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 ....
Options
Replies
-
I saw an episode of Dr oz about negative calories. They did a study and showed they do exist but now how we think.
If you eat 40 calories worth of celery, it winds up actually being 34 because it takes more to burn. These aren't exact numbers. Just an example of what the study showed. So if you have 1500 calories a day and you eat mostly "negative calorie" foods, you will actually be consuming less and may lose weigh faster then if you at 1500 calories of other foods.
It was quite interesting0 -
If someone ate 1500 calories a day of "negative calorie foods" (which I think is nonsense) they would be severely malnourished...phyllisdi711 wrote: »I saw an episode of Dr oz about negative calories. They did a study and showed they do exist but now how we think.
If you eat 40 calories worth of celery, it winds up actually being 34 because it takes more to burn. These aren't exact numbers. Just an example of what the study showed. So if you have 1500 calories a day and you eat mostly "negative calorie" foods, you will actually be consuming less and may lose weigh faster then if you at 1500 calories of other foods.
It was quite interesting
0 -
phyllisdi711 wrote: »I saw an episode of Dr oz about negative calories. They did a study and showed they do exist but now how we think.
If you eat 40 calories worth of celery, it winds up actually being 34 because it takes more to burn. These aren't exact numbers. Just an example of what the study showed. So if you have 1500 calories a day and you eat mostly "negative calorie" foods, you will actually be consuming less and may lose weigh faster then if you at 1500 calories of other foods.
It was quite interesting
Please review the discussion on tef up thread and studies posted.
There are no negative calorie foods and dr oz is a horrible source to be using/citing0 -
Woah ok
Just stating that I saw a study on his show one day. I'm not a dr. I'm not a nutritional guru of any sort. Just thought it seemed interesting.0 -
phyllisdi711 wrote: »I saw an episode of Dr oz about negative calories. They did a study and showed they do exist but now how we think.
If you eat 40 calories worth of celery, it winds up actually being 34 because it takes more to burn. These aren't exact numbers. Just an example of what the study showed. So if you have 1500 calories a day and you eat mostly "negative calorie" foods, you will actually be consuming less and may lose weigh faster then if you at 1500 calories of other foods.
It was quite interesting
That is the TEF. It has absolutely nothing to do with "negative calories". All foods take some energy to digest.0 -
phyllisdi711 wrote: »I saw an episode of Dr oz about negative calories. They did a study and showed they do exist but now how we think.
If you eat 40 calories worth of celery, it winds up actually being 34 because it takes more to burn. These aren't exact numbers. Just an example of what the study showed. So if you have 1500 calories a day and you eat mostly "negative calorie" foods, you will actually be consuming less and may lose weigh faster then if you at 1500 calories of other foods.
It was quite interesting
This would be like saying I have negative weight if I found out my scale had been broken and I weighed 6 pounds less than I thought.
Some foods are harder to digest, or have higher TEF than others. The impact is small, and as others mentioned, you're far more likely to miss weight to get wrong numbers, and filling up on negative calorie food is going to cause weight loss via fullness faster than by discrepancies.0 -
The idea here seems to be that 1500 calories is equally filling no matter what the source.
So if it has a higher TEF you get to eat more/be more satisfied.
But since 1500 calories is going to vary in how satisfying it is, in reality, why not just pick the foods that are satisfying. If you aren't losing as you should, go to 1400.
I think the desire to find tricks to cheat the system (obsessing about TEF or the like) is really pointless -- majoring in the minors again. The bigger issue is how do you like to eat. I could have the highest possible TEF if I ate 85% protein and only essential fats or some such, but I'd have a stupid, unhealthy, and unsustainable diet. Increasing protein beyond 30% or so (whatever the grams give you) UNLESS it's for personal satiety or simply because you like the foods you are choosing doesn't make much sense, and doing so because higher TEF doesn't change that.
For the record, this is aimed at Dr. Oz and all the diet gurus who argue that focusing on things like TEF matter, not the most recent poster who referenced Dr. Oz.
(What people mean by negative calorie foods is normally not TEF but the weird idea that foods like celery burn more calories being digested than they contain.)0 -
phyllisdi711 wrote: »Woah ok
Just stating that I saw a study on his show one day. I'm not a dr. I'm not a nutritional guru of any sort. Just thought it seemed interesting.
this is why you should not get any nutritional information from Dr. Oz….0 -
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.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The idea here seems to be that 1500 calories is equally filling no matter what the source.
So if it has a higher TEF you get to eat more/be more satisfied.
But since 1500 calories is going to vary in how satisfying it is, in reality, why not just pick the foods that are satisfying. If you aren't losing as you should, go to 1400.
I think the desire to find tricks to cheat the system (obsessing about TEF or the like) is really pointless -- majoring in the minors again. The bigger issue is how do you like to eat. I could have the highest possible TEF if I ate 85% protein and only essential fats or some such, but I'd have a stupid, unhealthy, and unsustainable diet. Increasing protein beyond 30% or so (whatever the grams give you) UNLESS it's for personal satiety or simply because you like the foods you are choosing doesn't make much sense, and doing so because higher TEF doesn't change that.
For the record, this is aimed at Dr. Oz and all the diet gurus who argue that focusing on things like TEF matter, not the most recent poster who referenced Dr. Oz.
(What people mean by negative calorie foods is normally not TEF but the weird idea that foods like celery burn more calories being digested than they contain.)
Well said.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.
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 952 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions