A calorie is a calorie ...
Options
Replies
-
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I find many things stated here odd, yet rather than take offense to them I accept that within the semantics of the discussion people view things from different angles.
The reason I take offense is that even in a thread where people have explained at length that they don't consider foods the same for nutrient purposes and that is not what "a calorie is a calorie" means, we have people coming in claiming that we do, that "a calorie is a calorie" means we don't pay attention to nutrition.
OP has been in multiple threads where I know this has been explained, yet titled this thread "a calorie is a calorie" and when asked how that related to the (extremely obvious) point being made by the linked article/photos went off about people saying that nutrition does not matter, which I think is NOT what is meant by "a calorie is a calorie," if one actually pays attention to what is said.
I of course understand that to you thinking of calories as an abstract ideas separate from food may not make sense (though it does to me). I am not asking you to say "a calorie is a calorie." I am asking that people stop pretending like someone who does find that idea valuable and makes that point is thereby saying that nutrition does not matter. That's what is a strawman and insulting. (See, e.g., the post above about how we probably all eat badly and butter and sugar and rotting teeth.)As example, on this forum I don't see why anyone chooses to isolate the unit of measure from the food. Nobody here is taking in energy in other than food form, so all calories in impact the nutrition side in some way.
I find it helpful because it is useful for me to keep in mind that eating healthful food (or a diet that is healthful in all but total calories) is not healthful, regardless of calories, because it will still make you fat. There is so much nonsense about how the right foods can't make you fat that I think understanding that a calorie is a calorie and too many calories make you fat (and fewer than you need will lead to weight loss) is a helpful message for many. Not you, I get that, that's great.
Using "calories" as a synonym for food is, IMO, not useful, and assuming people are doing that or arguing with them as if they were even when they explicitly explain that they are not, that is what I think is rude. If you want to say "foods are different," no one will disagree with you, though, which I suppose makes it less interesting?The energy balance statement in your post is a good example. Many if not most here probably understand energy balance, but those that don't have something to learn from the statement. The original post was simply pointing out something that would help some of the people here on the forum. If we all took offense to the basic information, the people seeking the basic information might not ever find it.
I doubt there's even one person on MFP who thinks that food choice makes no difference at all, for nutrition, satiety, satisfaction, whatever. So I think assuming that there are masses ignorant of this and need it explained to them with pictures is pretty presumptuous, yeah.
I note that some have jumped in to say "thanks for explaining this to the dummies on MFP who say 'a calorie is a calorie' and therefore are gross pigs who care nothing about nutrition and will probably end up with meth mouth" (I paraphrase and exaggerate, of course, but not by that much). No one has jumped in to say "jeez, I assumed that it made absolutely no difference what foods I chose and that vegetables and cake are exactly the same, including in the volume I could eat, but you have educated me now!" But sure, maybe those people are out there. I'm beginning to believe anything after this past year (and also my time on MFP).
With respect to the article, neither of the days would appeal to me at all or be particularly satisfying, which is why I always encourage a broader discussion of nutrition (again, contrary to the idea that we are objecting because we think nutrition does not matter).14 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Nobody here is taking in energy in other than food form, so all calories in impact the nutrition side in some way. If calories could be absorbed into the human body without nutrients of some sort, it would to me make more sense to isolate the terms. But in either case it's the simple semantics of a persons view.
The idea is not that food needs to be broken down into isolated components, but that the purposes behind pursuing these components can be achieved both synergistically and independently. Tying the purpose of wanting to control energy intake (calories) and the purpose of wanting to avoid nutrient deficiencies (nutrients) with a strict "iff" is inaccurate (it's a fact that you can get adequate nutrients without the energy side of food going in the direction you want and vice versa), and it may introduce a rigid fear-driven system that may not be sustainable or even effective.
I don't know how to better explain this so I will give an example:
Eating as a social ritual provides energy, so we are not really isolating energy here, but the purpose of social connection is a stand alone idea and is not seen as a strict necessity for the purpose of weight management. In my mind, food as a source of nutrients (health) is the same, a stand alone concept that happens to share a source.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I find many things stated here odd, yet rather than take offense to them I accept that within the semantics of the discussion people view things from different angles. As example, on this forum I don't see why anyone chooses to isolate the unit of measure from the food. Nobody here is taking in energy in other than food form, so all calories in impact the nutrition side in some way. If calories could be absorbed into the human body without nutrients of some sort, it would to me make more sense to isolate the terms. But in either case it's the simple semantics of a persons view.
The energy balance statement in your post is a good example. Many if not most here probably understand energy balance, but those that don't have something to learn from the statement. The original post was simply pointing out something that would help some of the people here on the forum. If we all took offense to the basic information, the people seeking the basic information might not ever find it.
I disagree that users here necessarily understand energy balance, particularly new users.
There is a generalized misunderstanding out there that eating "right" is the path to weight loss.
There are many posts that have been posted from new users along the lines of "Help! I've been exercising and eating right for four weeks and the scale hasn't budged!"
In other words, if you don't isolate calorie content from nutrition, weight loss won't be achieved. They are two separate issues, and pretending they aren't is denying the "healhism" that exists in popular diet culture.15 -
^^^^ I second this.
I DID NOT know about energy balance.
Its embarrassing, I admit. I'm 50 how did I miss it?
4 -
leanjogreen18 wrote: »^^^^ I second this.
I DID NOT know about energy balance.
Its embarrassing, I admit. I'm 50 how did I miss it?
I didn't really understand it in an "under the hood" way. I thought "eating healthy" would take care of the issue automatically. All of the gurus promised me it would.
Actually, I thought eating in certain other ways would automatically take care of things for me at different times over the years.8 -
I was in my 30s before I learned what it meant. I grew up surrounded by overweight family members who jumped from one fad diet to the next one, but there was never any understanding of how CICO actually works. Now I'm the only one in my family who does calorie tracking for weight control and I'm the only one who's successfully maintaining weight loss. I'm also the only one who's reversed the progression of pre-diabetes (family tree is full of type 2 diabetics).leanjogreen18 wrote: »^^^^ I second this.
I DID NOT know about energy balance.
Its embarrassing, I admit. I'm 50 how did I miss it?2 -
I knew all about energy balance, I learned it in 9th grade health class. I actually found MFP by googling for a calorie counting excel sheet -- it being modern times and all I figured there was probably an easier way of counting calories than a notebook and pen.
I'd never been on a "fad" diet in my life but here I am eating LCHF because calorie counting wasn't sustainable.
I'm grateful I started off knowing how to count calories and what a healthy diet looks like though. I never realized how fortunate I was to be "forced" to cook and eat proper food growing up. Threads asking things like how to drink water, eat vegetables or what's a healthy dinner drive home how much harder my experience could have been.5 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I'm grateful I started off knowing how to count calories and what a healthy diet looks like though. I never realized how fortunate I was to be "forced" to cook and eat proper food growing up. Threads asking things like how to drink water, eat vegetables or what's a healthy dinner drive home how much harder my experience could have been.
I second this. I was pretty sheltered in some ways, as some of those things have been pretty shocking to me, as our normal, boring meals were pretty nutritionally-sound, looking back, and my parents insisted that we eat vegetables, which meant I learned to like them. (I liked them much more when I learned to cook them for myself as an adult and didn't have to have as many from a can, but part of that was geography and what was available and reasonably priced back then.) When I was first living alone as a young adult in the big city I was overwhelmed and excited by all the order in/take out options (not just pizza or Chinese, whee!), and also had a social life and job that allowed for lots of dining out in good restaurants, but when I realized that it would be better for lots of reasons to do more home cooking it was nice to have it be not totally intimidating, even though learning to do it nightly and with minimal time available was something that took a bit of effort and practice.
I think I knew theoretically about calories, but hadn't really learned about them or thought about it, and I did think in terms of eating healthy (meaning low cal) foods and that I'd have to be really restrictive and eat only tiny amounts. When I realized I could save lots of calories and eat healthfully and low cal enough to lose while eating basically what I'd grown up thinking of as normal (and could make that even more tasty by getting into cooking and seasonable vegetables and so on), well, it seemed amazing and exciting. Before that, educated as I was about some things, my assumption really was that I'd have to follow one of those diets from a magazine or eat only vegetables or some such. Seems goofy now, but important to remember when I get frustrated.2 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »I knew all about energy balance, I learned it in 9th grade health class. I actually found MFP by googling for a calorie counting excel sheet -- it being modern times and all I figured there was probably an easier way of counting calories than a notebook and pen. I'd never been on a "fad" diet in my life but here I am eating LCHF because calorie counting wasn't sustainable.
I'm grateful I started off knowing how to count calories and what a healthy diet looks like though. I never realized how fortunate I was to be "forced" to cook and eat proper food growing up. Threads asking things like how to drink water, eat vegetables or what's a healthy dinner drive home how much harder my experience could have been.
I was homeschooled-my obese mother, who's been a yo-yo dieter since she was a kid and also struggles with binge eating, neglected to include nutrition classes into the curriculum 1 -
I love that we can all acknowledge that a kilogram is a kilogram or a pound is a pound, in the literal sense that they are each units of measurement (mass) and have civilised discussion regarding illustrative images such as this:
(not my picture, Internet image for demonstrative purposes only)
... however the same sort of exploration of the value of a calorie beyond being a unit of energy and how it applies to weight loss and health turns to chaos.
2 -
I love that we can all acknowledge that a kilogram is a kilogram or a pound is a pound, in the literal sense that they are each units of measurement (mass) and have civilised discussion regarding illustrative images such as this:
(not my picture, Internet image for demonstrative purposes only)
... however the same sort of exploration of the value of a calorie beyond being a unit of energy and how it applies to weight loss and health turns to chaos.
I'm confused what your point is? A calorie is a unit of measurement like a kilogram, agreed, and that's why that statement that you take such issue with "a calorie is a calorie" is accurate. A calorie is nothing more to weight loss than a unit of energy. Are you saying otherwise? How does the pic you are now posting relate to the original pic and the subsequent discussion about overall diet? I don't think this discussion is chaos, i think it has largely been civil and good points made from different perspectives.5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I love that we can all acknowledge that a kilogram is a kilogram or a pound is a pound, in the literal sense that they are each units of measurement (mass) and have civilised discussion regarding illustrative images such as this:
(not my picture, Internet image for demonstrative purposes only)
... however the same sort of exploration of the value of a calorie beyond being a unit of energy and how it applies to weight loss and health turns to chaos.
I'm confused what your point is? A calorie is a unit of measurement like a kilogram, agreed, and that's why that statement that you take such issue with "a calorie is a calorie" is accurate. A calorie is nothing more to weight loss than a unit of energy. Are you saying otherwise? How does the pic you are now posting relate to the original pic and the subsequent discussion about overall diet? I don't think this discussion is chaos, i think it has largely been civil and good points made from different perspectives.
I'm saying a calories (a unit of energy) can have different value to a body in a nutritional sense. I have never at all made reference in this conversation to this my comments on calories being just about weight loss.
Just as a kilogram lost or gained could affect a body differently depending on what is made of. Hence that analogy.
I don't 'take such issue' with anything,
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »I love that we can all acknowledge that a kilogram is a kilogram or a pound is a pound, in the literal sense that they are each units of measurement (mass) and have civilised discussion regarding illustrative images such as this:
(not my picture, Internet image for demonstrative purposes only)
... however the same sort of exploration of the value of a calorie beyond being a unit of energy and how it applies to weight loss and health turns to chaos.
I'm confused what your point is? A calorie is a unit of measurement like a kilogram, agreed, and that's why that statement that you take such issue with "a calorie is a calorie" is accurate. A calorie is nothing more to weight loss than a unit of energy. Are you saying otherwise? How does the pic you are now posting relate to the original pic and the subsequent discussion about overall diet? I don't think this discussion is chaos, i think it has largely been civil and good points made from different perspectives.
I'm saying a calories (a unit of energy) can have different value to a body in a nutritional sense. I have never at all made reference in this conversation to this my comments on calories being just about weight loss.
Just as a kilogram lost or gained could affect a body differently depending on what is made of. Hence that analogy.
I don't 'take such issue' with anything,
I'm still a little lost. What do you think the pic is showing? Same woman at different weights and clearly a different physical appearance, likely due to her efforts to recomp through strength training. That's what I see.
How exactly do you think 100 calories of broccoli impacts the body differently than 100 calories of cookie? Not the nutrients in those foods, but specifically the calories.9 -
I love that we can all acknowledge that a kilogram is a kilogram or a pound is a pound, in the literal sense that they are each units of measurement (mass) and have civilised discussion regarding illustrative images such as this
A lb is a lb and those images don't have any more to do with that than a calorie is a calorie. However, when it comes to how someone looks, it's obviously not all about weight, just like when it comes to health it's not all about calories (or weight).
I'm not sure why you are trying so hard to read something in to "a calorie is a calorie" that no one means.9 -
I'm saying a calories (a unit of energy) can have different value to a body in a nutritional sense.
I really do think this is the essence of the misunderstanding, if there is one. A "calorie" is just energy. You are referring to the nutrition that comes with the food (micronutrients or macronutrients), which is why I keep saying you are using "calories" as if it were slang for "food," which people do, of course, but is not how it's meant in "a calorie is a calorie."
I bet if you asked people if they think foods are all equal for nutritional purposes they'd say "no." I certainly would.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm saying a calories (a unit of energy) can have different value to a body in a nutritional sense.
I really do think this is the essence of the misunderstanding, if there is one. A "calorie" is just energy. You are referring to the nutrition that comes with the food (micronutrients or macronutrients), which is why I keep saying you are using "calories" as if it were slang for "food," which people do, of course, but is not how it's meant in "a calorie is a calorie."
I bet if you asked people if they think foods are all equal for nutritional purposes they'd say "no." I certainly would.
It's like saying "a litre is a litre". It's true, regardless of whether one is a litre of oil and the other a litre of water.3 -
Look, I have a degree in organic produce, and have since studied a LOT about nutrition.
All calories are not equal. That's like saying, "A pound is a pound!" When you lose weight. No. You could lose a pound of fat, and that would be awesome. Or, you could lose a pound of muscle, which is horrible. It's much more complex.
Put simply, the type of calories we eat determine how well our systems function. And, primarily important to weight loss, they determine blood sugar and insulin levels, along with other hormones that basically decide how you will use a calorie.
Bottom line: A calorie from white bread or refined sugar is most efficiently stored in your body as reserve energy in the form of glucose. Guess what the organ is for energy storage? Yep. Fat cells.
However, a calorie that comes from broccoli takes nearly double the energy to convert it into glucose, and is much more efficiently broken down into usable vitamins and minerals. Therefore, 100 calories from a donut will go directly to your waist. 100 calories from a vegetable will go towards fueling your systems. Mainly your excretory system; which is what actually gets stuff out of storage in your fat cells and eliminated from the body.
So, no. A calorie is not just a calorie.2 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »Look, I have a degree in organic produce, and have since studied a LOT about nutrition.
All calories are not equal. That's like saying, "A pound is a pound!" When you lose weight. No. You could lose a pound of fat, and that would be awesome. Or, you could lose a pound of muscle, which is horrible. It's much more complex.
Put simply, the type of calories we eat determine how well our systems function. And, primarily important to weight loss, they determine blood sugar and insulin levels, along with other hormones that basically decide how you will use a calorie.
Bottom line: A calorie from white bread or refined sugar is most efficiently stored in your body Mas reserve energy in the form of glucose. Guess what the organ is for energy storage? Yep. Fat cells.
However, a calorie that comes from broccoli takes nearly double the energy to convert it into glucose, and is much more efficiently broken down into usable vitamins and minerals. Therefore, 100 calories from a donut will go directly to your waist. 100 calories from a vegetable will go towards fueling your systems. Mainly your excretory system; which is what actually gets stuff out of storage in your fat cells and eliminated from the body.
So, no. A calorie is not just a calorie.
The amount of woo in this post is epic
14 -
LifeLongFoodLvr wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »Look, I have a degree in organic produce, and have since studied a LOT about nutrition.
All calories are not equal. That's like saying, "A pound is a pound!" When you lose weight. No. You could lose a pound of fat, and that would be awesome. Or, you could lose a pound of muscle, which is horrible. It's much more complex.
Put simply, the type of calories we eat determine how well our systems function. And, primarily important to weight loss, they determine blood sugar and insulin levels, along with other hormones that basically decide how you will use a calorie.
Bottom line: A calorie from white bread or refined sugar is most efficiently stored in your body Mas reserve energy in the form of glucose. Guess what the organ is for energy storage? Yep. Fat cells.
However, a calorie that comes from broccoli takes nearly double the energy to convert it into glucose, and is much more efficiently broken down into usable vitamins and minerals. Therefore, 100 calories from a donut will go directly to your waist. 100 calories from a vegetable will go towards fueling your systems. Mainly your excretory system; which is what actually gets stuff out of storage in your fat cells and eliminated from the body.
So, no. A calorie is not just a calorie.
I can't wait when they tear this post to shreds because you're wrong.
And your professional education on the matter is...?1 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »Look, I have a degree in organic produce, and have since studied a LOT about nutrition.
All calories are not equal. That's like saying, "A pound is a pound!" When you lose weight. No. You could lose a pound of fat, and that would be awesome. Or, you could lose a pound of muscle, which is horrible. It's much more complex.
Put simply, the type of calories we eat determine how well our systems function. And, primarily important to weight loss, they determine blood sugar and insulin levels, along with other hormones that basically decide how you will use a calorie.
Bottom line: A calorie from white bread or refined sugar is most efficiently stored in your body Mas reserve energy in the form of glucose. Guess what the organ is for energy storage? Yep. Fat cells.
However, a calorie that comes from broccoli takes nearly double the energy to convert it into glucose, and is much more efficiently broken down into usable vitamins and minerals. Therefore, 100 calories from a donut will go directly to your waist. 100 calories from a vegetable will go towards fueling your systems. Mainly your excretory system; which is what actually gets stuff out of storage in your fat cells and eliminated from the body.
So, no. A calorie is not just a calorie.
What's a "degree in organic produce"?15
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions