Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People report better energy levels and all the other jazz when they eat better and lose weight. Likewise, skinny people report the same thing when they eat real food and get rid of crap
That's the exact point I am making. Quantity of calories matters more for weight gain or loss. Quality matters for specific goals, though.
I'm not really doing either. Not all conversations are a matter of agreement or disagreement. Regarding your professor, of course if a man at his beginning size and weight goes from 2600 to 1800 calories he is going to lose weight. Quantity of calories is not what we are discussing, it is the quality. This guy made it a point see what would happen in an experiment where he ate mostly junk food and he lost weight by cutting the quantity of calories. But what kind of physical activity was he doing this whole time? Was he hitting the weight room? Training for a marathon, or even a 10k? Likely not. Someone doing the twinkie diet along side a serious training regime is probably not going to get the same results as someone with a healthier diet. You'll often hear coaches speak of "empty calories." The twinkie diet is what they are talking about.
Everyone knows that if you burn more calories than you take in, you will lose weight. But does it really matter where those calories come from? I've lost weight before by just eating smaller portions and I didn't pay attention at all to how much protein, carbs and fat I consumed every day. Heck, I probably even ate some white carbs.
So does limiting certain things, like fat or carbs, really make you lose weight faster? I've always heard that just eating healthy carbs and limiting them after dinner will help you lose weight faster. But now I'm reading more and more about how animal products make you store more fat. Are you more likely to stay skinny if you're a vegetarian/vegan or follow a low carb diet? What is better?
it matters much less than most people think it does.
First, you hear stuff like this often, and often it is simply urban myth. I noticed you didn't link a credible source.
Secondly, let's say this really happened. The guy's weight and body composition before his little weight loss experiment is relevant to the story. If he was a 400 pounder and ate one box of twinkies and only one box of twinkies per day, then it's a no brainer he'll lose weight holding all other factors constant.
But high performance machines require high performance fuel to run optimally. A car like a Toyota Camry can get away with 87 octane. A Corvette prefers the higher grade fuel due to it being a high performance car. Similarly someone training for a specific goal, be it trimming seconds off a run/swim/cycle time or a more fit waistline or muscle mass is probably not eating too many twinkies, McDonald's, etc. That's not to say even a disciplined athlete doesn't indulge once in a while. But no serious athlete at even an intermediate level or higher is pursuing a diet of twinkies.
It's also not true that no serious athlete doesn't eat junk food. Most pro athletes eat serious amounts of junk. Pro cyclists especially eat tons of garbage. The number 1 food at any olympics is McDonalds. Usain Bolt's "Power Food" is chicken mcnuggets.
Urban myth perhaps a bad choice of words. More it is very uncommon. I used urban myth because it seems like everyone anecdotally has heard of someone who "dropped 50 pounds eating just McDonalds" and so on and so forth. I personally have never met such a person. I have read about one or two, including the cited article. These examples stand out because they are exceptions to conventional wisdom. And they don't speak to quality of calories, they speak to quantity. As I've said now already, I am not disputing that reducing the quantity of calories can result in weight loss. I am contending that higher quality can enhance long term fitness goals.
As for the professor, whose story was already linked on this thread, his case is a calculated experiment conducted by a professional who spans two fields: academics and nutrition. If you've read the article, even Haub himself does not recommend this approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rzzz
It's also not true that no serious athlete doesn't eat junk food. Most pro athletes eat serious amounts of junk. Pro cyclists especially eat tons of garbage. The number 1 food at any olympics is McDonalds. Usain Bolt's "Power Food" is chicken mcnuggets.
Which is exactly why I never said anything of the sort. But do you believe their diets consist predominantly of junk food? Year around? I'm sure there are exceptions, but my guess is most are not.
Yes, it does. I will 100% avoid calories from trans fat and high fructose corn syrup. These are the culprits of obesity in america, and must be obliterated.
Which is exactly why I never said anything of the sort. But do you believe their diets consist predominantly of junk food? Year around? I'm sure there are exceptions, but my guess is most are not.
Yeah, I actually do think the diets of most pro athletes are generally pretty bad. Depends on your definition of junk food, but I'd bet that pro basketball , football, soccer and baseball players mostly eat fast food, processed food, soda and candy every day. The only pro athletes who seem to care about nutrition are ultra marathon long distance runners and bodybuilders. I used to live with some cat 1 cyclists and the sheer amount of crap they ate was stomach turning. Pounds of nutella, 2 liters of flat coke as a recovery drink, etc. Maybe athletes are becoming more diet and health conscious now, but I don't believe it's widespread, and it's certainly a recent thing.
Yeah, I actually do think the diets of most pro athletes are generally pretty bad. Depends on your definition of junk food, but I'd bet that pro basketball , football, soccer and baseball players mostly eat fast food, processed food, soda and candy every day. The only pro athletes who seem to care about nutrition are ultra marathon long distance runners and bodybuilders. I used to live with some cat 1 cyclists and the sheer amount of crap they ate was stomach turning. Pounds of nutella, 2 liters of flat coke as a recovery drink, etc.
You'd bet, but do you have any evidence, aside from the anecdotal "I know a guy" examples? Most of us "know of" have heard of or maybe even know directly someone who seemed able to defy the conventional wisdom, and good for that person. I know people who smoked bundles of cigarettes daily and made it well into their 80s without a hint of all the adverse affects connected to smoking. Good for them. I wouldn't take the handful of people I know or know of who fit this description and conclude smoking is not harmful to one's health.
Professional athletes do travel a lot, and traveling can sometimes be accompanied by bad dietary habits, so I'll give you a nod there. But it's a thin and shaky bridge. At the same time, guys like Jerry Rice, John Lynch and Brian Dawkins constantly stressed the importance of discipline and avoiding junk food. These were guys who played a brutal sport well into their late 30s. I've read several other similar counts from NFL or MLB players who play into their late 30s or early 40s and one thing that seems to link those players who have long careers is they were more careful about dietary habits even in their younger days.
But no two people are the same. For every opinion there is an equal and opposite opinion. And the truth is most people are not going to be one extreme or the other. I don't drink a lot of soda, but I had one with dinner tonight. I think that brings my total to two for the week. I rarely want one, but I have not made any effort to completely eliminate it. Some people don't touch the stuff and others drink gallons of it and don't appear to be any worse for the wear. Who's to say any of them are wrong? Bringing this back to the OP's question, it is exactly why I advised to take stock of her current level of health, condition, body comp, etc and perhaps seek the assistance of a nutritionist or trainer to help develop a diet plan that best enhances her goals. And that quality of calories does matter.
For me, it makes "sense" -- both for my health and maybe my weight -- to make every calorie count. I like eating nutrient-rich foods -- it seems my body rewards me with a sense of well-being after I eat a big salad or a hearty vegetable/bean soup.
I feel crappy after eating crap food...and MSG often causes me insomnia.
Seems to me we often confuse weight loss and being slender with good health -- but it "ain't necessarily so" (a song from Porgy and Bess).
One can be slender and in ill health. And one can carry an extra 5-15 pounds and be in great health.
That's a very interesting study and it makes me feel better knowing I really don't have to cut anything out. I'm not saying I would just eat Twinkies all day because that would make you feel sluggish, but I'm not the kind of person who can just survive on lettuce and chicken breast.
If I control my portions and exercise at least five days a week, is it possible for me to lose two pounds a week? (I'm 5'2 and around 115 lbs). Losing just one pound a week is way too slow for me and would drive me crazy.
Why on earth do you want to lose 2 pounds a week when you are already 115 pounds? If you lose much more you'll blow away in a stiff breeze.
That's a very interesting study and it makes me feel better knowing I really don't have to cut anything out. I'm not saying I would just eat Twinkies all day because that would make you feel sluggish, but I'm not the kind of person who can just survive on lettuce and chicken breast.
If I control my portions and exercise at least five days a week, is it possible for me to lose two pounds a week? (I'm 5'2 and around 115 lbs). Losing just one pound a week is way too slow for me and would drive me crazy.
To lose 2 pounds a week, you need to reduce your calories and/or increase your exercise to burn 1,000 calories a day MORE than your body needs. To lose a pound it takes a loss of 3,500 calories. 2 pounds = 7,000 calories.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
