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
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »silvilunazul wrote: »Saying that a calorie is NOT a calorie is pretty much like saying that 1 square meter is not 1 square meter. Sure, maybe a square meter of garden has a different function than a square meter of cement or is more expensive in London than in Mexico, but that doesn't change the fact that the measure is the same. I've heard people say things like: "500 calories of cucumber are not the same as 500 calories of hamburger". Yes they are. Cucumber and hamburger may have different nutritional values and even different commercial prices. That does not change that a Kilocalorie is the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water through 1 °C.
Right. Or to compare, when I measure myself I get different numbers, because I'm not great at it and can pull the tape measure tighter or less tight.
That doesn't mean an inch is not an inch.
Hey now, debating calories is for nutrition debate, and debating inches is for chit chat.
Heh.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lpPeQyT36Tg
Love this. Thank you. MFP needs more levity, seriously lacking lately.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.
I have addressed that point.
(1) Since a calorie is a calorie is not a claim that all foods are the same, the fact that different foods may serve different goals is not an argument against it. It's an intentional (and rude) misunderstanding of what a calorie is a calorie means.
(2) Macro mix depends on goals, and it would make no sense to change macros to get the largest possible calorie total (as that would not result in a sensible diet). Yes, high protein and low fat has a higher TEF than more normal macro distribution, but why is it sensible for me to eat based on that. If I follow a normal diet based on nutrition and goals, there will be no meaningful difference (as Kevin Hall demonstrates).
KH study demonstrates there are slight difference.. but difference non the less. I fully understand the what a calorie means. But I would disagree that ALL contain the same amount of energy. Because a gross calories is NOT the same as a NET calorie.
Right -- that means that foods are different.
It doesn't mean that calories are different.
In a perfect world inaccuracies in estimating calories will be removed.
Again, do you really think it makes sense to choose foods to maximize stated calories? If not, what practical application does any of this have?
Like I said before, this is going to be situation. For a noob, NO, I am not going to talk about TEF, timing of nutrients or supplements to address their goals. For someone who is bulking, with a knowledge base, our conversations tend to run much more deep, which can include the type of calories (i.e - carbs are king) and the timing of nutrient (protein/carbs 2 hours pre- or post- workout). Hell, if people are more elite, we would even discuss the type of sugar (dextrose vs fructose) post workout. Why, because foods contain calories, and calories have different impacts on a body, even outside of nutrition. Merely, this is a more broad view verse narrow view of a calorie.
Yes, I am concerned about those things too. I bought a course on ironman nutrition even -- I'm a geek for this stuff.
They have nothing to do with a calorie is a calorie.
I am interested in seeing if higher carbs help my training, but I know higher carbs won't affect my weight. If I were trying to gain muscle I'd likely increase protein, but not because of weight -- because of muscle.
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
If we want to be so narrowly focused that all we care about is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water, I would say this is a ridiculous argument in total. If we want to talk about the effects of those calories, it's a whole other ball game.0 -
I easily consume my days worth of calories in alchs and still eat a normal diet
Burn 300 calories and still losing weight0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.
I have addressed that point.
(1) Since a calorie is a calorie is not a claim that all foods are the same, the fact that different foods may serve different goals is not an argument against it. It's an intentional (and rude) misunderstanding of what a calorie is a calorie means.
(2) Macro mix depends on goals, and it would make no sense to change macros to get the largest possible calorie total (as that would not result in a sensible diet). Yes, high protein and low fat has a higher TEF than more normal macro distribution, but why is it sensible for me to eat based on that. If I follow a normal diet based on nutrition and goals, there will be no meaningful difference (as Kevin Hall demonstrates).
KH study demonstrates there are slight difference.. but difference non the less. I fully understand the what a calorie means. But I would disagree that ALL contain the same amount of energy. Because a gross calories is NOT the same as a NET calorie.
Right -- that means that foods are different.
It doesn't mean that calories are different.
In a perfect world inaccuracies in estimating calories will be removed.
Again, do you really think it makes sense to choose foods to maximize stated calories? If not, what practical application does any of this have?
Like I said before, this is going to be situation. For a noob, NO, I am not going to talk about TEF, timing of nutrients or supplements to address their goals. For someone who is bulking, with a knowledge base, our conversations tend to run much more deep, which can include the type of calories (i.e - carbs are king) and the timing of nutrient (protein/carbs 2 hours pre- or post- workout). Hell, if people are more elite, we would even discuss the type of sugar (dextrose vs fructose) post workout. Why, because foods contain calories, and calories have different impacts on a body, even outside of nutrition. Merely, this is a more broad view verse narrow view of a calorie.
Yes, I am concerned about those things too. I bought a course on ironman nutrition even -- I'm a geek for this stuff.
They have nothing to do with a calorie is a calorie.
I am interested in seeing if higher carbs help my training, but I know higher carbs won't affect my weight. If I were trying to gain muscle I'd likely increase protein, but not because of weight -- because of muscle.
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
If we want to be so narrowly focused that all we care about is the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water, I would say this is a ridiculous argument in total. If we want to talk about the effects of those calories, it's a whole other ball game.
Obviously diet matters, but ndj didn't say otherwise and to pretend to misunderstand him as doing so is offensive, IMO.
The ideal diet is going to vary based on goals. I'm trying to increase carbs (not a carb person) while others are anti carb, for example.0 -
They didn't increase your actual TDEE, but so long as almonds remain a relatively consistent figure in your diet, your TDEE estimation (which is always going to be an estimation outside of living in a metabolic ward) will be corrected for the undigested portion of almonds. You'll eventually have the same deficit or maintenance calories figured out. The whole way involveds weighing yourself with a scale to track weight lost versus predicted weight. The fact that you said why not ditch scales entirely, indicates you didn't follow, because your response was to say "well if the method works, why not throw out a piece of the method". That makes it obvious you don't follow.
Now, when you can actually follow that and explain how a diet is going to consistently, and perpetually screw up that method, without eventually being made up of a diet that constantly fluxes large quantities of what is eaten it in a way designed to break it, I'll gladly believe you actually followed what was said. Otherwise your real argument is actually semantics - you're worried about if calories and TDEE accurately represent actual in or out, but most people looking to lose weight really just care about calculating the difference between the two.
I've already openly stated that adjusting TDEE could be a way to account for error, even if the actual error isn't in the energy expenditure. For the sake of discussion, if we assume you adjusted your TDEE for any error in diet composition/TEF/absorbtion/Atwater estimates, etc and your claim is that adjusting that TDEE will cover the errors, then you would no longer have a need for the feedback loop. The X percent error would have already been accounted for, and close enough that the feedback loop wouldn't be needed any longer.
I could switch to different fitness apps that overestimate calories, then adjust my TDEE through the feedback loop until I find my energy balance. The problem with that is that if I alter my actual exercise times or intensities, I've just used a fix that only works when my exercise calories are X percent over my NEAT calories.
People can "cheat" the fix any way they want. For a person with a set schedule, eating habits, workout lengths and intensities, etc any of the "cheats" should work long term. I intentionally put my activity level on MFP lower than actual, to account for exercise logging having high estimations on my elliptical machine. It's quicker and easier than manually logging the exercise only after doing a calculation in attempts to have a closer to net activity calorie burn.
As far as if all the studies are undisputed by virtue of their age - fine. You have a great gish gallup. Before just citing a chart, how about you actually explain each diet and tell how each one will consistently cause a person to fail to predict their deficit over time. Otherwise, it isn't about you actually believing them any more valid, it is about you hoping to bury someone else with the burden of disproving them.
I'm not going to go to lengths to search studies that will be discounted regardless. The recent Hall study was upthread, and I just gave another much more recent example in response to lemurcat12. High fiber and low fat is far from any extreme diet. I've offered a much more lenient expectation to those that wish to dispute any of the studies I've cited. Show any peer reviewed scientific study that suggests that all of these factors combined amount to nothing. But I've yet to see one. Even when only studying one or possibly a couple of the factors, they come up with influence on the application of the CICO equation.
I also gave the real world example of my proteins alone being skewed by over 100 calories in my eating yesterday. Food label vs Atwater corrected would skew both the calories and my intake of proteins, and as such my macros. The error would account for an additional 25 grams of proteins I consumed that estimations don't show as existing if in fact Atwater corrected were absolute, which for the record I would question. I'm sure we could take the diaries of random people and their style of eating and find differing rates of error. I'd suspect that for many vegans, protein would skew towards being lower than stated/estimated, since many sources of their proteins don't actually contain as much NME.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »
They didn't increase your actual TDEE, but so long as almonds remain a relatively consistent figure in your diet, your TDEE estimation (which is always going to be an estimation outside of living in a metabolic ward) will be corrected for the undigested portion of almonds. You'll eventually have the same deficit or maintenance calories figured out. The whole way involveds weighing yourself with a scale to track weight lost versus predicted weight. The fact that you said why not ditch scales entirely, indicates you didn't follow, because your response was to say "well if the method works, why not throw out a piece of the method". That makes it obvious you don't follow.
Now, when you can actually follow that and explain how a diet is going to consistently, and perpetually screw up that method, without eventually being made up of a diet that constantly fluxes large quantities of what is eaten it in a way designed to break it, I'll gladly believe you actually followed what was said. Otherwise your real argument is actually semantics - you're worried about if calories and TDEE accurately represent actual in or out, but most people looking to lose weight really just care about calculating the difference between the two.
I've already openly stated that adjusting TDEE could be a way to account for error, even if the actual error isn't in the energy expenditure. For the sake of discussion, if we assume you adjusted your TDEE for any error in diet composition/TEF/absorbtion/Atwater estimates, etc and your claim is that adjusting that TDEE will cover the errors, then you would no longer have a need for the feedback loop. The X percent error would have already been accounted for, and close enough that the feedback loop wouldn't be needed any longer.
I could switch to different fitness apps that overestimate calories, then adjust my TDEE through the feedback loop until I find my energy balance. The problem with that is that if I alter my actual exercise times or intensities, I've just used a fix that only works when my exercise calories are X percent over my NEAT calories.
People can "cheat" the fix any way they want. For a person with a set schedule, eating habits, workout lengths and intensities, etc any of the "cheats" should work long term. I intentionally put my activity level on MFP lower than actual, to account for exercise logging having high estimations on my elliptical machine. It's quicker and easier than manually logging the exercise only after doing a calculation in attempts to have a closer to net activity calorie burn.
As far as if all the studies are undisputed by virtue of their age - fine. You have a great gish gallup. Before just citing a chart, how about you actually explain each diet and tell how each one will consistently cause a person to fail to predict their deficit over time. Otherwise, it isn't about you actually believing them any more valid, it is about you hoping to bury someone else with the burden of disproving them.
I'm not going to go to lengths to search studies that will be discounted regardless. The recent Hall study was upthread, and I just gave another much more recent example in response to lemurcat12. High fiber and low fat is far from any extreme diet. I've offered a much more lenient expectation to those that wish to dispute any of the studies I've cited. Show any peer reviewed scientific study that suggests that all of these factors combined amount to nothing. But I've yet to see one. Even when only studying one or possibly a couple of the factors, they come up with influence on the application of the CICO equation.
I also gave the real world example of my proteins alone being skewed by over 100 calories in my eating yesterday. Food label vs Atwater corrected would skew both the calories and my intake of proteins, and as such my macros. The error would account for an additional 25 grams of proteins I consumed that estimations don't show as existing if in fact Atwater corrected were absolute, which for the record I would question. I'm sure we could take the diaries of random people and their style of eating and find differing rates of error. I'd suspect that for many vegans, protein would skew towards being lower than stated/estimated, since many sources of their proteins don't actually contain as much NME.
The problem as I see it, is the debate is on the term calorie and how it's being measure, rather than the impacts or effected metabolic processes. The fact that many of these differences are small or negligible (i.e. - TEF) in terms of impact of weight loss, seems to be sufficient means to dismiss the small difference and/or results of the associated calories.
KH studied showed minute difference, which would suggest that our bodies would treat calories different. But since it doesn't have a huge impact on weight loss, it should be dismissed.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
Again, I think we all know that the calorie counts are imperfect. Not sure why that is claimed to mean a calorie is not a calorie.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
so you want a revised statement that they are "pretty much equal" and may be within .000005% of each other?0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.
great explanation and agree0 -
The time it takes you to reach a place by car is affected by relativity. But we don't use relativity when determining how long it'll take, because it doesn't matter for the purpose. If we were calculating things that get close to the speed of light on the other hand, it would be very much needed to take into account.
And so on and so on. "Simplifications" as robert calls them are put in place for a reason: general usability. You don't need to take relativity into account for your car because the difference it makes is small enough to not matter. You don't needd to think of all those small differences in energy absorption or things leading to slightly higher or lower expenditure or the fact that atwater factors are averages for all the different kinds of amino acids, fatty acids and carbs, because they even each other out in the long run, and it's the long run that matters, unless you actively try to create an error.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.robertw486 wrote: »Again, I think we all know that the calorie counts are imperfect. Not sure why that is claimed to mean a calorie is not a calorie.
One of these statements is not like the other. My context is clear, and twisting my context to suit your point of view does not remove my original context.
Since we are speaking of humans, my comparison is to how calories affect humans. If anyone has studies that reflect that the digestive system is 100%, and that calorie counts are 100%, then the energy within that calorie available to the human would be 100%. Until then, I accept that the energy available is not 100%.robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I've never claimed that people want to ignore the science, or don't understand the science. I assume they understand it unless they prove or openly state that they have ignored it. I've stated their method is their personal choice, and not expected anyone to justify why they make that choice. I think it's absurd that some appear to want me to limit my understanding of the science or my ability to express it, to suit how they wish to express it, and then for some reason justify why it matters to me.
As I've stated upthread, anyone here has the right to use whatever method they choose, for whatever reasons they choose. If they conclude that the differences are small enough to not matter to them they can do that. However they can't conclude that if the differences are small enough not to matter to them, that I must comply with the same thinking. The right to personal decisions isn't given to only some people, it's given to all people.
If anyone feels it's somehow disingenuous for me to make my own decisions, I'd suggest that they view themselves using the same standard, and ask why only one of the two decisions is disingenuous.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.
Not really a good comparison.
Because a gallon of gas is always a gallon of gas, but the ability to burn that can vary significantly. And they type of gas will have an impact on the motor. No different than carbs have a different impact that protein, and fats. Otherwise, you would be able to use fats a primary source of fuel during a endurance race.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.
This.
If I run 10 miles I burn less than 1000 calories. If someone 200 lbs runs the same distance, he will burn more than 1000 calories. That doesn't mean a calorie is not a calorie.
Same with the examples of calories not being absorbed.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.
Not really a good comparison.
Because a gallon of gas is always a gallon of gas, but the ability to burn that can vary significantly. And they type of gas will have an impact on the motor. No different than carbs have a different impact that protein, and fats. Otherwise, you would be able to use fats a primary source of fuel during a endurance race.
That has nothing to do with calories.
Yes, fats and carbs are different.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.
Not really a good comparison.
Because a gallon of gas is always a gallon of gas, but the ability to burn that can vary significantly. And they type of gas will have an impact on the motor. No different than carbs have a different impact that protein, and fats. Otherwise, you would be able to use fats a primary source of fuel during a endurance race.
The efficiency and speed of absorption and usage of your body doesn't change the contents of the fuel though. That's the message. According to the laws of physics every single calorie will always be accounted for in every single case. Either used to fuel your body, stored, wasted as heat or excreted unabsorbed for one reason or another. In no case will there be a time where energy just disappears ore provides more energy than it does.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.
Not really a good comparison.
Because a gallon of gas is always a gallon of gas, but the ability to burn that can vary significantly. And they type of gas will have an impact on the motor. No different than carbs have a different impact that protein, and fats. Otherwise, you would be able to use fats a primary source of fuel during a endurance race.
The efficiency and speed of absorption and usage of your body doesn't change the contents of the fuel though. That's the message. According to the laws of physics every single calorie will always be accounted for in every single case. Either used to fuel your body, stored, wasted as heat or excreted unabsorbed for one reason or another. In no case will there be a time where energy just disappears ore provides more energy than it does.
And if our body ran like a machine, then if you have a study that held calories constant, you would have the same exact results.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Sorry if I wasn't allowed to answer this question for myself. But the way I see it, the fact of the matter is in our culture we say a lot of things in everyday language that may not be "technically" correct. It's a societal issue.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The issue I see is that some of us use the terminology differently, regardless of what the technical meaning is. People I know IRL do speak of low nutrient dense food such as sugary foods as being "empty calories". I don't think it's that they believe the body can't utilize energy from it, but it's considered "empty" because apart from simply providing pure calories/macros, there's not much other nutritional benefit (in general). So from that standpoint, in common language it could be said that a "calorie is not a calorie", even though of course from a scientific perspective a calorie is a calorie.
^this
So you are using "calorie" incorrectly as a synonym for food. That's fine, but why would you disagree with others based on a known difference in what you mean by terms?
I am honestly curious about this and would love an answer.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.
Not really a good comparison.
Because a gallon of gas is always a gallon of gas, but the ability to burn that can vary significantly. And they type of gas will have an impact on the motor. No different than carbs have a different impact that protein, and fats. Otherwise, you would be able to use fats a primary source of fuel during a endurance race.
The efficiency and speed of absorption and usage of your body doesn't change the contents of the fuel though. That's the message. According to the laws of physics every single calorie will always be accounted for in every single case. Either used to fuel your body, stored, wasted as heat or excreted unabsorbed for one reason or another. In no case will there be a time where energy just disappears ore provides more energy than it does.
And our body ran like a machine, then if you have a study that held calories constant, you would have the same exact results.
Our bodies are a machine as far as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned.
Is a laptop not a machine because it can switch between using AC outlets and internally stored DC currents? Because it can use AC currents that are 120 Volts and 240 volts if it has an international charger?
If people want to argue that not all estimates of digestible calories for all foods are correct, that's absolutely true. Using it to say calories aren't equal is where I have to disagree because that isn't what equality means for units like a calorie.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.
Not really a good comparison.
Because a gallon of gas is always a gallon of gas, but the ability to burn that can vary significantly. And they type of gas will have an impact on the motor. No different than carbs have a different impact that protein, and fats. Otherwise, you would be able to use fats a primary source of fuel during a endurance race.
The efficiency and speed of absorption and usage of your body doesn't change the contents of the fuel though. That's the message. According to the laws of physics every single calorie will always be accounted for in every single case. Either used to fuel your body, stored, wasted as heat or excreted unabsorbed for one reason or another. In no case will there be a time where energy just disappears ore provides more energy than it does.
And our body ran like a machine, then if you have a study that held calories constant, you would have the same exact results.
Our bodies are a machine as far as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned.
Is a laptop not a machine because it can switch between using AC outlets and internally stored DC currents? Because it can use AC currents that are 120 Volts and 240 volts if it has an international charger?
If people want to argue that not all estimates of digestible calories for all foods are correct, that's absolutely true. Using it to say calories aren't equal is where I have to disagree because that isn't what equality means for units like a calorie.
I never debated the a calorie is a calorie, i debated that all calories, provide the body the same amount energy.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
No one is discrediting anything, and that's the part I think is so disingenuous.
People are saying it's not a big enough difference to worry about. Acknowledging that there is a difference but not to be worried about it is absolutely paying tribute to there being a difference.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.
Not really a good comparison.
Because a gallon of gas is always a gallon of gas, but the ability to burn that can vary significantly. And they type of gas will have an impact on the motor. No different than carbs have a different impact that protein, and fats. Otherwise, you would be able to use fats a primary source of fuel during a endurance race.
The efficiency and speed of absorption and usage of your body doesn't change the contents of the fuel though. That's the message. According to the laws of physics every single calorie will always be accounted for in every single case. Either used to fuel your body, stored, wasted as heat or excreted unabsorbed for one reason or another. In no case will there be a time where energy just disappears ore provides more energy than it does.
And our body ran like a machine, then if you have a study that held calories constant, you would have the same exact results.
Our bodies are a machine as far as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned.
Is a laptop not a machine because it can switch between using AC outlets and internally stored DC currents? Because it can use AC currents that are 120 Volts and 240 volts if it has an international charger?
If people want to argue that not all estimates of digestible calories for all foods are correct, that's absolutely true. Using it to say calories aren't equal is where I have to disagree because that isn't what equality means for units like a calorie.
I never debated the a calorie is a calorie, i debated that all calories, provide the body the same amount energy.
Except now we have the problem do you mean energy colloquially, or do you mean actual energy?
Honestly, in the aerobics with high carb versus fat example you're using, scientifically speaking your argument is really more that not all calories provide the power. Which is true. A race car can't perform on low octane fuel, but that doesn't mean low octane fuel that has 200 calories worth of combustible energy under perfect energy is not equal in energy to high octane fuel with 200 calories worth of combustible energy under perfect energy conditions. Nor does it mean the calorie content of either is not equally simply because the car cannot equally combust the two.0 -
we seem to have gone off the rails here ...but not sure how we are arguing that one calorie of carrot does not provide the same amount of energy as one calorie of oreo...
they both provide one unit of energy that is then taken into your body and broken down to use for energy...I don't see how the breaking down process would change the fact that you still get one unit of energy whether it is an oreo or a carrot....0 -
we seem to have gone off the rails here ...but not sure how we are arguing that one calorie of carrot does not provide the same amount of energy as one calorie of oreo...
they both provide one unit of energy that is then taken into your body and broken down to use for energy...I don't see how the breaking down process would change the fact that you still get one unit of energy whether it is an oreo or a carrot....
Well in some cases the energy that can be taken in is off from what is stated on nutrition labels seems to be at least on argument in the thread. Almonds and tree nuts being the common tricksters. Probably to do with the digestibility of the fat in them.0 -
Since this discussion seems to have gone into lots of other things (like what's a good fuel for racing or how accurately we can estimate calories in), here's a post from another current thread that I think exemplifies what OP was arguing against:
"Calories are not the most important thing when your trying to lose weight. Not all calories are created equal, you should always eat nutrient dense foods."
Curious if those now arguing that a calorie is not a calorie would agree with that claim.
(I happen to agree that eating a nutrient rich DIET is a good thing, although less nutrient rich foods can be part of such a diet, but would also say that obviously calories are the important thing when trying to lose weight. If trying to meet other goals, they would not be the only important thing.)0 -
we seem to have gone off the rails here ...but not sure how we are arguing that one calorie of carrot does not provide the same amount of energy as one calorie of oreo...
they both provide one unit of energy that is then taken into your body and broken down to use for energy...I don't see how the breaking down process would change the fact that you still get one unit of energy whether it is an oreo or a carrot....
Well in some cases the energy that can be taken in is off from what is stated on nutrition labels seems to be at least on argument in the thread. Almonds and tree nuts being the common tricksters. Probably to do with the digestibility of the fat in them.
right, but the fact that label is wrong does not change that you get one unit of energy from each, correct?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions