Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
A quick refresher on a calorie is a calorie ....
Replies
-
robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
Your point was that any of the things you mentioned have an impact that goes above just paying attention to your calories. They just don't matter that much. TEF differences are a handful of calories, simplifications of atwater are under half a calorie per gram etc. etc. The absolute main reason why people aren't the weight they wish to be is because they're eating too much.
None of the variables are that lobsided in one direction to consistently give more calories than you'd think just going by the counts. You call it oversimplifying, we call it being sensible. If you're at a point where 21 calories burned extra by going from absolute minimum amount of protein a grown man should eat to optimum for muscle growth in a strength athlete is a matter that you need to pay attention to, you're doing something wrong.
Also people maintain a bodyweight because the amount of food they're used to eating is maintenance for the weight they're at, they're not the weight they are because of an innate ability to estimate what maintenance for their weight is, you're mixing up cause and effect. Fat people are also often maintaining or on their way to a weight where the amount they're usually eating is maintenance.
0 -
I think some don't appreciate CICO being restated so often because it can be such an oversimplification. Yes, there absolutely must be a calorie deficit to lose weight but the foods one chooses seem to be abe to change how many calories you can consume while staying in that deficit. One diet may put you at a -500kcal per day deficit at 1200 kcal, but another woe might allow that same person to eat a 1400kcal or 1500 kcal deficit (I am making up numbers for this example) to be at a -500kcal deficit; all caused by food choices.
I like the following example of someone's self experimentation. It wasn't expeimenting for weight loss but for gain. The resulting weight gain difference, of virtually identical calorie intake, between two woes was substantial.
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-did-get-fat/
I completely agree that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. What I disagree with is people implying that cutting calories and increasing activity is the best way to get there. For some, like me, that was not a large part of my math. Some woes, for some people, are better for weight gain, and that also holds true for weight loss.0 -
Oh gawd not the smashthefat guy............a joke among the actual nutrition science world0
-
I think some don't appreciate CICO being restated so often because it can be such an oversimplification. Yes, there absolutely must be a calorie deficit to lose weight but the foods one chooses seem to be abe to change how many calories you can consume while staying in that deficit. One diet may put you at a -500kcal per day deficit at 1200 kcal, but another woe might allow that same person to eat a 1400kcal or 1500 kcal deficit (I am making up numbers for this example) to be at a -500kcal deficit; all caused by food choices.
I like the following example of someone's self experimentation. It wasn't expeimenting for weight loss but for gain. The resulting weight gain difference, of virtually identical calorie intake, between two woes was substantial.
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-did-get-fat/
I completely agree that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. What I disagree with is people implying that cutting calories and increasing activity is the best way to get there. For some, like me, that was not a large part of my math. Some woes, for some people, are better for weight gain, and that also holds true for weight loss.
I don't think you understand what "deficit" means...provided you're assuming equal activity under both scenarios.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
Your point was that any of the things you mentioned have an impact that goes above just paying attention to your calories. They just don't matter that much. TEF differences are a handful of calories, simplifications of atwater are under half a calorie per gram etc. etc. The absolute main reason why people aren't the weight they wish to be is because they're eating too much.
None of the variables are that lobsided in one direction to consistently give more calories than you'd think just going by the counts. You call it oversimplifying, we call it being sensible. If you're at a point where 21 calories burned extra by going from absolute minimum amount of protein a grown man should eat to optimum for muscle growth in a strength athlete is a matter that you need to pay attention to, you're doing something wrong.
Also people maintain a bodyweight because the amount of food they're used to eating is maintenance for the weight they're at, they're not the weight they are because of an innate ability to estimate what maintenance for their weight is, you're mixing up cause and effect. Fat people are also often maintaining or on their way to a weight where the amount they're usually eating is maintenance.
You're entitled to your opinion. You are not however, entitled to my opinion. My point was exactly as stated, that "a calorie is a calorie" is simplistic and influenced by a number of things which can skew how accurate that calorie of potential energy is.
I've not mentioned TEF or bias and/or inacuracies being in one direction at all. Nor have I stated that all humans have the ability to accurately estimate their maintenance calories without feedback at all. I've simply stated that the need for feedback exists due to the inaccuracies in the calorie estimations. So once again, being that you're debating things I've never stated, I'd suggest that you are the one doing something wrong, as arguing a strawman argument I've never made in regards to TEF won't strengthen your stance on the issue, nor reduce mine.
In the below instance, the estimations of the calorie content are only off by some 32%.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3396444/
Using other factors and methods can help reduce the error, but error still exists. A five percent error, even in someone with a low TDEE of 2000 calories a day, can end up adding up to being up or down 10 and a half pounds a year. Yet with a feedback loop of a human scale, a person with that TDEE should have no issue regulating much closer to a set weight rather than the potential 20 pound window that such a small error as a percentage would allow.
Being that a number of studies over the years support that the various methods of energy estimation can be skewed by much larger percentages, using the 5% example given above along with a person with a low TDEE is actually IMO being quite generous in providing evidence that the minor variances all add up to pounds lost, gained, or maintained.0 -
Oh gawd not the smashthefat guy............a joke among the actual nutrition science world
I keep waiting for one of these nutritional oddities to perform their magic under a metabolic ward study. Like Uri Geller, they seem reluctant to do these feats under more controlled conditions than putting numbers up on the internet.0 -
I think some don't appreciate CICO being restated so often because it can be such an oversimplification. Yes, there absolutely must be a calorie deficit to lose weight but the foods one chooses seem to be abe to change how many calories you can consume while staying in that deficit. One diet may put you at a -500kcal per day deficit at 1200 kcal, but another woe might allow that same person to eat a 1400kcal or 1500 kcal deficit (I am making up numbers for this example) to be at a -500kcal deficit; all caused by food choices.
I like the following example of someone's self experimentation. It wasn't expeimenting for weight loss but for gain. The resulting weight gain difference, of virtually identical calorie intake, between two woes was substantial.
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-did-get-fat/
I completely agree that a calorie deficit is needed for weight loss. What I disagree with is people implying that cutting calories and increasing activity is the best way to get there. For some, like me, that was not a large part of my math. Some woes, for some people, are better for weight gain, and that also holds true for weight loss.
this thread has nothing to do with CICO or calorie deficits..
I started it as a refresher on the fact that all calories are equal from an energy standpoint; however, they are not all the same nutritionally.
please try to stay on topic…
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
His trial end error is referring to personal burn, not that calories are unequal. Some people simply don't behave the way the calculator calculate their calories so you have to do trial and error and go from there.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
Ah, Lustig's favorite nut study.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
Ah, Lustig's favorite nut study.
It's going downhill. We've had Dr. Oz and Lustig make an appearance in the thread. All we need now is for somebody to bring up MercoLOLa and we'll have the quack trifecta going.0 -
Foodbabe0
-
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
not sure what your point is. if i eat 2800 calories to maintain then I get 2800 units of energy from each calorie…
the fact that one has to use trial and error to figure out gain/maintain/cut levels is just common sense, because there is no way that one calculator is going to be accurate for every single human being; it does not change the fact that all calories are the same from an energy standpoint.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
not sure what your point is. if i eat 2800 calories to maintain then I get 2800 units of energy from each calorie…
the fact that one has to use trial and error to figure out gain/maintain/cut levels is just common sense, because there is no way that one calculator is going to be accurate for every single human being; it does not change the fact that all calories are the same from an energy standpoint.
My point is simple. You keep repeating something proven by peer reviewed scientific studies to be incorrect. Calorie estimations used are exactly that, estimations.
If energy available from all calories were equal, all of those numbers would be exactly what is on the label. They are not. When you multiply the differences over time, all that variance adds up. Add additional studies that show the overall composition of the diet and the combinations of various foods creates even greater variances. Things as seemingly unimportant as fiber play a large role in how the food eaten with the fiber is processed and how much nutrition is extracted.
So in terms of human energy, no calorie is equal in such a measure until it is absorbed by the body. If it was 100% absorbed it would still only be as accurate as the rounding used in the food labels and assumptions of available energy.robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
His trial end error is referring to personal burn, not that calories are unequal. Some people simply don't behave the way the calculator calculate their calories so you have to do trial and error and go from there.
Calories out and TDEE are the other parts that are flawed and inexact. But neither of those change the fact that the calories in calculations are known to be flawed as well.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
not sure what your point is. if i eat 2800 calories to maintain then I get 2800 units of energy from each calorie…
the fact that one has to use trial and error to figure out gain/maintain/cut levels is just common sense, because there is no way that one calculator is going to be accurate for every single human being; it does not change the fact that all calories are the same from an energy standpoint.
My point is simple. You keep repeating something proven by peer reviewed scientific studies to be incorrect. Calorie estimations used are exactly that, estimations.
If energy available from all calories were equal, all of those numbers would be exactly what is on the label. They are not. When you multiply the differences over time, all that variance adds up. Add additional studies that show the overall composition of the diet and the combinations of various foods creates even greater variances. Things as seemingly unimportant as fiber play a large role in how the food eaten with the fiber is processed and how much nutrition is extracted.
So in terms of human energy, no calorie is equal in such a measure until it is absorbed by the body. If it was 100% absorbed it would still only be as accurate as the rounding used in the food labels and assumptions of available energy.robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
His trial end error is referring to personal burn, not that calories are unequal. Some people simply don't behave the way the calculator calculate their calories so you have to do trial and error and go from there.
Calories out and TDEE are the other parts that are flawed and inexact. But neither of those change the fact that the calories in calculations are known to be flawed as well.
All measurements are estimations if you need more precision than the instrument allows.
It would take a rather interesting diet to consistently prevent calorie counting from working if a person is using their weight loss as feedback to correct their TDEE estimation.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
not sure what your point is. if i eat 2800 calories to maintain then I get 2800 units of energy from each calorie…
the fact that one has to use trial and error to figure out gain/maintain/cut levels is just common sense, because there is no way that one calculator is going to be accurate for every single human being; it does not change the fact that all calories are the same from an energy standpoint.
My point is simple. You keep repeating something proven by peer reviewed scientific studies to be incorrect. Calorie estimations used are exactly that, estimations.
If energy available from all calories were equal, all of those numbers would be exactly what is on the label. They are not. When you multiply the differences over time, all that variance adds up. Add additional studies that show the overall composition of the diet and the combinations of various foods creates even greater variances. Things as seemingly unimportant as fiber play a large role in how the food eaten with the fiber is processed and how much nutrition is extracted.
So in terms of human energy, no calorie is equal in such a measure until it is absorbed by the body. If it was 100% absorbed it would still only be as accurate as the rounding used in the food labels and assumptions of available energy.robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
His trial end error is referring to personal burn, not that calories are unequal. Some people simply don't behave the way the calculator calculate their calories so you have to do trial and error and go from there.
Calories out and TDEE are the other parts that are flawed and inexact. But neither of those change the fact that the calories in calculations are known to be flawed as well.
All measurements are estimations if you need more precision than the instrument allows.
It would take a rather interesting diet to consistently prevent calorie counting from working if a person is using their weight loss as feedback to correct their TDEE estimation.
No, obviously an inch is an oversimplification of length, they're not equal because my measure Tape is slightly off from yours.0 -
All measurements are estimations if you need more precision than the instrument allows.
It would take a rather interesting diet to consistently prevent calorie counting from working if a person is using their weight loss as feedback to correct their TDEE estimation.
Yet, when studies show that diets not at all uncommon can skew results quite a bit, it's no surprise that some will claim that TDEE estimations are at fault. I find that similar to putting gas in a car, knowing some spilled out, and then claiming the car lost MPG somehow.
As someone who often professes that science is the answer to all things, do you deny that a great number of studies support that the current methods of intake energy calculations are often flawed exist?stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
not sure what your point is. if i eat 2800 calories to maintain then I get 2800 units of energy from each calorie…
the fact that one has to use trial and error to figure out gain/maintain/cut levels is just common sense, because there is no way that one calculator is going to be accurate for every single human being; it does not change the fact that all calories are the same from an energy standpoint.
My point is simple. You keep repeating something proven by peer reviewed scientific studies to be incorrect. Calorie estimations used are exactly that, estimations.
If energy available from all calories were equal, all of those numbers would be exactly what is on the label. They are not. When you multiply the differences over time, all that variance adds up. Add additional studies that show the overall composition of the diet and the combinations of various foods creates even greater variances. Things as seemingly unimportant as fiber play a large role in how the food eaten with the fiber is processed and how much nutrition is extracted.
So in terms of human energy, no calorie is equal in such a measure until it is absorbed by the body. If it was 100% absorbed it would still only be as accurate as the rounding used in the food labels and assumptions of available energy.robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
His trial end error is referring to personal burn, not that calories are unequal. Some people simply don't behave the way the calculator calculate their calories so you have to do trial and error and go from there.
Calories out and TDEE are the other parts that are flawed and inexact. But neither of those change the fact that the calories in calculations are known to be flawed as well.
All measurements are estimations if you need more precision than the instrument allows.
It would take a rather interesting diet to consistently prevent calorie counting from working if a person is using their weight loss as feedback to correct their TDEE estimation.
No, obviously an inch is an oversimplification of length, they're not equal because my measure Tape is slightly off from yours.
If 10% is accurate enough, I'll gladly arrange for currency exchange for anyone who wishes to accept that 10% error. Unlimited amounts, and I'll decide which way the error is made.
I've cited studies and posted specific tables. I'd expect anyone claiming to have science as their motivation to provide studies that imply the estimated factors will always work exactly. Surely with all the lab based studies energy balance would be exacting more often than not if that were a reality.0 -
There's one I cite all the time, titled "Is a calories a calories?" where they go into all those little Details you love so much and tell you all about how those don't matter in the big picture.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »There's one I cite all the time, titled "Is a calories a calories?" where they go into all those little Details you love so much and tell you all about how those don't matter in the big picture.
The big picture. Majoring in minors0 -
robertw486 wrote: »
All measurements are estimations if you need more precision than the instrument allows.
It would take a rather interesting diet to consistently prevent calorie counting from working if a person is using their weight loss as feedback to correct their TDEE estimation.
Yet, when studies show that diets not at all uncommon can skew results quite a bit, it's no surprise that some will claim that TDEE estimations are at fault. I find that similar to putting gas in a car, knowing some spilled out, and then claiming the car lost MPG somehow.
As someone who often professes that science is the answer to all things, do you deny that a great number of studies support that the current methods of intake energy calculations are often flawed exist?stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
not sure what your point is. if i eat 2800 calories to maintain then I get 2800 units of energy from each calorie…
the fact that one has to use trial and error to figure out gain/maintain/cut levels is just common sense, because there is no way that one calculator is going to be accurate for every single human being; it does not change the fact that all calories are the same from an energy standpoint.
My point is simple. You keep repeating something proven by peer reviewed scientific studies to be incorrect. Calorie estimations used are exactly that, estimations.
If energy available from all calories were equal, all of those numbers would be exactly what is on the label. They are not. When you multiply the differences over time, all that variance adds up. Add additional studies that show the overall composition of the diet and the combinations of various foods creates even greater variances. Things as seemingly unimportant as fiber play a large role in how the food eaten with the fiber is processed and how much nutrition is extracted.
So in terms of human energy, no calorie is equal in such a measure until it is absorbed by the body. If it was 100% absorbed it would still only be as accurate as the rounding used in the food labels and assumptions of available energy.robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
His trial end error is referring to personal burn, not that calories are unequal. Some people simply don't behave the way the calculator calculate their calories so you have to do trial and error and go from there.
Calories out and TDEE are the other parts that are flawed and inexact. But neither of those change the fact that the calories in calculations are known to be flawed as well.
All measurements are estimations if you need more precision than the instrument allows.
It would take a rather interesting diet to consistently prevent calorie counting from working if a person is using their weight loss as feedback to correct their TDEE estimation.
No, obviously an inch is an oversimplification of length, they're not equal because my measure Tape is slightly off from yours.
If 10% is accurate enough, I'll gladly arrange for currency exchange for anyone who wishes to accept that 10% error. Unlimited amounts, and I'll decide which way the error is made.
I've cited studies and posted specific tables. I'd expect anyone claiming to have science as their motivation to provide studies that imply the estimated factors will always work exactly. Surely with all the lab based studies energy balance would be exacting more often than not if that were a reality.
Except the diet that would consistently screw it up is uncommon. See, you're thinking any diet with almonds is now off - except you're ignoring my calculating TDEE via feedback. If a person regularly eats almonds, they'd eventually factor that into their TDEE corrections.
Now, do I look forward to the possibility of Atwater corrections allowing labels to be more accurate? Sure. It is also worth noting these corrections usually move calories down as Atwater tends to start with near perfect digestion. So the inaccuracy is really more a problem for people trying to gain weight. No one on MFP has failed to lose weight by adding almonds to their diet.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »There's one I cite all the time, titled "Is a calories a calories?" where they go into all those little Details you love so much and tell you all about how those don't matter in the big picture.
Actually unless you are referencing another study, they do no such thing.
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Even though you are once again bringing up TEF, their conclusion that a calorie is indeed a calorie brings up the errors in the reality vs assumed.
I find it comical that people are angry that I state "a calorie is a calorie" is a simplistic view, especially since one of the early comments in this study is that "A calorie, by its simplest definition, is a unit of energy and is equivalent to 4.184 absolute J. "
"CONCLUSION
We conclude that a calorie is a calorie. From a purely thermodynamic point of view, this is clear because the human body or, indeed, any living organism cannot create or destroy energy but can only convert energy from one form to another. In comparing energy balance between dietary treatments, however, it must be remembered that the units of dietary energy are metabolizable energy and not gross energy. This is perhaps unfortunate because metabolizable energy is much more difficult to determine than is gross energy, because the Atwater factors used in calculating metabolizable energy are not exact. As such, our food tables are not perfect, and small errors are associated with their use.
In addition, we concede that the substitution of one macronutrient for another has been shown in some studies to have a statistically significant effect on the expenditure half of the energy balance equation. This has been observed most often for high-protein diets. Evidence indicates, however, that the difference in energy expenditure is small and can potentially account for less than one-third of the differences in weight loss that have been reported between high-protein or low-carbohydrate diets and high-carbohydrate or low-fat diets. As such, a calorie is a calorie. Further research is needed to identify the mechanisms that result in greater weight loss with one diet than with another."
Bold and italics for emphasis. I can only assume their version of "small error" somehow covers that other studies state differences of 10% and greater with diets not at all uncommon in the world today.
If the expenditure impact as referenced in the second paragraph is less than one third, then it seems to me that two thirds of the error is still not accounted for. No surprise, considering that studies focused on the input side find errors in the calculations on a regular basis.queenliz99 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »There's one I cite all the time, titled "Is a calories a calories?" where they go into all those little Details you love so much and tell you all about how those don't matter in the big picture.
The big picture. Majoring in minors
Other than a trendy catch phrase used on MFP, what part of having a greater than simplistic science based understanding troubles people? Do you wish that all science is generalized, restricted at a certain level, or somehow implied to be less exact due to not caring about specifics?
If a full understanding is majoring in the minors, I'd wonder why everyone feels the need to log food. Using known inexact estimations with a food scale still results in inexact results. Is that majoring in the minors, when a human scale would better account for all variables?0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »There's one I cite all the time, titled "Is a calories a calories?" where they go into all those little Details you love so much and tell you all about how those don't matter in the big picture.
The big picture. Majoring in minors
In all fairness, if our intent is to make universal claims and we care about debating semantics, then majoring in the minors is a part of it.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »There's one I cite all the time, titled "Is a calories a calories?" where they go into all those little Details you love so much and tell you all about how those don't matter in the big picture.
The big picture. Majoring in minors
In all fairness, if our intent is to make universal claims and we care about debating semantics, then majoring in the minors is a part of it.
It isn't a requirement for universal claims, only for quantifying claims.
One could make claims that are universal without accuracy - "move more, eat less, and you'll weigh less" is universal and requires no majoring in minors for none are available.0 -
So @robertw486 , I'm not going to quote because there's just too much text. But if you feel that saying "a calorie is a calorie" is an oversimplification based on the data you've shown, what advice would you give to a noob asking "does it matter what I eat for weight loss as long as I'm in a deficit?" A person who asks an oversimplified question like that is not interested in complicated charts and graphs. What advice would you give, in two sentences or less, that would be helpful to someone like that?0
-
Best, no B.S., article I ever read on nutrition.0
-
simlovgin960831 wrote: »Best, no B.S., article I ever read on nutrition.
0 -
I've long noticed you just love to hang onto those inaccuracies. The thing with inaccuracies though is that they go both ways. Senecarr said it more cautiously and called diets where they consistently f you up rare, I'll go ahead and say a doet where inacciracies are consiszently stacked against you probably doesn't even exist in the wild outside of studies trying specifically to create them and strawman arguments by people on mfp.0
-
robertw486 wrote: »Other than a trendy catch phrase used on MFP, what part of having a greater than simplistic science based understanding troubles people? Do you wish that all science is generalized, restricted at a certain level, or somehow implied to be less exact due to not caring about specifics?
In that we all know about things like TEF and that there are some foods that seem to have fewer calories digested than originally thought, so the calorie counts seem to be overstated (like almonds), your posts often make me wonder what you point is.
Maybe I'm reading them wrong and you have no other point, but in context I tend to think your point is that people can't know exact calories in and out, so shouldn't worry about it OR, on the other hand, that they should focus on all these other things (like TEF) in making food choices. I explained upthread why I think that's a bad idea and would love a response if you are arguing otherwise.
I don't think it's helpful for newbies to be given reason to say "oh, it's just too complicated" or "it's impossible to know what I'm eating." The fact is, as stephen pointed out, that all of the things you are talking about tend to OVERSTATE calories, so they don't at all provide a reason why counting wouldn't lead to a loss. (I think they are part of why my initial losses were higher than projected, although more important was the fact that I was more active than I had realized.)If a full understanding is majoring in the minors, I'd wonder why everyone feels the need to log food. Using known inexact estimations with a food scale still results in inexact results. Is that majoring in the minors, when a human scale would better account for all variables?
There are lots of studies that indicate that logging food (even just writing down what you eat without calories) tends to result in people eating fewer calories.
Immediate results or short term results are often helpful for people, and trying to eat less and weighing isn't that, especially if (like many people, and probably most fat people) one has a hard time monitoring how much one is eating. I've lost without logging or counting, personally, but I was following a pretty rigid way of eating (3 meals, breakfast always the same, really strong ideas about the proper amounts and food choices for the others). From what I've seen of newbies at MFP few of them--and not the ones struggling--have the ability to do this easily, they tend to eat more on impulse and not have a sense of what a balanced meal is or how many calories is in what. I mean, I'm amazed by all the posts from non vegetarians on how to get more protein. Logging is a really helpful learning experience if you are in this boat.
It's similar to how I need to weigh myself to stick to a weight loss plan. People say why not just measure or why not use how your clothes fit? But those things aren't as immediate and for me more feedback is better.
I don't see how worrying about whether some foods really provide fewer calories than the estimate or TEF could help me in the same way (and I know that's so, so don't need to be lectured about it endlessly, I just don't see how it's practically helpful). Perhaps you could clear this up for me so I can understand your point?0 -
robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
not sure what your point is. if i eat 2800 calories to maintain then I get 2800 units of energy from each calorie…
the fact that one has to use trial and error to figure out gain/maintain/cut levels is just common sense, because there is no way that one calculator is going to be accurate for every single human being; it does not change the fact that all calories are the same from an energy standpoint.
My point is simple. You keep repeating something proven by peer reviewed scientific studies to be incorrect. Calorie estimations used are exactly that, estimations.
If energy available from all calories were equal, all of those numbers would be exactly what is on the label. They are not. When you multiply the differences over time, all that variance adds up. Add additional studies that show the overall composition of the diet and the combinations of various foods creates even greater variances. Things as seemingly unimportant as fiber play a large role in how the food eaten with the fiber is processed and how much nutrition is extracted.
So in terms of human energy, no calorie is equal in such a measure until it is absorbed by the body. If it was 100% absorbed it would still only be as accurate as the rounding used in the food labels and assumptions of available energy.robertw486 wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.
again with the passive aggressiveness and wall of text..
just because you write three paragraphs to lay out a simple point does not give you any more authority then the next person.
your point has already been shown to be negligible. It is not as complex as you want it to be. If you are not losing, then just reduce calories more; not gaining, then increase calories; not maintaining then adjust calories until one maintains.
You don't need complex formulas or big words and paragraphs that go on and on forever about nothing. It is trial and error, and once you get the numbers pegged one will pretty much know their gain, cut, and maintain levels, I know I do.
If in fact...
...
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
then trial and error would not be required. Energy balance or changes could be factored by logging only. It's a direct statement, nothing passive about it.
If the text that explains it are excessive, I'll provide a TL/DR version below:
For purposes of energy a human can use, not all calories provide the same energy
His trial end error is referring to personal burn, not that calories are unequal. Some people simply don't behave the way the calculator calculate their calories so you have to do trial and error and go from there.
Calories out and TDEE are the other parts that are flawed and inexact. But neither of those change the fact that the calories in calculations are known to be flawed as well.
All measurements are estimations if you need more precision than the instrument allows.
It would take a rather interesting diet to consistently prevent calorie counting from working if a person is using their weight loss as feedback to correct their TDEE estimation.
this …
and I repeat my assertion that calories are the same from an energy standpoint...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions