Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
A quick refresher on a calorie is a calorie ....
Options
Replies
-
Sorry if I wasn't allowed to answer this question for myself. But the way I see it, the fact of the matter is in our culture we say a lot of things in everyday language that may not be "technically" correct. It's a societal issue.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »The issue I see is that some of us use the terminology differently, regardless of what the technical meaning is. People I know IRL do speak of low nutrient dense food such as sugary foods as being "empty calories". I don't think it's that they believe the body can't utilize energy from it, but it's considered "empty" because apart from simply providing pure calories/macros, there's not much other nutritional benefit (in general). So from that standpoint, in common language it could be said that a "calorie is not a calorie", even though of course from a scientific perspective a calorie is a calorie.
^this
So you are using "calorie" incorrectly as a synonym for food. That's fine, but why would you disagree with others based on a known difference in what you mean by terms?
I am honestly curious about this and would love an answer.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.
Not really a good comparison.
Because a gallon of gas is always a gallon of gas, but the ability to burn that can vary significantly. And they type of gas will have an impact on the motor. No different than carbs have a different impact that protein, and fats. Otherwise, you would be able to use fats a primary source of fuel during a endurance race.
The efficiency and speed of absorption and usage of your body doesn't change the contents of the fuel though. That's the message. According to the laws of physics every single calorie will always be accounted for in every single case. Either used to fuel your body, stored, wasted as heat or excreted unabsorbed for one reason or another. In no case will there be a time where energy just disappears ore provides more energy than it does.
And our body ran like a machine, then if you have a study that held calories constant, you would have the same exact results.
Our bodies are a machine as far as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned.
Is a laptop not a machine because it can switch between using AC outlets and internally stored DC currents? Because it can use AC currents that are 120 Volts and 240 volts if it has an international charger?
If people want to argue that not all estimates of digestible calories for all foods are correct, that's absolutely true. Using it to say calories aren't equal is where I have to disagree because that isn't what equality means for units like a calorie.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.
Not really a good comparison.
Because a gallon of gas is always a gallon of gas, but the ability to burn that can vary significantly. And they type of gas will have an impact on the motor. No different than carbs have a different impact that protein, and fats. Otherwise, you would be able to use fats a primary source of fuel during a endurance race.
The efficiency and speed of absorption and usage of your body doesn't change the contents of the fuel though. That's the message. According to the laws of physics every single calorie will always be accounted for in every single case. Either used to fuel your body, stored, wasted as heat or excreted unabsorbed for one reason or another. In no case will there be a time where energy just disappears ore provides more energy than it does.
And our body ran like a machine, then if you have a study that held calories constant, you would have the same exact results.
Our bodies are a machine as far as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned.
Is a laptop not a machine because it can switch between using AC outlets and internally stored DC currents? Because it can use AC currents that are 120 Volts and 240 volts if it has an international charger?
If people want to argue that not all estimates of digestible calories for all foods are correct, that's absolutely true. Using it to say calories aren't equal is where I have to disagree because that isn't what equality means for units like a calorie.
I never debated the a calorie is a calorie, i debated that all calories, provide the body the same amount energy.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
No one is discrediting anything, and that's the part I think is so disingenuous.
People are saying it's not a big enough difference to worry about. Acknowledging that there is a difference but not to be worried about it is absolutely paying tribute to there being a difference.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.
I've not "pretended" to assume what anyone else knows or does not know. I've stated error that is known, and backed by studies. I don't claim that the various errors can't be accounted for in many differing ways, nor that they impact every diet. Nor have I said that I want everyone to use only Atwater specific tables, alter their diets, ingest gasoline, or disregard the method that works for them, regardless of how complex or simple it might be.
I've quoted specific statements I am in disagreement with, and in regards to energy being the same calorie to calorie, within the human body and function I disagree that they are equal. Primarily based on the fact that if the energy never makes it into your body through digestion and absorption, then it was never made available for energy use in a human.
If I've offended anyone with scientific studies supporting my position, then they are by all rights entitled to ignore that science all they wish. But there is no conspiracy or enabling involved other than to state my thoughts within the MFP forum guidelines.
I think it's absurd that you keep claiming that all of the posters here want to ignore the science or hide their heads in the sand over it.
They've looked at the science and have concluded that the differences are just not big enough to worry about it unless you have a reason to, like interest or are a professional athlete.
These two situations are vastly different. It's disingenuous to be making out like they are equal.
I think it's kind of absurd that there are studies showing differences, but we are discrediting that because they are small and not applicable to the typical dieter. The fact that there are difference demonstrates that fact that not all calories are equal from an energy standpoint, which is what I thought one of the major points of this thread was.
The calories are still equal. Being unable to process them doesn't change that the value of the calorie.
Distance is distance. But walking 9km is a whole different thing than climbing the mount everest even though it's the same distance. That doesn't change that 9km is always and will always be 9km.
Not really a good comparison.
Because a gallon of gas is always a gallon of gas, but the ability to burn that can vary significantly. And they type of gas will have an impact on the motor. No different than carbs have a different impact that protein, and fats. Otherwise, you would be able to use fats a primary source of fuel during a endurance race.
The efficiency and speed of absorption and usage of your body doesn't change the contents of the fuel though. That's the message. According to the laws of physics every single calorie will always be accounted for in every single case. Either used to fuel your body, stored, wasted as heat or excreted unabsorbed for one reason or another. In no case will there be a time where energy just disappears ore provides more energy than it does.
And our body ran like a machine, then if you have a study that held calories constant, you would have the same exact results.
Our bodies are a machine as far as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned.
Is a laptop not a machine because it can switch between using AC outlets and internally stored DC currents? Because it can use AC currents that are 120 Volts and 240 volts if it has an international charger?
If people want to argue that not all estimates of digestible calories for all foods are correct, that's absolutely true. Using it to say calories aren't equal is where I have to disagree because that isn't what equality means for units like a calorie.
I never debated the a calorie is a calorie, i debated that all calories, provide the body the same amount energy.
Except now we have the problem do you mean energy colloquially, or do you mean actual energy?
Honestly, in the aerobics with high carb versus fat example you're using, scientifically speaking your argument is really more that not all calories provide the power. Which is true. A race car can't perform on low octane fuel, but that doesn't mean low octane fuel that has 200 calories worth of combustible energy under perfect energy is not equal in energy to high octane fuel with 200 calories worth of combustible energy under perfect energy conditions. Nor does it mean the calorie content of either is not equally simply because the car cannot equally combust the two.0 -
we seem to have gone off the rails here ...but not sure how we are arguing that one calorie of carrot does not provide the same amount of energy as one calorie of oreo...
they both provide one unit of energy that is then taken into your body and broken down to use for energy...I don't see how the breaking down process would change the fact that you still get one unit of energy whether it is an oreo or a carrot....0 -
we seem to have gone off the rails here ...but not sure how we are arguing that one calorie of carrot does not provide the same amount of energy as one calorie of oreo...
they both provide one unit of energy that is then taken into your body and broken down to use for energy...I don't see how the breaking down process would change the fact that you still get one unit of energy whether it is an oreo or a carrot....
Well in some cases the energy that can be taken in is off from what is stated on nutrition labels seems to be at least on argument in the thread. Almonds and tree nuts being the common tricksters. Probably to do with the digestibility of the fat in them.0 -
Since this discussion seems to have gone into lots of other things (like what's a good fuel for racing or how accurately we can estimate calories in), here's a post from another current thread that I think exemplifies what OP was arguing against:
"Calories are not the most important thing when your trying to lose weight. Not all calories are created equal, you should always eat nutrient dense foods."
Curious if those now arguing that a calorie is not a calorie would agree with that claim.
(I happen to agree that eating a nutrient rich DIET is a good thing, although less nutrient rich foods can be part of such a diet, but would also say that obviously calories are the important thing when trying to lose weight. If trying to meet other goals, they would not be the only important thing.)0 -
we seem to have gone off the rails here ...but not sure how we are arguing that one calorie of carrot does not provide the same amount of energy as one calorie of oreo...
they both provide one unit of energy that is then taken into your body and broken down to use for energy...I don't see how the breaking down process would change the fact that you still get one unit of energy whether it is an oreo or a carrot....
Well in some cases the energy that can be taken in is off from what is stated on nutrition labels seems to be at least on argument in the thread. Almonds and tree nuts being the common tricksters. Probably to do with the digestibility of the fat in them.
right, but the fact that label is wrong does not change that you get one unit of energy from each, correct?0 -
More examples of what OP was disagreeing with:
"Point.t blank processed calories dont nourish the body.....why they are considered empty"
Again, are we going to claim that this kind of thing makes sense, because calories can be hard to estimate properly?
Also, this again shows that most people who object to "a calorie is a calorie" think that "a calorie" = "a food" and are really saying that foods are not identical, which everyone knows and is unrelated to the claim "a calorie is a calorie." IMO, this kind of insistent mischaracterization or willful misunderstanding of the opposing argument is rude.
(It's also obviously absurd to claim that being processed means that something can't have nutrients, but that better belongs in the "clean" thread.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »More examples of what OP was disagreeing with:
"Point.t blank processed calories dont nourish the body.....why they are considered empty"
Again, are we going to claim that this kind of thing makes sense, because calories can be hard to estimate properly?
Also, this again shows that most people who object to "a calorie is a calorie" think that "a calorie" = "a food" and are really saying that foods are not identical, which everyone knows and is unrelated to the claim "a calorie is a calorie." IMO, this kind of insistent mischaracterization or willful misunderstanding of the opposing argument is rude.
(It's also obviously absurd to claim that being processed means that something can't have nutrients, but that better belongs in the "clean" thread.)
and of course my favorite that sugar and other calorie dense items are "empty calories"....0 -
http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/07/14/low-carb_diets_arent_anything_special_108746.html
"a calorie is not just a calorie. Protein, fat, and carbohydrates -- the three primary macronutrients -- are used by the body and transformed into energy in different ways. But those distinctions are -- when it comes to weight balance -- miniscule, and do not translate to anything game-changing for the health of modern humans."0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/07/14/low-carb_diets_arent_anything_special_108746.html
"a calorie is not just a calorie. Protein, fat, and carbohydrates -- the three primary macronutrients -- are used by the body and transformed into energy in different ways. But those distinctions are -- when it comes to weight balance -- miniscule, and do not translate to anything game-changing for the health of modern humans."
/thread
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »If memory serves right they used another Methode to calculate the fat losses too because dexa isn't accurate enough for such small losses. And that one showed the differences.
DEXA wasn't sensitive enough / the study was too short / the experiment was underpowered so there wasn't a statistically significant physical measurement of body composition changes showing the same thing as the calculated differential fat balance based on food in and gases out.
I always like to see a measurement that backs up the headline news personally.
0 -
KH studied showed minute difference, which would suggest that our bodies would treat calories different. But since it doesn't have a huge impact on weight loss, it should be dismissed.
I disagree that KH showed a "minute difference". In the men an 800 kcal food intake change produced a 160 kcal/day difference between the energy deficits of the two diets. A difference in outcome that is 20% of the input change doesn't strike me as insignificant.
0 -
Oh gawd not the smashthefat guy............a joke among the actual nutrition science world
Rather insulting. The lad's intentions seem genuine enough. I haven't seen anyone bother to do the same and prove he fixed it or misrepresented the results (or indeed indicate how he would have done that).
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »This is what I was getting at. What advice, in 3 sentences or less, would give the average person the biggest bang for their weight loss buck so to speak.
"Eat less food". Three words, not three sentences.0 -
KH studied showed minute difference, which would suggest that our bodies would treat calories different. But since it doesn't have a huge impact on weight loss, it should be dismissed.
I disagree that KH showed a "minute difference". In the men an 800 kcal food intake change produced a 160 kcal/day difference between the energy deficits of the two diets. A difference in outcome that is 20% of the input change doesn't strike me as insignificant.
Only if it stays that way. If it evens out after a few weeks once the bodies had gotten used to the different diet it's nothing but a blip on your screen when looking at your total loss.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Problem is that isn't the output of a study but is the prediction of his beloved mathematical model. The same model that was an appalling fit to the short term experiment (especially the low carb arm).
If he re-did the thing with a 3-week run-in on the experimental diets then there might be a case to extrapolate way into the future, but the short trial did not establish a steady state from which one can credibly extrapolate.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions