Are the calories of a banana used differently to the calories of cake?
Replies
-
neanderthin wrote: »
The banana will also increase dopamine, so will a steak.
Well that's brilliant, thanks. Honestly the most empowering thing I've read in a while. I'll choose the healthy dopamine version, thanks!
And just because SW got a bit of a pasting in this thread - and probably deservedly so - my high dopamine moment - getting "Miss Slinky" last autumn. Better than any cake or steak!
Cute picture!
With regards to dopamine - forget it.
Really, the amount of steak dopamine, banana dopamine or cake dopamine are negligible.
10 minutes of dancing about, some sun, a little sex, yoga, heck, even calmly breathing while chanting all increase dopamine.
But the focus should be the majors not the little things - if you eat food with a large variety and include lots of fruits and vegetables, keep a reasonable cut, exercise regularly - that is all you need.
But, if you haven't focused on the majors - all the banana eating dopamine in the world won't fix poor basics.
Sticking to basics is HARD work. Being active is HARD in our modern world. A banana over cake or cake over banana isn't going to solve that.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
The cake has no magical properties.
But it does increase dopamine, yes? Like sex - and I like both too ...
It can be pretty hard to resist these chemicals in our brains - I need my dopamine fix.
But, need to lose weight more, and the reward of seeing that number on the scale go down and down is strong enough to make me count my sugar calories and really limit them.
Someone else already pointed this out, but it bears repeating: a LOT of things increase dopamine. Pain increases dopamine too. That's not something magical that keeps you coming back for more in and of itself.
Well that all depends on what you're into, I guess.
But it's true. Blaming food for your own impulse control issues is why so many people buy into the "good" food and "bad" food stuff. I mean sure, there are some foods that are so high in calories and low in nutrients for a small portion it can seem ridiculous, but if I want cake, I'm going to eat cake. Because if I don't, I'm going to eat a whole lot of cake later.0 -
0
-
If you are going to increase your sugar intake just make sure that you are increasing your fiber intake accordingly.0
-
neanderthin wrote: »
Why, the nutrients in a particular cake might just be what a person needs to meet their needs at a given moment in time.PerkisPower wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »If all you're concerned about is weight, it doesn't make much difference. If you're also concerned about health and the ability to exercise, there are significant differences.
Great post, agree with this 100%
That's true, but if what a person needed was cake, then a banana just wouldn't do.0 -
JoanaMHill wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
The cake has no magical properties.
But it does increase dopamine, yes? Like sex - and I like both too ...
It can be pretty hard to resist these chemicals in our brains - I need my dopamine fix.
But, need to lose weight more, and the reward of seeing that number on the scale go down and down is strong enough to make me count my sugar calories and really limit them.
Someone else already pointed this out, but it bears repeating: a LOT of things increase dopamine. Pain increases dopamine too. That's not something magical that keeps you coming back for more in and of itself.
Well that all depends on what you're into, I guess.
But it's true. Blaming food for your own impulse control issues is why so many people buy into the "good" food and "bad" food stuff. I mean sure, there are some foods that are so high in calories and low in nutrients for a small portion it can seem ridiculous, but if I want cake, I'm going to eat cake. Because if I don't, I'm going to eat a whole lot of cake later.
Well, that's true, about the what you're into part, and that brings up the matter of context. Because even if you're into pain, if you break your ankle, the dopamine release from that is not going to give you pleasurable feedback.
Which really goes to show how little dopamine release may play in all of this.
My own experiences with overeating were mostly psychological as an abuse and rape survivor. I either plain old ignored things or grasped at the food group blame game for a few years to avoid dealing with the underlying issues. I tend to wonder how many overeaters have underlying psychological issues and/or how much is just cultural from living in a society that just plain has lost sight of what a regular portion looks like AND a society that loves playing the victim card.
0 -
The other thing people don't think about is how fast it travels through your body, such as whole foods compared to Processed box food or meat for that reason too, the whole foods will pass through at a much faster rate as it can dissolve and go through the intestines and out faster.0
-
CraigShift wrote: »The other thing people don't think about is how fast it travels through your body, such as whole foods compared to Processed box food or meat for that reason too, the whole foods will pass through at a much faster rate as it can dissolve and go through the intestines and out faster.
lol whaaaaattt...????
0 -
CraigShift wrote: »The other thing people don't think about is how fast it travels through your body, such as whole foods compared to Processed box food or meat for that reason too, the whole foods will pass through at a much faster rate as it can dissolve and go through the intestines and out faster.
Not sure what you are trying to say.
Take 100 cals of purified sugar
Take 100 cals of beets
which do you think enters the blood stream faster?
Or are you talking about waste?
And if you consider it within the context a normal meal or day - how do you think this should influence diet.
Processing tends to increase absorption rates not decrease.0 -
ummmm ok...what is "miss slinky" and how is that relevant to this thread..???
"Miss Slinky" is part of the reward system these diet groups build into their plan - there's Couple of the Year, Man of the Year, etc etc.
I didn't realise dopamine was released by behaviour as well as food until this thread. That's a lightbulb moment for me. If this is a happy chemical I can get from other things, then great. My slimming can really take off with the knowledge that it isn't only the junk that's going to hit that happy switch.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Cute picture!
With regards to dopamine - forget it.
Really, the amount of steak dopamine, banana dopamine or cake dopamine are negligible.
10 minutes of dancing about, some sun, a little sex, yoga, heck, even calmly breathing while chanting all increase dopamine.
But the focus should be the majors not the little things - if you eat food with a large variety and include lots of fruits and vegetables, keep a reasonable cut, exercise regularly - that is all you need.
But, if you haven't focused on the majors - all the banana eating dopamine in the world won't fix poor basics.
Sticking to basics is HARD work. Being active is HARD in our modern world. A banana over cake or cake over banana isn't going to solve that.
Wise words!
0 -
Your body has hormonal responses to foods regardless of the caloric value. Just because you can have "1 serving" and have no hormonal response due to your diet, muscle tissue, testosterone levels etc. doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone bud. (even more so when you are comparing yourself to a female)0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »
Your body has hormonal responses to foods regardless of the caloric value. Just because you can have "1 serving" and have no hormonal response due to your diet, muscle tissue, testosterone levels etc. doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone bud. (even more so when you are comparing yourself to a female)
still does not change the fact that 100 calories of apple = 100 calories of cake, sweetie...
-1 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »
Your body has hormonal responses to foods regardless of the caloric value. Just because you can have "1 serving" and have no hormonal response due to your diet, muscle tissue, testosterone levels etc. doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone bud. (even more so when you are comparing yourself to a female)
Sorry, I don't buy playing the female card. I can have 1 spoonful of ice cream and walk away.
It's not near as often about hormonal responses as some would like it to be.
0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »
Your body has hormonal responses to foods regardless of the caloric value. Just because you can have "1 serving" and have no hormonal response due to your diet, muscle tissue, testosterone levels etc. doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone bud. (even more so when you are comparing yourself to a female)
Our womanly hormones don't take away control of our diets, though. They can certainly make it harder for some, but I can have one serving of ice cream and put it down even during PMS or TOM. I wasn't always able to and it took me a long time to get here, but this topic is about how our bodies process foods, not about what we can and can't do in the face of powerful cravings. Again, you're conflating two different things.
0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »
Your body has hormonal responses to foods regardless of the caloric value. Just because you can have "1 serving" and have no hormonal response due to your diet, muscle tissue, testosterone levels etc. doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone bud. (even more so when you are comparing yourself to a female)
still does not change the fact that 100 calories of apple = 100 calories of cake, sweetie...
They have the same caloric values but your body wouldn't digest them the same, princess.
An apple would contain Y fiber and X carbs
Cake has Y fiber, X carbs, Z fat, V potassium, H protein, ZZ sodium, AB Cholesterol ...
Your body would not break down the 2 the same and would not have the same hormonal response even though the caloric value is identical.
0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »Tedebearduff wrote: »
Your body has hormonal responses to foods regardless of the caloric value. Just because you can have "1 serving" and have no hormonal response due to your diet, muscle tissue, testosterone levels etc. doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone bud. (even more so when you are comparing yourself to a female)
still does not change the fact that 100 calories of apple = 100 calories of cake, sweetie...
They have the same caloric values but your body wouldn't digest them the same, princess.
An apple would contain Y fiber and X carbs
Cake has Y fiber, X carbs, Z fat, V potassium, H protein, ZZ sodium, AB Cholesterol ...
Your body would not break down the 2 the same and would not have the same hormonal response even though the caloric value is identical.
if you are talking about TEF then yes, but the affect is minimal.
The amount of wrongness in all of your posts is amazing, yet you keep trying...
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Tedebearduff wrote: »
Your body has hormonal responses to foods regardless of the caloric value. Just because you can have "1 serving" and have no hormonal response due to your diet, muscle tissue, testosterone levels etc. doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone bud. (even more so when you are comparing yourself to a female)
Sorry, I don't buy playing the female card. I can have 1 spoonful of ice cream and walk away.
It's not near as often about hormonal responses as some would like it to be.
But you know, no ovaries, no opinion.
The hormones made me do it.
What hormones are primarily released when someone eats a banana?
or cake?
Why ... that's insulin!
In boys. and in girls!0 -
The "calories", the energy in food, is not used differently. Your body needs energy, and it has certain processes to get it and use it that do not differentiate between a banana and a cake. Now a banana and a cake are different in terms of nutrients they have, so they affect the body's nutrient reserves differently. Take a look at the comparison for roughly the same amount of calories for banana and sponge cake (banana to the left):
You can see that the banana has overall more nutrients for the same amount of calories AND is 3 times the size of said cake, so if you had no particular preference a banana would be a better choice micronutrient and volume-wise.
Slimming World does what it does because these "free" foods are more nutrient-rich and would fill you up better. They are trying to cultivate sustainable habits. 1500 calories of chocolate, for example, is roughly 300 grams of chocolate or less and that for a whole moderate deficit day. "Free" foods offer you a bigger variety of nutrients and are more sustainable in volume as a meal. The program still allows "syns" foods, but tries to moderate them so they don't take over the calorie allowance.0 -
Man, they really should have thought about that whole "syns" spelling thing.
I swear a kitten must die or something every time someone uses it. It's that cringe-worthy.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »The "calories", the energy in food, is not used differently. Your body needs energy, and it has certain processes to get it and use it that do not differentiate between a banana and a cake. Now a banana and a cake are different in terms of nutrients they have, so they affect the body's nutrient reserves differently. Take a look at the comparison for roughly the same amount of calories for banana and sponge cake (banana to the left):
You can see that the banana has overall more nutrients for the same amount of calories AND is 3 times the size of said cake, so if you had no particular preference a banana would be a better choice micronutrient and volume-wise.
Slimming World does what it does because these "free" foods are more nutrient-rich and would fill you up better. They are trying to cultivate sustainable habits. 1500 calories of chocolate, for example, is roughly 300 grams of chocolate or less and that for a whole moderate deficit day. "Free" foods offer you a bigger variety of nutrients and are more sustainable in volume as a meal. The program still allows "syns" foods, but tries to moderate them so they don't take over the calorie allowance.
Except no one eats a banana or cake in a vacuum.
While it might seem a better choice, variety trumps single choices. And neither is a single better choice in a varied and veg/fruit rich diet. There is no extra credit for never eating the cake.
The idea of moderation and making sure that variety makes the bulk of calorie allowance makes sense - but there is no need to be reductive and use terms that create negative food connotations (what the hell is "syns" anyway? oh, more dead kittens).
And the cake is a better calcium, iron, B12 and selenium source.0 -
No...but a banana is going to obviously have a greater nutritional profile. A calorie is just a unit of energy...so no...your body doesn't process energy any differently.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »The "calories", the energy in food, is not used differently. Your body needs energy, and it has certain processes to get it and use it that do not differentiate between a banana and a cake. Now a banana and a cake are different in terms of nutrients they have, so they affect the body's nutrient reserves differently. Take a look at the comparison for roughly the same amount of calories for banana and sponge cake (banana to the left):
You can see that the banana has overall more nutrients for the same amount of calories AND is 3 times the size of said cake, so if you had no particular preference a banana would be a better choice micronutrient and volume-wise.
Slimming World does what it does because these "free" foods are more nutrient-rich and would fill you up better. They are trying to cultivate sustainable habits. 1500 calories of chocolate, for example, is roughly 300 grams of chocolate or less and that for a whole moderate deficit day. "Free" foods offer you a bigger variety of nutrients and are more sustainable in volume as a meal. The program still allows "syns" foods, but tries to moderate them so they don't take over the calorie allowance.
Except no one eats a banana or cake in a vacuum.
While it might seem a better choice, variety trumps single choices. And neither is a single better choice in a varied and veg/fruit rich diet. There is no extra credit for never eating the cake.
The idea of moderation and making sure that variety makes the bulk of calorie allowance makes sense - but there is no need to be reductive and use terms that create negative food connotations (what the hell is "syns" anyway? oh, more dead kittens).
And the cake is a better calcium, iron, B12 and selenium source.
Read please. I already explained both fulfill different nutrient reserves differently. I did not superfood one and villainize another. Now in an isolated case where you are presented with both a piece of cake and a banana but had no particular preference for either, a banana would be better satiety and nutrient density-wise. Does that mean cake is bad? No. Does that mean cake does not perform better on certain nutrients? No. All it means a banana has a bigger nutrient density and a larger size/weight for the same amount of calories which is why such weight loss programs tend to encourage one and moderate another (which was what OP wanted to know).
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Now I want banana bread.0
-
Tedebearduff wrote: »Tedebearduff wrote: »
Your body has hormonal responses to foods regardless of the caloric value. Just because you can have "1 serving" and have no hormonal response due to your diet, muscle tissue, testosterone levels etc. doesn't mean that it's the same for everyone bud. (even more so when you are comparing yourself to a female)
still does not change the fact that 100 calories of apple = 100 calories of cake, sweetie...
They have the same caloric values but your body wouldn't digest them the same, princess.
An apple would contain Y fiber and X carbs
Cake has Y fiber, X carbs, Z fat, V potassium, H protein, ZZ sodium, AB Cholesterol ...
Your body would not break down the 2 the same and would not have the same hormonal response even though the caloric value is identical.
if you are talking about TEF then yes, but the affect is minimal.
The amount of wrongness in all of your posts is amazing, yet you keep trying...
Thanks buddy
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »The "calories", the energy in food, is not used differently. Your body needs energy, and it has certain processes to get it and use it that do not differentiate between a banana and a cake. Now a banana and a cake are different in terms of nutrients they have, so they affect the body's nutrient reserves differently. Take a look at the comparison for roughly the same amount of calories for banana and sponge cake (banana to the left):
You can see that the banana has overall more nutrients for the same amount of calories AND is 3 times the size of said cake, so if you had no particular preference a banana would be a better choice micronutrient and volume-wise.
Slimming World does what it does because these "free" foods are more nutrient-rich and would fill you up better. They are trying to cultivate sustainable habits. 1500 calories of chocolate, for example, is roughly 300 grams of chocolate or less and that for a whole moderate deficit day. "Free" foods offer you a bigger variety of nutrients and are more sustainable in volume as a meal. The program still allows "syns" foods, but tries to moderate them so they don't take over the calorie allowance.
Except no one eats a banana or cake in a vacuum.
While it might seem a better choice, variety trumps single choices. And neither is a single better choice in a varied and veg/fruit rich diet. There is no extra credit for never eating the cake.
The idea of moderation and making sure that variety makes the bulk of calorie allowance makes sense - but there is no need to be reductive and use terms that create negative food connotations (what the hell is "syns" anyway? oh, more dead kittens).
And the cake is a better calcium, iron, B12 and selenium source.
Read please. I already explained both fulfill different nutrient reserves differently. I did not superfood one and villainize another. Now in an isolated case where you are presented with both a piece of cake and a banana but had no particular preference for either, a banana would be better satiety and nutrient density-wise. Does that mean cake is bad? No. Does that mean cake does not perform better on certain nutrients? No. All it means a banana has a bigger nutrient density and a larger size/weight for the same amount of calories which is why such weight loss programs tend to encourage one and moderate another (which was what OP wanted to know).
Ok, works for me.
However, what I don't get - labeling certains foods as 'syns', how is that not 'villainizing' these food? We can't call food nutrient-dense?
I think what the op was asking goes a bit beyond why weight loss programs encourage one type of food versus another.
0 -
I'm glad I don't use SW.[/
Mmm, I think it doesn't work for many. My observations over a year there show people lose weight initially and then plateau and leave. Apparently they often gain weight and then come back to SW to do it all again...
However it has taught me healthy eating, I just used to live on sugar and fat!
Thanks for all the other replies - so interesting to me as I've been struggling with these issues. Sorry to the people who've read it a million times before xxx
First bold line: that must be their business model and how they profit via return clients. Awesome picture of you, though! So congrats that you learned what you needed to from them.
Second bold line: no need to apologize. Countless topics here are repeated daily due to new posters all the time. If the regulars don't want to read another thread on a duplicate topic they need to just skip it; no comment is necessary, IMO.0 -
well since I despise banana's the choice is obviously cake.. FTW!
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »You could eat 1,500 calories of donuts for six months, or 1,500 calories of fish, salad, Greek Yogurt, eggs, chicken and vegetables for six months. If you lose 20.6 lbs. eating donuts you will lose exactly 20.6 lbs eating the healthy stuff, as per 98% of the posters on this site.
Pay no attention to the hundreds of articles and studies, and dozens of recently published books that state anything else than a calorie is a calorie. Every single one of the writers them are scam artists just trying to make a buck. It's like stating the earth is flat.
Enjoy your donuts.
LOL and who is making the argument that anyone should eat nothing but donuts for six months??? Nice Straw man ...
but yes you are right, the weight loss would be the same...because calories are units of energy ...
what most people are arguing is that overall diet, context, and dosage is what matter..not individual foods...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions