Tips on Fat and Weight Loss Please

Triceratops Ballet

mathie wrote: »

But that's - by definition - exactly what calorie counting does.
It doesn't care what food you eat as long as you're within a certain calorie range.

calorie counting and eating good natural food are not mutually exclusive activities, and if you read this thread you'll see that the majority of us have advocated that the op cooks food from scratch, rather than having processed options and tracking what she eats accurately. What in essence is wrong with that?

mathie

dottie_lottie wrote: »

calorie counting and eating good natural food are not mutually exclusive activities, and if you read this thread you'll see that the majority of us have advocated that the op cooks food from scratch, rather than having processed options and tracking what she eats accurately. What in essence is wrong with that?

I don't see anything at all wrong in cooking good natural food.
I just think that calorie counting is wrong because it allows people to eat food that does not help them maintain healthy weight or lose the excess fat they're hoping to lose.

If they count 1500 calories of "healthy" food then they may think "OK now I can have this cake and coke as its 500 calories and the coke is diet so that's zero calories" and that won't help them with their goal.

Alf Veedersane

mathie wrote: »

But that's - by definition - exactly what calorie counting does.
It doesn't care what food you eat as long as you're within a certain calorie range.

By definition, calorie counting is counting the calories in the food and drink you ingest.

You might infer something else but that doesn't make it true.

A lot of people on this forum monitor calorie consumption through the counting of calories even though they eat well. It supports their goals.

You can't manage what you don't measure.

whoopsadoodles

mathie wrote: »

I don't see anything at all wrong in cooking good natural food.
I just think that calorie counting is wrong because it allows people to eat food that does not help them maintain healthy weight or lose the excess fat they're hoping to lose.

If they count 1500 calories of "healthy" food then they may think "OK now I can have this cake and coke" and that won't help them with their goal.

The issue with them having the coke and cake after eating 1500 of healthy food is.....the amount of calories in the coke and cake.

mathie

mathie wrote: »

But that's - by definition - exactly what calorie counting does.
It doesn't care what food you eat as long as you're within a certain calorie range.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

By definition, calorie counting is counting the calories in the food and drink you ingest.

You might infer something else but that doesn't make it true.

A lot of people on this forum monitor calorie consumption through the counting of calories even though they eat well. It supports their goals.

You can't manage what you don't measure.

I don't infer anything else from calorie counting.
It is exactly what it is.
The counting of calories.

My point is that you need to pay more attention to the QUALITY of the calories than the calories themselves.

mathie

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

The issue with them having the coke and cake after eating 1500 of healthy food is.....the amount of calories in the coke and cake.

So if they ate the same amount of calories in a healthy dessert instead of cake and coke their body would process it the same way?

It's the quality of the calories in the cake and coke that makes people obese.

Alf Veedersane

mathie wrote: »

I don't infer anything else from calorie counting.
It is exactly what it is.
The counting of calories.

Your contention is that calorie counting is primarily a means to justify eating poor quality food. It's not. It's a means to count the calories in what you've eaten so that you achieve the goals you have.

mathie wrote:

My point is that you need to pay more attention to the QUALITY of the calories than the calories themselves.

They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Most people on this forum advocate improving quality and monitoring quantity for someone like the OP.

GarIT

DisneyLover wrote: »

Lads can I just ask about my workout too for a min !

Like today I did:

20 mins on my bike, changing from level 8 to 14. Says I burned 260 but log it in MFP as 200.

Also did 14 mins of kettlebells: did arms and core. - Normally do 20 mins.

Also did 15 mins of cardio from youtube ? Like mixing up these and more ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcN37TxBE_s&t=588s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnY040imnsE

Will they plus walking help fat burning ??

There's a big problem here, you are logging your exercise as well as listing yourself as active because you exercise. You need to list yourself as active and never log exercises or the better way is to list yourself as sedentary and log your exercises.

The only reason you should ever list yourself as active and log your exercises is if you have a very active job like being a postman and then you go to the gym in the same day.

Active vs sedentary is for the times you are not exercising, you don't count exercise.

If you spend less than 5 hours a day (excluding any exercise you log) every single day standing and moving constantly you are sedentary.

marialouise

mathie wrote: »

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

The issue with them having the coke and cake after eating 1500 of healthy food is.....the amount of calories in the coke and cake.

So if they ate the same amount of calories in a healthy dessert instead of cake and coke their body would process it the same way?

It's the quality of the calories in the cake and coke that makes people obese.

No, it's excess calories that make people obese.

mathie

marialouise wrote: »

No, it's excess calories that make people obese.

So I can consume my fill of zero calorie coke, litres and litres and eat 1500 calories of McDonalds and I'll lose weight?

GarIT

mathie wrote: »

So I can consume my fill of zero calorie coke, litres and litres and eat 1500 calories of McDonalds and I'll lose weight?

As long as that is all you eat then yes. It has been proven multiple times the calories are the only major factor in weight loss.

A US college professor put on a lot of weight on purpose and then proved he could loose it on a diet of crisps and chocolate bars and carbonated drinks alone. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

Multiple studies have proven that calories absorbed by the body vs calories burned is the only thing that matters regarding weight. Some people take more or fewer calories from food for different reasons and others burn different rates of calories but it is still only calories taken in and burned that matter.

Alf Veedersane

mathie wrote: »

So I can consume my fill of zero calorie coke, litres and litres and eat 1500 calories of McDonalds and I'll lose weight?

People who drink litres and litres of coke zero usually end up eating a lot more than 1500 kcals because of insulin spikes.

You can lose about 2 stone in 2 months eating only Twinkies.

mathie

GarIT wrote: »

As long as that is all you eat then yes. It has been proven multiple times the calories are the only major factor in weight loss.

A US college professor put on a lot of weight on purpose and then proved he could loose it on a diet of crisps and chocolate bars and carbonated drinks alone. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

Multiple studies have proven that calories absorbed by the body vs calories burned is the only thing that matters regarding weight. Some people take more or fewer calories from food for different reasons and others burn different rates of calories but it is still calories taken in and burned that matter.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

People who drink litres and litres of coke zero usually end up eating a lot more than 1500 kcals because of insulin spikes.

You can lose about 2 stone in 2 months eating only Twinkies.

But weight loss shouldn't be the real aim.
It's fat loss. And what's best for our health.

Alf Veedersane

mathie wrote: »

But weight loss shouldn't be the real aim.
It's fat loss. And what's best for our health.

You're still arguing against calorie counting with no accounting for food quality.

Not one person has said to disregard food quality.

GarIT

mathie wrote: »

But weight loss shouldn't be the real aim.
It's fat loss. And what's best for our health.

I didn't say they were. If weight loss is your aim calories are the only thing that matter.

It's not possible to be healthy while being overweight, but you can be a healthy weight while not healthy overall.

Eating healthily is important for your health, eating healthily has been proven to have no impact on weight.

mathie

marialouise wrote: »

No, it's excess calories that make people obese.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You're still arguing against calorie counting with no accounting for food quality.

Not one person has said to disregard food quality.

Indirectly yes they have.

Alf Veedersane

mathie wrote: »

Indirectly yes they have.

No they haven't. You just don't understand calorie counting and improved food quality being used in tandem.

Mellor

mathie wrote: »

Try overeating vegetables and healthy proteins and fats.
It's incredibly difficult.
You will feel full and push your plate away a long time before you hit 5000 calories.

It's incredibly easy to overeat healthy vegetables, proteins and fats.

Avocado, coconut milk, all natural healthy fats. Vegetables cooked in those fats. Coconut based currys, vegetables in butter.


All healthy, all very easy to over consume. How do you think clean eating bodybuilders put on weight?

mathie wrote: »

But that's - by definition - exactly what calorie counting does.
It doesn't care what food you eat as long as you're within a certain calorie range.

That's actually the definition of the IIFYM diet, not calorie countng.

Calorie counting means you count your calories. It means nothing regards quality. If you eat junk you'll hit your limit very quickly, but as long as you stop there. You'll lose body fat.
The smart option is to choose foods with the highest satiety, and most nutrition per unit energy. But if you don't consider your energy intake, you fail to lose fat - or even put on more fat (if you go over your energy needs)

mathie wrote: »

My point is that you need to pay more attention to the QUALITY of the calories than the calories themselves.

You have that backwards. The quality is important, but total energy content is most relevant aspect in terms of fat loss or gain.
Food quality affects overall nutrition, diet adherence, etc
Food energy quality affects weight loss or gain.

Lets say that are two average men, average activity.
If one eats 3000 cals of clean healthy foods (not difficult)
And the other eats 1800 cals of what ever is convenient.

All other things being equal, which one of them loses bodyfat?

livedadream

what you are failing to mention is that counting calories is about making the right choices,
eating 1600 calories of a MacDonalds and coke will leave you hungry within hours requiring you to eat more calories to sate you.
eating the same of filling nutritious food will keep you ticking over, its about learning to pick the right foods not just mindlessly counting calories.

bladespin

mathie wrote: »

You said it yourself.
"God just imagine the quantity"
Try overeating vegetables and healthy proteins and fats.
It's incredibly difficult.

I have and it's not difficult at all, between nuts and sugars in fruits the foods can be good but you can very easily topple weight loss progress, you'll feel better but still be 'fat'.

Zillah

I've never seen an argument over nothing go on for so long.

No one is saying to count calories and ignore food quality. What we're saying is to eat good nutritious food, but also count calories to make sure you're not going over.

If you've never had issues with weight then you obviously have a well calibrated appetite, in which case you don't need to count calories, but for someone who is overweight they have to trust the numbers because their appetite obviously cannot be trusted.

And yes, if you eat less than your total daily calorie requirements in 100% sugar, you will lose weight. You'll be super unhealthy because that is not a balanced diet, but yes, weight is ultimately 100% dictated by caloric balance.

It's just that most people cannot control their appetite without a balanced diet.

EDIT:
A professor got so frustrated with people refusing to accept this fake that he lost 27lbs in two months eating almost nothing but cakes and other sugary crap. Not good for him but it illustrates the point: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

DisneyLover

GarIT wrote: »

There's a big problem here, you are logging your exercise as well as listing yourself as active because you exercise. You need to list yourself as active and never log exercises or the better way is to list yourself as sedentary and log your exercises.

The only reason you should ever list yourself as active and log your exercises is if you have a very active job like being a postman and then you go to the gym in the same day.

Active vs sedentary is for the times you are not exercising, you don't count exercise.

If you spend less than 5 hours a day (excluding any exercise you log) every single day standing and moving constantly you are sedentary.

Thanks for the help but changed to sedentary and my calories went to 1590??! Thats way too low ! I work in a hospital and Im on my feet all day ? I log as lightly active for 1900 and atm Im aiming for 1750-1900 ?

whoopsadoodles

DisneyLover wrote: »

Thanks for the help but changed to sedentary and my calories went to 1590??! Thats way too low ! I work in a hospital and Im on my feet all day ? I log as lightly active for 1900 and atm Im aiming for 1750-1900 ?

You really do need to stop underestimating/overestimating what you're doing. There are reasons you are not losing weight and the only way to change that is to face the reality.

You said you do 5,000 - 12,000 steps a day. That would suggest to me that your job is fairly sedentary.

I know you say that you work in a hospital, but what kind of job do you have in the hospital?

mathie

Mellor wrote: »

It's incredibly easy to overeat healthy vegetables, proteins and fats.

Avocado, coconut milk, all natural healthy fats. Vegetables cooked in those fats. Coconut based currys, vegetables in butter.


All healthy, all very easy to over consume. How do you think clean eating bodybuilders put on weight?

The same way sumo wrestlers do. Carbs.
The same way farmers fatten up cows. Get them off the grass and onto the corn and grain.

Mellor wrote: »

That's actually the definition of the IIFYM diet, not calorie countng.

Calorie counting means you count your calories. It means nothing regards quality. If you eat junk you'll hit your limit very quickly, but as long as you stop there. You'll lose body fat.
The smart option is to choose foods with the highest satiety, and most nutrition per unit energy. But if you don't consider your energy intake, you fail to lose fat - or even put on more fat (if you go over your energy needs)

You have that backwards. The quality is important, but total energy content is most relevant aspect in terms of fat loss or gain.
Food quality affects overall nutrition, diet adherence, etc
Food energy quality affects weight loss or gain.

Lets say that are two average men, average activity.
If one eats 3000 cals of clean healthy foods (not difficult)
And the other eats 1800 cals of what ever is convenient.

All other things being equal, which one of them loses bodyfat?

Short term or long term?
Metabolism will change with a calorie restricted diet.

I mean sure you could eat nothing and lose fat (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm) but what is that what the OP wants?
Is that what people who are aiming for fat loss want?
Surely its whats beneficial for the health long term and something that is sustainable?

mathie

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

No they haven't. You just don't understand calorie counting and improved food quality being used in tandem.

I fully understand that.
I also understand that a lot of people and companies wanting to sell product will try to convince us that all calories are equal.
I'm saying that from a health point of view that's disasterous.

Macy0161

My opinion would be that you'd be better to focus on just the calorie counting accuracy for a few weeks first. If you are honestly and accurately counting and still not losing, then look at the goal calories.

irishman86

DisneyLover wrote: »

I have MFP! Im logging everything. I eat 1'700-2'200 everyday. Ill have say a snickers bar on Tuesday and one on Friday and a bit of wine. It should be coming off at the weight I am.

Is that not a awful lot of calories for a woman trying to lose weight?
Im a man and eat below 1500 calories when I try to drop weight.
Like others have said you may not even realise how much calories you are eating.
A can of beans comes up on apps for example as 140g when in reality you eat more than that

whoopsadoodles

irishman86 wrote: »

Is that not a awful lot of calories for a woman trying to lose weight?
Im a man and eat below 1500 calories when I try to drop weight.

1. It depends entirely on how much calories the OP is burning in the first place. There is no magic number that everyone should be eating.

2. When you said "when I try to drop wait" that suggests that eating 1500 calories is not sustainable for you, and you only do it as a temporary thing.

irishman86

whoopsadoodles wrote: »

1. It depends entirely on how much calories the OP is burning in the first place. There is no magic number that everyone should be eating.

2. When you said "when I try to drop wait" that suggests that eating 1500 calories is not sustainable for you, and you only do it as a temporary thing.

Well I would eat that for maybe two months before summer. Thats including gym and shakes. My winter intake is around 1700/1800 but I am training in rugby from November till April.
2200 for me is way to high, I read the OP thinks she reads a lightly active lifestyle and thus needs 1900 I dont think thats feasible.
People always over calculate what they need to eat, when it comes to losing weight the only way is to drop down from what you are eating currently.
If the OP cuts to 1500 she will drop the weight at 1900/2200 she 100% will not

Alf Veedersane

mathie wrote: »

I fully understand that.
I also understand that a lot of people and companies wanting to sell product will try to convince us that all calories are equal.
I'm saying that from a health point of view that's disasterous.

You're arguing a point that hasn't been made in this thread. Not one contributor has said that caloric intake is the only thing they need to consider. Not one.

Improved food quality has been mentioned. Making things from scratch because there'sno added unknowns, improve the food quality.

So you're beating your drum in the wrong thread.