nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

MyFitnessPal Community

Healthy calories VS Unhealthy calories

LuxCanBeDeceiving

Hello! I have a question.. I eat a very healthy every day at 1200 calories (mainly cooked chicken, veggies, fruits, yogurt, banana, buckwheat, some nuts, chia... you get the idea). I meet my calorie goal of 1200 everyday. Now today was a little unordinary day and I ate a double cheeseburger, coffee, sushi and an apple - but also consumed no more than 1200 calories.
My question is... does it matter what I eat or is it all good as long as I meet my calorie goal? I would particularly thank for the opinion of those who actually done this themselves while they were losing weight. Thanks!!

Replies

MichelleSilverleaf

What's unhealthy about a double cheeseburger, coffee, sushi or the apple?

Speaking purely about weight loss, calorie deficit is all that matters. In terms of nutrition and staying satisfied, some foods will achieve those better than others. You have to figure out what works best for you and your goals. That double cheeseburger was still a source of protein, I imagine. And fats, which your body needs to help process certain vitamins. And I imagine it was delicious? I find the whole "healthy vs unhealthy" mindset to be in and of itself unhealthy. Food is just food, unless you have a serious allergy or medical condition.

Lillymoo01

Unhealthy calories are those that make you sick. Anything else is fine in moderation.

Panini911

LuxCanBeDeceiving wrote: »

H
My question is... does it matter what I eat or is it all good as long as I meet my calorie goal? I would particularly thank for the opinion of those who actually done this themselves while they were losing weight. Thanks!!

no 1200 calories is 1200 calories as far as weight loss goes. Plus, healthy as per who? what's your definition of healthy?

if you eat a ton more salt one day i'd guess your body may show slight water increase temporarily.

Terytha

There's no such thing as an unhealthy calorie or a healthy calorie. That's like saying you can have healthy or unhealthy inches. A calorie is a unit of measurement, it has no moral value.

Foods can be bad for you, if they make you sick or violate some ethical or religious belief you have. That's all.

Buff_Man

What the op is talking about is the nutritional value of foods. If you can hit 1200 cals eating fast food you'll still lose weight. But, will you get enough micro and macro nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc to stay healthy? Probably not. Don't forget it's not just about the calories, how much fat, salt , hydrogenated oils are you consuming? These are all harmful in large quantities. You might reach your goal but you'll be constipated, with bad skin and probably irritable from the lack of nutrients.

JeromeBarry1

When I was losing my 100 lb the first time, I did it by eating all manner of foods. I needed to stay in a calorie deficit, and I did. I considered it important that I get all the protein my life and activity needed. That's the way it works. Weigh it. Log it. Be accurate and honest.

kimny72

Buff_Man wrote: »

What the op is talking about is the nutritional value of foods. If you can hit 1200 cals eating fast food you'll still lose weight. But, will you get enough micro and macro nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc to stay healthy? Probably not. Don't forget it's not just about the calories, how much fat, salt , hydrogenated oils are you consuming? These are all harmful in large quantities. You might reach your goal but you'll be constipated, with bad skin and probably irritable from the lack of nutrients.

If OP was talking about health, then yes what you eat matters.

If OP was asking about weight loss, then a calorie is a calorie.

Regardless, ONE DAY of less than perfect food choices will not matter for weight or for health, which is what OP was asking about. And they certainly weren't eating anything in large quantities if they came in under 1200 calories.

OP it's totally ok to occasionally have a day where you eat like a 5 year old if you are generally eating a nutritious balanced diet. And honestly your choices don't even sound all that "unhealthy". I hope you enjoyed it

AnnPT77

Buff_Man wrote: »

What the op is talking about is the nutritional value of foods. If you can hit 1200 cals eating fast food you'll still lose weight. But, will you get enough micro and macro nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc to stay healthy? Probably not. Don't forget it's not just about the calories, how much fat, salt , hydrogenated oils are you consuming? These are all harmful in large quantities. You might reach your goal but you'll be constipated, with bad skin and probably irritable from the lack of nutrients.

But you need not stick entirely to foods like "cooked chicken, veggies, fruits, yogurt, banana, buckwheat, some nuts, chia" all day every day, in order to get well rounded nutrition. In general, It's not individual foods that are unconditionally "healthy" or "unhealthy", it's overall ways of eating.

Weight loss, in the short run at least, is pretty much all about the calories, except insofar as food choices affect satiation and therefore can affect compliance with calorie goal. (In the longer run, nutrition will potentially affect energy level, health, and body composition, which may indirectly affect weight loss.)

Nutrition is very important, of course: Most of us want to be healthy and attractive-looking, not just skinny! A heathy overall diet can include the occasional cheeseburger, coffee, sushi, apple. (Actually, apples are very nutrition dense; some types of sushi are wonderfully nutritious; there's nothing wrong with coffee; and the amount of sat fat in a cheeseburger may not be a big deal if the dietary context doesn't make the dosage worrisome - there's protein and micronutrients in that burger, too. If the overall day has sufficient macros/micros, there can be a few less nutrient-dense foods making up part of that overall picture.)

Choosing one's way of eating isn't really an all or nothing exercise, it's a matter of balancing nutrition, tastiness, satiation, calories, practicality, budget, and overall happiness with what one eats.

LuxCanBeDeceiving

Hi guys! Thank you all for these extremely helpful answers and sorry for the stupid formulation - I really was asking purely about the calories! I do understand that there is no such thing as healthy or unhealthy calorie, I guess I just got confused because I have this association imprinted in my head that "fast food & burgers equal weight gain". Just wanted to be sure that I don't miss anything important here.

And yes, I do know that I should add more variety of foods every day but I became so picky after starting dieting, sort of like developed a taste for particular foods and I don't seem interested much in other foods (anyone ever felt like this?). Plus, I try to eat in a way that minimizes the possibility of acid reflux and TMJ (jaw pain) so this also narrows down the spectre of available nutrition for me. I do however eat eggs, salmon, tomato sauces, mustard, air popped popcorn too... With a simple limited nutrition like that, I feel great!

snowflake954

Buff_Man wrote: »

What the op is talking about is the nutritional value of foods. If you can hit 1200 cals eating fast food you'll still lose weight. But, will you get enough micro and macro nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc to stay healthy? Probably not. Don't forget it's not just about the calories, how much fat, salt , hydrogenated oils are you consuming? These are all harmful in large quantities. You might reach your goal but you'll be constipated, with bad skin and probably irritable from the lack of nutrients.

Wrong--there's a guy on here with a long thread running that ate fast food as an experiment and he has a fantastic body. He also has blood work done regularly and all is perfect. He was surprised himself.

I just bumped his thread--"CICO Still skeptical?"

Seffell

"double cheeseburger, coffee, sushi and an apple" is healthy.

OooohToast

snowflake954 wrote: »

Buff_Man wrote: »

What the op is talking about is the nutritional value of foods. If you can hit 1200 cals eating fast food you'll still lose weight. But, will you get enough micro and macro nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc to stay healthy? Probably not. Don't forget it's not just about the calories, how much fat, salt , hydrogenated oils are you consuming? These are all harmful in large quantities. You might reach your goal but you'll be constipated, with bad skin and probably irritable from the lack of nutrients.

Wrong--there's a guy on here with a long thread running that ate fast food as an experiment and he has a fantastic body. He also has blood work done regularly and all is perfect. He was surprised himself.

I just bumped his thread--"CICO Still skeptical?"

I appreciate he is healthy off the back off his experiment but am not sure that means the general population would have the same outcome ? If I remember correctly, the guy who did the "100grammes of sugar a day and I lost loads /am healthy" thread did an awful lot of exercise.

With this in mind, surely we have to place any WOE and their outcomes in the context of overall lifestyle inc age ? I say that as I remember being the right side of 30 and seemingly being able to eat and drink any old tosh whilst feeling and looking great. Things are rather different now.......

Just to add, I think we all agree conceptually that all calories are equal, but I dont think anyone would recommend a diet of solid sugar. I appreciate the FDA doesnt recommend a sugar limit, but the NHS (UK) does and its 30g of added sugar per day for anyone over 11.

AnnPT77

OooohToast wrote: »

snowflake954 wrote: »

Buff_Man wrote: »

What the op is talking about is the nutritional value of foods. If you can hit 1200 cals eating fast food you'll still lose weight. But, will you get enough micro and macro nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc to stay healthy? Probably not. Don't forget it's not just about the calories, how much fat, salt , hydrogenated oils are you consuming? These are all harmful in large quantities. You might reach your goal but you'll be constipated, with bad skin and probably irritable from the lack of nutrients.

Wrong--there's a guy on here with a long thread running that ate fast food as an experiment and he has a fantastic body. He also has blood work done regularly and all is perfect. He was surprised himself.

I just bumped his thread--"CICO Still skeptical?"

I appreciate he is healthy off the back off his experiment but am not sure that means the general population would have the same outcome ? If I remember correctly, the guy who did the "100grammes of sugar a day and I lost loads /am healthy" thread did an awful lot of exercise.

With this in mind, surely we have to place any WOE and their outcomes in the context of overall lifestyle inc age ? I say that as I remember being the right side of 30 and seemingly being able to eat and drink any old tosh whilst feeling and looking great. Things are rather different now.......

Just to add, I think we all agree conceptually that all calories are equal, but I dont think anyone would recommend a diet of solid sugar. I appreciate the FDA doesnt recommend a sugar limit, but the NHS (UK) does and its 30g of added sug:ar per day for anyone over 11.

It's not the FDA's job. US HHS & USDA do recommend a limit, though:

[/quote]The 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends limiting calories from added sugars to no more than 10% each day. [/quote]

https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/DGA_Cut-Down-On-Added-Sugars.pdf

To be explicit: I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with the recommendation, just pointing out that there is one.

snowflake954

OooohToast wrote: »

snowflake954 wrote: »

Buff_Man wrote: »

What the op is talking about is the nutritional value of foods. If you can hit 1200 cals eating fast food you'll still lose weight. But, will you get enough micro and macro nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc to stay healthy? Probably not. Don't forget it's not just about the calories, how much fat, salt , hydrogenated oils are you consuming? These are all harmful in large quantities. You might reach your goal but you'll be constipated, with bad skin and probably irritable from the lack of nutrients.

Wrong--there's a guy on here with a long thread running that ate fast food as an experiment and he has a fantastic body. He also has blood work done regularly and all is perfect. He was surprised himself.

I just bumped his thread--"CICO Still skeptical?"

I appreciate he is healthy off the back off his experiment but am not sure that means the general population would have the same outcome ? If I remember correctly, the guy who did the "100grammes of sugar a day and I lost loads /am healthy" thread did an awful lot of exercise.

With this in mind, surely we have to place any WOE and their outcomes in the context of overall lifestyle inc age ? I say that as I remember being the right side of 30 and seemingly being able to eat and drink any old tosh whilst feeling and looking great. Things are rather different now.......

Just to add, I think we all agree conceptually that all calories are equal, but I dont think anyone would recommend a diet of solid sugar. I appreciate the FDA doesnt recommend a sugar limit, but the NHS (UK) does and its 30g of added sugar per day for anyone over 11.

The general public is not working out as much as he is.

However, his experiment is interesting because the "eating healthy" movement is very absolute and I thought I'd point out an interesting thread. Do I consider myself to be a person that eats healthily?--oh yes. Do I tell anyone--no.

lemurcat2

At 1200 (which might not be right for you -- depends on stats), it's quite hard to meet nutrient goals, and I would be more focused on getting in nutrients per calorie, but an occasional day off plan is no biggie if it's truly occasional.

In general, I think the issue is meeting nutritional needs and not "healthy cals" vs. "non healthy cals." Foods aren't healthy (they may be more or less nutrient dense or caloric), diets are. Some diets are bad, some aren't.

My issue with 1200 cals from a cheeseburger or what not is if, on a 1200 cal diet I would be sufficiently sated to not need more food. On a single day, that's often easy enough -- yesterday I had a small breakfast and skipped lunch so I could eat what I wanted when I went out to dinner.

texasredreb

I appreciate this thread because I've had to reformulate in my mind "healthy vs unhealthy" foods and calories. It's a novel concept after living a life thinking that foods were inherently good or bad for me. I love the freedom of being able to eat whatever I want as long as I keep my deficit going.

I do keep an eye on my nutrients and I do try to get them in every week. I don't stress if I don't get them every day. Even if I'm low for a week, I try to make a point to eat more food with the missing nutrients the next week. Easy peasy.

lemurcat2

Argh, quotes are all screwed up so I give up.

To Ann's and OooohToast's posts about the recommended sugar limits.

Yes, I think those are sensible enough, especially for someone trying to create a balanced diet and not tracking obsessively at Cron or whatnot, as most do not.

However, to OooohToast's comment, obviously no one eats a diet of solid sugar or would say that's healthy, so that's a strawman.

More broadly, on the CICO thread guy and exercise -- I actually think it's worth noting that many of the people who are most obsessive about diet don't exercise, and being more relaxed about diet while also exercising is probably better for health (in that stress is bad, exercise is good, the most perfect diet, which we can't agree on, won't make up for low activity).

On average, things that matter for health, in order:

Genetics (not sure where this goes, depends on the issue/genetics, but can be #1 -- my mother never really drank (in a family of drunkards) and she was the one who died of liver damage, due to undiagnosed hemochromatosis leading to excessive iron build up)

Not smoking/drinking to excess

Being a healthy weight (or at least not obese)

Adequate sleep (again we can debate where this goes and it depends on how much or little)

Exercising or being reasonable active, not a couch potato

Having a diet that meets reasonable micronutrient and fiber levels (which would include not eating excessive sat fat or sugar, IMO, as well as easy to meet basic levels of protein and fat)

Not having a high stress lifestyle

WAY after this -- various theories about macros or limiting sat fat or sugar or worrying about omega 3 vs. 6 or food timing.

I'm someone who finds it pleasurable and easier to be focused on some of the details about diet and can be quite into the nutritional details, but I don't fool myself that it is likely to make a huge deal for health vs. the first few things. (I don't think we disagree at all, Ann, just used your post as a springboard.)

kimny72

OooohToast wrote: »

snowflake954 wrote: »

Buff_Man wrote: »

What the op is talking about is the nutritional value of foods. If you can hit 1200 cals eating fast food you'll still lose weight. But, will you get enough micro and macro nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc to stay healthy? Probably not. Don't forget it's not just about the calories, how much fat, salt , hydrogenated oils are you consuming? These are all harmful in large quantities. You might reach your goal but you'll be constipated, with bad skin and probably irritable from the lack of nutrients.

Wrong--there's a guy on here with a long thread running that ate fast food as an experiment and he has a fantastic body. He also has blood work done regularly and all is perfect. He was surprised himself.

I just bumped his thread--"CICO Still skeptical?"

I appreciate he is healthy off the back off his experiment but am not sure that means the general population would have the same outcome ? If I remember correctly, the guy who did the "100grammes of sugar a day and I lost loads /am healthy" thread did an awful lot of exercise.

With this in mind, surely we have to place any WOE and their outcomes in the context of overall lifestyle inc age ? I say that as I remember being the right side of 30 and seemingly being able to eat and drink any old tosh whilst feeling and looking great. Things are rather different now.......

Just to add, I think we all agree conceptually that all calories are equal, but I dont think anyone would recommend a diet of solid sugar. I appreciate the FDA doesnt recommend a sugar limit, but the NHS (UK) does and its 30g of added sugar per day for anyone over 11.

The thing is, nobody told anyone to eat nothing but sugar. Nor did the OP of "CICO still skeptical". All we try to make clear is people don't have to micro manage every bite, avoid treats, or banish sugar to lose weight or to be healthy. OP asked if their one day of less than perfect eating would cause a problem, and we said not only will it not cause you a problem, but you can feel free to do that whenever you need to. That's it. I think everyone was super clear about that.

Remoth

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

snowflake954 wrote: »

Buff_Man wrote: »

What the op is talking about is the nutritional value of foods. If you can hit 1200 cals eating fast food you'll still lose weight. But, will you get enough micro and macro nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc to stay healthy? Probably not. Don't forget it's not just about the calories, how much fat, salt , hydrogenated oils are you consuming? These are all harmful in large quantities. You might reach your goal but you'll be constipated, with bad skin and probably irritable from the lack of nutrients.

Wrong--there's a guy on here with a long thread running that ate fast food as an experiment and he has a fantastic body. He also has blood work done regularly and all is perfect. He was surprised himself.

I just bumped his thread--"CICO Still skeptical?"

I've looked at that thread. Assuming it's all true he's like the 90 year old that has smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 70 years and is still healthy.

May be out there but not the normal case.

So what makes you think that? What part of fast food makes it so you cannot incorporate it into a healthy part of your diet? If you made sure it did not go over your calorie limit, and as long as you got all the nutrients you needed, there is no harm to it.

AnnPT77

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

snowflake954 wrote: »

Buff_Man wrote: »

What the op is talking about is the nutritional value of foods. If you can hit 1200 cals eating fast food you'll still lose weight. But, will you get enough micro and macro nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc to stay healthy? Probably not. Don't forget it's not just about the calories, how much fat, salt , hydrogenated oils are you consuming? These are all harmful in large quantities. You might reach your goal but you'll be constipated, with bad skin and probably irritable from the lack of nutrients.

Wrong--there's a guy on here with a long thread running that ate fast food as an experiment and he has a fantastic body. He also has blood work done regularly and all is perfect. He was surprised himself.

I just bumped his thread--"CICO Still skeptical?"

I've looked at that thread. Assuming it's all true he's like the 90 year old that has smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 70 years and is still healthy.

May be out there but not the normal case.

I don't think that's 100% true. If you look dispassionately at the micro- and macro-nutrients in what he eats, and the nutritional requirements for someone his size, he's generally covering the nutritional bases at least as well, and I'd say better, than the average American.

It's all sort of hidden behind the fact that he keeps his activity level at a place where he can eat a ton, so there's a lot of frippery around the necessary micros/macros. The photos focus on the frippery.

I wouldn't want to eat the way he does, especially in the more exaggerated stages. I don't find those foods tasty or satisfying. But it's not my way of eating, it's his. Is it optimal for health? Maybe not. Adequate? Possible. Humans are very adaptive omnivores. A good model for others behavior? Looking at intake alone, probably not.

I pretty much agree with what lemur said earlier about order of importance (quoted below). As far as I can tell (I read all 60+ pages of the "CICO" thread, or however many it is now), he seems to be doing most of those things, especially those higher on her list, very well.

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Argh, quotes are all screwed up so I give up.

To Ann's and OooohToast's posts about the recommended sugar limits.

Yes, I think those are sensible enough, especially for someone trying to create a balanced diet and not tracking obsessively at Cron or whatnot, as most do not.

However, to OooohToast's comment, obviously no one eats a diet of solid sugar or would say that's healthy, so that's a strawman.

More broadly, on the CICO thread guy and exercise -- I actually think it's worth noting that many of the people who are most obsessive about diet don't exercise, and being more relaxed about diet while also exercising is probably better for health (in that stress is bad, exercise is good, the most perfect diet, which we can't agree on, won't make up for low activity).

On average, things that matter for health, in order:

Genetics (not sure where this goes, depends on the issue/genetics, but can be #1 -- my mother never really drank (in a family of drunkards) and she was the one who died of liver damage, due to undiagnosed hemochromatosis leading to excessive iron build up)

Not smoking/drinking to excess

Being a healthy weight (or at least not obese)

Adequate sleep (again we can debate where this goes and it depends on how much or little)

Exercising or being reasonable active, not a couch potato

Having a diet that meets reasonable micronutrient and fiber levels (which would include not eating excessive sat fat or sugar, IMO, as well as easy to meet basic levels of protein and fat)

Not having a high stress lifestyle

WAY after this -- various theories about macros or limiting sat fat or sugar or worrying about omega 3 vs. 6 or food timing.

I'm someone who finds it pleasurable and easier to be focused on some of the details about diet and can be quite into the nutritional details, but I don't fool myself that it is likely to make a huge deal for health vs. the first few things. (I don't think we disagree at all, Ann, just used your post as a springboard.)

I don't think we do, either, and I took it that way. I still think it's more important what we make sure to put in our diet, not what we try to leave out of it, maybe extra-much so in a calorie-counting context. Priorities.

lorrpb

Burger kings cheeseburgers range from 900-1150 calories. McDs double quarter pounder with cheese is 700. So on a 1200 calorie plan, that doesn’t leave you much room for other food during your day. On 1200 you really shouldn’t be banking calories because you still need minimal nutrition and energy on a daily basis. So unless you’re willing to go over or have lots of exercise burn, you’re in a hard place.

brittanystebbins95

Technically you can eat whatever you want within your deficit and you WILL lose weight. Even if you consumed 1200 calories of just Twinkies.
That being said, you will be EXTREMELY malnourished. Its probably fine to do that every now and then to keep yourself sane if thats what you need, but long term its going to mess up your body.

diannethegeek

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

snowflake954 wrote: »

Buff_Man wrote: »

What the op is talking about is the nutritional value of foods. If you can hit 1200 cals eating fast food you'll still lose weight. But, will you get enough micro and macro nutrients, vitamins, minerals etc to stay healthy? Probably not. Don't forget it's not just about the calories, how much fat, salt , hydrogenated oils are you consuming? These are all harmful in large quantities. You might reach your goal but you'll be constipated, with bad skin and probably irritable from the lack of nutrients.

Wrong--there's a guy on here with a long thread running that ate fast food as an experiment and he has a fantastic body. He also has blood work done regularly and all is perfect. He was surprised himself.

I just bumped his thread--"CICO Still skeptical?"

I've looked at that thread. Assuming it's all true he's like the 90 year old that has smoked 2 packs of cigarettes a day for 70 years and is still healthy.

May be out there but not the normal case.

I'm not comfortable with the comparison between eating foods that aren't traditionally considered "healthy" and cigarettes. Cigarettes are a class 1 carcinogen with a host of known side-effects backed by causative studies. Unless you're comparing cigarettes and a diet of bacon every day, I don't see the correlation between the two. Are you really suggesting that a diet like the OP here describes is going to lead to their early death?

diannethegeek

LuxCanBeDeceiving wrote: »

Hello! I have a question.. I eat a very healthy every day at 1200 calories (mainly cooked chicken, veggies, fruits, yogurt, banana, buckwheat, some nuts, chia... you get the idea). I meet my calorie goal of 1200 everyday. Now today was a little unordinary day and I ate a double cheeseburger, coffee, sushi and an apple - but also consumed no more than 1200 calories.
My question is... does it matter what I eat or is it all good as long as I meet my calorie goal? I would particularly thank for the opinion of those who actually done this themselves while they were losing weight. Thanks!!

Ignore the people pushing orthorexia or trying to keep you from eating foods you like. A cheeseburger or sushi now and again won't kill you and they can certainly be included in a healthy and balanced diet. It is really over the top to compare them to cigarettes or a diet of nothing by Twinkies or whatever.