Stirring the Pot: are all calories equal
Replies
-
billieljaime wrote: »so I should weigh my feces now? and subtract from my dailey calories???
Only if you have a faecal calorimeter to go with the weight.
0 -
callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »of course a calorie is a calorie. just like a pound is a pound. but a pound of bricks is much more dense than a pound of feathers. the nutrients associated with calories can be good, or bad.
I can eat a snickers bar (250 calories) or I can eat a lovely salad, with chicken and mandarin orange slices and toppings and dressing for the same calories, and have a much more nutritious meal (and skip the sugar crash) and be fuller, longer.
But 25 miles into a 100 mile bike ride, you're going to be much better off eating the Snickers bar....
Indeed. Sometimes the Snickers isn't just an "acceptable" answer, but it's actually the "right" answer.
(Or after you've had a day filled with lovely salads with all that stuff and you're still hundreds of calories from your calorie target for the day...so you have a choice between eating even more lovely salads or having a Snickers.)0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »I really have to wonder if the difference in the raw/cooked food is even statistically significant, let alone falling within/without the margin of error for estimating we all make counting calories to begin with. This article has been posted several times now, and I've thought the same thing every time I've seen it.
I've also thought that raw foodists are probably having a field day with it.
Pretty much my thoughts as well. I cook all of the time...most food tastes better that way...I easily lost weight and I've easily maintained my weight and I can eat a *kitten* ton of food and accomplish either of those weight control goals without worrying about some minuscule difference in calorie absorption because I cooked my spinach rather than eating it in a salad....
0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »I also question if the difference made is really large enough to be significant in humans. Unfortunately, the article doesn't give any clues to that.
the amount of calories left in your waste can be measured and accounted for, it isn't huge. Over time it might be significant as a few calories a day is a lot over 10 years.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men were fed a diet that was high in fiber, then low in fiber (12g/day vrs 1g/day). When on the high fiber diet, their feces contained 900 more calories over the course of a week than when they were on the low fiber diet. 900x52 = 46,800 = would be 13 pounds fat difference in a year by making changes in what sort of food people ate (high versus low fiber).
Sounds like high fibre diets waste a lot of food. Not sure how that's a good thing....it's certainly not environmentally friendly....
Higher intakes of fiber (over 30g a day) are associated with higher levels of weight loss and lower ad libitum energy consumption.
http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/cgi-bin/espace.pdf?file=/2011/03/10/file_1/153804
Eating less food (lower energy consumption), and food that is less processed is definitely better for the environment. Do you know how many dinosaurs had to die to get those snack cakes processed and delivered to your neighborhood? A lot less than was needed to get an apple to the local market...
Some of the ad libitum over eating going on may very well be a result of the high availablility/convenience/low price of processed foods (generally low fiber/high digestibility), and we might not see the same rates of overweight/obesity without them. I think some overeating is due to being in a less active society as well - pressure to be at sedentary jobs for long hours and using cars to get around.
Umm..summary...If people eat more fiber, and generally (but not always) healthier, balanced diets, and exercised more/depended less on cars, we would not only weigh less as a society (without having to count calories), but we could save dinosaurs! - or at least the oily bits of dinosaurs that are left...0 -
zoodocgirl wrote: »I've posted about this before but it's been awhile, and it adds interesting fuel to the fire. There's a relatively new field of study called nutrigenomics. It turns out that, despite the amount of calories in a particular food/nutrient, some of them interact with our genetic expression in different ways, upregulating or downregulating the production of whatever enzyme/protein/job that gene has to do.
I am a veterinarian for an animal nutrition company and we have been able to do this work a little faster than in the human field because we have more compliant subjects. There is already a heavily researched and commercially produced diet in which extremely high levels of EPA (dogs) or DHA (cats) interact with genetic expression in ways that downregulate the production of aggrecanase, which is a factor in osteoarthritis. We can see both the downregulation in DNA heat mapping of cell cultures, and clinical see improvement in the pets' mobility in 30 days.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20043801
http://bit.ly/1ICYeKp
More recently, this work was applied to obesity in dogs and cats and a selection of nutrients was found that modulates the activity of many of the genes related to metabolism and weight gain/loss. The calorie intake of this diet is often slightly higher than that of the previous calorie-restricted diet the pets were unsuccessfully on. Can they eat the whole bag and still lose weight? Of course not. But there is evidence that the combination of specific nutrients improves their lipid metabolism, glucose metabolism, appetite hormones and satiety at the mRNA transcription level. Again, visible in both DNA heat mapping and clinically.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2682937/
You can't grossly override the calories in/calories out equation with any magic bullet, but there IS a difference in how certain nutrients affect the genes that factor into our weight.
Thank you for posting this. The HCA supplementation studies are really interesting, particularly when you consider the types of genes that are being regulated.
1 -
But to add to this analogy, your car doesnt get extra points for adding more gas then the vehicle will allow. That is the argument we always have. One you hit your goals, is there any benefit from eating cleaner foods?charlesfriday1 wrote: »The article makes sense to me. If you consider the body and engine and the food the fuel, it makes perfect sense. You might have to types of fuel with the same energy contained therein. If you poured both types of fuel on a fire, they would release the same energy. On the other hand, if you ran them through an engine it would depend on which fuel the engine was optimized to burn. One fuel might completely combust and bring the engine it's maximum horsepower. The other might burn less completely and result in an engine that doesn't perform quite as well despite having the same energy contained in a given unit of said fuel as the better performing fuel.
You could also see how different engines (bodies) react to different fuels and that no rule regarding fuel could be taken as a hard and fast rule for said fuel and every engine (body).
0 -
Count your calories if you want to lose weight because a calorie is a calorie. Now that being said If you want nutrition then you need to choose wisely and make the calories you are eating benefit your body especially when you are eating less calories.0
-
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »I also question if the difference made is really large enough to be significant in humans. Unfortunately, the article doesn't give any clues to that.
the amount of calories left in your waste can be measured and accounted for, it isn't huge. Over time it might be significant as a few calories a day is a lot over 10 years.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men were fed a diet that was high in fiber, then low in fiber (12g/day vrs 1g/day). When on the high fiber diet, their feces contained 900 more calories over the course of a week than when they were on the low fiber diet. 900x52 = 46,800 = would be 13 pounds fat difference in a year by making changes in what sort of food people ate (high versus low fiber).
Sounds like high fibre diets waste a lot of food. Not sure how that's a good thing....it's certainly not environmentally friendly....
Higher intakes of fiber (over 30g a day) are associated with higher levels of weight loss and lower ad libitum energy consumption.
http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/cgi-bin/espace.pdf?file=/2011/03/10/file_1/153804
Eating less food (lower energy consumption), and food that is less processed is definitely better for the environment.
But that's not what the study cited earlier said. In fact, because so many consumed calories are being pooped out, it's saying the same level of energy burn requires *greater* food consumption.
0 -
But to add to this analogy, your car doesnt get extra points for adding more gas then the vehicle will allow. That is the argument we always have. One you hit your goals, is there any benefit from eating cleaner foods?charlesfriday1 wrote: »The article makes sense to me. If you consider the body and engine and the food the fuel, it makes perfect sense. You might have to types of fuel with the same energy contained therein. If you poured both types of fuel on a fire, they would release the same energy. On the other hand, if you ran them through an engine it would depend on which fuel the engine was optimized to burn. One fuel might completely combust and bring the engine it's maximum horsepower. The other might burn less completely and result in an engine that doesn't perform quite as well despite having the same energy contained in a given unit of said fuel as the better performing fuel.
You could also see how different engines (bodies) react to different fuels and that no rule regarding fuel could be taken as a hard and fast rule for said fuel and every engine (body).
I would not think so, since meeting your nutritional/macro goals means your body has everything it needs for optimal performance.0 -
Optimal? Anyway people seem to confuse the calorie as a unit of energy with food.
But to add to this analogy, your car doesnt get extra points for adding more gas then the vehicle will allow. That is the argument we always have. One you hit your goals, is there any benefit from eating cleaner foods?charlesfriday1 wrote: »The article makes sense to me. If you consider the body and engine and the food the fuel, it makes perfect sense. You might have to types of fuel with the same energy contained therein. If you poured both types of fuel on a fire, they would release the same energy. On the other hand, if you ran them through an engine it would depend on which fuel the engine was optimized to burn. One fuel might completely combust and bring the engine it's maximum horsepower. The other might burn less completely and result in an engine that doesn't perform quite as well despite having the same energy contained in a given unit of said fuel as the better performing fuel.
You could also see how different engines (bodies) react to different fuels and that no rule regarding fuel could be taken as a hard and fast rule for said fuel and every engine (body).
I would not think so, since meeting your nutritional/macro goals means your body has everything it needs for optimal performance.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Optimal? Anyway people seem to confuse the calorie as a unit of energy with food.
But to add to this analogy, your car doesnt get extra points for adding more gas then the vehicle will allow. That is the argument we always have. One you hit your goals, is there any benefit from eating cleaner foods?charlesfriday1 wrote: »The article makes sense to me. If you consider the body and engine and the food the fuel, it makes perfect sense. You might have to types of fuel with the same energy contained therein. If you poured both types of fuel on a fire, they would release the same energy. On the other hand, if you ran them through an engine it would depend on which fuel the engine was optimized to burn. One fuel might completely combust and bring the engine it's maximum horsepower. The other might burn less completely and result in an engine that doesn't perform quite as well despite having the same energy contained in a given unit of said fuel as the better performing fuel.
You could also see how different engines (bodies) react to different fuels and that no rule regarding fuel could be taken as a hard and fast rule for said fuel and every engine (body).
I would not think so, since meeting your nutritional/macro goals means your body has everything it needs for optimal performance.
I'm very tired, and that could be a wrong word. I mean your body is at its best when you've fulfilled your macros.
Please share more on your statement I have put in bold.
0 -
I knew you meant getting our minimum nutritional requirements would be optimalneanderthin wrote: »
Optimal? Anyway people seem to confuse the calorie as a unit of energy with food.
But to add to this analogy, your car doesnt get extra points for adding more gas then the vehicle will allow. That is the argument we always have. One you hit your goals, is there any benefit from eating cleaner foods?charlesfriday1 wrote: »The article makes sense to me. If you consider the body and engine and the food the fuel, it makes perfect sense. You might have to types of fuel with the same energy contained therein. If you poured both types of fuel on a fire, they would release the same energy. On the other hand, if you ran them through an engine it would depend on which fuel the engine was optimized to burn. One fuel might completely combust and bring the engine it's maximum horsepower. The other might burn less completely and result in an engine that doesn't perform quite as well despite having the same energy contained in a given unit of said fuel as the better performing fuel.
You could also see how different engines (bodies) react to different fuels and that no rule regarding fuel could be taken as a hard and fast rule for said fuel and every engine (body).
I would not think so, since meeting your nutritional/macro goals means your body has everything it needs for optimal performance.
I'm very tired, and that could be a wrong word. I mean your body is at its best when you've fulfilled your macros.
Please share more on your statement I have put in bold.
As far as the other question...energy in energy out, calories, thermodynamics isn't going to change much, but I can influence my health and well being by which foods, the quality and quantity I decide to choose.
0 -
LOL, I read this article and was tempted to post about here. I decided against it.
I thought it was pretty darn interesting.
When the authors stated about how labels are incorrect- I was puzzled.
- Let's say one potato has 100 calories. According to the study- if eaten cooked and warm the body would use all 100 calories. But, if the same potato was cooked- cooled and then eaten cold, some of those calories would NOT be absorbed. But, the label is not wrong. The potato DOES contain 100 calories. That is the number that people look for. If eating it cooked and cooled results in a 25 less calories being absorbed I consider that a bonus.
But, in the long run a calorie still is a calorie.0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »I also question if the difference made is really large enough to be significant in humans. Unfortunately, the article doesn't give any clues to that.
the amount of calories left in your waste can be measured and accounted for, it isn't huge. Over time it might be significant as a few calories a day is a lot over 10 years.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men were fed a diet that was high in fiber, then low in fiber (12g/day vrs 1g/day). When on the high fiber diet, their feces contained 900 more calories over the course of a week than when they were on the low fiber diet. 900x52 = 46,800 = would be 13 pounds fat difference in a year by making changes in what sort of food people ate (high versus low fiber).
Sounds like high fibre diets waste a lot of food. Not sure how that's a good thing....it's certainly not environmentally friendly....
Higher intakes of fiber (over 30g a day) are associated with higher levels of weight loss and lower ad libitum energy consumption.
http://espace.library.curtin.edu.au/cgi-bin/espace.pdf?file=/2011/03/10/file_1/153804
Eating less food (lower energy consumption), and food that is less processed is definitely better for the environment.
But that's not what the study cited earlier said. In fact, because so many consumed calories are being pooped out, it's saying the same level of energy burn requires *greater* food consumption.
The idea is that we are built for high-fiber intakes. That's why our colons break down and get cancer without it.
We will be hungry enough to eat more than we need if we are not eating high-fiber. So yes, we can eat more calories than maintenance if we are eating inefficient calories, or calories that don't get used by the body (eating fiber). Those inefficient calories go back to the earth, where they nourish new inefficient calories for us to eat later. No harm to the environment, just recycling.
The tendency is to eat less food when we eat high fiber, though, as we are satisfied with less (see second study). So, the end product of more fiber is more people of healthy weight eating less energy overall, and the undigested energy just keeps cycling through the system. The end product of less fiber is more people overeating, absorbing more calories from the food, getting overweight, and the energy having to wait longer (i.e. until death) to go back into the system, where it will always end up anyways (except for thermal losses).
Yes, fiber means we need to eat more, and more healthy food (it affects absorbtion of micronutrients too). But, as a society, that's something we're pretty good at anyways. We may as well be healthier as we go.0 -
I'll agree. Calories are not equal. 100 cals from an apple isn't the same as 100 from a Twinkie. That's why eating cleaner is so important.
Eat 3000 calories a day in just apples and tell us what happens. You'll gain weight.
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. A calorie deficit is what's needed to lose weight. If you take in more calories than you burn, whether they're cooked or raw or processed or Twinkies or apples, you'll gain weight.
0 -
The tendency is to eat less food when we eat high fiber, though, as we are satisfied with less (see second study).
That logic doesn't work, because the energy needs aren't balanced.
I need X calories to get through my day without losing or gaining weight (ie, it's my maintenance level). If I eat a crap load of high fibre foods and (pick a number) a third of the calories in those high fibre foods get flushed out of my body without being used, that means I need to consume one-third *more* of those foods than of other foods just to keep my intake where it needs to be.
We're talking about maintenance calories/level here...either your body is going to start screaming for more food, or you are going to start losing LBM, because you're unintentionally putting it into a deficit.
Consuming more calories just to poop them out is not...efficient.
0 -
The tendency is to eat less food when we eat high fiber, though, as we are satisfied with less (see second study).
That logic doesn't work, because the energy needs aren't balanced.
I need X calories to get through my day without losing or gaining weight (ie, it's my maintenance level). If I eat a crap load of high fibre foods and (pick a number) a third of the calories in those high fibre foods get flushed out of my body without being used, that means I need to consume one-third *more* of those foods than of other foods just to keep my intake where it needs to be.
We're talking about maintenance calories/level here...either your body is going to start screaming for more food, or you are going to start losing LBM, because you're unintentionally putting it into a deficit.
Consuming more calories just to poop them out is not...efficient.
Efficient is not always best. There's the easy way, and the fun way
If you are very active, eating calorie dense foods makes sense. If not, eating efficiently is not your weight loss friend. And having that fiber to poop out keeps your colon working - you want that sucker to last a lifetime, I'm tellin' ya. All formulas resolve to zero, inefficiency helps us to take longer to get there.
0 -
"missomgitsica wrote: »Eat 3000 calories a day in just apples and tell us what happens. You'll gain weight.
You're right about the calorie thing and all. But back to real life. People don't gain weight by eating 3,000 calories worth of fresh raw apples. Well maybe there's somebody out there who's done that but who it could possibly be, I don't know.
ETA: Naturally, I'm thinking in terms of a single sitting. If, for instance, I personally was on 3 weeks worth of caloric deficit consuming a mere 1,500 calories a day of - whatever. It would be no problem for me to break down and go on a rampage which could easily include the consumption of an entire apple pie along with a garnish consisting of a pint of Haagen Daz vanilla ice cream. Which could easily equal or exceed 3,000 calories. But I would never want to eat 3,000 calories of green salad, raw apples or steamed summer squash by the same token. I don't personally know anyone who would.
And this is not directed at you personally missomgitsica, but ---->That's why I never understand the intensity and tenacity of these caloric conversations here at MFP. Seriously. What do they have to do with the nitty and the gritty of common, every day fatness? Which is, I think, why the majority of people sign up at MFP.
And with that said, I appreciate that these conversations take place here nonetheless. I don't want to come across as a party pooper anyway.
I don't know why this happens either. It's a major annoyance to see threads go that way.
This one's been pretty tame, though, and I too appreciate people bringing in interesting studies and considered thoughts. Thanks to OP and kyta32.0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »I also question if the difference made is really large enough to be significant in humans. Unfortunately, the article doesn't give any clues to that.
the amount of calories left in your waste can be measured and accounted for, it isn't huge. Over time it might be significant as a few calories a day is a lot over 10 years.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men were fed a diet that was high in fiber, then low in fiber (12g/day vrs 1g/day). When on the high fiber diet, their feces contained 900 more calories over the course of a week than when they were on the low fiber diet. 900x52 = 46,800 = would be 13 pounds fat difference in a year by making changes in what sort of food people ate (high versus low fiber).
Sounds like high fibre diets waste a lot of food. Not sure how that's a good thing....it's certainly not environmentally friendly....
Lol, that was actually my first reaction when analysing the IFLS article a bit further. ^^
Hmmm… actually what this article is really saying is that high fiber foods are awfully inefficient. The dormant engineer in my disapproves.The tendency is to eat less food when we eat high fiber, though, as we are satisfied with less (see second study).
That logic doesn't work, because the energy needs aren't balanced.
I need X calories to get through my day without losing or gaining weight (ie, it's my maintenance level). If I eat a crap load of high fibre foods and (pick a number) a third of the calories in those high fibre foods get flushed out of my body without being used, that means I need to consume one-third *more* of those foods than of other foods just to keep my intake where it needs to be.
We're talking about maintenance calories/level here...either your body is going to start screaming for more food, or you are going to start losing LBM, because you're unintentionally putting it into a deficit.
Consuming more calories just to poop them out is not...efficient.
I think what kyta means, is that in terms of satisfaction, is that we feel full faster and for longer periods of time with less food when we are eating in fiber. This is something I have heard before as well, and something that is regularly recommended here by dieticians to those trying to lose weight.
Of course, if you take it in the context of eating the minimum amount of food for the greatest nutritional and energetic benefits, it will be horribly inefficient. Looked at it that way, in fact, this entire discussion has been a massive argument in favour of highly processed foods.
So you are of course right, that one technically needs more food to fulfil their daily calorie needs on a high fiber diet than a low fiber diet. However, the way I see it, for the average, sedentary citizen, it is highly unlikely that they are under eating their calories, I would suspect that the tendency is rather the opposite. So for the average, slowly-becoming-overweight Joe, including some fibers could potentially help keep his weight under control without counting calories.
The funny thing is, the original IFLS article wasn't talking about eating more fiber to lose weight at all, despite all the unfortunate sub-titles. The final line was a suggestion for a "traffic light" system depending on how processed the food was or not (ergo how optimal the calorie-absorption would be.)
That could really go both ways depending on the context: If you are a very busy athlete or bodybuilder wishing to optimise your energy and nutrient intake, then a high-fiber diet may not be what you are looking for. On the other hand, if you wish to lose weight and create a deficit, you may want to consider switching out some processed foods for some raw veggies.0 -
Well call me naïve Spoonyherrspoons wrote: »You don't know any Tongan, Fijians or Samoans then? Plenty of the Island Bros get huge from fruit. , but I just don't think it was fruit that got them that way.
As a former loooooooooong time member of 12 Step Food Fellowships, in which the participants were more than candid about what they were eating and what caused their fatness, I've never heard a single individual ever say it was too much fruit that caused their personal significant fatness. Ever.herrspoons wrote: »The trouble is you present one extreme - an entire apple pie and pint of ice cream (which I would struggle with) - as being valid and another - gross consumption of fruit - as not.
Yes, and for those who gain weight sanely and take it off sanely, God bless 'em and more power to 'em.herrspoons wrote: »most people put on weight because they eat a little bit more than they should every day .
I hear you darling, but crazy is a very subjective term, especially when it comes to eating, satiety comfort zone, personal taste and body image. And eating.herrspoons wrote: »not because they do crazy eating.
It's too bad we can't study the diaries of the morbidly obese who honestly log exactly what they eat and how much of it. I think it would be very telling and it would put this never ending CICO debate into perspective. And before anyone jumps out at me to yell at me for referencing the morbidly obese, I currently fall into that category. My photos represent a five foot six inch woman at 237 pounds. I carry my weight very evenly and I'm muscular without exercising, so many say I don't look morbidly obese. But heaven knows I feel it. And I didn't get that way eating a wee bit too much oatmeal for breakfast, indulging in a pat or two of extra butter on my evening baked potato or opting for two oranges instead of one during my sensible and sane afternoon snack. LOL.herrspoons wrote: »That small excess can come from anything, which is why we have fat low carvers, vegans, diabetics, etc.
Well, I'm 195 pounds, down from an all time high of 220. What I ate too much of? I was measuring out the nuts on my yogurt, but was eating a huge bowlful of yogurt. Too many beans, not heaps and heaps of bean pasta, but a bit more than I should now that I see a proper portion, 2 tablespoons of olive oil instead of a teaspoon, misjudging what a tablespoon of almond butter for a snack looked like.
I'm short, I'm older, and it made a big difference to have those little bit extras. I really had to cut very little extra food to get into a deficit.
0 -
missomgitsica wrote: »I'll agree. Calories are not equal. 100 cals from an apple isn't the same as 100 from a Twinkie. That's why eating cleaner is so important.
Eat 3000 calories a day in just apples and tell us what happens. You'll gain weight wish you were dead/never leave the bathroom.
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. A calorie deficit is what's needed to lose weight. If you take in more calories than you burn, whether they're cooked or raw or processed or Twinkies or apples, you'll gain weight.
FIFY0 -
As a unit of measure, 1=1, no matter what it is. 1 always equals 1 and will never equal anything else.
That's not correct. It depends on context.
It took Principia Mathematica about 500 pages worth of logical proofs to establish that "1+1=2" - usually. Even then ended up with a circular definition. And if 1 plus 1 being 2 is a "sometimes", then it's not possible that "1 always equals 1".
In what context is 1 = 1 incorrect?
I did pretty well in math, but didn't go so far that 1 did not equal 1.
Is it possible to explain that to someone who wasn't a math major?
I have nothing else to add to this trolling thread. But I can explain the 1+1 =/= 2 comment (I'm not a math major, I'm an engineer).
Its a study in significant figures and rounding.
1.4 rounds to 1 (because 4 is less than 5).
1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8
2.8 rounds to 3 (because 8 is greater than 5).
If you had to round because of significant figures (common when you get into physics and labwork), in this case:
1 + 1 = 3
At least that's how I understand it.
ETA: when you don't have a decimal point, the 1 is assumed to have any value between 0.5 to 1.4 because you are not being precise. If you want to say exactly 1, you have to put 1.0.0 -
why is this thread still going ...
a calorie is a unit of energy ..
one calorie = one calorie
0 -
An inch of dynamite is quite different from an inch of diamonds
0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »As a unit of measure, 1=1, no matter what it is. 1 always equals 1 and will never equal anything else.
That's not correct. It depends on context.
It took Principia Mathematica about 500 pages worth of logical proofs to establish that "1+1=2" - usually. Even then ended up with a circular definition. And if 1 plus 1 being 2 is a "sometimes", then it's not possible that "1 always equals 1".
In what context is 1 = 1 incorrect?
I did pretty well in math, but didn't go so far that 1 did not equal 1.
Is it possible to explain that to someone who wasn't a math major?
I have nothing else to add to this trolling thread. But I can explain the 1+1 =/= 2 comment (I'm not a math major, I'm an engineer).
Its a study in significant figures and rounding.
1.4 rounds to 1 (because 4 is less than 5).
1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8
2.8 rounds to 3 (because 8 is greater than 5).
If you had to round because of significant figures (common when you get into physics and labwork), in this case:
1 + 1 = 3
At least that's how I understand it.
ETA: when you don't have a decimal point, the 1 is assumed to have any value between 0.5 to 1.4 because you are not being precise. If you want to say exactly 1, you have to put 1.0.
Kalikel is assuming a particular area of practical mathematics, arithmetic, and she's assuming only the set of real numbers. Change those parameters, and 1 + 1 doesn't necessarily mean the same thing anymore.
Explaining what and why gets complicated, which is why I didn't post. I've got a post-graduate theoretical math background which did not emphasize simplistic explanation in any way, shape, or form. LOL.
The droplet example was a good non-math example of 1 + 1 = 1 without going into unnecessary detail. I thought it was best to leave it at that.
0 -
SingRunTing wrote: »As a unit of measure, 1=1, no matter what it is. 1 always equals 1 and will never equal anything else.
That's not correct. It depends on context.
It took Principia Mathematica about 500 pages worth of logical proofs to establish that "1+1=2" - usually. Even then ended up with a circular definition. And if 1 plus 1 being 2 is a "sometimes", then it's not possible that "1 always equals 1".
In what context is 1 = 1 incorrect?
I did pretty well in math, but didn't go so far that 1 did not equal 1.
Is it possible to explain that to someone who wasn't a math major?
I have nothing else to add to this trolling thread. But I can explain the 1+1 =/= 2 comment (I'm not a math major, I'm an engineer).
Its a study in significant figures and rounding.
1.4 rounds to 1 (because 4 is less than 5).
1.4 + 1.4 = 2.8
2.8 rounds to 3 (because 8 is greater than 5).
If you had to round because of significant figures (common when you get into physics and labwork), in this case:
1 + 1 = 3
At least that's how I understand it.
ETA: when you don't have a decimal point, the 1 is assumed to have any value between 0.5 to 1.4 because you are not being precise. If you want to say exactly 1, you have to put 1.0.
Kalikel is assuming a particular area of practical mathematics, arithmetic, and she's assuming only the set of real numbers. Change those parameters, and 1 + 1 doesn't necessarily mean the same thing anymore.
Explaining what and why gets complicated, which is why I didn't post. I've got a post-graduate theoretical math background which did not emphasize simplistic explanation in any way, shape, or form. LOL.
The droplet example was a good non-math example of 1 + 1 = 1 without going into unnecessary detail. I thought it was best to leave it at that.
I just checked on Youtube to see if Numberphile had a video on that, but it appears he doesn't.
0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »Are all inches equal?
How about yard sticks?
does 1 centimeter = 1 centimeter?
100 calories from an apple are equal to 100 calories from a twinkie.
the NUTRITION is not identical.
But the calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement, the measurement of the amount of heat you need to raise the temp of a kg of water by one celsius degree
^^^She is right. Nutrition is the big difference.
Your comment "calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement" is not correct. According to the article the work the body has to do to process that calorie greatly influences whether the food will cause you to gain or not. Example 300 calories of broccoli is A LOT. Your body would have to work harder to digest this food rather than say 300 calories of cookie. Because the body doesn't have to do much to digest the cookie you gain weight. Seems very logical to me. All calories are not equal.
0 -
swilkinson0705 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Are all inches equal?
How about yard sticks?
does 1 centimeter = 1 centimeter?
100 calories from an apple are equal to 100 calories from a twinkie.
the NUTRITION is not identical.
But the calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement, the measurement of the amount of heat you need to raise the temp of a kg of water by one celsius degree
^^^She is right. Nutrition is the big difference.
Your comment "calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement" is not correct. According to the article the work the body has to do to process that calorie greatly influences whether the food will cause you to gain or not.
If you look at an overall diet, the claim "greatly influences" is a gross overstatement. I eat lots of veggies and not much of what is usually termed highly processed foods, but I suspect the actual difference in my deficit and someone's for whom that is not true, all else equal, would be a rounding error.
Moreover, for the purposes of this discussion, additional work your body does to process the calories is part of "calories out." It is not an argument that a calorie is other than a calorie.
0 -
swilkinson0705 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »Are all inches equal?
How about yard sticks?
does 1 centimeter = 1 centimeter?
100 calories from an apple are equal to 100 calories from a twinkie.
the NUTRITION is not identical.
But the calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement, the measurement of the amount of heat you need to raise the temp of a kg of water by one celsius degree
^^^She is right. Nutrition is the big difference.
Your comment "calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement" is not correct. According to the article the work the body has to do to process that calorie greatly influences whether the food will cause you to gain or not. Example 300 calories of broccoli is A LOT. Your body would have to work harder to digest this food rather than say 300 calories of cookie. Because the body doesn't have to do much to digest the cookie you gain weight. Seems very logical to me. All calories are not equal.
TEF (thermatic effect of food) is limited and when you look at in overall dietary context and dosage it is even more minimal...
so 200 calories of broccoli = 200 calories of cookies they are both 1 to 1 in terms of energy.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions