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.
Just to be a semantics twit: https://www.doughbardoughnuts.com/pages/frontpage
You could potentially hit a decent but not necessarily optimal protein level putting that in the doughnut mix - probably want to throw in a multivitamin too just in case. It would definitely be a pretty YOLO IIFYM diet.3 -
Hmmm I would love a peanut butter diet but 1200 calories of peanut butter is not even a whole one jar! A typical jar is like 2000 calories I can buy a small jar then add 2 heads of lettucd and decaf coffee... 😂😂😂3
-
lukejoycePT wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).
Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?
I 1000% agree with this. With my clients I would always start we reducing calories as little as possible. Pull them into a slight deficit as normally this will produce some decent results right off the bat. Then decrease calories depending on how they respond. Once a lower body fat is reached 12-16% I would then introduce a few extra tools to help kick the extra lbs such as keeping the “fun” foods to weekends and only drinking certain alcohol such as red wine and spirits
I would think red wine would be one of the worst choices for that. Generally, when drinking while trying to be lean, you're looking for the most alcohol to the least calories and least congeners. Congeners are byproducts of alcohol fermentation that are generally associated with the negative effects, like hangover, that happen. Red wine is one of the worst alcoholic drinks in terms of congeners along with brandy and rum. Generally clear spirits like vodka are good, as well as beer.
I also don't understand that idea earlier in the thread of calling alcohol a carb by virtue of them being created through sugar fermentation. When you get down to it, plenty of fat in animals comes from turning sugars into pyruvate and then short fatty acids, and usually esterifying them with glcyerol (derived also from sugar) to make triglcyerides. Yet I wouldn't call fats just a different form of carbs. By a similar metric, testosterone is a cholesterol derived hormone - so it comes from a lipid / fat - yet I've never heard of a bodybuilder referring to it as getting fatter because their testosterone levels went up.10 -
I agree with op, when I was losing, I lost more consistently when I ate "simply" & "healthy" as in a protein simply cooked, as in a lean ground turkey patty or any kind of meat/poultry sauteed in a bit of olive oil plus fresh/frozen veggies with a little butter or such on them as opposed to the same protein cooked in a bit of sauce, no veggies but baked potato or rice on side. It also had the same effect when instead of having my yogurt for snack, I had bowl of cereal. It was all the same calories0
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).
Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?
I 1000% agree with this. With my clients I would always start we reducing calories as little as possible. Pull them into a slight deficit as normally this will produce some decent results right off the bat. Then decrease calories depending on how they respond. Once a lower body fat is reached 12-16% I would then introduce a few extra tools to help kick the extra lbs such as keeping the “fun” foods to weekends and only drinking certain alcohol such as red wine and spirits
I would think red wine would be one of the worst choices for that. Generally, when drinking while trying to be lean, you're looking for the most alcohol to the least calories and least congeners. Congeners are byproducts of alcohol fermentation that are generally associated with the negative effects, like hangover, that happen. Red wine is one of the worst alcoholic drinks in terms of congeners along with brandy and rum. Generally clear spirits like vodka are good, as well as beer.
I also don't understand that idea earlier in the thread of calling alcohol a carb by virtue of them being created through sugar fermentation. When you get down to it, plenty of fat in animals comes from turning sugars into pyruvate and then short fatty acids, and usually esterifying them with glcyerol (derived also from sugar) to make triglcyerides. Yet I wouldn't call fats just a different form of carbs. By a similar metric, testosterone is a cholesterol derived hormone - so it comes from a lipid / fat - yet I've never heard of a bodybuilder referring to it as getting fatter because their testosterone levels went up.
Wow you really want to go deep with this.
Let me clarify. People tend to gravitate toward wine, beer or spirits. Beer in my opinion isn’t the best drink in this situation for several fairly obvious reasons.
So if someone was to chose wine I’d go for red over white. Red has far more health benefits going for it, if you believe in anti oxidants, it’s better for you.
Spirits wise, not many people enjoy vodka at home. If I was out I’d drink vodka, soda water and fresh lime. It’s refreshing, tastes good, gets you drunk and has the least calories. However most people prefer gin and tonic so I’d recommend that too.
The reason why I simplify alcohol as an “empty carb” is because people want it simple. They don’t need to know that alcohol is basically a poison in your body that’s causes mass inflammation. That’s not going to get them motivated. People enjoy a drink and why shouldn’t they? So I’d rather just say it’s got nothing good in it. It’s an empty carb so don’t over consume it. It may not be scientifically correct but a client isn’t after a science lesson they just want to be able to enjoy themselves and still look and feel better.
This post wasn’t really about what alcohol t consume tho and if calories are king to then as long as they beverage is tracked correctly then it would change the rate of fat loss. My point is, that for me. It does make a difference.
0 -
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 don't think I clicked disagree, but for starters, "Processed foods (broadly defined)" is darn near everything anybody eats, so it seems a fairly useless assertion even if it's true. In the second place, "Processed foods (broadly defined" makes me wonder what aspect of having more than five ingredients or having ingredients that some given individual can't pronounce or is unfamiliar with or being located in an interior aisle of the grocery store causes "a negative metabolic, hormonal and inflammatory effect."
"Aggh! Dihydrogen monoxide! There go my hormones!"8 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I don't think it's at all unusual that people who want to reach elite bf levels may have to adopt some techniques that aren't necessary for the average person who just wants to reach a healthy body weight (or even go beyond that into losing vanity pounds).
Outside of your very specific circumstance, do you agree that for someone who wants to reach a healthy body weight or even lose some vanity pounds, a calorie deficit is the most crucial factor?
Has that even been questioned at all in this thread? He even mentioned calories are key.
I believe it was this statement in the OP he made:
"However, As soon as I cut out the junk and drink and ate at the same calories I started dropping again."
Then he went on to say it wasn't water retention and his activity was the same so it sounded as if it was just those foods that made a difference.
But then @lukejoycePT I am a bit confused since you do actually eat those foods regularly on the weekends just not on weekdays? And in your experiment you decided to add them to your weekly plan? It sounds to me that you were possibly eating less than you thought during the week (before the experiment) and since you changed your food intake (it could have been anything but it was treats in this case) it offset your deficit and you maintained. That's just my guess.
Sorry I should have been clearer. When I was having treats during the week i actually consumed a lot less of these foods and drink on the weekends. I was tracking on the weekends too actually, which I never do.
This is still confusing. If you don't normally track on the weekends, how can you know that your calorie intake in a normal week was the same as your calorie intake during the two weeks of your experiment with not having alcohol?11 -
If you knew alcohol isn't a carb then why did you respond to someone pointing out exactly that fact with...
"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."
Suggestion for you, if you want to simplify the message for people that want simplicity then surely you should say alcohol has empty calories not empty carbs?
This was a very good sentiment though -"Don’t be rude. Be nice. Be humble" - but that needs to be a two way street.13 -
Don't they teach science in high school anymore?
A carbohydrate is any of a number of molecules with one thing in common. Made entirely of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Guess what alcohol is? Right answer gets the hall pass.2 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »Don't they teach science in high school anymore?
A carbohydrate is any of a number of molecules with one thing in common. Made entirely of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Guess what alcohol is? Right answer gets the hall pass.
I laughed at this--I forgot high school. I wanted to forget high school.......2 -
snowflake954 wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »Don't they teach science in high school anymore?
A carbohydrate is any of a number of molecules with one thing in common. Made entirely of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Guess what alcohol is? Right answer gets the hall pass.
I laughed at this--I forgot high school. I wanted to forget high school.......
Alcohol made me forget it.
4 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »Don't they teach science in high school anymore?
A carbohydrate is any of a number of molecules with one thing in common. Made entirely of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Guess what alcohol is? Right answer gets the hall pass.
I laughed at this--I forgot high school. I wanted to forget high school.......
Alcohol made me forget it.
THAT was college.
4 -
snowflake954 wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »wilson10102018 wrote: »Don't they teach science in high school anymore?
A carbohydrate is any of a number of molecules with one thing in common. Made entirely of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Guess what alcohol is? Right answer gets the hall pass.
I laughed at this--I forgot high school. I wanted to forget high school.......
Alcohol made me forget it.
THAT was college.
I was advanced. And, by the time I got to college there was nothing to remember. And, the carbohydrates slipped into a dim memory in favor of far more complicated molecules.0 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »Spirits wise, not many people enjoy vodka at home.
What is this based on? I'm guessing this is going to be highly dependent on who you socialize with, but many people I know enjoy vodka in their homes. You can use it to mix all kinds of drinks and people who may object to the stronger taste of other spirits tend to accept the more neutral flavor. Sales figures show that it is one of the most popular spirits in the US (that probably includes restaurant/bar sales in addition to what people are buying for home bars, but it's not *ALL* going to restaurants and bars). In most places I've lived (several states in the US), liquor stores appear to stock vodka in a way that makes it clear people are purchasing it and not in small quantities.
So while your impression might be that not many people are enjoying vodka at home, I'm not sure that's based on facts.
10 -
wilson10102018 wrote: »Don't they teach science in high school anymore?
A carbohydrate is any of a number of molecules with one thing in common. Made entirely of carbon hydrogen and oxygen. Guess what alcohol is? Right answer gets the hall pass.
Better tell the USDA they're bad at chemistry then, eh?
Alcohol is not conventionally considered a carbohydrate, the biochemical definition dominating these days, and we're talking about biochemistry here. Carbohydrates are generally considered to encompass the sugars and various other saccharides.
Do you put tomatoes in fruit salad?
8 -
As an aside, this is the 2nd thread** in which someone in a trainer role has said that they adopt the terminology their clients use or that's simple for clients to understand (even if technically inaccurate), rather than trying to help their clients gain a more nuanced or accurate understanding.
This seems odd to me. It's not what I, personally, would want from a professional I hired: I'd be looking for technical accuracy, when I pay for expertise. Frankly, if someone who's supposed to be a specialist in a field says things that I know are strictly not accurate, it undermines my confidence in them.
Perhaps some (many?) clients do prefer things to be simplified and are not interested in whether they're technically accurate, I don't know. I'll defer to the trainers' experience on how this works marketing-wise with a typical population, but it definitely isn't what I'd be looking for.
** The other was a case where the person's website uncritically used somatotype terminology a good bit on the home page and beyond. If one dug deep into the site, that was explained, but it took digging.
ETA: The first guy, the somatotypes one, did say that he did try to educate clients that somatotypes were a debunked concept (even though somatotype terms were obvious on multiple pages), and pointed out part of their blog that illustrated that. I came back to add this because I thought he calmly did a decent job of explaining why he did what he did, was non-defensively responsive to people's comments, and didn't try to bluster his way through, which I respected; so I wanted to update this to give him his due in that regard.12 -
Yeah, I wouldn't trust a trainer with these beliefs either.10
-
The concept that for all people, with all conditions, CICO is the end-all, be-all of how the human body loses and gains weight seems to fly in the face of one important fact: the human body is not that simplistic.
The fact that someone gets a results others don't expect does not warrant an automatic 'you must be doing it wrong.' If they forgot certain procedures that impact the outcome, sure, but this is just a case study, not a full blown study, and seems fairly well done for what it is. And the results are not actually THAT uncommon. And they don't even fly in the face of what is known about the human body.
As an example, one reason that people can't lose weight even when their calories are within the right target range, until they ALSO stop eating as much 'junk food,' might be if they have insulin resistance. And this condition seems to be VERY common. 1 in 3 people in the USA are assumed to have this: https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/type-2-diabetes/insulin-resistance-causes-symptoms#:~:text=One%20in%20three%20Americans%E2%80%94including,attacks%2C%20strokes2%20and%20cancer. )
Because if you have excess insulin levels (which happens with insulin resistance), from what I understand, this actually increases how much fat your body stores from what you eat. There is debate on the topic of what STARTS insulin resistance (whether gaining weight starts it, or it starts weight gain), but once insulin resistance HAS started, a person's body will have fat storage that is impacted by blood sugar levels AS WELL AS calories consumed.
And again: 1 in 3 people in the USA have this (higher than some countries, I'm sure).
Which may be why there are a LOT of people who try to lose weight with CICO and can't seem to do it until they change the food choices they make, as well.
This is a nice summary of 4 different bits of research into the origins and function of insulin resistance, for those interested.
https://www.secondnature.io/guides/diabetes/insulin-resistance-weight-gain
0 -
The concept that for all people, with all conditions, CICO is the end-all, be-all of how the human body loses and gains weight seems to fly in the face of one important fact: the human body is not that simplistic.
The fact that someone gets a results others don't expect does not warrant an automatic 'you must be doing it wrong.' If they forgot certain procedures that impact the outcome, sure, but this is just a case study, not a full blown study, and seems fairly well done for what it is. And the results are not actually THAT uncommon. And they don't even fly in the face of what is known about the human body.
As an example, one reason that people can't lose weight even when their calories are within the right target range, until they ALSO stop eating as much 'junk food,' might be if they have insulin resistance. And this condition seems to be VERY common. 1 in 3 people in the USA are assumed to have this: https://www.endocrineweb.com/conditions/type-2-diabetes/insulin-resistance-causes-symptoms#:~:text=One%20in%20three%20Americans%E2%80%94including,attacks%2C%20strokes2%20and%20cancer. )
Because if you have excess insulin levels (which happens with insulin resistance), from what I understand, this actually increases how much fat your body stores from what you eat. There is debate on the topic of what STARTS insulin resistance (whether gaining weight starts it, or it starts weight gain), but once insulin resistance HAS started, a person's body will have fat storage that is impacted by blood sugar levels AS WELL AS calories consumed.
And again: 1 in 3 people in the USA have this (higher than some countries, I'm sure).
Which may be why there are a LOT of people who try to lose weight with CICO and can't seem to do it until they change the food choices they make, as well.
This is a nice summary of 4 different bits of research into the origins and function of insulin resistance, for those interested.
https://www.secondnature.io/guides/diabetes/insulin-resistance-weight-gain
It's just that CICO is NOT a diet. It is a function--calories in, calories out. Calorie counting is a diet. You lose, gain, and maintain with your body using CICO. You can't stop that process (if you're alive). So, maybe you want to rewrite your post. It's got a few holes in it.12 -
There is an explanation for every inconsistent result in calorie counting. Mostly, the explanation is pilot error. Bad counting, lazy counting, denial, aversion, etc. On the expectation end, it is also pilot error. "Oh, I'm way active. On my feet all day long. You wouldn't believe how much housework, lawn care, walking running and stairs I do," Says my 300 pound sister who hasn't seen the bottom of the basement steps of her house in three years.
Many people would call those explanations, "excuses." But that would be judgmental.
If one has the correct calorie goal and doesn't fool oneself about activity levels, and log every calorie and remain in a deficit continuously for an extended period of time, everyone will lose the weight.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions