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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
A quick refresher on a calorie is a calorie ....
Replies
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
No, because the assumption is that you are not an idiot and will therefore behave reasonably.
If your diet is not allowing you to gain, you will eat more.
Whether or not your estimate of the calories you consume is 100% correct or not (and it's not, no one's is, although some do better than others), and whether or not your estimate of the calories you burn is correct or not, you always can adjust based on results.
People seem to think there's some victory in logging more calories than they actually access, so increasing the number of foods that likely have overstated calories is somehow inherently beneficial.
That seems weird to me.
The problem with this statement is fiber is overlooked and if you do eat "healthy" you wouldn't know what was absorbed and not, and that can or can not be a huge problem depending on goals, and also goes against the calorie being a calorie ideology.
Almonds aren't about the fiber, but thanks for assuming the science matches your view instead of bothering to inform your view based on the science.
Who stated almonds were about the fiber. I was just sharing how you won't get those 160 calories promised because of the fiber in the almond.
You did. You used it as evidence that fiber matters. That or you're just making disjoint statements - "fiber is important because it lowers calories", "almonds have fiber", "almonds have fewer digested calories", "STRAWMAN, I NEVER CLAIMED FIBER IN ALMONDS LOWERS CALORIES".
I used evidence that a calorie is not a calorie because of different variables, one being fiber. Is it true? if so then it contradicts this whole thread.
fiber does not change the energy output and it does not change phsyics....
strange that you think that...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
No, because the assumption is that you are not an idiot and will therefore behave reasonably.
If your diet is not allowing you to gain, you will eat more.
Whether or not your estimate of the calories you consume is 100% correct or not (and it's not, no one's is, although some do better than others), and whether or not your estimate of the calories you burn is correct or not, you always can adjust based on results.
People seem to think there's some victory in logging more calories than they actually access, so increasing the number of foods that likely have overstated calories is somehow inherently beneficial.
That seems weird to me.
The problem with this statement is fiber is overlooked and if you do eat "healthy" you wouldn't know what was absorbed and not, and that can or can not be a huge problem depending on goals, and also goes against the calorie being a calorie ideology.
Almonds aren't about the fiber, but thanks for assuming the science matches your view instead of bothering to inform your view based on the science.
Who stated almonds were about the fiber. I was just sharing how you won't get those 160 calories promised because of the fiber in the almond.
You did. You used it as evidence that fiber matters. That or you're just making disjoint statements - "fiber is important because it lowers calories", "almonds have fiber", "almonds have fewer digested calories", "STRAWMAN, I NEVER CLAIMED FIBER IN ALMONDS LOWERS CALORIES".
I used evidence that a calorie is not a calorie because of different variables, one being fiber. Is it true? if so then it contradicts this whole thread.
A lot of things have calories a human being can't use. Most food labels have factors to correct for the differences in digestible content. Some are wrong. You're retreading old ground.
Your argument would be just as valid as saying calories aren't equal because humans can't digest gasoline calories.0 -
This thread has gone nuts!
Here's an effort to clarify the argument.
What I see as a point for stating "a calorie is a calorie" is that many people--weird as it may seem to some of us more naive folks--seem to genuinely believe that the source of a calorie makes a difference as to whether you can gain weight from it or not, and how "fattening" it is. I posted some examples of this from another thread yesterday.
For example, many will insist that calories from cheese lead to more weight gain (and definite weight gain, in any amount, even if you are in a deficit), whereas calories from fruit can't cause weight gain. The same people (and many fraudulent guru types) will then insist that calories do not matter, and instead other things (eating "clean" or eating paleo or raw vegan or some other diet) matter for weight loss and that if you follow the diet rules you can eat many more calories and not gain weight.
That is what I want to attack.
What "a calorie is a calorie" does not mean is that all foods are identical. Of course that's not so, and "a calorie" is not being used as a synonym for "a food."
Also, what is not meant is that all labels and the USDA information is 100% accurate and thus 100 calories of almonds always have 100 calories that can be used by the body. Estimates are imperfect and more imperfect with some foods than others.
What we eat also affects calories out in some ways. First, TEF (although not significant if one is eating a normal diet). Second, if one has more energy/feels better.
What I find interesting is whether there's any other significant effect whereby CO changes due to the types of foods eaten (i.e., the arguments that higher carb/lower fat or the reverse makes a difference). I suspect that even if there is it may vary from person to person or be sufficiently small that other considerations (like whether I am happy eating a particular diet) will be far more significant.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
why are you trying to gain .25 pounds per month? who does that/???
Why do you care what his goals are should be the real question, unless he blatantly asks you for help.
It's a problematic goal, because if you try to gain at such a small rate you probably end up increasing the metabolism and not gaining at all.
Same reason trying to lose at such a slow rate would be tough.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
For medical reasons it would be best that I avoid gaining more than a pound of fat over the next several months, while at the same time I'd like to increase my LBM.ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
why are you trying to gain .25 pounds per month? who does that/???
Do you think those 30 cals is going to add a significant amount of LBM? or fat?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Right, so for a quarter of a pound that's in the range of 25-30 calories a day.
A pound is roughly 3500 calories, so for a 30 day month, you're looking at about 110-120 calories a day.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't see why it would not. To gain .25 lb a month, I thought in theory that would translate to about a 25 calorie surplus a day.
No, it would not...ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
I was thinking of a pound a month. Sorry.
I have a hard time imagining anyone controlling TDEE enough to account for .25 lbs a month of consistent increase.
From what I remember you really can't. It would go under in the sea of ups and downs in expenditure, and the thing I said above.
This is what I wonder as well.lemurcat12 wrote: »What I find interesting is whether there's any other significant effect whereby CO changes due to the types of foods eaten (i.e., the arguments that higher carb/lower fat or the reverse makes a difference). I suspect that even if there is it may vary from person to person or be sufficiently small that other considerations (like whether I am happy eating a particular diet) will be far more significant.
0 -
I think I'm going to start keeping a copypasta handy myself soon.
In each and every case for every person living in this universe, every calorie you put into your body has to be accounted for. No calorie can ever disappear without trace nor appear out of nothing.
They all either: get used for fueling your body, wasted as heat, stored as lbm, fat or glycogen, excreted unabsorbed.
In any timeframe t0 to t1, the difference in energy inside your body between t0 and t1 plus the amount of energy that left your body via the aforementioned ways will ALWAYS equal the amount of energy that was introduced to your body during that timeframe. This is known as CICO.
Is that too long?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Right, so for a quarter of a pound that's in the range of 25-30 calories a day.
A pound is roughly 3500 calories, so for a 30 day month, you're looking at about 110-120 calories a day.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't see why it would not. To gain .25 lb a month, I thought in theory that would translate to about a 25 calorie surplus a day.
No, it would not...ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
I was thinking of a pound a month. Sorry.
I have a hard time imagining anyone controlling TDEE enough to account for .25 lbs a month of consistent increase.
From what I remember you really can't. It would go under in the sea of ups and downs in expenditure, and the thing I said above.
Yeah, this is my understanding too, and I recall Evgeni posting support for it also.
Edit: and he's here. Excellent.0 -
I don't know for sure, but based on my medical condition I think that gaining as little as a pound of fat may cause a lot of harm. If I can get at least 20 of those 30 calories to go into increasing LBM, over the course of a few months it could make a noticeable change depending on where it's gained. In the past I gained about 3 lbs of LBM in my upper body and family members thought that was "a lot" of muscle gained based on how it affected my physique.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For medical reasons it would be best that I avoid gaining more than a pound of fat over the next several months, while at the same time I'd like to increase my LBM.ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
why are you trying to gain .25 pounds per month? who does that/???
Do you think those 30 cals is going to add a significant amount of LBM? or fat?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't see why it would not. To gain .25 lb a month, I thought in theory that would translate to about a 25 calorie surplus a day.
No, it would not...ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
There is too much variation IMO to make a 25 calorie a day surplus significant...0 -
stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
Yep, we had that a while back.
Let's say that one is at maintenance - add 30 cals and ... nothing will happen.
Why? Because the body up regulates slight metabolic activity, NEAT, etc.
Maintenance isn't a single point - it's a spread of about 100 to 200 cals. Eat anywhere in between and, boom, no change. But let's say you add those 30 cals right at the edge of the spread. And you go up a whole .25 lb a month.
There is no medical situation that counter-indicates a gain of a lb a month that isn't better served by losing 2 a week. If you are not supposed to gain weight at all shouldn't you be losing weight?
Get to a manageable weight, then bulk - otherwise you are spinning your wheels.0 -
Metabolic: Relating to metabolism, the whole range of biochemical processes that occur within us (or any living organism). Metabolism consists of anabolism (the buildup of substances) and catabolism (the breakdown of substances).
Insoluble fiber slows down the DIGESTION, not the metabolic rate. If you can't even get that right how can any of us trust any of your insights or opinions...
Proof me wrong. If I am wrong. then fine but proof would be great.
The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18074
I stated metabolic rate. Pretty sure I used it right. If wrong. it still does what it does, the fiber.
Digestion and metabolism are two different processes...
Digestion refers to how the body processes food in the GI tract and eliminates food waste via the intestines. Metabolism refers to how the cells utilize the energy we have absorbed from food during digestion.0 -
The crazy thing is that I'm at a BMI of 19 with a waist size of 27 inches (and have visible abs), so I shouldn't need to lose weight.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
Yep, we had that a while back.
Let's say that one is at maintenance - add 30 cals and ... nothing will happen.
Why? Because the body up regulates slight metabolic activity, NEAT, etc.
Maintenance isn't a single point - it's a spread of about 100 to 200 cals. Eat anywhere in between and, boom, no change. But let's say you add those 30 cals right at the edge of the spread. And you go up a whole .25 lb a month.
There is no medical situation that counter-indicates a gain of a lb a month that isn't better served by losing 2 a week. If you are not supposed to gain weight at all shouldn't you be losing weight?
Get to a manageable weight, then bulk - otherwise you are spinning your wheels.0 -
Metabolic: Relating to metabolism, the whole range of biochemical processes that occur within us (or any living organism). Metabolism consists of anabolism (the buildup of substances) and catabolism (the breakdown of substances).
Insoluble fiber slows down the DIGESTION, not the metabolic rate. If you can't even get that right how can any of us trust any of your insights or opinions...
Proof me wrong. If I am wrong. then fine but proof would be great.
The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18074
I stated metabolic rate. Pretty sure I used it right. If wrong. it still does what it does, the fiber.
Digestion and metabolism are two different processes...
Digestion refers to how the body processes food in the GI tract and eliminates food waste via the intestines. Metabolism refers to how the cells utilize the energy we have absorbed from food during digestion.
This has become more of a "grammar nazi" thing, so small and insignificant. I took this from the definition. "The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy." And it works. I'm pretty sure digestion is breaking down food!
It is called semantics.
And using metabolism for what would better be described by digestion doesn't inspire confidence in your knowledge.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't know for sure, but based on my medical condition I think that gaining as little as a pound of fat may cause a lot of harm. If I can get at least 20 of those 30 calories to go into increasing LBM, over the course of a few months it could make a noticeable change depending on where it's gained. In the past I gained about 3 lbs of LBM in my upper body and family members thought that was "a lot" of muscle gained based on how it affected my physique.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For medical reasons it would be best that I avoid gaining more than a pound of fat over the next several months, while at the same time I'd like to increase my LBM.ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
why are you trying to gain .25 pounds per month? who does that/???
Do you think those 30 cals is going to add a significant amount of LBM? or fat?
what is this medical condition?
and a gain of .25 a month and trying to gain any appreciable LBM is the poster child for spinning your wheels...
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
The crazy thing is that I'm at a BMI of 19 with a waist size of 27 inches (and have visible abs), so I shouldn't need to lose weight.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
Yep, we had that a while back.
Let's say that one is at maintenance - add 30 cals and ... nothing will happen.
Why? Because the body up regulates slight metabolic activity, NEAT, etc.
Maintenance isn't a single point - it's a spread of about 100 to 200 cals. Eat anywhere in between and, boom, no change. But let's say you add those 30 cals right at the edge of the spread. And you go up a whole .25 lb a month.
There is no medical situation that counter-indicates a gain of a lb a month that isn't better served by losing 2 a week. If you are not supposed to gain weight at all shouldn't you be losing weight?
Get to a manageable weight, then bulk - otherwise you are spinning your wheels.
Ok, I don't know your medical condition and would suggest that you actively discuss this with your physician. If you have a BMI of 19 what makes you think that your condition will worsen with a 1 lb gain/month?
Please feel free to NOT answer if you feel that you would rather that type of personal info remain private.
If you do wish to gain LBM - at some point you will need a bit of an increase in calories - and any gain will result at least in a little fat gain (which you can then lose, on a cut). If you feel that you do not want to see a lot of fat, then yes, work on shorter cycles of gain and loss (but anything shorter than 4 weeks give your body less time to ramp up synthesis - you basically lose 3-5 days each time you cycle up).
Edit: the point in the discussion is that 30 cals a day is not the level of accuracy you can expect from calorie counting. Each day is usually accurate within say 50-100 based on true density of food, absorption, TEF, sleep, movement, etc. Think of it as general guidance rather than absolute measures.0 -
Metabolic: Relating to metabolism, the whole range of biochemical processes that occur within us (or any living organism). Metabolism consists of anabolism (the buildup of substances) and catabolism (the breakdown of substances).
Insoluble fiber slows down the DIGESTION, not the metabolic rate. If you can't even get that right how can any of us trust any of your insights or opinions...
Proof me wrong. If I am wrong. then fine but proof would be great.
The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18074
I stated metabolic rate. Pretty sure I used it right. If wrong. it still does what it does, the fiber.
Digestion and metabolism are two different processes...
Digestion refers to how the body processes food in the GI tract and eliminates food waste via the intestines. Metabolism refers to how the cells utilize the energy we have absorbed from food during digestion.
This has become more of a "grammar nazi" thing, so small and insignificant. I took this from the definition. "The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy." And it works. I'm pretty sure digestion is breaking down food!
It is called semantics.
And using metabolism for what would better be described by digestion doesn't inspire confidence in your knowledge.
Insufficient semantics. still doesn't take away from what fiber does.0 -
Metabolic: Relating to metabolism, the whole range of biochemical processes that occur within us (or any living organism). Metabolism consists of anabolism (the buildup of substances) and catabolism (the breakdown of substances).
Insoluble fiber slows down the DIGESTION, not the metabolic rate. If you can't even get that right how can any of us trust any of your insights or opinions...
Proof me wrong. If I am wrong. then fine but proof would be great.
The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18074
I stated metabolic rate. Pretty sure I used it right. If wrong. it still does what it does, the fiber.
Digestion and metabolism are two different processes...
Digestion refers to how the body processes food in the GI tract and eliminates food waste via the intestines. Metabolism refers to how the cells utilize the energy we have absorbed from food during digestion.
This has become more of a "grammar nazi" thing, so small and insignificant. I took this from the definition. "The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy." And it works. I'm pretty sure digestion is breaking down food!
You are majoring in the minor my friend...0 -
Metabolic: Relating to metabolism, the whole range of biochemical processes that occur within us (or any living organism). Metabolism consists of anabolism (the buildup of substances) and catabolism (the breakdown of substances).
Insoluble fiber slows down the DIGESTION, not the metabolic rate. If you can't even get that right how can any of us trust any of your insights or opinions...
Proof me wrong. If I am wrong. then fine but proof would be great.
The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18074
I stated metabolic rate. Pretty sure I used it right. If wrong. it still does what it does, the fiber.
Digestion and metabolism are two different processes...
Digestion refers to how the body processes food in the GI tract and eliminates food waste via the intestines. Metabolism refers to how the cells utilize the energy we have absorbed from food during digestion.
This has become more of a "grammar nazi" thing, so small and insignificant. I took this from the definition. "The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy." And it works. I'm pretty sure digestion is breaking down food!
The problem is they have overlapping areas but make no mistake they are two different processes.0 -
Metabolic: Relating to metabolism, the whole range of biochemical processes that occur within us (or any living organism). Metabolism consists of anabolism (the buildup of substances) and catabolism (the breakdown of substances).
Insoluble fiber slows down the DIGESTION, not the metabolic rate. If you can't even get that right how can any of us trust any of your insights or opinions...
Proof me wrong. If I am wrong. then fine but proof would be great.
The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18074
I stated metabolic rate. Pretty sure I used it right. If wrong. it still does what it does, the fiber.
Digestion and metabolism are two different processes...
Digestion refers to how the body processes food in the GI tract and eliminates food waste via the intestines. Metabolism refers to how the cells utilize the energy we have absorbed from food during digestion.
This has become more of a "grammar nazi" thing, so small and insignificant. I took this from the definition. "The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy." And it works. I'm pretty sure digestion is breaking down food!
You are majoring in the minor my friend...
???
0 -
Metabolic: Relating to metabolism, the whole range of biochemical processes that occur within us (or any living organism). Metabolism consists of anabolism (the buildup of substances) and catabolism (the breakdown of substances).
Insoluble fiber slows down the DIGESTION, not the metabolic rate. If you can't even get that right how can any of us trust any of your insights or opinions...
Proof me wrong. If I am wrong. then fine but proof would be great.
The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18074
I stated metabolic rate. Pretty sure I used it right. If wrong. it still does what it does, the fiber.
Digestion and metabolism are two different processes...
Digestion refers to how the body processes food in the GI tract and eliminates food waste via the intestines. Metabolism refers to how the cells utilize the energy we have absorbed from food during digestion.
This has become more of a "grammar nazi" thing, so small and insignificant. I took this from the definition. "The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy." And it works. I'm pretty sure digestion is breaking down food!
It is called semantics.
And using metabolism for what would better be described by digestion doesn't inspire confidence in your knowledge.
Insufficient semantics. still doesn't take away from what fiber does.
And it also does not change what fiber does not do, speed up the metabolism...0 -
all calories are metabolised equally?0
-
Metabolic: Relating to metabolism, the whole range of biochemical processes that occur within us (or any living organism). Metabolism consists of anabolism (the buildup of substances) and catabolism (the breakdown of substances).
Insoluble fiber slows down the DIGESTION, not the metabolic rate. If you can't even get that right how can any of us trust any of your insights or opinions...
Proof me wrong. If I am wrong. then fine but proof would be great.
The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy.
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=18074
I stated metabolic rate. Pretty sure I used it right. If wrong. it still does what it does, the fiber.
Digestion and metabolism are two different processes...
Digestion refers to how the body processes food in the GI tract and eliminates food waste via the intestines. Metabolism refers to how the cells utilize the energy we have absorbed from food during digestion.
This has become more of a "grammar nazi" thing, so small and insignificant. I took this from the definition. "The term "metabolic" is often used to refer specifically to the breakdown of food and its transformation into energy." And it works. I'm pretty sure digestion is breaking down food!
It is called semantics.
And using metabolism for what would better be described by digestion doesn't inspire confidence in your knowledge.
Insufficient semantics. still doesn't take away from what fiber does.
Yes, yours were. Thanks for acknowledging that.0 -
Which is a product of analysis paralysis...ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't know for sure, but based on my medical condition I think that gaining as little as a pound of fat may cause a lot of harm. If I can get at least 20 of those 30 calories to go into increasing LBM, over the course of a few months it could make a noticeable change depending on where it's gained. In the past I gained about 3 lbs of LBM in my upper body and family members thought that was "a lot" of muscle gained based on how it affected my physique.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For medical reasons it would be best that I avoid gaining more than a pound of fat over the next several months, while at the same time I'd like to increase my LBM.ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
why are you trying to gain .25 pounds per month? who does that/???
Do you think those 30 cals is going to add a significant amount of LBM? or fat?
what is this medical condition?
and a gain of .25 a month and trying to gain any appreciable LBM is the poster child for spinning your wheels...
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't know for sure, but based on my medical condition I think that gaining as little as a pound of fat may cause a lot of harm. If I can get at least 20 of those 30 calories to go into increasing LBM, over the course of a few months it could make a noticeable change depending on where it's gained. In the past I gained about 3 lbs of LBM in my upper body and family members thought that was "a lot" of muscle gained based on how it affected my physique.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
For medical reasons it would be best that I avoid gaining more than a pound of fat over the next several months, while at the same time I'd like to increase my LBM.ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
why are you trying to gain .25 pounds per month? who does that/???
Do you think those 30 cals is going to add a significant amount of LBM? or fat?
what is this medical condition?
and a gain of .25 a month and trying to gain any appreciable LBM is the poster child for spinning your wheels...
Pre-diabetesEvgeniZyntx wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
The crazy thing is that I'm at a BMI of 19 with a waist size of 27 inches (and have visible abs), so I shouldn't need to lose weight.EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
Yep, we had that a while back.
Let's say that one is at maintenance - add 30 cals and ... nothing will happen.
Why? Because the body up regulates slight metabolic activity, NEAT, etc.
Maintenance isn't a single point - it's a spread of about 100 to 200 cals. Eat anywhere in between and, boom, no change. But let's say you add those 30 cals right at the edge of the spread. And you go up a whole .25 lb a month.
There is no medical situation that counter-indicates a gain of a lb a month that isn't better served by losing 2 a week. If you are not supposed to gain weight at all shouldn't you be losing weight?
Get to a manageable weight, then bulk - otherwise you are spinning your wheels.
Ok, I don't know your medical condition and would suggest that you actively discuss this with your physician. If you have a BMI of 19 what makes you think that your condition will worsen with a 1 lb gain/month?
Please feel free to NOT answer if you feel that you would rather that type of personal info remain private.
If you do wish to gain LBM - at some point you will need a bit of an increase in calories - and any gain will result at least in a little fat gain (which you can then lose, on a cut). If you feel that you do not want to see a lot of fat, then yes, work on shorter cycles of gain and loss (but anything shorter than 4 weeks give your body less time to ramp up synthesis - you basically lose 3-5 days each time you cycle up).
Edit: the point in the discussion is that 30 cals a day is not the level of accuracy you can expect from calorie counting. Each day is usually accurate within say 50-100 based on true density of food, absorption, TEF, sleep, movement, etc. Think of it as general guidance rather than absolute measures.
I understand that, but since in this thread we are discussing extracting calories from food on a miniscule level, it makes me wonder if I can tweak my diet to just barely overcompensate for the effects of increased NEAT.
0 -
all calories are metabolised equally?
No, but it basically does not matter in a generally nutritious diet with sufficient variety.
If you focus on calorie counting to lose weight, you do not need to focus on eating specific calories for weight loss.
One should focus on meeting nutritional goals of fat, proteins and micronutrients but it doesn't mean you can't have some of whatever you like along the way.
Bacon or green smoothie calories will not hinder or improve your weight loss by themselves. Overall diet does affect satiety, mood, etc...0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Istevencloser wrote: »"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
I think @EvgeniZyntx once showed that such a small surplus is unlikely to be realizable as the body would counteract it to become maintenance.
Yep, we had that a while back.
Let's say that one is at maintenance - add 30 cals and ... nothing will happen.
Why? Because the body up regulates slight metabolic activity, NEAT, etc.
Maintenance isn't a single point - it's a spread of about 100 to 200 cals. Eat anywhere in between and, boom, no change. But let's say you add those 30 cals right at the edge of the spread. And you go up a whole .25 lb a month.
There is no medical situation that counter-indicates a gain of a lb a month that isn't better served by losing 2 a week. If you are not supposed to gain weight at all shouldn't you be losing weight?
Get to a manageable weight, then bulk - otherwise you are spinning your wheels.
are you really talking about set points/homeostasis on "a calorie is a calorie" thread?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.4K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions