A calorie is a calorie ...
Replies
-
sydney_bosque wrote: »
So... You don't eat vegetables, fruit, or lean protein?
So you didn't read the whole thread, right?
Because we already went through how no one ever says to just eat doughnuts, we just say you can eat some doughnuts and still lose weight just fine.
So, you're saying the types of calories you eat do matter. And it's not simply the deficit that makes you lose weight. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/0 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »Just do me a favor and research how blood sugar and insulin affect weight gain/loss. Then tell me I'm wrong. In strictly terms of a measurement of energy, yes calories are just a unit of measurement. But that's not what was implied. We are talking about calories compared with calories in different foods. And even with exercise. You can't just create a calorie deficit and lose weight. It's just not that simple.
It doesn't actually work like that. As a person of science, you should know that the burden of proof lies with you to provide sources to back up your claims. Peer reviewed scientific studies of course.
And actually, you can just create a calorie deficit and lose weight. That's exactly how it works.
Possibly at first. However, as you maintain a deficit, your body will adjust. It will shift it's metabolic processes to adapt to lesser calories. Unless you properly nourish it. I am more than happy to provide support. I simply claimed there was no valid way to "prove" me wrong because proof doesn't exist.
And after a prolonged period of calorie deficit without compensating nutrition, your body will begin to work against you and hold on to as much energy as it can. This has been studied and supported with evidence multiple times.
Please provide some of these studies.7 -
LifeLongFoodLvr wrote: »My diet consists mostly of processed foods (time constraints and frankly I like them). I eat plenty of carbs and sugar along with protein and fat. Over the last 6 months changing nothing but the number of calories I eat I've lost weight in almost the exact amount predicted by my deficit. Maybe I'm just a special snowflake <shrug>
Congrats on your weight loss!
1 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »Just do me a favor and research how blood sugar and insulin affect weight gain/loss. Then tell me I'm wrong. In strictly terms of a measurement of energy, yes calories are just a unit of measurement. But that's not what was implied. We are talking about calories compared with calories in different foods. And even with exercise. You can't just create a calorie deficit and lose weight. It's just not that simple.
I've lost around 50lbs and have been in successful maintenance for several years now and yep, it really is that simple
Are you claiming that you can eat bread, sugar, and carbs and as long as you are still under your calorie goal then the weight will drop off?
Well, I sure as heck have dropped 125 lbs so far doing just that, thank you very much.11 -
You may lose weight just fine, but you can't ignore the science behind the chemical processes of how your body deals with different food sources. Long-term affects of calorie restrictions on metabolic rate= https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3943438/1
-
sydney_bosque wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
So... You don't eat vegetables, fruit, or lean protein?
So you didn't read the whole thread, right?
Because we already went through how no one ever says to just eat doughnuts, we just say you can eat some doughnuts and still lose weight just fine.
So, you're saying the types of calories you eat do matter. And it's not simply the deficit that makes you lose weight. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/carbohydrates-and-blood-sugar/
No I'm not. I'm saying whether you eat 1500 calories of "clean" virtuous food only, or if you eat 1500 calories of fruits, veggies, lean proteins, processed snacks, ice cream, and a beer, you will lose the same amount of weight. You can give your body the nutrition it needs, plus eat a Twinkie.
And again, you didn't read the whole thread, did you?11 -
That's simply not true. https://blog.bulletproof.com/not-the-calories-stupid-reply-to-time-magazine/. You may still lose some weight, but not as quickly. And refined foods will never help the process.0
-
sydney_bosque wrote: »That's simply not true. https://blog.bulletproof.com/not-the-calories-stupid-reply-to-time-magazine/. You may still lose some weight, but not as quickly. And refined foods will never help the process.
*cough*
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p118 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »That's simply not true. https://blog.bulletproof.com/not-the-calories-stupid-reply-to-time-magazine/. You may still lose some weight, but not as quickly. And refined foods will never help the process.
So first you set up the strawman of eating nothing but junk food.
Then you moved the goalposts by citing an article about metabolic adaptation in athletes, which has nothing to do with is a calorie a calorie.
And now you're citing a blogpost on a commercial website.
There are many many people here who lost a substantial amount of weight eating a balanced diet that included processed foods, treat foods, junk food, whatever you want to call them, at the correct calorie level.
I have always eaten a diet with plenty of whole produce and grains and lean protein, as well as plenty of frozen dinners, canned soups, ice cream, pizza, and diet soda. I have never been technically overweight, but I lost 15 vanity lbs by eating that same diet but logging my food to be sure I got my calories in line.12 -
LifeLongFoodLvr wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »That's simply not true. https://blog.bulletproof.com/not-the-calories-stupid-reply-to-time-magazine/. You may still lose some weight, but not as quickly. And refined foods will never help the process.
Blogs aren't peer reviewed studies and not to be taken seriously and yes, just as quickly, and lose just as much weight.
The blog cites the studies.0 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »That's simply not true. https://blog.bulletproof.com/not-the-calories-stupid-reply-to-time-magazine/. You may still lose some weight, but not as quickly. And refined foods will never help the process.
So first you set up the strawman of eating nothing but junk food.
Then you moved the goalposts by citing an article about metabolic adaptation in athletes, which has nothing to do with is a calorie a calorie.
And now you're citing a blogpost on a commercial website.
There are many many people here who lost a substantial amount of weight eating a balanced diet that included processed foods, treat foods, junk food, whatever you want to call them, at the correct calorie level.
I have always eaten a diet with plenty of whole produce and grains and lean protein, as well as plenty of frozen dinners, canned soups, ice cream, pizza, and diet soda. I have never been technically overweight, but I lost 15 vanity lbs by eating that same diet but logging my food to be sure I got my calories in line.
They claimed starvation mode is a myth. But your metabolic rate will adjust after prolonged calorie deficits, as the study shows. And obviously you cannot eat 1,500 calories of processed foods and expect it to affect your body the same as 1,500 calories of whole foods. Anyone claiming they lost weight eating processed foods, but then said it was mostly healthy food with treats sprinkled in, is not really eating as if all calories are equal.1 -
How about someone posts a scientific study that shows refined food calories are equal to complex food calories1
-
I'm still stuck at the part where a degree in gardening makes a person more educated about biochemistry, physics, biology and nutrition than the rest of us.18
-
Calories for weight loss/gain.
Macros for satiety, health, and some fitness goals.
Micros for health.
You keep insisting that if you really believe a calorie is a calorie, you would eat just junk. But we aren't saying eating all junk food is best for your health. We are saying that when it comes to weight loss, calories are king. You can theoretically lose weight eating nothing but junk food, but it wouldn't be a good idea because you would probably be hungry and feel like crap.
Weight loss is an energy balance equation. All calories are equal for weight loss. No one here has ever said all foods are the same for health.
Again, I have to assume you didn't read the whole thread, or any of the stickies in each of the forums.8 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »That's simply not true. https://blog.bulletproof.com/not-the-calories-stupid-reply-to-time-magazine/. You may still lose some weight, but not as quickly. And refined foods will never help the process.
So first you set up the strawman of eating nothing but junk food.
Then you moved the goalposts by citing an article about metabolic adaptation in athletes, which has nothing to do with is a calorie a calorie.
And now you're citing a blogpost on a commercial website.
There are many many people here who lost a substantial amount of weight eating a balanced diet that included processed foods, treat foods, junk food, whatever you want to call them, at the correct calorie level.
I have always eaten a diet with plenty of whole produce and grains and lean protein, as well as plenty of frozen dinners, canned soups, ice cream, pizza, and diet soda. I have never been technically overweight, but I lost 15 vanity lbs by eating that same diet but logging my food to be sure I got my calories in line.
They claimed starvation mode is a myth. But your metabolic rate will adjust after prolonged calorie deficits, as the study shows. And obviously you cannot eat 1,500 calories of processed foods and expect it to affect your body the same as 1,500 calories of whole foods. Anyone claiming they lost weight eating processed foods, but then said it was mostly healthy food with treats sprinkled in, is not really eating as if all calories are equal.
The processed food I eat doesn't affect my body any differently than any other food I might eat. Certainly it can be more calorie - dense than fresh food but I fail to see how 300 calories of canned chicken noodle soup is utilized differently than 300 calories of fresh when the same ingredients are used. Now, if you want to talk about taste, well, that's a whole different story...8 -
Calories for weight loss/gain.
Macros for satiety, health, and some fitness goals.
Micros for health.
You keep insisting that if you really believe a calorie is a calorie, you would eat just junk. But we aren't saying eating all junk food is best for your health. We are saying that when it comes to weight loss, calories are king. You can theoretically lose weight eating nothing but junk food, but it wouldn't be a good idea because you would probably be hungry and feel like crap.
Weight loss is an energy balance equation. All calories are equal for weight loss. No one here has ever said all foods are the same for health.
Again, I have to assume you didn't read the whole thread, or any of the stickies in each of the forums.
All of this, and quoting this to provide another bit of reading that was clearly overlooked...Alatariel75 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »That's simply not true. https://blog.bulletproof.com/not-the-calories-stupid-reply-to-time-magazine/. You may still lose some weight, but not as quickly. And refined foods will never help the process.
*cough*
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
7 -
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-you-lose-weight-wher/ this is the science behind weight loss. This process is triggered by eating low-glycemic foods. It is based on blood sugar levels. Unless your blood sugar drops, your body won't start this process. Refined foods increase blood sugar. It inhibits this process.
And I don't have a degree in gardening, anymore than a doctor has a degree in applying band aids. Obviously a lot of scientific classes were required to understand the chemistry and biology of growing plants.0 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-you-lose-weight-wher/ this is the science behind weight loss. This process is triggered by eating low-glycemic foods. It is based on blood sugar levels. Unless your blood sugar drops, your body won't start this process. Refined foods increase blood sugar. It inhibits this process.
And I don't have a degree in gardening, anymore than a doctor has a degree in applying band aids. Obviously a lot of scientific classes were required to understand the chemistry and biology of growing plants.
Where in that article does it say anything about blood sugar and needing to eat low glycemic foods in order to trigger the fat loss process?
8 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm still stuck at the part where a degree in gardening makes a person more educated about biochemistry, physics, biology and nutrition than the rest of us.
love it 3 -
Weight loss is an energy balance equation. All calories are equal for weight loss. No one here has ever said all foods are the same for health.
Again, I have to assume you didn't read the whole thread, or any of the stickies in each of the forums.
If you read the whole thread, as well as the original post you might notice that it was not talking about weight loss.
It was showing an (just one) example of the vast nutritional bang for your buck that you could get during two days with the same caloric intake.
The illustrated analysis of the meals highlighted that while the caloric (energy) value was the same on each day one did not provide anywhere near the nutritional value and therefor was inferior in regards to health.
I can only assume you didn't read the original post.
5 -
Weight loss is an energy balance equation. All calories are equal for weight loss. No one here has ever said all foods are the same for health.
Again, I have to assume you didn't read the whole thread, or any of the stickies in each of the forums.
If you read the whole thread, as well as the original post you might notice that it was not talking about weight loss.
It was showing an (just one) example of the vast nutritional bang for your buck that you could get during two days with the same caloric intake.
The illustrated analysis of the meals highlighted that while the caloric (energy) value was the same on each day one did not provide anywhere near the nutritional value and therefor was inferior in regards to health.
I can only assume you didn't read the original post.
But do people ever say that all foods are the same from a nutritional standpoint? Of course not, that would be silly. So I'm still not sure the point of all of this. Is it that there are lots of different ways of eating and some ways provide more macro and micronutrients than others? Ok. Agreed. Where did you get the idea that anyone would say otherwise?12 -
Weight loss is an energy balance equation. All calories are equal for weight loss. No one here has ever said all foods are the same for health.
Again, I have to assume you didn't read the whole thread, or any of the stickies in each of the forums.
If you read the whole thread, as well as the original post you might notice that it was not talking about weight loss.
It was showing an (just one) example of the vast nutritional bang for your buck that you could get during two days with the same caloric intake.
The illustrated analysis of the meals highlighted that while the caloric (energy) value was the same on each day one did not provide anywhere near the nutritional value and therefor was inferior in regards to health.
I can only assume you didn't read the original post.
I wasn't responding to your OP, im responding to the new poster who is trying to say that you won't lose weight eating processed food.
No one here ever suggests that eating nutritious foods isn't important for health, just that it's not necessary for weight loss.8 -
nokanjaijo wrote: »KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.
I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.
See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.
You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.
They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.
I find eating like that much simpler, but I can see why many people would. I like it cos I'm never hungry and fits my day
You find eating like what simpler?
Several meals, someone said they don't like having 3 meals and snacks andnokanjaijo wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »nokanjaijo wrote: »Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?
That's what confuses me.
I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.
See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.
You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.
They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.
3 meals and 3 snacks is way simpler for me, eating like that. I said that cos I do that all the time. But I guess most people don't.
Okay, I think a great many people do that. I bet it's very common.
What i don't think many people do is have 6 meals, eat almost half the day's calories in one meal then spread the other half over the remaining 5 meals. That's what I'm calling odd. It would be pretty uncommon, I think.
It seems to me like the author of this article was having a difficult time getting the two menus to come to the same calorie count and look like roughly the same amount of food. So they had to cram a bunch of calories into the dinner meal to force it.
I do that a lot. I don't have much control over my dinner. Could be lots of veggies or it could be fast food. So i skimp on breakfast and lunch, so that I'll have plenty of calories for dinner. Dinner is frequently half my calories so i don't go under my goal, and i don't go to bed hungry.0 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »That's simply not true. https://blog.bulletproof.com/not-the-calories-stupid-reply-to-time-magazine/. You may still lose some weight, but not as quickly. And refined foods will never help the process.
I pretty much live off refined foods and I lost 125 lbs as well. And A LOT of those were carbs.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
Weight loss is an energy balance equation. All calories are equal for weight loss. No one here has ever said all foods are the same for health.
Again, I have to assume you didn't read the whole thread, or any of the stickies in each of the forums.
If you read the whole thread, as well as the original post you might notice that it was not talking about weight loss.
It was showing an (just one) example of the vast nutritional bang for your buck that you could get during two days with the same caloric intake.
The illustrated analysis of the meals highlighted that while the caloric (energy) value was the same on each day one did not provide anywhere near the nutritional value and therefor was inferior in regards to health.
I can only assume you didn't read the original post.
But do people ever say that all foods are the same from a nutritional standpoint? Of course not, that would be silly. So I'm still not sure the point of all of this. Is it that there are lots of different ways of eating and some ways provide more macro and micronutrients than others? Ok. Agreed. Where did you get the idea that anyone would say otherwise?
People frequently (even within this thread) write things like I can just eat soft drink, lollies, 'junk' food and still lost weigh, calorie deficit is all that matters ...
Many places on the forums people write - and I'm paraphrasing - you can eat whatever you want. CICO is all that matters, etc etc.
Now you might be able to read an implied meaning into that and mentally add, but you need to eat a balanced diet to be healthy but not every person using this app and the forums does that, or understands that.
All calories are equal. SURE. For weight loss, to a point ... but health is not just weight loss. As you are saying yourself, nutrition etc matters when your looking a HEALTH.
Which is what the linked original article is about.
..........
Why are you so intent on arguing a point that you basically agree on?
Are you saying, don't post that because everyone (you) already knows that so why even talk about it?
Or arguing semantics just for arguments sake?
..............
If you don't like the article, or don't like my opinion. Great. That's okay. I can live with that.
Doesn't mean it is wrong to share or that my point about not all calorie sources being equal in VALUE (not energy measurement if you can separate the concepts).
We're on page bloody 6 of arguing the same point with different perspectives on a linguistical term.
If you don't see the point - seriously - why are you posting (basically repeated opinion) on this thread across three days?
These questions are rhetorical mind you.
I was going to write: this has become ridiculous, I give up.
I think it's more appropriate to write, I move on.
1 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »Just do me a favor and research how blood sugar and insulin affect weight gain/loss. Then tell me I'm wrong. In strictly terms of a measurement of energy, yes calories are just a unit of measurement. But that's not what was implied. We are talking about calories compared with calories in different foods. And even with exercise. You can't just create a calorie deficit and lose weight. It's just not that simple.
You are wrong.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/02/is-sugar-fattening.html?m=1sydney_bosque wrote: »Just do me a favor and research how blood sugar and insulin affect weight gain/loss. Then tell me I'm wrong. In strictly terms of a measurement of energy, yes calories are just a unit of measurement. But that's not what was implied. We are talking about calories compared with calories in different foods. And even with exercise. You can't just create a calorie deficit and lose weight. It's just not that simple.
You are wrong. Here's the blog of an actual obesity researcher on the topic.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html?m=1
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/09/hyperinsulinemia-cause-or-effect-of.html?m=1
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/09/fat-tissue-insulin-sensitivity-and.html?m=1
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/02/is-sugar-fattening.html?m=1
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-hypothesis-of-obesity.html?m=1
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/clarifications-about-carbohydrate-and.html?m=1
While sugar does have effects on the body, it doesn't have a special snowflake role in weight.9 -
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 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.
A degree in organic produce?
5 -
I will take both for 4000 Cal Alex.... but I'll have to add some extra walkies to compensate!5
-
-
sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »Just do me a favor and research how blood sugar and insulin affect weight gain/loss. Then tell me I'm wrong. In strictly terms of a measurement of energy, yes calories are just a unit of measurement. But that's not what was implied. We are talking about calories compared with calories in different foods. And even with exercise. You can't just create a calorie deficit and lose weight. It's just not that simple.
I've lost around 50lbs and have been in successful maintenance for several years now and yep, it really is that simple
Are you claiming that you can eat bread, sugar, and carbs and as long as you are still under your calorie goal then the weight will drop off?
If she isnt, I am. And basic science proves it as a fact.13
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions