All calories may not be equal
Options
Replies
-
I think back to my Human Nutrition Professor in college who pretty much told us that if you eat more calories than you burn you gain weight and if you eat fewer than you burn you lose weight--period. She even said that you could do a Pepsi diet and drink a six pack of Pepsi every day and you'd still lose weight, though she pointed out that you'd be missing a ton of vital nutrients.4
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The name of this thread is "all calories may not be equal."
This is what Dr. Mark Hyman has to say. He is chairman of The Institute for Functional Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
"The truth is there are good and bad calories. And that’s because this involves more than a simple math equation. If you eat the same amount of calories in kale or gummy bears, do they do the same thing to your body? No!
When we eat, our food interacts with our biology, which is a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite. Every bite affects your hormones, brain chemistry and metabolism. Sugar calories cause fat storage and spikes hunger. Protein and fat calories promote fat burning.
What counts even more than the quantity of calories are the quality of the calories."
How can Hyman claim to be a doctor when he doesn't understand even the most rudimentary aspects of human biology/physiology?
It's also highly disingenuous to discuss fat storage only in the short (i.e. postprandial) term as if it means anything. Our bodies are in a constant ebb and flow of anabolism/catabolism, deficit/surplus, accretion/excretion. Hyman is a pseudoscientific quack because he cherry picks facts to confuse the issues and fit his agenda.10 -
queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The name of this thread is "all calories may not be equal."
This is what Dr. Mark Hyman has to say. He is chairman of The Institute for Functional Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
"The truth is there are good and bad calories. And that’s because this involves more than a simple math equation. If you eat the same amount of calories in kale or gummy bears, do they do the same thing to your body? No!
When we eat, our food interacts with our biology, which is a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite. Every bite affects your hormones, brain chemistry and metabolism. Sugar calories cause fat storage and spikes hunger. Protein and fat calories promote fat burning.
What counts even more than the quantity of calories are the quality of the calories."
Kale has thallium and tastes like grass and gummy bears have sugar and are delicious. Hard to decide which one is better.
Both make my jaw ache.0 -
Real food contains all sorts of elements from the periodic table. I suppose you get no iron or calcium from any of your food?4
-
Mmmm. GMO Rum
http://www.compoundchem.com/2015/11/12/rum/2 -
GMO wild garlic!!!
http://www.compoundchem.com/2016/04/04/wild-garlic/0 -
BreezeDoveal wrote: »SusanMFindlay wrote: »Real food contains all sorts of elements from the periodic table. I suppose you get no iron or calcium from any of your food?
I get health from my foods, what about you?
I get health from many of my foods and pleasure from many of them. I try to overlap the two as much as possible.
I also get carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc and many many trace elements from them. I rarely choose foods for specific elements and don't particularly care which elements are in which foods because I know that a well balanced diet will make sure that I get all the elements I need. But that doesn't change the fact that those elements are in there.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I could easily hit 3000 calories eating at places like cheesecake factory. But getting that much at home day in day out, i reckon I'd struggle. My blowout cheat days rarely hit 2500 calories. I'm a total lightweight failure
Adding one pint of Haagen-Dazs chocolate peanut butter ice cream (1360 calories) to my current deficit intake would put me at 3660. I don't think many people would consider a pint of ice cream per day as an undue hardship.
Alternately, I could cook my morning eggs in a couple tablespoons of olive oil (+240 calories), have 2 ounces of almonds for a mid-morning snack (+320 calories), slice up half an avocado and add it to my salad for dinner (+130 calories). Add those to my normal daily intake and boom, I'm at 3000 calories and would barely notice any difference in terms of satiety.
True, true
I'd have no problem eating a pint of ice cream, and yes it would be easy adding lashings of oil to things without noticing it much.
@Christine_72 Do you have Halo Top ice cream down under? It's protein ice cream--an entire pint is 280 calories max. And it's GOOD. Not like the other stuff I've tried which tastes like frozen ice with a brown crayon mixed in and called "chocolate."
Also ... Sonics are just plain fun. It's a drive up restaurant and the wait staff is on roller skates. Worth it just for the experience. (And the tater tots.)
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I could easily hit 3000 calories eating at places like cheesecake factory. But getting that much at home day in day out, i reckon I'd struggle. My blowout cheat days rarely hit 2500 calories. I'm a total lightweight failure
Adding one pint of Haagen-Dazs chocolate peanut butter ice cream (1360 calories) to my current deficit intake would put me at 3660. I don't think many people would consider a pint of ice cream per day as an undue hardship.
Alternately, I could cook my morning eggs in a couple tablespoons of olive oil (+240 calories), have 2 ounces of almonds for a mid-morning snack (+320 calories), slice up half an avocado and add it to my salad for dinner (+130 calories). Add those to my normal daily intake and boom, I'm at 3000 calories and would barely notice any difference in terms of satiety.
True, true I'd have no problem eating a pint of ice cream, and yes it would be easy adding lashings of oil to things without noticing it much.
@Christine_72 Do you have Halo Top ice cream down under? It's protein ice cream--an entire pint is 280 calories max. And it's GOOD. Not like the other stuff I've tried which tastes like frozen ice with a brown crayon mixed in and called "chocolate."
Also ... Sonics are just plain fun. It's a drive up restaurant and the wait staff is on roller skates. Worth it just for the experience. (And the tater tots.)
No we dont
I don't think we have anything even remotely similar.
0 -
BreezeDoveal wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The name of this thread is "all calories may not be equal."
This is what Dr. Mark Hyman has to say. He is chairman of The Institute for Functional Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
"The truth is there are good and bad calories. And that’s because this involves more than a simple math equation. If you eat the same amount of calories in kale or gummy bears, do they do the same thing to your body? No!
When we eat, our food interacts with our biology, which is a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite. Every bite affects your hormones, brain chemistry and metabolism. Sugar calories cause fat storage and spikes hunger. Protein and fat calories promote fat burning.
What counts even more than the quantity of calories are the quality of the calories."
Kale has thallium and tastes like grass and gummy bears have sugar and are delicious. Hard to decide which one is better.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallium
Real food isn't on the periodic table. You must be talking about some kind of GMO kale.Thallium is a chemical element with symbol Tl and atomic number 81.
I really hope you're trolling.
Like really, really hope.3 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The name of this thread is "all calories may not be equal."
This is what Dr. Mark Hyman has to say. He is chairman of The Institute for Functional Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
"The truth is there are good and bad calories. And that’s because this involves more than a simple math equation. If you eat the same amount of calories in kale or gummy bears, do they do the same thing to your body? No!
When we eat, our food interacts with our biology, which is a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite. Every bite affects your hormones, brain chemistry and metabolism. Sugar calories cause fat storage and spikes hunger. Protein and fat calories promote fat burning.
What counts even more than the quantity of calories are the quality of the calories."
Quantity of calories is definitely more important than quality in terms of weight loss, but that doesn't mean that quality doesn't matter; it certain does matter and plays a huge role in satiety and sustaining a weight loss strategy. Even if you eat perfect quality nutrients, you can still gain weight.
Dr. Hyman's argument is a bit obtuse because it would not occur in any environment. If you ate only kale, you would have a fat and protein deficiency. Same thing would happen with only gummy bears.
Also, sugar (carbohydrates) are less likely to store as fat, as compared to dietary fat through de nova lipogenesis. Below is some good information if you are interested in reading more about it.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/74/6/707.full
So in case you don't realize it, there are several hormones that inhibit lipolysis (fat burning) and induce lipogenesis (fat storage). When your body starts to break down carbs into glucose, your pancreas will release insulin as a means to regulate blood sugar. As insulin comes into your system, your body releases the enzyme lipoportein lipase (LPL); subsequently, it will also suppress Hormone Sensitive Lipase (HSL) which is your fat burning hormone. Due to this, people assume that insulin is bad because the thought process is: Carbs -->Insulin--> Suppressed fat oxidation --> Oh No!!!
Side note: Protein is also an insulinogenic.
What a lot of people don't realize, because it's not as discussed currently are the other hormones that suppress HSL and put our bodies into Lipogenesis. When you eat large amounts of fat, your body will release the enzyme Acylation Stimulating Protein (ASP). This enzyme also suppresses HSL, which in turn causes your body to go into lipogenesis.
When a person eats both fats and carbs, your body has a third hormone that will suppress HSL; that is called Glucose-dependent Insulinthropic Peptide (GIP).
The TL:DR verision of this: We are all screwed. Our body are fat storing machines.10 -
A calorie is a unit of energy, not a food, so by definition the type of calorie makes no difference in terms of weight gain/loss. However as echoed by many others, the type of calories you consume perform vastly different biological roles. Proteins and carbohybrates have completely different functions and purposes. Maintaining good health can and does indirectly lead to the amount of weight you lose through many factors. Excess toxins in the diet may cause lethargy and fatigue, leading to lack of motivation and subsequent weight gain. So whilst "all calories are equal" is technically true, indirectly its not so simple, and the quality does matter.0
-
A calorie is a unit of energy, not a food, so by definition the type of calorie makes no difference in terms of weight gain/loss. However as echoed by many others, the type of calories you consume perform vastly different biological roles. Proteins and carbohybrates have completely different functions and purposes. Maintaining good health can and does indirectly lead to the amount of weight you lose through many factors. Excess toxins in the diet may cause lethargy and fatigue, leading to lack of motivation and subsequent weight gain. So whilst "all calories are equal" is technically true, indirectly its not so simple, and the quality does matter for nutrition, but not for weight loss.
I feel the added bold caveat makes that last sentence a bit more accurate.
Edit to correct the fact that I meant to address just the last sentence and not the whole statement.1 -
I agree if you're talking about the immediate biochemical effects, but indirectly I'm still of the belief that an unhealthy diet causes lethargy and other symptoms which can lead to weight gain. Of course if someone really did stick to an exercise regime regardless of the type of calories they consume, then you're right.Wynterbourne wrote: »I feel the added bold caveat makes that statement a bit more accurate.
2 -
A calorie is a unit of energy, not a food, so by definition the type of calorie makes no difference in terms of weight gain/loss. However as echoed by many others, the type of calories you consume perform vastly different biological roles. Proteins and carbohybrates have completely different functions and purposes. Maintaining good health can and does indirectly lead to the amount of weight you lose through many factors. Excess toxins in the diet may cause lethargy and fatigue, leading to lack of motivation and subsequent weight gain. So whilst "all calories are equal" is technically true, indirectly its not so simple, and the quality does matter.
What toxins? Bodies dont build up toxins. If they do, you would be hospitalized.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Maxematics wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »DancingDaffydils wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »MissusMoon wrote: »xjessicaxrx wrote: »Let me be clear, the OCD comment was aimed at those who stress over weighing a pre-packaged, single serving yogurt just incase the calories are off by +/- 5-10kcal. Those who weigh restaurant food and pick apart meals "just incase".
Counting calories is one thing but that is just not normal behaviour.
If I weren't weighing my food, I would be eating at least 200 more calories more than I should every day. Slices of bread, cups of yogurt, packaged food that says it has "about 1.5 servings" that really has more than three. I'm far from OCD, but yeah, I'm going to weigh all of that--because having lost 75lbs is better than not.
The receptionist at my physical therapist's office and I got to talking. She used to be obese. She has peanut butter and apples for breakfast, and still weighs it all out. She's not OCD either. She's doing what she needs to do to maintain her healthy weight. Over five years and counting.
Labeling people with a mental condition because you don't understand why they do what they do is ridiculous.
If you have reached your goal weight, and five years later you are still counting every calorie and weighing and measuring everything you eat, it is OCD.
God forbid you gain two pounds. Guess what? You can start counting again and lose the two pounds.
You are clueless about OCD and you have no business speaking about it. At this point I think you are purposely being disrespectful.
I mean no disrespect and I do not mean to be argumentative. It is just beyond my comprehension that a healthy person who works out and has reached the correct weight by counting, weighing and measuring, would continue to count, weigh and measure meal after meal after meal, year after year after year.
Just enjoy your food. Weigh yourself every day. I guarantee that nothing bad will happen to you other than gaining two pounds, which you can lose right away by counting, measuring and weighing.
Sorry, but I do not understand the obsession. And it is, in my opinion, an obsession.
There is a different between a habit and an obsession. There is a difference between a choice and a compulsion. There is a difference between having an obsession or a compulsion and having obsessive compulsive disorder. There is a difference between choosing to weigh and stressing about weighing. There is a difference between stressing about weighing and having obsessive compulsive disorder. Until you understand any of these differences, you need to stop throwing diagnoses around like they're Mardi Gras beads.
OK, here is my new diagnosis - it's odd.
You know what I think is odd? Someone who claims they ate more than all of their college friends and never gained weight. Someone who claims they can recall everything both them and their friends ate when they were in college over 30 years ago. I knew I remembered you. I remember calling you out in that other thread for having problems with a food scale and you said you didn't. I apologized for being mistaken. Now I'm annoyed that I apologized for that because you clearly do.
That's right. Almost 6' 1", 145 lbs., no exercise other than walking to class (like everyone else), and eating like a horse. That's me! Thanks for remembering.
And by the way, it's called a fast metabolism. I'm sure you have heard of that term.
My brother was like that. He was 6'3", 145 pounds, and ate like a horse. So I tend to think that certain individuals do have higher "engine" speeds and fast metabolisms.
I'll save the others from responding. This is a typical canned response:
- You weren't with him all the time. How do you know he wasn't running five miles everyday?
- You say he ate lie a "horse." What does that mean? You weren't counting his calories. And maybe he only ate like a horse when you were with him, and he didn't eat the rest of the day.
Something like that. In other words, the posters here who never met your brother, know more about him than you do.
He grew up with me. So I do know. As soon as my mom brought in groceries he was climbing on the counter as a child and eating up food. He kept the fast metabolism into teens and adulthood.
Did you weigh, measure, and log every morsel of food he ate???
See. I told you! This is the canned response. Did you weigh, measure and log his food?
Because you didn't, how dare you comment on his metabolism!!!
I think people don't want to acknowledge that some people are more efficient burning calories.
And more efficient means they burn LESS doing the same thing.
Clarification for you: Efficient Metabolism.
I have always had a very high metabolism, and other folk I know gain weight if they smell bread baking.
The MFP estimates were wrong for me, so I simply up-regulated my daily allowance for calories and raised slightly the numbers for exercise burn.
Worked perfectly...
As for the source for this energy, I prefer nutritious whole foods mostly.0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »A calorie is a unit of energy, not a food, so by definition the type of calorie makes no difference in terms of weight gain/loss. However as echoed by many others, the type of calories you consume perform vastly different biological roles. Proteins and carbohybrates have completely different functions and purposes. Maintaining good health can and does indirectly lead to the amount of weight you lose through many factors. Excess toxins in the diet may cause lethargy and fatigue, leading to lack of motivation and subsequent weight gain. So whilst "all calories are equal" is technically true, indirectly its not so simple, and the quality does matter for nutrition, but not for weight loss.
I feel the added bold caveat makes that statement a bit more accurate.
I think Psulemon made a valid point above in that the "quality" of calories does matter for weight loss in the sense of providing satiety and helping with adherence. I mean "quality" in the sense of setting one's macronutrient balance in a way that's most satisfying for them.
Yes, technically one could lose weight subsisting mainly upon donuts, twinkies, potato chips, etc. as long as they maintained a caloric deficit. This has been proven by the "Twinkie Diet" experiment. However, there's a good chance that one would also spend a lot of time hungry and fighting off urges to binge/cheat on such a diet. No diet, no matter how "healthy" or "unhealthy", will result in weight loss if somebody can't stick to it and make it work for them.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 931 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions