Are all calories created equal?
Replies
-
DancingDarl wrote: »Losing weight does not matter if your sick or dead. A calorie is just a measure of energy. Nutritional differences between macdonalds fries and baked sweet potato is huge! You do the math!
How huge is this difference? I am having trouble with the math.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »Losing weight does not matter if your sick or dead. A calorie is just a measure of energy. Nutritional differences between macdonalds fries and baked sweet potato is huge! You do the math!
Please provide nutritional information to support your claim.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Losing weight does not matter if your sick or dead. A calorie is just a measure of energy. Nutritional differences between macdonalds fries and baked sweet potato is huge! You do the math!
How huge is this difference? I am having trouble with the math.
Oh hai
0 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Losing weight does not matter if your sick or dead. A calorie is just a measure of energy. Nutritional differences between macdonalds fries and baked sweet potato is huge! You do the math!
How huge is this difference? I am having trouble with the math.
Oh hai
You are good with math, what say you?0 -
A calorie is a calorie, but your body doesn't respond to calories they same way. For example, your body uses more energy (calories) to breakdown protein than it does carbs or fat. Also, your body doesn't recognize calories from junk food the way it recognizes calories from real, whole, unprocessed clean food. Because most of the time junk food has artificial colors, flavors and additives as well as other substances your body isn't made to handle! Give it calories that are from amazing foods and it will do amazing things for you.0
-
JuliaHaleFitness wrote: »A calorie is a calorie, but your body doesn't respond to calories they same way. For example, your body uses more energy (calories) to breakdown protein than it does carbs or fat. Also, your body doesn't recognize calories from junk food the way it recognizes calories from real, whole, unprocessed clean food. Because most of the time junk food has artificial colors, flavors and additives as well as other substances your body isn't made to handle! Give it calories that are from amazing foods and it will do amazing things for you.
Thermal effect of foods is negligible at best. The rest of your statement is false, if for no other reason than there is no standard definition of "real, whole, unprocessed clean food".0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Losing weight does not matter if your sick or dead. A calorie is just a measure of energy. Nutritional differences between macdonalds fries and baked sweet potato is huge! You do the math!
How huge is this difference? I am having trouble with the math.
Oh hai
You are good with math, what say you?
Pfft. I'm good with statistics; completely different; I still count on my fingers if I have to do math. That said, I have an abacus on the shelves in my office that I'm pretty sure could handle this one.0 -
No - a calorie is not a calorie. This is well known now, but the myth still lingers!
0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Losing weight does not matter if your sick or dead. A calorie is just a measure of energy. Nutritional differences between macdonalds fries and baked sweet potato is huge! You do the math!
Please provide nutritional information to support your claim.
It is not so much as a claim, as just common sense. Fries are closer than not to half your daily calories whereas a 100g serve of sweet potato gives you less calories and the nutrients it brings.
A small order of French fries from Burger King (fast food restaurant) is 3.1oz (86g), and has 234 calories. Unless someone is following a very, very, very low calorie diet, that's nowhere near half the daily amount of calories. Additionally, white potatoes are a good source of potassium.
Try again.0 -
These types of threads will IMO never end.
In a dictionary, or a lab burning food, all calories are created the same due to definitions of the energy available. In reality in humans the types of energy available vary quite a bit, as well as how rapidly or slowly it becomes available, as well as the nutritional content being something directly attached to the energy source of the foods.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Losing weight does not matter if your sick or dead. A calorie is just a measure of energy. Nutritional differences between macdonalds fries and baked sweet potato is huge! You do the math!
Please provide nutritional information to support your claim.
It is not so much as a claim, as just common sense. Fries are closer than not to half your daily calories whereas a 100g serve of sweet potato gives you less calories and the nutrients it brings.
The thing about common sense is that it is not so common....
What about sweet potato fries that I order from a restaurant? Do the nutrients in your perfect sweet potato disappear if it is cut into slices and fried? No? Then what about the nutrients from the white potato that was cut into matchsticks and fried? Did they disappear?
When I go to McDs I split an order of fries with my husband. It's about 200 cals. Nowhere near half my calories for the day, even if I ate the whole order. When I make a baked sweet potato (which I love) I add butter and cinnamon sugar, and it tops out around 300 cals.
0 -
Hello everyone, I'm sure this has been answered a million times before, but is a calorie a calorie? Would I lose the same weight eating 2000kcal of burger king a day compared to 2000kcal of healthy foods?
So if you figured this had been asked and answered before, did you try using the search feature to read some of the previous threads on this subject? Because you're right, several times a week this same question comes up.
As others have said, a calorie is a unit of measure and therefore they are all the same. That is not to say that all foods are the same from a macro or micro nutrient perspective.
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Hello everyone, I'm sure this has been answered a million times before, but is a calorie a calorie? Would I lose the same weight eating 2000kcal of burger king a day compared to 2000kcal of healthy foods?
So if you figured this had been asked and answered before, did you try using the search feature to read some of the previous threads on this subject? Because you're right, several times a week this same question comes up.
As others have said, a calorie is a unit of measure and therefore they are all the same. That is not to say that all foods are the same from a macro or micro nutrient perspective.
It may have been asked before, but the insight and the variety in answers seems May be different, and a calorie being a calorie doesn't seem to be that straight forward.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Hello everyone, I'm sure this has been answered a million times before, but is a calorie a calorie? Would I lose the same weight eating 2000kcal of burger king a day compared to 2000kcal of healthy foods?
So if you figured this had been asked and answered before, did you try using the search feature to read some of the previous threads on this subject? Because you're right, several times a week this same question comes up.
As others have said, a calorie is a unit of measure and therefore they are all the same. That is not to say that all foods are the same from a macro or micro nutrient perspective.
It may have been asked before, but the insight and the variety in answers seems May be different, and a calorie being a calorie doesn't seem to be that straight forward.
Well you may be right but generally the threads are largely consistent in the responses from the various points of view...
What doesn't seem to be that straightforward? I've seen nothing in this thread that indicates a calorie is anything other than a unit of measurement and that for weight loss, an individual must be in a calorie deficit. That's irrefutable.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Losing weight does not matter if your sick or dead. A calorie is just a measure of energy. Nutritional differences between macdonalds fries and baked sweet potato is huge! You do the math!
How huge is this difference? I am having trouble with the math.
If it isn't a big difference for you thats great, good for you.
But if a calorie is just a measure of energy and say they are equal. Then when i make choices i choose to make healthy intelligent ones mist of the time.
You said huge, not me. You said "do the math", alrighty then. A small French fries from Mcd's are aproximately 230 calories and a small sweet potato is aproximately 180 calories a difference of 50 calories, not huge at all.
0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Losing weight does not matter if your sick or dead. A calorie is just a measure of energy. Nutritional differences between macdonalds fries and baked sweet potato is huge! You do the math!
Please provide nutritional information to support your claim.
It is not so much as a claim, as just common sense. Fries are closer than not to half your daily calories whereas a 100g serve of sweet potato gives you less calories and the nutrients it brings.
The thing about common sense is that it is not so common....
What about sweet potato fries that I order from a restaurant? Do the nutrients in your perfect sweet potato disappear if it is cut into slices and fried? No? Then what about the nutrients from the white potato that was cut into matchsticks and fried? Did they disappear?
When I go to McDs I split an order of fries with my husband. It's about 200 cals. Nowhere near half my calories for the day, even if I ate the whole order. When I make a baked sweet potato (which I love) I add butter and cinnamon sugar, and it tops out around 300 cals.
If i get fries i do recall the large fries being almost 500 cal..i average 1200. So it is just logical for myself personally to rather put a sweet potato into some kind of salad or just eat it plainly.
Calorie density related to portion size is not the discussion though. The fact that you are comparing 500 cals of a large fry to 150 cals of a baked sweet potato doesn't mean that a calorie isn't a calorie.
You also said the sweet potato has more nutrients, and I asked about if those are lost if you fry the sweet potato instead of eating it baked?
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »These types of threads will IMO never end.
In a dictionary, or a lab burning food, all calories are created the same due to definitions of the energy available. In reality in humans the types of energy available vary quite a bit, as well as how rapidly or slowly it becomes available, as well as the nutritional content being something directly attached to the energy source of the foods.
These are all differences. But they are differences between foods or macros, not calories.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Hello everyone, I'm sure this has been answered a million times before, but is a calorie a calorie? Would I lose the same weight eating 2000kcal of burger king a day compared to 2000kcal of healthy foods?
So if you figured this had been asked and answered before, did you try using the search feature to read some of the previous threads on this subject? Because you're right, several times a week this same question comes up.
As others have said, a calorie is a unit of measure and therefore they are all the same. That is not to say that all foods are the same from a macro or micro nutrient perspective.
It may have been asked before, but the insight and the variety in answers seems May be different, and a calorie being a calorie doesn't seem to be that straight forward.
I think the facts are straightforward and not that debatable.
What these discussions end up being about is what is meant by "a calorie is a calorie." I personally think the phrase should be defined by those who use it, who explain that they are saying that a unit of energy is a unit of energy (like an inch is an inch). I know this seems obvious, but many people seem to have superstitions that would go against this idea -- like that there are some foods so fattening that they will make you gain real (non water) weight even if you eat less than maintenance (I gain 5 lbs from 3 bites of cake!) or that foods will cause weight gain in specific places (a friend's mom insists that the calories in cheese cause weight gain in your hips and butt--she considers this bad, btw).
Others insist upon using "calorie" as a synonym for food, so argue that "a calorie is not a calorie" because foods are different and may be easier or harder to get the calories from or the calories may be measured incorrectly or a particular food may take more energy (calories) to digest (again, in the context of normal diets little difference overall anyway), or the energy from a particular food may be available more quickly than others (which doesn't change the amount of calories overall). No one disagrees that these differences exist, but many of us (including those who actually use and should define the term we are discussing) consider it like claiming "an inch is not an inch" simply because an inch of wood has different properties than an inch of metal.
I think of it this way -- calories, like cash, are fungible once in your body. In using energy, your body does not know or care what the original source of it was, any more than money in a bank account is tied to a particular source anymore. That doesn't mean that beef and bread are the same (one is better for some purposes, one for another, 100 calories of each will be 100 calories ultimately, if properly measured and TEF is taken into account), and it also doesn't mean a dollar and a yen are the same.0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Losing weight does not matter if your sick or dead. A calorie is just a measure of energy. Nutritional differences between macdonalds fries and baked sweet potato is huge! You do the math!
Please provide nutritional information to support your claim.
It is not so much as a claim, as just common sense. Fries are closer than not to half your daily calories whereas a 100g serve of sweet potato gives you less calories and the nutrients it brings.
A small order of French fries from Burger King (fast food restaurant) is 3.1oz (86g), and has 234 calories. Unless someone is following a very, very, very low calorie diet, that's nowhere near half the daily amount of calories. Additionally, white potatoes are a good source of potassium.
Try again.
Refferring to karge fries which mfp logs as being closer to 500 calories ouch! My total cal is 1200 so def closer to half for me
Or just order a small order of fries..... Moderation, and all that....0 -
I am starting to believe a calorie is a calorie and it is exciting!!! Ive done super low carb diets, vegan and other restrictive (to me) diets... And honestly its a battle. Ive been counting for a week now and im awe! I do focus on quality lean proteins and vegetables and such but if im just so badly wanting some popcorn... I can if it fits in my calorie goals. Im so happy haha and wish i would have been here sooner.0
-
Here's the thing about
Damn them people and their good genetics and fast metabolisms!
Here's the thing about metabolism... The more you weigh, the faster it is. You want to speed it up? Gain weight. It doesn't matter if it is from fat or muscle. This is the reason why it gets harder to lose weight near the end of your goal. You have to eat even less or work harder.
If you're a man, then you've got it over all us ladies. God designed it so that it's harder for us to lose weight cause he thinks we gotta keep from starving just in case we have a baby. Yea, us...sigh...
And after the baby making days are over, it becomes even harder for women to lose weight. Gotta love that, don't you? <<rolls eyes and mutters under breath>>0 -
if i ate all burger king instead of eating fruits and veggies, i would be so bloated. all of the sodium would make me retain water!0
-
positivepowers wrote: »Here's the thing about
Damn them people and their good genetics and fast metabolisms!
Here's the thing about metabolism... The more you weigh, the faster it is. You want to speed it up? Gain weight. It doesn't matter if it is from fat or muscle. This is the reason why it gets harder to lose weight near the end of your goal. You have to eat even less or work harder.
If you're a man, then you've got it over all us ladies. God designed it so that it's harder for us to lose weight cause he thinks we gotta keep from starving just in case we have a baby. Yea, us...sigh...
And after the baby making days are over, it becomes even harder for women to lose weight. Gotta love that, don't you? <<rolls eyes and mutters under breath>>
There's many women on here that burn as much, or even more than, me. The highest correlation for your metabolism is the amount of lean mass you have. Which means tall people with lots of muscle burn more than small, light people. Men just happen to generally have that advantage, but not all of them inherently.
But even so, it isn't harder for women to lose weight. Do you generally have to eat less calories than men? Yes. But that's because you're also generally smaller and should have a smaller appetite accordingly.
Do you want to eat the same size portions than someone weighing almost twice as much as you who is a head or two taller than you? You have to work for it. If I wanted to eat as much as the 6'5'' tall guy who has over 50 pounds on me and does cardio daily I'd have to work for it too.
But generally I'm content with less food because I also burn less than that guy.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Hello everyone, I'm sure this has been answered a million times before, but is a calorie a calorie? Would I lose the same weight eating 2000kcal of burger king a day compared to 2000kcal of healthy foods?
So if you figured this had been asked and answered before, did you try using the search feature to read some of the previous threads on this subject? Because you're right, several times a week this same question comes up.
As others have said, a calorie is a unit of measure and therefore they are all the same. That is not to say that all foods are the same from a macro or micro nutrient perspective.
It may have been asked before, but the insight and the variety in answers seems May be different, and a calorie being a calorie doesn't seem to be that straight forward.
I think the facts are straightforward and not that debatable.
What these discussions end up being about is what is meant by "a calorie is a calorie." I personally think the phrase should be defined by those who use it, who explain that they are saying that a unit of energy is a unit of energy (like an inch is an inch). I know this seems obvious, but many people seem to have superstitions that would go against this idea -- like that there are some foods so fattening that they will make you gain real (non water) weight even if you eat less than maintenance (I gain 5 lbs from 3 bites of cake!) or that foods will cause weight gain in specific places (a friend's mom insists that the calories in cheese cause weight gain in your hips and butt--she considers this bad, btw).
Others insist upon using "calorie" as a synonym for food, so argue that "a calorie is not a calorie" because foods are different and may be easier or harder to get the calories from or the calories may be measured incorrectly or a particular food may take more energy (calories) to digest (again, in the context of normal diets little difference overall anyway), or the energy from a particular food may be available more quickly than others (which doesn't change the amount of calories overall). No one disagrees that these differences exist, but many of us (including those who actually use and should define the term we are discussing) consider it like claiming "an inch is not an inch" simply because an inch of wood has different properties than an inch of metal.
I think of it this way -- calories, like cash, are fungible once in your body. In using energy, your body does not know or care what the original source of it was, any more than money in a bank account is tied to a particular source anymore. That doesn't mean that beef and bread are the same (one is better for some purposes, one for another, 100 calories of each will be 100 calories ultimately, if properly measured and TEF is taken into account), and it also doesn't mean a dollar and a yen are the same.
I agree, and ultimately that's what I'm asking I suppose, yeah I now get a calorie is a unit of energy, and get burnt the same way,but the other part of the question was are they created equally, in the sense the effect it may have on my health, the answer is no, as the nutrients in a sweet potato that has the same calories as say a big Mac, will be better for me, for my visceral fat for example0 -
MissMonicaC4 wrote: »I am starting to believe a calorie is a calorie and it is exciting!!! Ive done super low carb diets, vegan and other restrictive (to me) diets... And honestly its a battle. Ive been counting for a week now and im awe! I do focus on quality lean proteins and vegetables and such but if im just so badly wanting some popcorn... I can if it fits in my calorie goals. Im so happy haha and wish i would have been here sooner.
I'm glad someone has benefited from this!0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »DancingDarl wrote: »Losing weight does not matter if your sick or dead. A calorie is just a measure of energy. Nutritional differences between macdonalds fries and baked sweet potato is huge! You do the math!
Please provide nutritional information to support your claim.
It is not so much as a claim, as just common sense. Fries are closer than not to half your daily calories whereas a 100g serve of sweet potato gives you less calories and the nutrients it brings.
The thing about common sense is that it is not so common....
What about sweet potato fries that I order from a restaurant? Do the nutrients in your perfect sweet potato disappear if it is cut into slices and fried? No? Then what about the nutrients from the white potato that was cut into matchsticks and fried? Did they disappear?
When I go to McDs I split an order of fries with my husband. It's about 200 cals. Nowhere near half my calories for the day, even if I ate the whole order. When I make a baked sweet potato (which I love) I add butter and cinnamon sugar, and it tops out around 300 cals.
If i get fries i do recall the large fries being almost 500 cal..i average 1200. So it is just logical for myself personally to rather put a sweet potato into some kind of salad or just eat it plainly.
Calorie density related to portion size is not the discussion though. The fact that you are comparing 500 cals of a large fry to 150 cals of a baked sweet potato doesn't mean that a calorie isn't a calorie.
You also said the sweet potato has more nutrients, and I asked about if those are lost if you fry the sweet potato instead of eating it baked?
I dont know is it?
A calorie is a calorie of course but there are more important things than calories
Did someone say nutrition isn't important? Of course not.
0 -
There's a difference between chicken and broccoli. There's a diiference between broccoli and milk. There's a difference between milk and sweet potatoes. And there's a difference between sweet potatoes and shoestring potato fries.
But saying that one food is bad because another food provides more nutrients isn't how a good diet works. You could eat nothing but fries and have a bad diet. You could also eat nothing but broccoli and you'd have a bad diet.
Unless a food has an actual negative effect on you (allergies and other medical issues and such) then the single food matters very little compared to how it fits in your overall diet. Some days I'm running low on protein and the fries wouldn't be a good fit. But the baked sweet potato wouldn't be a better fit those days because it's still not providing protein. Some days the sweet potato or the fries would both fit fine and I'd probably choose the sweet potato diced up and fried as hash (only because I hate the taste of McD's fries). When I'm traveling and need a balanced diet on the go I might get the fries. It would depend on the day.
Does anyone have the side by side comparison for sweet potatoes vs white potatoes. I remember my shock when I discovered they weren't so different nutritionally.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Hello everyone, I'm sure this has been answered a million times before, but is a calorie a calorie? Would I lose the same weight eating 2000kcal of burger king a day compared to 2000kcal of healthy foods?
So if you figured this had been asked and answered before, did you try using the search feature to read some of the previous threads on this subject? Because you're right, several times a week this same question comes up.
As others have said, a calorie is a unit of measure and therefore they are all the same. That is not to say that all foods are the same from a macro or micro nutrient perspective.
It may have been asked before, but the insight and the variety in answers seems May be different, and a calorie being a calorie doesn't seem to be that straight forward.
I think the facts are straightforward and not that debatable.
What these discussions end up being about is what is meant by "a calorie is a calorie." I personally think the phrase should be defined by those who use it, who explain that they are saying that a unit of energy is a unit of energy (like an inch is an inch). I know this seems obvious, but many people seem to have superstitions that would go against this idea -- like that there are some foods so fattening that they will make you gain real (non water) weight even if you eat less than maintenance (I gain 5 lbs from 3 bites of cake!) or that foods will cause weight gain in specific places (a friend's mom insists that the calories in cheese cause weight gain in your hips and butt--she considers this bad, btw).
Others insist upon using "calorie" as a synonym for food, so argue that "a calorie is not a calorie" because foods are different and may be easier or harder to get the calories from or the calories may be measured incorrectly or a particular food may take more energy (calories) to digest (again, in the context of normal diets little difference overall anyway), or the energy from a particular food may be available more quickly than others (which doesn't change the amount of calories overall). No one disagrees that these differences exist, but many of us (including those who actually use and should define the term we are discussing) consider it like claiming "an inch is not an inch" simply because an inch of wood has different properties than an inch of metal.
I think of it this way -- calories, like cash, are fungible once in your body. In using energy, your body does not know or care what the original source of it was, any more than money in a bank account is tied to a particular source anymore. That doesn't mean that beef and bread are the same (one is better for some purposes, one for another, 100 calories of each will be 100 calories ultimately, if properly measured and TEF is taken into account), and it also doesn't mean a dollar and a yen are the same.
I agree, and ultimately that's what I'm asking I suppose, yeah I now get a calorie is a unit of energy, and get burnt the same way,but the other part of the question was are they created equally, in the sense the effect it may have on my health, the answer is no, as the nutrients in a sweet potato that has the same calories as say a big Mac, will be better for me, for my visceral fat for example
Well, again, that doesn't mean the calories are different -- there's no such thing as a "Big Mac calorie" vs. a "broccoli calorie" once they are in your body. It simply means that foods are different and have different nutrients and other effects, and no one disagrees about that.0 -
Really insightful this, fascinating different people's take on the same thing. It's very unusual to have a public forum where most people actually care about helping each, and very few trolls.0
-
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions