cross that bridge when I get there.
(calories in) - (calories out) < 0
When I was first getting started, I did some research online and found lots of people saying this diet doesn't work. I felt like physics could prove this diet always works so I gave it a shot. Maybe it doesn't work for everyone, but it's been working for me. Just wanted to post a few things I learned and solicit some feedback.
First, chocolate cake and sugary foods make me very hungry. I had some. I weighed out a slice, I was meticulous and logged exactly how many calories the cake itself had. On the days I ate cake (there have been 3), I overate, but the cake was only 40% of the extra calories. The other 60% was from all the other food I ate because I had an irresistible drive to eat more! So I learned, sugar makes me hungry. I cannot stay on the Calorie-Restriction Diet if I eat sugar, so I don't.
Second, other carbs don't seem that bad. I eat sandwiches, tacos, burgers, and burritos. Not all at once, but one of those foods might be my main meal of the day. As long as I eat less than I burn, I've still been able to lose weight. I really like these foods and I appreciate that I can still eat them.
Third, measuring food by weight is by far the easiest way to measure how much food I'm really eating. A kitchen scale is essential! I like to figure out how many calories a food has by weighing it. I take the weight of the food and plug it into a math formula to figure out how many calories I'm getting. Here is the formula:
(weight I measure) * (calories google says this food has per 100 calories) / 100
Here is a real-life example. I measured an apple weighs 109 grams. I Googled "calories in apple" and found 52 calories per 100 grams. If I plug in all the numbers:
109 * 52 / 100 = 56.68 calories
So I log that apple as 57 calories.
This approach also works with the information on a nutrition label. For example, today I ate 77 grams of salami. The label says a serving size is 28 grams and that a serving contains 100 calories. To find the number of calories I use this formula:
(weight I measure) * (calories on label) / (weight of serving size)
for the salami example:
77 * 100 / 28 = 275 calories.
This way of figuring calories seems to be working for me (when I eat at home).
Fourth, for best results, log calories electronically. I started off by logging my calories on a whiteboard. This worked but having to add up my calories was a hassle.
Fifth, get a smart scale. I started off using the dumb scale I already had. I would manually log my weight in the google fit app. I decided to upgrade to a smart scale. I got the scale that wirecutter picked. It logs my weight and a bunch of other stats on my phone automatically. This is really nice. I highly recommend this (it makes diet and exercise more fun). Also, I highly recommend weighing yourself every day. I started off weighing myself once a week but that wasn't as fun. Now I weigh daily.
Sixth, only drink water. This makes life easier. You can enjoy all the water you want without having to log anything. I don't log how much water I drink, I just drink it when I'm thirsty. My smart scale says my water levels are perfect (57.3% of my mass).
Okay now for the controversial part.
I use an appetite suppressant. I am young, active (3000 kcal BMR; 4 hours of activity daily), and healthy. I don't think I'd be able to do this without the suppressant. I did a google search for "best appetite suppressant" and ordered the first one I found. It's been working.
Final thoughts
I have 24 lbs left to lose before I've hit my goal. My target weight is 167lb. I'm 6ft 2in tall, by the way. If anyone has any feedback, I'm open to learning more and trying new things. My plan is to hit my target weight, then I want to gain 7 lbs of muscle. Muscle diets are kinda at odds with weight loss diets though. So I will cross that bridge when I get there.
1
Replies
-
you do realise MFP is a calorie counting app?
and also, are you aware that the approach you are taking is currently causing you to LOSE muscle?6 -
Okay, I edited the part about calorie counting electronically.
Yes, I'm not really sure what to do about the muscle loss. I have too much body fat (especially visceral fat). I don't want to lose muscle (because that will mean more work later) but that fat has to go. I recently started trying to eat more protein. All the muscle diets I've read about have you eat more than you burn. Seems like I'd be going backward.0 -
Yes, I'm not really sure what to do about the muscle loss. I have too much body fat (especially visceral fat). I don't want to lose muscle (because that will mean more work later) but that fat has to go. I recently started trying to eat more protein. All the muscle diets I've read about have you eat more than you burn. Seems like I'd be going backward.
you can minimise muscle loss by eating adequate protein, doing resistance training as you lose weight and setting an adequate calorie deficit.
you have far too large a deficit if you have lost 20lbs in 2 months.8 -
I've been on the Calorie-Restriction (CR) Diet for a bit more than 2 months and I've lost 20lbs. The CR diet is based on this idea:
(calories in) - (calories out) < 0
When I was first getting started, I did some research online and found lots of people saying this diet doesn't work. I felt like physics could prove this diet always works so I gave it a shot. Maybe it doesn't work for everyone, but it's been working for me. Just wanted to post a few things I learned and solicit some feedback.
First, chocolate cake and sugary foods make me very hungry. I had some. I weighed out a slice, I was meticulous and logged exactly how many calories the cake itself had. On the days I ate cake (there have been 3), I overate, but the cake was only 40% of the extra calories. The other 60% was from all the other food I ate because I had an irresistible drive to eat more! So I learned, sugar makes me hungry. I cannot stay on the Calorie-Restriction Diet if I eat sugar, so I don't.
Second, other carbs don't seem that bad. I eat sandwiches, tacos, burgers, and burritos. Not all at once, but one of those foods might be my main meal of the day. As long as I eat less than I burn, I've still been able to lose weight. I really like these foods and I appreciate that I can still eat them.
Third, measuring food by weight is by far the easiest way to measure how much food I'm really eating. A kitchen scale is essential! I like to figure out how many calories a food has by weighing it. I take the weight of the food and plug it into a math formula to figure out how many calories I'm getting. Here is the formula:(weight I measure) * (calories google says this food has per 100 calories) / 100
Here is a real-life example. I measured an apple weighs 109 grams. I Googled "calories in apple" and found 52 calories per 100 grams. If I plug in all the numbers:109 * 52 / 100 = 56.68 calories
So I log that apple as 57 calories.
This approach also works with the information on a nutrition label. For example, today I ate 77 grams of salami. The label says a serving size is 28 grams and that a serving contains 100 calories. To find the number of calories I use this formula:(weight I measure) * (calories on label) / (weight of serving size)
for the salami example:77 * 100 / 28 = 275 calories.
This way of figuring calories seems to be working for me (when I eat at home).
Fourth, for best results, log calories electronically. I started off by logging my calories on a whiteboard. This worked but having to add up my calories was a hassle. I tried a couple apps on my phone (its an android). I've found that "Simple Calorie Counter" works best for me.
Fifth, get a smart scale. I started off using the dumb scale I already had. I would manually log my weight in the google fit app. I decided to upgrade to a smart scale. I got the scale that wirecutter picked. It logs my weight and a bunch of other stats on my phone automatically. This is really nice. I highly recommend this (it makes diet and exercise more fun). Also, I highly recommend weighing yourself every day. I started off weighing myself once a week but that wasn't as fun. Now I weigh daily.
Sixth, only drink water. This makes life easier. You can enjoy all the water you want without having to log anything. I don't log how much water I drink, I just drink it when I'm thirsty. My smart scale says my water levels are perfect (57.3% of my mass).
Okay now for the controversial part.
I use an appetite suppressant. I am young, active (3000 kcal BMR; 4 hours of activity daily), and healthy. I don't think I'd be able to do this without the suppressant. I did a google search for "best appetite suppressant" and ordered the first one I found. It's been working.
Final thoughts
I have 24 lbs left to lose before I've hit my goal. My target weight is 167lb. I'm 6ft 2in tall, by the way. If anyone has any feedback, I'm open to learning more and trying new things. My plan is to hit my target weight, then I want to gain 7 lbs of muscle. Muscle diets are kinda at odds with weight loss diets though. So I will cross that bridge when I get there.
Good luck to you, but this diet doesn't sound like it's for me.
I like to eat when I'm hungry, I certainly don't want to go to bed at the end of the day feeling hungry.
And being tied down to measuring food and 'always' having to log the food I eat doesn't sound fun (or convenient).
As the poster above has mentioned, don't under eat too much as your body will start to strip away lean mass and that's not healthy.1 -
As you're finding out, losing weight isn't the only goal. Many people say they're losing weight, some too fast, and they'll think about exercise, strength training, etc, when they reach goal. Then they post that they've lost the weight, but still have belly fat and don't like their body. Happens often--so get started now to save that muscle. Your weightloss will slow, but you'll be happier when you hit your target weight.3
-
Thanks for all the feedback! Sounds like I should change my goal from weight loss to fat weight loss and muscle weight gain. It also sounds like while I'm trying to lose fat weight, I need to do more to sustain muscle weight. I'd hate to get to 167 only to find my body fat percent is still too high.
Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I feel like this change could be saving me from going too far down the wrong path.3 -
Thanks for all the feedback! Sounds like I should change my goal from weight loss to fat weight loss and muscle weight gain. It also sounds like while I'm trying to lose fat weight, I need to do more to sustain muscle weight. I'd hate to get to 167 only to find my body fat percent is still too high.
Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I feel like this change could be saving me from going too far down the wrong path.
Your goal should be weight loss while maintaining muscle for the next 10-20lbs and then you may want to look into recomp after that. you may find you get some newbie gains when you start lifting anyway.
aim to lose 1lb per week MAX, lift heavy stuff and make sure you're getting enough protein - 0,8g per lb of weight is a reasonable guide. and dont go just by what the scales say.5 -
I was losing too fast early in my journey and slowed down for the last half, especially the last few pounds. I got more physically active along the way also. I have been at goal about 3 months and I am finally pretty happy with my arms and chest again (lost some muscle there). If I had taken longer to lose the weight, I might be at goal by now or maybe just pretty close and probably be in a little better shape. It was no train wreck; I didn't have a lot of fat left when I got to goal (normal BMI), but I had more than i liked and less muscle. I have been recomping when I could have been building a little.0
-
I will let the others dissect the rest of your post. I will address your sugar theory. There is a chance you are correct and that keeping sugar out of your diet is better. There is also a chance that if you compare your First and Second points that it is also likely that you might be able to eat it as long as it is paired with enough protein.
Through experimentation I have found that I keep my hunger in check with a 2:1 ratio of carbs to protein. It is possible the reason why sandwiches and burritos are not bothering you is because they have protein in them. This does not suggest a limit on protein but a minimum for when carbs are eaten. It also doesn't require an exact 2:1 ratio but a ballpark. I know 40:17 is fine and it might even be fine to go a little lower on protein. I don't like to be hungry and eating this way is not much of a challenge so don't think I need to test myself any further.4 -
Alright, I feel good. Today I got a gym membership and started lifting. I searched for "compound exercises" and someone on the internet shared their routine so for now, I am just copying it. I also upped my calories and cut my cardio basically in half (cuz I added the lifting). I will see how this change affects my BMR and adjust my calories. I will go for about 1 lb per week now.
Getting 0.8g of protein per lb seems like a lot by the way. I'd need to eat 550 grams of turkey to get that. I know I can get protein from many other foods and I find it helpful to put that amount of food in perspective. I actually made a sandwich with 500 grams of turkey today. It was really big. I am gonna continue to explore food options that provide me with enough protein.
Thanks again for all the feedback its been very helpful. Sounds like I need to lose weight a little slower to get the results I want a little faster. That's a bit counter-intuitive. I'm glad I posted here; It would have sucked to find that out the hard way.
Also, I will keep that 2:1 (carbs to protein ration) in mind next time I need to eat cake.2 -
That's a lot of words.1
-
Alright, I feel good. Today I got a gym membership and started lifting. I searched for "compound exercises" and someone on the internet shared their routine so for now, I am just copying it. I also upped my calories and cut my cardio basically in half (cuz I added the lifting). I will see how this change affects my BMR and adjust my calories. I will go for about 1 lb per week now.
Getting 0.8g of protein per lb seems like a lot by the way. I'd need to eat 550 grams of turkey to get that. I know I can get protein from many other foods and I find it helpful to put that amount of food in perspective. I actually made a sandwich with 500 grams of turkey today. It was really big. I am gonna continue to explore food options that provide me with enough protein.
Thanks again for all the feedback its been very helpful. Sounds like I need to lose weight a little slower to get the results I want a little faster. That's a bit counter-intuitive. I'm glad I posted here; It would have sucked to find that out the hard way.
Also, I will keep that 2:1 (carbs to protein ration) in mind next time I need to eat cake.
That is per pound of lean body mass not your total weight.
The 2:1 works for me but we are all different so it may not work as well for you but I always think experimentation is good to prevent non-medical restrictions. Also pie is much superior in every way to cake.
2 -
Thanks for all the feedback! Sounds like I should change my goal from weight loss to fat weight loss and muscle weight gain. It also sounds like while I'm trying to lose fat weight, I need to do more to sustain muscle weight. I'd hate to get to 167 only to find my body fat percent is still too high.
Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I feel like this change could be saving me from going too far down the wrong path.
May I say that in my opinion cheese60, you are going about this the wrong way. There are many types of calories, and counting them should be secondary to closely watching your carb and sugar intake. And yes, eating too many carbs, which as we all know convert to sugar, is a real menace to good health. Besides your body burning excess carbs before actual body fat, they are responsible for your body producing too much insulin.
Carbs are the real enemy of healthy living. Fat is not. Fat is good. It's what fuels the brain. And as you have indicated, getting enough protein is essential to avoiding muscle mass loss.
A diet low in net carbs and high in fat and protein (sound familiar?) is naturally very low in sugar.
Today's food pyramid is inverted and is responsible for the worldwide obesity/diabetes epidemic. Fat should be at the bottom, not the top. Carbs should be at the top, not the bottom. Once you invert the pyramid, things change dramatically. Your body will start to normalize and begin a very slow and steady return to what it should be.
I am not a dietician, nor do I pretend to be.
39 -
bustercrabby wrote: »Thanks for all the feedback! Sounds like I should change my goal from weight loss to fat weight loss and muscle weight gain. It also sounds like while I'm trying to lose fat weight, I need to do more to sustain muscle weight. I'd hate to get to 167 only to find my body fat percent is still too high.
Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I feel like this change could be saving me from going too far down the wrong path.
May I say that in my opinion cheese60, you are going about this the wrong way. There are many types of calories, and counting them should be secondary to closely watching your carb and sugar intake. And yes, eating too many carbs, which as we all know convert to sugar, is a real menace to good health. Besides your body burning excess carbs before actual body fat, they are responsible for your body producing too much insulin.
Carbs are the real enemy of healthy living. Fat is not. Fat is good. It's what fuels the brain. And as you have indicated, getting enough protein is essential to avoiding muscle mass loss.
A diet low in carbs and high in fat and protein (sound familiar?) is naturally very low in sugar.
Today's food pyramid is inverted and is responsible for the worldwide obesity/diabetes epidemic. Fat should be at the bottom, not the top. Carbs should be at the top, not the bottom. Once you invert the pyramid, things change dramatically. Your body will start to normalize and begin a very slow and steady return to what it should be.
I am not a dietician, nor do I pretend to be.
There are many types of food. There is only one type of calorie.
Carbohydrates are not our enemy. They're found in a wide variety of healthful and delicious foods and they provide us with energy. In our current environment where we have free access to a wide variety of food and many of us don't move much, extra weight can be a problem and carbohydrates (along with fat and protein) can certainly be part of that. But at many points in history, the discovery of a fruit orchard, a bountiful harvest of grain, or the discovery of an area full of nutrient-rich greens helped our ancestors thrive. And using those foods today, in the context of understanding of how much energy we need, can help us do the same.13 -
A calorie is a unit of heat required to raise one gram of water one degree celsius in temperature at a pressure of one atmosphere. That's the only type of "calorie" there is.bustercrabby wrote: »...There are many types of calories...
Tell that to a marathon runner around mile 23. Or to a Tour de France cyclist 3km before the sprint to the finish. Or any other competitor in a glycogen-dependent event/sport, for that matter. Context and dosage matters.bustercrabby wrote: »...Carbs are the real enemy of healthy living....
TIL that glucose = fat. Because the brain is fueled exclusively by glucose. Which is a sugar. Which is a carb.bustercrabby wrote: »...Fat is good. It's what fuels the brain...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/
"Glucose is virtually the sole fuel for the human brain, except during prolonged starvation. The brain lacks fuel stores and hence requires a continuous supply of glucose. It consumes about 120 g daily, which corresponds to an energy input of about 420 kcal (1760 kJ), accounting for some 60% of the utilization of glucose by the whole body in the resting state...
...Fatty acids do not serve as fuel for the brain, because they are bound to albumin in plasma and so do not traverse the blood-brain barrier. In starvation, ketone bodies generated by the liver partly replace glucose as fuel for the brain."
Very good.bustercrabby wrote: »I am not a dietician, nor do I pretend to be.
15 -
bustercrabby wrote: »Thanks for all the feedback! Sounds like I should change my goal from weight loss to fat weight loss and muscle weight gain. It also sounds like while I'm trying to lose fat weight, I need to do more to sustain muscle weight. I'd hate to get to 167 only to find my body fat percent is still too high.
Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I feel like this change could be saving me from going too far down the wrong path.
May I say that in my opinion cheese60, you are going about this the wrong way. There are many types of calories, and counting them should be secondary to closely watching your carb and sugar intake. And yes, eating too many carbs, which as we all know convert to sugar, is a real menace to good health. Besides your body burning excess carbs before actual body fat, they are responsible for your body producing too much insulin.
Carbs are the real enemy of healthy living. Fat is not. Fat is good. It's what fuels the brain. And as you have indicated, getting enough protein is essential to avoiding muscle mass loss.
A diet low in net carbs and high in fat and protein (sound familiar?) is naturally very low in sugar.
Today's food pyramid is inverted and is responsible for the worldwide obesity/diabetes epidemic. Fat should be at the bottom, not the top. Carbs should be at the top, not the bottom. Once you invert the pyramid, things change dramatically. Your body will start to normalize and begin a very slow and steady return to what it should be.
I am not a dietician, nor do I pretend to be.
I have a very carb heavy diet (I eat mostly WFPB) and fat tends to be my lowest macro. I'm in excellent health and have a bmi of 21.8. Carbs aren't bad, within the context of a balanced calorie intake.
And no, there's not many types of calories
9 -
bustercrabby wrote: »Thanks for all the feedback! Sounds like I should change my goal from weight loss to fat weight loss and muscle weight gain. It also sounds like while I'm trying to lose fat weight, I need to do more to sustain muscle weight. I'd hate to get to 167 only to find my body fat percent is still too high.
Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I feel like this change could be saving me from going too far down the wrong path.
{unsubstantiated opinion omitted for the sake of brevity}
I am not a dietician, nor do I pretend to be.
The bolded is the only factual statement in the whole post.12 -
bustercrabby wrote: »Thanks for all the feedback! Sounds like I should change my goal from weight loss to fat weight loss and muscle weight gain. It also sounds like while I'm trying to lose fat weight, I need to do more to sustain muscle weight. I'd hate to get to 167 only to find my body fat percent is still too high.
Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I feel like this change could be saving me from going too far down the wrong path.
{unsubstantiated opinion omitted for the sake of brevity}
I am not a dietician, nor do I pretend to be.
The bolded is the only factual statement in the whole post.
Word!3 -
bustercrabby wrote: »Thanks for all the feedback! Sounds like I should change my goal from weight loss to fat weight loss and muscle weight gain. It also sounds like while I'm trying to lose fat weight, I need to do more to sustain muscle weight. I'd hate to get to 167 only to find my body fat percent is still too high.
Thanks a lot for pointing that out. I feel like this change could be saving me from going too far down the wrong path.
May I say that in my opinion cheese60, you are going about this the wrong way. There are many types of calories, and counting them should be secondary to closely watching your carb and sugar intake. And yes, eating too many carbs, which as we all know convert to sugar, is a real menace to good health. Besides your body burning excess carbs before actual body fat, they are responsible for your body producing too much insulin.
Carbs are the real enemy of healthy living. Fat is not. Fat is good. It's what fuels the brain. And as you have indicated, getting enough protein is essential to avoiding muscle mass loss.
A diet low in net carbs and high in fat and protein (sound familiar?) is naturally very low in sugar.
Today's food pyramid is inverted and is responsible for the worldwide obesity/diabetes epidemic. Fat should be at the bottom, not the top. Carbs should be at the top, not the bottom. Once you invert the pyramid, things change dramatically. Your body will start to normalize and begin a very slow and steady return to what it should be.
I am not a dietician, nor do I pretend to be.
This is not factual information. Most of what you said here is misinformation and incorrect.7 -
-
A calorie is a unit of heat required to raise one gram of water one degree celsius in temperature at a pressure of one atmosphere. That's the only type of "calorie" there is.bustercrabby wrote: »...There are many types of calories...
I suppose if one were inclined to be generous, one could say there are two types of calories: calories and "food" calories (aka Calories or kilocalories). But I wouldn't call two "many."
0 -
It's best to use kilojoules instead of kilocalories because it's about 4 times more accurate.2
-
It's best to use kilojoules instead of kilocalories because it's about 4 times more accurate.
Since a potential estimating error of 1 kcal (or 5 kcal, or even 10 kcal) is not something I'm going to worry about in logging, I fail to see how the illusion being able to be accurate to the kilojoule is going to be helpful.3 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »
A calorie is a unit of heat required to raise one gram of water one degree celsius in temperature at a pressure of one atmosphere. That's the only type of "calorie" there is.bustercrabby wrote: »...There are many types of calories...
I suppose if one were inclined to be generous, one could say there are two types of calories: calories and "food" calories (aka Calories or kilocalories). But I wouldn't call two "many."
Yeah, but technically it's a naming convention and they're two separate things - a calorie and a Calorie/kilocalorie. Whenever food calories are being discussed, it's the latter.
It's actually kind of an aberration, IMO - they didn't resort to a meter and a Meter for meter/kilometer.0 -
I wish these fat peddlers would also understand that we are not all the same. I tried a LCHF diet (<55g of carbs) for a week early in my diet as an experiment. I struggled to eat that way and my body was unappreciative in a couple of ways. I might be able to transition slow enough to get past the physical ailments but eating would still be for nourishment not pleasure so it would be like forcing medicine down. Why would I want to live that way?
6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions