Is there such thing as good and bad calories?

245678

Replies

  • FredKing1
    FredKing1 Posts: 98 Member
    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
    Mukuma_1 Posts: 7 Member
    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
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    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
    rybo Posts: 5,424 Member
    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
    brower47 Posts: 16,356 Member
    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
    brianpperkins Posts: 6,124 Member
    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
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    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
    nordlead2005 Posts: 1,303 Member
    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
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    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
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    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.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Mukuma_1 wrote: »
    Oh definitely Camilla. There are bad calories and good ones.

    No, the calories are the same. You are referring to differences between FOODS as many people have pointed out. Of course there are differences between foods from a nutritional POV -- everyone knows this, don't they?

    That doesn't mean foods are "bad" or "good," IMO, or that a healthful diet cannot contain some portion of a lower nutrient food. Indeed, people wouldn't be able to agree perfectly on what foods are low nutrient or not -- I believe the movie you are referring to comes from a low carb POV so may argue that oatmeal is low nutrient vs, I dunno, butter. I think both are fine to include in my diet, but I'd not share that view at all.
    Sugary and fatty snacks have a long term effect on our bodies including type 2 diabetes.

    Not in reasonable amounts. Many people today tend to overeat them. That's easy to avoid simply by eating a reasonable diet, as WinoGelato (among others) described.
    Nothing wrong with the odd treats but swapping roast chicken for pie and only counting the calories is not healthy.

    I realize OP asked about a hypothetical 1200 calories of chocolate diet and of course that wouldn't be healthful (although if you could stick to it you'd lose weight -- personally I couldn't stick to it and would feel terrible, which is why I'm not worried about anyone actually doing it). However, do you really think anyone would swap roasted chicken for pie on a regular basis? They serve entirely different functions. I tend to assume most people wouldn't regularly choose to eat pie for dinner and following sensible nutrition advice is all you need to realize you should get protein and various other sources of nutrients that we need. You don't need to call pie "bad."

    Also, again, that pie and chicken are different simply means (as we all agree) that foods are different. NOT that calories are different.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    If I ate 5000 calories of broccoli or of Snickers....all of those excess calories would be "bad" whether it's from broccoli or Snickers. A calorie CAN NOT be good or bad individually. The entire diet is what determines if a calories good or bad. In the middle of 150 mile bike ride and you need quick energy? Guess what, that coca cola is a good calorie right then. 250 calories over your goal for the day but you are thirsty? That Coca Cola is a bad calorie at that point.
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,603 Member
    As far as weight loss goes, a calorie is a calorie. You'd lose weight eating nothing but chocolate, if you stuck to the calorie goal.

    You wouldn't be healthy, though, because you'd be missing out on so many nutrients that you need as well as fiber. You wouldn't feel your best.

    You'd be hungry, too. Chocolate isn't filling and you can't eat much of it before you hit your calorie limit.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,313 Member
    A calorie is a calorie.

    Taking your extreme example, there would be health issues not due to calories, but due to nutritional deficiencies if you ate only chocolate.

    Having said that, if you ate only one, even a so called "healthy" food to the exclusion of everything else, you would face the same issues of certain nutrients being lacking in that individual food lead to nutritional deficiencies.

    The long and short of it is eat a bunch of different things, and no, having chocolate as part of that will not hurt your weight loss as long as you stay at your calorie goals.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    edited November 2015
    I add cocoa to my vanilla ice cream and protein shakes and oatmeal. Here's why. A tablespoon of cocoa (more than enough to flavor the things above) is:
    12 calories
    1g protein (made up of a good mix of the essential aminos)
    1 net carb
    2g fiber
    4% RDA iron
    10% RDA copper and manganese
    (12mg of caffeine)

    If adding 12 calories adds so much flavor and nutrients... why not add it to things?

    For comparison, 12 calories of kale has only 1g of fiber and 1g protein (but also, 86% RDA Vit. A, 56% Vit. C. 286% Vit. K...). Which of course is why I add kale to smoothies and soups and such.

    Another comparison, 12 calories of apple has 0.5g fiber and ~0 protein (and 2% Vit. C, 1% Vit. K, 1% Manganese)
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    Kalikel wrote: »
    As far as weight loss goes, a calorie is a calorie. You'd lose weight eating nothing but chocolate, if you stuck to the calorie goal.

    You wouldn't be healthy, though, because you'd be missing out on so many nutrients that you need as well as fiber. You wouldn't feel your best.

    You'd be hungry, too. Chocolate isn't filling and you can't eat much of it before you hit your calorie limit.

    And none of those statements makes chocolate "bad calories". Many people can incorporate small treats withing their goal without it impeding their ability to hit their macros, get enough nutrients, and be satiated.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,053 Member
    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

    I find it impossible to stick to my calorie budget when I eat less healthy foods, as they do not fill me up and I want to eat and eat and eat.

    I eat satiating foods during the day and budget for a small treat at night.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Mukuma_1 wrote: »
    Nothing wrong with the odd treats but swapping roast chicken for pie and only counting the calories is not healthy.

    However, do you really think anyone would swap roasted chicken for pie on a regular basis? They serve entirely different functions. I tend to assume most people wouldn't regularly choose to eat pie for dinner and following sensible nutrition advice is all you need to realize you should get protein and various other sources of nutrients that we need. You don't need to call pie "bad."

    Also, again, that pie and chicken are different simply means (as we all agree) that foods are different. NOT that calories are different.

    I always wonder about these hypothetical situations. Are there people out there that actually do think, "hey, I was going to eat Roast Chicken for dinner, but instead, I will just have a whole pie"? Not to say that people haven't decided to have ice cream for dinner on occasion after a bad day, and I've been known to have pecan pie for breakfast the day after Thanksgiving - but it usually isn't as specific as: "I planned out a chicken dinner but forget that - ALL THE PIE - because hey, a calorie is a calorie, right?"
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    CamillaEdwards wrote: »
    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.

    neither would be healthy....because you'd be lacking nutrients in either case. there is more to proper nutrition than fruit and veg, and nobody is going to eat all of their calories in chocolate.

    why are these questions one extreme or the other...they never represent any kind of actual reality.

    a calorie is a unit of energy, nothing more, nothing less...it can't be "good" or "bad". there are more and less nutrient dense food choices one can make...and yes, veg and fruit have a lot of good micro nutrients...but you also need dietary fat and protein...so a diet of all fruit and veg would be inherently unhealthy.

    I eat a ton of veg and some fruit, lots of legumes and lentils and potatoes and brown rice...cod, salmon, chicken, lean cuts of pork and beef and get a lot of healthy fats from things like avocados, nuts, cooking with olive and avocado oil, etc...but I also have some pizza now and then, I have some nice little desert items most nights, I have no problem having a cookie after my lunch, etc.

    maybe try looking at your diet as a whole and what makes up the greater whole of your diet rather than picking apart the minutia of individual food items and applying some kind of morality to them.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited November 2015
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    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

    I find it impossible to stick to my calorie budget when I eat less healthy foods, as they do not fill me up and I want to eat and eat and eat.

    I eat satiating foods during the day and budget for a small treat at night.

    Your small treat falls into the category of "eating less healthy foods regularly" helping avoid overindulging, though, doesn't it?

    That I normally have a dessert of some sort after dinner (depending on calories left) tends to help me not think about the various sweets and other snack-like foods constantly on offer during the day. I know it's a trade-off with something I will likely prefer. (My dessert is not always sweet, as sometimes it might be some really good cheese or the like.)

    I occasionally buy lunch at a place with an amazing selection of really high quality chocolates, so sometimes I might switch out an after lunch chocolate for the dessert later.

    And personally I think knowing I can fit something in when I want it helps me with overall compliance -- I don't get that feeling that this is the last time I will ever have pizza so I must go crazy. I know I can have it again if I want it, so I have a couple thin crust slices and am satisfied for calories that fit easily in my day.

    (The only thing this doesn't work for is Indian food, since I am not interested in eating less/lower calories. For that I'd rather do moderation by having it more rarely and then eating whatever I want, including naan. It usually fits into a day where I plan a long run or lengthy bike ride or other extensive workout, though.)

Categories