It’s not just about calories
Replies
-
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 -
Sodium differences and water retention could explain a lot of the 10 pound difference, too.8
-
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 here (as far as I remember
), but I do, or would.
Reason: The statement is so very, very broad; so very, very abstract; so very, very general . . . that it's essentially meaningless, and entirely unhelpful as a guide to anyone. We literally don't know what exactly you mean, but we can think of dozens of counterexamples to what you mightt mean.
On another thread, we had what I thought was a mutually civil exchange on a similar point. In this next bit, I'll be winging it a bit based on that, but:
If in this thread, you had said (for example) "There is evidence that ingredients in some processed foods, such as refined seed oils, have a negative metabolic, hormonal, and inflammatory effect," I think you'd get a different quality of response.
Yes, some people would click disagree, because people do what they do. But we'd at least understand the sort of thing you're actually getting at, and I suspect some people would then engage with that question in a more nuanced and informative way.
P.S. to casual readers: I'm not, myself, advancing the specific opinion I wrote above about seed oils. I'm mentioning the idea, not advocating it. Or anti-advocating it, in this particular post.8 -
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.
This is exactly how I see it, too.8 -
This is not what I am claiming and I think we are getting lost amongst the weeds here...
I’m not actually claiming anything as fact or stating that this is the case for everyone. I truly believe that human beings all respond in different ways to foods, calories and environmental factors.
In MY experience. Which is mine alone, is that when I drink alcohol every night instead of on weekends and eat sugary overly processed foods (while keeping my calories exactly the same) my weight loss stalls or a least slows right down.
This is my experience. And it’s a valid one. It frightens me that many on here have such tunnel vision when it comes to this stuff. A number of you rudely shut down others because they are outliers or have different experiences. You are so stuck with the “science” that you refuse to entertain the notion that this “science” might be incorrect or outdated. The same science that said fat was bad and eating whole eggs are bad for you and so on...
Don’t be so quick to shoot down another persons experience just because it doesn’t meet your picture of the world around you.
I’ve seen it time and time again on here. Especially with the regular posters who apparently have nothing more in their lives than spending day after day, year after year posting on a forum designed to support people trying to improve their health and well being. It’s like a religious belief to them and any disbelievers are forced out.
Don’t be rude. Be nice. Be humble.6 -
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.)
I apologise if I called you a guy, I honestly didn’t look at your profile or photo. I just read all the comments and replied in general. I guess I assumed that the comment came from a guy and that’s my error. Please don’t take offence. It was an honest mistake.3 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »You didn't tell us for how long you tried this 'treat-laden' cut?
And were your macros different with and without treats? And the same number of calories in both cases?
And how do you know 'especially the alcohol' made a difference, did you have a period with treats and alcohol and a period with treats but without alcohol?
Without further info, I would guess it's to do with water retention.
I did the treats part for a few months. Calories were the same. Macros were similar but obviously alcohol is empty carb calories
Yes I had a period with no alcohol and treats of two weeks. It made a definite difference.
I thought about the water retention but I also took measurements 3 x a week. I know all about the woosh effect. However, I was seeing the water retention happen over the course of the week in weight fluctuations but at the end of the week my totals would be the same. Normally this would be lower, normally 1lbs lower.
2 whole weeks? One pound? This is not proof.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10683010/the-weird-and-highly-annoying-world-of-scale-fluctuations/p115 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »This is not what I am claiming and I think we are getting lost amongst the weeds here...
I’m not actually claiming anything as fact or stating that this is the case for everyone. I truly believe that human beings all respond in different ways to foods, calories and environmental factors.
In MY experience. Which is mine alone, is that when I drink alcohol every night instead of on weekends and eat sugary overly processed foods (while keeping my calories exactly the same) my weight loss stalls or a least slows right down.
This is my experience. And it’s a valid one. It frightens me that many on here have such tunnel vision when it comes to this stuff. A number of you rudely shut down others because they are outliers or have different experiences. You are so stuck with the “science” that you refuse to entertain the notion that this “science” might be incorrect or outdated. The same science that said fat was bad and eating whole eggs are bad for you and so on...
Don’t be so quick to shoot down another persons experience just because it doesn’t meet your picture of the world around you.
I’ve seen it time and time again on here. Especially with the regular posters who apparently have nothing more in their lives than spending day after day, year after year posting on a forum designed to support people trying to improve their health and well being. It’s like a religious belief to them and any disbelievers are forced out.
Don’t be rude. Be nice. Be humble.
And I too have seen it on here time and again. The very people claiming others are "rude" and "closed minded".....well, they too could do some soul searching. You are convinced as much as the other posters, so what's to complain about? There are many lurkers that never post. Giving out wrong information can set them back. I think we're all capable of choosing who we wish to believe, in a nice, humble way.9 -
snowflake954 wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »This is not what I am claiming and I think we are getting lost amongst the weeds here...
I’m not actually claiming anything as fact or stating that this is the case for everyone. I truly believe that human beings all respond in different ways to foods, calories and environmental factors.
In MY experience. Which is mine alone, is that when I drink alcohol every night instead of on weekends and eat sugary overly processed foods (while keeping my calories exactly the same) my weight loss stalls or a least slows right down.
This is my experience. And it’s a valid one. It frightens me that many on here have such tunnel vision when it comes to this stuff. A number of you rudely shut down others because they are outliers or have different experiences. You are so stuck with the “science” that you refuse to entertain the notion that this “science” might be incorrect or outdated. The same science that said fat was bad and eating whole eggs are bad for you and so on...
Don’t be so quick to shoot down another persons experience just because it doesn’t meet your picture of the world around you.
I’ve seen it time and time again on here. Especially with the regular posters who apparently have nothing more in their lives than spending day after day, year after year posting on a forum designed to support people trying to improve their health and well being. It’s like a religious belief to them and any disbelievers are forced out.
Don’t be rude. Be nice. Be humble.
And I too have seen it on here time and again. The very people claiming others are "rude" and "closed minded".....well, they too could do some soul searching. You are convinced as much as the other posters, so what's to complain about? There are many lurkers that never post. Giving out wrong information can set them back. I think we're all capable of choosing who we wish to believe, in a nice, humble way.
I agree with this too. However, I didn’t once say that what I was talking about was fact. I literally said that I was doing a little experiment on myself. And explained what I experienced. I haven’t once told anybody to follow something. Plus I’m not convinced of anything, hence why I said discuss. I was hoping for a discussion not a shutting down.
To be clear, being someone who has a background in the Heath and fitness industry I am wary of giving advice unless I can confirm its effectiveness. My clients rely on me to help them reach their goals so I do not advocate dogma or things I practice just because I do them.
For example, I fast regularly and while the data on fasting is not proven, in my experience it’s an excellent tool and has helped me. We could argue about it’s “health benefits” all day but I wouldn’t tell me clients to fast. I can’t prove it works. So I don’t recommend it.
However you ask me about reducing sugar intake, alcohol consumption and switching to a more balanced diet I think we could all agree that would be a solid piece of advice.
As those above stated I am just one person and that is no data at all, so I was interested in what other people had experienced.
My bad for even bothering to try and create a dialogue. I won’t post agin.4 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »This is not what I am claiming and I think we are getting lost amongst the weeds here...
I’m not actually claiming anything as fact or stating that this is the case for everyone. I truly believe that human beings all respond in different ways to foods, calories and environmental factors.
In MY experience. Which is mine alone, is that when I drink alcohol every night instead of on weekends and eat sugary overly processed foods (while keeping my calories exactly the same) my weight loss stalls or a least slows right down.
This is my experience. And it’s a valid one. It frightens me that many on here have such tunnel vision when it comes to this stuff. A number of you rudely shut down others because they are outliers or have different experiences. You are so stuck with the “science” that you refuse to entertain the notion that this “science” might be incorrect or outdated. The same science that said fat was bad and eating whole eggs are bad for you and so on...
Don’t be so quick to shoot down another persons experience just because it doesn’t meet your picture of the world around you.
I’ve seen it time and time again on here. Especially with the regular posters who apparently have nothing more in their lives than spending day after day, year after year posting on a forum designed to support people trying to improve their health and well being. It’s like a religious belief to them and any disbelievers are forced out.
Don’t be rude. Be nice. Be humble.
And I too have seen it on here time and again. The very people claiming others are "rude" and "closed minded".....well, they too could do some soul searching. You are convinced as much as the other posters, so what's to complain about? There are many lurkers that never post. Giving out wrong information can set them back. I think we're all capable of choosing who we wish to believe, in a nice, humble way.
I agree with this too. However, I didn’t once say that what I was talking about was fact. I literally said that I was doing a little experiment on myself. And explained what I experienced. I haven’t once told anybody to follow something. Plus I’m not convinced of anything, hence why I said discuss. I was hoping for a discussion not a shutting down.
To be clear, being someone who has a background in the Heath and fitness industry I am wary of giving advice unless I can confirm its effectiveness. My clients rely on me to help them reach their goals so I do not advocate dogma or things I practice just because I do them.
For example, I fast regularly and while the data on fasting is not proven, in my experience it’s an excellent tool and has helped me. We could argue about it’s “health benefits” all day but I wouldn’t tell me clients to fast. I can’t prove it works. So I don’t recommend it.
However you ask me about reducing sugar intake, alcohol consumption and switching to a more balanced diet I think we could all agree that would be a solid piece of advice.
As those above stated I am just one person and that is no data at all, so I was interested in what other people had experienced.
My bad for even bothering to try and create a dialogue. I won’t post agin.
OK. But when the majority of people have a different experience and no one supports your experiment, doesn't that give you pause? We're not talking about a lab experiment with a controlled environment. You want dialogue and people said what they think. If about half agreed that they had had the same experience then you could form a group and discuss it. So, I'd say, yes it was your experience, and since you're successful in the fitness industry then just keep on doing what you're doing. You don't need us. Best of luck.9 -
Another sample size of one with different results — The Twinkie Diet
My take on it:
a calorie deficit will result in weight loss over time.
You are what you eat — so most of the time make healthy choices.
Have treats and remember that they are treats
4 -
snowflake954 wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »This is not what I am claiming and I think we are getting lost amongst the weeds here...
I’m not actually claiming anything as fact or stating that this is the case for everyone. I truly believe that human beings all respond in different ways to foods, calories and environmental factors.
In MY experience. Which is mine alone, is that when I drink alcohol every night instead of on weekends and eat sugary overly processed foods (while keeping my calories exactly the same) my weight loss stalls or a least slows right down.
This is my experience. And it’s a valid one. It frightens me that many on here have such tunnel vision when it comes to this stuff. A number of you rudely shut down others because they are outliers or have different experiences. You are so stuck with the “science” that you refuse to entertain the notion that this “science” might be incorrect or outdated. The same science that said fat was bad and eating whole eggs are bad for you and so on...
Don’t be so quick to shoot down another persons experience just because it doesn’t meet your picture of the world around you.
I’ve seen it time and time again on here. Especially with the regular posters who apparently have nothing more in their lives than spending day after day, year after year posting on a forum designed to support people trying to improve their health and well being. It’s like a religious belief to them and any disbelievers are forced out.
Don’t be rude. Be nice. Be humble.
And I too have seen it on here time and again. The very people claiming others are "rude" and "closed minded".....well, they too could do some soul searching. You are convinced as much as the other posters, so what's to complain about? There are many lurkers that never post. Giving out wrong information can set them back. I think we're all capable of choosing who we wish to believe, in a nice, humble way.
I agree with this too. However, I didn’t once say that what I was talking about was fact. I literally said that I was doing a little experiment on myself. And explained what I experienced. I haven’t once told anybody to follow something. Plus I’m not convinced of anything, hence why I said discuss. I was hoping for a discussion not a shutting down.
To be clear, being someone who has a background in the Heath and fitness industry I am wary of giving advice unless I can confirm its effectiveness. My clients rely on me to help them reach their goals so I do not advocate dogma or things I practice just because I do them.
For example, I fast regularly and while the data on fasting is not proven, in my experience it’s an excellent tool and has helped me. We could argue about it’s “health benefits” all day but I wouldn’t tell me clients to fast. I can’t prove it works. So I don’t recommend it.
However you ask me about reducing sugar intake, alcohol consumption and switching to a more balanced diet I think we could all agree that would be a solid piece of advice.
As those above stated I am just one person and that is no data at all, so I was interested in what other people had experienced.
My bad for even bothering to try and create a dialogue. I won’t post agin.
OK. But when the majority of people have a different experience and no one supports your experiment, doesn't that give you pause? We're not talking about a lab experiment with a controlled environment. You want dialogue and people said what they think. If about half agreed that they had had the same experience then you could form a group and discuss it. So, I'd say, yes it was your experience, and since you're successful in the fitness industry then just keep on doing what you're doing. You don't need us. Best of luck.
To be fair to Luke, I think a few people did have the same experience he reported, and said so. And others had a different experience and said so.
Reading back through the thread, I saw people being quite direct, and asking pointed questions. Those are things that can feel different to the person being addressed, than intended by the one posting. And different sub-cultures have different thresholds for how direct it's polite to be.
From my personal view, I'm seeing relatively limited examples of posts that "rudely shut down others" or the like, in this thread, and to the extent that somewhat pointed language is used, it's . . . bidirectional: "tunnel vision", "posters who apparently have nothing more in their lives . . . than posting"?
Speaking of and for myself, I'll freely admit, it got my back up a bit to be called "a guy talking nonsense" for insisting that an actual objective fact was truly an actual fact. But I don't think my tart "thank you very much" was a deeply wounding example of rudeness or inhumility. (BTW, I appreciated the apology, and I was one who clicked "hug" on it, not "disagree".)
"Don’t be rude. Be nice. Be humble."
Yeah, I can get behind that. Honestly, I do try. I don't always succeed, don't expect others to always succeed, either. But - speaking as a generality here, not trying to be at all personal or pointed - I think the totality of our posts here - what's written, how it's written - tend unavoidably to create an impression of us as individuals, a reputation, in other people's minds. If not perceived as intended, it can be useful to think about why, and recognize aspects of our communication style that may contribute to disputes.
ETA: Though I don't know why this context provokes me to do so, I'd like to point out that the "PT" in my username here is not a claim to be a personal trainer or physical therapist. When I picked the name, that interpretation never occurred to me. My initials are APT; I spelled out my first name.9 -
There are several prominent coaches (Helms, Revelia, etc...) that talk about this when prepping people to get stage lean. And in their experiences, more whole foods and less ultra processed foods can lead to better results. Given the OP is likely the only one in this thread with a six pack, his needs are likely different than those who are not that lean.
IME, i could eat whatever to be average. To keep getting leaner, I have seen better results when i clean up my diet, even with the same calories.
Considering there are programs like UD2 and discussions i have listened to from people like Helms, Menno, etc..., i believe the conventional wisdom is fine for most people. I believe there are additional variables that can come into play for people trying to get pretty lean. It seems likely the OP is one of those people given his leanness as compared to most.6 -
snowflake954 wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »This is not what I am claiming and I think we are getting lost amongst the weeds here...
I’m not actually claiming anything as fact or stating that this is the case for everyone. I truly believe that human beings all respond in different ways to foods, calories and environmental factors.
In MY experience. Which is mine alone, is that when I drink alcohol every night instead of on weekends and eat sugary overly processed foods (while keeping my calories exactly the same) my weight loss stalls or a least slows right down.
This is my experience. And it’s a valid one. It frightens me that many on here have such tunnel vision when it comes to this stuff. A number of you rudely shut down others because they are outliers or have different experiences. You are so stuck with the “science” that you refuse to entertain the notion that this “science” might be incorrect or outdated. The same science that said fat was bad and eating whole eggs are bad for you and so on...
Don’t be so quick to shoot down another persons experience just because it doesn’t meet your picture of the world around you.
I’ve seen it time and time again on here. Especially with the regular posters who apparently have nothing more in their lives than spending day after day, year after year posting on a forum designed to support people trying to improve their health and well being. It’s like a religious belief to them and any disbelievers are forced out.
Don’t be rude. Be nice. Be humble.
And I too have seen it on here time and again. The very people claiming others are "rude" and "closed minded".....well, they too could do some soul searching. You are convinced as much as the other posters, so what's to complain about? There are many lurkers that never post. Giving out wrong information can set them back. I think we're all capable of choosing who we wish to believe, in a nice, humble way.
I agree with this too. However, I didn’t once say that what I was talking about was fact. I literally said that I was doing a little experiment on myself. And explained what I experienced. I haven’t once told anybody to follow something. Plus I’m not convinced of anything, hence why I said discuss. I was hoping for a discussion not a shutting down.
To be clear, being someone who has a background in the Heath and fitness industry I am wary of giving advice unless I can confirm its effectiveness. My clients rely on me to help them reach their goals so I do not advocate dogma or things I practice just because I do them.
For example, I fast regularly and while the data on fasting is not proven, in my experience it’s an excellent tool and has helped me. We could argue about it’s “health benefits” all day but I wouldn’t tell me clients to fast. I can’t prove it works. So I don’t recommend it.
However you ask me about reducing sugar intake, alcohol consumption and switching to a more balanced diet I think we could all agree that would be a solid piece of advice.
As those above stated I am just one person and that is no data at all, so I was interested in what other people had experienced.
My bad for even bothering to try and create a dialogue. I won’t post agin.
OK. But when the majority of people have a different experience and no one supports your experiment, doesn't that give you pause? We're not talking about a lab experiment with a controlled environment. You want dialogue and people said what they think. If about half agreed that they had had the same experience then you could form a group and discuss it. So, I'd say, yes it was your experience, and since you're successful in the fitness industry then just keep on doing what you're doing. You don't need us. Best of luck.
To be fair to Luke, I think a few people did have the same experience he reported, and said so. And others had a different experience and said so.
Reading back through the thread, I saw people being quite direct, and asking pointed questions. Those are things that can feel different to the person being addressed, than intended by the one posting. And different sub-cultures have different thresholds for how direct it's polite to be.
From my personal view, I'm seeing relatively limited examples of posts that "rudely shut down others" or the like, in this thread, and to the extent that somewhat pointed language is used, it's . . . bidirectional: "tunnel vision", "posters who apparently have nothing more in their lives . . . than posting"?
Speaking of and for myself, I'll freely admit, it got my back up a bit to be called "a guy talking nonsense" for insisting that an actual objective fact was truly an actual fact. But I don't think my tart "thank you very much" was a deeply wounding example of rudeness or inhumility. (BTW, I appreciated the apology, and I was one who clicked "hug" on it, not "disagree".)
"Don’t be rude. Be nice. Be humble."
Yeah, I can get behind that. Honestly, I do try. I don't always succeed, don't expect others to always succeed, either. But - speaking as a generality here, not trying to be at all personal or pointed - I think the totality of our posts here - what's written, how it's written - tend unavoidably to create an impression of us as individuals, a reputation, in other people's minds. If not perceived as intended, it can be useful to think about why, and recognize aspects of our communication style that may contribute to disputes.
ETA: Though I don't know why this context provokes me to do so, I'd like to point out that the "PT" in my username here is not a claim to be a personal trainer or physical therapist. When I picked the name, that interpretation never occurred to me. My initials are APT; I spelled out my first name.
Yep--about 7 people in 3 pages. Definitely not a majority. Could it be because he's already lean and the majority aren't, as psuLemon suggested? Perhaps, but then our very lean members could chime up. The tone of the OP makes a difference in the tone of the replies--just my observation. When the OP is humble, nice, and not rude, then the responses follow that line--mostly.7 -
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.
I mean, for many of us, losing weight (or maintaining our weight loss) *is the goal*. It probably isn't our only goal in life, but there's nothing wrong with having it as a goal.
When I began losing weight, my health was fine. I simply wanted my body to be smaller and to reduce my risk of illnesses associated with being at a higher weight.
The value of calories *is* equal. That's literally what a calorie is. This doesn't mean we're arguing that all foods are equal nutritionally. Nobody is arguing that.14 -
Nutrition matters when wanting to get healthier.
Get healthier doesn't necessarily mean lose weight.
Lose weight doesn't necessarily mean get healthier.
Simply touting CICO is overly simplistic. It can be detrimental for many of us who don't understand the ins and outs of nutrition. Your body needs protein, fats, vitamins, minerals to function and the only way to get those things is through calories.
The balancing act is to ensure you can get all of the necessities while also being in a caloric deficit. This becomes more complicated when you have certain medical issues. Personally, I was unable to lose weight for a sustained period of time without becoming severely vitamin deficient until I corrected some medical problems first.
You could say "If you just kept doing CICO you'd have lost all the weight" But I couldn't continue doing CICO because my body was completely breaking down and deteriorating because I wasn't absorbing necessary nutrients!
So, no, it's not all about calories but it also kind of is...6 -
digestibleplastic wrote: »Nutrition matters when wanting to get healthier.
Get healthier doesn't necessarily mean lose weight.
Lose weight doesn't necessarily mean get healthier.
Simply touting CICO is overly simplistic. It can be detrimental for many of us who don't understand the ins and outs of nutrition. Your body needs protein, fats, vitamins, minerals to function and the only way to get those things is through calories.
The balancing act is to ensure you can get all of the necessities while also being in a caloric deficit. This becomes more complicated when you have certain medical issues. Personally, I was unable to lose weight for a sustained period of time without becoming severely vitamin deficient until I corrected some medical problems first.
You could say "If you just kept doing CICO you'd have lost all the weight" But I couldn't continue doing CICO because my body was completely breaking down and deteriorating because I wasn't absorbing necessary nutrients!
So, no, it's not all about calories but it also kind of is...
Evidence shows us that people who have health conditions associated with higher weights do tend to see improvements when they get their weight into a healthy range (or even lose *some* weight). So for many people in the west, losing weight in and of itself is a step to getting healthier.
This doesn't mean that people with specific health concerns may have dietary needs associated with those conditions. If you're not absorbing nutrients, that's obviously a medical concern and puts you outside of the norm.
The truth is that protein, fat, vitamins, and minerals can be found in a wide variety of foods. Most people don't need to radically overhaul their diet or completely eliminate favorite foods in order to get them.17 -
There are several prominent coaches (Helms, Revelia, etc...) that talk about this when prepping people to get stage lean. And in their experiences, more whole foods and less ultra processed foods can lead to better results. Given the OP is likely the only one in this thread with a six pack, his needs are likely different than those who are not that lean.
IME, i could eat whatever to be average. To keep getting leaner, I have seen better results when i clean up my diet, even with the same calories.
Considering there are programs like UD2 and discussions i have listened to from people like Helms, Menno, etc..., i believe the conventional wisdom is fine for most people. I believe there are additional variables that can come into play for people trying to get pretty lean. It seems likely the OP is one of those people given his leanness as compared to most.
@psuLemon
I don't know if anyone is arguing against more whole nutrient dense foods, less processed foods especially when it comes to fighting the hunger at ultra lean levels and body composition as well as maximizing workout performance. If you feel like crap due to your eating and you aren't getting proper nutrition, then your workouts are going to suffer. And yes that could indirectly lead to weight loss stalls due to less energy output and other possible issues. However, if you are able to fit those foods into your day, still eat relatively nutrient dense and find your workout performance actually benefits... then there is nothing wrong with that either. That has been my experience. OK I don't have a 6-pack (mainly due to my training/muscle development not leanness) and I am not a bodybuilder so I am able to be more flexible in my dieting but I do consider myself lean and have achieved lean levels of body composition (at least for my standards).
A few years ago I wanted to cut a little faster before a vacation, so for 2 weeks I cut out the alcohol, reduced the snacks significantly and upped the cardio a bit. What happened? I lost faster, my deficit increased due to cutting those things out because I was eating less. It wasn't because of the magical properties of those foods or processed foods in and of themselves causing weight stalls. The way the OP worded his post it sounded like that since he claimed to keep calories the same (including protein levels if I'm not mistaken). If he was talking about it working just for him (which it sounds like he has clarified), then that's a different story since I do a lot of things that work well for me without scientific backing or that can be controversial that I wouldn't preach to people since it could be a placebo effect or something else.
I do think OP should keep doing what he is doing if he feels like he is benefiting from it. And if someone reading this has issues with hunger or their progress and eats a lot of packaged, high salt, processed or restaurant food, might be a good idea to consider cutting down on those foods to see if that helps with hunger, adherence, workout performance, sleep, etc.15 -
digestibleplastic wrote: »Nutrition matters when wanting to get healthier.
Get healthier doesn't necessarily mean lose weight.
Lose weight doesn't necessarily mean get healthier.
If one is overweight or especially obese, simply losing weight will usually improve health, although of course there are very unhealthful ways of doing that, and no one is recommending those.
OP wasn't losing weight for health, but for fitness goals, so in his case I certainly wouldn't say that losing weight would inherently improve health, of course.Simply touting CICO is overly simplistic. It can be detrimental for many of us who don't understand the ins and outs of nutrition. Your body needs protein, fats, vitamins, minerals to function and the only way to get those things is through calories.
But again, NO ONE has said to ignore nutrition. Eat a nutritious diet seems to me so obvious that it almost goes without saying (although I always do say it).
OP was talking about weight loss, over a short period of time, with protein and cals supposedly equal. I strongly suspect than when people make such comparisons calories and protein aren't really equal (since if you are drinking more and eating more treats it's much more difficult to maintain everything else the same -- and of course there usually will be some kind of water weight effect). (I mostly posted because a poster other than OP jumped in to claim that people saying calories are what matter for weight loss and saying they had different experiences than the OP were somehow saying that nutrition is not important for any purpose and recommending the Twinkie diet. I think to come to that conclusion you'd have to be trying to, and thus misread badly.)8 -
digestibleplastic wrote: »Nutrition matters when wanting to get healthier.
Get healthier doesn't necessarily mean lose weight.
Lose weight doesn't necessarily mean get healthier.
Simply touting CICO is overly simplistic. It can be detrimental for many of us who don't understand the ins and outs of nutrition. Your body needs protein, fats, vitamins, minerals to function and the only way to get those things is through calories.
The balancing act is to ensure you can get all of the necessities while also being in a caloric deficit. This becomes more complicated when you have certain medical issues. Personally, I was unable to lose weight for a sustained period of time without becoming severely vitamin deficient until I corrected some medical problems first.
You could say "If you just kept doing CICO you'd have lost all the weight" But I couldn't continue doing CICO because my body was completely breaking down and deteriorating because I wasn't absorbing necessary nutrients!
So, no, it's not all about calories but it also kind of is...
I agree with this.2 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »This is not what I am claiming and I think we are getting lost amongst the weeds here...
I’m not actually claiming anything as fact or stating that this is the case for everyone. I truly believe that human beings all respond in different ways to foods, calories and environmental factors.
In MY experience. Which is mine alone, is that when I drink alcohol every night instead of on weekends and eat sugary overly processed foods (while keeping my calories exactly the same) my weight loss stalls or a least slows right down.
This is my experience. And it’s a valid one. It frightens me that many on here have such tunnel vision when it comes to this stuff. A number of you rudely shut down others because they are outliers or have different experiences. You are so stuck with the “science” that you refuse to entertain the notion that this “science” might be incorrect or outdated. The same science that said fat was bad and eating whole eggs are bad for you and so on...
Don’t be so quick to shoot down another persons experience just because it doesn’t meet your picture of the world around you.
I’ve seen it time and time again on here. Especially with the regular posters who apparently have nothing more in their lives than spending day after day, year after year posting on a forum designed to support people trying to improve their health and well being. It’s like a religious belief to them and any disbelievers are forced out.
Don’t be rude. Be nice. Be humble.
I am with you. You didn’t give out false information or scientific facts. You just shared your own personal positive experience. Doesn’t matter if this is scientifically right or wrong.
But apparently we should’nt post our personal experience here. People don’t like this here obviously. I liked your post.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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions