Is there such thing as good and bad calories?
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »And if they are not equal then some must be better (good) than others (bad).
Another nonsensical statement.
Does red=blue? Of course not. So by your rationale, one must be objectively better than the other.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
All that means is that "A hug is good" implies circumstances that do make a hug good, creating its own tautology.0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »Just as a reminder, a calorie is a measurement. Like 1 foot = 12 inches. 100 calories of anything = 100 calories of anything else. I don't understand why people argue about that.
What some of you are arguing about is the CO part of CICO. Not CI.
I do think there is a difference in eating 100 calories of carrots versus 100 calories of pure granulated sugar. For one thing, the carrots have lots of fiber. While carrots have a lot of sugar in them, the sugar will be released slowly into your system. The carrots are friendly to the body. On the other hand, 100 calories of sugar is just immediately released into your body. You get a huge sugar high, and all kinds of interesting things happen, such as spiked insulin immediately.
So, it's confounding, right? A calorie is a measurement, and in terms of energy, they are equal. But, in terms of biology, they are completely different.
Ya, I have no problem with whole apples but get too big a sugar hit too fast from apple juice and feel sick after drinking it, so in this case, for me, 100 calories of whole apples is better than 100 calories of juice, which I no longer drink. (An actual serving size for me is probably 4 ounces of either.)
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »And if they are not equal then some must be better (good) than others (bad).
Another nonsensical statement.
Does red=blue? Of course not. So by your rationale, one must be objectively better than the other.
Of course.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
All that means is that "A hug is good" implies circumstances that do make a hug good, creating its own tautology.
Yet how many people would say I was being silly or stupid for saying "A hug is good."?0 -
It makes total sense. If you want a healthy diet, you need to choose a variety of healthy foods. If you want to stay full, you'll want to pick more low-cal food over tiny amount of high-cal food.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
Saying that people can lose weight eating nothing but chocolate isn't the same thing as suggesting that it's a good idea. As far as energy goes, a calorie is a calorie, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't make smart choices regarding their diet.
Some people aren't all that interested in nutrients, though. They want to lose weight and that's it. They don't care about macros, micros, any of that. They just want to be thin. That's cool! That's their priority right now.
I'm with you on the whole "I'm trying to make smart choices" thing, but I also get that different people have different priorities and desires.
Different strokes.0 -
It makes total sense. If you want a healthy diet, you need to choose a variety of healthy foods. If you want to stay full, you'll want to pick more low-cal food over tiny amount of high-cal food.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
Saying that people can lose weight eating nothing but chocolate isn't the same thing as suggesting that it's a good idea. As far as energy goes, a calorie is a calorie, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't make smart choices regarding their diet.
Some people aren't all that interested in nutrients, though. They want to lose weight and that's it. They don't care about macros, micros, any of that. They just want to be thin. That's cool! That's their priority right now.
I'm with you on the whole "I'm trying to make smart choices" thing, but I also get that different people have different priorities and desires.
Different strokes.
To the bolded - next time you find one of these people in the forums, can you please tag me into the thread? Other than the people who truly have issues with disordered eating, I cannot think of anyone I've seen here that isn't at all interested in nutrients, wants to lose weight with no regard to overall health, and just wants to be thin. Are people saying that, or are you gleaning that from their diary, or where does that info come from? This is a genuine question.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »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.
Technically, your body would need to use extra energy to upregulate protein recycling and your BMR would lower as your body has less lean mass, so it could potentially be a wash.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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...
I think it's stupid or silly to call a food good or bad without considering the context. And I don't think it makes for a healthy relationship with food if somebody is obsessing over ensuring that every single morsel of food that passes their lips is "healthy" and jam-packed with nutrients. That's called orthorexia and IMO it's not beneficial.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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).
What's wrong with a food that contributes to satisfaction more than nutrition (within the context of an overall healthy/balanced diet)? If that cookie or scoop of ice cream or whatever creates a more enjoyable diet which makes it easier for somebody to adhere to without going off the rails and binging, I see no problem with it whatsoever. And again, if you're hitting your macros for the day with a well-balanced diet and still have calories left over, you don't get extra credit for eating another pound of vegetables instead of a hot fudge brownie. Insisting that foods be classified as 'good' or 'bad' is polarized, rigid, binary thinking.
Nobody said that foods are "equal". What's being said is that "good" or "bad" depends entirely upon the context and dosage of how it fits into one's diet. I can think of contexts in which I could consider just about any food 'good' or 'bad'. Except bacon. Bacon is always good. Because bacon.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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...
I think it's stupid or silly to call a food good or bad without considering the context. And I don't think it makes for a healthy relationship with food if somebody is obsessing over ensuring that every single morsel of food that passes their lips is "healthy" and jam-packed with nutrients. That's called orthorexia and IMO it's not beneficial.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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).
What's wrong with a food that contributes to satisfaction more than nutrition (within the context of an overall healthy/balanced diet)? If that cookie or scoop of ice cream or whatever creates a more enjoyable diet which makes it easier for somebody to adhere to without going off the rails and binging, I see no problem with it whatsoever. And again, if you're hitting your macros for the day with a well-balanced diet and still have calories left over, you don't get extra credit for eating another pound of vegetables instead of a hot fudge brownie. Insisting that foods be classified as 'good' or 'bad' is polarized, rigid, binary thinking.
Nobody said that foods are "equal". What's being said is that "good" or "bad" depends entirely upon the context and dosage of how it fits into one's diet. I can think of contexts in which I could consider just about any food 'good' or 'bad'. Except bacon. Bacon is always good. Because bacon.
I understand what is being said in both instances - those who call food good or bad, and those that rail against it.
And because I understand it, I don't see the need to rail against it.0 -
In my relatively short experience with all this, it's not specifically what I'm eating that's made me lose weight, it's the amount of what I'm eating. I've not cut out carbs, sugar, dairy, or anything else. I use the food scale every single day for every meal, and log everything that goes in my mouth. That has worked brilliantly for me.
One struggle I have though is that when a wave of hunger hits me, I want sugar and I want it now. If I give in to that craving, it is very easy to pig out on sugary stuff and then not feel full within an hour. Then I'm back to where I started and looking for things to snack on again. By the time dinner rolls around, I am running out of calories.
Because I drink a lot of coffee in the morning, the caffeine masks my hunger. When the caffeine wears off, I realize I'm starving and then I enter the phase we all like to call "hangry". What I do is try to eat a small mid-morning snack whether I feel hungry or not. That way the "hangry" phase never hits and that sugar craving doesn't even happen. I do the same thing mid afternoon so that I'm not dying for everything in the kitchen at dinner time.
It works out pretty well for me most days.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
Rainman would like a word with you.0 -
It makes total sense. If you want a healthy diet, you need to choose a variety of healthy foods. If you want to stay full, you'll want to pick more low-cal food over tiny amount of high-cal food...
What about the many people I see posting who say "Ughhh, it's sooooo hard to eat 1200 calories a day! I'm so stuffed after 600 calories that I just can't eat anymore!". Incipient eating disorders aside, these people need more calorie-dense foods. They don't need another pound of lettuce, they need a half an avocado and 2 tablespoons of peanut butter. What about somebody who's bulking and needs to eat 3000-4000 calories a day? They're going to have a hard time getting it down if they rely mostly upon low-cal food.
Context, people. Context.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).
Exactly my opinion as well.0 -
It makes total sense. If you want a healthy diet, you need to choose a variety of healthy foods. If you want to stay full, you'll want to pick more low-cal food over tiny amount of high-cal food...
What about the many people I see posting who say "Ughhh, it's sooooo hard to eat 1200 calories a day! I'm so stuffed after 600 calories that I just can't eat anymore!". Incipient eating disorders aside, these people need more calorie-dense foods. They don't need another pound of lettuce, they need a half an avocado and 2 tablespoons of peanut butter. What about somebody who's bulking and needs to eat 3000-4000 calories a day? They're going to have a hard time getting it down if they rely mostly upon low-cal food.
Context, people. Context.
I always need 2 tbsp of peanut butter. Even when I'm already full.
0 -
It makes total sense. If you want a healthy diet, you need to choose a variety of healthy foods. If you want to stay full, you'll want to pick more low-cal food over tiny amount of high-cal food.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
Saying that people can lose weight eating nothing but chocolate isn't the same thing as suggesting that it's a good idea. As far as energy goes, a calorie is a calorie, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't make smart choices regarding their diet.
Some people aren't all that interested in nutrients, though. They want to lose weight and that's it. They don't care about macros, micros, any of that. They just want to be thin. That's cool! That's their priority right now.
I'm with you on the whole "I'm trying to make smart choices" thing, but I also get that different people have different priorities and desires.
Different strokes.
This is the most beautiful thing I think I've ever seen you write. Can I copy/save this for future semantics arguments PLEASE??!!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).
when i'm on a long ride i suck on jolly rancher candies...it has no nutritional value other than to provide me with a boost of sugar and they keep my mouth from getting dry. so according to you, still "bad"...
nobody said all foods are nutritionally equal. "good" or "bad" has to have context and you have to consider dosage. jolly ranchers are killer on 50+ mile rides.0 -
cwolfman13 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).
when i'm on a long ride i suck on jolly rancher candies...it has no nutritional value other than to provide me with a boost of sugar and they keep my mouth from getting dry. so according to you, still "bad"...
nobody said all foods are nutritionally equal. "good" or "bad" has to have context and you have to consider dosage. jolly ranchers are killer on 50+ mile rides.
Wait, food isn't good or bad, but it can be killer? I'm going to say murder is always bad.
(inb4 self defense). 0 -
cwolfman13 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).
when i'm on a long ride i suck on jolly rancher candies...it has no nutritional value other than to provide me with a boost of sugar and they keep my mouth from getting dry. so according to you, still "bad"...
nobody said all foods are nutritionally equal. "good" or "bad" has to have context and you have to consider dosage. jolly ranchers are killer on 50+ mile rides.
Wait, food isn't good or bad, but it can be killer? I'm going to say murder is always bad. (inb4 self defense).
If you weren't aware food could be killer, you've obviously been spared Guy Fieri.
You lucky thing, you.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »cwolfman13 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).
when i'm on a long ride i suck on jolly rancher candies...it has no nutritional value other than to provide me with a boost of sugar and they keep my mouth from getting dry. so according to you, still "bad"...
nobody said all foods are nutritionally equal. "good" or "bad" has to have context and you have to consider dosage. jolly ranchers are killer on 50+ mile rides.
Wait, food isn't good or bad, but it can be killer? I'm going to say murder is always bad. (inb4 self defense).
If you weren't aware food could be killer, you've obviously been spared Guy Fieri.
You lucky thing, you.
Lol, if Guy's food doesn't kill you, being within 100 feet of Gordon Ramsay while operating so much as a spoon might! ha ha!0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
It makes total sense. If you want a healthy diet, you need to choose a variety of healthy foods. If you want to stay full, you'll want to pick more low-cal food over tiny amount of high-cal food.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
Saying that people can lose weight eating nothing but chocolate isn't the same thing as suggesting that it's a good idea. As far as energy goes, a calorie is a calorie, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't make smart choices regarding their diet.
Some people aren't all that interested in nutrients, though. They want to lose weight and that's it. They don't care about macros, micros, any of that. They just want to be thin. That's cool! That's their priority right now.
I'm with you on the whole "I'm trying to make smart choices" thing, but I also get that different people have different priorities and desires.
Different strokes.
To the bolded - next time you find one of these people in the forums, can you please tag me into the thread? Other than the people who truly have issues with disordered eating, I cannot think of anyone I've seen here that isn't at all interested in nutrients, wants to lose weight with no regard to overall health, and just wants to be thin. Are people saying that, or are you gleaning that from their diary, or where does that info come from? This is a genuine question.
This was my reaction too. Yes, OP asked a question with a hypothetical about eating all chocolate, but I didn't take from that that she had any intention of doing that or didn't care about nutrients -- she was interested in an answer to her question. Every other post I recall from this thread (I didn't go back and reread) seemed to me to express a interest in eating a healthy diet.0 -
It makes total sense. If you want a healthy diet, you need to choose a variety of healthy foods. If you want to stay full, you'll want to pick more low-cal food over tiny amount of high-cal food...
What about the many people I see posting who say "Ughhh, it's sooooo hard to eat 1200 calories a day! I'm so stuffed after 600 calories that I just can't eat anymore!". Incipient eating disorders aside, these people need more calorie-dense foods. They don't need another pound of lettuce, they need a half an avocado and 2 tablespoons of peanut butter. What about somebody who's bulking and needs to eat 3000-4000 calories a day? They're going to have a hard time getting it down if they rely mostly upon low-cal food.
Context, people. Context.
Don't forget the people who claim fat is super satiating to them and they are full for hours on some coconut oil in a coffee vs. lots of fruit and oatmeal.0 -
And here we go again on the merry-go-round of arguing about healthy/unhealthy food and how much people are supposed to eat in order both lose weight and be healthy.
It's not as hard as people make it out to be. Nearly every food choice has something beneficial. And those which don't can still be chosen, and enjoyed, albeit only occasionally. The person will still be healthy.
People will argue over the healthiness of a doughnut versus an apple; a slice of pizza versus a salad; a cookie versus broccoli. It makes no sense to argue about them. Each has its own merit in the macro balance and in vitamins and minerals.
And why does it always come down to a choice between one or the other? Smart eaters will weigh out servings and enjoy a portion of each, making them fit into calorie goals. The most satisfying diet, the one that becomes the long-term success, is the one that includes all the foods that a person enjoys in moderation.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It makes total sense. If you want a healthy diet, you need to choose a variety of healthy foods. If you want to stay full, you'll want to pick more low-cal food over tiny amount of high-cal food...
What about the many people I see posting who say "Ughhh, it's sooooo hard to eat 1200 calories a day! I'm so stuffed after 600 calories that I just can't eat anymore!". Incipient eating disorders aside, these people need more calorie-dense foods. They don't need another pound of lettuce, they need a half an avocado and 2 tablespoons of peanut butter. What about somebody who's bulking and needs to eat 3000-4000 calories a day? They're going to have a hard time getting it down if they rely mostly upon low-cal food.
Context, people. Context.
Don't forget the people who claim fat is super satiating to them and they are full for hours on some coconut oil in a coffee vs. lots of fruit and oatmeal.
Add protein powder, and yes, coffee and coconut oil is definitely a more filling breakfast for me than oatmeal and fruit.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »It makes total sense. If you want a healthy diet, you need to choose a variety of healthy foods. If you want to stay full, you'll want to pick more low-cal food over tiny amount of high-cal food...
What about the many people I see posting who say "Ughhh, it's sooooo hard to eat 1200 calories a day! I'm so stuffed after 600 calories that I just can't eat anymore!". Incipient eating disorders aside, these people need more calorie-dense foods. They don't need another pound of lettuce, they need a half an avocado and 2 tablespoons of peanut butter. What about somebody who's bulking and needs to eat 3000-4000 calories a day? They're going to have a hard time getting it down if they rely mostly upon low-cal food.
Context, people. Context.
Don't forget the people who claim fat is super satiating to them and they are full for hours on some coconut oil in a coffee vs. lots of fruit and oatmeal.
That would be me. I've been on lowish carbs for less than a week, and the reduction in hunger is amazing. The reason i tried it in the first place because i was sick of being hungry all the time. For me, the more carbs I eat the more I want, they just don't keep me satisfied for long at all.0 -
It's all very personal. Everyone finds what works for them, and trying to tell people what is the 'right' way never works. It's much better to tell people that there are different ways to succeed, and that if one way doesn't work, to try another, but that sticking to the calorie goal while trying each is the key to success.0
-
It's all very personal. Everyone finds what works for them, and trying to tell people what is the 'right' way never works. It's much better to tell people that there are different ways to succeed, and that if one way doesn't work, to try another, but that sticking to the calorie goal while trying each is the key to success.
Exactly.
Just because this new approach has been working for me so far, doesn't mean it will work for the next person.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It makes total sense. If you want a healthy diet, you need to choose a variety of healthy foods. If you want to stay full, you'll want to pick more low-cal food over tiny amount of high-cal food...
What about the many people I see posting who say "Ughhh, it's sooooo hard to eat 1200 calories a day! I'm so stuffed after 600 calories that I just can't eat anymore!". Incipient eating disorders aside, these people need more calorie-dense foods. They don't need another pound of lettuce, they need a half an avocado and 2 tablespoons of peanut butter. What about somebody who's bulking and needs to eat 3000-4000 calories a day? They're going to have a hard time getting it down if they rely mostly upon low-cal food.
Context, people. Context.
Don't forget the people who claim fat is super satiating to them and they are full for hours on some coconut oil in a coffee vs. lots of fruit and oatmeal.
Add protein powder, and yes, coffee and coconut oil is definitely a more filling breakfast for me than oatmeal and fruit.Add protein powder
I also find coffee is more filling for me compared to oatmeal when I throw in a whole cooked chicken.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »It makes total sense. If you want a healthy diet, you need to choose a variety of healthy foods. If you want to stay full, you'll want to pick more low-cal food over tiny amount of high-cal food...
What about the many people I see posting who say "Ughhh, it's sooooo hard to eat 1200 calories a day! I'm so stuffed after 600 calories that I just can't eat anymore!". Incipient eating disorders aside, these people need more calorie-dense foods. They don't need another pound of lettuce, they need a half an avocado and 2 tablespoons of peanut butter. What about somebody who's bulking and needs to eat 3000-4000 calories a day? They're going to have a hard time getting it down if they rely mostly upon low-cal food.
Context, people. Context.
Don't forget the people who claim fat is super satiating to them and they are full for hours on some coconut oil in a coffee vs. lots of fruit and oatmeal.
Add protein powder, and yes, coffee and coconut oil is definitely a more filling breakfast for me than oatmeal and fruit.Add protein powder
I also find coffee is more filling for me compared to oatmeal when I throw in a whole cooked chicken.
Chickacino for the win!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