Is there such thing as good and bad calories?
Replies
-
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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)0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
lemurcat12 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?"0 -
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.0 -
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.)0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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...
I don't eat meat but that dinner sounds so happy. I approve!
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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?"
Yep, exactly.
And don't get me wrong, I definitely would have pie for breakfast the day after Thanksgiving, although my choice would normally be apple!0 -
rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Agreed. Heartily. My scary Vitamin B12 numbers comes to mind. My doctor basically said that if I hope to have healthy children, my vegetable only diet simply won't do and unless I was planning to start eating red meat, I'd need to supplement for the rest of my life. Adding a lot of eggs marginally helped.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
See the post above you.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge.
I guess the question that gets more to the heart of the matter is WHY should we strive to eat only fruits and vegetables? There's no convincing argument for excluding other foods from the diet that I'm aware of.
To add anecdotal evidence, the majority of self-accounts of people quitting veganism because of health problems seems to be from people who were eating raw for longer periods of time. I think we're in real need of better research in this area and I hate to draw conclusions from collections of blog posts, but in almost ten years as a vegan, it seems like most of the vocal ex-vegans are coming a background of additional restriction (avoiding cooked foods, going very low-fat, etc) that includes making fruits and vegetables the overwhelming bulk of their diet to the exclusion of things like beans and grains.
The average person needs to eat more fruits and vegetables. But increasing fruits and vegetables to the point where they are crowding out other things we need from food isn't good either.0 -
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.
Think of calories as the gas that makes your car run.
Now you can put in 87 octane and your car will work, but will it run optimally? no it will not (Not caring about nutrition)
Can go to 89 Octane and it runs a bit better, this is a mix of high and low grade fuel- your car will run a bit better then if it was only using the 87 octane stuff but still not running optimally. (CICO / IIFYM)
Put in 91 octane your car will run allot better!!, be quicker off the line and it will last allot longer. (this would be eating healthy) - running optimally.
Put in 94 octane your car will run great, quicker off the line, last longer and run clean as *#($ (Eating all Organic)
It's just an analogy hope it helps0 -
TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »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.
+10 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
See the post above you.
I saw it. What deficiencies?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
See the post above you.
I saw it. What deficiencies?
The two already mentioned were B12 and protein. With only fruits and vegetables (which would rule out nuts and legumes), both of those would be very difficult to hit recommended levels.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
Excluding those changes the subject from "you will have nutrient deficiencies from eating only fruits and vegetables" to "you will have nutrient deficiencies from not eating a good variety of fruits and vegetables.0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »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.
Think of calories as the gas that makes your car run.
Now you can put in 87 octane and your car will work, but will it run optimally? no it will not (Not caring about nutrition)
Can go to 89 Octane and it runs a bit better, this is a mix of high and low grade fuel- your car will run a bit better then if it was only using the 87 octane stuff but still not running optimally. (CICO / IIFYM)
Put in 91 octane your car will run allot better!!, be quicker off the line and it will last allot longer. (this would be eating healthy) - running optimally.
Put in 94 octane your car will run great, quicker off the line, last longer and run clean as *#($ (Eating all Organic)
It's just an analogy hope it helps
It's an absolutely false analogy, but it is an analogy...
0 -
Tedebearduff wrote: »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.
Think of calories as the gas that makes your car run.
Now you can put in 87 octane and your car will work, but will it run optimally? no it will not (Not caring about nutrition)
Can go to 89 Octane and it runs a bit better, this is a mix of high and low grade fuel- your car will run a bit better then if it was only using the 87 octane stuff but still not running optimally. (CICO / IIFYM)
Put in 91 octane your car will run allot better!!, be quicker off the line and it will last allot longer. (this would be eating healthy) - running optimally.
Put in 94 octane your car will run great, quicker off the line, last longer and run clean as *#($ (Eating all Organic)
It's just an analogy hope it helps
Energy can't be good or bad, it's just that, energy. And your body is really, REALLY, good at taking any and all food fit for human consumption apart into its most basic ingredients, which are simple carbohydrates, amino and fatty acids. And those are always the same, regardless where you got them from. Glucose from the sugar in a twinkie and glucose from inside an apple, your body can not tell the difference, it's all C6H12O6 to it. You can get all your nutritional needs from wherever you want to get them, as long as you get them. If I get my vitamins from fruits and veggies, a pill or enriched cereal, my body doesn't know. It doesn't even know what a fruit or a cereal is, it only knows the components.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
Excluding those changes the subject from "you will have nutrient deficiencies from eating only fruits and vegetables" to "you will have nutrient deficiencies from not eating a good variety of fruits and vegetables.
Well, I guess if you're just going to lump all plant material together you could have bread too...0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
See the post above you.
I saw it. What deficiencies?
The two already mentioned were B12 and protein. With only fruits and vegetables (which would rule out nuts and legumes), both of those would be very difficult to hit recommended levels.
You are moving the goal post by excluding certain fruits and vegetables.
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-blog/fruit-vegetable-difference/bgp-20056141
According to botanists (those who study plants) a fruit is the part of the plant that develops from a flower. It's also the section of the plant that contains the seeds. The other parts of plants are considered vegetables. These include the stems, leaves and roots — and even the flower bud.
The following are technically fruits: avocado, beans, peapods, corn kernels, cucumbers, grains, nuts, olives peppers, pumpkin, squash, sunflower seeds and tomatoes. Vegetables include celery (stem), lettuce (leaves), cauliflower and broccoli (buds), and beets, carrots and potatoes (roots).0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
Avoiding protein deficiency on a diet of just fruits and vegetables (assuming one is excluding beans and grains from the vegetable category) would make it really challenging to meet protein requirements (especially when you consider different amino acids). There are some fruits and vegetables that are higher in fat, but unless once is specifically including these, maintaining a healthy fat consumption would also be a challenge..
Why would one exclude beans, grains, nuts or seeds from "fruits and vegetables"? That's what they are.
That's not normally what people mean when they say "I'm only eating fruits and vegetables." They mean what we culinarily call fruit and vegetables (specifically, cucumbers aren't culinarily a fruit, but a vegetable, and vegetables refer specifically to non starchy vegetables). In other words, they mean the foods that meet the "at least 5-9 servings per day" recommendation or would be put in the "fruits and vegetables" part of the old food pyramid [edit: or would be considered the vegetable portion of a meal].
They don't mean simply "I'm eating a plant-based diet" or "I'm going vegan."
But of course you knew that. ;-)0 -
Eating fruits and veggies does not rule out nuts or legumes.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »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.
the real kicker there is that people need to gain a better understanding of what "healthy" and proper nutrition is...there seems to be this notion among many that veg and fruit are the only things that are "healthy"...but there is more to proper nutrition and healthy eating than just fruit and veg...one would be seriously lacking proper nutrition if all they ate was fruit and veg.
I'm actually always a little surprised at the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of actual, proper nutrition here.
I'm a vegetarian and cannot even count the number of deficiencies I developed from overdoing vegetables(I hate most fruit). I had to introduce eggs and majorly increase the amount of lentils and beans I ate to balance it out.
You can see among (many) raw vegans the idea that if fruits and vegetables are good, more fruits and vegetables are always better. But it's just not true. Even if you aren't eating animal products, you need more than fruits and vegetables to be healthy.
Do you?
See the post above you.
I saw it. What deficiencies?
The two already mentioned were B12 and protein. With only fruits and vegetables (which would rule out nuts and legumes), both of those would be very difficult to hit recommended levels.
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
- 427 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