everyone on these forums keeps saying that loosing weight is "just about calories in and calories out" but there are some missing links to that chain.
First of all, whats the difference between white and wheat? white bread has the same calories as wheat bread, so why then, would we choose wheat?
Multigrain tortillas have MORE calories then fat free tortillas? Which one are we supposed to use?
A large baked potato has LESS calories then a cup of edamame soy beans, which one is better?
It cant all be about calories. There has to be more to the logic then calories. Somebody who knows about nutrition, help me figure out why my scale is not moving despite the fact that I average -800 calories a day.
You are measuring how many servings you're eating, right? The number of calories on the box is for one serving (whatever unit is on the box), but that doesn't mean that you're eating one serving.
Yes, but the op's was really of asking for an explanation in understanding the difference between regular and empty calories and understanding their plateau, not really is a calorie a calorie? and mistakenly insisted on it was/wasn't (or that is what it looked like for me). But was frustrated at the their calorie deficit not resulting on the scale. No plateau should be lasting 6 weeks and is usually it is a calculation error, either too much of a deficit and under eating (as you mentioned) or too little of a deficit (cc is approx cals of course margin of error) and may be eating more than they know on top of that.
And yes, the thread went into a debate that could be running around in circles endlessly. That I know of armandounc, your are correct in most cases (and at this time I cannot think of an instance where you have been wrong). And if an OP argues or doesn't accept your answer it is one of 2 things it isn't the question they meant or it isn't the answer they like to hear. I am always misunderstanding/interpreting myself, I always have to double check if I am not sure what the OP is asking ;P
just watch your portions of healthy food...the end.
artifical sweeteners have chemicals in it = bad
fat free usually has more unneeded sugar = bad, your body needs fat to process vitamins and minerals
-800 calorie deficit is a shock to your body. Just as your body has to refeed itself coming out of a restricted diet of 200 calories every few days your body will probably have to do the same when cutting to a healthier level. People who jump the bandwagon to fast usually end up failing.
Obsessively counting calories, working on quitting that because I have come to the conclusion that all it does is drive people crazy.
I think your defecit may be too big - try increasing your cals so you only have a max 400-500 cal deficit and see if that helps. Good luck!
The above quote is BS also. HFCS used as sweetener and sucrose have exactly the same amount of fructose. However much of the HFCS used in processed food actually has 10% LESS fructose than sucrose.
The Sugar lobby in the USA is extremely powerful and has been trying since the 1960s to get artificial sweeteners of the market and they have had some success doing this. They also want to discourage the use of corn based sweeteners.
sorry for the hijack. i know this isn't really what the thread is about but it was bothering me. hfcs doesn't typically have less fructose than sucrose. if it did why would they call it hfcs? sucrose is 50/50 fructose and glucose. most hfcs is 55/42/3 fructose/glucose/higher sugar..what ever those are. there's another version thats 42/53/5 fructose/glucose/"higher sugar"
there is some compelling evidence that hfcs is an issue because the body can't really do much with fructose so a higher percentage of it gets turned into fat when compared to glucose which is used by every cell in the body so much less gets turned into fat (unless you eat it in excess though I'm sure). hfcs is also sweeter than sucrose so you could use less of it but the companies tend to use more. fruit also has fructose in it but its possible that due to its fiber content not as much of it is absorbed. but theres still lots of research to be done.
and someone mentioned the twinkie dieting teacher and how much muscle he lost. I'm sure he lost some muscle but he also dropped in body fat percentage and his cholesterol went down. basically he not only lost weight he got healthier but this was short term so who knows what would happen if he did ti for a year.
well processed food is not healthy at all...its not good for your body...healthy food is better for your body...that is what god wants everybody to eat...processed food is filled with **** that will do damage to ya body...eat healthy..feel better..lose weight healthy...i was eating 3317 calories because i'm 5'11 i weighed in at 400lbs..i lost my grandma back in october 3 i ate junk food felt like ****...i started eating better i took control of myself processed food is not the food u need to eat to lose weight..processed food is a killer IMO....you go to this website put in ya stats it will tell u how many calories u need reason why i like it it gives u same number some other websites it give u diff ones each time u try it i dont think its accurate...i have lost 86lbs...since but i use that site to change my calorie intake...now i weigh 314...i am eating 2860 calories because i am at different weight my body no longer needs that 3317 calories...i feel so good im so proud of myself...if u want somthing in life u go for it..stop stressing over it...eat what your body needs and eating HEALTHY!!!!!..Trust me it will work...dont eat this 1200 calories and 800 calories its not going to work...u will lose muscle over time...and look like **** do you want to look that way hell no...take control and tell yourself how bad u want it man im feeling good i'm ready go to my workout...but please im not on here to **** at nobody but they need to take care of themself and do what is right for the body...here is the website http://www.freedieting.com/tools/calorie_calc ulator.htm
The side effects of allergy medications keep some people from using them. Natural remedies can be a great alternative, but some are more effective than others.