It’s not just about calories
Replies
-
lukejoycePT wrote: »
... could eat just donuts and still get a six pack.gallicinvasion wrote: »You say nothing about your activity.
Of course not. You need adequate protein for six packs, plus some other stuff you won't get from pastry. You could get a flat stomach though. If you could handle how hungry a donut only diet would leave you for long enough anyway. Most can't.
I refer you to the Twinkie Diet as evidence. Google it, dude lost 30-something pounds just eating twinkies and a small amount of scurvy-preventing green beans.
9 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »gallicinvasion wrote: »You say nothing about your activity.
Activity was the same throughout. If anything I am training a little less now.
Those above who want to throw the science card out there or even suggest I just ate crap and didn’t log correctly. That isn’t the case. I logged correctly, I have cut and bulked many times. I weigh my food. I scan everything and double check. I food prep and have go to meals that I make regularly and have done for years.
I drink on weekends. Always have and still lost 1lbs a week but for some reason having one drink a night stalled my fat loss.
I’m not trying to say that calories aren’t the most important because I agree they are. But I’m saying, from my experience, what I eat and drink makes a difference at how fast I lose body fat.
And the guy above talking about alcohol being a 4th macro is talking nonsense. It’s essentially carbs that’s it. You can’t have alcohol without sugar. It’s empty because it doesn’t do anything for your body other than create An inflammatory Response.
Also when I said my macros were the same I mean in rough terms as in I kept my carbs below 150grams ate high protein and the rest are fats. But if we are saying that calories in vs calories out are the only factor which a lot of people on here preach then macros wouldn’t matter. I could eat just donuts and still get a six pack.
No, it's really, really not carbs. And some sources actually call it the fourth macro. (I wouldn't, because, as I said, it's not a nutrient. Technically, it's a poison, more or less - one that can be metabolized, within certain limits, and whose effects humans (and some other critters) enjoy.)
Sardelsa has helpfully provided the USDA info for vodka: Calories, but zero carbs, zero sugar, zero fat, zero protein.
And BTW, I'm not a guy. I'm a 64 year old woman, thank you very much. (I assume you decided otherwise based on my profile pic, or something. That's just funny. Yes, it's me, at age 60.)25 -
And when it comes to donuts and 6-packs, I think it's useful to consider this guy, who used to post here. He records his entire intake, for quite a long period of time, here (with a somewhat recent profile photo, and other progress photos along the way, plus his Insta ID if you need more photos):
https://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=141807961&p=822484731#post822484731
To the orthodox, his diet was pretty horrifying. Heck, to me it's pretty horrifying.
He also has a before picture here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/43824947#Comment_43824947
Individual results may vary, and all that.
10 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »gallicinvasion wrote: »You say nothing about your activity.
And the guy above talking about alcohol being a 4th macro is talking nonsense. It’s essentially carbs that’s it. You can’t have alcohol without sugar.
So without even addressing all the other nonsense in your post, this point you are absolutely dead wrong about. You are right, you can't have alcohol without sugar. But the alcohol becomes alcohol because the sugar gets fermented. Duh! Then it is no longer sugar!! This stuff is really Jr. High science class stuff.
"The guy" you are referring to is a woman as it says in her name. Unless you know some guys that go by the name Ann?
Besides that, your n=1 little experiment doesn't prove anything except your subjective perception of your own experience. If it makes you feel better to believe it, fine. But is doesn't disprove accepted science in anyone's mind but your own.17 -
pancakerunner wrote: »I do think there is some truth in this. Processed foods (broadly defined) have a negative metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory effect.
For those disagreeing — my question is: what part of this idea/concept are disagreeing with??3 -
pancakerunner wrote: »pancakerunner wrote: »I do think there is some truth in this. Processed foods (broadly defined) have a negative metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory effect.
For those disagreeing — my question is: what part of this idea/concept are disagreeing with??
There is no real evidence of this and all food is processed in some way or another. It is an overly broad statement that is not really supportable.19 -
pancakerunner wrote: »pancakerunner wrote: »I do think there is some truth in this. Processed foods (broadly defined) have a negative metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory effect.
For those disagreeing — my question is: what part of this idea/concept are disagreeing with??
I didn't disagree I didn't even see your comment until now. But what do you mean by negative effects? Do you experience these when you have processed foods yourself? Or are the symptoms invisible and undetectable only to be seen later in life or when someone is in old age? I am just trying to figure it out since processed foods have been a blessing for me personally, without them I would probably be sad and very underweight.8 -
I continue to be shocked and surprised by the MFP community here that stubbornly defends eating whatever, whenever so long as you are caloric deficit for weight loss.
As though the number going down on a scale is the goal and holy grail.
I refuse to be intimidated by the disagree button.... Twinkie diet... As though that's good advice for someone wanting to have a healthy body. You want to be fit, you want to be healthy. You simply must fuel that goal. No one puts crap gas in a car to go racing. No one feeds fruit loops to a race horse. This concept of, it doesn't matter so long as it's within my calorie count is just an excuse for not making good choices.
People should make their own choices on what is fit and what fit isn't. If Fit to you means you need to be strict then great. If Fit to you means you can enjoy a cheeseburger and fries and milkshake, Great. Just stop telling people that the value of a calorie is equal. Value is the sum of what you're eating and nutritionally dense is not the same thing as a calorie.2 -
I continue to be shocked and surprised by the MFP community here that stubbornly defends eating whatever, whenever so long as you are caloric deficit for weight loss.
As though the number going down on a scale is the goal and holy grail.
I refuse to be intimidated by the disagree button.... Twinkie diet... As though that's good advice for someone wanting to have a healthy body. You want to be fit, you want to be healthy. You simply must fuel that goal. No one puts crap gas in a car to go racing. No one feeds fruit loops to a race horse. This concept of, it doesn't matter so long as it's within my calorie count is just an excuse for not making good choices.
People should make their own choices on what is fit and what fit isn't. If Fit to you means you need to be strict then great. If Fit to you means you can enjoy a cheeseburger and fries and milkshake, Great. Just stop telling people that the value of a calorie is equal. Value is the sum of what you're eating and nutritionally dense is not the same thing as a calorie.
This is where the context of an overall diet, over time comes into play. Nobody is recommending the twinkie diet. But, if you read about it, he also ate a few fruits and veggies and some protein. He lost weight but also, his blood markers improved. He made his point.
But I don't think that is really the point in this discussion. Literally no one advocates for a nutritionally void diet. And the value of a calorie is the same, no matter what the food is. The value of that food, nutritionally. can be vary wildly. So, to use your example above, the cheeseburger, fries and milkshake, what would be wrong with that in the context of an overall healthy nutrient dense diet, at the appropriate calorie level for that individual? It is a mistake to conflate calories with nutrition and the vast majority of people here know that.
And BTW, plug those items into the diary and see for your self. The macros for that meal aren't bad. Especially if there is some lettuce, tomato and maybe onion on the burger and the portion sizes are appropriate. While there may be some few people out there who might eat like that everyday, very few people do. It is really a strawman argument like most mono diet arguments are.19 -
pancakerunner wrote: »pancakerunner wrote: »I do think there is some truth in this. Processed foods (broadly defined) have a negative metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory effect.
For those disagreeing — my question is: what part of this idea/concept are disagreeing with??
You can't generalize about "processed foods" as they are incredibly varied.
I just got a delivery of wild Alaskan fish (salmon, cod, and halibut). It's frozen, it's from far away, it's therefore technically processed.
Also, even if I were to focus more on what I think you mean by "processed foods" (and ignore the fact that the main processed foods I eat are things like canned or dried beans, dried pasta, canned tomatoes, cottage cheese, and feta -- none of which have a "negative metabolic, hormonal, or inflammatory effect" that I've ever noticed, I don't see it.
This week I ordered Indian food from a local place I want to support (and plus I felt like Indian food). High cal, and high fat, sure. Carbs depend on the amount of rice and I usually don't eat that much rice because I'm not that into rice. Does the food -- unquestionably processed -- have some negative effect vs. me making the same dishes at home (and then only the rice being processed, unless dried spices make something processed).? No, indeed.9 -
I continue to be shocked and surprised by the MFP community here that stubbornly defends eating whatever, whenever so long as you are caloric deficit for weight loss.
This is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what is said.
Go back and read Ann's posts, please.
A healthy diet is a good thing, usually makes a calorie deficit easier, and is independently good for health (as is exercise, which most people who get scoldy about eating clean ignore, oddly).
But occasional treats or even an occasional (or daily) glass of whisky (or whiskey) don't preclude one from consuming a healthy diet. If you think eating a healthy diet is more defined by never eating a cookie or eating low carb (the OP seems to think the problem with alcohol is that it's carbs, which is truly bizarre), than what you in fact do eat (ideally sufficient protein, healthy fats (all fats aren't equal), and lots of veg and some fruit too, as well as sufficient fiber), then you don't get nutrition and shouldn't be lecturing others.
Here, people are focusing on weight loss, since the OP made the very bizarre claim that alcohol or treats preclude weight loss.13 -
I continue to be shocked and surprised by the MFP community here that stubbornly defends eating whatever, whenever so long as you are caloric deficit for weight loss.
As though the number going down on a scale is the goal and holy grail.
I refuse to be intimidated by the disagree button.... Twinkie diet... As though that's good advice for someone wanting to have a healthy body. You want to be fit, you want to be healthy. You simply must fuel that goal. No one puts crap gas in a car to go racing. No one feeds fruit loops to a race horse. This concept of, it doesn't matter so long as it's within my calorie count is just an excuse for not making good choices.
People should make their own choices on what is fit and what fit isn't. If Fit to you means you need to be strict then great. If Fit to you means you can enjoy a cheeseburger and fries and milkshake, Great. Just stop telling people that the value of a calorie is equal. Value is the sum of what you're eating and nutritionally dense is not the same thing as a calorie.
This is where the context of an overall diet, over time comes into play. Nobody is recommending the twinkie diet. But, if you read about it, he also ate a few fruits and veggies and some protein. He lost weight but also, his blood markers improved. He made his point.
But I don't think that is really the point in this discussion. Literally no one advocates for a nutritionally void diet. And the value of a calorie is the same, no matter what the food is. The value of that food, nutritionally. can be vary wildly. So, to use your example above, the cheeseburger, fries and milkshake, what would be wrong with that in the context of an overall healthy nutrient dense diet, at the appropriate calorie level for that individual? It is a mistake to conflate calories with nutrition and the vast majority of people here know that.
And BTW, plug those items into the diary and see for your self. The macros for that meal aren't bad. Especially if there is some lettuce, tomato and maybe onion on the burger and the portion sizes are appropriate. While there may be some few people out there who might eat like that everyday, very few people do. It is really a strawman argument like most mono diet arguments are.
Had it last Friday. Had two burgers. Mmmm and ice cream!
I'm referring to those who troll these forums bashing people as they discover eating and food and calories and macros.1 -
I continue to be shocked and surprised by the MFP community here that stubbornly defends eating whatever, whenever so long as you are caloric deficit for weight loss.
This is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what is said.
Go back and read Ann's posts, please.
A healthy diet is a good thing, usually makes a calorie deficit easier, and is independently good for health (as is exercise, which most people who get scoldy about eating clean ignore, oddly).
But occasional treats or even an occasional (or daily) glass of whisky (or whiskey) don't preclude one from consuming a healthy diet. If you think eating a healthy diet is more defined by never eating a cookie or eating low carb (the OP seems to think the problem with alcohol is that it's carbs, which is truly bizarre), than what you in fact do eat (ideally sufficient protein, healthy fats (all fats aren't equal), and lots of veg and some fruit too, as well as sufficient fiber), then you don't get nutrition and shouldn't be lecturing others.
Here, people are focusing on weight loss, since the OP made the very bizarre claim that alcohol or treats preclude weight loss.
Not Ann. She's good.2 -
I continue to be shocked and surprised by the MFP community here that stubbornly defends eating whatever, whenever so long as you are caloric deficit for weight loss.
As though the number going down on a scale is the goal and holy grail.
I refuse to be intimidated by the disagree button.... Twinkie diet... As though that's good advice for someone wanting to have a healthy body. You want to be fit, you want to be healthy. You simply must fuel that goal. No one puts crap gas in a car to go racing. No one feeds fruit loops to a race horse. This concept of, it doesn't matter so long as it's within my calorie count is just an excuse for not making good choices.
People should make their own choices on what is fit and what fit isn't. If Fit to you means you need to be strict then great. If Fit to you means you can enjoy a cheeseburger and fries and milkshake, Great. Just stop telling people that the value of a calorie is equal. Value is the sum of what you're eating and nutritionally dense is not the same thing as a calorie.
This is where the context of an overall diet, over time comes into play. Nobody is recommending the twinkie diet. But, if you read about it, he also ate a few fruits and veggies and some protein. He lost weight but also, his blood markers improved. He made his point.
But I don't think that is really the point in this discussion. Literally no one advocates for a nutritionally void diet. And the value of a calorie is the same, no matter what the food is. The value of that food, nutritionally. can be vary wildly. So, to use your example above, the cheeseburger, fries and milkshake, what would be wrong with that in the context of an overall healthy nutrient dense diet, at the appropriate calorie level for that individual? It is a mistake to conflate calories with nutrition and the vast majority of people here know that.
And BTW, plug those items into the diary and see for your self. The macros for that meal aren't bad. Especially if there is some lettuce, tomato and maybe onion on the burger and the portion sizes are appropriate. While there may be some few people out there who might eat like that everyday, very few people do. It is really a strawman argument like most mono diet arguments are.
Had it last Friday. Had two burgers. Mmmm and ice cream!
I'm referring to those who troll these forums bashing people as they discover eating and food and calories and macros.
I don't see people "bashing". I see people making claims that aren't true and getting all upset when someone disagrees (in person), so maybe that's why the disagree button is used so much. Disagreeing is not bashing, there is too much exaggeration going on.15 -
The arguments are typically between (1) people who say eating a healthy diet is important (although one can lose weight despite a poor diet), but that a healthy diet doesn't preclude one from eating some treats; and (2) people who claim all "processed" foods are bad (a very broad and vague term) and don't even seem to focus on the basic elements of a healthy diet in many cases, making it all about specific macros or not eating specific items. Claiming that group (1) are not concerned with health or "bashing" those interested in eating healthfully seems really odd to me.
In this thread, a specific claim was made: eating the same cals but including one alcoholic beverage or a small dessert within those cals prevents weight loss vs. the same cals without alcohol or treats. Saying that is not consistent with our experiences hardly means anyone is claiming that one should not eat a healthy diet. I can't even imagine how one could come to that conclusion.11 -
snowflake954 wrote: »I continue to be shocked and surprised by the MFP community here that stubbornly defends eating whatever, whenever so long as you are caloric deficit for weight loss.
As though the number going down on a scale is the goal and holy grail.
I refuse to be intimidated by the disagree button.... Twinkie diet... As though that's good advice for someone wanting to have a healthy body. You want to be fit, you want to be healthy. You simply must fuel that goal. No one puts crap gas in a car to go racing. No one feeds fruit loops to a race horse. This concept of, it doesn't matter so long as it's within my calorie count is just an excuse for not making good choices.
People should make their own choices on what is fit and what fit isn't. If Fit to you means you need to be strict then great. If Fit to you means you can enjoy a cheeseburger and fries and milkshake, Great. Just stop telling people that the value of a calorie is equal. Value is the sum of what you're eating and nutritionally dense is not the same thing as a calorie.
This is where the context of an overall diet, over time comes into play. Nobody is recommending the twinkie diet. But, if you read about it, he also ate a few fruits and veggies and some protein. He lost weight but also, his blood markers improved. He made his point.
But I don't think that is really the point in this discussion. Literally no one advocates for a nutritionally void diet. And the value of a calorie is the same, no matter what the food is. The value of that food, nutritionally. can be vary wildly. So, to use your example above, the cheeseburger, fries and milkshake, what would be wrong with that in the context of an overall healthy nutrient dense diet, at the appropriate calorie level for that individual? It is a mistake to conflate calories with nutrition and the vast majority of people here know that.
And BTW, plug those items into the diary and see for your self. The macros for that meal aren't bad. Especially if there is some lettuce, tomato and maybe onion on the burger and the portion sizes are appropriate. While there may be some few people out there who might eat like that everyday, very few people do. It is really a strawman argument like most mono diet arguments are.
Had it last Friday. Had two burgers. Mmmm and ice cream!
I'm referring to those who troll these forums bashing people as they discover eating and food and calories and macros.
I don't see people "bashing". I see people making claims that aren't true and getting all upset when someone disagrees (in person), so maybe that's why the disagree button is used so much. Disagreeing is not bashing, there is too much exaggeration going on.
Cosigned. I agree.7 -
My experience is similar to yours, but that's a difficult conversation to have on MFP. I'll just leave you with this: You have discovered what works for you; therefore, keep doing it.7
-
Meh, the only thing I've noticed is that starches bloat me up. I'm not denying your experience, but I suspect it might have more to do with you putting more effort and care into your diet and physical activity when making more sacrifices for it. Human beings tend to function like this.
As far as alcohol goes, the problem with it is that it makes me hungry and I prefer highly caloric beers and liqueurs... I was actually in the best shape of my life during grad school, and I drank like an imperial-era russian peasant back then.9 -
Just stop telling people that the value of a calorie is equal. Value is the sum of what you're eating and nutritionally dense is not the same thing as a calorie.
You're confusing two separate concepts here.
Nutrition is a huge subject that encompasses the vast amounts of numbers involved in figuring out the balance of macros, micros, vitamins, minerals and other that our bodies need to operate optimally.
A calorie is a unit of measurement of energy.
A calorie is a calorie regardless of source, much like a liter of milk is exactly the same amount of liquid as a liter of juice. And it is all that matters to weight loss from an energy balance perspective.
Anyone who does google the Twinkie diet will note that the dude's health indicators all improved. For the obese, losing weight has a greater impact on health than nutrition. Which is great! Nutrition is complex and confusing and fine tuning your diet to your needs takes months or years, and if you're sick and obese now, that's too much. But you can make huge improvements to your life and health right away just looking at calories. The rest then comes naturally over time as you figure out what works for you. It's a snowball effect.
So when I hit that disagree button I'm not trying to intimidate you (not sure why you even think that, defensive much?). I'm trying to indicate to anyone reading that aspiring to perfect nutrition immediately is your opinion not everyone's so you don't scare them off.
I would've been scared off, a year ago. I'd have just given up if I was told a donut would ruin everything. So I disagree with your hard line, black and white perspective. There's a ton of grey.22 -
Just stop telling people that the value of a calorie is equal. Value is the sum of what you're eating and nutritionally dense is not the same thing as a calorie.
You're confusing two separate concepts here.
Nutrition is a huge subject that encompasses the vast amounts of numbers involved in figuring out the balance of macros, micros, vitamins, minerals and other that our bodies need to operate optimally.
A calorie is a unit of measurement of energy.
A calorie is a calorie regardless of source, much like a liter of milk is exactly the same amount of liquid as a liter of juice. And it is all that matters to weight loss from an energy balance perspective.
Anyone who does google the Twinkie diet will note that the dude's health indicators all improved. For the obese, losing weight has a greater impact on health than nutrition. Which is great! Nutrition is complex and confusing and fine tuning your diet to your needs takes months or years, and if you're sick and obese now, that's too much. But you can make huge improvements to your life and health right away just looking at calories. The rest then comes naturally over time as you figure out what works for you. It's a snowball effect.
So when I hit that disagree button I'm not trying to intimidate you (not sure why you even think that, defensive much?). I'm trying to indicate to anyone reading that aspiring to perfect nutrition immediately is your opinion not everyone's so you don't scare them off.
I would've been scared off, a year ago. I'd have just given up if I was told a donut would ruin everything. So I disagree with your hard line, black and white perspective. There's a ton of grey.
I agree with this^^^^. People need to keep it simple when they start. It's a learning curve and once they're comfortable with their calorie goal and losing, THEN they start branching out, trying new fitness routines and new foods, become aware of macros and nutrition. It is a lot to know. That's also why simple calorie counting is encouraged for beginners, rather than other complicated diets. Reading the forums, and following the back and forth slowly brings people to another level. Yes, everyone needs to find their way through this maze, but when everything comes together, it's fantastic.11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions