A calorie is a calorie ...
Replies
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »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.
They are ignoring the middle ground, as most of these comparisons do. You really don't have to choose from all of column A or all of column B but pick and choose based on what works for you that day.14 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »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.
They are ignoring the middle ground, as most of these comparisons do. You really don't have to choose from all of column A or all of column B but pick and choose based on what works for you that day.
Yep - pretty much this. But of course using extreme examples that aren't representative of reality is the hallmark of a strawman argument and we are just so fond of those around here... There's things from each side I might pick, and definitely things on each side I would not, but I see no wine on either side so that's clearly a problem.
15 -
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.
Maybe. I posted in food and nutrition as it's an article about food and nutrition and was not posted as a topic to debate, rather a reference for conversation.
However, debate ensued. Or critical defensive conversation, if that's what you want to call debate ...
In my experience (in life and as a health care professional), many people actual DON'T know what the core of a healthy diet should look like.
Heck, malnourishment in obese and morbidly obese people is common.
6 -
This is true (the comments about there being a middle ground)--in a prior post I listed a bunch of dinners that are different, a steak one, a pasta one, a lentil and rice one. They all had vegetables and a starch, I think, as well as a protein, but of course that's not necessary. What struck me on listing them is that they all were quite different (and all were things I'd eat, along with a million other possible dinners), but they weren't obviously more healthy.
I'm currently on a bit of a lower carb/higher fat kick (not HFLC) -- fat isn't satiating for me, but satiety isn't my problem and it's SATISFYING for me, so I am finding it much easier being happier on lower cals eschewing (to some extent) whole grains (and grains in general) and eating somewhat more cheese and eggs and even animal fat than I was (as well as nuts and avocados and other things no one would question).
Now, I know enough about nutrition that I think I can do this within the context of a healthful diet and that it is not more or less healthful overall than what I was eating, especially if it's more enjoyable for me, I'm less tempted to overeat, I'm less stressed about what I'm eating, etc. But I would certainly not say that food choice doesn't matter.
But for the same reason, a calorie is a calorie -- and knowing that, I'm the only one who can decide the most satisfying and healthful way to spent those calories for me. (As I too don't really find either of the days presented wildly appealing or what I would choose.)7 -
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.
Maybe. I posted in food and nutrition as it's an article about food and nutrition and was not posted as a topic to debate, rather a reference for conversation.
However, debate ensued. Or critical defensive conversation, if that's what you want to call debate ...
In my experience (in life and as a health care professional), many people actual DON'T know what the core of a healthy diet should look like.
Heck, malnourishment in obese and morbidly obese people is common.
I was actually wondering if MY question belongs in the debate forum:)
I personally think that most people know the BASICS/CORE of a healthy diet regardless of how they actually eat.0 -
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.
Someone flagged my comment saying this was a disagreement about semantics?
Are you actually kidding?!
1 -
In case you're unsure, semantics is 'the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them. The meaning of a word, phrase, or text.'
Whoever flagged it as such, please explain how my comment was abusive.
...............
1 -
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.
Someone flagged my comment saying this was a disagreement about semantics?
Are you actually kidding?!
FTR, it wasn't me.3 -
In case you're unsure, semantics is 'the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them. The meaning of a word, phrase, or text.'
Whoever flagged it as such, please explain how my comment was abusive.
...............
A lot of people misuse the flag system. Don't sweat it.
Also, not me.
5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »In case you're unsure, semantics is 'the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them. The meaning of a word, phrase, or text.'
Whoever flagged it as such, please explain how my comment was abusive.
...............
A lot of people misuse the flag system. Don't sweat it.
Also, not me.
^^^This.
I'm not sure why but people flag the silliest things.3 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »In case you're unsure, semantics is 'the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them. The meaning of a word, phrase, or text.'
Whoever flagged it as such, please explain how my comment was abusive.
...............
A lot of people misuse the flag system. Don't sweat it.
Also, not me.
^^^This.
I'm not sure why but people flag the silliest things.
Yep, pretty common occurance. And not me 3 lol 4 -
In all fairness to the OP, there are plenty of posts flying around here saying "I pay no attention to macros/micros, i only watch calories", or "only want friends who don't eat clean or healthy" or something like that.4
-
Christine_72 wrote: »In all fairness to the OP, there are plenty of posts flying around here saying "I pay no attention to macros/micros, i only watch calories", or "only want friends who don't eat clean or healthy" or something like that.
Oh good, we can make this a "clean eating" thread!
Clean eating is a useless term. It has no single, uniform definition. When pressed, many people think that "clean eating" means/includes no processed foods; this is not a helpful benchmark, as smoked salmon and cottage cheese are both processed, yet few people would consider either of those unhealthy in and of themselves. Assuming the thread isn't shut down by this point, someone usually says something about fast food; the macro balance on a Big Mac is actually pretty good, and the calories (560) could fit into many peoples' days (one of my favorite threads involved someone who insisted that fast food was completely unhealthy and it was just wrong to suggest that people could eat Big Macs within the context of a balanced diet; a look through her food diary showed she ate at Whataburger three times a week; the Big Mac was more balanced and had fewer calories than she ate at Whataburger).
I digress. One of the things the "clean eating" or other food-specific (i.e., Raw 'til 4, no sugar/carbs/gluten for non-medical reasons) restrictive methods have in common is that they are frequently based in bad/no/pseudo- science; additionally, many people find they are not sustainable, or that they lead to binges. I love the "looking for friends who don't eat clean or healtby" threads - many of those people have tried something unsustainable, found that it didn't work, and are ready to try something they can sustain.
- Lost 100 lbs over four years. Maintained that for three years now. Ate all teh foodz. Drank alcohol. Still lost weight, even working a full-time desk job and going to grad school full time. Cholesterol, triglycerides, blood sugar, and blood pressure are all at the low end of normal.
Any non-clean-eating folks want to add me as a friend, go right agead!6 -
Great article! I've always been annoyed by the people who truly think a calorie is just a calorie (implying nutrition doesn't matter) probably because it always comes from someone who isn't really as healthy or in shape as they claim to be, and think they know it all. I've never heard someone with an amazing physique say it.
Dieting is about healthier food choices and staying in your macros of protein, fat, and carbs while aiming for a calorie goal. It's not just about a number on a scale. You could gain muscle mass, loose fat, look a thousand times better, and not loose much weight or even gain it. If you're just a calorie for a calorie kinda person, try eating nothing but sugar and butter for six months. Guaranteed you would look gross, get rotten stinky teeth, and probably die.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »In all fairness to the OP, there are plenty of posts flying around here saying "I pay no attention to macros/micros, i only watch calories", or "only want friends who don't eat clean or healthy" or something like that.
I know what you mean, but it's still painting everyone into one corner or the other. The thread looking for friends who don't eat clean isn't someone looking for friends who eat only crap, it was looking for friends who won't judge you for logging a bag of chips every once and a while. And people who say they "only watch calories" doesn't mean they don't care about eating healthy, just that they don't stress about hitting their protein goal or getting enough potassium.
For every thread where someone is told to stop freaking out because they ate a hamburger bun and they're sure they have ruined their diet because calories are the important thing, there's another thread where someone says they are always hungry and they get a bunch of posts letting them know they should be eating more veggies or protein.
I just don't understand why some people always get the impression that the main theme on the forums is that you can eat nothing but crap and lose weight with no consequences. I've never seen it. Maybe I'm just coincidentally missing the threads where that's what is going on? Oh well
17 -
Christine_72 wrote: »In all fairness to the OP, there are plenty of posts flying around here saying "I pay no attention to macros/micros, i only watch calories", or "only want friends who don't eat clean or healthy" or something like that.
I know what you mean, but it's still painting everyone into one corner or the other. The thread looking for friends who don't eat clean isn't someone looking for friends who eat only crap, it was looking for friends who won't judge you for logging a bag of chips every once and a while. And people who say they "only watch calories" doesn't mean they don't care about eating healthy, just that they don't stress about hitting their protein goal or getting enough potassium.
For every thread where someone is told to stop freaking out because they ate a hamburger bun and they're sure they have ruined their diet because calories are the important thing, there's another thread where someone says they are always hungry and they get a bunch of posts letting them know they should be eating more veggies or protein.
I just don't understand why some people always get the impression that the main theme on the forums is that you can eat nothing but crap and lose weight with no consequences. I've never seen it. Maybe I'm just coincidentally missing the threads where that's what is going on? Oh well
It's really unfortunate that the "forum regulars say you can eat junk all day" strawman has to be debunked so often.13 -
ClosetBayesian wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »In all fairness to the OP, there are plenty of posts flying around here saying "I pay no attention to macros/micros, i only watch calories", or "only want friends who don't eat clean or healthy" or something like that.
Oh good, we can make this a "clean eating" thread!
"A calorie is not a calorie" AND "clean eating" in the same thread? No, please, just no. I know it's Friday (and Fri the 13th at that) but..... no, lol
7 -
fattinater wrote: »Great article! I've always been annoyed by the people who truly think a calorie is just a calorie (implying nutrition doesn't matter) probably because it always comes from someone who isn't really as healthy or in shape as they claim to be, and think they know it all. I've never heard someone with an amazing physique say it.
Dieting is about healthier food choices and staying in your macros of protein, fat, and carbs while aiming for a calorie goal. It's not just about a number on a scale. You could gain muscle mass, loose fat, look a thousand times better, and not loose much weight or even gain it. If you're just a calorie for a calorie kinda person, try eating nothing but sugar and butter for six months. Guaranteed you would look gross, get rotten stinky teeth, and probably die.
Check out this guy...he looks pretty fit at least to me and had no issues for 10 months eating "junk" by his definition....
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
ETA- Not many people feel that nutrition doesn't matter for overall health at least none that care about their overall health. That's how it seems to me anyway.
11 -
Diet 1: What I put on my grocery list and buy on Sunday
Diet 2: What I end up back at the store for on Monday as diet 1 begins rotting in the fridge.
I can't be the only one.5 -
fattinater wrote: »Great article! I've always been annoyed by the people who truly think a calorie is just a calorie (implying nutrition doesn't matter) probably because it always comes from someone who isn't really as healthy or in shape as they claim to be, and think they know it all. I've never heard someone with an amazing physique say it.
Dieting is about healthier food choices and staying in your macros of protein, fat, and carbs while aiming for a calorie goal. It's not just about a number on a scale. You could gain muscle mass, loose fat, look a thousand times better, and not loose much weight or even gain it. If you're just a calorie for a calorie kinda person, try eating nothing but sugar and butter for six months. Guaranteed you would look gross, get rotten stinky teeth, and probably die.
Did you read any of the comments in the thread?
15 -
fattinater wrote: »Great article! I've always been annoyed by the people who truly think a calorie is just a calorie (implying nutrition doesn't matter)
No, it doesn't imply that nutrition doesn't matter. You have to willfully misunderstand people to say that (especially in light of this thread) which is just, eh, don't really see the point and I think it's not very nice. It certainly seems offensive to me (not to mention presumptuous) for you to claim all sorts of things about those of us who just acknowledge the fact that a unit of measurement is a unit of measurement and if you eat too many calories you will gain weight, however nutrient dense the foods that provide those calories are.14 -
This may or may not be related to the topic, but this has been bugging me lately. Why is "eating healthy" often attached to "dieting and losing weight"? Many people don't give a fly about nutrition until they decide to diet, then suddenly things that were "meh, not too healthy but whatever" suddenly become "if I eat this once I will drop dead", although in many cases health is not the primary driver for their weight loss, which is why this is confusing to me. Is it a case of all or nothing and going all in? Do people feel like they shouldn't bother with nutrition unless they're losing weight? Could this be the reason why there is so much focus on a calorie not being a calorie (in a sense of using calories as a proxy for foods) in the dieting culture but not so much in the general food culture? I wonder if this is how this whole "you can only lose weight on nutritious foods" thing got started, as is often the case with any idea taken to an extreme.
In my mind, nutrition has always been a stand-alone concept and just one modular part of health. Asking if a calorie is a calorie in a nutritional sense sounded like an odd question to me when I first decided to do internet dieting. That's why I gravitated towards flexible dieting and latched onto it as soon as I found it, because it keeps the two concepts separate like they are in my mind. Probably because this is my first time dieting and I did not have a pre-existing dieting baggage.
Using sunscreen and having a good posture are not prerequisites for dieting, so why would nutrition be? A nutritious diet being a good thing is a given. I don't feel this disclaimer needs to be made every time someone asks if they could eat anything they want within their calories, but I make it anyway because people tend to find the most bizarre ways of misunderstanding. I don't like it. Telling a grown up "to eat their vegetables" feels insulting to their intelligence. That's also why I don't like these dish comparisons. They remind me too much of early grade school pictures of "good" and "bad" comparisons.
I feel the issue is not whether or not nutrition is important, and it's shocking how many people interpret it that way, but if foods need to be micromanaged on an individual level vs as a part of the overall diet.20 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »This may or may not be related to the topic, but this has been bugging me lately. Why is "eating healthy" often attached to "dieting and losing weight"? Many people don't give a fly about nutrition until they decide to diet, then suddenly things that were "meh, not too healthy but whatever" suddenly become "if I eat this once I will drop dead", although in many cases health is not the primary driver for their weight loss, which is why this is confusing to me. Is it a case of all or nothing and going all in? Do people feel like they shouldn't bother with nutrition unless they're losing weight? Could this be the reason why there is so much focus on a calorie not being a calorie (in a sense of using calories as a proxy for foods) in the dieting culture but not so much in the general food culture? I wonder if this is how this whole "you can only lose weight on nutritious foods" thing got started, as is often the case with any idea taken to an extreme.
In my mind, nutrition has always been a stand-alone concept and just one modular part of health. Asking if a calorie is a calorie in a nutritional sense sounded like an odd question to me when I first decided to do internet dieting. That's why I gravitated towards flexible dieting and latched onto it as soon as I found it, because it keeps the two concepts separate like they are in my mind. Probably because this is my first time dieting and I did not have a pre-existing dieting baggage.
Using sunscreen and having a good posture are not prerequisites for dieting, so why would nutrition be? A nutritious diet being a good thing is a given. I don't feel this disclaimer needs to be made every time someone asks if they could eat anything they want within their calories, but I make it anyway because people tend to find the most bizarre ways of misunderstanding. I don't like it. Telling a grown up "to eat their vegetables" feels insulting to their intelligence. That's also why I don't like these dish comparisons. They remind me too much of early grade school pictures of "good" and "bad" comparisons.
I feel the issue is not whether or not nutrition is important, and it's shocking how many people interpret it that way, but if foods need to be micromanaged on an individual level vs as a part of the overall diet.
IMO this would be an excellent topic for the debate section, or for input in one of the general sections. It does seem that health for many is connected to weight, and they disregard that only certain things are impacted by weight.
As for the original link and thought from @lizery I personally think it gives a really good visual representation of how calories are only equal in the energy measurement sense. Yes, in terms of a measure of energy a calorie is a calorie. But in all of those calories the form of input for humans is food. Even if the overall nutritional content as far as macros and micros was the same, the satiety, enjoyment, preparation and many other factors come into the picture.
We don't live on units of measure, we live on food. And that is why even when people can fulfill the nutrition needs it becomes very much more individual as far as what foods satisfy any given person and help them stay on track.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »I don't like it. Telling a grown up "to eat their vegetables" feels insulting to their intelligence. That's also why I don't like these dish comparisons. They remind me too much of early grade school pictures of "good" and "bad" comparisons.
I feel the issue is not whether or not nutrition is important, and it's shocking how many people interpret it that way, but if foods need to be micromanaged on an individual level vs as a part of the overall diet.
Totally agree, especially with the last sentence. The commonalities I always see in posts like these are the attempt to label individual foods as good/bad or healthy/unhealthy without looking at the context of the overall diet on a day to day or week to week basis; and also the tendencies to paint everything as extremes.
The straw man example above is a great one "if people think a calorie is just a calorie they should try eating nothing but butter and sugar for 6 months". That is the silliest and most insulting example I've seen posted on here, and I've seen a lot. Why is it that if you say nutrition is important you are granted a hypothetical diet filled with a variety of foods like the one in the article (although lacking meat), but the people who say calories are just calories get a diet of just butter and sugar, or donuts, or Doritos, to name a couple of other silly strawmen.., is it really so hard to believe you can eat an overall nutritious diet simply because you understand that calories are a unit of energy?14 -
If you think nutrients are so important, eat nothing but broccoli for 6 months vs. someone who eats a diet consisting of the foods they like within their calorie needs.7
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »This may or may not be related to the topic, but this has been bugging me lately. Why is "eating healthy" often attached to "dieting and losing weight"? Many people don't give a fly about nutrition until they decide to diet, then suddenly things that were "meh, not too healthy but whatever" suddenly become "if I eat this once I will drop dead", although in many cases health is not the primary driver for their weight loss, which is why this is confusing to me. Is it a case of all or nothing and going all in? Do people feel like they shouldn't bother with nutrition unless they're losing weight? Could this be the reason why there is so much focus on a calorie not being a calorie (in a sense of using calories as a proxy for foods) in the dieting culture but not so much in the general food culture? I wonder if this is how this whole "you can only lose weight on nutritious foods" thing got started, as is often the case with any idea taken to an extreme.
In my mind, nutrition has always been a stand-alone concept and just one modular part of health. Asking if a calorie is a calorie in a nutritional sense sounded like an odd question to me when I first decided to do internet dieting. That's why I gravitated towards flexible dieting and latched onto it as soon as I found it, because it keeps the two concepts separate like they are in my mind. Probably because this is my first time dieting and I did not have a pre-existing dieting baggage.
Using sunscreen and having a good posture are not prerequisites for dieting, so why would nutrition be? A nutritious diet being a good thing is a given. I don't feel this disclaimer needs to be made every time someone asks if they could eat anything they want within their calories, but I make it anyway because people tend to find the most bizarre ways of misunderstanding. I don't like it. Telling a grown up "to eat their vegetables" feels insulting to their intelligence. That's also why I don't like these dish comparisons. They remind me too much of early grade school pictures of "good" and "bad" comparisons.
I feel the issue is not whether or not nutrition is important, and it's shocking how many people interpret it that way, but if foods need to be micromanaged on an individual level vs as a part of the overall diet.
I regret that I have but one awesome to give this post. You have beautifully put words to how I feel about this issue. I've never quite been able to articulate it until now. Something has always bothered me about this argument, and you've nailed it right on the head.7 -
stevencloser wrote: »If you think nutrients are so important, eat nothing but broccoli for 6 months vs. someone who eats a diet consisting of the foods they like within their calorie needs.
Eating just one single thing can't possible provide with enough nutrients, your example is flawed there.3 -
KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »If you think nutrients are so important, eat nothing but broccoli for 6 months vs. someone who eats a diet consisting of the foods they like within their calorie needs.
Eating just one single thing can't possible provide with enough nutrients, your example is flawed there.
That's the point. When the straw men examples are raised, it usually goes like:
"Sure a calorie is a calorie and you may lose weight but you won't be healthy. Try eating nothing but (insert demonized food here) and see what happens"
Upthread someone said that exact thing and the chosen food was butter and sugar. @stevencloser is pointing out that any diet that restricts to a single food, even a "healthy" food like broccoli isn't a healthy diet...15 -
KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »If you think nutrients are so important, eat nothing but broccoli for 6 months vs. someone who eats a diet consisting of the foods they like within their calorie needs.
Eating just one single thing can't possible provide with enough nutrients, your example is flawed there.
You just made his point. 9 -
robertw486 wrote: »As for the original link and thought from @lizery I personally think it gives a really good visual representation of how calories are only equal in the energy measurement sense.
So one food is not the same as another food. Everyone knows that, I think. No one disagrees about that, which is why I think the idea that we need to be told it is so odd.
Some people use "calories" as a synonym for food and therefore think that when someone says "a calorie is a calorie" they are saying all foods are the same, food choice doesn't matter. But no one thinks that, really. Those who say "a calorie is a calorie" don't think it is helpful to confuse a unit of measurement and the food that provides that unit of measurement.
Let's say my TDEE is 2200. A calorie is a calorie means that if I regularly eat about 2500 calories I will gain weight, no matter how nutrient dense my diet is, or even if I avoid added sugar or whatever else people think is a "bad food." It also means I would maintain my weight eating 2200 calories, whether made up of those nutrient dense food choices or mostly fries and cake (not that it makes sense to assume that I would).
Am I thereby saying that eating a nutrient-dense balanced diet is the same as eating the same number of calories from only fries and cake? Obviously not! So the question is why would any think they need to correct this misapprehension that no one has. I find it quite puzzling and rather presumptuous, insulting to my intelligence, in fact.11
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