A calorie is a calorie ...
crackpotbaby
Posts: 1,297 Member
A little visual comparison regarding calories vs nutrition.
http://www.gocompare.com/health-insurance/counting-calories/
http://www.gocompare.com/health-insurance/counting-calories/
11
Replies
-
In terms of weight loss, yes a calorie is a calorie. In terms of overall health yes, you should eat a varied diet consisting of foods that a. you enjoy eating b. fit within your calorie goals c. have a high satiety level for you and d. gives you a good balance of macros and micros
15 -
In.6
-
Yep, different foods have different calories and different nutrient contents, and what you eat in your overall diet matters.
Don't quite understand the title, as IMO that has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie. Calorie is not a synonym for "food" in that phrase.9 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »In terms of weight loss, yes a calorie is a calorie. In terms of overall health yes, you should eat a varied diet consisting of foods that a. you enjoy eating b. fit within your calorie goals c. have a high satiety level for you and d. gives you a good balance of macros and micros
My view on those priorities is a little different. I would say:
a) eat foods that meet your nutritional requirements
b) don't exceed your caloric needs
c) fill you up
d) you like
How you rank those attributes is all about a values I guess and the whole calorie in calorie out is the whole equation depends entirely on if you want to 'lose weight' or be healthy.
................
I thought the linked article gave a good visual regarding calories being equal in an easy to understand illustrative manner.
Some of the actual text is a bit wishy washy, but it is just a little piece for a health insurance mob.
Food for thought though.2 -
I love that visual!!! Those thick white bread/ham sarnies look particularly amazing
3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yep, different foods have different calories and different nutrient contents, and what you eat in your overall diet matters.
Don't quite understand the title, as IMO that has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie. Calorie is not a synonym for "food" in that phrase.
Because there are soooooo many posts on here were users advocate others eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit.
Those posts reek of ignorance regarding nutrition and general health. I find that very frustrating particularly when that advice is given with the implication of calories all being equal (in a great sense than measured unit of energy).
I stumbled across this pictorial comparison and thought it was a good illustrative example.
You don't have to like the title of my thread
But I certainly was not using calorie as a synonym for food or implying is is. It was in reference to the way the phase is used frequently on the forums in a same calories, equal results for your body kind of way. That's all.
8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yep, different foods have different calories and different nutrient contents, and what you eat in your overall diet matters.
Don't quite understand the title, as IMO that has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie. Calorie is not a synonym for "food" in that phrase.
Because there are soooooo many posts on here were users advocate others eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit.
Those posts reek of ignorance regarding nutrition and general health. I find that very frustrating particularly when that advice is given with the implication of calories all being equal (in a great sense than measured unit of energy).
I stumbled across this pictorial comparison and thought it was a good illustrative example.
You don't have to like the title of my thread
But I certainly was not using calorie as a synonym for food or implying is is. It was in reference to the way the phase is used frequently on the forums in a same calories, equal results for your body kind of way. That's all.
What about the numerous posts from people scared of carbs and don't have medical conditions? Those are also ignorant. I actually find people misinterpret a lot of cico posts. People assume they mean eat junk food all day every day when they actually mean it is OK to have treats as long as they don't push you over your calorie goal.30 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yep, different foods have different calories and different nutrient contents, and what you eat in your overall diet matters.
Don't quite understand the title, as IMO that has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie. Calorie is not a synonym for "food" in that phrase.
Because there are soooooo many posts on here were users advocate others eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit.
As I've said in other threads, I really think claims like this are a misunderstanding of what's said. As someone who has said "a calorie is a calorie" and (when asked) "yes, if you want to, you can eat whatever you choose and still lose weight," I always add "but of course for health and nutrition what you eat matters" and also "what you eat could make it easier or harder to stick to your calorie goal." I have seem MANY such threads and have yet to see one where that's not said early on and by many posters or where anyone disagrees with that advice. I really think the claim that people are being told nutrition/satiety are irrelevant is a strawman.
I'll also say that I think this supposed disagreement between what one "wants" to eat/think tastes good and what is nutritionally satisfying is a little bit of an assumption, and IMO a sad one. What I WANT to eat is what fits my nutrition goals, as well as what just happens to appeal in the moment, and there's no conflict between what I think tastes good and those goals. I can prioritize BOTH eating what I want and hitting nutritional requirements.Those posts reek of ignorance regarding nutrition and general health. I find that very frustrating particularly when that advice is given with the implication of calories all being equal (in a great sense than measured unit of energy).
Well, in that I think you are wrong about what the posts say, can't comment on these posts that supposedly claim nutrition doesn't matter.But I certainly was not using calorie as a synonym for food or implying is is. It was in reference to the way the phase is used frequently on the forums in a same calories, equal results for your body kind of way. That's all.
But that assumes it is being used as a synonym for food.
Steak including 100 calories of energy, broccoli including the same, and olive oil including the same are all different foods and have different effects on satiety, nutrition, etc. (or let's compare 2 meals of 500 calories and they will be different, obviously). But the CALORIES are not different, as a calorie is just a unit of energy. There's no such thing as a "steak calorie" vs. a "broccoli calorie." That's why I say that when you think "a calorie is a calorie" means it makes no difference whether you eat a meal of pasta with shrimp and vegetables, plus olive oil, a meal of steak and fries with a salad, or a meal of lentils and spinach and some rice and butter, or any number of other things, you are wrong. Those meals might be different beyond calorie differences -- they might have more or less effect on lasting satiety, on satisfaction, on whether the day meets overall nutrient requirements, etc. But that doesn't mean a calorie is not a calorie.
You seem to think that someone who says a calorie is not a calorie means something that is never meant, and that's why I find this frustrating. I really think it's a misunderstanding that ought to be cleared up.
Question: what do you actually think you and I are disagreeing about here?14 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yep, different foods have different calories and different nutrient contents, and what you eat in your overall diet matters.
Don't quite understand the title, as IMO that has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie. Calorie is not a synonym for "food" in that phrase.
Because there are soooooo many posts on here were users advocate others eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit.
Those posts reek of ignorance regarding nutrition and general health. I find that very frustrating particularly when that advice is given with the implication of calories all being equal (in a great sense than measured unit of energy).
I stumbled across this pictorial comparison and thought it was a good illustrative example.
You don't have to like the title of my thread
But I certainly was not using calorie as a synonym for food or implying is is. It was in reference to the way the phase is used frequently on the forums in a same calories, equal results for your body kind of way. That's all.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie and a deficit is all that is required. Of corse Nutrition is important and is usually explicitly stated within the same post where someone is inquiring about if you will still lose weight if you continue to eat treats as long as you're within your calories. Even when it is not explicitly stated it is implied by the vast majority of these responses.
To think that posters on these boards are unaware or ignorant of the importance of nutrition and general health simply because a common phrase "a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss" which does answer the question that was asked, is presumptuous, offensive, and shows a lack of understanding of the community and these boards.20 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »In terms of weight loss, yes a calorie is a calorie. In terms of overall health yes, you should eat a varied diet consisting of foods that a. you enjoy eating b. fit within your calorie goals c. have a high satiety level for you and d. gives you a good balance of macros and micros
My view on those priorities is a little different. I would say:
a) eat foods that meet your nutritional requirements
b) don't exceed your caloric needs
c) fill you up
d) you like
How you rank those attributes is all about a values I guess and the whole calorie in calorie out is the whole equation depends entirely on if you want to 'lose weight' or be healthy.
................
I thought the linked article gave a good visual regarding calories being equal in an easy to understand illustrative manner.
Some of the actual text is a bit wishy washy, but it is just a little piece for a health insurance mob.
Food for thought though.
My previous post was not ranked in any specific order. But, back during my weight loss phase I was scared, overwhelmed and facing a medical crisis (had just found out I was a prediabetic). I decided to only focus on calorie intake and continued to eat the same as when I was overweight-just less of it. I also started eating all sorts of 'processed' diet foods. Despite what kinds of foods I was eating (almost no veggies, no whole grains, no fruit etc), I lost 50lbs. And I improved every single health marker my doctor used and my blood work came back improved as well-including a glucose number of 84 ie normal range/no longer prediabetic.
In the almost 4 years of maintenance that's followed, I've continued to focus #1-on my calorie intake. It's the only number I track. Within that though I've made some changes to what I eat and now I eat veggies, whole grains, lean meats etc on a daily basis. I also still eat fast food several times a week, still have chips and sweet treats etc but these are now a 3-4 times a week thing instead of a daily staple. I've continued to eat all the foods I like and I've found a few new ones along the way as well. I focus on foods that have a higher satiety level for me and I make sure I'm eating all sorts of things, to give my diet variety and get micros in.
My health markers are still excellent, blood work panels are still great, I have a bmi of around 21 and I'm one of the very few people who are maintaining long term. I focus on CICO AND being healthy and what I'm doing is working well for me 9 -
I like that article and will share it on my Facebook!!0
-
crzycatlady1 wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »In terms of weight loss, yes a calorie is a calorie. In terms of overall health yes, you should eat a varied diet consisting of foods that a. you enjoy eating b. fit within your calorie goals c. have a high satiety level for you and d. gives you a good balance of macros and micros
My view on those priorities is a little different. I would say:
a) eat foods that meet your nutritional requirements
b) don't exceed your caloric needs
c) fill you up
d) you like
How you rank those attributes is all about a values I guess and the whole calorie in calorie out is the whole equation depends entirely on if you want to 'lose weight' or be healthy.
................
I thought the linked article gave a good visual regarding calories being equal in an easy to understand illustrative manner.
Some of the actual text is a bit wishy washy, but it is just a little piece for a health insurance mob.
Food for thought though.
My previous post was not ranked in any specific order. But, back during my weight loss phase I was scared, overwhelmed and facing a medical crisis (had just found out I was a prediabetic). I decided to only focus on calorie intake and continued to eat the same as when I was overweight-just less of it. I also started eating all sorts of 'processed' diet foods. Despite what kinds of foods I was eating (almost no veggies, no whole grains, no fruit etc), I lost 50lbs. And I improved every single health marker my doctor used and my blood work came back improved as well-including a glucose number of 84 ie normal range/no longer prediabetic.
In the almost 4 years of maintenance that's followed, I've continued to focus #1-on my calorie intake. It's the only number I track. Within that though I've made some changes to what I eat and now I eat veggies, whole grains, lean meats etc on a daily basis. I also still eat fast food several times a week, still have chips and sweet treats etc but these are now a 3-4 times a week thing instead of a daily staple. I've continued to eat all the foods I like and I've found a few new ones along the way as well. I focus on foods that have a higher satiety level for me and I make sure I'm eating all sorts of things, to give my diet variety and get micros in.
My health markers are still excellent, blood work panels are still great, I have a bmi of around 21 and I'm one of the very few people who are maintaining long term. I focus on CICO AND being healthy and what I'm doing is working well for me
Agree. For many who come here, their weight is the more immediate threat to their health than their nutrition, so that may take priority. But many of us learn & make a lot of dietary improvements as we go. I eat a fairly healthy diet (and did when I was obese too), but have a sweet tooth and many days devote too many calories to it. It's a work in progress, but I've still cut my bad cholesterol by 30%, cut my triglycerides in half, went from a high-risk cardio category to one of the lowest, and have increased my fitness tremendously. I think nutrition is very important, but I wonder what my doctor would say the biggest gains came from?1 -
To follow/agree wtih the last few posts, I think a lot of people start by focusing on calories and then change/improve their diets, of course to varying degrees. Also, how much you need to change your diet other than cutting calories varies a lot, and some think they must eat all "diet" food or never have something indulgent. This all goes into the advice given.3
-
I am impressed that something sensible has come from go compare!
Best line: "While calories are important when it comes to losing, maintaining or gaining weight, they are not the sole element that we should be focusing on when it comes to improving our health."2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yep, different foods have different calories and different nutrient contents, and what you eat in your overall diet matters.
Don't quite understand the title, as IMO that has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie. Calorie is not a synonym for "food" in that phrase.
Because there are soooooo many posts on here were users advocate others eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit.
Those posts reek of ignorance regarding nutrition and general health. I find that very frustrating particularly when that advice is given with the implication of calories all being equal (in a great sense than measured unit of energy).
I stumbled across this pictorial comparison and thought it was a good illustrative example.
You don't have to like the title of my thread
But I certainly was not using calorie as a synonym for food or implying is is. It was in reference to the way the phase is used frequently on the forums in a same calories, equal results for your body kind of way. That's all.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie and a deficit is all that is required. Of corse Nutrition is important and is usually explicitly stated within the same post where someone is inquiring about if you will still lose weight if you continue to eat treats as long as you're within your calories. Even when it is not explicitly stated it is implied by the vast majority of these responses.
To think that posters on these boards are unaware or ignorant of the importance of nutrition and general health simply because a common phrase "a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss" which does answer the question that was asked, is presumptuous, offensive, and shows a lack of understanding of the community and these boards.
In didn't realise understanding the community and the boards was a prerequisite for reading and interpreting posts.
Some posts ARE ignorant. Some are rude. Some are dismissive.
'An calorie is a calorie ...' I think I explained my point on using that phrase already but I think you'll find that 'nutrition is also important' is not always explicit in many posts.
4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yep, different foods have different calories and different nutrient contents, and what you eat in your overall diet matters.
Don't quite understand the title, as IMO that has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie. Calorie is not a synonym for "food" in that phrase.
Because there are soooooo many posts on here were users advocate others eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit.
As I've said in other threads, I really think claims like this are a misunderstanding of what's said. As someone who has said "a calorie is a calorie" and (when asked) "yes, if you want to, you can eat whatever you choose and still lose weight," I always add "but of course for health and nutrition what you eat matters" and also "what you eat could make it easier or harder to stick to your calorie goal." I have seem MANY such threads and have yet to see one where that's not said early on and by many posters or where anyone disagrees with that advice. I really think the claim that people are being told nutrition/satiety are irrelevant is a strawman.
I'll also say that I think this supposed disagreement between what one "wants" to eat/think tastes good and what is nutritionally satisfying is a little bit of an assumption, and IMO a sad one. What I WANT to eat is what fits my nutrition goals, as well as what just happens to appeal in the moment, and there's no conflict between what I think tastes good and those goals. I can prioritize BOTH eating what I want and hitting nutritional requirements.Those posts reek of ignorance regarding nutrition and general health. I find that very frustrating particularly when that advice is given with the implication of calories all being equal (in a great sense than measured unit of energy).
Well, in that I think you are wrong about what the posts say, can't comment on these posts that supposedly claim nutrition doesn't matter.But I certainly was not using calorie as a synonym for food or implying is is. It was in reference to the way the phase is used frequently on the forums in a same calories, equal results for your body kind of way. That's all.
But that assumes it is being used as a synonym for food.
Steak including 100 calories of energy, broccoli including the same, and olive oil including the same are all different foods and have different effects on satiety, nutrition, etc. (or let's compare 2 meals of 500 calories and they will be different, obviously). But the CALORIES are not different, as a calorie is just a unit of energy. There's no such thing as a "steak calorie" vs. a "broccoli calorie." That's why I say that when you think "a calorie is a calorie" means it makes no difference whether you eat a meal of pasta with shrimp and vegetables, plus olive oil, a meal of steak and fries with a salad, or a meal of lentils and spinach and some rice and butter, or any number of other things, you are wrong. Those meals might be different beyond calorie differences -- they might have more or less effect on lasting satiety, on satisfaction, on whether the day meets overall nutrient requirements, etc. But that doesn't mean a calorie is not a calorie.
You seem to think that someone who says a calorie is not a calorie means something that is never meant, and that's why I find this frustrating. I really think it's a misunderstanding that ought to be cleared up.
Question: what do you actually think you and I are disagreeing about here?
Um ... semantics.
2 -
WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yep, different foods have different calories and different nutrient contents, and what you eat in your overall diet matters.
Don't quite understand the title, as IMO that has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie. Calorie is not a synonym for "food" in that phrase.
Because there are soooooo many posts on here were users advocate others eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit.
Those posts reek of ignorance regarding nutrition and general health. I find that very frustrating particularly when that advice is given with the implication of calories all being equal (in a great sense than measured unit of energy).
I stumbled across this pictorial comparison and thought it was a good illustrative example.
You don't have to like the title of my thread
But I certainly was not using calorie as a synonym for food or implying is is. It was in reference to the way the phase is used frequently on the forums in a same calories, equal results for your body kind of way. That's all.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie and a deficit is all that is required. Of corse Nutrition is important and is usually explicitly stated within the same post where someone is inquiring about if you will still lose weight if you continue to eat treats as long as you're within your calories. Even when it is not explicitly stated it is implied by the vast majority of these responses.
To think that posters on these boards are unaware or ignorant of the importance of nutrition and general health simply because a common phrase "a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss" which does answer the question that was asked, is presumptuous, offensive, and shows a lack of understanding of the community and these boards.
In didn't realise understanding the community and the boards was a prerequisite for reading and interpreting posts.
Some posts ARE ignorant. Some are rude. Some are dismissive.
'An calorie is a calorie ...' I think I explained my point on using that phrase already but I think you'll find that 'nutrition is also important' is not always explicit in many posts.
For people who participate in these boards on a regular basis, the same questions come in OVER AND OVER. The majority of posters are patient and helpful and answer questions as they come in, but constantly having to qualify a statement of "yes a calorie is a calorie but of course nutrition is important" can get tiresome and redundant when the question was specifically "if I eat chocolate can I still lose weight as long as I'm within my calories?". The simplest answer to that is YES. If you have read through the countless posts we have on this topic, you would see that nutrition is strongly advocated for, even if not always explicitly stated, and it doesn't need to be explicitly stated in every single post on a thread.
If you have some examples of the ignorant, rude, dismissive posts you could quote those directly so we could see what you're talking about, but in general - starting threads to complain about the tone of other posters on these forums is not usually a productive exercise. It's usually better to ask clarifying questions within the thread itself where you feel the comments are inadequate.
17 -
Whenever I see someone say, "You can eat whatever you want to lose weight, as long as you eat the right number of calories", it is almost always followed by something along the lines of "But obviously, you want to eat a balanced nutritious diet for your health". I've never seen anyone say that the only important thing no matter what your goals are is to eat the right amount of calories.
Sometimes people just post that you can eat whatever you want, but that is usually in threads where there are already 20 other posts saying that calories are king but obviously you want to make sure you eat nutritious foods.
Plus, most of the time, the OP says "I'm only eating salads and baked chicken breast, I cut out all the bad stuff, and I can't lose weight. What's wrong with me?" And people say it doesn't matter what you eat as long as the calories are right, so get a food scale and weigh out those salads and chicken breasts. If you take their responses out of context, maybe you could get the wrong idea, but if you take them in the context of the thread, they are trying to explain to someone that you can still gain weight on a "healthy" diet.
Of course nutrition matters. But nutrition doesn't hinder or cause weight loss when your calories are in line. That's all anyone here is ever trying to say.11 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yep, different foods have different calories and different nutrient contents, and what you eat in your overall diet matters.
Don't quite understand the title, as IMO that has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie. Calorie is not a synonym for "food" in that phrase.
Because there are soooooo many posts on here were users advocate others eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit.
Those posts reek of ignorance regarding nutrition and general health. I find that very frustrating particularly when that advice is given with the implication of calories all being equal (in a great sense than measured unit of energy).
I stumbled across this pictorial comparison and thought it was a good illustrative example.
You don't have to like the title of my thread
But I certainly was not using calorie as a synonym for food or implying is is. It was in reference to the way the phase is used frequently on the forums in a same calories, equal results for your body kind of way. That's all.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie and a deficit is all that is required. Of corse Nutrition is important and is usually explicitly stated within the same post where someone is inquiring about if you will still lose weight if you continue to eat treats as long as you're within your calories. Even when it is not explicitly stated it is implied by the vast majority of these responses.
To think that posters on these boards are unaware or ignorant of the importance of nutrition and general health simply because a common phrase "a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss" which does answer the question that was asked, is presumptuous, offensive, and shows a lack of understanding of the community and these boards.
In didn't realise understanding the community and the boards was a prerequisite for reading and interpreting posts.
Some posts ARE ignorant. Some are rude. Some are dismissive.
'An calorie is a calorie ...' I think I explained my point on using that phrase already but I think you'll find that 'nutrition is also important' is not always explicit in many posts.
For people who participate in these boards on a regular basis, the same questions come in OVER AND OVER. The majority of posters are patient and helpful and answer questions as they come in, but constantly having to qualify a statement of "yes a calorie is a calorie but of course nutrition is important" can get tiresome and redundant when the question was specifically "if I eat chocolate can I still lose weight as long as I'm within my calories?". The simplest answer to that is YES. If you have read through the countless posts we have on this topic, you would see that nutrition is strongly advocated for, even if not always explicitly stated, and it doesn't need to be explicitly stated in every single post on a thread.
If you have some examples of the ignorant, rude, dismissive posts you could quote those directly so we could see what you're talking about, but in general - starting threads to complain about the tone of other posters on these forums is not usually a productive exercise. It's usually better to ask clarifying questions within the thread itself where you feel the comments are inadequate.
I started a thread to post a link to an interesting visual side by side comparison of two equal calorie days, with comparative nutritional discussion not to complain about anything.
Any other comments have been in response to replies like your own.
3 -
If anyone else was curious about the Exeter/Oxford study referenced in the article, I found it:
http://emph.oxfordjournals.org/content/2016/1/3694 -
Great post, really interesting as well. If you work out your calorie intake to loose weight you will loose weight on both of these "diets" or "day menus" but obviously feeding your body with nutrients make you healthy 3
-
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yep, different foods have different calories and different nutrient contents, and what you eat in your overall diet matters.
Don't quite understand the title, as IMO that has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie. Calorie is not a synonym for "food" in that phrase.
Because there are soooooo many posts on here were users advocate others eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit.
Those posts reek of ignorance regarding nutrition and general health. I find that very frustrating particularly when that advice is given with the implication of calories all being equal (in a great sense than measured unit of energy).
I stumbled across this pictorial comparison and thought it was a good illustrative example.
You don't have to like the title of my thread
But I certainly was not using calorie as a synonym for food or implying is is. It was in reference to the way the phase is used frequently on the forums in a same calories, equal results for your body kind of way. That's all.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie and a deficit is all that is required. Of corse Nutrition is important and is usually explicitly stated within the same post where someone is inquiring about if you will still lose weight if you continue to eat treats as long as you're within your calories. Even when it is not explicitly stated it is implied by the vast majority of these responses.
To think that posters on these boards are unaware or ignorant of the importance of nutrition and general health simply because a common phrase "a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss" which does answer the question that was asked, is presumptuous, offensive, and shows a lack of understanding of the community and these boards.
In didn't realise understanding the community and the boards was a prerequisite for reading and interpreting posts.
Some posts ARE ignorant. Some are rude. Some are dismissive.
'An calorie is a calorie ...' I think I explained my point on using that phrase already but I think you'll find that 'nutrition is also important' is not always explicit in many posts.
For people who participate in these boards on a regular basis, the same questions come in OVER AND OVER. The majority of posters are patient and helpful and answer questions as they come in, but constantly having to qualify a statement of "yes a calorie is a calorie but of course nutrition is important" can get tiresome and redundant when the question was specifically "if I eat chocolate can I still lose weight as long as I'm within my calories?". The simplest answer to that is YES. If you have read through the countless posts we have on this topic, you would see that nutrition is strongly advocated for, even if not always explicitly stated, and it doesn't need to be explicitly stated in every single post on a thread.
If you have some examples of the ignorant, rude, dismissive posts you could quote those directly so we could see what you're talking about, but in general - starting threads to complain about the tone of other posters on these forums is not usually a productive exercise. It's usually better to ask clarifying questions within the thread itself where you feel the comments are inadequate.
I started a thread to post a link to an interesting visual side by side comparison of two equal calorie days, with comparative nutritional discussion not to complain about anything.
Any other comments have been in response to replies like your own.
That's true, I don't think you started the thread with the intent to complain about other posters and what you perceive as ignorant, rude and dismissive responses. Regardless of whether that was your initial intent, it is clearly something that bothers you, while others, myself included, are bothered that your assumption is that people here are not knowledgeable about nutrition or that they do not stress the importance of nutrition.12 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yep, different foods have different calories and different nutrient contents, and what you eat in your overall diet matters.
Don't quite understand the title, as IMO that has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie. Calorie is not a synonym for "food" in that phrase.
Because there are soooooo many posts on here were users advocate others eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit.
Those posts reek of ignorance regarding nutrition and general health. I find that very frustrating particularly when that advice is given with the implication of calories all being equal (in a great sense than measured unit of energy).
I stumbled across this pictorial comparison and thought it was a good illustrative example.
You don't have to like the title of my thread
But I certainly was not using calorie as a synonym for food or implying is is. It was in reference to the way the phase is used frequently on the forums in a same calories, equal results for your body kind of way. That's all.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie and a deficit is all that is required. Of corse Nutrition is important and is usually explicitly stated within the same post where someone is inquiring about if you will still lose weight if you continue to eat treats as long as you're within your calories. Even when it is not explicitly stated it is implied by the vast majority of these responses.
To think that posters on these boards are unaware or ignorant of the importance of nutrition and general health simply because a common phrase "a calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss" which does answer the question that was asked, is presumptuous, offensive, and shows a lack of understanding of the community and these boards.
In didn't realise understanding the community and the boards was a prerequisite for reading and interpreting posts.
Some posts ARE ignorant. Some are rude. Some are dismissive.
'An calorie is a calorie ...' I think I explained my point on using that phrase already but I think you'll find that 'nutrition is also important' is not always explicit in many posts.
For people who participate in these boards on a regular basis, the same questions come in OVER AND OVER. The majority of posters are patient and helpful and answer questions as they come in, but constantly having to qualify a statement of "yes a calorie is a calorie but of course nutrition is important" can get tiresome and redundant when the question was specifically "if I eat chocolate can I still lose weight as long as I'm within my calories?". The simplest answer to that is YES. If you have read through the countless posts we have on this topic, you would see that nutrition is strongly advocated for, even if not always explicitly stated, and it doesn't need to be explicitly stated in every single post on a thread.
If you have some examples of the ignorant, rude, dismissive posts you could quote those directly so we could see what you're talking about, but in general - starting threads to complain about the tone of other posters on these forums is not usually a productive exercise. It's usually better to ask clarifying questions within the thread itself where you feel the comments are inadequate.
I started a thread to post a link to an interesting visual side by side comparison of two equal calorie days, with comparative nutritional discussion not to complain about anything.
Any other comments have been in response to replies like your own.
That's true, I don't think you started the thread with the intent to complain about other posters and what you perceive as ignorant, rude and dismissive responses. Regardless of whether that was your initial intent, it is clearly something that bothers you, while others, myself included, are bothered that your assumption is that people here are not knowledgeable about nutrition or that they do not stress the importance of nutrition.
I'm sorry my observation bothers you. I have a no time said 'every poster' or implied no one here values nutrition, but from what I have read on the forums - many don't. Obviously many users also do.
That doesn't make my observation less valid or mean that you need to take offence. There is no need to take a comment, or viewpoint personally particularly if you don't feel it applies to you.
3 -
Maybe this belongs in the debate forum but doesn't pretty much everyone know whats at the CORE of a "healthy diet"?
Perhaps I'm wrong.1 -
I am impressed that something sensible has come from go compare!
Best line: "While calories are important when it comes to losing, maintaining or gaining weight, they are not the sole element that we should be focusing on when it comes to improving our health."
No, but for many, losing weight and getting to a healthy BMI can have the most significant impact on health and prevention of many obesity related diseases. There are many people who think that losing weight and getting healthy is too difficult to try, or they take on too much at once, striving for perfection. Letting them know that it's ok to continue to eat fast food, or chocolate, or pizza, or whatever they felt they had to cut out in the pursuit of perfection is often important to helping people stick with a plan. As others commented, often success in weight loss leads to a more critical focus on nutrition down the road, but if people get discouraged right off the bat and give up altogether, then they aren't likely making any progress toward improved health.
Overall I thought the article was fine and didn't really take issue with it - although I was curious why diet one was vegetarian and the second one wasn't - not that it matters, just didn't think it was a completely apples to apples comparison. More like an apples to hot dogs comparison.
4 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »Maybe this belongs in the debate forum but doesn't pretty much everyone know whats at the CORE of a "healthy diet"?
Perhaps I'm wrong.
Depends on what you consider a "healthy" diet. I'm sure many would consider what I eat "unhealthy".4 -
Both seem a bit light in protein1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Yep, different foods have different calories and different nutrient contents, and what you eat in your overall diet matters.
Don't quite understand the title, as IMO that has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a calorie. Calorie is not a synonym for "food" in that phrase.
Because there are soooooo many posts on here were users advocate others eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit.
As I've said in other threads, I really think claims like this are a misunderstanding of what's said. As someone who has said "a calorie is a calorie" and (when asked) "yes, if you want to, you can eat whatever you choose and still lose weight," I always add "but of course for health and nutrition what you eat matters" and also "what you eat could make it easier or harder to stick to your calorie goal." I have seem MANY such threads and have yet to see one where that's not said early on and by many posters or where anyone disagrees with that advice. I really think the claim that people are being told nutrition/satiety are irrelevant is a strawman.
I'll also say that I think this supposed disagreement between what one "wants" to eat/think tastes good and what is nutritionally satisfying is a little bit of an assumption, and IMO a sad one. What I WANT to eat is what fits my nutrition goals, as well as what just happens to appeal in the moment, and there's no conflict between what I think tastes good and those goals. I can prioritize BOTH eating what I want and hitting nutritional requirements.Those posts reek of ignorance regarding nutrition and general health. I find that very frustrating particularly when that advice is given with the implication of calories all being equal (in a great sense than measured unit of energy).
Well, in that I think you are wrong about what the posts say, can't comment on these posts that supposedly claim nutrition doesn't matter.But I certainly was not using calorie as a synonym for food or implying is is. It was in reference to the way the phase is used frequently on the forums in a same calories, equal results for your body kind of way. That's all.
But that assumes it is being used as a synonym for food.
Steak including 100 calories of energy, broccoli including the same, and olive oil including the same are all different foods and have different effects on satiety, nutrition, etc. (or let's compare 2 meals of 500 calories and they will be different, obviously). But the CALORIES are not different, as a calorie is just a unit of energy. There's no such thing as a "steak calorie" vs. a "broccoli calorie." That's why I say that when you think "a calorie is a calorie" means it makes no difference whether you eat a meal of pasta with shrimp and vegetables, plus olive oil, a meal of steak and fries with a salad, or a meal of lentils and spinach and some rice and butter, or any number of other things, you are wrong. Those meals might be different beyond calorie differences -- they might have more or less effect on lasting satiety, on satisfaction, on whether the day meets overall nutrient requirements, etc. But that doesn't mean a calorie is not a calorie.
You seem to think that someone who says a calorie is not a calorie means something that is never meant, and that's why I find this frustrating. I really think it's a misunderstanding that ought to be cleared up.
Question: what do you actually think you and I are disagreeing about here?
Um ... semantics.
Which was basically my point. You are choosing to read something into "a calorie is a calorie" than is different from what is meant (and what it literally says). Unless someone says "nutrition doesn't matter," why assume they think that?
And to clarify why I think this is responsive to the thread: that two meals with the same calorie value can have the same nutritional content does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. It does mean that foods are different in more than their calories, of course, but I can't imagine there's a debate about that. It's inaccurate to suggest that "a calorie is a calorie" is somehow contrary to that.8 -
I look at that comparison and the first thing I thought was I could eat a sandwich, chips, soda, plate full of cookies and have some sort of cheesy pasta and garlic bread for the same amount of calories as... I don't even know what diet number one is supposed to be? Sweet. Sign me up, diet number two please! Both of those diets would leave me hungry so I might as well go for the one I'd actually enjoy eating.
I appreciate the sentiment but they're doing it wrong.8 -
Great post, really interesting as well. If you work out your calorie intake to loose weight you will loose weight on both of these "diets" or "day menus" but obviously feeding your body with nutrients make you healthy
Is this news to you?
I am curious why this is seen as interesting or surprising in any way. I would like to understand, sincerely.leanjogreen18 wrote: »Maybe this belongs in the debate forum but doesn't pretty much everyone know whats at the CORE of a "healthy diet"?
Precisely this. There are probably some who think eating ANY of a "bad food" makes for a bad diet, sure, and there are all sorts of disagreements among those who care enough about nutrition to have opinions on it (even if I personally don't see that much disagreement from those who study nutrition on the big things), but on the basics of what a health diet involves I think most people know. If they choose not to eat vegetables, for example, it's because they don't want to, not because it never crossed their mind that that might be a good idea. If they choose to eat only high cal, low nutrient items, it's not because they think this is good nutrition or it hasn't crossed their mind to eat better or they think nutrition doesn't matter. It's because they want to eat that way. And for some if that's the only way they can manage to reduce calories, that might improve their health a lot, and I think they also will tend to change their diet some if serious about keeping it off, because satiety.
I also could be wrong about this, of course.5
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
- 424 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