Disappointing Realization of Maintenance Calories

124»

Replies

  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    Jane, I liked your comment, and agree, 100%. It's not the foods themselves, it's how they affect us. And we're all different.
    If we only have a certain amount of calories we can consume to lose/maintain, it makes sense that most of those should come from healthy, nutrient-dense sources, most of the time. What those macro nutrients end up looking like will vary between individuals, and that's a good thing.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,409 Member
    edited December 2019
    nm, would take explanation, not up for it...
  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    I stand by what I said.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    ThinnerLiz wrote: »
    For the record, I never said that "carbs were bad", or "insulin" is bad, or "carbs make you fat". That was all inferred.

    What I said was: For some people, a diet lower in carbohydrate might be beneficial (health and weight loss) because of how their bodies react to large amounts of carbs.

    I think you need to go back and reread your posts. You stated multiple times that insulin causes fat storage and once your stated to caused obesity and T2D. Based on the posts, I'm not the only one who interpreted your posts this way.

    It's how I read this statement (from an earlier post in this thread by the user): "Carbs drive up insulin, which effects blood sugar, and ultimately, fat storage."

    It sounds like a statement that carbohydrates cause fat storage.

    That was my take as well, and similarly the statement about 200 g of carbs being bad because it keeps the insulin flowing.

    I wouldn't have bothered going through it in detail except that another poster claimed that the disagrees (none of which came from me) must be disagreements with advice to eat a more nutrient dense diet. I don't personally think that eating 200 g of carbs must mean a less nutrient dense diet than one with 70 g of carbs. High and lower carb diets can both be extremely nutrient dense and not nutrient dense at all. For me, cutting back BOTH fat and carbs were part of my "focus on more satiating and nutrient dense foods and cut cals without feeling like you are sacrificing anything" strategy.

    With the clarifications I do think people are largely in agreement, and of course I know that for some eating fewer carbs can be helpful for satiety reasons.

    Maybe I'm weird, but I don't think my carb percentage when gaining was particularly high. I do think I ate less protein and more carbs and fat than I did when losing, and that I was less active than I should have been.

    When I look at periods where I've gained weight, I think it's always because my fat intake has crept up. It's not carbohydrates. This is probably because the carbohydrates I eat are pretty nutrient dense and I personally find them very filling. They're also pretty visible on the plate, where the fat I eat is more "invisible" (it's harder to notice an extra tablespoon of oil spread out across a whole dish and I'm not someone who is really satiated by extra fat in a meal).

    It comes back to the bottom line that looking at what you're eating and making adjustments from there is usually going to be way more helpful than making changes based on abstract concepts. If I was planning my meals around the idea that carbohydrates aren't nutrient-dense and they cause fat storage, I'd be failing. And I'd be hungry!

    You can plan wonderfully nutritious and delicious low carbohydrate diets. You can also have some pretty bleak and non-nutrient rich ones. Same for higher carbohydrate ways of eating.

    What I don't see in this thread is anyone arguing that we shouldn't eat a nutrient-dense diet or that there is anything extreme about finding the way to do so that works best for your lifestyle and food preferences.

    Yes, agree. I think my excess cals tend to be more from fat too, although I think the bigger issue is a lack of mindfulness. When I thought through where my excess cals were coming from a lot of it was portion creep and using too heavy a hand with oil in cooking. Realizing that (and that I often did some mindless eating when at work late) made losing it much easier than it otherwise might have been, as I was able cut back on those things without it feeling like I was really eating less, and being more mindful made me make sure the cals I did eat were ones I really enjoyed.

    I also was able to take stock of my activity levels and I realized that although I still walked a decent amount (big city, I walk all the time), I wasn't nearly as active as I'd once been and so my TDEE was lower than I'd realized. Getting that up was as important as anything for me.
  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    Thank you, lemurcat, for your measured response. I try to be very clear in what I mean, and it can be frustrating when people make incorrect inferences. Cutting out important qualifiers like "may/might/could" means my words take on an entirely different meaning.

    When I said that "Carbs are not the enemy", and "different people benefit from different diets", that's exactly what I meant.
    I never said that carbs are solely responsible for weight gain, nor did I say that they are lacking in nutrients. I like my carbs just as much as the next person.

    There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein. I wouldn't imagine most here believe that, because there is a lot of information out there, and on this forum, that deals with how the body responds to food on a metabolic level and not all calories are created equal in terms of how they affect and nourish our bodies.
    But enough. I understand that people can be very sensitive to these issues and if a bunch of Low-Carb Keto Fans have been tromping all over with the "Carbs Will Kill Ya" mindset, I can see why people might react negatively to anything with a whiff of that.

    But it's never been my intent to either push a way of eating on anyone, nor make light of anyone else's food choices. (Okay. Except for the Hot Dogs and Pickle Juice. I admit it, I think that's bizarre! ;) ) I merely agreed with the suggestion that it might be worth experimenting with lower carbs if people are kind of stuck and looking for something different to try.

    To be honest, I was skeptical when I first tried The Zone Diet back in the 90s. I was sort of shocked to find I felt a lot better. I should have stuck with it, or something like it, because I got back in the same ruts and started to feel crappy again. (Wash, rinse, and repeat.) That led me here, eating the way I do now.
    I feel great, and I wanted to share that, in case anyone else might benefit from it. That's all.


  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,409 Member
    There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.

    For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.

    Where are you coming up with this stuff?
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.

    For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.

    Where are you coming up with this stuff?

    Exactly. The fallacy in this kind of statement is it equates calories for weight loss with nutrition. For weight loss, calories are what matter. For health and satiety, nutrient dense foods are what matter. It's an apples/ oranges comparison.

    Yep....I said that above too.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,409 Member
    I really miss the gif days...
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    RGv2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.

    For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.

    Where are you coming up with this stuff?

    Exactly. The fallacy in this kind of statement is it equates calories for weight loss with nutrition. For weight loss, calories are what matter. For health and satiety, nutrient dense foods are what matter. It's an apples/ oranges comparison.

    Yep....I said that above too.

    Yes, you did!
  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
    I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.

    Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!

    I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
    Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
    That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?

    When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
  • ThinnerLiz
    ThinnerLiz Posts: 55 Member
    PS: AnnPT77, In case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit pedantic myself.;)
    #pedanticandproud
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    ThinnerLiz wrote: »
    I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
    I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.

    Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!

    I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
    Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
    That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?

    When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?

    There is not a nutritional value to a calorie, literally. Foods, not calories, have nutritional values. You're using the term 'calorie' as a figure of speech, possibly a synechdoche or metonomy.

    I believe a calorie is a calorie, in the same way an inch is an inch. Always. No matter what substance it's used to measure.

    Calories, in a literal sense, don't have nutritional atributes, any more than miles or inches have texture or color.

    Pedantic, literally true.

    I believe in nutrition. I believe that jelly beans, lard, green beans, steak, etc., have different nutritional qualities (and satiation value to individuals, etc,), just as they have different calories. Figures of speech make for colorful writing, but confusing their scope and definitions can lead to fuzzy thinking.

    Nutrients are not "contained in calories" just as "asphalt" or "gravel" are not "contained in miles".

    An inch is not just an inch, though. An inch in the wrong direction is an inch in the wrong direction. That’s not just a figure of speech. A phone screen an inch too big to fit in my pocket is an inch too big, whereas in most situations an additional inch of screen is a good thing. Context matters. And it seems nonsensical to say that nutrients aren’t contained in calories when the only possible way to consume nutrients is to consume calories. You have x number of calories you’re allowed to eat if you want to lose weight; within those, you have to consume y amount of nutrients.
  • DedDollChance
    DedDollChance Posts: 12 Member
    I like to eat, so I move more!