A calorie is a calorie ...
Options
Replies
-
WinoGelato wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »In terms of weight loss, yes a calorie is a calorie. In terms of overall health yes, you should eat a varied diet consisting of foods that a. you enjoy eating b. fit within your calorie goals c. have a high satiety level for you and d. gives you a good balance of macros and micros
My view on those priorities is a little different. I would say:
a) eat foods that meet your nutritional requirements
b) don't exceed your caloric needs
c) fill you up
d) you like
How you rank those attributes is all about a values I guess and the whole calorie in calorie out is the whole equation depends entirely on if you want to 'lose weight' or be healthy.
................
I thought the linked article gave a good visual regarding calories being equal in an easy to understand illustrative manner.
Some of the actual text is a bit wishy washy, but it is just a little piece for a health insurance mob.
Food for thought though.
Why must it be one or the other?
Are you just on page one? Keep reading.
Lol...1 -
trigden1991 wrote: »I'm not sure how people can't grasp that a calorie is a defined unit of energy. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think because decades of bogus diet info has brainwashed us into believing that you have to eat a certain way at certain times and do certain activities in order to lose weight. Think of all the click-bait articles and blogs titled "10 foods you must never eat if you want to lose weight". This is where calorie as a unit of energy becomes subverted into calorie as a unit of food. If you want to sell diet books and weight-loss potions it's to your advantage to promote a program that puts everyone on the same restrictive 1200 calorie diet and tell people it's not necessary to count calories. When those with more weight to lose start dropping lbs. it's easy to claim that the recommended foods are the reason for the weight loss and not the drastic calorie reduction.8 -
sydney_bosque wrote: »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.
You don't seem to have read the thread.
"Calories" does not mean "food." A calorie is (as I'm sure you know) a unit of energy. Yes, what we eat makes a difference (as in overall diet, not "OMG, I ate a white food!"). That does not mean that a calorie is not 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.
This isn't true at all.
At a deficit, when you will need glucose to supply energy and the glycogen stores are unlikely to be full, de novo lipogenesis isn't likely to happen and isn't an especially efficient process. And as you would be in that case burning more fat than you are adding, it wouldn't matter anyway.
It's more efficient to store fat as fat, actually, but again doesn't matter because in a deficit you will burn more than you store. Eat more fat, you will burn more fat (not more body fat, though), eat more carbs, burn more carbs (and if calories are equal, about the same amount of body fat).
Plain sugar and highly refined starches on their own will be burned more quickly than other sources of calories, but that doesn't make the calories different and has nothing to do with weight loss unless you end up hungry and overeating (which varies based on the person and what they are doing and how many calories they need -- when running a marathon the fast burning aspects of sugar can be extremely helpful).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.
None of this is correct. Broccoli is broken down more slowly, due to the fiber, and is low cal for the bulk, but that doesn't make the actual calories in it (i.e., the energy it supplies) different than other calories supplied by other sources (for humans, foods). The TEF is somewhat higher for protein and higher fiber foods and lower for refined carbs and fat, but this has zero to do with calories from donuts (fat and refined carbs) going to the waist, especially in a deficit -- honestly, that's absurd.
And as for fat being "excreted," body fat is used for energy (it's stored calories). It results in waste products as part of the process to create energy, yeah, which is mostly exhaled and also removed in your urine. It doesn't just get dumped out, though, absent being used as fuel.9 -
But a calorie is a calorie...fattinater wrote: »Great article! I've always been annoyed by the people who truly think a calorie is just a calorie
Big assumption...fattinater wrote: »(implying nutrition doesn't matter)
Even bigger assumption...fattinater wrote: »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.fattinater wrote: »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.
You would have the same results if you are nothing but broccoli and kale for 6 months...12 -
Serious question for the people who are adamant on the whole "a calorie isn't a calorie" argument.
Do you also conflate all other units of measurement with the things they measure with such vehemence? Gallons of gasoline vs. milk, for example? Or can you easily separate, in that case, the unit of measurement from the substance being measured or rather understand that the unit of measurement is the same even though the substance being measured is different and serves a different purpose?
This whole argument wouldn't exist if you'd all say one food is not the same as another. No one would disagree with that. But a unit of measurement isn't the same as that which it measures. It's a neutral thing. It's just a gauge. It has no value on its own.17 -
But a calorie is a calorie...fattinater wrote: »Great article! I've always been annoyed by the people who truly think a calorie is just a calorie
Big assumption...fattinater wrote: »(implying nutrition doesn't matter)
Even bigger assumption...fattinater wrote: »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.fattinater wrote: »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.
You would have the same results if you are nothing but broccoli and kale for 6 months...
Keep reading, it gets even better
4 -
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.
...............
It must have been considered anti-semantic10 -
trigden1991 wrote: »I'm not sure how people can't grasp that a calorie is a defined unit of energy. Nothing more, nothing less.
I have wonder that myself...what is so hard about that concept.
They seem to want to say that calories measure nutritional value of a food instead of the energy value of that food.
If you take their definition of a calorie away from them however I wonder what would happen. IMO...people are using their good/bad calorie definition to somehow heighten their sense of self...as if their "good" calories make them a little more superior. They use the "bad" calories to make others feel less. I think that is why the strawman..."eat burgers/pizza/doughnuts all day" is thrown out so much.
It's kind of like..."Look at me...I am better" type mentality.
Even though healthwise I need to eat nutritional foods(especially low sodium) I would never think that my way of eating is any better than anyone elses. I can't even imagine why I would do that or need to. All the satisfaction that I need is if I make it through the day and have stuck to the "plan" at least about 90%.
On a side note...I have days occasionally that I go a little loco...then I do good to stick to the plan for even 50%.
IDK...I think that with all of this good/bad...this diet/that diet...and all of the rest of the stuff that is debated on this site...I think that self-esteem...ego...superiority complex...maybe even a little self-doubt play in to peoples hard core stanch on what they believe and what they refuse to try to understand.
Sorry for the ramble...I just find it interesting and at times a little unbelievable that people will pass judgment on someone elses food choices.11 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Serious question for the people who are adamant on the whole "a calorie isn't a calorie" argument.
Do you also conflate all other units of measurement with the things they measure with such vehemence? Gallons of gasoline vs. milk, for example?
What keeps cracking me up in this discussion is that in the "muscle weighs more than fat" conversation (it does, because "by volume" is implied, just for the record) ;-), people kept jumping in to say "a lb is a lb, a lb of muscle weighs the same as a lb of fat" (which is obviously true). No one, absolutely no one, claimed that because muscle and fat are different and one is denser than the other, that means that a lb does not equal a lb. The argument was entirely about whether anyone is actually stupid enough to think a lb is not a lb (me: I seriously doubt it), or if "by volume" must be implied. Also other tangents, of course, this being MFP.
I think the reason people have trouble with "a calorie = a calorie" or read in some (nonexistent) comment on nutrition is that they think of calorie as a synonym for food and not a unit of measurement.
And I would understand that if it hadn't be explained 100 millionty times or more.
Given how much it's been explained, though, continuing to suggest that someone saying "a calorie is a calorie" is somehow a comment on nutrition and means that person doesn't think there are any nutritional differences between broccoli and steak and cupcakes strikes me as, well, odd and inexplicable (to put it as nicely as possible).This whole argument wouldn't exist if you'd all say one food is not the same as another. No one would disagree with that. But a unit of measurement isn't the same as that which it measures. It's a neutral thing. It's just a gauge. It has no value on its own.
So very much this.
But if you (meaning those who do it, of course) said "foods have different nutritional contents" and everyone said "well, yeah, duh" I suppose that would be less satisfying for some reason? I dunno.3 -
I want to go back a few pages and address a few things, though, because I see some issues that could need some clarification. Especially for the 90% of us who may not even know what horticulture means.
1)
This is what's known as "a call to authority." In a lot of cases, it would be as valid as me saying, "I'm a brain surgeon because I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night."sydney_bosque wrote: »Look, I have a degree in organic produce, and have since studied a LOT about nutrition.
Not for a second saying that's the case here, (I'm *not* a brain surgeon, for example), but the inclusion is sometimes meant to give knee-jerk credence to whatever statements follow. Sydney, I'm not implying that you're being less than truthful here, just that stating your alleged qualifications do not automatically make you an expert, especially in an area you are not specifically degreed in.
(I'm skipping over some of your post here because I see it's been addressed in previous responses, and I don't want to be redundant.)
2)
From a strictly thermodynamic point of view (which is the only element that a calorie actually measures), a 100 calories of broccoli and a 100 calories of donut *are* absolutely identical, because a calorie is a unit of energy, and has nothing whatsoever to do with where that calorie came from, or the nutrients contained in the food ingested to produce it.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.
Where you might be getting confused is that you can eat a heck of a lot more broccoli - volume wise - for 100 calories than you can donuts, and the nutritional profiles of these two foods aren't the same. But as far as providing energy for your body to burn, there's no difference between the two on a per calorie basis.
Because of the scientific reality of what a calorie actually is, this part of your post makes no sense to me:
First of all, why is broccoli touted as being "good" - "100 calories from a vegetable will go towards fueling your systems," while the donut is clearly the villain - "100 calories from a donut will go directly to your waist," when - from an energy burning standpoint - the two are identical? And if you now are crossing over from what a calorie actually measures and throwing nutritional aspects into the mix to defend your position, you need to realize that eating a diet that consists solely of broccoli would be as nutritionally deficient as would one containing nothing but those heinous donuts.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 yes, a calorie IS just a calorie. Bringing nutritional profiles of different foods to bear here is not what a calorie measures and is therefore irrelevant in the discussion of what a calorie actually is.So, no. A calorie is not just a calorie.
3)
One point that needs clarification: Can you explain how the excretory system manages to get stuff out of storage in your fat cells and then eliminates it from your body? This is anatomically confusing to me.
(Edited to fix quotes tags.)20 -
trigden1991 wrote: »I'm not sure how people can't grasp that a calorie is a defined unit of energy. Nothing more, nothing less.
I have wonder that myself...what is so hard about that concept.
They seem to want to say that calories measure nutritional value of a food instead of the energy value of that food.
If you take their definition of a calorie away from them however I wonder what would happen. IMO...people are using their good/bad calorie definition to somehow heighten their sense of self...as if their "good" calories make them a little more superior. They use the "bad" calories to make others feel less. I think that is why the strawman..."eat burgers/pizza/doughnuts all day" is thrown out so much.
It's kind of like..."Look at me...I am better" type mentality.
Even though healthwise I need to eat nutritional foods(especially low sodium) I would never think that my way of eating is any better than anyone elses. I can't even imagine why I would do that or need to. All the satisfaction that I need is if I make it through the day and have stuck to the "plan" at least about 90%.
On a side note...I have days occasionally that I go a little loco...then I do good to stick to the plan for even 50%.
IDK...I think that with all of this good/bad...this diet/that diet...and all of the rest of the stuff that is debated on this site...I think that self-esteem...ego...superiority complex...maybe even a little self-doubt play in to peoples hard core stanch on what they believe and what they refuse to try to understand.
Sorry for the ramble...I just find it interesting and at times a little unbelievable that people will pass judgment on someone elses food choices.
Oh this is definitely a thing and I've seen it in action much more intensely on other forums (those that have a specific woe as their base and it's being pushed as the 'one True way'). MFP is pretty tame in comparison lol.2 -
Whoa this thread is still going on strong... one really does learn a lot on here.3
-
Okay...
Go to a home building store.
Buy a yard of every type of rope they have.
No matter what the thickness of that rope is...you only have a yard.
No matter the strength rating on that rope...you still only have a yard.
Each rope has it's purpose...could be to tie up a box...suspend a heavy weight from the ceiling...etc...etc...
Regardless of each ropes purpose...you guessed it...you still only have a yard of each rope. How could that be when one might be more valuable to you(accomplishes what you need for it to do) at the time you still only have a yard.
Just like the yard...a calorie is a unit of measure. The value of either the yard or the calorie is determined by what you need them to do for you...not the unit of measure.
Example...I try to eat 4700mg of potassium a day.
400 calories of potatoes has about 2500mg of potassium. 400 calories of Cheddar cheese has only 98mg. While cheese might help meet my calcium and protein goals it is fairly useless in meeting my potassium levels. I would have to eat a lot of cheese calories to reach it. Is cheese "bad" calories...no...it just isn't giving me the nutritional value that I need. In each case however the calorie count was the same.
Okay...all this made sense at least in my brain. There is a difference between calorie(energy) counts and nutritional value.
13 -
Okay...
Go to a home building store.
Buy a yard of every type of rope they have.
No matter what the thickness of that rope is...you only have a yard.
No matter the strength rating on that rope...you still only have a yard.
Each rope has it's purpose...could be to tie up a box...suspend a heavy weight from the ceiling...etc...etc...
Regardless of each ropes purpose...you guessed it...you still only have a yard of each rope. How could that be when one might be more valuable to you(accomplishes what you need for it to do) at the time you still only have a yard.
Good analogy but how many calories are in each rope?!7 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Okay...
Go to a home building store.
Buy a yard of every type of rope they have.
No matter what the thickness of that rope is...you only have a yard.
No matter the strength rating on that rope...you still only have a yard.
Each rope has it's purpose...could be to tie up a box...suspend a heavy weight from the ceiling...etc...etc...
Regardless of each ropes purpose...you guessed it...you still only have a yard of each rope. How could that be when one might be more valuable to you(accomplishes what you need for it to do) at the time you still only have a yard.
Good analogy but how many calories are in each rope?!
Not sure, but I'd bet the fibre content is through the roof. 11 -
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...11 -
Okay...
Go to a home building store.
Buy a yard of every type of rope they have.
No matter what the thickness of that rope is...you only have a yard.
No matter the strength rating on that rope...you still only have a yard.
Each rope has it's purpose...could be to tie up a box...suspend a heavy weight from the ceiling...etc...etc...
Regardless of each ropes purpose...you guessed it...you still only have a yard of each rope. How could that be when one might be more valuable to you(accomplishes what you need for it to do) at the time you still only have a yard.
Just like the yard...a calorie is a unit of measure. The value of either the yard or the calorie is determined by what you need them to do for you...not the unit of measure.
Example...I try to eat 4700mg of potassium a day.
400 calories of potatoes has about 2500mg of potassium. 400 calories of Cheddar cheese has only 98mg. While cheese might help meet my calcium and protein goals it is fairly useless in meeting my potassium levels. I would have to eat a lot of cheese calories to reach it. Is cheese "bad" calories...no...it just isn't giving me the nutritional value that I need. In each case however the calorie count was the same.
Okay...all this made sense at least in my brain. There is a difference between calorie(energy) counts and nutritional value.
We're about to go to a home building store.
To buy flooring. Some of it will be carpeting. Some of it will be hard wood laminate.
By the argument used here, the unit of measurement used for the flooring material will have different values because the substance being used to cover the floor is different.
That is just patently absurd.
We're buying both of these things by square feet.
The argument being put forth here is akin to saying that we'd be using a different measurement for the laminate and the carpet, when what you'd really mean is that the flooring materials each serve a different and specific purpose and function differently -- however, they're both measured in the same way.
Foods are measured, at least in regards to the energy they provide, by the calorie.
If you want to measure the nutrition they provide, that's a different metric. The calorie doesn't account for that. Those metrics are specific to the foods themselves and can be measured and compared in various ways. You can compare the nutritive value of 100 grams of cake vs. broccoli just as easily as you can 100 calories of each. Because you have to look at the inherent nutrients within food itself, not the grams themselves or the calories.
6 -
WinoGelato wrote: »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.
Sorry to drag this from page 2, but I think @WinoGelato has made about the only valid complaint here, and the lack pf wine is very disturbing.6 -
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 am currently using walking to create a calorie deficit and am dropping bodyfat at the rate that I predicted by using my TDEE and caloric intake. Am I a wizard?6 -
8
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
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions