A calorie is a calorie ...
Replies
-
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 just gonna quote this one, though from what I've skimmed through the other 4 pages of the thread I could've taken any of your posts.
There is no value of a calorie beyond the unit of energy. The unit of energy is all it is because it's identical no matter where it comes from and indistinguishable from each other. If you have two thermometers that both show 100°C you have no way of knowing which one was sticking in a pot of boiling water and which one was in an oven.
Foods have different nutrients in them (important stuff) and those nutrients supply energy (also important stuff). The same amount of energy is always the same. 1 kcal = energy needed to heat up 1 liter of water by 1°C, no matter where you got that calorie from.
No matter how you put your nutrition together (and humans are extremely adaptable in that regard, able to thrive on almost any combination of macronutrients), the calories will always have the effect that calories have, regardless of if you have been eating what you consider a healthy diet or not. Too many calories = gain weight, always. And that's not healthy beyond a point, regardless again where you got the calories from.9 -
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.
See every time I think we are getting somewhere, and that we do agree and that this is just a discussion of semantics... you and others bring up the points in bold.
People can eat "junk" food and lose weight, because calories are all that matter - for weight loss.
No one says that they do or that anyone should eat "ONLY JUNK FOOD".
Thinking that every single person who responds to a post must qualify and add "nutrition is important too" is redundant and frankly insulting to the intelligence of the community at large if you really think there are people who come to this site and have no idea that a balanced diet is important. I have yet to see a person on this site who does not know deep down that nutrition is important. They may not know how to get that balanced diet, or what macro and micronutrients are, or what foods provide them - or they know and just aren't making the effort - but deep down, I don't believe there is an adult person who hasn't heard at some point that nutrition benefits your overall health. Implying that these people are out there in mass and that we must provide this most basic information to them in every single response seems condescending and redundant.
But you've insisted repeatedly that you've seen threads where people don't have even this most basic understanding that nutrition is somehow important for health, and that in those threads people dismissively tell them that only calories matter and that they can feel free to eat junk food as long as they are in a calorie deficit. So could you please link us to some of these threads, including the questions from people that have no idea that eating a balanced diet is important for health, and the comments where people dismiss or flat out ignore that notion?
13 -
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.
FWIW, I have never seen a post advocating "eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit." Not once. The posts I've seen advocate watching calories for weight loss and macros for health & satiety. And occasionally that fitting modest treats or "junk" into one's calorie and macro goals may promote enjoyment and sustainability.
Those are not the same. This discussion seems to illustrate those messages get conflated.7 -
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.
FWIW, I have never seen a post advocating "eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit." Not once. The posts I've seen advocate watching calories for weight loss and macros for health & satiety. And occasionally that fitting modest treats or "junk" into one's calorie and macro goals may promote enjoyment and sustainability.
Those are not the same. This discussion seems to illustrate those messages get conflated.
I agree and would follow this up with the question of the definition of junk food. Those who eat a version of a "clean" diet wouldn't have the same definition of junk food as someone who eats high carb, for instance. And if you think about it, if you have a high enough calorie goal you can certainly meet your macros and micros eating fast food - there's plenty of choices available. Note that I'm not advocating this, I'm just pointing out that "junk" food is completely subjective and is usually used as shorthand for "food that doesn't fit with my nutrition goals so you shouldn't eat it".1 -
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.
FWIW, I have never seen a post advocating "eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit." Not once. The posts I've seen advocate watching calories for weight loss and macros for health & satiety. And occasionally that fitting modest treats or "junk" into one's calorie and macro goals may promote enjoyment and sustainability.
Those are not the same. This discussion seems to illustrate those messages get conflated.
I agree and would follow this up with the question of the definition of junk food. Those who eat a version of a "clean" diet wouldn't have the same definition of junk food as someone who eats high carb, for instance. And if you think about it, if you have a high enough calorie goal you can certainly meet your macros and micros eating fast food - there's plenty of choices available. Note that I'm not advocating this, I'm just pointing out that "junk" food is completely subjective and is usually used as shorthand for "food that doesn't fit with my nutrition goals so you shouldn't eat it".
Yes because if I ate nothing but broccoli all day (a "healthy" food) I would be just as malnourished as if I ate "junk" all day...8 -
cwolfman13 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.
And yet, there are tons of people who've done it...
And somehow this consistently gets glossed over...4 -
cwolfman13 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.
And yet, there are tons of people who've done it...
And somehow this consistently gets glossed over...
Ah yes, but those people only care about weight loss and not health. They may have nice-looking bodies, but their insides are practically rotting right out. /sarcasm14 -
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.
FWIW, I have never seen a post advocating "eating whatever junk they want because 'a calorie is a calorie', so long as there is a deficit." Not once. The posts I've seen advocate watching calories for weight loss and macros for health & satiety. And occasionally that fitting modest treats or "junk" into one's calorie and macro goals may promote enjoyment and sustainability.
Those are not the same. This discussion seems to illustrate those messages get conflated.
I agree and would follow this up with the question of the definition of junk food. Those who eat a version of a "clean" diet wouldn't have the same definition of junk food as someone who eats high carb, for instance. And if you think about it, if you have a high enough calorie goal you can certainly meet your macros and micros eating fast food - there's plenty of choices available. Note that I'm not advocating this, I'm just pointing out that "junk" food is completely subjective and is usually used as shorthand for "food that doesn't fit with my nutrition goals so you shouldn't eat it".
Yes because if I ate nothing but broccoli all day (a "healthy" food) I would be just as malnourished as if I ate "junk" all day...
Depending on the junk, I would think you could get a better range of macros and micros.
As a general response to this thread, not the quoted poster: I've never understood the extremist arguments that are so often thrown about. Moderation means eating nothing but junk. CICO proponents only worry about calories, never about nutrition. There's little attempt to consider what others are saying when it doesn't fit the chosen world view.4 -
Hmm, I think it's as simple as , for most people giving up entirely on certain foods is very heavy in a psychological way, if you know you can have a slice of pizza every now and then as long as the overall calorie balance is on a deficit, (either with only adjusting what and how much you eat or combine eating and exercise, with this I mean, I did not wish to go on a -500 calories a day deficit, I chose 200 calories deficit and about 300 coming from exercise , there's my -500, I hope I am not saying things in a confusing way.) most people will be able to sustain this, having what they like just minding portions of all food and drinks.
Anyway this is the way I chose, but for me it's awesome and comforting knowing I can have a few beers now and then and won't harm my journey.
As long as I keep a very good track and all I ingest.
That's what I learned from this thread.
7 -
0
-
sydney_bosque wrote: »
I need my 5 minutes back.9 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »
Um, the article states in several places that a calorie is a unit of energy and consuming fewer calories than you expend will result in weight loss. The argument appears to be that this statement doesn't also include an explicit analysis of why this is so. Nobody's arguing that it does.8 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »
Um, the article states in several places that a calorie is a unit of energy and consuming fewer calories than you expend will result in weight loss. The argument appears to be that this statement doesn't also include an explicit analysis of why this is so. Nobody's arguing that it does.
It's trying to say there is a reason people overeat. Well d'uh. Doesn't mean counting calories doesn't help that.
As I said, I need my 5 minutes back.7 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »
Vetting sources is an important skill10 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
9 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.0 -
singingflutelady wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
Vetting sources is an important skill
^^^This. And in spite of its deliberately confidence-inspiring name, AuthorityNutrition isn't a credible source.
7 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Did you read this thread?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
I'm sure it was posted earlier. I don't know how much faith you want to put into it thought, dude is really overweight, based on his profile picture.6 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
I need my 5 minutes back.
I didn't even spend that long.
Besides everything else, automatically assuming it's all hormones and ignoring psychological factors which drive overeating AND insisting that all low carb dieters are automatically satiated and start eating less calories?
Heh. I gained weight low carbing because of that fallacy. Because I was told that's what it would do. Because I was told it would regulate my hormones and that's how weight loss worked.
What nonsense. (Disclaimer: I am aware it works this way for other people who find fat satiating.)
Don't even get me started on the "we eat too much because we're fat" nonsense.8 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Are you talking about this? http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
Did you actually read the thread? Have you seen him? Doesn't look like he just "lost a number" to me.
Plenty of people on here have been successful with CICO. Not just successful in losing numbers on the scale - I mean, these people have developed some pretty awesome physiques focusing mainly on CICO.
Is nutrition important for overall health? Yes.
Are we advocating for eating nothing but junk food? Absolutely not.
Will having the occasional Little Debbie or slice of cake or donut hurt your weight loss OR your health? No, it won't.
We advocate a varied diet with fruits, vegetables, healthy fats and protein, with calorie-dense foods in moderation. We also understand that weight loss is nothing more than basic math: CI<CO.7 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »
Weight loss (specifically) is about maintaining a negative energy balance, period, end of story...
Or more specifically, taking in slightly fewer calories then your body requires and allowing your body to access it's fat stores to bring itself into energy balance...8 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that losing weight is *not* about losing fat? <confused>
6 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »
Authority Nutrition is not a credible site.
However, not to leave it at that, the very first sentence reveals that the author is NOT talking about calories at all, but foods. Again, have you not read any of the other posts in this discussion? It strikes me as rather rude to basically ignore what everyone else has said and to pretend like you are arguing against something (all foods are the same) that no one has said. Apart from being rude, it just seems kind of pointless.
Probably pointless for me to even try to communicate at this point, but I'm an optimist.
_____________________________________________
Moving on to the meat of the, er, blog post:According to the “calories in, calories out” (CICO) way of thinking, obesity is simply a matter of eating too many calories.
Well, strictly, sure. Most of us will of course say that what you eat will affect how much you want to eat or choose to eat, however, can make a deficit/maintenance harder or easier.Proponents of this often say that the types of foods you eat aren’t very important, that the caloric contribution of foods is the key.
This is a lie. Calories are what matter for weight loss, sure, but of course what you eat is important.They say that the only way to lose weight is to eat less, move more and that it is any individual’s responsibility to keep calories balanced.
Okay. The last bit is weird (I couldn't care less whether you keep calories balanced or not), but sure. Skipping ahead:Saying that weight gain is caused by excess calories is just as ridiculous as saying that the entrance hall is so crowded because more people are entering than leaving.
The next logical question to ask would be… why are people eating more?
Ah! Typical AN -- the site for people who want to be told that they didn't get fat from overeating.Is it a consequence of a series of logical decisions to eat a bit more and exercise a bit less, or is there something in our physiology that is causing it… such as hormones?
No one says weight gained is caused by people saying "hmm, I think I might choose to gain some weight by eating more and moving less." That's just stupid. We eat more because food is tasty (and sometimes for other reasons to) and we move less because life allows it and we often don't make an effort to counteract that. Yes, weight loss is about fixing these things.
It then goes on to mix up foods and calories, so that bit can be disregarded.Another thing to keep in mind that long-term dieting will reduce your metabolic rate.
Indeed, and this depends on how aggressive your deficit is, not what foods you eat.If you were to cut calorie intake by 10%, it would only work for some time until your metabolic rate would adapt and you would stop losing. Then you would have to cut calories again, then again…
No, it doesn't work like that. You stop losing because as a smaller person you burn fewer calories -- this is different from metabolic adaptation (which is also a thing but will not wipe out a loss).
It goes on to take things that have some truth to them and totally distort and misuse them. Typical AN.But what if we’ve got things backwards and the fat gain drives the increased calorie intake?
LOL, as I thought -- effort to appeal to those who don't want to take responsibility for their weight gain.
Anyway, though that whole long, tedious, confused article, it never once gives a basis for thinking that a calorie is not a calorie. It does argue that foods have different qualities which, again, no one disputes.9 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
You've lost a few pounds of mostly water weight. Nice job but you're just getting started. I lost 50lbs and in the process greatly improved all my health markers. Also, my 4 year anniversary is in April and it will also mark my 3rd year as a NWCR participant. I'm curious to see where you'll be at in 4 years
8 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
If you lost weight, CI<CO. How you went about it was up to you. Hint, there are many ways...
6 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
At this point, you are either willfully misunderstanding/trolling, or you are so convinced you are right that you aren't really reading the responses and linked threads/studies. You are telling multiple people who have lost a substantial amount of weight and kept it off that what they did isn't possible.
I'm out. Best of luck to you, hopefully you have it all as figured out as you think you do.9 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that losing weight is *not* about losing fat? <confused>
I'm saying there's a difference between losing fat and losing weight. You can starve yourself, eat crap, and lose muscle. Technically, you would lose weight. But, you wouldn't be losing fat.0 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that losing weight is *not* about losing fat? <confused>
I'm saying there's a difference between losing fat and losing weight. You can starve yourself, eat crap, and lose muscle. Technically, you would lose weight. But, you wouldn't be losing fat.
What have I lost 94 pounds of? Hmmm?
20 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that losing weight is *not* about losing fat? <confused>
I'm saying there's a difference between losing fat and losing weight. You can starve yourself, eat crap, and lose muscle. Technically, you would lose weight. But, you wouldn't be losing fat.
Yes you would lose fat! You'd lose fat AND muscle! Your body doesn't just bypass fat stores and start to use muscle because you're eating crap <bangs head against desk repeatedly>10 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »sydney_bosque wrote: »
After reading through the responses to your posts, from people who have actually successfully lost weight, this is how you respond? Now I am starting to think you're just trolling us. But if you're not then I wish you lots of luck with your weight loss efforts because you're going to need it
As I have also successfully lost weight, that part of your argument is invalid. But, if you would rather post blogs about some random person who ate junk and the number on the scale moved as proof, then ok. Losing a number is not the same as losing fat. That's all there is to it.
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that losing weight is *not* about losing fat? <confused>
I'm saying there's a difference between losing fat and losing weight. You can starve yourself, eat crap, and lose muscle. Technically, you would lose weight. But, you wouldn't be losing fat.
What have I lost 94 pounds of? Hmmm?
You are absolutely inspiring!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
- 426 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