Are all calories equal
Replies
-
Idk... Maybe? But it perplexes me when people go on "diets" or consider themselves being healthy by eating the same crappy food just in smaller amounts.
Do they? I don't know anyone who ate really badly, went on a diet just by reducing portion size, and then claimed to be eating "healthy."why not care about nutrients & what you're putting in your body?
You'd have to ask someone who doesn't.
My guess is that some people don't enjoy a lot of nutrient dense foods (at least there are endless posts on MFP about pickiness), and others believe--sensibly, IMO--that changes often work best if they are broken into smaller pieces. It might be really hard to change overall ways of eating for lots of reasons, but it might be less hard to reduce portion size and add a multi. And if you have lots to lose losing weight is the number one healthy thing you can do for yourself. (In other words, no, it's not simply vain, although like you I also have nothing against vanity--it's one reason of several that I care about my diet.)
For me, it's much easier to get motivated to lose if I focus on eating really nutrient-dense foods and a balanced diet and so on--and this may well be the case for you too--but it's not for everyone. Also, from my perspective, it's probably as common or more so to start a diet and think you must get rid of all "non diet" foods (which people often identify as anything they really like or anything higher calorie), and IMO that's a good way to make it non sustainable.
Most likely people will figure out what works for them as they go on and if they are trying to eat lots of so-called junk food on low calories will realize that doesn't work because it's not satiating, and start moving toward more nutrient dense foods.
Or, maybe they won't.
I honestly don't understand why other people care.0 -
A (edited to correct) nutrition professor recently did an experiment that is along these lines. His diet consisted of Twinkies and other crap food. The result was that he still lost weight because he remained in a calorie deficit. So the answer is that a calorie is a calorie (scientifically speaking, one calorie is equal to the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 °C, or 4.1868 joules). It is a measurable amount of energy, but your macro and micro nutrients are not equal for all calories across the board. So while a person may lose weight eating fast food, they will probably not be as healthy as the otherwise identical person eating the same calories from healthy foods.0
-
Calories are calories regardless of source when consumed by the body. If you didn't know it yet, fat storage is CONSTANT in any person. It differs from a genetic standpoint individual to individual, but it's always ON. Any surplus of calories will get stored as energy and/or mass added to the body.no i dont think so... eating a hundred calories of cake is not the same as eating a hundred calories of chicken.... fatty, sugary, high calorie foods cause weight gain because they stimulate the bodies fat storage genes
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
Here's a twin study of weight loss where as many variables as possible were eliminated. The twins were on the same diet, though.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v25/n4/full/0801559a.html
I say that fat loss would be the same for both participants.0 -
no i dont think so... eating a hundred calories of cake is not the same as eating a hundred calories of chicken.... fatty, sugary, high calorie foods cause weight gain because they stimulate the bodies fat storage genes
Regardless of overall energy deficit/balance? Really? That's not how it works.
Protein spikes insulin too. We are constantly storing and burning fat. An energy surplus (excess of calories) causes us to store excess fat. An energy deficit causes us to lose fat. An energy balance causes us to burn/store fat at a rate that we maintain our weight. Simplistically speaking.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Oh this will end well.0
-
TheVirgoddess wrote: »Oh this will end well.
Post the picture of the brownie. It will prove which calories are superior.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Idk... Maybe? But it perplexes me when people go on "diets" or consider themselves being healthy by eating the same crappy food just in smaller amounts.
Do they? I don't know anyone who ate really badly, went on a diet just by reducing portion size, and then claimed to be eating "healthy."why not care about nutrients & what you're putting in your body?
You'd have to ask someone who doesn't.
My guess is that some people don't enjoy a lot of nutrient dense foods (at least there are endless posts on MFP about pickiness), and others believe--sensibly, IMO--that changes often work best if they are broken into smaller pieces. It might be really hard to change overall ways of eating for lots of reasons, but it might be less hard to reduce portion size and add a multi. And if you have lots to lose losing weight is the number one healthy thing you can do for yourself. (In other words, no, it's not simply vain, although like you I also have nothing against vanity--it's one reason of several that I care about my diet.)
For me, it's much easier to get motivated to lose if I focus on eating really nutrient-dense foods and a balanced diet and so on--and this may well be the case for you too--but it's not for everyone. Also, from my perspective, it's probably as common or more so to start a diet and think you must get rid of all "non diet" foods (which people often identify as anything they really like or anything higher calorie), and IMO that's a good way to make it non sustainable.
Most likely people will figure out what works for them as they go on and if they are trying to eat lots of so-called junk food on low calories will realize that doesn't work because it's not satiating, and start moving toward more nutrient dense foods.
Or, maybe they won't.
I honestly don't understand why other people care.
Hmm, I'm not particularly concerned with anyone's diet besides mine. But, if the question was posed (& it was) I have an opinion on it. I totally agree that you should do whatever works for you. I personally could never sustain on 1400 calories of fast food & was just saying j think it's a bad idea to start off like this. In my eyes it doesn't represent real change. & again, the question was posed... I didn't just start a post entitled " YOU KNOW WHAT REALLY GRINDS MY GEARS..." Lol
I think everything you stated was said eloquently though, some factors I wasn't considering.0 -
Idk... Maybe? But it perplexes me when people go on "diets" or consider themselves being healthy by eating the same crappy food just in smaller amounts. You will lose weight, but why not care about nutrients & what you're putting in your body? I am by know means super strict on my diet. Definitely a proponent of eating anything you desire in moderation. But I would say I consider 80% of the stuff I consume "healthy". But if my entire diet consisted of fast food & junk I would still feel like I was making poor choices. Worrying solely about weight loss is vain... But we're all a little vain so I get it
I might be able to respond to this (the bolded part.)
I have "dieted" off and on for 30 years. I have attempted to eat "clean" and exercise and in the end, I fail every time because my interpretation of these concepts has been too rigid. I may get all inspired and decide that I will cook every meal from scratch and pack my lunch to work with me every day and create an ambitous work out plan. I never can last more than a week.
It's just too much of a departure from my normal routine and prefered foods. It becomes a burden and a hassle. So I have learned that, in order to stick to a weight loss regimen, I have to compromise. I weigh and measure my food as much as I can and I log it so that I can tell when I'm nearing my calorie limit. I eat what I normally eat, but in smaller portions as needed. I exercise, but I only do things I like. It's working.
In the end I think it's more important for me to keep my weight within a healthy range than hit all my macros and micros.
0 -
Labeling something crap food just because makes no sense especially when you are completely ignoring context.
Just giving the condensed version of the experiment where the professors diet consisted mostly of what is considered "junk food"- or crap food as I referred to it. Are you really going to try and argue the nutritional goodness of Twinkies and Ho-ho's? It's on par as to what the OP was referring to. The professor wanted to use an example of CICO being effective regardless of calorie source. A calorie is a calorie based on the amount of energy it provides to your body, but not necessarily in the breakdown of nutrients for how it fuels your body.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I'm pretty sure that a bunch of pasta before a marathon isn't quite the same as a diet consisting nearly entirely of Twinkies and the like for an extended period of time. I also never said it was dumb to eat those. If they fit your goals, then have at it. But they are generally considered junk food. I believe it you who is taking what I've said (which wasn't really something "I" said in the first place) out of context rather than the other way around.
So let me ask you a question, if you were going to run a 5k or bike ride a couple miles, play some soccer, play a game of basketball etc are you going to tell me that you would rather eat a piece of chicken or some broccoli over a pop tart or some Gummi bears?
Labeling something crap food just because makes no sense especially when you are completely ignoring context.
Just giving the condensed version of the experiment where the professors diet consisted mostly of what is considered "junk food"- or crap food as I referred to it. Are you really going to try and argue the nutritional goodness of Twinkies and Ho-ho's? It's on par as to what the OP was referring to. The professor wanted to use an example of CICO being effective regardless of calorie source. A calorie is a calorie based on the amount of energy it provides to your body, but not necessarily in the breakdown of nutrients for how it fuels your body.
You are looking at the nutrient breakdown behind a food in order to label it cap but what you are missing is context. Are you going to say runners are dumb because the day before a marathon they eat a bunch of pasta instead of eating a bunch of fruit?
0 -
-
Short and sweet answer..
I've lost 22kg of fat and doubled my strength in the last 45 weeks while eating:
- takeaway/junk food every week.
- popcorn, sweets, crisps, chocolate at the weekends
- anything I feel like eating
I promise you both guys would lose the same amount of weight. The only thing that matters is hitting your calories.
Notice I said "anything I want" and not "as much as I want". Ensure you accurately track calories, double check the numbers.
Long term health is a big consideration. Don't forget that! Choose healthy foods for this reason only - not calories.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 438 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions