Is there such thing as good and bad calories?
Replies
-
Good calories= food that you like.
Bad calories= Burnt food, spoiled food, food that you dislike.0 -
corpus_validum wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You're trying to tell me drinking a case of water doesn't make you fat? Yeah right, I'm onto you, Big DHMO! I'll blow this case wide open!!!
What I'm trying to illustrate with such an outrageous comparison is that saying a calorie is just a calorie as long as IIFYM can be awfully deceiving. I tend to believe that how one gets to their arbitrary caloric limit matters.
There is one absolute known fact about weight loss. You can't store energy that isn't there.
If something only contains 5 calories, you only get 5 calories of energy out of that. And 5 calories is 0.15% of a pound of fat or 0,7 grams.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »There is one absolute known fact about weight loss. You can't store energy that isn't there.
If something only contains 5 calories, you only get 5 calories of energy out of that. And 5 calories is 0.15% of a pound of fat or 0,7 grams.
I get that. But does every food/drink of equal calorie count have the same impact on your body? Of course not. Some can cause bloating, inflammation, etc. In addition to monitoring daily caloric input, people should also try to better understand the impact of certain foods on their bodies.
Which goes back to the OP's question: is there such things as good and bad calories? Depends on your particular body. For many, it doesn't matter. For others, it does.
0 -
corpus_validum wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »There is one absolute known fact about weight loss. You can't store energy that isn't there.
If something only contains 5 calories, you only get 5 calories of energy out of that. And 5 calories is 0.15% of a pound of fat or 0,7 grams.
I get that. But does every food/drink of equal calorie count have the same impact on your body? Of course not. Some can cause bloating, inflammation, etc. In addition to monitoring daily caloric input, people should also try to better understand the impact of certain foods on their bodies.
So you didn't read the thread? Because that's exactly what people have saying. Calories are identical. Foods are not. Different foods have different nutritional profiles and different impacts on satiety, macros/micros, overall health, etc. but some foods (and drinks - like Diet Coke and wine, two of my favorites) have other benefits including personal enjoyment and encouraging adherence.
I'm not sure where you saw someone say otherwise?
0 -
corpus_validum wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »There is one absolute known fact about weight loss. You can't store energy that isn't there.
If something only contains 5 calories, you only get 5 calories of energy out of that. And 5 calories is 0.15% of a pound of fat or 0,7 grams.
I get that. But does every food/drink of equal calorie count have the same impact on your body? Of course not. Some can cause bloating, inflammation, etc. In addition to monitoring daily caloric input, people should also try to better understand the impact of certain foods on their bodies.
Which goes back to the OP's question: is there such things as good and bad calories? Depends on your particular body. For many, it doesn't matter. For others, it does.
You're moving the goalposts here, you said "impact on your weight" initially. And it most definitely does not, aside from the joking gaining of 2 pounds after drinking a liter of water.0 -
"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. "
yes,there is a significant difference with different foods
the energy(calories) in food is measured in the same way as energy in other products-in a bomb calorimeter
this tells us the calories a food contains-but not how many of those the body absorbs.
for instance carbs have 4cal/g
25 g of glucose will be fully absorbed by the body as 100cals,
whereas 25g of fibre(another carbohydrate) will not be absorbed at all,so you could discount all fibre calories in your diet.
protein also has 4cal/g but the energy required to digest it means that 100 cal of protein ends up as 75 absorbed.
alcohol has 7cal/g but is immediately metabolised by the body,as well as excreted unchanged so hard to know net effect of those calories.
fat has 9cal/g and gasoline has 10cal/g,but i wouldnt recommend swallowing gasoline-unless you are a fire eater.
0 -
corpus_validum wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You're trying to tell me drinking a case of water doesn't make you fat? Yeah right, I'm onto you, Big DHMO! I'll blow this case wide open!!!
What I'm trying to illustrate with such an outrageous comparison is that saying a calorie is just a calorie as long as IIFYM can be awfully deceiving. I tend to believe that how one gets to their arbitrary caloric goal (be it 1,200 or 2,000) matters.
What you're demonstrating instead is a complete and total misunderstanding of context and dosage.
The comparison itself is so ridiculous as to not even warrant comment.0 -
deleted0
-
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.
U would lose the same amount of weight no matter what u eat but remember weight loss is just one part of the puzzle. If u continued to eat junk all day, your body will eventually run sluggish. You could end up with heart disease, liver disease, poor autoimmune response to name a few. Think of your body as a car that will run on any grade gas but will run at its best on high octane fuel. Eat a balanced diet to feel your best. Don't get taken in by dieting fads such as no carb or high protein diets. U will end up weaker and possibly destroy your health. Just do what people have been doing all along, eat a well balanced diet and reward yourself with your favorite foods as a snack. Exercise is also a necessary part of the equation. U don't have to become obsessed with exercise but don't sit around all day watching cable and expect to feel your best. Good luck, you can do this!0 -
The macros matter, and that's to losing fat, not just health. If you don't eat protein, you won't keep the same body composition, because you'll end up losing existing muscle from your body to make up for the protein you don't get through your diet.
Then you could extrapolate that out and see a metabolism difference after losing muscle, so it would affect your weight later, too (all other things remaining the same).
[Then there are probably similar effects from various vitamin deficiencies. I got muscle wasting from a prolonged case of vitamin b-12 deficiency (not because of diet) and it was because of that disease one way or another (I don't understand the mechanism). I went from at least 125 lbs to 85 and didn't mean to at all!]0 -
This content has been removed.
-
If by calories you mean food and if by good and bad you mean more likely to help you achieve your goals or less likely to help you achieve your goals (and so foods could routinely change classification depending on your current lifestyle) then yes.0
-
cafeaulait7 wrote: »The macros matter, and that's to losing fat, not just health. If you don't eat protein, you won't keep the same body composition, because you'll end up losing existing muscle from your body to make up for the protein you don't get through your diet.
Then you could extrapolate that out and see a metabolism difference after losing muscle, so it would affect your weight later, too (all other things remaining the same).
[Then there are probably similar effects from various vitamin deficiencies. I got muscle wasting from a prolonged case of vitamin b-12 deficiency (not because of diet) and it was because of that disease one way or another (I don't understand the mechanism). I went from at least 125 lbs to 85 and didn't mean to at all!]
1 pound of muscle burns an extra 10 calories, tops. The amounts of protein you'd have to eat to lose substantial amounts of muscle are so low, you'd have to go out of your way to eat only things low in protein to even get there.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »cafeaulait7 wrote: »The macros matter, and that's to losing fat, not just health. If you don't eat protein, you won't keep the same body composition, because you'll end up losing existing muscle from your body to make up for the protein you don't get through your diet.
Then you could extrapolate that out and see a metabolism difference after losing muscle, so it would affect your weight later, too (all other things remaining the same).
[Then there are probably similar effects from various vitamin deficiencies. I got muscle wasting from a prolonged case of vitamin b-12 deficiency (not because of diet) and it was because of that disease one way or another (I don't understand the mechanism). I went from at least 125 lbs to 85 and didn't mean to at all!]
1 pound of muscle burns an extra 10 calories, tops. The amounts of protein you'd have to eat to lose substantial amounts of muscle are so low, you'd have to go out of your way to eat only things low in protein to even get there.
And really, 10 is being generous.0 -
corpus_validum wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »You're trying to tell me drinking a case of water doesn't make you fat? Yeah right, I'm onto you, Big DHMO! I'll blow this case wide open!!!
What I'm trying to illustrate with such an outrageous comparison is that saying a calorie is just a calorie as long as IIFYM can be awfully deceiving. I tend to believe that how one gets to their arbitrary caloric goal (be it 1,200 or 2,000) matters.
No one here has actually said that what you eat doesn't matter (although it matters for health and satiety and energy level). Once again, that NOT what a calorie is a calorie means. Foods are different. Calorie is not a synonym for food.
And drinking a case of diet soda in a day is a weird thing to do and possibly not good for you (I have no idea, as it's not something I've ever contemplated), but it's not going to cause you to gain weight, if that's what you are speculating. How could it?0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »No one here has actually said that what you eat doesn't matter (although it matters for health and satiety and energy level). Once again, that NOT what a calorie is a calorie means. Foods are different. Calorie is not a synonym for food.
And drinking a case of diet soda in a day is a weird thing to do and possibly not good for you (I have no idea, as it's not something I've ever contemplated), but it's not going to cause you to gain weight, if that's what you are speculating. How could it?
It's a matter of semantics and context. Yes, a calorie is a calorie and just means a unit of energy. In layman's terms, I consume food and beverages, not calories, not energy. So I personally have a hard time not critiquing a calorie without judging the food it comes with, if that makes sense. Then again, that too may be absurd like my earlier comparison
0 -
corpus_validum wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No one here has actually said that what you eat doesn't matter (although it matters for health and satiety and energy level). Once again, that NOT what a calorie is a calorie means. Foods are different. Calorie is not a synonym for food.
And drinking a case of diet soda in a day is a weird thing to do and possibly not good for you (I have no idea, as it's not something I've ever contemplated), but it's not going to cause you to gain weight, if that's what you are speculating. How could it?
It's a matter of semantics and context. Yes, a calorie is a calorie and just means a unit of energy. In layman's terms, I consume food and beverages, not calories, not energy. So I personally have a hard time not critiquing a calorie without judging the food it comes with, if that makes sense. Then again, that too may be absurd like my earlier comparison
Why would you critique a calorie? Like you said, it's just a unit of energy.0 -
corpus_validum wrote: »It's a matter of semantics and context. Yes, a calorie is a calorie and just means a unit of energy. In layman's terms, I consume food and beverages, not calories, not energy. So I personally have a hard time not critiquing a calorie without judging the food it comes with, if that makes sense. Then again, that too may be absurd like my earlier comparison
Hence the disconnect. It's misleading to judge any food in a vacuum without considering the context and dosage within the overall diet.
In another thread, there was a discussion about a salad dressing made with apple cider vinegar, bacon and sugar. One poster snarkily commented "Bacon grease and sugar. Sounds incredibly healthy". That's a complete ignorance of context and dosage. The dressing wasn't intended to be guzzled all day in lieu of other foods; it was intended to be lightly drizzled over a bed of fresh spinach greens, chopped red onions and sliced hardboiled eggs. To me, that sounds like a pretty well-balanced dish.
In my opinion, judging food/calories as "good" or "bad" in a vacuum creates an unhealthy relationship with food. It's a binary state of thinking which is going to make for obsessive and overly restrictive food choices which are unnecessary and potentially unpleasant. It can make for overall poor food choices and also have a negative impact upon the mental/psychological aspect of one's diet, which we know is important for satiety and adherence.0 -
no difference between good and bad calories, only food that does more to help your body function well or not function well.0
-
Do a trial run of each and see how it goes?0
-
corpus_validum wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No one here has actually said that what you eat doesn't matter (although it matters for health and satiety and energy level). Once again, that NOT what a calorie is a calorie means. Foods are different. Calorie is not a synonym for food.
And drinking a case of diet soda in a day is a weird thing to do and possibly not good for you (I have no idea, as it's not something I've ever contemplated), but it's not going to cause you to gain weight, if that's what you are speculating. How could it?
It's a matter of semantics and context. Yes, a calorie is a calorie and just means a unit of energy. In layman's terms, I consume food and beverages, not calories, not energy. So I personally have a hard time not critiquing a calorie without judging the food it comes with, if that makes sense. Then again, that too may be absurd like my earlier comparison
you seem to completely ignore context and dosage in your posts...
you have to look at a diet in it's entirety for proper context. saying a cookie is bad, for example, is stupid...because having a cooking within the context of a well balanced an nutritious diet is just fine.
diets can be good or bad depending on their overall nutritional profile...but isolating a singular food item as good or bad in and of itself without regard to context or dosage is just silliness.0 -
corpus_validum wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No one here has actually said that what you eat doesn't matter (although it matters for health and satiety and energy level). Once again, that NOT what a calorie is a calorie means. Foods are different. Calorie is not a synonym for food.
And drinking a case of diet soda in a day is a weird thing to do and possibly not good for you (I have no idea, as it's not something I've ever contemplated), but it's not going to cause you to gain weight, if that's what you are speculating. How could it?
It's a matter of semantics and context. Yes, a calorie is a calorie and just means a unit of energy. In layman's terms, I consume food and beverages, not calories, not energy. So I personally have a hard time not critiquing a calorie without judging the food it comes with, if that makes sense. Then again, that too may be absurd like my earlier comparison
So why not talk about differences between foods, if you like, and not claim there are differences between calories. The first is uncontroversial -- obviously foods are different, although I don't happen to think "bad" and "good" are helpful terms there either -- and the second is obviously not true.0 -
hooltwl1957 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.
U would lose the same amount of weight no matter what u eat but remember weight loss is just one part of the puzzle. If u continued to eat junk all day, your body will eventually run sluggish. You could end up with heart disease, liver disease, poor autoimmune response to name a few. Think of your body as a car that will run on any grade gas but will run at its best on high octane fuel. Eat a balanced diet to feel your best. Don't get taken in by dieting fads such as no carb or high protein diets. U will end up weaker and possibly destroy your health. Just do what people have been doing all along, eat a well balanced diet and reward yourself with your favorite foods as a snack. Exercise is also a necessary part of the equation. U don't have to become obsessed with exercise but don't sit around all day watching cable and expect to feel your best. Good luck, you can do this!
Technically that is incorrect!
You would lose more weight if your diet contained very little protein.
But that aside OP, for weight loss food selection has little bearing, for healthy weight loss food selection is very important.
As many have pointed out not all calories (from a micro nutrient stand point) give you the same bang for your buck.
0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »corpus_validum wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No one here has actually said that what you eat doesn't matter (although it matters for health and satiety and energy level). Once again, that NOT what a calorie is a calorie means. Foods are different. Calorie is not a synonym for food.
And drinking a case of diet soda in a day is a weird thing to do and possibly not good for you (I have no idea, as it's not something I've ever contemplated), but it's not going to cause you to gain weight, if that's what you are speculating. How could it?
It's a matter of semantics and context. Yes, a calorie is a calorie and just means a unit of energy. In layman's terms, I consume food and beverages, not calories, not energy. So I personally have a hard time not critiquing a calorie without judging the food it comes with, if that makes sense. Then again, that too may be absurd like my earlier comparison
you seem to completely ignore context and dosage in your posts...
you have to look at a diet in it's entirety for proper context. saying a cookie is bad, for example, is stupid...because having a cooking within the context of a well balanced an nutritious diet is just fine.
diets can be good or bad depending on their overall nutritional profile...but isolating a singular food item as good or bad in and of itself without regard to context or dosage is just silliness.
While I agree that it is the overall diet that matters, I disagree that it's stupid or silly to say a food is bad when it offers nothing/little in the way of necessary nutrients. Calling the foods that contribute to satisfaction more than nutrition "bad" is pretty common usuage. Thinking that all foods are equal seems completely stupid and silly to me. And if they are not equal then some must be better (good) than others (bad).0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »corpus_validum wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No one here has actually said that what you eat doesn't matter (although it matters for health and satiety and energy level). Once again, that NOT what a calorie is a calorie means. Foods are different. Calorie is not a synonym for food.
And drinking a case of diet soda in a day is a weird thing to do and possibly not good for you (I have no idea, as it's not something I've ever contemplated), but it's not going to cause you to gain weight, if that's what you are speculating. How could it?
It's a matter of semantics and context. Yes, a calorie is a calorie and just means a unit of energy. In layman's terms, I consume food and beverages, not calories, not energy. So I personally have a hard time not critiquing a calorie without judging the food it comes with, if that makes sense. Then again, that too may be absurd like my earlier comparison
you seem to completely ignore context and dosage in your posts...
you have to look at a diet in it's entirety for proper context. saying a cookie is bad, for example, is stupid...because having a cooking within the context of a well balanced an nutritious diet is just fine.
diets can be good or bad depending on their overall nutritional profile...but isolating a singular food item as good or bad in and of itself without regard to context or dosage is just silliness.
While I agree that it is the overall diet that matters, I disagree that it's stupid or silly to say a food is bad when it offers nothing/little in the way of necessary nutrients. Calling the foods that contribute to satisfaction more than nutrition "bad" is pretty common usuage. Thinking that all foods are equal seems completely stupid and silly to me. And if they are not equal then some must be better (good) than others (bad).
Better or worse depends entirely on context.
For example, for glycogen replenishment, Cap'n Crunch is far superior to broccoli0 -
All calories are equal as a measurement, however some of them hang out in more nutrient dense food than others. If you are looking for energy but are not in a big hurry to get it any old calorie will do. If you are looking for a particular nutrient (Macro or Micro) or you need a quickly usable form of energy then you need to be more selective. In different situations different foods are better than others. What is good energy source for someone completing a marathon might not be a good energy source for a sedentary overweight person spending the day watching the golf channel.0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »corpus_validum wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No one here has actually said that what you eat doesn't matter (although it matters for health and satiety and energy level). Once again, that NOT what a calorie is a calorie means. Foods are different. Calorie is not a synonym for food.
And drinking a case of diet soda in a day is a weird thing to do and possibly not good for you (I have no idea, as it's not something I've ever contemplated), but it's not going to cause you to gain weight, if that's what you are speculating. How could it?
It's a matter of semantics and context. Yes, a calorie is a calorie and just means a unit of energy. In layman's terms, I consume food and beverages, not calories, not energy. So I personally have a hard time not critiquing a calorie without judging the food it comes with, if that makes sense. Then again, that too may be absurd like my earlier comparison
you seem to completely ignore context and dosage in your posts...
you have to look at a diet in it's entirety for proper context. saying a cookie is bad, for example, is stupid...because having a cooking within the context of a well balanced an nutritious diet is just fine.
diets can be good or bad depending on their overall nutritional profile...but isolating a singular food item as good or bad in and of itself without regard to context or dosage is just silliness.
While I agree that it is the overall diet that matters, I disagree that it's stupid or silly to say a food is bad when it offers nothing/little in the way of necessary nutrients. Calling the foods that contribute to satisfaction more than nutrition "bad" is pretty common usuage. Thinking that all foods are equal seems completely stupid and silly to me. And if they are not equal then some must be better (good) than others (bad).
Better or worse depends entirely on context.
For example, for glycogen replenishment, Cap'n Crunch is far superior to broccoli
Cap'n Crunch is fortified with a lot of nutrients so it wouldn't be nutrient poor food. But if it is superior then it is "good". And how can there be good without bad?0 -
I think of a calorie as how much somethings costs then I determine what I get for that cost, both from a nutritional standpoint (macros and micros are basically the bills I have to pay) and from a mental standpoint. My calorie goal is the budget. Just like real budgets, we all have different goals/opinions/strategies/etc, and of course "incomes" (TDEE). Someone with a higher budget had more leeway in their selection as opposed to someone on 1200 or something. They have to pay the bills and won't have much left over.
Now, keeping that goofy *kitten* analogy going, the difference is, there is no such thing as a "savings account". (The people's whose opinion thinks it is better to go over on your micros by 300% so you can piss it out, rather than have that evil cookie).0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »
Holy Dunning Krueger Batman!Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »corpus_validum wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »No one here has actually said that what you eat doesn't matter (although it matters for health and satiety and energy level). Once again, that NOT what a calorie is a calorie means. Foods are different. Calorie is not a synonym for food.
And drinking a case of diet soda in a day is a weird thing to do and possibly not good for you (I have no idea, as it's not something I've ever contemplated), but it's not going to cause you to gain weight, if that's what you are speculating. How could it?
It's a matter of semantics and context. Yes, a calorie is a calorie and just means a unit of energy. In layman's terms, I consume food and beverages, not calories, not energy. So I personally have a hard time not critiquing a calorie without judging the food it comes with, if that makes sense. Then again, that too may be absurd like my earlier comparison
you seem to completely ignore context and dosage in your posts...
you have to look at a diet in it's entirety for proper context. saying a cookie is bad, for example, is stupid...because having a cooking within the context of a well balanced an nutritious diet is just fine.
diets can be good or bad depending on their overall nutritional profile...but isolating a singular food item as good or bad in and of itself without regard to context or dosage is just silliness.
While I agree that it is the overall diet that matters, I disagree that it's stupid or silly to say a food is bad when it offers nothing/little in the way of necessary nutrients. Calling the foods that contribute to satisfaction more than nutrition "bad" is pretty common usuage. Thinking that all foods are equal seems completely stupid and silly to me. And if they are not equal then some must be better (good) than others (bad).
Better or worse depends entirely on context.
For example, for glycogen replenishment, Cap'n Crunch is far superior to broccoli
Cap'n Crunch is fortified with a lot of nutrients so it wouldn't be nutrient poor food.
Replace Cap'n Crunch with sugar packets and the point still standsBut if it is superior then it is "good". And how can there be good without bad?
Sigh. Once again for the slow kids:
Context.
In the aforementioned case, broccoli downright sucks for glycogen replenishment. Does this make broccoli objectively bad?
Unable to argue without insults yet calls others slow.
If people want to talk in general terms instead of diving into the weeds with every thought there is nothing silly or stupid about that. It's normal and natural.
Saying "A hug is good" is a perfectly fine statement, even though a hug from someone with a highly communicable disease is not good.0 -
I think of a calorie as how much somethings costs then I determine what I get for that cost, both from a nutritional standpoint (macros and micros are basically the bills I have to pay) and from a mental standpoint. My calorie goal is the budget. Just like real budgets, we all have different goals/opinions/strategies/etc, and of course "incomes" (TDEE). Someone with a higher budget had more leeway in their selection as opposed to someone on 1200 or something. They have to pay the bills and won't have much left over.
Now, keeping that goofy *kitten* analogy going, the difference is, there is no such thing as a "savings account". (The people's whose opinion thinks it is better to go over on your micros by 300% so you can piss it out, rather than have that evil cookie).
And some micros you can't even piss out. It is possible to have too much of a good thing.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions