8 ms·
Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue. When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) a
by joelrunyon 11y ago
Still amazed that people are still considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue.
When you look at how various hormones (namely insulin) are affected by blood sugar & affect body composition, it seems you'd want to promote a method that bears that in mind.
That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less."
- huehue 11y agoOver eating on high quality bacon won't stop you from being a lard-ass.
- paulojreis 11y agoHe mentioned "eating better". Eating "high quality bacon" isn't eating better.
- lubonay 11y agoHey, it's better compared to low quality bacon.
- paulojreis 11y agoI won't disagree with that - if I'm making wrong nutritional choices, let them be as tasty as possible!
- astrange 11y agoNothing wrong with bacon, fine source of macro calories. Maybe it's a little high in sodium.
- Stately 11y agoHave you tried that though? I'd say the reason why people associate bacon with being fat is because people that overeat bacon tend to overeat junk food, sugary snacks, industrial bakery and drink litres of sodas. Truth is though, that over the last few years more and more studies are disproving[0] the connection of saturated fat with obesity and heart disease. [0] - http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-science-of-saturated-fat-a-big-fat-surprise-about-nutrition-9692121.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/...
- snez 11y agoEating 3000kcal of "quality food" every day will still make you gross fat and give you heart problems. And did you know that protein also affects insulin? Insulin is essential for muscle building. Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk.
- rhaps0dy 11y agoYour point is right, but bear in mind everyone has different calorie requirements. The "3000kcal" is just a placeholder, it means "1.5 times what you need".
- roel_v 11y agoSure, but they don't vary that much between - and + 1 stddev. Eating 500 kcal / day less (or more) will affect the weight of pretty much everybody, over several months.
- rhaps0dy 11y agoYou are right, 500kcal is a significant chunk for most people. But eating 500kcal less is not (usually) the same as eating 3000kcal.
- paulojreis 11y ago> Still find it hilarious how so many people still don't understand that a caloric deficit or surplus is the #1 thing to do when trying to cut or bulk. Don't you think that there's more to human nutrition than "cut" or "bulk"?
- snez 11y agoOf course there is, but getting your priorities wrong is counter productive. Set the calories first based on your goal to cut/maintain/bulk, then you automatically figure out that junk food is a calorie thief and unconsciously start eating quality food, then you start adjusting your macros for body recomposition and the list goes on forever. Calories are #1 though.
- emirozer 11y agoNo, the focus should be eating the right amount of healthy food.
- rednukleus 11y agoThat's exactly his point. The approach of merely counting calories ignores the fact that some foods such as diet soda are low in calories but can have an effect on body composition. You shouldn't just "eat less" you should "eat better", and that means eating an appropriate amount of healthy good.
- astrange 11y agoWhat effect on body composition is that? Artificial sweeteners don't cause insulin resistance, so they should be fine for you. The acid in Diet Coke is real bad for your teeth, but fruit juice is more acidic and has more sugar than diet soda and yet you probably think it's healthy, right?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- tjogin 11y agoResearch has shown that, among dietary and health guidelines, switching soda for diet soda is the most effective guideline that exists. Eating better is obviously preferable, but the reason most people fail their diet is because it is too hard for them to comply with it. This is where the "switch to diet soda" is so effective; people can actually do it.
- rednukleus 11y agoI wasn't comparing regular soda to diet soda, I was comparing having diet soda to not having diet soda. Diet soda affects gut flora and insulin levels. Calories are not the whole story.
- 11y ago
- paulojreis 11y agoYeah, this looks like one of the (many) downsides of the quantifiable self. Nutrition professionals almost always advocate for diversity, but the Internet-wisdom thing is this approach. I guess it's just easier to do the simple math of in minus out (instead of actually trying to understand the nutrition of a complex organism).
- realharo 11y agoMost "Internet-wisdom" always tells you to at least roughly know and adjust your split of macronutrients.
- paulojreis 11y agoYes, of course, but - still - it's "Internet-wisdom". And mostly from fitness communities which may or may not be adequately knowledgeable. The split thing could make one focus too much on macronutrients, possibly eating the same thing over and over to hit the desired macros, while overlooking micronutrients. Yet, if one followed the simplest nutritional advice (diversity) instead of Internet-wisdom, that would be addressed.
- jsmthrowaway 11y agoBe amazed all you want, but you're conflating two different issues, as does everyone who discusses it the way you do. Your attitude on this is actually a public health risk, because you're implying eating "better" is necessary to lose weight, and eating "better" almost always puts "better" out of reach of low-income families. "Yes, you can lose weight, you just need to spend $60 more a week on things I consider better at the grocery store." Better is a relative term. Your better is not my better. How do you quantify better? Can you explain that to me? Eat fewer calories than you need. Lose weight. Not rocket science. Sweat the other stuff later, and treat it like a separate issue, because it is. Wouldn't disagree so strongly with you if you said "this is good. In addition to just figuring calories out, people should also eat better." Then I'd agree with you, but you're indignant and "amazed" like nobody understands the nuances of one value minus another, and if you're not making a salad, why even try. My entire life I've been overweight, and everybody has told me I need to eat "better," and I just started eating less of exactly what I ate before and it works. It's mysterious.
- roel_v 11y agoYeah, the GP sounds like my wife - "I need to lose weight, better buy two extra broccoli's". Uh no, to lose weight, you need to eat less, not more - just leave that bag of crisps and forget about the broccoli.
- joelrunyon 11y agoNothing I said was "indignant." Just stating that there's other things besides such strict calorie counting. On top of the fact that when practically put into play for people in real life, "calorie counting" feels restrictive, doesn't account for satiety (which then causes hunger & tends to lead to binges). Re: better - tons of vegetables, high quality meats, low-sugar fruits, nuts and seeds. Carbs when-appropriate pre/post workout.
- jsmthrowaway 11y agoI've practically put calorie counting into play in real life, it doesn't feel restrictive, and I ignore hunger. It's almost like broad, sweeping generalizations are tough to make about human bodies and people. You didn't answer my question about "better." EDIT: You still didn't answer my question about quantifying "better."
- lamby 11y ago> considering this a pure caloric issue and not a food quality issue I'm sure this will get a bunch of "but calories in calories out" replies - nobody is doubting the laws of thermodynamics, but there is an world of difference being, say, 400kcal under your TDEE eating "better" foods versus junk, both in terms of your mental outlook, how your body will look at the end, and whether you will stick to the diet and therefore succeed at your weight loss goals.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago> but there is an world of difference being How so (in terms of body composition)? Say TDEE = 3000 and one disregards macro/micros and eats at 2500 for 20 weeks opposed to one who ensures appropriate amounts.
- lamby 11y agoWell, not eating protein will mean you lose more muscle mass.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago>'world of difference' Say 100g compared to 200g for a 75kg 10% male, assuming identical AA profile. How is there a 'world of difference'?
- lamby 11y agoBy "world of difference" I was talking about mental state; blood sugar crashes, crap food making you feel crap, etc.
- dylanjermiah 11y ago>but there is an world of difference being, say, 400kcal under your TDEE eating "better" foods versus junk, both in terms of your mental outlook, how your body will look at the end I agree with those points, I was referencing this above. Especially the last sentence.
- dylanjermiah 11y agoI could eat 4000cals of steamed brocolli and boiled chicken and very quickly become obese. Quality of food is important, but an excess amount of quality macronutrients or micronutrients will result in excess adipose tissue. Focus on eating at a deficit, with nutrient dense food.
- richardboegli 11y ago> That said, I think the focus should be on "eating better" not just "eating less." I found that as I was looking for ways to reduce what I ate, I ended up eating better. Once I had lost the weight, someone asked me how I could still stay the same weight even though I was eating jelly babies. My response was that I am more conscious now of how much of something I eat and will adjust for it.