Perspective - Not all calories created equal
Replies
-
Hmmmm. Not according to Susan Jebb:
So people SHOULDN'T pay as much attention to fiber filled foods calories? That the calories on their are overestimated?stevencloser wrote: »For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
39 calories is a huge difference now? When was the last time you filled half your day's calories with almonds to make it a significant amount?
You can argue all day about what defines a "huge difference." Over the course of a day, choosing a seemingly equally caloric amount of whole foods versus highly refined foods will lead a difference in calories absorbed that is significant over time.
Again, my understanding is that calories on labels are considered calories for metabolic use.
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
I'm sorry but your understanding is wrong. Calories on food lables are based on incineration with a small "across the board" correction factor for all types foods.But in fact, the losses are proportionately quite small. The calories that you see written on the back of a food pack have already had all of these adjustments made for the amount that will be digested and absorbed. And so, the calories you see on the packet is actually not the total calories in that food. It’s the so-called metabolisable energy, the amount of energy which is going to be available to the body.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2590/
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 -
I do agree that if you REALLY just want a donut, but all means find a way to fit it into your budget. But most of the time it isn't worth it for me because then I'm still hungry.
I don't find it particularly difficult to fit in 300 calories of something fun or extra or just because it tastes good (although it's nice if it can also contribute something to your overall goals for the day).
I would not make that my lunch, of course. That's what would lead to hunger, IMO. (300 calories is a tiny lunch for me anyway--I normally have more like 450 and then maybe a protein bar or something later in the day, so it would be super easy to work in the donut if I wanted, although it would mess with my macros unless I planned around it.)
The bigger issue, of course, is that that's a terrible-looking donut that I wouldn't waste 50 calories on, and I'm not a big donut fan anyway. I'd much rather have some good chocolate or ice cream or, who knows, some really good cheese or the like, depending on my options for the day.
I could make the same point the OP was, I guess, by putting up a small piece of cheese vs. a veggie stir fry and point out the difference in volume, but I still don't see the point, really. I wouldn't want to give up the cheese. For me, part of the benefit of some foods being so filling at such low calories is that it helps me make room in my day to have the cheese too.
But trying to eat only cheese would be quite unsatisfying and unhealthy. Also, really weird.0 -
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'd like to dispute the fact, after I looked up other such claims over other certain foods/drinks "boosting metabolism" or "taking more calories to digest than others" and so on
Please read the above. Neither I nor the studies referenced (and there are dozens more out there) make the claims you think I'm making.
We are talking about poop here.
More specifically, the amount of not fully digested and absorbed carbs and fats in the poop of those enjoying high fibre diets is higher than those who live on low fibre diets even though both consume the same base mix of carbs/fats/proteins and the same base caloric intake.
Put more simply, if it makes it out the other end undigested/unabsorbed, it's as if it wasn't there in the first place.
Bonus round: 30 - 40,000 kcal/year is a bunch of "free" beers (about 180 bottles).
Why are you going on so much about this? It's not an either/or proposition.
You presume that people who would eat a donut cannot also enjoy a fiber rich diet.
That's a false presumption.
Eh, for the average person who is overweight it's a pretty likely assumption (at least where I live in the USA). Of course if someone is eating a well balanced diet with plenty of veggies, protein, fiber, etc then choosing a donut instead of even more veggies is fine. But donuts don't provide the same nutrients that veggies do. Veggies provide have things like fiber, protein, antioxidants, etc that donuts lack.
AGAIN... why bring in outside people when we're here discussing among ourselves? I was talking about us, here on MFP. It's not fair, when one conscientious dieter is talking to other conscientious dieters who happen to eat donuts to bring in the strawman of people who eat SAD.
Muhahah, this means you have to give me all your donuts. All your donuts are belong to us.
<--- doesn't live in America, hasn't eaten SAD in 20 years.
<--- also can't find an effing decent donut in 700 km round.0 -
Hmmmm. Not according to Susan Jebb:
So people SHOULDN'T pay as much attention to fiber filled foods calories? That the calories on their are overestimated?stevencloser wrote: »For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
39 calories is a huge difference now? When was the last time you filled half your day's calories with almonds to make it a significant amount?
You can argue all day about what defines a "huge difference." Over the course of a day, choosing a seemingly equally caloric amount of whole foods versus highly refined foods will lead a difference in calories absorbed that is significant over time.
Again, my understanding is that calories on labels are considered calories for metabolic use.
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
I'm sorry but your understanding is wrong. Calories on food lables are based on incineration with a small "across the board" correction factor for all types foods.But in fact, the losses are proportionately quite small. The calories that you see written on the back of a food pack have already had all of these adjustments made for the amount that will be digested and absorbed. And so, the calories you see on the packet is actually not the total calories in that food. It’s the so-called metabolisable energy, the amount of energy which is going to be available to the body.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2590/
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
I don't know who Susan Jebb is but she's wrong. As I mentioned food calorie labels are based on the original Atwater incineration system with an "across the board" correction factor to it. The correction factor is 10% for all types of carbs, even though some should be 30% and some should be zero.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd be miserable on a breakfast of 4 eggs. Boring. I like eggs, but the only way I like them by themselves is hard boiled and I couldn't eat 4 of those. This doesn't mean that that's not a great breakfast for someone else, of course, but I don't get the idea that it's somehow superior.
I like having a two-egg veggie omelet with something else (today, leftover chicken, often fruit or dairy).
For the same basic calories I can have a reasonable-sized bowl of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) with berries, protein powder, and veggies on the side.
I enjoy both of these breakfasts, although I have the eggs more, and find them equally filling.
So this idea of eggs being inherently superior to cereal seems odd to me. (I hate cold cereal, but that's a taste preference thing.)
I'm completely confused about what this thread is supposed to be about, though. I mean, surely we are all sufficiently competent that we can manage to eat in ways that don't leave us hungry, right? Do some of you imagine that most of us are struggling with hunger every day since we don't eat right? Is it really a surprise to anyone that some foods have more calories per volume than others (and that many of those are still great foods to eat, like IMO eggs vs. egg whites)?
Eggs? Who is talking about eggs?
<scans page>
O.o
Whoops, did I start that? Sorry.
If you are talking about my post - I wasn't suggesting eggs are inherently superior - I was talking about how increase in fiber tends to displace protein and using eggs for breakfast as an example.
I guarantee you that my eggs are not boring. Pico de gallo or Masala flavored with greens, maybe chorizo, maybe huevo rancheros.
Back to donuts.0 -
Hmmmm. Not according to Susan Jebb:
So people SHOULDN'T pay as much attention to fiber filled foods calories? That the calories on their are overestimated?stevencloser wrote: »For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
39 calories is a huge difference now? When was the last time you filled half your day's calories with almonds to make it a significant amount?
You can argue all day about what defines a "huge difference." Over the course of a day, choosing a seemingly equally caloric amount of whole foods versus highly refined foods will lead a difference in calories absorbed that is significant over time.
Again, my understanding is that calories on labels are considered calories for metabolic use.
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
I'm sorry but your understanding is wrong. Calories on food lables are based on incineration with a small "across the board" correction factor for all types foods.But in fact, the losses are proportionately quite small. The calories that you see written on the back of a food pack have already had all of these adjustments made for the amount that will be digested and absorbed. And so, the calories you see on the packet is actually not the total calories in that food. It’s the so-called metabolisable energy, the amount of energy which is going to be available to the body.
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2590/
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
I don't know who Susan Jebb is but she's wrong. As I mentioned food calorie labels are based on the original Atwater incineration system with an "across the board" correction factor to it. The correction factor is 10% for all types of carbs, even though some should be 30% and some should be zero.
Really depends on country and manufacturer.0 -
Wow those look delicious! And yes its totally amazing how the same amount of calories can be in foods that are sooo different!0
-
biggsterjackster wrote: »A tiny bowl of cereal or 4 eggs. Same calories but I get hungry superfast eating the cereal instead of the eggs. No fun!
What does that prove?
Don't understand that question.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd be miserable on a breakfast of 4 eggs. Boring. I like eggs, but the only way I like them by themselves is hard boiled and I couldn't eat 4 of those. This doesn't mean that that's not a great breakfast for someone else, of course, but I don't get the idea that it's somehow superior.
I like having a two-egg veggie omelet with something else (today, leftover chicken, often fruit or dairy).
For the same basic calories I can have a reasonable-sized bowl of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) with berries, protein powder, and veggies on the side.
I enjoy both of these breakfasts, although I have the eggs more, and find them equally filling.
So this idea of eggs being inherently superior to cereal seems odd to me. (I hate cold cereal, but that's a taste preference thing.)
I'm completely confused about what this thread is supposed to be about, though. I mean, surely we are all sufficiently competent that we can manage to eat in ways that don't leave us hungry, right? Do some of you imagine that most of us are struggling with hunger every day since we don't eat right? Is it really a surprise to anyone that some foods have more calories per volume than others (and that many of those are still great foods to eat, like IMO eggs vs. egg whites)?
Eggs? Who is talking about eggs?
<scans page>
O.o
Whoops, did I start that? Sorry.
If you are talking about my post - I wasn't suggesting eggs are inherently superior - I was talking about how increase in fiber tends to displace protein and using eggs for breakfast as an example.
I guarantee you that my eggs are not boring. Pico de gallo or Masala flavored with greens, maybe chorizo, maybe huevo rancheros.
Back to donuts.
Not you. I even agreed with your prior egg post, and your eggs described above sound delicious.
The post from biggsterjackster that Mr. M quoted about 4 eggs vs. a small bowl of cereal. I just thought it was kind of odd.0 -
Rlemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd be miserable on a breakfast of 4 eggs. Boring. I like eggs, but the only way I like them by themselves is hard boiled and I couldn't eat 4 of those. This doesn't mean that that's not a great breakfast for someone else, of course, but I don't get the idea that it's somehow superior.
I like having a two-egg veggie omelet with something else (today, leftover chicken, often fruit or dairy).
For the same basic calories I can have a reasonable-sized bowl of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) with berries, protein powder, and veggies on the side.
I enjoy both of these breakfasts, although I have the eggs more, and find them equally filling.
So this idea of eggs being inherently superior to cereal seems odd to me. (I hate cold cereal, but that's a taste preference thing.)
I'm completely confused about what this thread is supposed to be about, though. I mean, surely we are all sufficiently competent that we can manage to eat in ways that don't leave us hungry, right? Do some of you imagine that most of us are struggling with hunger every day since we don't eat right? Is it really a surprise to anyone that some foods have more calories per volume than others (and that many of those are still great foods to eat, like IMO eggs vs. egg whites)?
Eggs? Who is talking about eggs?
<scans page>
O.o
Whoops, did I start that? Sorry.
If you are talking about my post - I wasn't suggesting eggs are inherently superior - I was talking about how increase in fiber tends to displace protein and using eggs for breakfast as an example.
I guarantee you that my eggs are not boring. Pico de gallo or Masala flavored with greens, maybe chorizo, maybe huevo rancheros.
Back to donuts.
Not you. I even agreed with your prior egg post, and your eggs described above sound delicious.
The post from biggsterjackster that Mr. M quoted about 4 eggs vs. a small bowl of cereal. I just thought it was kind of odd.
Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
biggsterjackster wrote: »Rlemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd be miserable on a breakfast of 4 eggs. Boring. I like eggs, but the only way I like them by themselves is hard boiled and I couldn't eat 4 of those. This doesn't mean that that's not a great breakfast for someone else, of course, but I don't get the idea that it's somehow superior.
I like having a two-egg veggie omelet with something else (today, leftover chicken, often fruit or dairy).
For the same basic calories I can have a reasonable-sized bowl of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) with berries, protein powder, and veggies on the side.
I enjoy both of these breakfasts, although I have the eggs more, and find them equally filling.
So this idea of eggs being inherently superior to cereal seems odd to me. (I hate cold cereal, but that's a taste preference thing.)
I'm completely confused about what this thread is supposed to be about, though. I mean, surely we are all sufficiently competent that we can manage to eat in ways that don't leave us hungry, right? Do some of you imagine that most of us are struggling with hunger every day since we don't eat right? Is it really a surprise to anyone that some foods have more calories per volume than others (and that many of those are still great foods to eat, like IMO eggs vs. egg whites)?
Eggs? Who is talking about eggs?
<scans page>
O.o
Whoops, did I start that? Sorry.
If you are talking about my post - I wasn't suggesting eggs are inherently superior - I was talking about how increase in fiber tends to displace protein and using eggs for breakfast as an example.
I guarantee you that my eggs are not boring. Pico de gallo or Masala flavored with greens, maybe chorizo, maybe huevo rancheros.
Back to donuts.
Not you. I even agreed with your prior egg post, and your eggs described above sound delicious.
The post from biggsterjackster that Mr. M quoted about 4 eggs vs. a small bowl of cereal. I just thought it was kind of odd.
Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Interesting. So you eat 300 calories in just eggs every day? How many calories do you eat per day?biggsterjackster wrote: »Rlemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd be miserable on a breakfast of 4 eggs. Boring. I like eggs, but the only way I like them by themselves is hard boiled and I couldn't eat 4 of those. This doesn't mean that that's not a great breakfast for someone else, of course, but I don't get the idea that it's somehow superior.
I like having a two-egg veggie omelet with something else (today, leftover chicken, often fruit or dairy).
For the same basic calories I can have a reasonable-sized bowl of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) with berries, protein powder, and veggies on the side.
I enjoy both of these breakfasts, although I have the eggs more, and find them equally filling.
So this idea of eggs being inherently superior to cereal seems odd to me. (I hate cold cereal, but that's a taste preference thing.)
I'm completely confused about what this thread is supposed to be about, though. I mean, surely we are all sufficiently competent that we can manage to eat in ways that don't leave us hungry, right? Do some of you imagine that most of us are struggling with hunger every day since we don't eat right? Is it really a surprise to anyone that some foods have more calories per volume than others (and that many of those are still great foods to eat, like IMO eggs vs. egg whites)?
Eggs? Who is talking about eggs?
<scans page>
O.o
Whoops, did I start that? Sorry.
If you are talking about my post - I wasn't suggesting eggs are inherently superior - I was talking about how increase in fiber tends to displace protein and using eggs for breakfast as an example.
I guarantee you that my eggs are not boring. Pico de gallo or Masala flavored with greens, maybe chorizo, maybe huevo rancheros.
Back to donuts.
Not you. I even agreed with your prior egg post, and your eggs described above sound delicious.
The post from biggsterjackster that Mr. M quoted about 4 eggs vs. a small bowl of cereal. I just thought it was kind of odd.
Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Interesting. So you eat 300 calories in just eggs every day? How many calories do you eat per day?
About 1500. How many do you eat?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
[/quote]A calorie is a calorie. Just like a inch is an inch and a centimeter is a centimeter. What material you're MEASURING may be different though.
Lots of foods offer more VOLUME and NUTRIENTS per calorie than others, but if you're going to compared 300 calories of a wrap and 300 calories of a donut, it's still 300 calories to the body in terms of energy.
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
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.0 -
biggsterjackster wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Rlemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd be miserable on a breakfast of 4 eggs. Boring. I like eggs, but the only way I like them by themselves is hard boiled and I couldn't eat 4 of those. This doesn't mean that that's not a great breakfast for someone else, of course, but I don't get the idea that it's somehow superior.
I like having a two-egg veggie omelet with something else (today, leftover chicken, often fruit or dairy).
For the same basic calories I can have a reasonable-sized bowl of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) with berries, protein powder, and veggies on the side.
I enjoy both of these breakfasts, although I have the eggs more, and find them equally filling.
So this idea of eggs being inherently superior to cereal seems odd to me. (I hate cold cereal, but that's a taste preference thing.)
I'm completely confused about what this thread is supposed to be about, though. I mean, surely we are all sufficiently competent that we can manage to eat in ways that don't leave us hungry, right? Do some of you imagine that most of us are struggling with hunger every day since we don't eat right? Is it really a surprise to anyone that some foods have more calories per volume than others (and that many of those are still great foods to eat, like IMO eggs vs. egg whites)?
Eggs? Who is talking about eggs?
<scans page>
O.o
Whoops, did I start that? Sorry.
If you are talking about my post - I wasn't suggesting eggs are inherently superior - I was talking about how increase in fiber tends to displace protein and using eggs for breakfast as an example.
I guarantee you that my eggs are not boring. Pico de gallo or Masala flavored with greens, maybe chorizo, maybe huevo rancheros.
Back to donuts.
Not you. I even agreed with your prior egg post, and your eggs described above sound delicious.
The post from biggsterjackster that Mr. M quoted about 4 eggs vs. a small bowl of cereal. I just thought it was kind of odd.
Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Interesting. So you eat 300 calories in just eggs every day? How many calories do you eat per day?biggsterjackster wrote: »Rlemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd be miserable on a breakfast of 4 eggs. Boring. I like eggs, but the only way I like them by themselves is hard boiled and I couldn't eat 4 of those. This doesn't mean that that's not a great breakfast for someone else, of course, but I don't get the idea that it's somehow superior.
I like having a two-egg veggie omelet with something else (today, leftover chicken, often fruit or dairy).
For the same basic calories I can have a reasonable-sized bowl of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) with berries, protein powder, and veggies on the side.
I enjoy both of these breakfasts, although I have the eggs more, and find them equally filling.
So this idea of eggs being inherently superior to cereal seems odd to me. (I hate cold cereal, but that's a taste preference thing.)
I'm completely confused about what this thread is supposed to be about, though. I mean, surely we are all sufficiently competent that we can manage to eat in ways that don't leave us hungry, right? Do some of you imagine that most of us are struggling with hunger every day since we don't eat right? Is it really a surprise to anyone that some foods have more calories per volume than others (and that many of those are still great foods to eat, like IMO eggs vs. egg whites)?
Eggs? Who is talking about eggs?
<scans page>
O.o
Whoops, did I start that? Sorry.
If you are talking about my post - I wasn't suggesting eggs are inherently superior - I was talking about how increase in fiber tends to displace protein and using eggs for breakfast as an example.
I guarantee you that my eggs are not boring. Pico de gallo or Masala flavored with greens, maybe chorizo, maybe huevo rancheros.
Back to donuts.
Not you. I even agreed with your prior egg post, and your eggs described above sound delicious.
The post from biggsterjackster that Mr. M quoted about 4 eggs vs. a small bowl of cereal. I just thought it was kind of odd.
Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Interesting. So you eat 300 calories in just eggs every day? How many calories do you eat per day?
About 1500. How many do you eat?
Around 2000 right now.
I eat four eggs (all of them no taking out just whites that's an incomplete protein) - I eat over 2500 and I am far older than @MrM27.
It's easy to eat 4 complete eggs (no yolk/white separation) and eat 1500 calories in a day. I can do that trick too.
So what's your point?0 -
JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Just like a inch is an inch and a centimeter is a centimeter. What material you're MEASURING may be different though.
Lots of foods offer more VOLUME and NUTRIENTS per calorie than others, but if you're going to compared 300 calories of a wrap and 300 calories of a donut, it's still 300 calories to the body in terms of energy.
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 nutritionThen why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
Yes, food is fuel, but your analogy to fuel is flawed. The argument isn't whether or not that "good" fuel will make you better, and "bad" fuel will make you worse, in your analogy, calorie is just equal to "fuel". Is it fuel or not? Yes. It's fuel. Fuel = Calorie. The nutrition or the "quality" of the fuel doesn't change that a calorie is still a calorie.
in my opinion of course.0 -
tedboosalis7 wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »biggsterjackster wrote: »Rlemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd be miserable on a breakfast of 4 eggs. Boring. I like eggs, but the only way I like them by themselves is hard boiled and I couldn't eat 4 of those. This doesn't mean that that's not a great breakfast for someone else, of course, but I don't get the idea that it's somehow superior.
I like having a two-egg veggie omelet with something else (today, leftover chicken, often fruit or dairy).
For the same basic calories I can have a reasonable-sized bowl of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) with berries, protein powder, and veggies on the side.
I enjoy both of these breakfasts, although I have the eggs more, and find them equally filling.
So this idea of eggs being inherently superior to cereal seems odd to me. (I hate cold cereal, but that's a taste preference thing.)
I'm completely confused about what this thread is supposed to be about, though. I mean, surely we are all sufficiently competent that we can manage to eat in ways that don't leave us hungry, right? Do some of you imagine that most of us are struggling with hunger every day since we don't eat right? Is it really a surprise to anyone that some foods have more calories per volume than others (and that many of those are still great foods to eat, like IMO eggs vs. egg whites)?
Eggs? Who is talking about eggs?
<scans page>
O.o
Whoops, did I start that? Sorry.
If you are talking about my post - I wasn't suggesting eggs are inherently superior - I was talking about how increase in fiber tends to displace protein and using eggs for breakfast as an example.
I guarantee you that my eggs are not boring. Pico de gallo or Masala flavored with greens, maybe chorizo, maybe huevo rancheros.
Back to donuts.
Not you. I even agreed with your prior egg post, and your eggs described above sound delicious.
The post from biggsterjackster that Mr. M quoted about 4 eggs vs. a small bowl of cereal. I just thought it was kind of odd.
Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Interesting. So you eat 300 calories in just eggs every day? How many calories do you eat per day?biggsterjackster wrote: »Rlemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'd be miserable on a breakfast of 4 eggs. Boring. I like eggs, but the only way I like them by themselves is hard boiled and I couldn't eat 4 of those. This doesn't mean that that's not a great breakfast for someone else, of course, but I don't get the idea that it's somehow superior.
I like having a two-egg veggie omelet with something else (today, leftover chicken, often fruit or dairy).
For the same basic calories I can have a reasonable-sized bowl of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) with berries, protein powder, and veggies on the side.
I enjoy both of these breakfasts, although I have the eggs more, and find them equally filling.
So this idea of eggs being inherently superior to cereal seems odd to me. (I hate cold cereal, but that's a taste preference thing.)
I'm completely confused about what this thread is supposed to be about, though. I mean, surely we are all sufficiently competent that we can manage to eat in ways that don't leave us hungry, right? Do some of you imagine that most of us are struggling with hunger every day since we don't eat right? Is it really a surprise to anyone that some foods have more calories per volume than others (and that many of those are still great foods to eat, like IMO eggs vs. egg whites)?
Eggs? Who is talking about eggs?
<scans page>
O.o
Whoops, did I start that? Sorry.
If you are talking about my post - I wasn't suggesting eggs are inherently superior - I was talking about how increase in fiber tends to displace protein and using eggs for breakfast as an example.
I guarantee you that my eggs are not boring. Pico de gallo or Masala flavored with greens, maybe chorizo, maybe huevo rancheros.
Back to donuts.
Not you. I even agreed with your prior egg post, and your eggs described above sound delicious.
The post from biggsterjackster that Mr. M quoted about 4 eggs vs. a small bowl of cereal. I just thought it was kind of odd.
Read the OP's question: What kind of...... so my comparison was eggs which much more volume for 300 cal to a tiny bowl of sugary cereal for 300 ca. That's all. Sorry for the confusion, lol. And yes, I eat every day 4 eggs for breakfast.
Interesting. So you eat 300 calories in just eggs every day? How many calories do you eat per day?
About 1500. How many do you eat?
Around 2000 right now.
I eat four eggs (all of them no taking out just whites that's an incomplete protein) - I eat over 2500 and I am far older than @MrM27.
It's easy to eat 4 complete eggs (no yolk/white separation) and eat 1500 calories in a day. I can do that trick too.
So what's your point?
but but but... what about the cholesterol in the eggs... that way exceeds the recommended amount of daily cholesterol.
don't you care about heart health?
/sarcasm0 -
0 -
JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
Because you're comparing two different things.
Calories just measure the 'quantity' of the fuel, not the content.
To use an analogy, you can fill your car up with 20 gallons (ie calories) of regular unleaded gasoline, or you can fill it up with 20 gallons of premium fuel.
The gallons (ie calories) are the same in either case.
Performance may or may not be different, and is dependent on the content of the fuel.0 -
JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Just like a inch is an inch and a centimeter is a centimeter. What material you're MEASURING may be different though.
Lots of foods offer more VOLUME and NUTRIENTS per calorie than others, but if you're going to compared 300 calories of a wrap and 300 calories of a donut, it's still 300 calories to the body in terms of energy.
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 nutritionThen why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
Yes, food is fuel, but your analogy to fuel is flawed. The argument isn't whether or not that "good" fuel will make you better, and "bad" fuel will make you worse, in your analogy, calorie is just equal to "fuel". Is it fuel or not? Yes. It's fuel. Fuel = Calorie. The nutrition or the "quality" of the fuel doesn't change that a calorie is still a calorie.
in my opinion of course.
Ok. I guess I am really just one of those more bang for my buck kind of people lol! I totally want more food for lesscalories! Probably why I am a major veggie addict!
Its all good I guess. 0 -
This content has been removed.
-
JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
I feel no different after eating my lunch of salmon, cottage cheese and asparagus, vs when I head to McDonalds later today for ice cream and fries (dipping McDs fries into their ice cream is pure awesome). At the end of the day I'm hitting my calorie and macro targets and go to bed feeling great 0 -
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
I feel no different after eating my lunch of salmon, cottage cheese and asparagus, vs when I head to McDonalds later today for ice cream and fries (dipping McDs fries into their ice cream is pure awesome). At the end of the day I'm hitting my calorie and macro targets and go to bed feeling great
I do. I feel like crap when I eat crap food. For me, the quality of the food is just as important as the number of calories.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Sarasmaintaining wrote: »JenniferIsLosingIt wrote: »
Then why do you feel physically better when you eat the better food if a calories is a claroie? I mean absolutely no disrespect. To ME food is fuel, and the better fuel you use in your body the better it performs. So does that mean if I eat 1500 calories of crap it is just as good to my body fuel or energy wise as nutrient packed food?
Once again I am not being snarky or anything. I just need to understand this better.
I feel no different after eating my lunch of salmon, cottage cheese and asparagus, vs when I head to McDonalds later today for ice cream and fries (dipping McDs fries into their ice cream is pure awesome). At the end of the day I'm hitting my calorie and macro targets and go to bed feeling great
I do. I feel like crap when I eat crap food. For me, the quality of the food is just as important as the number of calories.
I'm the opposite-I can't think of any foods that make me physically feel any different after eating them. I don't actually feel anything after I eat, regardless of what I've had, with the exception of not being hungry anymore. Interesting how we're all so different 0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'd like to dispute the fact, after I looked up other such claims over other certain foods/drinks "boosting metabolism" or "taking more calories to digest than others" and so on
Please read the above. Neither I nor the studies referenced (and there are dozens more out there) make the claims you think I'm making.
We are talking about poop here.
More specifically, the amount of not fully digested and absorbed carbs and fats in the poop of those enjoying high fibre diets is higher than those who live on low fibre diets even though both consume the same base mix of carbs/fats/proteins and the same base caloric intake.
Put more simply, if it makes it out the other end undigested/unabsorbed, it's as if it wasn't there in the first place.
Bonus round: 30 - 40,000 kcal/year is a bunch of "free" beers (about 180 bottles).
Why are you going on so much about this? It's not an either/or proposition.
You presume that people who would eat a donut cannot also enjoy a fiber rich diet.
That's a false presumption.
Eh, for the average person who is overweight it's a pretty likely assumption (at least where I live in the USA). Of course if someone is eating a well balanced diet with plenty of veggies, protein, fiber, etc then choosing a donut instead of even more veggies is fine. But donuts don't provide the same nutrients that veggies do. Veggies provide have things like fiber, protein, antioxidants, etc that donuts lack.
AGAIN... why bring in outside people when we're here discussing among ourselves? I was talking about us, here on MFP. It's not fair, when one conscientious dieter is talking to other conscientious dieters who happen to eat donuts to bring in the strawman of people who eat SAD.
Muhahah, this means you have to give me all your donuts. All your donuts are belong to us.
<--- doesn't live in America, hasn't eaten SAD in 20 years.
<--- also can't find an effing decent donut in 700 km round.
Trust me, you wouldn't want a donut that I'd be able to eat. Gluten free donuts are the epitome of sadness and despair.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »How is this first study relevant - most of us here haven't had an ilesotomy.
3-4% between high and low? I'd assume that most people fall in the middle quintiles and see then only a variance of +\- 1-2%. Insignificant. Erased by homeostasis.
1. The ileostomy subject study is relevant as its data and conclusions confirm other fibre impact on excreted energy in subjects who don't have colon or rectal issues.
2. You are making an assumption that is incorrect, illustrating you didn't read the study or my comment on it very carefully.
Enjoy your doughnut.0 -
I love this discussion of the subjective "feels" after eating "crap".
I used to think l felt that way too.
You know what the real problem was? I feel that way when I eat too much, no matter what type of food I'm eating. The light bulb went off over my head one day a few years back when I noticed that I felt awful after gorging myself on hummus and carrots.
If I eat a normal portion, like one brownie or one cupcake? I feel perfectly fine.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
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions