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.
Is a calorie a calorie?
hdatres
Posts: 635 Member
Is a calorie a calorie? Do they all burn the same?
0
Replies
-
A calorie is a unit of measurement. Like miles or gallons or cms or mls. So yes, a calorie is a calorie.4
-
In terms of weight loss and weight gain, yes.1
-
Yes Valorie.0
-
Is a pound of feathers the same as a pound of lead?1
-
For nutrition and health, 100 calories of real food are better than 100 calories of corn chips or raw sugar. But those will all have the same weight loss/gain effect. There's nothing like carbs count double, things you eat before 5 pm count half, or anything like that.0
-
And yet another thread that will eventually get locked by the mods.
I'll play along though.
Yes, a calorie is a calorie...5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »A calorie is a unit of measurement. Like miles or gallons or cms or mls. So yes, a calorie is a calorie.
This.
Obviously foods are not all the same so what you choose matters for nutrition and health and such. But "a calorie" is not a synonym for "a food" so when people say "a calorie is a calorie" they do not mean that steak is identical to broccoli.3 -
A calorie burned is a calorie earned
2 -
Didn't we already have this thread in this section? Was it locked?
OP I know you said you are new here but this is an often asked and often debated question. You may find a lot of good info in existing threads that are still available via the search feature.
Oh and yes - a calorie is a calorie from a unit of energy perspective. This does not mean that all foods provide the same nutritional benefits.2 -
-
WinoGelato wrote: »Didn't we already have this thread in this section? Was it locked?
OP I know you said you are new here but this is an often asked and often debated question. You may find a lot of good info in existing threads that are still available via the search feature.
Oh and yes - a calorie is a calorie from a unit of energy perspective. This does not mean that all foods provide the same nutritional benefits.
Yes and no.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332396/are-all-calories-the-same#latest
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10345604/a-quick-refresher-on-a-calorie-is-a-calorie/p1
Both are still open.2 -
I don't know if you have to burn calories Harder between eating a candy bar or carrot sticks that have the same amount calories.0
-
Nope. For weight loss alone, if you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight, regardless of what those calories were.
For health, obviously, what you eat can be important.0 -
I don't know if you have to burn calories Harder between eating a candy bar or carrot sticks that have the same amount calories.
I once overheard someone say that all the fat that you've ever eaten from bacon can never be burned off. You are stuck with it forever. I was a young, dumb teenager and the idea stuck with me and made me afraid to eat bacon. Well, actually I still ate it but resigned myself to living forever with that fat (I told you I was dumb!
)
Later I learned that for losing weight, it really truly is just CI CO. It doesn't matter where the calories originated, be it bacon or nutella or 10 pounds of carrots. If you maintain a deficit you will lose the fat--all the fat equally--, no matter the original source.1 -
I don't know if you have to burn calories Harder between eating a candy bar or carrot sticks that have the same amount calories.
@hdatres, if your goal is weightloss, all you really have to track is calories. Eating 500 calories in carrots will provide the same amount of energy to your body as 500 calories of candy bars. There are other factors to consider, like how full you are, whether eating one leads to more, and the nutrition effect you want to achieve, but in terms of weight, they mean the same.
MFP will automatically set you up on a calorie limit based on your weight goals. Regardless of what you eat, if you stay within that limit, you have a high likelihood of achieving that goal.
Where people often mess up is either not tracking their food, or not tracking their food correctly. There are a lot of entries in the database which are simply incorrect. If something seems too good to be true, it probably is. If you eat a 240 calorie snickers bar then find an entry for it which is only 200, chances are that it was entered wrong. Question everything. Soon, you will get a good sense of what is real and what is fantasy.
Also, keep in mind that there are many ways to "skin a cat". You are the best source to determine what will work best for you. You can achieve your goals through almost any of the methods people will suggest to you (i.e. "clean eating, low fat, low carb, high fat, bananas, etc.) just make sure you track accurately and keep below that limit set by MFP.2 -
Technically yes for weight loss. However, for prep or getting lean/defined I recommend nutrient dense foods. I remember when I lost over 50 pounds on just calorie counting alone while eating whatever I want. I became underweight and skinny-fat. I fixed it by switching to wholesome foods especially high in protein and complex carbs as I increased intensity of my workouts (which was easier to endure with the nutrients I consumed) and I built mass and leaned out. Have been maintaining on this and have never felt better.3
-
You can eat whatever you want to lose weight as long as you are burning more than your eating. Problem is the amount of junk food you can eat per calorie vs real food per calorie will have you wanting more food. Just look at an oreo for example. Those things are likely 200 calories for 1 cookie. If your only eating 1200 calories a day your going to be starving. Rice and chicken will be more filling and have about the same calorie intake making it easier to diet. Also junk food is engineered to make you crave more.1
-
You can eat whatever you want to lose weight as long as you are burning more than your eating. Problem is the amount of junk food you can eat per calorie vs real food per calorie will have you wanting more food. Just look at an oreo for example. Those things are likely 200 calories for 1 cookie. If your only eating 1200 calories a day your going to be starving. Rice and chicken will be more filling and have about the same calorie intake making it easier to diet. Also junk food is engineered to make you crave more.
An Oreo has 53 calories.
If you don't understand how many calories something has, it may seem impossible to fit it into eating a deficit. But when you understand how many calories something has, it's often possible to fit it into a reasonable meal plan. There were many times when I was at a deficit when I was craving something sweet and an Oreo hit the spot. 53 calories can be accomodated by using a little less olive oil when roasting vegetables, having half as much vegetable juice with my breakfast, choosing a tangerine instead of a larger orange, or having half an ounce less of pasta with dinner.10 -
Point was you will be able to more food if it is non junk food. More food per calorie vs junk. Depends if we're talking regular orders or double stuff.2
-
Point was you will be able to more food if it is non junk food. More food per calorie vs junk. Depends if we're talking regular orders or double stuff.
Some non-"junk" is lower in calorie density than "junk" food, but not all of it. Did you read the examples I gave? Olive oil, vegetable juice, oranges, and pasta aren't "junk," but giving up a small volume of them will make room for an Oreo in your day. 50 calories of rice and chicken isn't exactly a huge portion that will fill you up for hours.
It's not hard to fit an Oreo into the day.8 -
Point was you will be able to more food if it is non junk food. More food per calorie vs junk. Depends if we're talking regular orders or double stuff.
Depends on the specific foods, and it depends on whether you are someone who finds volume filling.
I am, so I like to eat meals that are reasonably large (more from vegetables than rice and chicken, however). I also find that it's not hard to add in some more caloric foods simply because I like them, as part of the mix. Lately I've been eating some cheese after dinner, but if I wanted to have ice cream instead it would fit. I am not going to be hungry just because I eat a little something that has more calories and fewer nutrients (like the cheese). It's about overall diet.0 -
In before 'But Oreos don't have nutrition and you can't eat only one!'
Edit: I called it!5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Point was you will be able to more food if it is non junk food. More food per calorie vs junk. Depends if we're talking regular orders or double stuff.
Some non-"junk" is lower in calorie density than "junk" food, but not all of it. Did you read the examples I gave? Olive oil, vegetable juice, oranges, and pasta aren't "junk," but giving up a small volume of them will make room for an Oreo in your day. 50 calories of rice and chicken isn't exactly a huge portion that will fill you up for hours.
It's not hard to fit an Oreo into the day.
Right because people will only eat 1 oreo. If they did they wouldn't be on here trying to lose weight.1 -
Point was you will be able to more food if it is non junk food. More food per calorie vs junk. Depends if we're talking regular orders or double stuff.
If you're gonna MFP, you need to learn precise terms. Double Stuf. Just one "f". Can't go getting them confused with some knockoff cookie. Correct terminology is important!9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Point was you will be able to more food if it is non junk food. More food per calorie vs junk. Depends if we're talking regular orders or double stuff.
Some non-"junk" is lower in calorie density than "junk" food, but not all of it. Did you read the examples I gave? Olive oil, vegetable juice, oranges, and pasta aren't "junk," but giving up a small volume of them will make room for an Oreo in your day. 50 calories of rice and chicken isn't exactly a huge portion that will fill you up for hours.
It's not hard to fit an Oreo into the day.
Right because people will only eat 1 oreo. If they did they wouldn't be on here trying to lose weight.
My knee-jerk reaction was to be like "I'll eat only one Oreo!" Then I thought about that, and no I won't lol. But I will stop at 3, which is 160 calories and very easy to work into my 1400 calorie cut without sacrificing nutrition.5 -
mskessler89 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Point was you will be able to more food if it is non junk food. More food per calorie vs junk. Depends if we're talking regular orders or double stuff.
Some non-"junk" is lower in calorie density than "junk" food, but not all of it. Did you read the examples I gave? Olive oil, vegetable juice, oranges, and pasta aren't "junk," but giving up a small volume of them will make room for an Oreo in your day. 50 calories of rice and chicken isn't exactly a huge portion that will fill you up for hours.
It's not hard to fit an Oreo into the day.
Right because people will only eat 1 oreo. If they did they wouldn't be on here trying to lose weight.
My knee-jerk reaction was to be like "I'll eat only one Oreo!" Then I thought about that, and no I won't lol. But I will stop at 3, which is 160 calories and very easy to work into my 1400 calorie cut without sacrificing nutrition.
Some glad I'm a male and can eat 2500 calories and lose weight. 1400 calories is pretty close to my breakfest during my bulk. Lol0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Point was you will be able to more food if it is non junk food. More food per calorie vs junk. Depends if we're talking regular orders or double stuff.
Some non-"junk" is lower in calorie density than "junk" food, but not all of it. Did you read the examples I gave? Olive oil, vegetable juice, oranges, and pasta aren't "junk," but giving up a small volume of them will make room for an Oreo in your day. 50 calories of rice and chicken isn't exactly a huge portion that will fill you up for hours.
It's not hard to fit an Oreo into the day.
Right because people will only eat 1 oreo. If they did they wouldn't be on here trying to lose weight.
Portion control is always going to be a factor in weight loss. But I've had one Oreo before. I've had 1/2 cup of ice cream, 1 ounce of tortilla chips, 5 ounces of wine, even one Tater Tot. Would I have liked more? Sure. But I also have the ability to plan a portion size and stick to it.
Saying people should avoid a food because it's easy to over-eat is silly. People over-eat all sorts of things -- including chicken and rice. If someone knows they can't just eat one, they should plan accordingly. But portion control is something we all have to master at some point (if we want to be successful).
It seems like you're moving the goalposts. Your initial argument was that an Oreo couldn't fit in the day because it had too many calories (you guessed it was about 200). When the actual calorie count -- pretty reasonable for a cookie -- was revealed, now the argument is that people shouldn't eat Oreos because they can't eat just one? Okay, does that mean people should never have pizza (eating 1-2 slices can be hard) or salad dressing (I use two tablespoons, but it would be easy to use much more) or put sugar in their coffee (1 teaspoons is 15 calories, but lots of people use much more)?8
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