Metabolism
Replies
-
Biggiwig69 wrote: »iheartmyyorkie wrote: »
No one is thinking that. People are saying weight loss is about calories. You can become obese from eating healthy food if you overeat. I know many fat vegans.Biggiwig69 wrote: »Why is no one here urging this man to eat healthy foods? I just don't get it. We don't change when we don't change. If he keeps eating fast food his health, not just his weight, won't get any better. But hey it's ok to eat junk, IIFYM.. I guess.
We see by his weight this man is not near a healthy range. Why is no one urging him to make a serious change and be healthy?
People think, it’s good as long as he just eats 1500 calories of french fries and burgers and donuts.
I don’t know any fat vegans but I believe you.
Some of my fattest friends are vegan🤷5 -
The foundation of the pyramid is Calories.
Building without a solid foundation tends to not work well.
11 -
This is so discouraging!!
I mean because of my schedule I pretty much live on take away, "fast food" and frozen meals. I'm just devastated that the over 100lbs I've lost is unhealthy.
I'll also have to get in touch with my doctor and tell him that the check up he performed and pathology lab results I got recently which show that ALL the health risk factors previous detected which are now within healthy normal ranges indicating that I'm in the best health of my life are invalid and 'unhealthy' because I didn't subscribe to some food morality standard. He's going to be so mad!
/sarcasm mode off
The truth is that the biggest risk factor is being fat not what you eat. A fat health food fanatic is going to be at more risk and unhealthier than a fast food junkie who's an appropriate weight.
The best way to improve health is to lose body fat in the must sustainable way possible. If eating fast food in a caloric deficit means you can successfully drop the weight then that's going to do more for health improvement and longevity than all the 'clean' eating in the world.
Preach, brother!
And on the flip side, I got fat and then obese eating mostly healthy foods: I'm a vegetarian (45+ years now), mostly cook from scratch, ate the whole grains'n'veggies'n'stuff, just ate waaay too much of them.
I got the high blood pressure, the high cholesterol/triglycerides, the cancer (!!!), pretty much just like those people who got fat eating fast food and twinkies (either of which I rarely touched). And for the last decade plus, all of the bad health-results stuff was happening against a backdrop of pretty high levels of regular exercise (even athletic competition as an obese person), usually hearty workouts 5-6 days a week.
Then I lost weight from obese to a healthy weight again, and got back my normal to low normal blood pressure, my solidly normal cholesterol/tris, and general positive health markers overall, eating pretty much the same foods, just less of them.
I don't deprecate the value of good well-rounded nutrition or regular exercise - they're really important - but healthy weight is really, really a big deal for overall health. The biggest, probably.27 -
Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believing IIFYM you're good to go.
Because generally, as long as your macro goals are balanced and your caloric goal is reasonable then this is true. As others have stated, simply losing weight is going to be healthier for the OP than anything else. That, and the fact that it should be done in a way that its sustainable are why people were focusing more on calculating calories accurately and less about what they were eating.
I agree calorie goals and reaching a healthy weight are a big factors in improving health markers. However balanced macro goals really don't mean a thing unless you also consider the composition of the macros. You can have a carb macro % goal that is in the range endorsed by any respected group of professionals, but if the calories included in the carb goal include few if any fruits or vegetables or whole grains one will most likely be nutritionally deficient long term.2 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believing IIFYM you're good to go.
Because generally, as long as your macro goals are balanced and your caloric goal is reasonable then this is true. As others have stated, simply losing weight is going to be healthier for the OP than anything else. That, and the fact that it should be done in a way that its sustainable are why people were focusing more on calculating calories accurately and less about what they were eating.
I agree calorie goals and reaching a healthy weight are a big factors in improving health markers. However balanced macro goals really don't mean a thing unless you also consider the composition of the macros. You can have a carb macro % goal that is in the range endorsed by any respected group of professionals, but if the calories included in the carb goal include few if any fruits or vegetables or whole grains one will most likely be nutritionally deficient long term.
Not so much an issue of carb quality, as that micros matter, too (not to mention fiber). Calories first, macros second, micros third . . . .
Micros in supplements are not a substitute; more like an insurance policy, at best (unless prescribed to remedy a diagnosed deficiency). Food is natural-selection-tested, and contains the micros science hasn't even discovered yet that we need, in addition to the known ones.
7 -
Do I log per serve or per 100g?2
-
EvanzKarloGarcia wrote: »Do I log per serve or per 100g?
For the greatest accuracy, you should use a food scale to weigh all of your food.5 -
EvanzKarloGarcia wrote: »Do I log per serve or per 100g?
For the greatest accuracy, you should use a food scale to weigh all of your food.
I don’t think you answered my question!
1 -
Why I even bother asking questions here if there are trolls-2
-
EvanzKarloGarcia wrote: »Why I even bother asking questions here if there are trolls
This is an amusing statement, coming from a guy who's user name @EvanzKarloGarcia sounds so much like the original poster, @KarlzEvanzGarciaz
We really are here to help you, if you indeed are here for assistance.15 -
The question was answered. Just in case the answer truly was not understood: for the greatest accuracy you measure with a scale. Generally this will give you a grams.
You can then log by grams, or by portion, if you convert your grams into portions. So if a portion is supposed to have 85 grams, and you have measured on your scale 200 grams, you can log 2 * 100 grams, or you can log 2.35 portions of 85 grams each.
Much more importantly, though, you log before you eat. Both in order to not forget what you have eaten (which happens to absolutely everyone, myself included even when I have no intention or desire to forget), and in order to be able to decide if what you're planning to eat is worth the hit you're about to take on your daily budget.
You also, of course, log anything you drink. And condiments such as ketchup, mayo, mustard (yes yellow mustard has calories in quantities greater than a few grams). And things such as dressings or little snacks and bites you might sneak in....9 -
EvanzKarloGarcia wrote: »Why I even bother asking questions here if there are trolls
Perhaps if you put as much effort into eating less as you have done in creating perhaps dozens of accounts over a very extended period of time you wouldn't still be stuck where you are?
No it's not your metabolism - you are eating too much. Until you accept and address that basic fact you will continue to fail.
And please don't start insulting people who give up their time to try and give good advice to help you and others.21 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believing IIFYM you're good to go.
Because generally, as long as your macro goals are balanced and your caloric goal is reasonable then this is true. As others have stated, simply losing weight is going to be healthier for the OP than anything else. That, and the fact that it should be done in a way that its sustainable are why people were focusing more on calculating calories accurately and less about what they were eating.
I agree calorie goals and reaching a healthy weight are a big factors in improving health markers. However balanced macro goals really don't mean a thing unless you also consider the composition of the macros. You can have a carb macro % goal that is in the range endorsed by any respected group of professionals, but if the calories included in the carb goal include few if any fruits or vegetables or whole grains one will most likely be nutritionally deficient long term.
Not so much an issue of carb quality, as that micros matter, too (not to mention fiber). Calories first, macros second, micros third . . . .
Micros in supplements are not a substitute; more like an insurance policy, at best (unless prescribed to remedy a diagnosed deficiency). Food is natural-selection-tested, and contains the micros science hasn't even discovered yet that we need, in addition to the known ones.
My point was with poor carb quality one is less likely to get the micos and fiber needed. Hope you are reading it that way
.
1 -
EvanzKarloGarcia wrote: »Do I log per serve or per 100g?
depends - how is a serving defined - does it have a weigh associated with it so that you could weigh your food and figure it out? if yes, then you could potenially use serving: i.e. if it says cheese (48g) and you had 100g of cheese, then you could log it as 2.08 servings; or you could find a food entry that has it in 100g servings and log as that7 -
I keep saying.... CICO is the most important thing for weight management. Though CI is a larger equation. What drives our hunger and satiety? Emotions play a part. Though I tend to think the very nature of our food is something that can be leveraged to decrease appetite and cravings. The brain has an amazing ability to overwrite old experiences and create new ones. Some people do well doing complete flexible dieting. Others do better abstaining from many types of foods except on the rare occasion.7
-
Oh look, OP has yet another new screen name. *eyeroll*11
-
KarlzEvanzGarciaz wrote: »I believe my metabolism is broken because cannot seem to past the number 280lbs on the scale,it’s been 3 months.
Please see your doctor and ask for a referral to a registered dietitian (not a nutritionist.)
You've been asking questions here for a long time under many different usernames and not making any progress, so it is time for you to do something different.13 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believing IIFYM you're good to go.
Because generally, as long as your macro goals are balanced and your caloric goal is reasonable then this is true. As others have stated, simply losing weight is going to be healthier for the OP than anything else. That, and the fact that it should be done in a way that its sustainable are why people were focusing more on calculating calories accurately and less about what they were eating.
I agree calorie goals and reaching a healthy weight are a big factors in improving health markers. However balanced macro goals really don't mean a thing unless you also consider the composition of the macros. You can have a carb macro % goal that is in the range endorsed by any respected group of professionals, but if the calories included in the carb goal include few if any fruits or vegetables or whole grains one will most likely be nutritionally deficient long term.
Not so much an issue of carb quality, as that micros matter, too (not to mention fiber). Calories first, macros second, micros third . . . .
Micros in supplements are not a substitute; more like an insurance policy, at best (unless prescribed to remedy a diagnosed deficiency). Food is natural-selection-tested, and contains the micros science hasn't even discovered yet that we need, in addition to the known ones.
My point was with poor carb quality one is less likely to get the micos and fiber needed. Hope you are reading it that way.
Again, if someone has reasonable macro goals, and they are hitting those goals as well as their caloric goals, I would contend that they are most likely eating a healthy diet. Is it possible that they are missing on some of their micros? Sure, but I feel that most people who are taking the steps to track their calories and macros generally are not eating nothing but crap. I'm sure you could log a diary with balanced macros that is deficient in something, but that is also assuming that the person eats the exact same way every day. There are some days I don't hit all my micros, or fiber, but that doesn't mean my diet is deficient or unhealthy. Its that same tired argument that people shouldn't eat nothing but cheeseburgers or insert whatever food you want. Seriously, nobody eats that way, and if they do, I can almost guarantee they are aware it isn't healthy.12 -
tracybear86 wrote: »Oh look, OP has yet another new screen name. *eyeroll*
Why the eye rolling? Atleast o.p. is still here. Probably wanting answers that validate her thoughts, but that's going to be hard with this group.Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believing IIFYM you're good to go.
Because generally, as long as your macro goals are balanced and your caloric goal is reasonable then this is true. As others have stated, simply losing weight is going to be healthier for the OP than anything else. That, and the fact that it should be done in a way that its sustainable are why people were focusing more on calculating calories accurately and less about what they were eating.
I agree calorie goals and reaching a healthy weight are a big factors in improving health markers. However balanced macro goals really don't mean a thing unless you also consider the composition of the macros. You can have a carb macro % goal that is in the range endorsed by any respected group of professionals, but if the calories included in the carb goal include few if any fruits or vegetables or whole grains one will most likely be nutritionally deficient long term.
Not so much an issue of carb quality, as that micros matter, too (not to mention fiber). Calories first, macros second, micros third . . . .
Micros in supplements are not a substitute; more like an insurance policy, at best (unless prescribed to remedy a diagnosed deficiency). Food is natural-selection-tested, and contains the micros science hasn't even discovered yet that we need, in addition to the known ones.
My point was with poor carb quality one is less likely to get the micos and fiber needed. Hope you are reading it that way.
Again, if someone has reasonable macro goals, and they are hitting those goals as well as their caloric goals, I would contend that they are most likely eating a healthy diet. Is it possible that they are missing on some of their micros? Sure, but I feel that most people who are taking the steps to track their calories and macros generally are not eating nothing but crap. I'm sure you could log a diary with balanced macros that is deficient in something, but that is also assuming that the person eats the exact same way every day. There are some days I don't hit all my micros, or fiber, but that doesn't mean my diet is deficient or unhealthy. Its that same tired argument that people shouldn't eat nothing but cheeseburgers or insert whatever food you want. Seriously, nobody eats that way, and if they do, I can almost guarantee they are aware it isn't healthy.
While completely agree that cico is king, op is most likely here because she is 1. Wanting validation her "metabolism" is broken, it's not really. 2. Her current WOE is not giving her the results she wants. 3. She is looking for a community of well... nut balls like us. We are the 1% who pays attention what we put in our bodies. While I agree that a calorie is a calorie for weight management, the "qualities" of said calories can decide how much we have to eat to reach fullness and satiety. If op's chronic intake of Hyperpalitable/Energy dense food is stopping her from eating less, then MAYBE a time of abstinence is needed. Jmho ramble ramble... lol7 -
psychod787 wrote: »tracybear86 wrote: »Oh look, OP has yet another new screen name. *eyeroll*
Why the eye rolling? Atleast o.p. is still here. Probably wanting answers that validate her thoughts, but that's going to be hard with this group.Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believing IIFYM you're good to go.
Because generally, as long as your macro goals are balanced and your caloric goal is reasonable then this is true. As others have stated, simply losing weight is going to be healthier for the OP than anything else. That, and the fact that it should be done in a way that its sustainable are why people were focusing more on calculating calories accurately and less about what they were eating.
I agree calorie goals and reaching a healthy weight are a big factors in improving health markers. However balanced macro goals really don't mean a thing unless you also consider the composition of the macros. You can have a carb macro % goal that is in the range endorsed by any respected group of professionals, but if the calories included in the carb goal include few if any fruits or vegetables or whole grains one will most likely be nutritionally deficient long term.
Not so much an issue of carb quality, as that micros matter, too (not to mention fiber). Calories first, macros second, micros third . . . .
Micros in supplements are not a substitute; more like an insurance policy, at best (unless prescribed to remedy a diagnosed deficiency). Food is natural-selection-tested, and contains the micros science hasn't even discovered yet that we need, in addition to the known ones.
My point was with poor carb quality one is less likely to get the micos and fiber needed. Hope you are reading it that way.
Again, if someone has reasonable macro goals, and they are hitting those goals as well as their caloric goals, I would contend that they are most likely eating a healthy diet. Is it possible that they are missing on some of their micros? Sure, but I feel that most people who are taking the steps to track their calories and macros generally are not eating nothing but crap. I'm sure you could log a diary with balanced macros that is deficient in something, but that is also assuming that the person eats the exact same way every day. There are some days I don't hit all my micros, or fiber, but that doesn't mean my diet is deficient or unhealthy. Its that same tired argument that people shouldn't eat nothing but cheeseburgers or insert whatever food you want. Seriously, nobody eats that way, and if they do, I can almost guarantee they are aware it isn't healthy.
While completely agree that cico is king, op is most likely here because she is 1. Wanting validation her "metabolism" is broken, it's not really. 2. Her current WOE is not giving her the results she wants. 3. She is looking for a community of well... nut balls like us. We are the 1% who pays attention what we put in our bodies. While I agree that a calorie is a calorie for weight management, the "qualities" of said calories can decide how much we have to eat to reach fullness and satiety. If op's chronic intake of Hyperpalitable/Energy dense food is stopping her from eating less, then MAYBE a time of abstinence is needed. Jmho ramble ramble... lol
I agree with the bolded, and I am not trying to discount that piece at all. I think the OP actually got quite a bit of good advice at the beginning of this thread. Logging needs to be more accurate, and a realistic calorie goal needs to be set and adhered to. My point is, as long as those things are done, then I see no issue with eating a McDonalds cheeseburger or any food for that matter. Its still up to the OP to adhere to their goal. Some people do this by cutting carbs or sugar. Some do this with IF, and others are able to just moderate the portions of food they were already eating. It doesn't matter what tool the person uses to stick to that goal, as long as they stick to that goal. The fact is, an obese person is going to get healthier simply by losing weight. Pointing out this fact doesn't mean that anyone is advocating they eat an unhealthy diet, but a deficit eating twinkies is still better for an obese person than a surplus of "whole" foods. Losing weight is hard enough without taking extra steps which may be unnecessary and make a person more miserable.9 -
psychod787 wrote: »tracybear86 wrote: »Oh look, OP has yet another new screen name. *eyeroll*
Why the eye rolling? Atleast o.p. is still here. Probably wanting answers that validate her thoughts, but that's going to be hard with this group.Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believing IIFYM you're good to go.
Because generally, as long as your macro goals are balanced and your caloric goal is reasonable then this is true. As others have stated, simply losing weight is going to be healthier for the OP than anything else. That, and the fact that it should be done in a way that its sustainable are why people were focusing more on calculating calories accurately and less about what they were eating.
I agree calorie goals and reaching a healthy weight are a big factors in improving health markers. However balanced macro goals really don't mean a thing unless you also consider the composition of the macros. You can have a carb macro % goal that is in the range endorsed by any respected group of professionals, but if the calories included in the carb goal include few if any fruits or vegetables or whole grains one will most likely be nutritionally deficient long term.
Not so much an issue of carb quality, as that micros matter, too (not to mention fiber). Calories first, macros second, micros third . . . .
Micros in supplements are not a substitute; more like an insurance policy, at best (unless prescribed to remedy a diagnosed deficiency). Food is natural-selection-tested, and contains the micros science hasn't even discovered yet that we need, in addition to the known ones.
My point was with poor carb quality one is less likely to get the micos and fiber needed. Hope you are reading it that way.
Again, if someone has reasonable macro goals, and they are hitting those goals as well as their caloric goals, I would contend that they are most likely eating a healthy diet. Is it possible that they are missing on some of their micros? Sure, but I feel that most people who are taking the steps to track their calories and macros generally are not eating nothing but crap. I'm sure you could log a diary with balanced macros that is deficient in something, but that is also assuming that the person eats the exact same way every day. There are some days I don't hit all my micros, or fiber, but that doesn't mean my diet is deficient or unhealthy. Its that same tired argument that people shouldn't eat nothing but cheeseburgers or insert whatever food you want. Seriously, nobody eats that way, and if they do, I can almost guarantee they are aware it isn't healthy.
While completely agree that cico is king, op is most likely here because she is 1. Wanting validation her "metabolism" is broken, it's not really. 2. Her current WOE is not giving her the results she wants. 3. She is looking for a community of well... nut balls like us. We are the 1% who pays attention what we put in our bodies. While I agree that a calorie is a calorie for weight management, the "qualities" of said calories can decide how much we have to eat to reach fullness and satiety. If op's chronic intake of Hyperpalitable/Energy dense food is stopping her from eating less, then MAYBE a time of abstinence is needed. Jmho ramble ramble... lol
I agree with the bolded, and I am not trying to discount that piece at all. I think the OP actually got quite a bit of good advice at the beginning of this thread. Logging needs to be more accurate, and a realistic calorie goal needs to be set and adhered to. My point is, as long as those things are done, then I see no issue with eating a McDonalds cheeseburger or any food for that matter. Its still up to the OP to adhere to their goal. Some people do this by cutting carbs or sugar. Some do this with IF, and others are able to just moderate the portions of food they were already eating. It doesn't matter what tool the person uses to stick to that goal, as long as they stick to that goal. The fact is, an obese person is going to get healthier simply by losing weight. Pointing out this fact doesn't mean that anyone is advocating they eat an unhealthy diet, but a deficit eating twinkies is still better for an obese person than a surplus of "whole" foods. Losing weight is hard enough without taking extra steps which may be unnecessary and make a person more miserable.
Good sir, you are a very bright man. In fact I agree with most everything you said and say. You sir, have a great knowledge of nutrition. Let's face it though, MOST people don't. As I stated, "cico is king." Though, i think many of us forget the fact that most of the education given to people was just a simple food pyramid. The reason I am a slight advocate for abstinence with some people is... 1. It gives them time to develop a knowledge of nutrition and better eating habits 2. It gives the brain time to forget certain foods that might be a problem. 3. It gives people boundaries. Now, some people do well without boundaries, some people crave structure. By having things that are off limits it helps them. Others, it drives them nuts. Jmho3 -
Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believe IIFYM, you're good to go.
Do you understand IIFYM means "If it fits your macros?" And if so, why do you think that's a bad idea?
For "general health," IIFYM is more than adequate as many don't even reach these goals.
If you're talking about diet restrictions due to health issues that's another ballgame, but you're clearly talking about general health. So yeah, IIFYM.13 -
Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believe IIFYM, you're good to go.
Do you understand IIFYM means "If it fits your macros?" And if so, why do you think that's a bad idea?
For "general health," IIFYM is more than adequate as many don't even reach these goals.
If you're talking about diet restrictions due to health issues that's another ballgame, but you're clearly talking about general health. So yeah, IIFYM.
And it's wrong to say that using IIFYM inherently means ignoring everything beyond macros, such as micros and fiber, among other nutritionally useful things. That's just as silly as saying that calorie counting inherently means ignoring nutrition.
10 -
Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believe IIFYM, you're good to go.
Do you understand IIFYM means "If it fits your macros?" And if so, why do you think that's a bad idea?
For "general health," IIFYM is more than adequate as many don't even reach these goals.
If you're talking about diet restrictions due to health issues that's another ballgame, but you're clearly talking about general health. So yeah, IIFYM.
And it's wrong to say that using IIFYM inherently means ignoring everything beyond macros, such as micros and fiber, among other nutritionally useful things. That's just as silly as saying that calorie counting inherently means ignoring nutrition.
Of course using IIFYM and/or calorie counting doesn't inherently mean ignoring nutrition. Of course they don't mean someone is purposefully targeting good nutrition either.
3 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believe IIFYM, you're good to go.
Do you understand IIFYM means "If it fits your macros?" And if so, why do you think that's a bad idea?
For "general health," IIFYM is more than adequate as many don't even reach these goals.
If you're talking about diet restrictions due to health issues that's another ballgame, but you're clearly talking about general health. So yeah, IIFYM.
And it's wrong to say that using IIFYM inherently means ignoring everything beyond macros, such as micros and fiber, among other nutritionally useful things. That's just as silly as saying that calorie counting inherently means ignoring nutrition.
Of course using IIFYM and/or calorie counting doesn't inherently mean ignoring nutrition. Of course they don't mean someone is purposefully targeting good nutrition either.
Um, IIFYM kinda does imply that, at least to the level of macro goals.5 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believe IIFYM, you're good to go.
Do you understand IIFYM means "If it fits your macros?" And if so, why do you think that's a bad idea?
For "general health," IIFYM is more than adequate as many don't even reach these goals.
If you're talking about diet restrictions due to health issues that's another ballgame, but you're clearly talking about general health. So yeah, IIFYM.
And it's wrong to say that using IIFYM inherently means ignoring everything beyond macros, such as micros and fiber, among other nutritionally useful things. That's just as silly as saying that calorie counting inherently means ignoring nutrition.
Of course using IIFYM and/or calorie counting doesn't inherently mean ignoring nutrition. Of course they don't mean someone is purposefully targeting good nutrition either.
Um, IIFYM kinda does imply that, at least to the level of macro goals.
This exactly^. I feel like anyone going to the lengths of counting macros and calories is being pretty cognizant of targeting good nutrition.12 -
Theoldguy1 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believe IIFYM, you're good to go.
Do you understand IIFYM means "If it fits your macros?" And if so, why do you think that's a bad idea?
For "general health," IIFYM is more than adequate as many don't even reach these goals.
If you're talking about diet restrictions due to health issues that's another ballgame, but you're clearly talking about general health. So yeah, IIFYM.
And it's wrong to say that using IIFYM inherently means ignoring everything beyond macros, such as micros and fiber, among other nutritionally useful things. That's just as silly as saying that calorie counting inherently means ignoring nutrition.
Of course using IIFYM and/or calorie counting doesn't inherently mean ignoring nutrition. Of course they don't mean someone is purposefully targeting good nutrition either.
Um, IIFYM kinda does imply that, at least to the level of macro goals.
This exactly^. I feel like anyone going to the lengths of counting macros and calories is being pretty cognizant of targeting good nutrition.
I actually prefer the term Flexible Dieting. Same thing, but some people take IIFYM to mean... if it fits your mouth...🤣2 -
tracybear86 wrote: »Oh look, OP has yet another new screen name. *eyeroll*
Yep fairly certain the OP just keeps trolling!1 -
psychod787 wrote: »tracybear86 wrote: »Oh look, OP has yet another new screen name. *eyeroll*
Why the eye rolling? Atleast o.p. is still here. Probably wanting answers that validate her thoughts, but that's going to be hard with this group.Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believing IIFYM you're good to go.
Because generally, as long as your macro goals are balanced and your caloric goal is reasonable then this is true. As others have stated, simply losing weight is going to be healthier for the OP than anything else. That, and the fact that it should be done in a way that its sustainable are why people were focusing more on calculating calories accurately and less about what they were eating.
I agree calorie goals and reaching a healthy weight are a big factors in improving health markers. However balanced macro goals really don't mean a thing unless you also consider the composition of the macros. You can have a carb macro % goal that is in the range endorsed by any respected group of professionals, but if the calories included in the carb goal include few if any fruits or vegetables or whole grains one will most likely be nutritionally deficient long term.
Not so much an issue of carb quality, as that micros matter, too (not to mention fiber). Calories first, macros second, micros third . . . .
Micros in supplements are not a substitute; more like an insurance policy, at best (unless prescribed to remedy a diagnosed deficiency). Food is natural-selection-tested, and contains the micros science hasn't even discovered yet that we need, in addition to the known ones.
My point was with poor carb quality one is less likely to get the micos and fiber needed. Hope you are reading it that way.
Again, if someone has reasonable macro goals, and they are hitting those goals as well as their caloric goals, I would contend that they are most likely eating a healthy diet. Is it possible that they are missing on some of their micros? Sure, but I feel that most people who are taking the steps to track their calories and macros generally are not eating nothing but crap. I'm sure you could log a diary with balanced macros that is deficient in something, but that is also assuming that the person eats the exact same way every day. There are some days I don't hit all my micros, or fiber, but that doesn't mean my diet is deficient or unhealthy. Its that same tired argument that people shouldn't eat nothing but cheeseburgers or insert whatever food you want. Seriously, nobody eats that way, and if they do, I can almost guarantee they are aware it isn't healthy.
While completely agree that cico is king, op is most likely here because she is 1. Wanting validation her "metabolism" is broken, it's not really. 2. Her current WOE is not giving her the results she wants. 3. She is looking for a community of well... nut balls like us. We are the 1% who pays attention what we put in our bodies. While I agree that a calorie is a calorie for weight management, the "qualities" of said calories can decide how much we have to eat to reach fullness and satiety. If op's chronic intake of Hyperpalitable/Energy dense food is stopping her from eating less, then MAYBE a time of abstinence is needed. Jmho ramble ramble... lol
OP is male, not a she (at least from account info) and has been asking the same questions on the forum for at least the last 3 years I've been here under many different usernames. ETA - 2 usernames in this thread alone!
In @tracybear86 's defence I think when I brought this up in another thread her response was similar to yours, but has obviously had a change of heart.4 -
tinkerbellang83 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »tracybear86 wrote: »Oh look, OP has yet another new screen name. *eyeroll*
Why the eye rolling? Atleast o.p. is still here. Probably wanting answers that validate her thoughts, but that's going to be hard with this group.Theoldguy1 wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »Justin_7272 wrote: »"Eating healthy" is a commonly used phrase that is simply out of touch and is now commonly used as a scare tactic.
If you want to lose weight eat within your caloric range. 500 cheeseburger calories are the same as 500 lettuce calories. The cheeseburger will provide vital nutrients the lettuce will lack, and vice versa. Is one healthier?
Obviously the answer is no. But if you're only eating 3-5 cheeseburgers a day to hit your macros that's going to affect your health in a not-good way.
When was that ever suggested once in this thread? I get so tired of that same argument because nobody ever suggests eating just cheeseburgers. Eating a varied diet is important, but a diet can be varied and still include cheeseburgers and other foods that you might claim are "unhealthy".
A cheeseburger by itself can be healthy, that's why I said the answer is no. This OP guy eats nothing but fast food. I was trying to illustrate that these things, by themselves, are not necessarily "unhealthy" but if you cram them with other foods just like them they ARE.
Do you understand macros?
I do, thank you. However I'm talking about about general health. IIFYM is a problem because it leads people to believing IIFYM you're good to go.
Because generally, as long as your macro goals are balanced and your caloric goal is reasonable then this is true. As others have stated, simply losing weight is going to be healthier for the OP than anything else. That, and the fact that it should be done in a way that its sustainable are why people were focusing more on calculating calories accurately and less about what they were eating.
I agree calorie goals and reaching a healthy weight are a big factors in improving health markers. However balanced macro goals really don't mean a thing unless you also consider the composition of the macros. You can have a carb macro % goal that is in the range endorsed by any respected group of professionals, but if the calories included in the carb goal include few if any fruits or vegetables or whole grains one will most likely be nutritionally deficient long term.
Not so much an issue of carb quality, as that micros matter, too (not to mention fiber). Calories first, macros second, micros third . . . .
Micros in supplements are not a substitute; more like an insurance policy, at best (unless prescribed to remedy a diagnosed deficiency). Food is natural-selection-tested, and contains the micros science hasn't even discovered yet that we need, in addition to the known ones.
My point was with poor carb quality one is less likely to get the micos and fiber needed. Hope you are reading it that way.
Again, if someone has reasonable macro goals, and they are hitting those goals as well as their caloric goals, I would contend that they are most likely eating a healthy diet. Is it possible that they are missing on some of their micros? Sure, but I feel that most people who are taking the steps to track their calories and macros generally are not eating nothing but crap. I'm sure you could log a diary with balanced macros that is deficient in something, but that is also assuming that the person eats the exact same way every day. There are some days I don't hit all my micros, or fiber, but that doesn't mean my diet is deficient or unhealthy. Its that same tired argument that people shouldn't eat nothing but cheeseburgers or insert whatever food you want. Seriously, nobody eats that way, and if they do, I can almost guarantee they are aware it isn't healthy.
While completely agree that cico is king, op is most likely here because she is 1. Wanting validation her "metabolism" is broken, it's not really. 2. Her current WOE is not giving her the results she wants. 3. She is looking for a community of well... nut balls like us. We are the 1% who pays attention what we put in our bodies. While I agree that a calorie is a calorie for weight management, the "qualities" of said calories can decide how much we have to eat to reach fullness and satiety. If op's chronic intake of Hyperpalitable/Energy dense food is stopping her from eating less, then MAYBE a time of abstinence is needed. Jmho ramble ramble... lol
OP is male, not a she (at least from account info) and has been asking the same questions on the forum for at least the last 3 years I've been here under many different usernames.
In @tracybear86 's defence I think when I brought this up in another thread her response was similar to yours, but has obviously had a change of heart.
Dang... I got fooled.. lol.. ok.. 🙄3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions