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
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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...
Thank you, Ive read conflicting studies on this and even some health/nhs websites lean towards all calories not being equal.
However I do agree with you.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...
I guess it would depend on your definition of metabolism.
Biology, Physiology. the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available.
Compare anabolism, catabolism.0 -
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries.
<snip>
"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.
I want to address these two statements.
As for the first, I've seen this terminology elsewhere in this thread, including in the original post. It's not correct to say "a calorie of carrots" or "a calorie of Oreos". That's like saying "a degree of hot" and "a degree of cold". To say "a calorie *of* something" muddies the water and conflates the issue. Rather, we can say calories *from* whatever source.
Secondly, your analogy breaks down there at the end. The mile itself doesn't change whether you are on flat ground or on mountainous terrain or in outer space. The terrain changes, which is separate from "a mile" which is an intangible unit of measurement. As you say, a mile is a mile. That doesn't change. A calorie is a calorie. Both are units of measurement. Nothing more, nothing less.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »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.
In my opinion, that path leads to bad places. The only way one can control calorie content to that level is if you stop eating regular food and move over to solvent-type preparations. A banana will vary in calorie value based on ripeness alone by 10-15 cals. A potato? Add or subtract 10 cals based on duration of cooking. How marbled was your steak? 4% or 5%. And that's just the CI part of the equation. Did you walk 15 more minutes? Got up 20 minutes late? etc...
Calorie counting isn't an exact science despite the science behind it. Think of trying to get a length of string and the only tools you are allowed to use are inch measuring tape. Don't concern yourself with the fact that silk string expands less than cotton string by a tenth of a inch per yard when all we are doing is guesstimating inches.
If you are concerned about pre-diabetes - discuss with your doc your goals of gaining lean muscle and whether you can gain 4-5 lbs over a few months with the idea of then cutting. While weight is a factor - a few pounds do not seem to lend themselves to significant increase in risk - but again - since it is medical... talk to your doc.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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...
For the win...0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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...
Thank you, Ive read conflicting studies on this and even some health/nhs websites lean towards all calories not being equal.
However I do agree with you.
Usually when people say "not all calories are equal" they are using "calories" as a synonym for foods and saying that different foods provide different nutrients or help more with satiety.
They also tend to be based on the idea that people don't count well or can't be expected to count, so err toward advising people to eat foods that would result in fewer calories being consumed, on average, if people aren't counting.
The problem is that people misunderstand this to mean that calories don't matter or that calories from "healthy foods" can't cause weight gain or that "processed calories" magically cause extra weight gain or all sorts of other foolishness.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.
Not only this, although I think it's an excellent point, but no one can reliably expect to be able to count calories perfectly enough so that 30 calories wouldn't be within the range of expected error.
Which is why if Jason is trying to gain a tiny amount of weight and instead maintains, he should not worry about whether his calories are overstated due to almonds, but simply EAT MORE.0 -
WiseBlueRaven wrote: »
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries.
<snip>
"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.
I want to address these two statements.
As for the first, I've seen this terminology elsewhere in this thread, including in the original post. It's not correct to say "a calorie of carrots" or "a calorie of Oreos". That's like saying "a degree of hot" and "a degree of cold". To say "a calorie *of* something" muddies the water and conflates the issue. Rather, we can say calories *from* whatever source.
Secondly, your analogy breaks down there at the end. The mile itself doesn't change whether you are on flat ground or on mountainous terrain or in outer space. The terrain changes, which is separate from "a mile" which is an intangible unit of measurement. As you say, a mile is a mile. That doesn't change. A calorie is a calorie. Both are units of measurement. Nothing more, nothing less.
Yes, yes, yes! Thank you for this post.
Will it get through? Probably not, but I think it is clear and helpful.0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »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?
I personally think that set points are an artefact of methodology or view point but that homeostasis mechanisms in biology are elements that do need to be taken into consideration. It's when someone suggests that eating a single Pringles chip a day results in a lb increase in weight per year (9 cals x 365 days ...) that we need to trot out not only that measurements are inexact but that the body reacts differently during periods of surplus and scarcity.
And this is also why I support the idea that while the concept of CICO is simple the actual physiology of it is a little more complex.
But in the face of a 200 cal deficit/surplus and sufficient time ... weight loss/gain will occur.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...
I guess it would depend on your definition of metabolism.
Biology, Physiology. the sum of the physical and chemical processes in an organism by which its material substance is produced, maintained, and destroyed, and by which energy is made available.
Compare anabolism, catabolism.
The fact that digestion and metabolism are governed by many different (sometimes overlapping) influences does not change the other fact that they are still two different processes...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Usually when people say "not all calories are equal" they are using "calories" as a synonym for foods and saying that different foods provide different nutrients or help more with satiety.
This is where the misunderstanding begins...0 -
Yes. I initially brought this up in one of the early pages that there's a discrepancy behind using terminology in casual conversation vs technical meanings.lemurcat12 wrote: »Usually when people say "not all calories are equal" they are using "calories" as a synonym for foods and saying that different foods provide different nutrients or help more with satiety.
This is where the misunderstanding begins...
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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...
Thank you, Ive read conflicting studies on this and even some health/nhs websites lean towards all calories not being equal.
However I do agree with you.
The thread talks about it a little and we covered a few points. If you scratch the surface enough all inches are not equal, all gallons are not equal, etc...
But when we ask for 5 inches of string we don't need to ask if it was measured strained or not, at atmospheric temperature and pressure, humidity, etc. Especially if the string we want is just a string to tie around our finger to remind us to buy bread.
Calorie counting is like that string. Inexact but good enough.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »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...
Thank you, Ive read conflicting studies on this and even some health/nhs websites lean towards all calories not being equal.
However I do agree with you.
Usually when people say "not all calories are equal" they are using "calories" as a synonym for foods and saying that different foods provide different nutrients or help more with satiety.
They also tend to be based on the idea that people don't count well or can't be expected to count, so err toward advising people to eat foods that would result in fewer calories being consumed, on average, if people aren't counting.
The problem is that people misunderstand this to mean that calories don't matter or that calories from "healthy foods" can't cause weight gain or that "processed calories" magically cause extra weight gain or all sorts of other foolishness.
And all of this.
All of it.
0 -
I can see how someone could confuse digestion and metabolism. Without digestion there can be no metabolism. Digestion could be viewed as the first stage of metabolism, or the "overall" metabolism.0
-
WiseBlueRaven wrote: »
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries.
<snip>
"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.
I want to address these two statements.
As for the first, I've seen this terminology elsewhere in this thread, including in the original post. It's not correct to say "a calorie of carrots" or "a calorie of Oreos". That's like saying "a degree of hot" and "a degree of cold". To say "a calorie *of* something" muddies the water and conflates the issue. Rather, we can say calories *from* whatever source.
Secondly, your analogy breaks down there at the end. The mile itself doesn't change whether you are on flat ground or on mountainous terrain or in outer space. The terrain changes, which is separate from "a mile" which is an intangible unit of measurement. As you say, a mile is a mile. That doesn't change. A calorie is a calorie. Both are units of measurement. Nothing more, nothing less.
Nautical miles? Roman, Italian, Chinese?
Are you sure?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes. I initially brought this up in one of the early pages that there's a discrepancy behind using terminology in casual conversation vs technical meanings.lemurcat12 wrote: »Usually when people say "not all calories are equal" they are using "calories" as a synonym for foods and saying that different foods provide different nutrients or help more with satiety.
This is where the misunderstanding begins...
That's a pretty big area to confuse though, no?0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »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?
You'll never do exactly the same things two days in a row so your actual CO is going to differ, that's obvious.
And small changes in CI (which will also never be equal two days in a row even if you're eating exactly the same things in exactly the same amounts) will be countered by your body adjusting your CO.
To an extent. It's bolded because a lot of people are trying to inflate those things to make it sound like counting your calories is useless because of that or knowing if you're creating a deficit cannot be predicted but only seen after the fact.
Such a tiny surplus or deficit (if you're even able to sufficiently create one to begin with) like that just can't compete against differences in your CO and the adjustments of your body do the rest. But make no mistake, your body can't negate or counteract a definite deficit of multiple hundred calories. Your metabolism will never randomly drop by 1000 points just to make you regain weight you lost, or create more heat that you get a fever because you've been gaining. Neither will it just suddenly stop digesting food halfway through and poop out half the calories undigested.
Maybe something close to that if you have a medical condition but not in a healthy person.0 -
Want to link this post, cause it's highly relevant....
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
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
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions