When it comes to weight loss the common theme is burn more
calories than you eat. It’s all a matter
of input versus output. Burn more than
you consume. This is true, but it’s
really a little more involved than that.
Do people see weight loss results based on that theory? All the time!
In a previous life I was living proof, but you usually hear this in
regards to it doesn't matter what you eat
but how much you eat. True.
It’s very true. Portion plays a
huge part in nutrition but it applies to more than just foods that are
considered bad for you. You can also
over indulge in good for you foods.
I started questioning the equality of calories last
week. This came from seeing over and
over again that I am relatively consistent with staying under my calorie budget
but the scale has barely budged since the beginning of November. I do allow myself cheat days and it isn't unrealistic to see a 500-600 over budget red bar on my weekly graph on those
days but I don’t allow it to get out of hand and it’s still about 3,000
calories down for the week which should give me almost a pound lost each week
right?
Not quite. The types
of calories you eat aren't all metabolized the same which kinds of throws a
kink in the whole 3,500 calorie deficit a week to equal a pounds lost
mentality. Don’t forget I am
exercising. And by exercising I mean I’m
running four days a week and lifting weights two days. Yes, that’s one day off a week. Yes, I am ok with this. Yes, there are people who work out that much if
not every single day. I give my muscles
rest by running on the days I don’t lift and vice versa. Not to mention the muscle I am building is
more dense than fat. Notice I didn't say
weights more because I recently read something that was a “der” moment for
me. If you have a pound of fat and a
pound of muscle you still have a pound, regardless of what it is. Ah ha!
Brain teasers, y’all. It’s just
that muscle is denser than fat so it
creates the illusion of weighing more.
Denser
is the key. You've probably all seen the
comparison pictures. See Exhibit A on
your right in case you have no clue what I am talking about. There are 10 pounds of body material in this
picture. Five of those pounds are fat
while the other five are muscle. Focus
on the amount of space each one occupies.
Just in case you didn't easily recognize the fat, it’s the yellow mass
on the left. The nice, neat, little red
package is muscle. Five pounds of muscle
weighs just as much as five pounds of fat.
It just takes up less space.
Muscle also burns more calories at a rest. Each pound of fat you carry typically burns
about two calories a day while you sit at your computer and write blog entries hardly
anyone reads. A pound of muscle, on the
other hand, burns about six calories a day.
It doesn't seem like much but the more muscle you have the higher your
metabolic rate, the more calories you burn per day, the more fat you burn per
day, etc, etc. You get the point. Muscle is denser but takes up less space
while helping you burn more calories and fat at rest. If it takes up less space that means you take
up less space as well (i.e you may weigh more but you are leaner). I don’t know about you, but I’d rather weigh
more and have less body fat than weigh less and still be all jiggly. (That’s a technical term.)
Jiggly. Let’s focus
on this funny little term for a bit.
Honestly, I was supposed to focus on it much earlier in this post but
got side tracked with pretty pictures of yellow…jiggly…stuff. It really is all part of my master post
plan. Honestly. I just get long winded sometimes. Ok, all the time.
Focusing.
Jiggly. Not all calories are
created equal. Think about this for a
moment. If you have 100 calories of soda
and 100 calories of steamed vegetables, which would you consider the healthier
option of the two? Hopefully you chose
the steamed vegetables. Let’s do a side
by side comparison of the nutrition facts for these two examples.
Note: I had a visual comparison of the nutrition facts when I wrote this but I seem to be a fail techi and can't figure out how to copy it from word to my post. #firstworldproblems. If you search for the nutrition facts for diet soda and steamed vegetables your first thought may be, “There’s nothing
to the soda! Why is that bad for
you? Look! Those vegetables are full of sugar and sodium. The Diet Coke has zero calories so I could
enjoy it and stay within my budget for the day”. True.
But, the sugars and sodium are naturally occurring in vegetables. But I really want you to focus on this. Protein.
Vitamins. Fiber. Carbs (these are complex of course and help
fuel your body by breaking down slower than carbs that come from other
sources). Where are those in the
soda? What does “100 calories” of Diet
Coke offer you? Zero grams of protein so
there isn't anything to keep you fuller longer.
No fiber. We all know what that does for you. No vitamins to promote overall health. But what about the sugar? Diet sodas do not contain high fructose corn
syrup, which is detrimental to weight loss by the way; however, they do contain
artificial sweeteners. Most diet sodas
are sweetened with aspartame or sucralose.
Your body treats artificial sweeteners completely different than it
treats regular sugar. This goes for
granulated and naturally occurring.
Artificial sweeteners have long been associated with cancer,
mimicking symptoms of Multiple Sclerosis, and complications with PKU, just to
name a few. The verdict is still out on
weight gain. Researchers believe some
people may use artificial sweeteners and subconsciously continue to over
indulge in foods instead of cutting back.
They believe drinking diet soda is saving them calories and that they
can still continue to make the same dietary decisions they've always made. I can’t weight my opinion in on this but I
did want to mention it nonetheless.
The point is your body metabolizes these two foods in
completely different ways.
Nutritionally, the vegetables are better for you because of the things I
mentioned in the previous paragraphs.
But because they are used differently doesn't always mean a 3,500
calorie deficit a week is going to automatically mean you lose a pound. If I ate nothing but sugar but stayed below
my budget do you think I would still lose weight? If so, I’m about to be a millionaire because I've just created the next awesome diet fad.
Eat all the candy you want and
still lose weight? Try the Sugar Booster
Diet! Why do you think personal
trainers stress proper nutrition to people wanting to lose weight? Fat and sugar aren't going to be beneficial
to your weight loss because the body breaks them down and uses them
differently. End of story.
I personally struggle with bad food choices. They may be natural or organic but they are
still improperly balanced nutrition. If
I want to get rid of the jiggle I’m going to need to focus on making better
decisions. Your daily nutrition
percentages should fall within the following ranges depending on your activity
level: 45-60% carbs (preferably the more complex the better), 20-35% fats (good
fats, not the kind found in fried chicken but those found in nuts, seed and
avocado), 10-35% protein (lean protein like chicken, turkey and fish). I shoot for a higher carb ratio since I
run. It keeps me fueled for the miles
I’m putting in. Mine is usually around
55%. My fats and protein need work. The protein isn't too far off but the deficit
in that is made up in fat. Which
attributes to my jiggle.
I have work to do but I've come a long way. I've learned so much and continue to learn
every day. I’m enjoying the
journey. It isn't always easy but I've never felt better. Train yourself to
make better decisions. It doesn't happen
over night but if you consistently and consciously make better decision then
you’ll start seeing better results.
No comments:
Post a Comment