Is A Calorie Really A Calorie?

Sued0nim

and it seems you can

arf

PeachyCarol

I am feeling coy these days.

crazyjerseygirl

senecarr wrote: »

amwood1528 wrote: »

To answer your question, yes, a calorie is a calorie. However, what you eat depends on how the food effects your body. For example, in the documentary, Fed up, they used 160 calories of almonds and compared it to 160 calories of Coke. Yes, it's the same amount of calories but the coke produces a lot of sugar that turned into fat, while the almonds produced fiber. So, you can eat 3,000 calories of veggies and fruits and be fine compare to 3,000 calories of processed fatty foods. Calories are a form of measurement however.

Body turns sugar into fat
Turning carbohydrates into fat is de novo lipogensis, and while humans can do it, it is generally a metabolic pathway of last resort.
Almonds actually contain a ton of fat.
Nevermind that if you're eating almonds in the United States, chances are they're already a processed food.

I'll take the "processing" over the salmonella and prussic acid poisoning!

DeguelloTex

gothchiq wrote: »

I am that barbarian who eats yellow mustard. Then some of that balsamic vinegar ketchup. Also add lettuce, tomatoes, pickles, and onions to the burger. Make it out of 4 oz 93% lean beef and yr golden.

6.5 ounces of a combination of 93/7 sirloin and 80/20. Ketchup is for the fries, not the burger.

crazyjerseygirl

I'm throwing in. If it's not Polish, it's not mustard.

DeguelloTex

Needs more horseradish.

FitForL1fe

rabbitjb wrote: »

I really am curious as to whether one can type spunk now

rabbitjb wrote: »

and it seems you can

arf

you're doing good work here

lemurcat12

ndj1979 wrote: »

amwood1528 wrote: »

To answer your question, yes, a calorie is a calorie. However, what you eat depends on how the food effects your body. For example, in the documentary, Fed up, they used 160 calories of almonds and compared it to 160 calories of Coke. Yes, it's the same amount of calories but the coke produces a lot of sugar that turned into fat, while the almonds produced fiber. So, you can eat 3,000 calories of veggies and fruits and be fine compare to 3,000 calories of processed fatty foods. Calories are a form of measurement however.

what?

so I can eat 3000 calories of vegetables, be in a surplus and not gain ...but the minute I go over to 3000 calories of processed foods I will gain???

This is what I never understand about this theory, such as it is.

If I eat only meat and veggies, I can't gain (supposedly). But if I also eat a little ice cream (way below my maintenance calories), that ruins the magic effect of eating only meat and veggies and now the meat and veggie calories ALSO count toward maintenance even though they didn't before?

How does this make sense?

(Yes, I realize it does not.)

lemurcat12

crazyjerseygirl wrote: »

I'm throwing in. If it's not Polish, it's not mustard.

Yes, this.

ndj1979

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

amwood1528 wrote: »

To answer your question, yes, a calorie is a calorie. However, what you eat depends on how the food effects your body. For example, in the documentary, Fed up, they used 160 calories of almonds and compared it to 160 calories of Coke. Yes, it's the same amount of calories but the coke produces a lot of sugar that turned into fat, while the almonds produced fiber. So, you can eat 3,000 calories of veggies and fruits and be fine compare to 3,000 calories of processed fatty foods. Calories are a form of measurement however.

what?

so I can eat 3000 calories of vegetables, be in a surplus and not gain ...but the minute I go over to 3000 calories of processed foods I will gain???

This is what I never understand about this theory, such as it is.

If I eat only meat and veggies, I can't gain (supposedly). But if I also eat a little ice cream (way below my maintenance calories), that ruins the magic effect of eating only meat and veggies and now the meat and veggie calories ALSO count toward maintenance even though they didn't before?

How does this make sense?

(Yes, I realize it does not.)

it makes sense because someone read it on the internet or saw it on DR Oz, or both ...

MaiLinna

FoxyLifter wrote: »

To put it simply:

~For weight loss: calories in < calories out
~For body composition (maximize fat loss and minimize muscle loss): eat enough protein and do some sort of progressive resistance training routine
~For overall health: eat enough fats and micronutrients (especially fiber), get enough sleep, stay hydrated, maybe do some cardio and be sure not to overdo it with exercise (rest days are as important as lifting days)
~For your sanity: don't cut out foods you love for no medical reason. Be consistent and patient, but not obsessive.

That's my thoughts in a nutshell.

Also, is it possible that you're hypoglycemic? I am and I have gotten dizzy and vomited bile from a lack of food from an extended period of time. You will like benefit from eating small meals throughout the day or snacks in between each meal. Also, in light of the recent theme of topics on the forum, you will likely not benefit from doing low carb... But this is assuming that you're like me. Health should come first, always before weight loss (assuming you're not morbidly obese in which case I would put the two goals on the same level.... And now I'm babbling because I'm guessing you're not morbidly obese).

I think this is what he was trying to get at. I want to recomp, but I don't need to lose weight per say. I have a lot of issues, I will admit. C-PTSD, undiagnosed hypoglycemia (I had a type 1 diabetic ex and a type 2 diabetic mother so I had plentiful access to their pricks for years. I had what they normally describe as a "high" at 100. My low is unfortunately as soon as I hit 70 or lower, and it's unfortunate because I usually sit between 75-80, so any sort of drop hits me hard,) and OCD. But I'm getting better.