Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Article: Quality Of Calories Matters More Than Number

Article has some good points but simplifies a bigger problem and takes self accountability out of the equation. If you're reading this and you're obese I feel it could take you in the wrong direction. Almost feels like a push for another fad diet.
 
As a person who used to be about 80lbd over weight it's not as simples has hey why don't you eat "clean calories" I was a addict! You can't just tell an addict to stop! When your over weight your going to be more likely to be lazy, ands easier to do Cooke or pick up Mcdonalds? I do understand some overweight people might have a genetic disease that can have a rather large impact on metabolism. But this whole Fed Up BS is giving some of there addicts and excuse to why they are overweight! How does that help at all? It's no my fault it's Mcdonalds fault that I eat 4 Big Macs instead of one! They made is so addicting that I just can't stop at one! And my VAT just prevents me form losing weight! Oh man what do addicts love more? Besides what ever they are addicted too? And excuse to continue to be addicted! Rant over...
 
You can't lose fat without being hungry. Your body does not want to consume itself and it will complain! Anyone who says different is lying. Like this guy here. This is why so many people are overweight. Not because they eat the "wrong foods", but just because they eat too much, & once the fat is there it's painful, yes painful, to get rid of it.

And yes we are animals. Lord this man is an idiot. Whoever made him a doctor should be shot.
 
Guys I'm at a little bit of a loss. I feel like I won't see my lower abs without steroids or some un natural substance. 28 inch waist and can't see lower abs? I've been doing a progressive cut and lost 22 pounds so far. Any advice?
 
JD261985 said:
Guys I'm at a little bit of a loss. I feel like I won't see my lower abs without steroids or some un natural substance. 28 inch waist and can't see lower abs? I've been doing a progressive cut and lost 22 pounds so far. Any advice?
Click to expand...

Body fat %? Years training? You do have to have a solid base of muscle ya know.
 
I love this debate. This article obviously shows the lack of an understanding of the first law of thermodynamics and "closed systems". Think of it this way - calories are a measure of the energy contained in a mass. You cannot just magically create mass - it has to come from somewhere (food). Weight yourself in the morning, and then don't eat anything. I GUARANTEE you will not gain ANY weight during that time frame.

If you eat 1 pound of food, I GUARANTEE you will gain 1 pound of mass while that food is in your stomach.

The calories are just a measure of the energy found in that mass. If it is 1 pound of fat, it will have roughly 9 calories/gram. 1 pound of protein or carbs and it will have about 4 calories/gram.

This isn't to say that eating a healthy source of those calories isn't better for you or won't trigger different responses, but those effects are certainly secondary to the law of thermodynamics. It doesn't matter how much insulin you release if you don't have any material to store as fat when you release it (other than the fact you will get low blood sugar, etc). This entire "calories don't matter" fad is just a way for people to continue writing articles to get hits by telling people that there is some "secret information that nobody knows about.
 
HIT4ME said:
I love this debate. This article obviously shows the lack of an understanding of the first law of thermodynamics and "closed systems". Think of it this way - calories are a measure of the energy contained in a mass. You cannot just magically create mass - it has to come from somewhere (food). Weight yourself in the morning, and then don't eat anything. I GUARANTEE you will not gain ANY weight during that time frame.

If you eat 1 pound of food, I GUARANTEE you will gain 1 pound of mass while that food is in your stomach.

The calories are just a measure of the energy found in that mass. If it is 1 pound of fat, it will have roughly 9 calories/gram. 1 pound of protein or carbs and it will have about 4 calories/gram.

This isn't to say that eating a healthy source of those calories isn't better for you or won't trigger different responses, but those effects are certainly secondary to the law of thermodynamics. It doesn't matter how much insulin you release if you don't have any material to store as fat when you release it (other than the fact you will get low blood sugar, etc). This entire "calories don't matter" fad is just a way for people to continue writing articles to get hits by telling people that there is some "secret information that nobody knows about.
Click to expand...

Exactly my take on it. Articles like this make it ok to fail at your weight loss goals by making it seem a lot more complicated than it is. I've seen many people with very little nutritional expertise lose tons of weight by simply buckling down and eating less.
 
This article is bull****!! It's really very very simple.. EAT LESS! I challenge everybody who asks me about "losing weight" to actually track all calories for 2 or 3 days and don't go over 17 or 1800. All people being different of course but it's a good number for them to see when they have a Mt Dew and snickers that they are waisting almost 600 calories in 10 minutes. You tend to find better food choices rather quickly if your serious enough! Am I the only one who caught "people consume almost 152 pounds of sugar a year....almost 1 pound per day". Did someone change the calendar from 365 days a year?????
 
This article fails to acknowledge something, no ones even really trying to eat less and exercise more.

But I do agree with the over all theme of the article, people are so misinformed it's not even funny, case in point my own wife. She believes things like fruit juice and cereal are actually good for you. The other day I made hamburgers for the family and my wife asked "what are you going to serve with it" I said "nothing just making a fast meal" she said " the kids need to eat something besides just burgers, make up some Mac n cheese" I was dumbfounded that someone would think that Mac n cheese would make a well rounded meal to a burger. But that's just how uneducated our society is luckily I'm in charge of my kids diet and normally they eat really clean.
 
First off I do wake up everyday saying "I want to gain weight" granted not fat, my goals are toweight gain... being overweight is only common in the US, obesity is an American disease. American food tends to be low quality with lots of preservatives and refined sugar. America started addressing heart disease back in the 50s, blamed saturated fat, and that's why there's "fat free" foods. They started putting refined sugar in everything because low fat food tastes like ****. The real problem is the way we process our food to make more money, we cut corners and put poison into the food supply. Livestock live in horrible conditions, and our produce is sprayed with pesticides and fertilizers. Other countries have quality food, quality calories, so the real problem is American food. Honestly I'd rather eat French or Korean food than American "health food" which might be good for you but also tastes bad.
 
Brothers in iron, I used to disagree with this because I had bought the calories in-calories out mantra and discovered it was a myth. Also, if somebody is prone to put on body fat easily, one will find that one can do cardio or lift to oblivion and not lost body fat, especially with cardio. It seems odd, but for people do not need a calorie deficit to lose weight. Change the source of calories. I compete in strongman and powerlifting but am prone to gain fat easily. My family wasn't overweight but I always was even though I played spring soccer, summer baseball and fall soccer. Not a lazy bone in my body and I was an Xer so I didn't grow up on fast or pop every week. I am 6'4 and 275 right now which is very lean for me. Give me 5,000-6,000 calories a day of meat, eggs and greens and I never gain fat. Change my diet to 2,000-2,500 with 150 grams of carbs and I can do an intense strongman training and still gain fat. For young ectomorphs it makes no sense. It comes down to the insulin release. Check out Gary Taubes and his book "Why WeGet Fat." It is great and something I suggest to people all of the time who struggle with weight. I am a certified nutritionist, but it is not my vocation. Yes, discipline has to come into losing, of course. But when the government keeps saying, "eat that bread or potato." It makes it a lot harder. But we subsidize the growing of that stuff so somebody has to eat it. And the comment about a pound of sugar and flour adds up to a year. It was worded oddly but he was saying that a pound total a day of the 2 combined will essentially add up to the year. Keep lifting bros.
 
smash1904 said:
First off I do wake up everyday saying "I want to gain weight" granted not fat, my goals are toweight gain... being overweight is only common in the US, obesity is an American disease. American food tends to be low quality with lots of preservatives and refined sugar. America started addressing heart disease back in the 50s, blamed saturated fat, and that's why there's "fat free" foods. They started putting refined sugar in everything because low fat food tastes like ****. The real problem is the way we process our food to make more money, we cut corners and put poison into the food supply. Livestock live in horrible conditions, and our produce is sprayed with pesticides and fertilizers. Other countries have quality food, quality calories, so the real problem is American food. Honestly I'd rather eat French or Korean food than American "health food" which might be good for you but also tastes bad.
Click to expand...

Why do people say this, America is not the most obese country in the world Nararu and Mexico are far more worse off then we are with around 70% of there population being overweight/obese. Many European countries and even Australia and New Zealand are only between 5-10% less fat then America. It's not an American problem it's a first world problem.
 
Battossi said:
Article has some good points but simplifies a bigger problem and takes self accountability out of the equation. If you're reading this and you're obese I feel it could take you in the wrong direction. Almost feels like a push for another fad diet.
Click to expand...


^this^
 
I'm not really sure why so many people are reacting negatively to this article. It's presenting the same information in most of the other diet articles on Anabolic Minds, it's just presenting it more towards a "Huffington Post" type of audience than an athlete type audience.

The information itself, though (in the "meat" part of the article, not so much the intro/bullet point section), seems right in line with current athletic diet thinking.
 
I'm not really sure why so many people are reacting negatively to this article. It's presenting the same information in most of the other diet articles on Anabolic Minds, it's just presenting it more towards a "Huffington Post" type of audience than an athlete type audience.

The information itself, though (in the "meat" part of the article, not so much the intro/bullet point section), seems right in line with current athletic diet thinking.
 
elegua said:
I'm not really sure why so many people are reacting negatively to this article. It's presenting the same information in most of the other diet articles on Anabolic Minds, it's just presenting it more towards a "Huffington Post" type of audience than an athlete type audience.The information itself, though (in the "meat" part of the article, not so much the intro/bullet point section), seems right in line with current athletic diet thinking.
Click to expand...
Anyone with an MD after their name who says people aren't animals needs to be slapped.
 
HIT4ME said:
I love this debate. This article obviously shows the lack of an understanding of the first law of thermodynamics and "closed systems". Think of it this way - calories are a measure of the energy contained in a mass. You cannot just magically create mass - it has to come from somewhere (food). Weight yourself in the morning, and then don't eat anything. I GUARANTEE you will not gain ANY weight during that time frame.

If you eat 1 pound of food, I GUARANTEE you will gain 1 pound of mass while that food is in your stomach.

The calories are just a measure of the energy found in that mass. If it is 1 pound of fat, it will have roughly 9 calories/gram. 1 pound of protein or carbs and it will have about 4 calories/gram.

This isn't to say that eating a healthy source of those calories isn't better for you or won't trigger different responses, but those effects are certainly secondary to the law of thermodynamics. It doesn't matter how much insulin you release if you don't have any material to store as fat when you release it (other than the fact you will get low blood sugar, etc). This entire "calories don't matter" fad is just a way for people to continue writing articles to get hits by telling people that there is some "secret information that nobody knows about.
Click to expand...

As ur body breaks down the food, depending on its makeup, it will transfer it to heat. We call this the TEF, or thermic effect of feeding. The body also tends to put carbs into muscle and dietary fats into fat cells. Having both in the same meal is not a good thing. One or the other.

1lb of dietary fat (3500 kcals) will have a very different metabolic effect than 1lb of sweet potato or 1lb of MCT (if u were crazy enough to try it!)

Both matter. U can ignore calories and switch from crappy refined foods to healthy altetnatives and you'll notice positive changes since healthy foods ramp the metabolism up and alter the insulin curve in a positive way(which matters more than any othet single aspect of metabolism).

However, if u happen to change diets for the better and still eat same amount of calories you MIGHT see a loss in fat but probably an equal amount of muscle gain, too. What u wont notice much of is weight loss until u eventually add enough muscle mass to ur frame to start increasing ur BMR enough to matter.
 
elegua said:
I'm not really sure why so many people are reacting negatively to this article. It's presenting the same information in most of the other diet articles on Anabolic Minds, it's just presenting it more towards a "Huffington Post" type of audience than an athlete type audience.

The information itself, though (in the "meat" part of the article, not so much the intro/bullet point section), seems right in line with current athletic diet thinking.
Click to expand...

Agreed. There is more misinformation in the posts thereafter than the article itself.

There are numerous studies that support the idea that foods are not equal to one another which suggests that this "calories in, calories out" mentality is flawed. I might also mention that I've never seen any sort of iconic physique or even an above average physique that followed that mantra.

Calories and quality both matter. But if I were stupid enough to only choose one, I'd choose quality and adjust my activity level to suit my calorie intake.
 
compudog said:
You can't lose fat without being hungry. Your body does not want to consume itself and it will complain! Anyone who says different is lying. Like this guy here. This is why so many people are overweight. Not because they eat the "wrong foods", but just because they eat too much, & once the fat is there it's painful, yes painful, to get rid of it. And yes we are animals. Lord this man is an idiot. Whoever made him a doctor should be shot.
Click to expand...

There is so much more then goes into this

You definitely can lose fat and not be hungry. Properly timed meals, and frequency (not the generic 6-8 per day).
 
fueledpassion said:
As ur body breaks down the food, depending on its makeup, it will transfer it to heat. We call this the TEF, or thermic effect of feeding. The body also tends to put carbs into muscle and dietary fats into fat cells. Having both in the same meal is not a good thing. One or the other.

1lb of dietary fat (3500 kcals) will have a very different metabolic effect than 1lb of sweet potato or 1lb of MCT (if u were crazy enough to try it!)

Both matter. U can ignore calories and switch from crappy refined foods to healthy altetnatives and you'll notice positive changes since healthy foods ramp the metabolism up and alter the insulin curve in a positive way(which matters more than any othet single aspect of metabolism).

However, if u happen to change diets for the better and still eat same amount of calories you MIGHT see a loss in fat but probably an equal amount of muscle gain, too. What u wont notice much of is weight loss until u eventually add enough muscle mass to ur frame to start increasing ur BMR enough to matter.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with you here. I particularly like the 1 lb of MCT oil...talk about GI problems :)

My point is that these articles and this argument - "Is a calorie a calorie" - get taken too far. You can lose weight eating twinkies if you like. Mass and energy are the deciding factors overall. You can gain weight eating chicken and broccoli 5 times a day too.

The bottom line is that calories are the #1 factor in weight loss/gain. How you get these calories is the #2 factor, but can also play a major role. The fact of the matter is, if you're eating 1,800 calories a day from veggies and chicken - you will be eating A LOT MORE food (bulk wise) than if you were eating 1,800 calories a day from bacon and butter. Likewise, if you are eating enough veggies to get full, you will be eating way fewer calories than someone else eating enough bacon to become full. This means, it makes sense to eat a certain way as the #2 goal.

Further, I agree - the metabolism of different nutrients is a factor. If you eat sugar and fat and low protein, you will store fat more quickly, provided you have extra calories to store. The fact of the matter is, you will still lose weight on a sugar and fat diet (twinkies) if the deficit is great enough. Again, this may not be a practical or healthy approach. And you can still gain weight on 4,000 calories of chicken every day too, even though it is healthy.

I also understand that high protein, moderate carbs and fat diets can help your body composition when compared to a sugar/fat diet. I get that, really. But again, calories in vs. out is the #1 factor. These articles try to treat the #2 factor as if it is really the secret and that calories don't matter. The fact of the matter is, there is no magic bullet and all of the above factors into overall results.
 
But lets be honest, unless one is morbidly obese, no one is interesting in losing or gaining weight. Everyone is interested in losing fat or building muscle, and in the fitness industry - BOTH.

What ur prescribing here though is not addressing which is lost or gained. A twinky diet but in a caloric deficit and lets just say ur also training on that diet too - you'd lose a lb or two of muscle for every half pound of fat lost. Why? Because certain foods are ideal for certain activities. Doing a whole bunch of nothing merits eating a high fat diet but training intensely 6 days a week would demand lots of complex starches, along with a high protein diet to make up for the breakdown of aminos for fuel.

There is sssoooooo much more to metabolism than just calories. The body simply isnt capable of utilizing a twinky for all things metabolism, therefore, catabolic activity is necessary to sustain energy, especially while training vigorously.

Which is why I said that I've never seen an ideal physique that follows that mantra - calories in, calories out. It works to lose or gain weight but it does NOTHING for making that weight exclusively good or bad weight. And unfortunately, 99% of the people that follow this mantra usually end up eating crap foods because it's easier and they dont have the self discipline to do whats right.

It all goes back to understanding the limitations to each macro nutrient, how various foods interact with the insulin-glucagon axis, and the type and volume of activity involved for that individual.
 
I think you are making a good argument fueledpassion and I really don't disagree. But I think you are thinking in more advanced terms than most people. Just as someone can say "It's just calories" and then eat junk because it's easier; another person could say, "As long as I eat X foods, I don't have to worry about calories." - because it is easier. Both sides have their merits, but I view it as a progression.

When someone is looking to build a diet, they FIRST must figure out their caloric needs. THEN, they should focus on their macros. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ADVOCATING that someone eat twinkies as long as they are under their caloric needs in order to lose weight, I'm merely stating it is possible.

I see the macros as a more advanced understanding of diet. I think you have this understanding so greatly that it seems easy to you - but you are wrong. Most people DO NOT care about gaining muscle and losing fat. On this board, yes, but in the real world - most people just think "Weight loss = healthier" or "Weight loss = better looking". I've seen SO MANY people go on fad diets and lose a ton of weight only to become skinny fat. They never learn the basics and they become skinny fat, and then all of a sudden they are eating hardly anything and gaining weight again because they have burned so much muscle and messed up their metabolism so badly and they don't have the knowledge to get things in order. And this situation is based in not understanding BOTH calories and macros.

And you are right (again) - twinkies do not provide everything you need. In my mind, protein has always been the #1 important factor here because you can get carbs and fat from protein, but you cannot get protein from carbs or fat. Protein is the only source of nitrogen in the macronutrient world. Protein requirements should be the most important thing people focus on. Then essential fatty acids, then complex carbs. But this all gets more in depth than the average person will really consider. They just see an article like this and think, "Oh, so calories don't matter. The secret is to cut your carbs" or your fat, or whatever. How many people went on the atkins diet and don't have a clue how it works? People just want answers and results, they don't want to take the time to understand the process...
 
I agree with all of that, not that my opinion really amounts to anything other than a hill of beans though.

I think personally that non-lifters have done just that though - they oversimplify the process.

I know too many obese people that are eating 1500kcals or less daily. They eat two meals at best and are inactive and have totally given up on changing their physique because someone told them "just eat less" or "ur eating too much". They cut calories down to 1000kcals a day, lose some water and a lb or two of fat, but eventually shutting their metabolism down and stalling in weight loss. So they then start eating more again cuz their hungry and bam, the weight + 10lbs shows up again. Yo-yo dieting. So they give up and search for some genetic excuse as to why they are fat.

To add to ur point, I think the very first thing to address is activity level, then the calories, then the quality.
 
Cut the sugar and destroy your thyroid.... No better way to make your body cling to every scrap of fat (and maybe store some extra just in case) than depriving your brain of its primary fuel source... Get rid of the polyunsaturates in your diet, eat protein sources that don't inflame the gut like milk (or cheese if you're lactose intolerant) and the fat will come off. Yes calories matter (duh) but if your metabolism is firing on all cylinders (healthy thyroid, liver, mitochondrial respiration, proper hormone balance etc) and you manage stress appropriately by learning how to deliberately engage the parasympathetic nervous system you have a lot more leeway to eat more food.

Fat storage is a survival response. The nervous system can perceive all sorts of things as threats, be it chronic low grade inflammation, a douchebag boss, a long commute, a raw vegetable heavy diet, excessive amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids, processed starches (whole potatoes most definitely do not count as refined starches!!!!!!!!), depriving your brain of glucose etc.

But hey let's all go on ketogenic/paleo/your choice of arbitrary diet regime here/ and then exercise until our collective dicks fall off and never bother to look at basic underlying physiological reasons for why our bodies store fat. And the supplement industries and miracle diet of the month book writers will continue to fleece the public for untold billions, year after year after year. It's pretty easy to accomplish, but it involves that most unsexy word, work....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top