Is there such thing as good and bad calories?

135678

Replies

  • krithsai
    krithsai Posts: 668 Member
    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! :smiley:
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    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!
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 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.

    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.
  • krithsai
    krithsai Posts: 668 Member
    cwolfman13 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.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    krithsai wrote: »
    cwolfman13 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.
  • krithsai
    krithsai Posts: 668 Member
    krithsai wrote: »
    cwolfman13 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.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    krithsai wrote: »
    cwolfman13 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?
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    krithsai wrote: »
    cwolfman13 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.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    krithsai wrote: »
    cwolfman13 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.
  • Tedebearduff
    Tedebearduff Posts: 1,155 Member
    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
  • MireyGal76
    MireyGal76 Posts: 7,334 Member
    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.

    +1
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    krithsai wrote: »
    cwolfman13 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?
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    krithsai wrote: »
    cwolfman13 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.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    krithsai wrote: »
    cwolfman13 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.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    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...

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    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.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    krithsai wrote: »
    cwolfman13 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...
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    edited November 2015
    auddii wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    krithsai wrote: »
    cwolfman13 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).
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited November 2015
    krithsai wrote: »
    cwolfman13 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. ;-)
  • Kalikel
    Kalikel Posts: 9,603 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    krithsai wrote: »
    cwolfman13 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.
    Eating fruits and veggies does not rule out nuts or legumes.