Connect with Peer Bloggers ― Join the largest Bloggers Community to discover the Best Bloggers around the world and follow Top Blogs based on your interests, and build your audience now!
It's a little idea which came to me while talking to my friends. Basically, I am saying that what matters is that you have to eat the right foods (e.g. veggies, fruits, grains) so that the body is getting the nutrients it needs.
For example, there is a BIG difference between eating 1200 calories worth of vegetables which are loaded with appropriate nutrients and will satisfy the human body's hunger for food and 1200 calories worth of French Fries which will leave the body hungry since it is yearning for nutrients that it is not getting in the fries. When the body is hungry, it is going to keep looking for food until it gets the appropriate nutrition that it needs to survive.
I personally think that fresh foods are the best and will satisfy hunger thereby reducing weight to a healthy level.
Actually, when it comes to weight, it all boils down to calories. It's been shown in studies that regardless of how you spread your calories (fats, carbs, protein), weight gain/loss depends on how many your taking in vs how many you burn. Fresh food is always best (common sense, no?), but fresh doesn't always equate to health. I can make "fresh" french fries, but they still won't be healthy. Also, eating 1200 calories of vegetables would require eating so much useless fiber and water, you'd be bloated and sitting on the toilet for a few days trying to pass it all out. The best diet is a balanced diet with controlled portions that are catered to your personal needs.
I tried to present a completely different point of view.
In my blog I tried to explain (maybe I didn't do a good job) that the body has a natural desire for certain types of foods in order to live or survive. Without these nutrients (which are largely found in vegetables) the body will feel like it is starving, therefore a person will keep eating until the body feels satiated - i.e is getting the food it needs in order to survive.
You will find that eating 1200 calories of vegetables will more than satisfy the body's desire for food and you will quickly lose weight while still maintaining excellent help. Watching calories is meaningless if it is the wrong calories. 1200 calories of white bread will leave you dead very quickly.
Then you are talking two different things. Calories are calories. The major component of weight gain/loss is calories. Plain and simple. This has been shown in medical studies. Quality of calories is another topic all together. What you also fail to mention is that eating 1200 calories of vegetables is not easy to do compared to, let's say, meat. Per weight, meat has more calories than vegetables. So, common sense should tell you that you'd be fuller after eating 1200 calories of vegetables. Another thing, what do you consider a vegetable? Many people also don't realize that "vegetable" is a culinary term, and not a botany term. Do you consider a potato a vegetable? What about peas? Nuts? There is a huge caloric and nutritional difference between lettuce and potatoes. I'd like to see someone eat 1200 calories of lettuce. Another thing about the first sentence of your last paragraph. It still depends on which vegetables you're eating. That's why I mentioned in my last post that the best diet is a balanced one that meets your own personal needs. For example, if I were to restrict my diet to 1200 calories, I would lose weight rapidly and become very unhealthy regardless of how many vegetables I eat. I eat about 3000 calories a day to maintain my weight. With my new goal in mind, anything less than 3000 calories simply won't satisfy my body's needs. Who eats 1200 calories of bread? Do you realize that Wonder bread, for example, is only 70 calories per slice? You'd have to eat at least 17 or so slices. It wouldn't kill you, but it would make you feel ill. I guarantee that eating 1200 calories of lettuce will leave you dead much quicker than the bread will. Per 55g of typical iceberg lettuce, there are only 8 calories. You'd have to eat over 8kg of lettuce. I dunno about you, but I don't like lettuce that much.
I agree. Even for people who find it difficult or time consuming to eat vegetables. It's much easier to just grab a good blender, and make a vegetable smoothie. That way, you know exactly what you're eating.
Better to stay away from Herbalife. There are much better, higher quality supplements out there. Not to mention the studies showing some Herbalife products causing liver damage.
Tes, my point is that calories do not matter at all. You would not eat 1200 calories of lettuce because the body doesn't need it. You would eat just very little. Ditto with any vegetable. My essay suggests that one completely forget about counting calories (it is a ridiculous way to eat) and just eat veggies, fruits, and grains. The body will automatically self-regulate and find a healthy state.
To eat based upon calories is counterproductive adn leads to all kinds of silly diets that are unhealthy. Calories is meaningless. Eat based upon quality of food. Actually, water, which is 0 calories, is an excellent addition to any diet - not because it is 0 calories, but because the body needs fresh clean water to cleanse itself.
Not everyone's body self-regulates. There are people with conditions where the stretch receptors in their stomachs don't work properly to tell them when they're full. Counting calories is the most accurate way to regulate your diet depending on how serious you are about it. No matter what you may believe about calories or calorie counting, it's undeniable that it works when done correctly. One of the first statements you make in your essay is completely incorrect. "if you eat less calories you have to lose weight. TOTALLY WRONG!" This is actually "totally right." You're right about water. It has 0 calories. That's why you can't gain weight on water. People usually gain weight on soda or other sugary, calorie-heavy drinks. The final statement in your essay is perfect. Fresh food and water are very important.
I hate to repeat myself, but there is nothing more absurd then eating based upon calories. I can have a great meal of 1200 calories every day made up of fries, white bread, cocoa puffs, and ice cream - and as a result I will either die or be so famished that my body will go into a rebound and gain a huge amount of weight as often happens after calorie counting diet. The body will feel great after a small, healthy normal healthy meal of anything composed of veggies, fruits and grains. And it will automatically stop eating once it is satiated and has the nutrients it needs.
Let me repeat .. there is nothing, absolutely nothing more absurd than using something called calories as a guide. Just eat nice, fresh veggies.
I also hate to repeat myself, but I don't know anyone who eats only fries, bead, cocoa puffs, and ice cream on a daily basis. Not to mention that these are calorie heavy foods, so a 1200 calorie portion would be relatively small compared to 1200 calories of any vegetable. You also keep using the number "1200." 1200 daily calories isn't even enough for a child, let alone an active adult. Also, you seem to be confusing the fact that calories and weight loss are connected with your reasoning for diet control. I understand that you don't think people should bother counting or eat based on caloric amount. That still doesn't change the fact that calories and weight are 100% connected. You also seem to have no grasp on eating disorders. Making some blanket statement that if I convert to vegetarianism, I'll just automatically become super healthy is also not correct. My wife was a vegetarian for almost a decade before meeting me. Her doctors are astonished by the change in her health. I make sure we eat balanced meals and help her control her cravings for junk food. The only time the body "rebounds" after a calorie counting diet is when the person stops counting calories. If they keep eating the same amount calories, they'll stay the same. So, the calorie counting wasn't the problem. It's the person's eating habits (and perhaps other problems that are impossible to verify without more information). Here is an excerpt from an article on how a normal stomach works: "The satiety mechanism appears to depend upon two types of receptors in our mouths and stomachs. These are stretch receptors, which give our brain information about how "stretched out" our stomach is, and nutrient receptors, which tell us the caloric density of the food we have eaten. Notice that if you eat four pounds of raw salad, you may feel "full" in terms of being "stretched out," but the nutrient receptors in your stomach also will be saying, "Hey, that was 'OK,' but it wasn't nearly enough! Get me some calories, or I'm going to continue to complain!" You might feel stretched out" but still hungry. To be satiated, or hunger-satisfied, we have to have our stomach both stretched out and filled with some "real" calories."
Let me repeat... eat a balanced diet catered to your personal needs.
A person gives up on these silly counting calorie diets because they are starving themselves. Counting calories is totally meaningless. You can have 1000 calories of potato chips or 10,000 calories. Your body is still starving for nutrients. Basically, one should just forget about calories and just eat nutritious foods. When the body is satisfied that it has the nutrients it needs to survive it will seek being hungry. The calorie stuff is just a gimmick and a silly simplification of the human survival/self-preservation system. One should focus on one and only one thing: are the foods nutritious.
No, it will not. Nutritional content of food doesn't magically satiate your appetite. This is dependent on the person. The "calorie stuff" is science. You are still arguing two different things. If you eat 10,000 calories of vegetables, grains or whatever else, you will become overweight. Plain and simple. Weight is a very simple formula. Calorie in vs Calorie out. This is why people count them. They try to figure out how many they're taking in vs how many they're burning. The gimmick is your belief that eating a vegetarian diet will make the body auto-regulate itself. The body starving for nutrition is still not the same as being hungry and such. I'm agreeing with you on health and such. The only thing I'm disagreeing with you on is that you think calories aren't correlated with weight. That's absolute rubbish. I work in a hospital. We have (and use) a machine that calculates the exact metabolic rate of post-surgical, sedated patients so that we know how much to feed them. Take note that these people are not awake and being either intravenously or through the nose. They don't have the option of "eating fresh veggies." The health care providers must have a way to keep these people nutritionally healthy. Part of it is knowing how many calories to supply them with based on dietary requirements. Too much, and your patient starts to gain unnecessary and potentially life-threatening weight. Too little and they start to lose weight which is also life threatening for a variety of reasons. It's plain and simple science. Calorie in vs Calorie out. I'm not debating a healthy diet here. I'm only correcting the part about the correlation between caloric intake and weight. People who stop drinking soda and other sugar heavy drinks/food don't lose weight b/c their diets are healthier. They lose weight b/c they're taking in less calories. This is why I keep saying that a proper diet must be catered to each individual. You have to judge your personal dietary needs and create a proper diet around that. Whether you count the calories or not, they are playing a part in your diet. If you'd like to test this, count the calories you are currently eating. Once you figure it out, add 100 calories to your daily intake. It can be anything - rice, broccoli, etc. By adding those 100 calories and not changing any other part of your lifestyle, you will notice about a 1 pound gain in weight per week.
Yes, each individual will find his/her own diet by focusing on good nutritious foods that satiate hunger. Hunger is the feedback mechanism that the body has to let itself know whether it is getting the right nutrients. Everyone, as you said, is different. Calories are meaningless. That is the whole point of the blog and if you get yourself out of this notion that calories have any meaning you will understand that 10 calories of vegetables is meaningful and will satiate hunger while 10 calories of white bread is totally meaningless to the body. They are entirely non-equivalent. This is such a simple notion.
Your position is like saying that 10 calories of arsenic is equivalent to 10 calories of carrots. It is a preposterous idea that unfortunately propagated by a the diet community in order to sell stuff. No one needs Weight Watchers. What they need is wholesome, satisfying foo.
What's preposterous is what you think my position is like. Your statement is showing me that you may have little to no understanding of what a food calorie actually is and how it works in the human body. Firstly, arsenic is a chemical element and has no calories. But using your logic, I can go eat 10 calories of hemlock and that's ok, right? In case you don't know, hemlock is a poisonous plant. I don't know how you arrived at that logic. You are still and continue to confuse a food calorie with the nutritional quality of the food itself. I don't know how to make this easier to understand. Eating 1000 calories of fat vs 1000 calories of carbs vs 1000 calories of protein etc is the same, energy-wise. Your weight will be affected the same way. Many people have a hard time understanding that b/c they think they can only get fat by eating fat. That's not how your body works. You also have this way of saying "vegetables" and then using it against some specific non-vegetable like "bread." Why not say "carbs"? Bread is highly specific, while "vegetables" is not. Like I've said, eating only lettuce will kill you much faster and will satiate you much less than bread. You also continue (and still) have no understanding of various eating and neurological disorders that alter the way a person's body interprets "fullness." I will never recommend that someone eat 10,000 calories of anything, as that is simply unhealthy regardless of where those calories come from. Eating 10,000 calories will have you gaining weight at an alarming rate. You also seem to have no concept of the body's way to maintain itself. Once you reach a certain weight, your body will get used to it and attempt to maintain it. There's a reason why people who weigh 400 pounds can eat 15,000 calories a day. I can never eat that much even if I tried to force myself to. My body can simply not fit and process that many calories. Honestly, I don't care what "the point" of your blog is. The only part of it that I'm debating is that statement you made about eating less calories not resulting in lower weight. It absolutely does whether you are aware of it (by counting) or not. You keep arguing nutrition and then talk about calories. Calories has nothing to do with nutrition. THis is what I keep trying to tell you. Vitamins do not contain calories. Minerals do not contain calories. You've got the right message about eating healthy, but you are wrong about calories.
That's it! Life can be so easy. However, you can't build multi-billion dollar diet industries around simple notions like this. However, it is very simple and it is the natural way to good health. Keep in touch!
Exactly. The body is looking for nutrition and that is what you have to provide it. And the nutrition it is looking for is in veggies/grains/fruits. If you starve the body of nutrition it will keep wanting to eat until it gets what it needs to survive. If it has what it needs, then it will not be hungry and will stop eating.
The problem is getting the right amount of nutrition. It has absolutely nothing to do with calories.
Well, it does and it doesn't. There are more places to find proper nutrition than just the examples you gave, but everyone has their own dietary preference. You statement about the body having what it needs and not being hungry and such is not completely correct either. There are many disorders where these mechanisms fail to function properly. The thing with calories, is that you can only find them in nutrient rich foods. If vitamins and such were all you needed, then you could live of multivitamin pills, but you need food calories. Food calories for your body are like gasoline to a car. Calories are a unit of measurement for energy found in certain molecules we ingest in varying amounts. For example, 1g of fat contains ~9 calories, while 1g of carbs contains ~4 calories. Proper understanding of calories would dispel many myths of those so-called calorie counting diets. Another truth is that those multi-million dollar industries count on people's ignorance so that they can feed them anything they want based on their own pseudo science. There's a reason why we count calories in the hospital. There's a reason why athletes higher nutritionists and count their caloric intake. And so on and so forth. It's science, and it works. But it is not equivalent to nutrition. Knowing about how calories work is only part of knowing how a healthy diet works. You also have to know how to divide those calories among the foods you eat. For example, many people eat fruit as healthy snack in between meals. This is perfectly fine, but it is also good (and sometimes a fun experiment) to know how many calories your body received from that fruit. For example, 125g of apples contain approximately 68 calories. Out of those 68 calories, all of it comes from carbs and sugar. Out of those 125g of apples, approximately 13g is sugar with more complex carbs totaling 17g. When counting calories, you use the total carb amount, and not the sugar (since carbs are made of sugars). 17 times 4 gives you 68. That's where you get the calories. The rest of the 125g of apples have no caloric or nutritional value to your body. Some of the apple's weight comes from water, and the rest from fiber that your body will defecate.
