Personal Trainer & Weight Management Certified here to help!
Options
Replies
-
Also, there is a reason there is a nutrition calculation on here. This is why. (All above I mentioned)0
-
asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
"Energy".
0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »No, a calorie is not created equal. Your body treats the foods you eat differently. A protein burns slower than a carb. This is because it takes 20% to 30% more energy to burn that calorie. Energy in is just as complex as energy out. You can look it up if you would like.
BMR is not temperature neutral. For every 0.5 degree celsius increase in internal body temperature, the BMR increases approximately 7%. Physical activity significantly increases body temper
Refined carbs are usually something that people easily over eat. This would be your whites (pasta, white bread, etc). The reason is because the body absorbs these simple sugars relatively quickly and a few hours later you are hungry again. The body increases blood sugar, triggers a release of insulin and you eat again. It is MUCH better to get your carbs from fruit, veggies, legumes. These carbs are higher in volume and tends to be more filling.
Butter is another additive people use too much of. While it has fats (trans fat) it is also high in cholesterol. Most butter people consume is also loaded with sodium and induces the need for more. Olive oil is a better alternative since while it still has fats, it actually has additional benefits including lowering ldl and triglycerides, it is rich in antioxidants, especially vitamin e. The fats in olive oil are monounsaturated which doesn't oxidize in the body and its lower in polyunsaturated fat which does oxidize in the body. It also reduces blood pressure. So....why use butter when you can get actual health benefits from olive oil?
Do you even understand what a calorie is? If my 11 year old had told this to her science teacher (covered energy last year), she would have been rewarded with a Fail mark.
0 -
Yes, I do know what energy is. Maybe you need a definition straight from the dictionary.
en·er·gy
ˈenərjē/
noun
1.
the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity.
"changes in the levels of vitamins can affect energy and well-being"
0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »Yes, I do know what energy is. Maybe you need a definition straight from the dictionary.
en·er·gy
ˈenərjē/
noun
1.
the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity.
"changes in the levels of vitamins can affect energy and well-being"
Perhaps you need he definition of a calorie then.0 -
asimmons26 wrote: »Yes, I do know what energy is. Maybe you need a definition straight from the dictionary.
en·er·gy
ˈenərjē/
noun
1.
the strength and vitality required for sustained physical or mental activity.
"changes in the levels of vitamins can affect energy and well-being"
Actually I asked if you know what a calorie is. But your definition of energy, pretty much answered this too...0 -
calorie
ˈkaləri/Submit
noun
either of two units of heat energy:
the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water through 1 °C (now usually defined as 4.1868 joules).
noun: small calorie; plural noun: small calories; noun: cal
the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water through 1 °C, equal to one thousand small calories and often used to measure the energy value of foods.
noun: large calorie; plural noun: large calories; noun: Cal0 -
You guys can argue what I'm saying but again there is a reason for the nutrition feature on here. It's not just a calorie folks.0
-
asimmons26 wrote: »You guys can argue what I'm saying but again there is a reason for the nutrition feature on here. It's not just a calorie folks.
Calories are not measuring nutrition.
You started by claiming a calorie can be interpreted in different ways regarding energy.
0 -
"calories are not equal" is like "muscle weighs more than fat". It's wrong. I get what you're trying to say, but its wrong.0
-
I started by saying not all calories are created equal. Which they are not.
Copied straight from authority nutrition.
The human body is a highly complex biochemical system with elaborate processes that regulate energy balance.
Different foods go through different biochemical pathways, some of which are inefficient and cause energy (calories) to be lost as heat (1).
Even more important is the fact that different foods and macronutrients have a major effect on the hormones and brain centers that control hunger and eating behavior.
The foods we eat can have a huge impact on the biological processes that govern when, what and how much we eat.
Here are 6 proven examples of why a calorie is NOT a calorie.
1.
The two main simple sugars in the diet are glucose and fructose.
These two seem almost identical. They have the same chemical formula and weigh the exact same.
But to your body, the two are completely different (2).
Glucose can be metabolized by all of the body’s tissues, but fructose can only be metabolized by the liver in any significant amount (3).
Here are a few examples of why glucose calories are NOT the same as fructose calories:
Ghrelin is the “hunger hormone.” It goes up when we’re hungry and down after we’ve eaten. One study shows that fructose leads to higher ghrelin levels (more hunger) than glucose (4).
Fructose does not stimulate the satiety centers in the brain in the same way as glucose, leading to reduced satiety (5).
A high consumption of fructose can cause insulin resistance, abdominal fat gain, increased triglycerides, blood sugar and small, dense LDL compared to the exact same number of calories from glucose (6).0 -
For all the people splitting hairs about calories, by actually reading what was stated in regards to calories IN, the point she made is in fact backed by science. Science backs that fat, carb and protein calories are not the same in that respect.
And I'd argue that one even with Ninerbuff, as I know I could easily find links. Not that I think he would argue it.
Core temp affecting BMR/RMR is backed by science.
Higher protein diets having influence on satiety are backed by science.
Splitting hairs to disprove someone would be more effective if you read the text in an objective rather than subjective way. And I'll admit there are some blanket statements that I would say are subjective made my the OP. But in the overall context, they made a lot more sense with the further explanation.asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
You'd have the same "Energy"
You may not have the same nutritional balance from each food but as you well know a 'diet' (as in the food you intake over time) is based on all foods that you eat and not focusing on an individual food in isolation
There are instances I could imagine when 100 calories worth of french fries would actually be more beneficial to an overall diet than 100 calories of vegetables eg when there is inadequate fat to help absorb all those wonderful nutrients in the first place
I just think, and you probably agree, that calling food out as being bad in isolation rather than focusing on the overall diet is not really valid
Now this I can personally agree with. It is a statements leading to a point, that doesn't go out of the way to say that the OP was "wrong". I had a similar thought but this one beat me to it. But my train of thought was more on looking at the short term vs long term energy. In any case, I'd assume that unless we define every single word that could be taken another way, any one of us could have been considered wrong, or right.
I'm all behind keeping the forums free from the crazy diet tricks and stuff not backed by science, but some of the responses here sound more like just wanting to drive someone off IMO.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »I just want to point out that though I could easily poke holes in some of the comparisons by splitting hairs here, upon further explanation the OP has made some valid points that are in fact backed by science.
Rather than split hairs, I'd suggest that anyone who hasn't seen anything factual in her statements slow down enough to read them, or at least give her a chance to explain in greater detail. Though I firmly believe in CICO as an overall strong point for weight loss, I don't think anyone here would argue that changes in nutritional goals can have a big impact on energy levels, overall health, and long term loss.
It's not splitting hairs to ask someone who has introduced themselves an 'expert' to be accurate in their use of terms
That's where we should all start
I don't dispute that she has some valid points but in terms of communicating them you can't conflate nutritional benefit of food with the calorie as it is an energy measurement - it's just a simple fact
I would even posit that the majority of successful people on MFP are aware of their nutritional balance and hitting their macro and micro targets, as it pertains to their overall health. And that we just want others to find their way to that balance without incorrect premises such as a calorie is any more than a unit of measurement0 -
If you want to continue reading the other five reasons, you can look it up very easily.0
-
Dear @asimmons26
Just as a warning you may want to not quote authoritynutrition as any kind of authority on nutrition because many here have already identified that a lot of that site is just complete and utter garbage with no foundation in scientific fact - you're going to get called out for using that site as any kind of proof
You may find google scholar of use though
I do like that you are here and have an opinion to share and hope you don't take offence when we debate your assertions or point out the importance of using terms appropriately. You have a number of people here who are intensely interested in the science behind nutrition and health, and in counteracting the billions of dollars worth of derp there is out there in the health & fitness industry
I hope you stick around0 -
robertw486 wrote: »I just want to point out that though I could easily poke holes in some of the comparisons by splitting hairs here, upon further explanation the OP has made some valid points that are in fact backed by science.
Rather than split hairs, I'd suggest that anyone who hasn't seen anything factual in her statements slow down enough to read them, or at least give her a chance to explain in greater detail. Though I firmly believe in CICO as an overall strong point for weight loss, I don't think anyone here would argue that changes in nutritional goals can have a big impact on energy levels, overall health, and long term loss.
It's not splitting hairs to ask someone who has introduced themselves an 'expert' to be accurate in their use of terms
That's where we should all start
I don't dispute that she has some valid points but in terms of communicating them you can't conflate nutritional benefit of food with the calorie as it is an energy measurement - it's just a simple fact
I would even posit that the majority of successful people on MFP are aware of their nutritional balance and hitting their macro and micro targets, as it pertains to their overall health. And that we just want others to find their way to that balance without incorrect premises such as a calorie is any more than a unit of measurement
I can agree with this as well, though maybe not 100% on the majority here understanding nutritional balance other than trying to hit macros. There are quite a few that understand all the little details as to changes in such, but I would think that is the exception rather than the rule. I know I still have a lot to learn in that respect.
The statement that made it "click" for me was...asimmons26 wrote: »This is because it takes 20% to 30% more energy to burn that calorie. Energy in is just as complex as energy out.
Now on the output side I agree, a calorie burned is a calorie burned. But when this statement was made, I looked at it in the way you did, when you commented and clarified with NEAT, thermic effect, etc. And the statements you made didn't attack, but rather clarified.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »For all the people splitting hairs about calories, by actually reading what was stated in regards to calories IN, the point she made is in fact backed by science. Science backs that fat, carb and protein calories are not the same in that respect.
And I'd argue that one even with Ninerbuff, as I know I could easily find links. Not that I think he would argue it.
Core temp affecting BMR/RMR is backed by science.
Higher protein diets having influence on satiety are backed by science.
Splitting hairs to disprove someone would be more effective if you read the text in an objective rather than subjective way. And I'll admit there are some blanket statements that I would say are subjective made my the OP. But in the overall context, they made a lot more sense with the further explanation.asimmons26 wrote: »Back to the calories are not equal. This is very simple. You eat 100 calories of French fries and I will eat 100 calories of veggies. Then let's see who has more energy. You can google not all calories are equal and find a ton of information backing this. The information I gave as to not all calories being equal was just a very quick statement without going into complex digestion and energy process of different foods. Your energy level has everything to do with how your lose weight.
You'd have the same "Energy"
You may not have the same nutritional balance from each food but as you well know a 'diet' (as in the food you intake over time) is based on all foods that you eat and not focusing on an individual food in isolation
There are instances I could imagine when 100 calories worth of french fries would actually be more beneficial to an overall diet than 100 calories of vegetables eg when there is inadequate fat to help absorb all those wonderful nutrients in the first place
I just think, and you probably agree, that calling food out as being bad in isolation rather than focusing on the overall diet is not really valid
Now this I can personally agree with. It is a statements leading to a point, that doesn't go out of the way to say that the OP was "wrong". I had a similar thought but this one beat me to it. But my train of thought was more on looking at the short term vs long term energy. In any case, I'd assume that unless we define every single word that could be taken another way, any one of us could have been considered wrong, or right.
I'm all behind keeping the forums free from the crazy diet tricks and stuff not backed by science, but some of the responses here sound more like just wanting to drive someone off IMO.
OP has made the claim that eating clean and drinking water is all that matters, since eating clean (which by her definition means avoiding pasta, bread and butter) will somehow take care of the rest. She has made this claim in response to a question about weight loss, not about health.
In real life, "clean" food has calories. Which can make you fat.
I eat "clean". Lots of vegetables, fruit, whole grains, fish etc. I almost never eat fast food. It is a choice related to health and overall nutrition, not a weight loss strategy. My husband eats pretty much nothing processed, has a "perfect" diet from a "clean" eater's point of view. It is beyond any doubt good for him, all his lab tests are excellent, he is healthy. He is also overweight. You can overeat in whole grain bread, salads and sardines.
OP promoting a "clean" diet plan under the assumption that calories from white foods are somehow worse for weight loss than calories from food with different colour, it is just misinformation. To get back to the butter example OP mentioned, extra virgin olive oil might be better for heart health than salted butter, but calories are still calories. And eating the same amount of these things will result in the same weight gain/loss.
0 -
wonder how long it will take . . .0
-
Wow, she never did explain her qualifications and experience. Maybe the lack thereof explains her comments?0
-
Wow, she never did explain her qualifications and experience. Maybe the lack thereof explains her comments?
I thought the same.
Anyone can copy and paste from websites. That shows me a lot when someone admits they've taken the words directly from a website ( and especially a website that is known for woo )0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 988 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions