All about calories
Chic_geek31
Posts: 34 Member
Is that all that matters in weight loss? Does it matter if I’m eating mostly carbs? So, if I decide to spend my 1200 calories on two slices of pizza today and a burger and fries tomorrow I’ll still lose weight?
3
Replies
-
Yup. Only calories matter. For overall health and satiety, balance is important but weight loss is pretty simple.17
-
You are correct. There are of course issues with satiety and balancing macros in a way that helps you stay within your calorie goal, not to mention health benefits of a more varied diet. But calories are the determining factor for weight loss.12
-
Yes... with a few "buts". Do you think you can regularly only eat 1200 calories of pizza and burger and fries? To me that's not very much to eat in a day and I would be hungry the rest of the day. Also while not integral to weight loss, there is some importance to macros, particularly protein. You want to make sure that you have at least a moderate amount of protein to protect your muscle mass during weight loss. If you do not eat any protein, your body may burn more muscle during weight loss.
However both pizza and burger and fries do have a decent amount of protein in them. They are not "mostly carbs." MFP's default macro is 50% carbs, which is about what pizza is. Burger and Fries is lower. So these are not horrible choices by any means.
The last part of the equation is nutrition. While pizza and burgers do have certain nutritious elements to them, they alone do not have complete nutrition, so if they were all you ate, you would be missing out on several important elements of nutrition. That wouldn't affect your weight loss, but it would affect over all healthy.
So to answer your question, calories is all that matters is a largely true statement, but you may struggle if you take it to extremes. You can certainly have pizza and burgers as part of a weight loss diet (I do!), but you would probably struggle with successfully staying within your goals if they were ALL you had.22 -
No one can promise that you will lose weight in one day. The math of it all is that if you maintain a calorie deficit for several weeks you will eventually observe a decline in your weight. How you get there is all about your choices.5
-
Some mentioned this on a similar thread several weeks ago, so forgive me as I cannot take claim for this thought. But here goes.
Your burgers and fries work for energy needs, yes, but nutrition and satiety... No. Will you lose weight, yes. Is it giving your body the best nutition... No. Will you be hungry after the meal wears off. Yes.11 -
Chic_geek31 wrote: »Is that all that matters in weight loss? Does it matter if I’m eating mostly carbs? So, if I decide to spend my 1200 calories on two slices of pizza today and a burger and fries tomorrow I’ll still lose weight?
Weight loss is about calories, so sure!
Now if you were to eat that every day, you wouldn't have a good balanced nutritious diet, which is important for good health. And whether or not that will keep you full is a personal issue (others seem to be implying it wouldn't, but 1200 cals split between two meals, one of pizza and one a burger and fries would for sure fill me up!)
And even for health purposes, what counts is what you do most of the time. If you generally eat a balanced diet and every once and awhile have a pizza and burger day, I doubt it would even affect you negatively health wise
6 -
At a first approximation, sure, it covers enough of it.
If you do some rather odd things, like you'll eventually lose whatever one life weighs eating only white sugar with no other nutrients.
To a certain extent the macros matter to composition, and since muscle and other lean tissue usually stores less calories than adipose, you might lose a fraction more or less with certain macros. You'll still definitely lose weight with low enough calories.2 -
Yes, it's all CICO. However, for someone like me, macros matter. For instance, if I eat too much fat I get acid reflux. Also, not eating a balanced diet means you might not get all the nutrients your body needs.4
-
Chic_geek31 wrote: »Is that all that matters in weight loss? Does it matter if I’m eating mostly carbs? So, if I decide to spend my 1200 calories on two slices of pizza today and a burger and fries tomorrow I’ll still lose weight?
Yes, if they really are only 1200 cal (two slices of pizza would normally be way less, depending on the pizza, the burger and fries could be more, depending on the burger and fries).
Yesterday I was traveling and had a day almost like that (except I have well over 1200 cals, since I'm at maintenance) -- morning protein bar after going to the airport at 5 am, lunch at a place with only burgers and other fried options (had fried shrimp and fries), and then since lunch had been late and heavy I was going to buy some plain vegetables in the airport on the way home during a layover but couldn't find what I wanted and had to rush to catch my flight so, eh, no dinner. Although I was satisfied yesterday, normally I could not eat like that and not be hungry, and I'd feel terrible without more vegetables and other more nutrient dense foods in my diet.
But calories are calories so for weight loss it wouldn't matter if you really could stick with it (although I wouldn't advise as a regular thing). The one thing I'd warn you about is high salt so you could get a water weight gain in the short term. Also, if you were going it regularly I'd log to see protein, as both meals would be high fat (potentially more fat than carbs) and high carbs, so could end up low on protein (especially if it were your only meal).4 -
Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.2
-
TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.7 -
Taking nothing else into consideration, yes, CICO is the determining factor in weight management.3
-
I have no scientific justification for this, but I suspect that persistently very poor nutrition, at reduced calories, would eventually have a negative effect on health and energy level (in addition to body composition), so be counterproductive for weight management in the long run. Poor nutrition leading to poor energy leading to being less active and resting more because of fatigue . . . reduces TDEE.
The foods you named wouldn't strike me as an example of very poor nutrition, but (if that was all that a person was eating) could be somewhat less than ideal in ways others have mentioned. Would that come home to roost? If it did, how long would it take? Dunno.
But for the short run, for sure, calories are the only thing that really matters for weight management (except for how food choices affect satiety and compliance). In the long run, most of us want to be healthy, not just thin, so reasonable overall nutrition does matter.2 -
My favourite saying is that the best "diet" is the one you can stick to and turn into a way of life, so yes...you may hypothetically lose weight that way but it would be near impossible to stick to for any length of time, so...
I learned quickly that if I wanted to lose any weight I needed to find low calorie foods that I enjoy to fill myself and not feel deprived and hungry that leave enough room for the odd indulgence that is part of life.2 -
I see a dietitian who says to have a meal like that once a week. So, that's what I do. And I lose.3
-
TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.19 -
Others have covered that calories are the driver for weight loss and the importance of good nutrition and satiety as well.
I’m curious OP why you consider pizza plus a burger and fries to be “mostly carbs”. Depending on what you put on both the pizza and the burger - you’d likely have carbs, fat, protein. You could add veggies to either one of those items as well. I never understand why these types of foods are so demonized, or equated as “carbs” .13 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
People always say that “try eating (insert straw man mono diet here) “ and then suggest that there is some widely known, proven conclusion that will result. Has there been a study where a person ate only donuts? There was the Twinkie diet, and guess what, his markers did improve just as @psuLemon suggested.
First of all the only person talking about mono extreme diets is you. OP asked about pizza and a burger, neither of which is devoid of nutrition (nor are donuts for that matter) . Everyone told her that nutrition and satiety are important too. But you claimed if you eat this eat you’d be in “terrible health”. How are you defining terrible health? Like Lemon said, regardless of dietary context - simply losing weight especially if a person has a significant amount to lose, results in marked health improvements.
17 -
WinoGelato wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
People always say that “try eating (insert straw man mono diet here) “ and then suggest that there is some widely known, proven conclusion that will result. Has there been a study where a person ate only donuts? There was the Twinkie diet, and guess what, his markers did improve just as @psuLemon suggested.
First of all the only person talking about mono extreme diets is you. OP asked about pizza and a burger, neither of which is devoid of nutrition (nor are donuts for that matter) . Everyone told her that nutrition and satiety are important too. But you claimed if you eat this eat you’d be in “terrible health”. How are you defining terrible health? Like Lemon said, regardless of dietary context - simply losing weight especially if a person has a significant amount to lose, results in marked health improvements.
I'd like to see said study. I've seen first hand what fad diets or poor nutrition can do. For example, the one I gave about eating a diet deficient in iron actually resulted in this woman's body no longer processing iron correctly and she now will live with a lifelong issue of having to have iron supplementation because of the poor diet choices. This isn't a study or some internet read, this is an actual life example. There are proven scientific conclusions that can be reached about eating any fad diet. For example eating purely vegetables results in the need to make sure you get certain supplementation or ensure that you are eating very specific vegetables or you'll become sick. So its not as simple as CICO for health, yes for weight loss it is, but health incorporates all areas of our bodies. These aren't me just suggesting things, these are scientific facts. This can be seen that even with the fact that MFP tracks Macros and suggests limits on levels of different categories of nutrition.
Oh and for the Iron thing, here's a link.
https://www.medicinenet.com/iron_and_iron_deficiency/article.htm#what_causes_iron_deficiency
7 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
People always say that “try eating (insert straw man mono diet here) “ and then suggest that there is some widely known, proven conclusion that will result. Has there been a study where a person ate only donuts? There was the Twinkie diet, and guess what, his markers did improve just as @psuLemon suggested.
First of all the only person talking about mono extreme diets is you. OP asked about pizza and a burger, neither of which is devoid of nutrition (nor are donuts for that matter) . Everyone told her that nutrition and satiety are important too. But you claimed if you eat this eat you’d be in “terrible health”. How are you defining terrible health? Like Lemon said, regardless of dietary context - simply losing weight especially if a person has a significant amount to lose, results in marked health improvements.
I'd like to see said study. I've seen first hand what fad diets or poor nutrition can do. For example, the one I gave about eating a diet deficient in iron actually resulted in this woman's body no longer processing iron correctly and she now will live with a lifelong issue of having to have iron supplementation because of the poor diet choices. This isn't a study or some internet read, this is an actual life example. There are proven scientific conclusions that can be reached about eating any fad diet. For example eating purely vegetables results in the need to make sure you get certain supplementation or ensure that you are eating very specific vegetables or you'll become sick. So its not as simple as CICO for health, yes for weight loss it is, but health incorporates all areas of our bodies. These aren't me just suggesting things, these are scientific facts. This can be seen that even with the fact that MFP tracks Macros and suggests limits on levels of different categories of nutrition.
Oh and for the Iron thing, here's a link.
https://www.medicinenet.com/iron_and_iron_deficiency/article.htm#what_causes_iron_deficiency
I think the point is that better to be a healthy weight, eating "junk food" and take a dietary supplement than to be obese, eating nutrient a dense diet and die of any of the many many health problems that result from it.
Of course, in a perfect world it is better to have a healthy diet and get all their nutrients from food (I happen to believe that our diet is the best medicine we can use)...but it isn't a perfect world and it isn't the only thing (or even the most important thing.7 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
When did anyone suggest a mono diet of doughnuts? I believe you're the only one.
My blood work improved greatly from just losing some weight, and that's before I ever got serious about actual nutrition or exercise. I basically cut out soda and lost 20 Lbs...still ate my Taco Bell for lunch, pizza, etc.
And yeah, if you're eating an iron deficient diet you're going to be iron deficient...I'd think that's a no brainer. I think what is being referred to is more along the lines of cholesterol, blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, etc. All of those markers will typically improve with losing weight.13 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
When did anyone suggest a mono diet of doughnuts? I believe you're the only one.
My blood work improved greatly from just losing some weight, and that's before I ever got serious about actual nutrition or exercise. I basically cut out soda and lost 20 Lbs...still ate my Taco Bell for lunch, pizza, etc.
And yeah, if you're eating an iron deficient diet you're going to be iron deficient...I'd think that's a no brainer. I think what is being referred to is more along the lines of cholesterol, blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, etc. All of those markers will typically improve with losing weight.
So my point stands, Cico for weight loss but there is a whole ton more when it comes to being healthy. And I think that’s a fair warning as the whole eat CICO and you’ll be healthy that is preached on here is only a half truth.15 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
When did anyone suggest a mono diet of doughnuts? I believe you're the only one.
My blood work improved greatly from just losing some weight, and that's before I ever got serious about actual nutrition or exercise. I basically cut out soda and lost 20 Lbs...still ate my Taco Bell for lunch, pizza, etc.
And yeah, if you're eating an iron deficient diet you're going to be iron deficient...I'd think that's a no brainer. I think what is being referred to is more along the lines of cholesterol, blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, etc. All of those markers will typically improve with losing weight.
So my point stands, Cico for weight loss but there is a whole ton more when it comes to being healthy. And I think that’s a fair warning as the whole eat CICO and you’ll be healthy that is preached on here is only a half truth.
How exactly does your point stand? I just illustrated that losing weight improved my blood work across the board and I was still eating quite a bit of "junk".
I'm pretty big into nutrition as are many on here that talk about CICO...nobody ever says to eat a diet devoid of nutrition. I had some oats with blueberries and almonds for breakfast...a big salad with chicken for lunch...I have some cherries and some skyr for a snack later. I'm having pizza for dinner after I hit the weight room this evening...how is that going to magically undo all of my other nutrition for the day? You're just the typical strawman MFPer.
I'd also say that most of the people you're arguing with on here have been here for quite some time, had a lot of success, and are very healthy and fit.15 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
When did anyone suggest a mono diet of doughnuts? I believe you're the only one.
My blood work improved greatly from just losing some weight, and that's before I ever got serious about actual nutrition or exercise. I basically cut out soda and lost 20 Lbs...still ate my Taco Bell for lunch, pizza, etc.
And yeah, if you're eating an iron deficient diet you're going to be iron deficient...I'd think that's a no brainer. I think what is being referred to is more along the lines of cholesterol, blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, etc. All of those markers will typically improve with losing weight.
So my point stands, Cico for weight loss but there is a whole ton more when it comes to being healthy. And I think that’s a fair warning as the whole eat CICO and you’ll be healthy that is preached on here is only a half truth.
How exactly does your point stand? I just illustrated that losing weight improved my blood work across the board and I was still eating quite a bit of "junk".
I'm pretty big into nutrition as are many on here that talk about CICO...nobody ever says to eat a diet devoid of nutrition. I had some oats with blueberries and almonds for breakfast...a big salad with chicken for lunch...I have some cherries and some skyr for a snack later. I'm having pizza for dinner after I hit the weight room this evening...how is that going to magically undo all of my other nutrition for the day? You're just the typical strawman MFPer.
I'd also say that most of the people you're arguing with on here have been here for quite some time, had a lot of success, and are very healthy and fit.
I’ve been around for awhile, I just don’t comment all day on posts so I don’t have the huge postings. Thanks for assuming and name calling though!11 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
When did anyone suggest a mono diet of doughnuts? I believe you're the only one.
My blood work improved greatly from just losing some weight, and that's before I ever got serious about actual nutrition or exercise. I basically cut out soda and lost 20 Lbs...still ate my Taco Bell for lunch, pizza, etc.
And yeah, if you're eating an iron deficient diet you're going to be iron deficient...I'd think that's a no brainer. I think what is being referred to is more along the lines of cholesterol, blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, etc. All of those markers will typically improve with losing weight.
So my point stands, Cico for weight loss but there is a whole ton more when it comes to being healthy. And I think that’s a fair warning as the whole eat CICO and you’ll be healthy that is preached on here is only a half truth.
Did anyone on this thread say otherwise (than the bold)? If so, it was a minority report. (Sometimes folks who come to a thread chime in with "calories determine weight loss" without repeating caveats and qualifiers that have already been mentioned.)
"CICO only" certainly isn't the only advice given on any of these threads I've ever seen, nor would I say it's said as isolated advice often enough to be accurately described as "preached around here". I feel like you're assuming that most of us eat like fools, just paying attention to calories but nothing else, and I think that's quite rare.
Personally, I've typed some version of this into more threads than I can count:Appropriate calories for weight management + well-rounded eating for nutrition (plus a few treats for joy) + exercise for fitness = Best odds of continuing long-term good health and attractive appearance
. . . and upthread said this:I have no scientific justification for this, but I suspect that persistently very poor nutrition, at reduced calories, would eventually have a negative effect on health and energy level (in addition to body composition), so be counterproductive for weight management in the long run. Poor nutrition leading to poor energy leading to being less active and resting more because of fatigue . . . reduces TDEE.
The foods you named wouldn't strike me as an example of very poor nutrition, but (if that was all that a person was eating) could be somewhat less than ideal in ways others have mentioned. Would that come home to roost? If it did, how long would it take? Dunno.
But for the short run, for sure, calories are the only thing that really matters for weight management (except for how food choices affect satiety and compliance). In the long run, most of us want to be healthy, not just thin, so reasonable overall nutrition does matter.
I think you're reading what you think people are saying, not what we're actually saying. I just re-read this whole blippin' thread. Only two people I saw on a skim-through mentioned just calories (not nutrition/health), and even one of them qualified it with "Taking nothing else into consideration" (when others had already mentioned nutrition).
WTHeck?15 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
When did anyone suggest a mono diet of doughnuts? I believe you're the only one.
My blood work improved greatly from just losing some weight, and that's before I ever got serious about actual nutrition or exercise. I basically cut out soda and lost 20 Lbs...still ate my Taco Bell for lunch, pizza, etc.
And yeah, if you're eating an iron deficient diet you're going to be iron deficient...I'd think that's a no brainer. I think what is being referred to is more along the lines of cholesterol, blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, etc. All of those markers will typically improve with losing weight.
So my point stands, Cico for weight loss but there is a whole ton more when it comes to being healthy. And I think that’s a fair warning as the whole eat CICO and you’ll be healthy that is preached on here is only a half truth.
Did anyone on this thread say otherwise (than the bold)? If so, it was a minority report. (Sometimes folks who come to a thread chime in with "calories determine weight loss" without repeating caveats and qualifiers that have already been mentioned.)
"CICO only" certainly isn't the only advice given on any of these threads I've ever seen, nor would I say it's said as isolated advice often enough to be accurately described as "preached around here". I feel like you're assuming that most of us eat like fools, just paying attention to calories but nothing else, and I think that's quite rare.
Personally, I've typed some version of this into more threads than I can count:Appropriate calories for weight management + well-rounded eating for nutrition (plus a few treats for joy) + exercise for fitness = Best odds of continuing long-term good health and attractive appearance
. . . and upthread said this:I have no scientific justification for this, but I suspect that persistently very poor nutrition, at reduced calories, would eventually have a negative effect on health and energy level (in addition to body composition), so be counterproductive for weight management in the long run. Poor nutrition leading to poor energy leading to being less active and resting more because of fatigue . . . reduces TDEE.
The foods you named wouldn't strike me as an example of very poor nutrition, but (if that was all that a person was eating) could be somewhat less than ideal in ways others have mentioned. Would that come home to roost? If it did, how long would it take? Dunno.
But for the short run, for sure, calories are the only thing that really matters for weight management (except for how food choices affect satiety and compliance). In the long run, most of us want to be healthy, not just thin, so reasonable overall nutrition does matter.
I think you're reading what you think people are saying, not what we're actually saying. I just re-read this whole blippin' thread. Only two people I saw on a skim-through mentioned just calories (not nutrition/health), and even one of them qualified it with "Taking nothing else into consideration" (when others had already mentioned nutrition).
WTHeck?
Yes the reply to original post was that exactly what I said was debatable. So that was the point I argued. I’m not reading anymore or any less than all I said was CICo for weight loss and it’s a whole lot more complicated when we are talking about being healthy. That point isn’t really debatable.1 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
When did anyone suggest a mono diet of doughnuts? I believe you're the only one.
My blood work improved greatly from just losing some weight, and that's before I ever got serious about actual nutrition or exercise. I basically cut out soda and lost 20 Lbs...still ate my Taco Bell for lunch, pizza, etc.
And yeah, if you're eating an iron deficient diet you're going to be iron deficient...I'd think that's a no brainer. I think what is being referred to is more along the lines of cholesterol, blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, etc. All of those markers will typically improve with losing weight.
So my point stands, Cico for weight loss but there is a whole ton more when it comes to being healthy. And I think that’s a fair warning as the whole eat CICO and you’ll be healthy that is preached on here is only a half truth.
Did anyone on this thread say otherwise (than the bold)? If so, it was a minority report. (Sometimes folks who come to a thread chime in with "calories determine weight loss" without repeating caveats and qualifiers that have already been mentioned.)
"CICO only" certainly isn't the only advice given on any of these threads I've ever seen, nor would I say it's said as isolated advice often enough to be accurately described as "preached around here". I feel like you're assuming that most of us eat like fools, just paying attention to calories but nothing else, and I think that's quite rare.
Personally, I've typed some version of this into more threads than I can count:Appropriate calories for weight management + well-rounded eating for nutrition (plus a few treats for joy) + exercise for fitness = Best odds of continuing long-term good health and attractive appearance
. . . and upthread said this:I have no scientific justification for this, but I suspect that persistently very poor nutrition, at reduced calories, would eventually have a negative effect on health and energy level (in addition to body composition), so be counterproductive for weight management in the long run. Poor nutrition leading to poor energy leading to being less active and resting more because of fatigue . . . reduces TDEE.
The foods you named wouldn't strike me as an example of very poor nutrition, but (if that was all that a person was eating) could be somewhat less than ideal in ways others have mentioned. Would that come home to roost? If it did, how long would it take? Dunno.
But for the short run, for sure, calories are the only thing that really matters for weight management (except for how food choices affect satiety and compliance). In the long run, most of us want to be healthy, not just thin, so reasonable overall nutrition does matter.
I think you're reading what you think people are saying, not what we're actually saying. I just re-read this whole blippin' thread. Only two people I saw on a skim-through mentioned just calories (not nutrition/health), and even one of them qualified it with "Taking nothing else into consideration" (when others had already mentioned nutrition).
WTHeck?
Yes the reply to original post was that exactly what I said was debatable. So that was the point I argued. I’m not reading anymore or any less than all I said was CICo for weight loss and it’s a whole lot more complicated when we are talking about being healthy. That point isn’t really debatable.
But the poster who made that post said <paraphrasing>"it's debatable but I basically agree with you". You're arguing with one poster's small side point, making it sound like he and everyone else told OP to eat pizza all day every day and don't worry about it.
I think we could have a great debate about what a "healthy diet" or "healthy foods" entails and whether it's necessary for good health or not. Especially considering most people don't eat a monodiet of doughnuts or pizza, so does the healthfulness of that even matter?
BUT, OP didn't ask about health and didn't say he'd be eating pizza and burgers every day. He asked if one day of pizza and burgers would keep him from losing weight. And it won't. It won't even make him less healthy, because it's just one day.15 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
When did anyone suggest a mono diet of doughnuts? I believe you're the only one.
My blood work improved greatly from just losing some weight, and that's before I ever got serious about actual nutrition or exercise. I basically cut out soda and lost 20 Lbs...still ate my Taco Bell for lunch, pizza, etc.
And yeah, if you're eating an iron deficient diet you're going to be iron deficient...I'd think that's a no brainer. I think what is being referred to is more along the lines of cholesterol, blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, etc. All of those markers will typically improve with losing weight.
So my point stands, Cico for weight loss but there is a whole ton more when it comes to being healthy. And I think that’s a fair warning as the whole eat CICO and you’ll be healthy that is preached on here is only a half truth.
Did anyone on this thread say otherwise (than the bold)? If so, it was a minority report. (Sometimes folks who come to a thread chime in with "calories determine weight loss" without repeating caveats and qualifiers that have already been mentioned.)
"CICO only" certainly isn't the only advice given on any of these threads I've ever seen, nor would I say it's said as isolated advice often enough to be accurately described as "preached around here". I feel like you're assuming that most of us eat like fools, just paying attention to calories but nothing else, and I think that's quite rare.
Personally, I've typed some version of this into more threads than I can count:Appropriate calories for weight management + well-rounded eating for nutrition (plus a few treats for joy) + exercise for fitness = Best odds of continuing long-term good health and attractive appearance
. . . and upthread said this:I have no scientific justification for this, but I suspect that persistently very poor nutrition, at reduced calories, would eventually have a negative effect on health and energy level (in addition to body composition), so be counterproductive for weight management in the long run. Poor nutrition leading to poor energy leading to being less active and resting more because of fatigue . . . reduces TDEE.
The foods you named wouldn't strike me as an example of very poor nutrition, but (if that was all that a person was eating) could be somewhat less than ideal in ways others have mentioned. Would that come home to roost? If it did, how long would it take? Dunno.
But for the short run, for sure, calories are the only thing that really matters for weight management (except for how food choices affect satiety and compliance). In the long run, most of us want to be healthy, not just thin, so reasonable overall nutrition does matter.
I think you're reading what you think people are saying, not what we're actually saying. I just re-read this whole blippin' thread. Only two people I saw on a skim-through mentioned just calories (not nutrition/health), and even one of them qualified it with "Taking nothing else into consideration" (when others had already mentioned nutrition).
WTHeck?
Yes the reply to original post was that exactly what I said was debatable. So that was the point I argued. I’m not reading anymore or any less than all I said was CICo for weight loss and it’s a whole lot more complicated when we are talking about being healthy. That point isn’t really debatable.
That you pose anyone's comments as debating various mono diets or otherwise nutritionally lacking ones as being healthy is exactly why you were said to be strawmanning. It isn't an insult to call the cast iron pot black.
What has been said is that surprisingly even diets that seem rather poor can improve health if they're leading to weight loss in overweight or obese individuals.12 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
When did anyone suggest a mono diet of doughnuts? I believe you're the only one.
My blood work improved greatly from just losing some weight, and that's before I ever got serious about actual nutrition or exercise. I basically cut out soda and lost 20 Lbs...still ate my Taco Bell for lunch, pizza, etc.
And yeah, if you're eating an iron deficient diet you're going to be iron deficient...I'd think that's a no brainer. I think what is being referred to is more along the lines of cholesterol, blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, etc. All of those markers will typically improve with losing weight.
So my point stands, Cico for weight loss but there is a whole ton more when it comes to being healthy. And I think that’s a fair warning as the whole eat CICO and you’ll be healthy that is preached on here is only a half truth.
As to the bold, it's really not that complicated.
As for what's "preached" on here, you are misrepresenting that enormously. It's true that typically (barring serious nutritional deficiencies which are harder to get than you acknowledge given the percentage of the population that consumes a ridiculously low amount of veg and fruit) just losing weight improves the main health conditions that result from obesity/overweight, like cholesterol, high BP, insulin resistance (not to mention joint pain, etc.). However, many of us are quite interested in and focused on nutrition, and always note that for health it is better to eat a nutritionally sufficient diet (and give more detail, although I think the basics are pretty well known).
Many of us also believe that very often the process of losing weight tends to cause people to improve their diets nutritionally, because nutritionally-dense foods are often more sating, and junk food tends to be less filling for the calories (as do high cal meals such as those mentioned by the OP).
Even if OP ate what was mentioned daily (which I did not assume), it would be nutritionally better than only donuts, a very silly strawman. No one eats only donuts, or even wants to. I think anyone who tried as an experience would struggle way before any adverse effects on health.
The only Twinkies guy supplemented and did not do the experiment (because it was an experiment, or really an illustration of a point) longterm, since again, who could?8 -
TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »TravisJHunt wrote: »Yep just don't confuse weight loss and health. You can eat the right amount of calories, in turn lose weight and yet still be in terrible health because all you ate was junk. If weight loss is your only worry, then yes just count calories, if you want to be healthy, there is a lot more to it.
That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
Not really. Try eating nothing but donuts but stay under your calories and see how your body reacts. Health should never be solely confused with weight. Another easy example is people who avoid iron rich foods will often become iron deficient and in turn begin to feel horrible all the time.
When did anyone suggest a mono diet of doughnuts? I believe you're the only one.
My blood work improved greatly from just losing some weight, and that's before I ever got serious about actual nutrition or exercise. I basically cut out soda and lost 20 Lbs...still ate my Taco Bell for lunch, pizza, etc.
And yeah, if you're eating an iron deficient diet you're going to be iron deficient...I'd think that's a no brainer. I think what is being referred to is more along the lines of cholesterol, blood glucose levels, high blood pressure, etc. All of those markers will typically improve with losing weight.
So my point stands, Cico for weight loss but there is a whole ton more when it comes to being healthy. And I think that’s a fair warning as the whole eat CICO and you’ll be healthy that is preached on here is only a half truth.
Did anyone on this thread say otherwise (than the bold)? If so, it was a minority report. (Sometimes folks who come to a thread chime in with "calories determine weight loss" without repeating caveats and qualifiers that have already been mentioned.)
"CICO only" certainly isn't the only advice given on any of these threads I've ever seen, nor would I say it's said as isolated advice often enough to be accurately described as "preached around here". I feel like you're assuming that most of us eat like fools, just paying attention to calories but nothing else, and I think that's quite rare.
Personally, I've typed some version of this into more threads than I can count:Appropriate calories for weight management + well-rounded eating for nutrition (plus a few treats for joy) + exercise for fitness = Best odds of continuing long-term good health and attractive appearance
. . . and upthread said this:I have no scientific justification for this, but I suspect that persistently very poor nutrition, at reduced calories, would eventually have a negative effect on health and energy level (in addition to body composition), so be counterproductive for weight management in the long run. Poor nutrition leading to poor energy leading to being less active and resting more because of fatigue . . . reduces TDEE.
The foods you named wouldn't strike me as an example of very poor nutrition, but (if that was all that a person was eating) could be somewhat less than ideal in ways others have mentioned. Would that come home to roost? If it did, how long would it take? Dunno.
But for the short run, for sure, calories are the only thing that really matters for weight management (except for how food choices affect satiety and compliance). In the long run, most of us want to be healthy, not just thin, so reasonable overall nutrition does matter.
I think you're reading what you think people are saying, not what we're actually saying. I just re-read this whole blippin' thread. Only two people I saw on a skim-through mentioned just calories (not nutrition/health), and even one of them qualified it with "Taking nothing else into consideration" (when others had already mentioned nutrition).
WTHeck?
Yes the reply to original post was that exactly what I said was debatable. So that was the point I argued. I’m not reading anymore or any less than all I said was CICo for weight loss and it’s a whole lot more complicated when we are talking about being healthy. That point isn’t really debatable.
The post that initially replied to you (i.e, start of your quote string) said:That is even debatable. For the most part, weight loss alone will improve metabolic health. But overall, I would definitely agree that consuming a diet high in nutrient dense foods, especially unsaturated fats, adequate proteins, omega 3s and fibrous foods. Limiting sat fats and added sugar is also a great way to allow for more nutrient dense foods.
The initial post in the whole thread said:Only calories matter. For overall health and satiety, balance is important but weight loss is pretty simple.
Neither of those said nutrition was unimportant. Quite the reverse.
And the point about weight loss commonly being a positive influence on metabolic health is 100% correct.
I got obese eating primarily whole foods, just too much of them. I was very athletically active as an obese person for over a decade, the near-mythical pretty-fit fat person. But my blood pressure and lipids were still very high (HDL low), all in the danger zone. Then I lost weight, down to a healthy weight, counting calories, eating pretty much the same foods, just less of them. My blood pressure now is normal to low normal, my lipids are solidly in the normal zone (HDL actually above the reference range in a test a couple of weeks back) . . . all just from weight loss.
I don't even like donuts.8
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
- 426 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