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 ....
Replies
-
juggernaut1974 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...
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.
Can't really be bothered, the information is well established. Where's the citation for the statement that TEF has been shown to be minimal huh?0 -
juggernaut1974 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...
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.
Can't really be bothered, the information is well established. Where's the citation for the statement that TEF has been shown to be minimal huh?
See @stevencloser post I quoted above.
And that's not how debate works. Your claim, your cite required. Otherwise the claim can be dismissed.0 -
Yes slight thermogenic effect. Practically significant?0
-
Don't mind me just picking the cookie crumbs out of my abz. CICO FTW0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »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.
When someone says "a calorie is a calorie," they mean for the purposes of weight loss.
What you are arguing is "one food is always the same as another food," which is true, but -- again -- as nothing to do with the calorie claim. It seems like people are trying to willfully misunderstand what "a calorie is a calorie" means. No one claims that a sports gel (basically sugar, maybe some caffeine) is the same nutritionally as some broccoli or a steak. Sometimes one is better, sometimes the other is better, sometimes an ideal day will include a combination (plus some other food, I would assume).
This should not be controversial, and to argue with it you have to take "a calorie is a calorie" out of context and pretend to misunderstand it.0 -
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
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.
So, in a person with no metabolic condition and in a deficit, you're saying that eating 1000 calories of chicken breast will cause more weight loss than 1000 calories of Oreos because, if I understand your science correctly, 1000 calories of chicken breast burns 1250 calories because of protein whereas 1000 calories of Oreos will burn less/equal than 1000 calories because of fat and carbs.
0 -
Mapalicious 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.
If you believe NDJ already understood all that, isn't your pedantry really just avoiding understanding what NDJ said? The idea that calories aren't nutrition in and of themselves is a case of First World Problems - no longer having the concern of starvation as the ultimate form of dietary deficiency.0 -
thorsmom01 wrote: »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.
Most people oversimplify the science of fat loss and at the same time over complicate the practice...0 -
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.
not sure why you are conflating nutrition with energy ...calories provide energy and nutrition, so if one eats sugar it is not empty because the calories provide nutrition ....0 -
As I said, in casual conversation IRL people don't equate things the same way. So since sugar is not a source of nutrients other than pure carbs, people say it's "empty".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.
not sure why you are conflating nutrition with energy ...calories provide energy and nutrition, so if one eats sugar it is not empty because the calories provide nutrition ....0 -
Mapalicious 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.
If you believe NDJ already understood all that, isn't your pedantry really just avoiding understanding what NDJ said? The idea that calories aren't nutrition in and of themselves is a case of First World Problems - no longer having the concern of starvation as the ultimate form of dietary deficiency.
Anytime anyone says anything about CICO, calories vs. nutrition, starvation mode myth, or cleanses/detoxes, a predictable host of people come out of the woodwork who comment in antagonistic, curt, demeaning ways. They pounce on any hint of a mis-spoken word about these debates that get rehashed here, honestly, ever flipping day. These MFP forums are chock-full of people who take these kind of statements and argue with them interminably, in a sort of red-blooded posturing. I find it the most obnoxious and unhelpful behavior. Are they hoping to deter people from reaching out for help, by answering so smugly?
Additionally...I don't "believe NDJ already understood that" - I "venture to guess that" perhaps he knew and clarified in case he didn't.
Yes, they are 1st world problems. I live in the 1st world and thus suffer it's problems, as do the majority of MFP-ers. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a nice range of nutrients in your diet merely because we live in the 1st world. That, and I *kitten**ng love broccoli and eat the stuff like it was going out of style. I am not sure what point you were trying to make here.0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »Mapalicious 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.
If you believe NDJ already understood all that, isn't your pedantry really just avoiding understanding what NDJ said? The idea that calories aren't nutrition in and of themselves is a case of First World Problems - no longer having the concern of starvation as the ultimate form of dietary deficiency.
Anytime anyone says anything about CICO, calories vs. nutrition, starvation mode myth, or cleanses/detoxes, a predictable host of people come out of the woodwork who comment in antagonistic, short, demeaning ways. They pounce on any hint of a mis-spoken word about these debates that get rehashed here, honestly, ever flipping day. To be honest, these MFP forums are chock-full of people who take these kind of statements and argue with them interminably, in a sort of red-blooded posturing. I find it the most obnoxious and unhelpful behavior.
Additionally...I don't "believe NDJ already understood that" - I "venture to guess that" perhaps he knew and clarified in case he didn't.
Yes, they are 1st world problems. I live in the 1st world and thus suffer it's problems, as do the majority of MFP-ers. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a nice range of nutrients in your diet merely because we live in the 1st world. That, and I *kitten**ng love broccoli and eat the stuff like it was going out of style. I am not sure what point you were trying to make here.
Maybe this isn't the place for you. Woodwork here!0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »Mapalicious 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.
If you believe NDJ already understood all that, isn't your pedantry really just avoiding understanding what NDJ said? The idea that calories aren't nutrition in and of themselves is a case of First World Problems - no longer having the concern of starvation as the ultimate form of dietary deficiency.
Anytime anyone says anything about CICO, calories vs. nutrition, starvation mode myth, or cleanses/detoxes, a predictable host of people come out of the woodwork who comment in antagonistic, short, demeaning ways. They pounce on any hint of a mis-spoken word about these debates that get rehashed here, honestly, ever flipping day. To be honest, these MFP forums are chock-full of people who take these kind of statements and argue with them interminably, in a sort of red-blooded posturing. I find it the most obnoxious and unhelpful behavior.
Additionally...I don't "believe NDJ already understood that" - I "venture to guess that" perhaps he knew and clarified in case he didn't.
Yes, they are 1st world problems. I live in the 1st world and thus suffer it's problems, as do the majority of MFP-ers. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a nice range of nutrients in your diet merely because we live in the 1st world. That, and I *kitten**ng love broccoli and eat the stuff like it was going out of style. I am not sure what point you were trying to make here.
Maybe this isn't the place for you. Woodwork here!
I can be here if I please, dear.0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »Yes, they are 1st world problems. I live in the 1st world and thus suffer it's problems, as do the majority of MFP-ers. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a nice range of nutrients in your diet merely because we live in the 1st world. That, and I *kitten**ng love broccoli and eat the stuff like it was going out of style. I am not sure what point you were trying to make here.
The only people who have claimed otherwise are the ones who post ridiculous strawman arguments about eating diets composed entirely of oreos/sugar/etc.
The initial post in this thread is 100% right on the money, there's not even anything there to debate/argue over.
Enjoy your broccoli in peace.0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »Mapalicious 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.
If you believe NDJ already understood all that, isn't your pedantry really just avoiding understanding what NDJ said? The idea that calories aren't nutrition in and of themselves is a case of First World Problems - no longer having the concern of starvation as the ultimate form of dietary deficiency.
Anytime anyone says anything about CICO, calories vs. nutrition, starvation mode myth, or cleanses/detoxes, a predictable host of people come out of the woodwork who comment in antagonistic, short, demeaning ways. They pounce on any hint of a mis-spoken word about these debates that get rehashed here, honestly, ever flipping day. To be honest, these MFP forums are chock-full of people who take these kind of statements and argue with them interminably, in a sort of red-blooded posturing. I find it the most obnoxious and unhelpful behavior.
Additionally...I don't "believe NDJ already understood that" - I "venture to guess that" perhaps he knew and clarified in case he didn't.
Yes, they are 1st world problems. I live in the 1st world and thus suffer it's problems, as do the majority of MFP-ers. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a nice range of nutrients in your diet merely because we live in the 1st world. That, and I *kitten**ng love broccoli and eat the stuff like it was going out of style. I am not sure what point you were trying to make here.
Maybe this isn't the place for you. Woodwork here!
I can be here if I please, dear.
And so can everyone else, which is the point.
Insults and demeaning words are not necessary.
This is the debate forum, after all.0 -
Point one: Macros matter. They can be manipulated to produce varying results in your fitness/bodycomp/performance.
Point two: Calorie intake in a reduction diet needs to be lower than your calorie expenditure.
0 -
Mapalicious wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Mapalicious wrote: »Mapalicious 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.
If you believe NDJ already understood all that, isn't your pedantry really just avoiding understanding what NDJ said? The idea that calories aren't nutrition in and of themselves is a case of First World Problems - no longer having the concern of starvation as the ultimate form of dietary deficiency.
Anytime anyone says anything about CICO, calories vs. nutrition, starvation mode myth, or cleanses/detoxes, a predictable host of people come out of the woodwork who comment in antagonistic, short, demeaning ways. They pounce on any hint of a mis-spoken word about these debates that get rehashed here, honestly, ever flipping day. To be honest, these MFP forums are chock-full of people who take these kind of statements and argue with them interminably, in a sort of red-blooded posturing. I find it the most obnoxious and unhelpful behavior.
Additionally...I don't "believe NDJ already understood that" - I "venture to guess that" perhaps he knew and clarified in case he didn't.
Yes, they are 1st world problems. I live in the 1st world and thus suffer it's problems, as do the majority of MFP-ers. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a nice range of nutrients in your diet merely because we live in the 1st world. That, and I *kitten**ng love broccoli and eat the stuff like it was going out of style. I am not sure what point you were trying to make here.
Maybe this isn't the place for you. Woodwork here!
I can be here if I please, dear.
Complaining about debating in the debate section? Why?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I said, in casual conversation IRL people don't equate things the same way. So since sugar is not a source of nutrients other than pure carbs, people say it's "empty".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.
not sure why you are conflating nutrition with energy ...calories provide energy and nutrition, so if one eats sugar it is not empty because the calories provide nutrition ....
and they would be wrong ....0 -
if it bothers you so much, then maybe you should stop coming in here before you suffer a major heart attack ....you seem to take this MFP/internet stuff way too seriously...Mapalicious wrote: »Mapalicious 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.
If you believe NDJ already understood all that, isn't your pedantry really just avoiding understanding what NDJ said? The idea that calories aren't nutrition in and of themselves is a case of First World Problems - no longer having the concern of starvation as the ultimate form of dietary deficiency.
Anytime anyone says anything about CICO, calories vs. nutrition, starvation mode myth, or cleanses/detoxes, a predictable host of people come out of the woodwork who comment in antagonistic, curt, demeaning ways. They pounce on any hint of a mis-spoken word about these debates that get rehashed here, honestly, ever flipping day. These MFP forums are chock-full of people who take these kind of statements and argue with them interminably, in a sort of red-blooded posturing. I find it the most obnoxious and unhelpful behavior. Are they hoping to deter people from reaching out for help, by answering so smugly?
Additionally...I don't "believe NDJ already understood that" - I "venture to guess that" perhaps he knew and clarified in case he didn't.
Yes, they are 1st world problems. I live in the 1st world and thus suffer it's problems, as do the majority of MFP-ers. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a nice range of nutrients in your diet merely because we live in the 1st world. That, and I *kitten**ng love broccoli and eat the stuff like it was going out of style. I am not sure what point you were trying to make here.0 -
Does dietary composition affect how calories are absorbed? Absolutely.
Does TEF change with diet composition? Yep.
Does processing and ageing and cooking impact food calorie availability? Of course.
Do the Atwater constants miscalculate basic available calorie amounts for certain foods? You betcha.
Does any of the above really matter? Nope.
In a generally consistent diet, one will always be more successful focusing on creating a standard trackable calorie deficit, than focusing on the minors.
"A calorie is a calorie" is good guidance, if not 100% exact.
I find the pyramid of priorities by Helms to be useful (even if I don't agree 100% on some of them)
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Does dietary composition affect how calories are absorbed? Absolutely.
Does TEF change with diet composition? Yep.
Does processing and ageing and cooking impact food calorie availability? Of course.
Do the Atwater constants miscalculate basic available calorie amounts for certain foods? You betcha.
Does any of the above really matter? Nope.
In a generally consistent diet, one will always be more successful focusing on creating a standard trackable calorie deficit, than focusing on the minors.
"A calorie is a calorie" is good guidance, if not 100% exact.
I find the pyramid of priorities by Helms to be useful (even if I don't agree 100% on some of them)
I like the pyramid and agree0 -
So... you're upset about people being curt, antagonistic, and demeaning, when you posted just lecture someone on something you admittedly thought it probably (since believe is too strong a description apparently) the person already knew. I'm not sure how much you get to complain about a problem when you're part of it, because I can think of few things as demeaning as telling somebody something you think highly likely they already know other as a way to dress them down.Mapalicious wrote: »Mapalicious 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.
If you believe NDJ already understood all that, isn't your pedantry really just avoiding understanding what NDJ said? The idea that calories aren't nutrition in and of themselves is a case of First World Problems - no longer having the concern of starvation as the ultimate form of dietary deficiency.
Anytime anyone says anything about CICO, calories vs. nutrition, starvation mode myth, or cleanses/detoxes, a predictable host of people come out of the woodwork who comment in antagonistic, curt, demeaning ways. They pounce on any hint of a mis-spoken word about these debates that get rehashed here, honestly, ever flipping day. These MFP forums are chock-full of people who take these kind of statements and argue with them interminably, in a sort of red-blooded posturing. I find it the most obnoxious and unhelpful behavior. Are they hoping to deter people from reaching out for help, by answering so smugly?
Additionally...I don't "believe NDJ already understood that" - I "venture to guess that" perhaps he knew and clarified in case he didn't.
Yes, they are 1st world problems. I live in the 1st world and thus suffer it's problems, as do the majority of MFP-ers. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a nice range of nutrients in your diet merely because we live in the 1st world. That, and I *kitten**ng love broccoli and eat the stuff like it was going out of style. I am not sure what point you were trying to make here.
Also, no one mentioned broccoli - someone did mention salad - which is weird because your follow up comment was claiming not understanding what my point was because I have no idea what you're bringing up broccoli for. Like literally no reason other than it seems itching to argue about something no one is arguing against. And it is also funny because plenty of people on the forum do tell people they can't have soda, saying it is nutritionally devoid, or that it magically will prevent weight loss in a deficit. Yet I don't see anyone tell anyone else they can't have broccoli. At most, I see chiding from some people that broccoli or salad isn't their preference and joking that means someone else shouldn't eat it. Yet some people some people, you included now based on this, seem to think saying a person can eat what they want means broccoli is bad. If that's your standards, there is quiet frankly a very good reason you see the board full of curt, demeaning people - it is because you're someone reading far too much into things when you think anyone attacked broccoli over soda being okay for an adult to choose to have with for some of their calories.
And yes, the points get rehashed everyday because those lovely same people that do it, actually know what they're talking about and have the wherewithal to educated new members about how it works instead of giving up. Isn't it interesting that the people that actually know what they're talking about and have lost the weight manage to endure, but so many people that don't, also don't stick around as success stories, explaining how to make never drinking soda again a workable life style?0 -
So... you're upset about people being curt, antagonistic, and demeaning, when you posted just lecture someone on something you admittedly thought it probably (since believe is too strong a description apparently) the person already knew. I'm not sure how much you get to complain about a problem when you're part of it, because I can think of few things as demeaning as telling somebody something you think highly likely they already know other as a way to dress them down.Mapalicious wrote: »Mapalicious 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.
If you believe NDJ already understood all that, isn't your pedantry really just avoiding understanding what NDJ said? The idea that calories aren't nutrition in and of themselves is a case of First World Problems - no longer having the concern of starvation as the ultimate form of dietary deficiency.
Anytime anyone says anything about CICO, calories vs. nutrition, starvation mode myth, or cleanses/detoxes, a predictable host of people come out of the woodwork who comment in antagonistic, curt, demeaning ways. They pounce on any hint of a mis-spoken word about these debates that get rehashed here, honestly, ever flipping day. These MFP forums are chock-full of people who take these kind of statements and argue with them interminably, in a sort of red-blooded posturing. I find it the most obnoxious and unhelpful behavior. Are they hoping to deter people from reaching out for help, by answering so smugly?
Additionally...I don't "believe NDJ already understood that" - I "venture to guess that" perhaps he knew and clarified in case he didn't.
Yes, they are 1st world problems. I live in the 1st world and thus suffer it's problems, as do the majority of MFP-ers. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a nice range of nutrients in your diet merely because we live in the 1st world. That, and I *kitten**ng love broccoli and eat the stuff like it was going out of style. I am not sure what point you were trying to make here.
Also, no one mentioned broccoli - someone did mention salad - which is weird because your follow up comment was claiming not understanding what my point was because I have no idea what you're bringing up broccoli for. Like literally no reason other than it seems itching to argue about something no one is arguing against. And it is also funny because plenty of people on the forum do tell people they can't have soda, saying it is nutritionally devoid, or that it magically will prevent weight loss in a deficit. Yet I don't see anyone tell anyone else they can't have broccoli. At most, I see chiding from some people that broccoli or salad isn't their preference and joking that means someone else shouldn't eat it. Yet some people some people, you included now based on this, seem to think saying a person can eat what they want means broccoli is bad. If that's your standards, there is quiet frankly a very good reason you see the board full of curt, demeaning people - it is because you're someone reading far too much into things when you think anyone attacked broccoli over soda being okay for an adult to choose to have with for some of their calories.
And yes, the points get rehashed everyday because those lovely same people that do it, actually know what they're talking about and have the wherewithal to educated new members about how it works instead of giving up. Isn't it interesting that the people that actually know what they're talking about and have lost the weight manage to endure, but so many people that don't, also don't stick around as success stories, explaining how to make never drinking soda again a workable life style?
Exactly. Mis-information must be corrected.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I said, in casual conversation IRL people don't equate things the same way. So since sugar is not a source of nutrients other than pure carbs, people say it's "empty".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.
not sure why you are conflating nutrition with energy ...calories provide energy and nutrition, so if one eats sugar it is not empty because the calories provide nutrition ....
and they would be wrong ....
and they will be corrected every time, whether they like it or not. Mis-information must be corrected...0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Does dietary composition affect how calories are absorbed? Absolutely.
Does TEF change with diet composition? Yep.
Does processing and ageing and cooking impact food calorie availability? Of course.
Do the Atwater constants miscalculate basic available calorie amounts for certain foods? You betcha.
Does any of the above really matter? Nope.
In a generally consistent diet, one will always be more successful focusing on creating a standard trackable calorie deficit, than focusing on the minors.
"A calorie is a calorie" is good guidance, if not 100% exact.
I find the pyramid of priorities by Helms to be useful (even if I don't agree 100% on some of them)
What really bothers me about this is the word PRIORITIES.
WHOSE priorities? WHAT priorities?
If your priority is a scale number, then DEFICIT IS ALL YOU NEED.
You'll lose weight......of some sort!!!
You'll get results......a lower number on the scale. BUT I hope you like the results on your body, because a deficit doesn't mean you get the body composition you want, or improved blood sugar readings, or better blood pressure, or better moods, or better sleep.......It just means you'll lose weight.0 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Does dietary composition affect how calories are absorbed? Absolutely.
Does TEF change with diet composition? Yep.
Does processing and ageing and cooking impact food calorie availability? Of course.
Do the Atwater constants miscalculate basic available calorie amounts for certain foods? You betcha.
Does any of the above really matter? Nope.
In a generally consistent diet, one will always be more successful focusing on creating a standard trackable calorie deficit, than focusing on the minors.
"A calorie is a calorie" is good guidance, if not 100% exact.
I find the pyramid of priorities by Helms to be useful (even if I don't agree 100% on some of them)
What really bothers me about this is the word PRIORITIES.
WHOSE priorities? WHAT priorities?
If your priority is a scale number, then DEFICIT IS ALL YOU NEED.
You'll lose weight......of some sort!!!
You'll get results......a lower number on the scale. BUT I hope you like the results on your body, because a deficit doesn't mean you get the body composition you want, or improved blood sugar readings, or better blood pressure, or better moods, or better sleep.......It just means you'll lose weight.
It's actually a fairly good chart. And certain things matter more. For example- Can't lose weight if you are eating too many calories, regardless of macro/micro level
- Can't gain weight if you aren't eating enough calories, regardless of macro/micro level, training or supplementation.
- etc...
And keep in mind, this is not a one or all thing and is more of a general guideline. You should be taking multiple parts of the pyramid into your equation. Calories will address weight gain, maintenance, loss. Macros will address body composition (along with training). Micros will address health benefits and adequate nutrients. Meal frequency/timing can influence the amount of calories one and how it affect your performance. And supplementation is the last resort to help the highest performance achieve that extra 1%.
0 -
Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Does dietary composition affect how calories are absorbed? Absolutely.
Does TEF change with diet composition? Yep.
Does processing and ageing and cooking impact food calorie availability? Of course.
Do the Atwater constants miscalculate basic available calorie amounts for certain foods? You betcha.
Does any of the above really matter? Nope.
In a generally consistent diet, one will always be more successful focusing on creating a standard trackable calorie deficit, than focusing on the minors.
"A calorie is a calorie" is good guidance, if not 100% exact.
I find the pyramid of priorities by Helms to be useful (even if I don't agree 100% on some of them)
What really bothers me about this is the word PRIORITIES.
WHOSE priorities? WHAT priorities?
If your priority is a scale number, then DEFICIT IS ALL YOU NEED.
You'll lose weight......of some sort!!!
You'll get results......a lower number on the scale. BUT I hope you like the results on your body, because a deficit doesn't mean you get the body composition you want, or improved blood sugar readings, or better blood pressure, or better moods, or better sleep.......It just means you'll lose weight.
Actually, weight loss alone will do all those things if you had problems with them before.
Losing weight will make you lose fat and the more fat you have the higher the ratio of fat loss to LBM loss is.
Losing weight will improve your blood readings, including blood glucose and insulin sensitivity.
It will improve blood pressure if the high blood pressure was caused by being overfat.
It will improve mood if it was caused by hormone imbalance because losing weight improves your hormone profile.
Better sleep if it was caused by pressure on your torso causing apnea? Hell yeah losing weight will improve that.0 -
To put it in other words:
If you NEED to lose weight, you WILL lose mostly fat and little to no LBM.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Does dietary composition affect how calories are absorbed? Absolutely.
Does TEF change with diet composition? Yep.
Does processing and ageing and cooking impact food calorie availability? Of course.
Do the Atwater constants miscalculate basic available calorie amounts for certain foods? You betcha.
Does any of the above really matter? Nope.
In a generally consistent diet, one will always be more successful focusing on creating a standard trackable calorie deficit, than focusing on the minors.
"A calorie is a calorie" is good guidance, if not 100% exact.
I find the pyramid of priorities by Helms to be useful (even if I don't agree 100% on some of them)
What really bothers me about this is the word PRIORITIES.
WHOSE priorities? WHAT priorities?
If your priority is a scale number, then DEFICIT IS ALL YOU NEED.
You'll lose weight......of some sort!!!
You'll get results......a lower number on the scale. BUT I hope you like the results on your body, because a deficit doesn't mean you get the body composition you want, or improved blood sugar readings, or better blood pressure, or better moods, or better sleep.......It just means you'll lose weight.
Actually, weight loss alone will do all those things if you had problems with them before.
Losing weight will make you lose fat and the more fat you have the higher the ratio of fat loss to LBM loss is.
Losing weight will improve your blood readings, including blood glucose and insulin sensitivity.
It will improve blood pressure if the high blood pressure was caused by being overfat.
It will improve mood if it was caused by hormone imbalance because losing weight improves your hormone profile.
Better sleep if it was caused by pressure on your torso causing apnea? Hell yeah losing weight will improve that.
One correction, not all of those are universally true. There are people on this board who have lost 40 lbs but had worse blood panels due to their diet they followed. And no matter how much weight I lose or how fit I get, my LDL's don't change.. And my BP and HR have never changed, whether I was 220 or 175.
But generally, all of those are true.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions