Cutting junk food out of my diet?
Replies
-
I originally wrote: "Give yourself a month of meat and non-starchy veggies. Then see what happens."
To which you "replied" : "So now vegetables and baked potatoes are bad? Give me a break... so when you go to a restaurant do you just eat pure butter???"
I also said I would eat potatoes after I reached my goal and went on maintenance.
If the post was so ridiculous you would not have needed to insert ridiculousness of your own manufacture into my post.0 -
I originally wrote: "Give yourself a month of meat and non-starchy veggies. Then see what happens."
To which you "replied" : "So now vegetables and baked potatoes are bad? Give me a break... so when you go to a restaurant do you just eat pure butter???"
I also said I would eat potatoes after I reached my goal and went on maintenance.
If the post was so ridiculous you would not have needed to insert ridiculousness of your own manufacture into my post.
I was referring to now, not some future point.
If you are avoiding baked potatoes now for weight loss, why would they then magically be ok when you bulk?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
The article describes empty calorie foods that contain calories but few nutrients
Technically, no. The way the "empty calorie" definition is being used, a food can have lots of empty calories and lots of nutrients too. A pizza made at home with lots of veggies would still have lots of empty calories, according to the definition, if you used lots of cheese (the cheese is contributing the so-called empty calories). A homemade strawberry-rhubarb pie--which has nutrients from the fruit--has loads of empty calories but is not nutrient free or necessarily low nutrient. I imagine a shepherd's pie, if you made it with fattier lamb and some butter, would have lots of empty calories, but I always put in lots of veggies.
Also, any fatty meat contains lots of "empty calories" in this definition. Pretty sure the chicken breast with skin I had this week counts, but that's just silly. Chicken roasted with skin simply tastes much better (IMO) than boneless, skinless breast. If you want to claim that's empty calories and will make me fat, well, whatever, doesn't seem to be the case as to how it affects me personally. Feeling like I had to mostly limit myself to the very leanest cuts of meat would be much less sustainable.
Well, no, you'd be getting fat with the fatty meat.
Not following.
The definition says that fattier cuts of meat contain lots of "empty calories," because the fat in meat is defined as "empty calories."
However, as I said, I don't find that including chicken with skin on it or pork shoulder or a marbled steak makes me fat. It makes me more satisfied, largely because I find the foods more delicious and thus feel less deprived.
Right, same. Is the aesthetic explanation (that you feel less deprived because the foods are subjectively delicious, vs. because of their particular macro ratios) correct, though?
as an aside, I have a feeling we eat more or less the same way
I think the deliciousness is part of it, because I find it makes a difference to me based on experimentation. I think macros matter too, to some extent. But I don't find, for example, that full fat dairy is more satiating to me than 1 or 2%. (Therefore, I eat lower fat yogurt or cottage cheese much of the time to save room for steak or cheese.) ;-)
As it happens, I do the same thing! lol
steak or cheese > full fat cottage cheese (by any measure), by far 0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims (given that the dieter is a biological system and not a machine) if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.0 -
I don't see the point in demonizing food, and alienating yourself from variety because you fear a particular macro nutrient.
If I can manage to hit my protein and fiber requirements in 75% (or less) of my food intake, you're damned right I am going to be using the remainder for enjoyable, tasty, 'junk foods'.0 -
For those of you who are able to eat treats in moderation, I admire and envy you. OP said she tried this and it didn't work for her. It doesn't work for me either. I get so tired when people say simply don't let food control you and eat whatever you want in moderation. This does not work for everyone!
This so much!
My trigger food is cheesy flavored snacks. Cheetos, cheese corn, Pirate Booty, whatever. Something in fake cheese triggers my brain to shove the bag in my face and I always feel disgusting after it. I've tried so hard to eat it in moderation, tried portioning into bags and it just doesn't work. So, if I want it, I'll buy the smallest bag, enjoy every bite and not beat myself up over it.
I do a very lax diet (compared to what I see in a lot of these threads). I don't know, or care what a macro is. I don't eat egg whites on wheat toast with avocado or whatever "healthy" fads are trending on Pintrest and Buzzfeed. I believe those are also ways food controls you but since this is a weight loss board these methods of being controlled by food are more palatable than "I'm controlled by my cravings for [sweet/salty/ice cream, whatever]".
I battle disordered eating, when I restrict something it makes things worse. I give myself permission to enjoy the crap out of something that is pure junk, I forgive myself before I even start eating it and this mentally prevents a complete backslide.
This is what works for me. I've lost almost 50lbs. YMWV
*edited because posting at work means random extra words*0 -
I don't see the point in demonizing food, and alienating yourself from variety because you fear a particular macro nutrient.
If I can manage to hit my protein and fiber requirements in 75% (or less) of my food intake, you're damned right I am going to be using the remainder for enjoyable, tasty, 'junk foods'.
So you don't care about other macros or micros?
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
My reading comprehension is fantastic, actually. You seem to have some issues with context, sadly
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?
If you drink 50 calories of alcohol or let's say 200 calories of alcohol, what do you think your body will be using for energy while the alcohol is in your body?
Please tell me...0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »So you don't care about other macros or micros?
Carbs and fats are largely effortless to consume. There's a difference between ignoring something, and not having to worry about it. Since I've hit my fiber, I know I don't need to worry about my micros either, as all of my fiber comes from vegetables on side my protein.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Lol, I eat a ketogenic diet but you'll never hear me say wheat is evil or that low-carb is the only way. *I* feel better when I consume less carbs and it's easier for me to maintain a caloric deficit for weight loss. But *plenty* of people are able to be healthy with a more varied diet.You know a point is super week when 10 people are backing up the same idea and none of them can agree on what exactly they are defending.
I find that the zealots are usually the ones who are new to a way of eating and are so excited that they espouse it as The One and Only Way.
I'm going back to eating my kale & romaine chicken Caesar salad with tomato & parmesan crisps. Plenty of calories there. None empty. :-)
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?
If you drink 50 calories of alcohol or let's say 200 calories of alcohol, what do you think your body will be using for energy while the alcohol is in your body?
Please tell me...
Alcohol. And you should know that.
So are those calories "empty" or not?0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?
It seems to sap all the energy out of me.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?
If you drink 50 calories of alcohol or let's say 200 calories of alcohol, what do you think your body will be using for energy while the alcohol is in your body?
Please tell me...
Alcohol. And you should know that.
So are those calories "empty" or not?
They provide you with energy don't they?
Yes! I'm excited now. All this time I thought they were just empty calories.0 -
For me, moderation didn't work....I had to go all or none, my mom would always say "just eat some of it" and I won't be able to just not eat it at all...I can't just eat "some" of it.....but anyways, simply having none, worked for me :<0
-
The body uses them first for dancing, though.Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?
If you drink 50 calories of alcohol or let's say 200 calories of alcohol, what do you think your body will be using for energy while the alcohol is in your body?
Please tell me...
Alcohol. And you should know that.
So are those calories "empty" or not?
They provide you with energy don't they?
0 -
The body uses them first for dancing, though.Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?
If you drink 50 calories of alcohol or let's say 200 calories of alcohol, what do you think your body will be using for energy while the alcohol is in your body?
Please tell me...
Alcohol. And you should know that.
So are those calories "empty" or not?
They provide you with energy don't they?
Awesome. I love to dance.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
My reading comprehension is fantastic, actually. You seem to have some issues with context, sadly
Based on your responses in this thread, I would give it an F- or epic failure, your choice.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
My reading comprehension is fantastic, actually. You seem to have some issues with context, sadly
Based on your responses in this thread, I would give it an F- or epic failure, your choice.
I'm not that bothered about your grading system0 -
So is it safe to say there is no such thing as an empty calorie?0
-
This content has been removed.
-
The body uses them first for dancing, though.Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?
If you drink 50 calories of alcohol or let's say 200 calories of alcohol, what do you think your body will be using for energy while the alcohol is in your body?
Please tell me...
Alcohol. And you should know that.
So are those calories "empty" or not?
They provide you with energy don't they?
Well there you go. I have very strong suspicion that's her plan. Probably involving some Barcardi.
lol...I'm not a rum kind of girl prefer Ketel One or Tito's
edit: spelling Ketel not Ketle0 -
The body uses them first for dancing, though.Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?
If you drink 50 calories of alcohol or let's say 200 calories of alcohol, what do you think your body will be using for energy while the alcohol is in your body?
Please tell me...
Alcohol. And you should know that.
So are those calories "empty" or not?
They provide you with energy don't they?
Well there you go. I have very strong suspicion that's her plan. Probably involving some Barcardi.
lol...I'm not a rum kind of girl prefer Ketel One or Tito's
edit: spelling Ketel not Ketle
...and I think the nutrition in potatoes should be factored in that vodka....just sayin....0 -
-
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
My reading comprehension is fantastic, actually. You seem to have some issues with context, sadly
Based on your responses in this thread, I would give it an F- or epic failure, your choice.
I'm not that bothered about your grading system
so epic failure then, glad we agree.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
- 424 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