Skip to content
  • Register
    • 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 ....

    24567…20

    Replies

    • Posts: 9,150 Member
      gmallan wrote: »
      This is a really interesting article on why the calorie isn't a very good unit of measurement. A calorie is still a calorie but the way our body uses energy from different sources varies greatly which is why 1000 calories of Oreos won't have the same weight loss effect as 1000 calories of chicken breast.

      http://mosaicscience.com/story/why-calorie-broken

      giphy.gif
    • Posts: 679 Member
      rpachigo wrote: »
      But what about negative calories? I know they exist. I read it somewhere and it was confirmed :/

      Negative calories are not a real thing.
      What they mean is "Something that you eat and it takes more cals to process and get rid of than the item has in it".
      The only real one is Water... you use more energy to get rid of it than you get out of it.
      The other things people claim have negative cals (celery, grapefruit, lemon, lime, apple, lettuce, broccoli, and cabbage)... while close, never get into the actual "negative" range. But they are all low cal items, that will keep you feeling full, and will burn most of the cals you get from them to process them.

      Paper... paper might fall into negative range.

      Protein is the hardest thing to digest... and it has more cals than we burn to process it.
    • Posts: 412 Member
      edited March 2016
      stevencloser wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      Calories and carbs are still nutrition. Maybe not the nutrition you need at the time but the same can happen when you eat veggies but actually need fat and protein for your calories instead.

      Trinty didn't write about carbs, they wrote about sugary drinks. Nutrition is about calories necessary for health and growth, it has a more complex meaning than mere unit of heat energy. Sugar yes has calories, but it is not necessary/desirable for health and growth WHEN LOSING WEIGHT.

      We can sit and argue semantics all day long (blah blah blah sugar is a short-chain carbohydrate etc etc). But i have the feeling that you have the ability to interpret their message more generously, or are you also someone who just likes to nit-pic and argue w/ people?
    • Posts: 28,055 Member
      rpachigo wrote: »
      But what about negative calories? I know they exist. I read it somewhere and it was confirmed :/
      lemurcat12 wrote: »
      You should only eat them when in starvation mode.

      Awesome!
    • Posts: 28,055 Member
      janejellyroll wrote: »
      So you're saying my diet should be 100% candy?

      As long as it's vegan!
    • Posts: 15,317 Member
      Mapalicious wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      Trinty didn't write about carbs, they wrote about sugary drinks. Nutrition is about calories necessary for health and growth, it has a more complex meaning than mere unit of heat energy. Sugar is a unit of heat energy, but not necessary/desirable for health and growth WHEN LOSING WEIGHT.

      We can sit and argue semantics all day long. But i have the feeling that you have the ability to interpret their message more generously, or are you also someone who just likes to nit-pic and argue w/ people?

      But you did the exact same thing
    • Posts: 8,911 Member
      Mapalicious wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      Can you stretch your imagination to interpret their message more generously, or are you also someone who just likes to nit-pic and argue w/ people?

      I absolutely understand what is meant, I just don't get why it is always that stigma of how this is bad, empty, wasted or whatever other words they choose for it. If I eat 1000 calories in mixed veggies that is "wasted" just as much because it's probably going to be very low in both protein and fat and also make me so full I'll be unable to actually eat the things that let me hit my fat, protein and calorie goals.
    • Posts: 412 Member
      stevencloser wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      I absolutely understand what is meant, I just don't get why it is always that stigma of how this is bad, empty, wasted or whatever other words they choose for it. If I eat 1000 calories in mixed veggies that is "wasted" just as much because it's probably going to be very low in both protein and fat and also make me so full I'll be unable to actually eat the things that let me hit my fat, protein and calorie goals.

      Ok. You do your thing then.
    • Posts: 6,212 Member
      BecomingBane wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      Which has more validity? Inquiring minds need to know. Do I believe my computer, or the things I see on tv in the middle of the night?

      Depends on whether Dr Oz and Foodbabe are on your friends list or not
    • Posts: 13,454 Member
      Afura wrote: »
      show previous quotes
      It's not a matter of quenching thirst, it's a matter of what will give you better satiety, eating 200 calories of vegetables, or 200 calories of a soft/flavored drink/altered coffee (cream, sugar, etc). Some people choose not to use their calories with drinks.

      I guess, I don't know. It just still seems odd. It seems like a better comparison would be a 200 calorie latte vs drinking black coffee. Or eating 200 cals of salad vs 200 cals of potato chips. Food compared to food. Drinks compared to drinks. When I'm hungry, I don't think of getting a coke. When I'm thirsty I don't think about eating a big mac.
    • Posts: 8,911 Member
      Mapalicious wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      Trinty didn't write about carbs, they wrote about sugary drinks. Nutrition is about calories necessary for health and growth, it has a more complex meaning than mere unit of heat energy. Sugar yes has calories, but it is not necessary/desirable for health and growth WHEN LOSING WEIGHT.

      We can sit and argue semantics all day long (blah blah blah sugar is a short-chain carbohydrate etc etc). But i have the feeling that you have the ability to interpret their message more generously, or are you also someone who just likes to nit-pic and argue w/ people?

      And getting enough calories in is NOT important for healthy weight loss now? What is necessary in macronutrients at the least is about 60 grams of protein and fat. That's not even 800 calories of things you absolutely need to eat. Any macronutrition going above that is your own choice depending on your goals and preferences. A soda's calories are not wasted anymore than the vegetables going above what I need for my micronutrients.
    • Posts: 351 Member
      gmallan wrote: »
      This is a really interesting article on why the calorie isn't a very good unit of measurement. A calorie is still a calorie but the way our body uses energy from different sources varies greatly which is why 1000 calories of Oreos won't have the same weight loss effect as 1000 calories of chicken breast.

      http://mosaicscience.com/story/why-calorie-broken

      Fascinating article. Thanks for the link
    • Posts: 7,088 Member
      Great thread @ndj1979

      Its sad how many have to overcomplicate things. You could tell them that a calorie is a calorie until your blue in the face but they will never get it.
    • Posts: 30,886 Member
      ClosetBayesian wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      You'd be amazed at how many people would say that the 200 pound body builder does not weigh as much as the 200 pound couch potato, because a pound of fat cannot possibly weigh as much as a pound of muscle. As much as we would like to believe that people understand things like difference by volume, I have seen threads here which lead me to believe otherwise.

      I've actually never once seen anyone say that (and I've seen lots of shocking things said on MFP). I've seen lots of people say that muscle weighs more than fat (meaning, obviously, that it's denser), and I've seen a number of people claim to interpret that as "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat," but I still don't believe anyone really thinks that.

      I think a lot of people simply don't realize that a calorie is a unit of measurement (or believe that weight gain can possibly be based on energy like that), so use "calorie" as if it were a synonym for food, and misunderstand "a calorie is a calorie" to mean (weirdly) "beef is broccoli."

      I also totally agree that there's a superstitious belief that different foods have effects totally unrelated to calories, like someone who thinks that eating 600 calories of cookies and nothing else will cause weight gain, someone else who claims they gain weight if they have just a bite of bread, my old friend's mom who claimed that eating cheese gave you a big butt (hey, where's that butt implant thread?), or people who insist that you cannot gain weight even if 1000 calories a day over your TDEE if you "eat clean" or eat low carb or some such.

      I think the superstition is based on endless dieting lore, a desire to believe that you gained weight without overeating, and the hope that there's some magical weightloss method that will allow you to eat whatever (or at least whatever quantity).
    • Posts: 30,886 Member
      Mapalicious wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      Trinty didn't write about carbs, they wrote about sugary drinks. Nutrition is about calories necessary for health and growth, it has a more complex meaning than mere unit of heat energy. Sugar yes has calories, but it is not necessary/desirable for health and growth WHEN LOSING WEIGHT.

      I screwed up my marathon somewhat on Sunday vs. how I'd wanted to do because I didn't want to stop to get enough water, so couldn't eat the gels I'd planned, so probably ran out of gas more than I needed to.

      Those gels are basically pure sugar.

      Wasted calories?
    • Posts: 30,886 Member
      WinoGelato wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      I guess, I don't know. It just still seems odd. It seems like a better comparison would be a 200 calorie latte vs drinking black coffee. Or eating 200 cals of salad vs 200 cals of potato chips. Food compared to food. Drinks compared to drinks. When I'm hungry, I don't think of getting a coke. When I'm thirsty I don't think about eating a big mac.

      It's also weird because it's a false dichotomy. I almost never consume calories in drinks (had a smoothie on Saturday, so there's an exception). However, let's say I still was a beer drinker. Why insist that 200 calories on beer would leave you hungry vs. 200 calories on salad? First, depending on the context, you might still be hungry (200 calories is too low for me for a meal, including one of salad). Or you might not (having a beer after dinner). Second, why couldn't you fit both in an overall sensible diet that didn't leave you hungry?

      Now, if someone said "drink mostly calories from beer," that would be dumb (and irresponsible), but no one ever recommends that, that I've seen. So what's the point?
    • Unknown
      Unknown
      This content has been removed.
    • Posts: 15,317 Member
      A deficit is a deficit
    • Posts: 29,136 Member
      Afura wrote: »
      show previous quotes
      It's not a matter of quenching thirst, it's a matter of what will give you better satiety, eating 200 calories of vegetables, or 200 calories of a soft/flavored drink/altered coffee (cream, sugar, etc). Some people choose not to use their calories with drinks.

      why can't you have both?
    • Posts: 29,136 Member
      gmallan wrote: »
      This is a really interesting article on why the calorie isn't a very good unit of measurement. A calorie is still a calorie but the way our body uses energy from different sources varies greatly which is why 1000 calories of Oreos won't have the same weight loss effect as 1000 calories of chicken breast.

      http://mosaicscience.com/story/why-calorie-broken

      nope...

      First, 1000 caloreis of oreos vs 1000 calories of chicken breast is a straw man because no one is going to do that and no one is advocating it. Additionally, both would be nutritionally lacking.

      second, if a 1000 calories of oreos is a 500 calorie deficit for person A and 1000 calories of chicken breast is a 500 calorie deficit for person B then they will both lose the same amount of weight.

      Finally, TEF, which I believe is what you are referring to has been shown to be minimal...
    • Posts: 29,136 Member
      Mapalicious wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      @ndj1979 when someone puts quotation marks around words, as this person did with "wasted calories" it is called using SCARE QUOTES. It is a literary tool that allows the author to convey to the reader that what is within the quotes is being used in a "non-standard, ironic, or otherwise special sense" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes ).

      I would venture to guess you know quite well what @trinty425 was meaning to convey, as you can read on to understand exactly what they meant when using the scare quotes, because they describe it in the next sentence: "They didn't give me nutrition...they didn't help me fill [sic] full."

      Unless you just enjoy arguing for the sake of argument, in which case you are free to continue to perform that role however obnoxious this lemur may find it to be.

      thank you for affirming my right to post on a public forum...

      I simply stated that no calories are wasted because they all provide energy ...

    • Posts: 29,136 Member
      Mapalicious wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      Trinty didn't write about carbs, they wrote about sugary drinks. Nutrition is about calories necessary for health and growth, it has a more complex meaning than mere unit of heat energy. Sugar yes has calories, but it is not necessary/desirable for health and growth WHEN LOSING WEIGHT.

      We can sit and argue semantics all day long (blah blah blah sugar is a short-chain carbohydrate etc etc). But i have the feeling that you have the ability to interpret their message more generously, or are you also someone who just likes to nit-pic and argue w/ people?

      you realize that carbs are sugar, right?
    • Posts: 2,577 Member
      The issue I see is that some of us use the terminology differently, regardless of what the technical meaning is. People I know IRL do speak of low nutrient dense food such as sugary foods as being "empty calories". I don't think it's that they believe the body can't utilize energy from it, but it's considered "empty" because apart from simply providing pure calories/macros, there's not much other nutritional benefit (in general). So from that standpoint, in common language it could be said that a "calorie is not a calorie", even though of course from a scientific perspective a calorie is a calorie.
    • Posts: 2,099 Member
      ndj1979 wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      nope...

      First, 1000 caloreis of oreos vs 1000 calories of chicken breast is a straw man because no one is going to do that and no one is advocating it. Additionally, both would be nutritionally lacking.

      second, if a 1000 calories of oreos is a 500 calorie deficit for person A and 1000 calories of chicken breast is a 500 calorie deficit for person B then they will both lose the same amount of weight.

      Finally, TEF, which I believe is what you are referring to has been shown to be minimal...

      Minimal but definitely not negligible. I believe protein is up to 30% and fat and carbs are 5-10%. That's a pretty significant difference and would result in a different deficit in your analysis above. Over the course of one day maybe not so important but added up over a longer period of time it could be.

      Yes the example used is extreme for illustration purposes only. It seems like that sort of comparison gets thrown around a lot. I think I could definitely eat 1000 calories of Oreos :)
    • Posts: 2,099 Member
      zyxst wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      giphy.gif

      I can't see your gif so I'll assume you were making fun of me. The TEF of protein is up to 25% higher than that of fat and carbs meaning that the higher protein content in the chicken breast would result in more energy being wasted through the production of heat when it is digested thus less energy available to be utilised by the body. This results in a larger deficit for the chicken breast, therefore a greater weight loss.
    • Posts: 8,911 Member
      gmallan wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      Minimal but definitely not negligible. I believe protein is up to 30% and fat and carbs are 5-10%. That's a pretty significant difference and would result in a different deficit in your analysis above. Over the course of one day maybe not so important but added up over a longer period of time it could be.

      Yes the example used is extreme for illustration purposes only. It seems like that sort of comparison gets thrown around a lot. I think I could definitely eat 1000 calories of Oreos :)

      http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full

      "On the basis of a meta-analysis, it was concluded that the thermic effect of food increases ≈7 kcal/1000 kcal of ingested food for each increase of 10 percentage points in the percentage of energy from protein. Thus, if a subject is instructed to consume a 1500-kcal/d energy-restricted diet with 35% of energy from protein, then the thermic effect of food will be 21 kcal/d higher than if protein contributes only 15% of the dietary energy."
    • Posts: 742 Member
      I'm glad to see you have finally come around.
    • Posts: 2,831 Member
      Don't mind me. I'm drinking my 300 calorie post-workout beer and this looks a lot of fun.
    • Posts: 6,212 Member
      gmallan wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      Minimal but definitely not negligible. I believe protein is up to 30% and fat and carbs are 5-10%. That's a pretty significant difference and would result in a different deficit in your analysis above. Over the course of one day maybe not so important but added up over a longer period of time it could be.

      Yes the example used is extreme for illustration purposes only. It seems like that sort of comparison gets thrown around a lot. I think I could definitely eat 1000 calories of Oreos :)

      Those sound like statistics that should be cited.
    • Posts: 6,212 Member
      stevencloser wrote: »
      show previous quotes

      http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full

      "On the basis of a meta-analysis, it was concluded that the thermic effect of food increases ≈7 kcal/1000 kcal of ingested food for each increase of 10 percentage points in the percentage of energy from protein. Thus, if a subject is instructed to consume a 1500-kcal/d energy-restricted diet with 35% of energy from protein, then the thermic effect of food will be 21 kcal/d higher than if protein contributes only 15% of the dietary energy."

      ^^ See this for an example of how it's done.
    This discussion has been closed.

    Welcome!

    It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.
    Sign In
    Register

    Quick Links

    Categories