Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

A quick refresher on a calorie is a calorie ....

2456729

Replies

  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    trinty425 wrote: »
    I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters!

    What gets confused is that what you are saying here really has nothing to do with calories. Of course what foods you include in your overall diet matters, but that has nothing to do with calories (calorie is not simply a synonym for food, as some seem to use it, but a unit of measurement).

    So I'd say that two things are really important: (1) eating the correct amount of calories for your goals; and (2) eating a diet that covers your nutrient needs and serves your goals in terms of satiety and macro mix. Do (2) well may help out with (1), of course.

    But none of this contradicts the true statement that a calorie is a calorie (like a lb is a lb). People often seem intent on interpreting a calorie is a calorie as meaning there are no differences between foods (a food is a food), but of course that's not what it means (any more than a lb of gold is the same price as a lb of cat litter).
    I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

    I love iced coffee (I drink it black). Almost no calories and it does help me feel full, sometimes.

    For me, soda with calories would be wasted calories, as I wouldn't enjoy them, but I'd say that it's a false dichotomy to pit eating food high in nutrients vs. those maybe with fewer nutrients and more calories. I can eat a sensible, filling diet and still fit in some foods that are chosen simply for pleasure (or mostly), like cheese or chocolate.

    It is interesting the way people read a calorie is a calorie for weight loss so differently than saying a pound of feathers weighs as much as a pound of lead. Even saying something like a 200 pound body builder weights as much as a 200 pound couch potato is never taken by anyone to mean that those two people have the same health when we say that.
    I've said similar before, but I think this comes from a persistent view that some want to defend mentally, very vehemently, regardless of evidence to the contrary - that poor health causes overweight, obesity, and adiposity, rather than those things being their conditions that lead toward poor health.
  • ClosetBayesianClosetBayesian Posts: 834Member Member Posts: 834Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    trinty425 wrote: »
    I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters!

    What gets confused is that what you are saying here really has nothing to do with calories. Of course what foods you include in your overall diet matters, but that has nothing to do with calories (calorie is not simply a synonym for food, as some seem to use it, but a unit of measurement).

    So I'd say that two things are really important: (1) eating the correct amount of calories for your goals; and (2) eating a diet that covers your nutrient needs and serves your goals in terms of satiety and macro mix. Do (2) well may help out with (1), of course.

    But none of this contradicts the true statement that a calorie is a calorie (like a lb is a lb). People often seem intent on interpreting a calorie is a calorie as meaning there are no differences between foods (a food is a food), but of course that's not what it means (any more than a lb of gold is the same price as a lb of cat litter).
    I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

    I love iced coffee (I drink it black). Almost no calories and it does help me feel full, sometimes.

    For me, soda with calories would be wasted calories, as I wouldn't enjoy them, but I'd say that it's a false dichotomy to pit eating food high in nutrients vs. those maybe with fewer nutrients and more calories. I can eat a sensible, filling diet and still fit in some foods that are chosen simply for pleasure (or mostly), like cheese or chocolate.

    It is interesting the way people read a calorie is a calorie for weight loss so differently than saying a pound of feathers weighs as much as a pound of lead. Even saying something like a 200 pound body builder weights as much as a 200 pound couch potato is never taken by anyone to mean that those two people have the same health when we say that.
    I've said similar before, but I think this comes from a persistent view that some want to defend mentally, very vehemently, regardless of evidence to the contrary - that poor health causes overweight, obesity, and adiposity, rather than those things being their conditions that lead toward poor health.

    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.
  • ndj1979ndj1979 Posts: 29,021Member Member Posts: 29,021Member Member
    yarwell wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.

    and hence they have a different effect on the body. 800 calories of carbohydrate reduction does not have the same outcome as 800 calories of fat reduction.

    They're the same in a bomb calorimeter with no feedback loops, digestive system and hormonal control, for sure.

    because you initially lose more water weight..
  • WinoGelatoWinoGelato Posts: 13,260Member Member Posts: 13,260Member Member
    trinty425 wrote: »
    I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters! I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

    This strikes me as kind of an odd comparison. Do people really choose to eat a salad instead of drink a beverage? Right now, I just got back from a walk. I'm thirsty. I'm considering a diet coke or water. It never occurred to me that maybe I should go eat some lettuce instead. Salad doesn't really quench my thirst...
  • AfuraAfura Posts: 2,092Member Member Posts: 2,092Member Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    trinty425 wrote: »
    I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters! I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

    This strikes me as kind of an odd comparison. Do people really choose to eat a salad instead of drink a beverage? Right now, I just got back from a walk. I'm thirsty. I'm considering a diet coke or water. It never occurred to me that maybe I should go eat some lettuce instead. Salad doesn't really quench my thirst...
    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.

  • gmallangmallan Posts: 2,099Member Member Posts: 2,099Member Member
    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
  • MommyMeggoMommyMeggo Posts: 1,222Member Member Posts: 1,222Member Member
    gmallan wrote: »
    . 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.

    You put into words what I am thinking when I think about the topic: calorie vs calorie.
    For me personally they are not truly "equal" (which to me means, mathematically speaking, there are no differences) as they vary nutritionally.
    edited March 2016
  • MapaliciousMapalicious Posts: 413Member Member Posts: 413Member Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    trinty425 wrote: »
    I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters! I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

    all calories provide energy, and they cannot be wasted....

    @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.
    edited March 2016
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member 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

    No. This goddamn article gets posted over and over again. It misrepresents facts, it VASTLY overstates any inaccuracies and differences how your body works.

    The calorie is not broken.
    A 500 deficit is going to have the same effect on ANY sensible non-strawman diet. TEF, calorie count differences, calorie expenditure differences, they all barely matter. AT ALL. The inaccuracies go both ways and even out. It's been shown time and time again that our own lack of accurate estimation ability has way worse effects on weight loss than choosing to have a certain kind of food over another.



    NO food choice you make is ever going to have an effect that even comes close to what is shown in this video.
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    trinty425 wrote: »
    I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters! I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

    all calories provide energy, and they cannot be wasted....

    @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.

    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.
  • zyxstzyxst Posts: 9,143Member Member Posts: 9,143Member 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
  • MorgaathMorgaath Posts: 679Member Member Posts: 679Member 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.
  • MapaliciousMapalicious Posts: 413Member Member Posts: 413Member Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    trinty425 wrote: »
    I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters! I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

    all calories provide energy, and they cannot be wasted....

    @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.

    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?
    edited March 2016
  • kshama2001kshama2001 Posts: 19,381Member Member Posts: 19,381Member 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!
  • kshama2001kshama2001 Posts: 19,381Member Member Posts: 19,381Member Member
    So you're saying my diet should be 100% candy?

    As long as it's vegan!
  • queenliz99queenliz99 Posts: 15,358Member Member Posts: 15,358Member Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    trinty425 wrote: »
    I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters! I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

    all calories provide energy, and they cannot be wasted....

    @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.

    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 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
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    trinty425 wrote: »
    I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters! I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

    all calories provide energy, and they cannot be wasted....

    @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.

    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.

    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.
  • MapaliciousMapalicious Posts: 413Member Member Posts: 413Member Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    trinty425 wrote: »
    I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters! I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

    all calories provide energy, and they cannot be wasted....

    @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.

    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.

    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.

    Ok. You do your thing then.
  • juggernaut1974juggernaut1974 Posts: 6,212Member Member Posts: 6,212Member Member
    rpachigo wrote: »
    But what about negative calories? I know they exist. I read it somewhere and it was confirmed :/

    That depends on whether it was read off an infomercial or a facebook post...

    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
  • WinoGelatoWinoGelato Posts: 13,260Member Member Posts: 13,260Member Member
    Afura wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    trinty425 wrote: »
    I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters! I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

    This strikes me as kind of an odd comparison. Do people really choose to eat a salad instead of drink a beverage? Right now, I just got back from a walk. I'm thirsty. I'm considering a diet coke or water. It never occurred to me that maybe I should go eat some lettuce instead. Salad doesn't really quench my thirst...
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.