Is there such thing as good and bad calories?

CamillaEdwards

For example if I ate 1,200 calories of chocolate would I loose weight a lot lower than if I ate 1,200 calories of something healthy like fruit and vegetables? I mostly eat healthily but have had a few weeks of eating not so healthy things (still within my calorie allowance) and wanted to know what kind of effects this has.

WBB55

In general, it's the amount of calories that are important unless you are trying to be competitively athletic or have medical conditions.

However, I seriously doubt you'd last long and stay satisfied on 1200 calories of only chocolate in a day. You might be surprised at the real nutritional content of some of the foods many people consider junk. Most people would do better, I think, if they worked towards a balanced approach instead of vilifying things as off limits while you're trying to lose weight.

jennifer_417

2 things: 1.) No. Not all foods are alike, but a calorie is a unit of energy, and will always be that, no matter what food it's in.
2.) What's unhealthy about chocolate? (In moderation, of course)

mydade

It's important how much calories you take daily. When speaking in terms of weight loss, having 1200 from chocolate will do the same "damage" as 1200 calories of some healthy foods. But, there is also some difference. Your body will be able to digest healthier food better than junk food. That means that although you may not lose any weight if you eat 1200 calories through healthier foods, there will be no damage to your overall health. In comparison, eating too much junk food and sugar will start all kinds of different processes in your body that will, in long term, lead to various diseases and weight gain.

TheopolisAmbroiseIII

Some people have a misconception about what a calorie is. A calorie is a unit of measurement like a liter or a foot. A foot of string is the same length as a foot of cucumber. They cover the same distance, but are made of different things. This is the same as food energy. 1200 calories of chocolate is the same, in terms of weight loss or gain, as 1200 calories of apples. However, 1200 calories of apples will make you feel full a lot longer and you could probably eat nothing else all day, while 1200 calories of chocolate bars (4 standard candy bars) would have you going to the fridge for more food by mid day.

The amount of fat you store is the result of a simple equation.

Amount of calories you eat - Amount of calories you expend = Amount of calories saved as fat.

sijomial

There's such a thing as good or bad chocolate (to my taste buds anyway) but not good or bad food. Context as regards your overall diet, any health issues and lifestyle is important.

Please don't assign a false moral compass to food items or units of energy.

allenpriest

I don't care what the science says ir what rhe facts are. Kale still is not "good calories"!!!!

stevencloser

You would lose weight all the same, maybe small differences due to stuff happening but nothing major.
No, you shouldn't actually do that, because nutrition is important too, just not mostly for weightloss itself. A balanced diet is best. Some fruits and veggies, some chocolate, some other stuff with good amounts of fat and protein and your vitamins and minerals.

auddii

sijomial wrote: »

There's such a thing as good or bad chocolate (to my taste buds anyway) but not good or bad food. Context as regards your overall diet, any health issues and lifestyle is important.

Please don't assign a false moral compass to food items or units of energy.

This.

Although, I would label calories that end up giving me food poisoning bad calories...

Whitezombiegirl

Regardless of source digestion breaks down all food into the same elements fir each macro type e.g sucrose from chocolate and fructrose from fruit all end up as glucose. All fats end up as fatty acids and glycrerol etc. The only difference is the additional micro nutrients amd compounds e.g vitamins, minerals, caffine etc.

hawaiifittness

I wonder though if eating less healthy foods regularly would help or hender over indulging this is something I have a real problem doing often

WBB55

hawaiifittness wrote: »

I wonder though if eating less healthy foods regularly would help or hender over indulging this is something I have a real problem doing often

If I understand you, then this is what I've found for me. But it's not a universal thing that's true in all cases.

Some people need to abstain fully from trigger foods. I find small, regular amounts to help me with some foods, like chocolate and sweets.

Whitezombiegirl

That depends. I definitely crave more treats after eating one. The longer i go without the less i crave them. I have a little bit of chocolate evetyday though - about 50 cals.

sinbadfxdl

I look at calories differently. Empty cal. And nutritional cal. Lets say I avoid food calories with no calcium which our body may not produce. My body will take it from another reserve sources like our bones and possibly teeth.
We need nutritional calories. So why not make better choices for food and use empty calories as meerly a reward? I can see eating junk food on a regular basis if a person is lazy or can't afford decent nutritional food, but there's so much affordable good food that anyone could do it.

hawaiifittness

I know if you ate nothing but 1200 calories of chocolate a day you would get pretty darn sick but what is a good balance? Just a serving of say chips or chocolate a day or just here and there?

Gun4a

There definitely is difference! Calories are source of energy and where you get them from will determine how quickly you will get to that energy (depending on what food you intake) and where it's been used after it's processed in your body - either it will fuel you fat cells or will be used to grow your muscles. You can loose weight if there is enough caloric deficit whatever you eat but whether you'll be skinny- fat or healthy fit, that'll depend on your nutrition.

MarcyKirkton

Not really. However, you will find that lowering the number of calories to lose weight means each meal needs to be more satisfying. I can eat doritos and dip, of course. But without protein and other nutrients, I'm not going to be able to have enough oomph to make it through to the next meal.

Dieting sort of channels you into what keeps the body going best. For me, that's more protein, vegetables and complex carbs.

WinoGelato

hawaiifittness wrote: »

I know if you ate nothing but 1200 calories of chocolate a day you would get pretty darn sick but what is a good balance? Just a serving of say chips or chocolate a day or just here and there?

That depends on the individual. A lot of people strive for an 80/20 split. Some people like to tow the line all week an have a cheat meal all at once. Others (like me) prefer to work in the treats every day.

Here is my approach:

Set MFP up with accurate information and a reasonable goal (1 lb/week if less than 50 lbs to lose)

Eat a variety of nutrient dense foods that I enjoy to fill my day. I don't get hung up on processed vs clean or things like that, I don't restrict any foods or food groups. I eat things like yogurt, salads, sandwiches, fast food, pizza, frozen meals, lean protein, pasta, rice, vegetables. Just... Food.

When I have planned a good balance of food for my day, if there are calories left (and there almost always are), then I have a glass of wine, some chocolate, or a serving of gelato.

I exercise and eat back my calories.

I lost 30 lbs doing this and am currently maintaining fairly simply.


Some people have issues with trigger foods and prefer to eliminate certain things. That's never been a problem for me so I still eat all the same foods I used to eat, in moderation.

hawaiifittness

OK so while a calorie is a calorie some are just more better in the long run

WinoGelato

hawaiifittness wrote: »

OK so while a calorie is a calorie some are just more better in the long run

A calorie is a calorie from an energy standpoint but different FOOD will provide different nutritional benefits. Sometimes those benefits may just be helping someone keep their sanity by eating a piece of chocolate every day... You can't look at any one food in a vacuum. It's all about how it fits into the context of your overall diet.

stevencloser

hawaiifittness wrote: »

OK so while a calorie is a calorie some are just more better in the long run

No, in the long run, a good mix is best, since there is no single perfect food that will always hit everyone's nutritional needs. If you need fat, veggies aren't the best choice, if you need protein, fruit isn't the best, if you need vitamins, maybe don't eat those twinkies right now.
Eat according to your needs, there's no objective "good" or "bad" choice, only what is good right now or bad right now.

FredKing1

I've read that you don't want to do anything to lose weight that you wouldn't want to continue for life. The balanced approach of good nutrition seems best. I like chocolate - if I deny myself any chocolate - then I feel deprived and set myself up for trouble in the future. If I plan on a small portion as part of my daily intake - I'm good. Another thing is creatively satisfying the flavor craving. One thing I do is chocolate malto meal for a meal or snack - I get the flavor and some nutrition.

Mukuma_1

Oh definitely Camilla. There are bad calories and good ones. Sugary and fatty snacks have a long term effect on our bodies including type 2 diabetes. I watched a documentary called " That sugar film " and it makes you think on what type of calories you consume. Nothing wrong with the odd treats but swapping roast chicken for pie and only counting the calories is not healthy. Good luck x

janejellyroll

Mukuma_1 wrote: »

Oh definitely Camilla. There are bad calories and good ones. Sugary and fatty snacks have a long term effect on our bodies including type 2 diabetes. I watched a documentary called " That sugar film " and it makes you think on what type of calories you consume. Nothing wrong with the odd treats but swapping roast chicken for pie and only counting the calories is not healthy. Good luck x

You are completely ignoring the amounts that are being eaten. People can eat sweet or fatty snacks daily and avoid illness. The rest of the diet is important context.

rybo

One of the age old debates here on mfp.

Calories are the unit of energy and a measurable quantity, its the foods those calories come from that are good/bad (more accurately stated as nutritionally dense or empty) Generally eating more nutritionally dense foods is good, and limiting your "junk" foods to a level that doesn't cause you to binge or overeat. That level varies from individual person. Also to be factored in are foods that you are allergic to or that your body doesn't tolerate well. Avoid those.

brower47

It won't matter to pure weight loss but it would matter for nutrition. But if eating 1200 calories of chocolate works for you short term, go for it! You could probably write a book and make millions. Dr. Oz might even have you on his show, proclaim you miracle worker and you'll get even richer as a result. Good luck on finding your road on this complicated journey!

brianpperkins

Mukuma_1 wrote: »

Oh definitely Camilla. There are bad calories and good ones. Sugary and fatty snacks have a long term effect on our bodies including type 2 diabetes. I watched a documentary called " That sugar film " and it makes you think on what type of calories you consume. Nothing wrong with the odd treats but swapping roast chicken for pie and only counting the calories is not healthy. Good luck x

I watched a film called "The Road Runner Show" that illustrated that it is possible to survive falls from high cliffs, anvils dropped upon one's head, and exploding Acme rockets between one's legs. I didn't fall for its fallacies as you have for the film you mentioned.

A calorie is a unit of energy ... nothing more, nothing less. The foods they come in have differing nutritional profiles. Using your flawed analogy ... roast chicken is high in protein, low in carbs ... pie (usually fruit filled) is high in carbs, low in protein. Which is the right balance for a certain person depends on the rest of their diet, their goals, and their activities.

WinoGelato

At least now I have my Sunday dinner planned... Roast chicken and apple pie! Might throw in some root veggies with the chicken, maybe some crusty bread, a light Pinot Noir...

nordlead2005

There are definitely some foods that will cause you to lose weight faster if you eat 100% of it.... mostly because it'll cause diarrhea and you'll poop everything out along with dehydrating yourself.

Or, if you eat 100% of your calories as alcohol it might cause you to die due to intoxication, or at least be forced into a hospital visit for liver disease.

However, I know I don't eat "healthy" by some people's standards (I eat pizza almost every day), but I've definitely lost weight and am significantly healthier than I was when I started losing weight. Ultimately, a calorie is a calorie, just make sure your diet is varied enough to hit your macro and micro nutrient needs.

Need2Exerc1se

If all you are concerned about is fat loss then calories source makes little difference.

But that is not the same as saying there are not bad and good calorie sources.

lemurcat12

sijomial wrote: »

There's such a thing as good or bad chocolate (to my taste buds anyway) but not good or bad food. Context as regards your overall diet, any health issues and lifestyle is important.

Please don't assign a false moral compass to food items or units of energy.

Yes, I agree with this.

There's also healthful and non healthful diets, and eating 1200 calories of chocolate (other than as a one off) would of course be a non healthful diet. Not because chocolate is bad for you (although my calories are too limited to waste them on bad chocolate, IMO, vs. the good stuff), but because you'd be lacking lots of things that should be included in a healthful diet.

None of this means that calories themselves differ, as of course they do not. Foods do, and what really matters is overall diet.