Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Sugar Addiction Myths
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
No, it was used correctly.
Atheists don't "believe in" god/God/gods. They're not unaware of the concept. They actively reject it.7 -
That's a UK story. Yesterday in America NPR had some show treating Dr. Lustig with respect for his identical campaign to have sugar banned in the U.S.0
-
jbirdgreen wrote: »I literally tried to climb up my husband last night to get some m&ms. If that is not the action of an addict, I don't know what is.
Long story short -- Hubby keeps a candy dish of m&ms. I am having a serious sugar craving. He sees my headed toward the dish because I want some. He holds the dish over my head so I couldn't get any. I tried to climb him to get it. He is not keeping me away from the M&Ms to make me skinny or anything like that. I have PCOS, and I have been counselled by my doctor to stay away from sugar and refined carbs.
An addict would have cut him.
ETA: when he took the m&m's away from you, did you resort to eating straight sugar from the bag? No? Just wanted the candy coated chocolate form? Then sugar isn't the object of your desire. It's yummy snacks.20 -
stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
No, it was used correctly.
Atheists don't "believe in" god/God/gods. They're not unaware of the concept. They actively reject it.
What are you even talking about.4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
No, it was used correctly.
Atheists don't "believe in" god/God/gods. They're not unaware of the concept. They actively reject it.
What are you even talking about.
I think he thought the phrase in question was when I wrote "I don't believe in empty calories" and you responding that you didn't understand what those words meant together.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.8 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
The comment you responded to with "haha wow" was someone saying that sugar provides energy (which it does), so it isn't empty. I agree with that comment -- I reject the concept that something that provides energy for our bodies is "empty" even though I perfectly understand your position that a food must have significant micronutrient (not just macronutrient) content in order to not be considered "empty."
Get past the idea that I don't understand what you're saying. I understand why people use the phrase. I'm rejecting the concept itself.
Just because there is a way to describe something doesn't mean that it's a valid way to understand the world.12 -
I believe (heh) janejellyroll's point is that the term "empty calories" is unhelpful or misleading because it suggests that something that is empty would supply nothing helpful (in that the usual idea is that calories aren't good in and of themselves) and that something not "empty" would be providing something helpful and nutrition is, in fact, more context dependent than that.
For someone who is very low on protein and healthy fats but eats lots and lots of vegetables and fruit (as mentioned above), eating another banana might not be the best choice -- it would be akin to empty calories for them, despite the micros. Someone fueling a long bike ride might need easily digested calories, so they would not be empty in that they would provide something of need.
I understand what "empty calories" is to convey, but when the hope is to get someone to understand how nutrition actually works, and context and all that, it's perfectly reasonable to say it's not a good or helpful term, in your opinion. It is misleading in that it suggests that some choices are always good and some are always bad, nutritionally.4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »
amusing that you don't understand the concept of energy ...5 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
2 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
maybe you need to look up what the definition of empty means..
if you derive energy from sugar it cannot, by definition, by empty.
Again, you are conflating nutrition and energy, which are two different topics.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I believe (heh) janejellyroll's point is that the term "empty calories" is unhelpful or misleading because it suggests that something that is empty would supply nothing helpful (in that the usual idea is that calories aren't good in and of themselves) and that something not "empty" would be providing something helpful and nutrition is, in fact, more context dependent than that.
For someone who is very low on protein and healthy fats but eats lots and lots of vegetables and fruit (as mentioned above), eating another banana might not be the best choice -- it would be akin to empty calories for them, despite the micros. Someone fueling a long bike ride might need easily digested calories, so they would not be empty in that they would provide something of need.
I understand what "empty calories" is to convey, but when the hope is to get someone to understand how nutrition actually works, and context and all that, it's perfectly reasonable to say it's not a good or helpful term, in your opinion. It is misleading in that it suggests that some choices are always good and some are always bad, nutritionally.
Yes, you are right about what I meant. Your banana example is a perfect. Any food could potentially be a form of useless calories for someone, depending on the context of their diet. For many of us in the West, especially those of us with extra weight, adding more foods that are high in carbohydrates and/or fat while having little else, aren't particularly useful. But for people in other situations (running a marathon, bulking, trying to maintain weight while ill, growing, etc), these foods are just fine. And any particular "empty calorie" food is probably still going to be just fine in the context of an overall balanced diet for *anyone*, not just people in these special situations.
This is why I challenge the concept, but I don't think there is an "always right" choice for foods.3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?2 -
I believe that what @janejellyroll means isn't that the existence of low-nutrient foods is in question, but that the phrase "empty calories" implies that those foods have no value.3
-
janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?
I never said sugar was useless or that food with sugar was useless.
You guys continue to point to things that I have not said.
What I am saying is that the phrase "empty calories" is a phrase to describe things that are of low nutrient density.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the way the phrase was brought about, or who brought it about, I am merely saying, the phrase has an understood meaning, and it was used incorrectly.4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?
I never said sugar was useless or that food with sugar was useless.
You guys continue to point to things that I have not said.
What I am saying is that the phrase "empty calories" is a phrase to describe things that are of low nutrient density.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the way the phrase was brought about, or who brought it about, I am merely saying, the phrase has an understood meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
Except that Carbohydrates are definitionally a nutrient.. and thus something that is high carb cannot be low nutrient density.1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?
I never said sugar was useless or that food with sugar was useless.
You guys continue to point to things that I have not said.
What I am saying is that the phrase "empty calories" is a phrase to describe things that are of low nutrient density.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the way the phrase was brought about, or who brought it about, I am merely saying, the phrase has an understood meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
I guess I misinterpreted what you meant by "Oh gosh... haha wow". I thought you were disagreeing with the statement that it doesn't really make sense to describe a food as "empty calories" when it is a good source of macronutrients. That is, that the category exists but it isn't particularly useful. If that wasn't what you were meaning to convey, then okay.0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?
I never said sugar was useless or that food with sugar was useless.
You guys continue to point to things that I have not said.
What I am saying is that the phrase "empty calories" is a phrase to describe things that are of low nutrient density.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the way the phrase was brought about, or who brought it about, I am merely saying, the phrase has an understood meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
The term "empty calories" heavily implies that the food/drink is, indeed, useless. Thus it is a contradiction to admit that there is a use for high energy foods like sugar while simultaneously referring to sugar as empty calories.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?
I never said sugar was useless or that food with sugar was useless.
You guys continue to point to things that I have not said.
What I am saying is that the phrase "empty calories" is a phrase to describe things that are of low nutrient density.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the way the phrase was brought about, or who brought it about, I am merely saying, the phrase has an understood meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
The term "empty calories" heavily implies that the food/drink is, indeed, useless. Thus it is a contradiction to admit that there is a use for high energy foods like sugar while simultaneously referring to sugar as empty calories.
Again, I did not invent the word, so I am not defending the semantics behind it.
I am saying that the phrase is understood to mean that an empty calorie is a food with no or low nutrient density. Call it a full calorie or an ugly calorie or a pretty calorie. Regardless, refined table sugar is a *blank* calorie.3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
That you consider something empty calories doesn't mean other people agree with you.
My personal view is I think it's a really dumb phrase that just confuses people by obstructing a rational understanding of what a particular food item provides, or alternatively, doesn't provide.
It also confuses people as to what a calorie is - a unit of energy measurement not good, bad, healthy or unhealthy.
Sugar is a carb, carbs are a macronutrient. To say a macro is empty seems rather contrary to me.
I don't eat a lot of sugary foods but when I choose something like an energy drink or carb gel it's precisely for what it provides. That it doesn't have a the range of macros, vitamins, minerals or whatever else is beside the point - I look at my entire diet to provide the full spectrum of my needs, not individual items.
4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?
I never said sugar was useless or that food with sugar was useless.
You guys continue to point to things that I have not said.
What I am saying is that the phrase "empty calories" is a phrase to describe things that are of low nutrient density.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the way the phrase was brought about, or who brought it about, I am merely saying, the phrase has an understood meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
The term "empty calories" heavily implies that the food/drink is, indeed, useless. Thus it is a contradiction to admit that there is a use for high energy foods like sugar while simultaneously referring to sugar as empty calories.
Again, I did not invent the word, so I am not defending the semantics behind it.
I am saying that the phrase is understood to mean that an empty calorie is a food with no or low nutrient density. Call it a full calorie or an ugly calorie or a pretty calorie. Regardless, refined table sugar is a *blank* calorie.
Everybody understands what the phrase means. I don't understand why you insist on acting like we don't. The challenge that has been made is that it isn't a particularly useful phrase because micronutrients are only part of the picture when it comes to human nutrition. We also need calories.5 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
That you consider something empty calories doesn't mean other people agree with you.
My personal view is I think it's a really dumb phrase that just confuses people by obstructing a rational understanding of what a particular food item provides, or alternatively, doesn't provide.
It also confuses people as to what a calorie is - a unit of energy measurement not good, bad, healthy or unhealthy.
Sugar is a carb, carbs are a macronutrient. To say a macro is empty seems rather contrary to me.
I don't eat a lot of sugary foods but when I choose something like an energy drink or carb gel it's precisely for what it provides. That it doesn't have a the range of macros, vitamins, minerals or whatever else is beside the point - I look at my entire diet to provide the full spectrum of my needs, not individual items.
i would be curious who these people are that eat 100% sugar to the exclusion of everything else....1 -
I'm thinking the term "empty calories" was invented by the "clean eaters"...6
-
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?
I never said sugar was useless or that food with sugar was useless.
You guys continue to point to things that I have not said.
What I am saying is that the phrase "empty calories" is a phrase to describe things that are of low nutrient density.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the way the phrase was brought about, or who brought it about, I am merely saying, the phrase has an understood meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
The term "empty calories" heavily implies that the food/drink is, indeed, useless. Thus it is a contradiction to admit that there is a use for high energy foods like sugar while simultaneously referring to sugar as empty calories.
Again, I did not invent the word, so I am not defending the semantics behind it.
I am saying that the phrase is understood to mean that an empty calorie is a food with no or low nutrient density. Call it a full calorie or an ugly calorie or a pretty calorie. Regardless, refined table sugar is a *blank* calorie.
It is used to describe foods with low micronutrient profiles, yes. However, using the term "empty calories" to describe these foods misinforms the masses by insinuating that there is nothing to be gained by eating such foods and that they are strictly "junk" to be avoided.
ETA: if you didn't invent the term, why are you spending so much energy defending it? Also, why perpetuate its use if the insinuation it makes is counterproductive to spreading helpful information about nutrition?7 -
emp·ty cal·o·ries
noun
calories derived from food containing no nutrients.
or Merriam Webster:
Definition of empty calories:
calories from food that supply energy but have little or no nutritional value
First Known Use: 19552 -
emp·ty cal·o·ries
noun
calories derived from food containing no nutrients.
or Merriam Webster:
Definition of empty calories:
calories from food that supply energy but have little or no nutritional value
First Known Use: 1955
So this wouldn't be true of any food except for alcohol, I don't think. I've never seen a food with calories that was devoid of macronutrients.3
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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions