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.

What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?

1…4647495152…239

Replies

  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    edited June 2017
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    stormcrow2 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tapwaters wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tapwaters wrote: »
    I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.

    Like, literally fatty on the inside? How does that work?

    Not literally :P

    I guess I don't understand how someone who understands how much energy their body needs and consistently consumes that amount of energy is still a fatty on the inside. I became fat because I disregarded how much energy my body needed. Adjusting that changed the situation. But you're arguing that if I don't meet certain nutritional standards (as determined by you), I might still be considered fat?

    sounds like he is making the mythical connection that anyone who says it is OK to eat within your calories and you will still lose weight, is advocating for a diet of 100% oreos, or something...

    I want this mythical 100% Oreo diet.

    Here's a menu!

    14 Oreos (one packet) for breakfast

    14 Oreos (one packet) for lunch

    14 Oreos (one packet) for dinner

    Total: 2226 calories

    Nutritional information

    Fat: 992.4g
    of which saturates: 46.2g

    Carbohydrate: 319.2g
    of which sugars: 172.2g

    Fibre: 12.6g

    Protein 21g

    Salt: 4.2g

    Haha just have to ask, not to say this was ever recommended or ever happened, so both sides are equally an educated guess; but do you think this would result in equal FAT loss if compared to a balanced and more nutrient dense diet with less sugar, more protein and less fat, but with the exact same calorie intake? How about weight loss?

    Fat loss, specifically? No, because a diet higher in protein would (assuming a progressive lifting routine) prevent muscle loss, resulting in a greater proportion of weight loss to be from fat.
    Weight loss in general? Yes. Weight loss/gain/maintenance is determined solely by energy balance (science).
    More/less sugar and more/less fat have no bearing on whether there would be a difference in weight OR fat loss from one diet to another.

    This doesn't sound correct. Weight loss is about more than energy balance because weight is comprised of more than just fat and muscle.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    edited June 2017
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    tapwaters wrote: »
    I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.

    I agree, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to count their calories for the rest of their lives, so just saying to eat whatever you want within your calories is irresponsible. It doesn't help people in the long term because they continue to eat the foods that generally cause people to over eat and gain weight. There aren't many people who have gained a lot of weight eating entirely nutrient dense foods, and yes I'm sure some of you will come on to say that's how you gained your weight, but for the VAST majority of people, reducing the sugary and fatty meals and treats will help keep their weight at a more healthy level in the long term.

    It's much more likely that incorporating those "treats" into a deficit will build the habits over time to prevent them from exceeding their calories on maintenance.

    Also, I don't know why it's unreasonable to monitor intake for a lifetime.

    I agree, I think people are far better off incorporating treats, but to say "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" I don't believe is good because I don't think that's what people should be doing. I think they should be eating a nutrient dense diet and allowing themselves treats when they need them.

    Also there is a small group of people that have their health and diet at a high enough priority in their lives to even make healthier food choices and quantities to begin with, so I believe it is very unreasonable to expect for people to be counting their calories for a lifetime, most cannot even consistently do it to lose and maintain a substantial amount of weight even when their health is in jeopardy.

    who is this person advocating a nutrient deficient diet and saying eat cookies all day but stay under your calories and you will be fine? I just want someone to tell me who this person is that is making this claim..????

    No one claimed that there was bud, neither me or tapwaters had said that..... You keep coming back to this as if we were implying that, what I (as I don't want to speak for him) am saying is that, by just saying that they can eat whatever they want to eat under a certain calorie amount is reckless because there will be people who read that and actually just go eat poor quality foods. I am not saying that anyone here (or anywhere) is advocating for people to eat junk all day, but to me, when you say "eat what anything as long as it's under your calories" may cause people to have trouble with their weight in the future when they do not meticulously count their calories if they have not learned to properly feed their body and listen to their body.

    So, while you acknowledge that's not what anyone is advocating for, eating nothing but junk all day, but as @lemurcat12 pointed out above, your assumption is that there are people who will interprete a simple statement like "eat what you want within your calories" (which by the way is almost always preceded by the question - can I eat a cookie and still lose weight?) as a suggestion to just go and eat nothing but poor quality foods. Like @lemurcat12 said, I think it is insulting to presume that this is what people want to do, or that they don't even have the basic knowledge of nutrition that is taught in preschool, that it is important to eat healthy foods.




    When you consistently meet with people that actually eat with no regard to the effect it's having on their bodies that are coming in to change and learn because they have absolutely no understanding about nutrition at all, it's not really insulting but the unfortunate truth....

    Again though, you are trying to say that when people come here asking for advice they are told to eat what they want with a pat on the head and off you pop. That's patently not the case. You tell, I assume clients, that calories are the primary factor of weight management but nutrition is what matters for health.

    That is literally what happens in threads here. So why are you so hell bent on asserting otherwise and that people here are reckless because, well, I don't even know what the because is. There isn't one because it's not happening.

    But please, show me where someone confused about nutrition is told to eat whatever they like start and end of story.

    I was in a thread yesterday where the OP wasn't sure what macros meant and they were also struggling with hunger. A bunch of people chimed in to teach her what those things are, how adjusting the proportions can help find a sweet spot, meal timings etc. Two or three pages of great advice.

    So what you suggest is really an insult to the veterans here. You're implying that you somehow offer superior advice when really it's just language semantics.

    I was implying that I offer superior advice?

    I was saying that I have people that come in that genuinely have no clue about nutrition at all. I've had people who see a little article on Facebook that says that chocolate has all these health benefits and rationalize going and getting a snickers bar because they want to be "healthy".

    In no way was I saying anything about myself offering superior advice.

    People laugh and joke about it but no one seriously believes that a Snickers is healthy because they read about antioxidants in chocolate. It's the same as people joking about pizza being a vegetable even though they don't actually think it is.
    If you think that the people saying "I can eat this Snickers because chocolate is healthy" aren't being facetious, then you're the gullible one, not them.

    I'll be sure to ping you the next time someone mentions the vegetable component of pizza as a plus.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    clicketykeys wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    I'd actually argue there's an over-emphasis on eating clean and all veg and lean meat etc. That's an insurmountable and miserable sounding life for a lot of people. You see it all the time when people talk about dieting and all the salads they have to eat or memes about eating bacon or being skinny.

    So actually, being told you don't have to live on steamed fish and broccoli for the rest of your days is MORE helpful than being told to eat your veg.

    I don't know how unpopular it actually is, but I tend to be very quiet about encouraging patients on chemo to eat whatever the hell makes them feel good. Yes, getting the right nutrition is important, but priority #1 is being able to make it through the chemo. If that healthy lentil soup turns your stomach and you want a Twinkie, eat the damn Twinkie. Eat things (and, by extension, DO things) that make you look forward to getting better.

    This hits a very personal note. My aunt basically died of malnutrition/starvation while being treated for cancer because they couldn't get her to eat. If a milkshake is going to provide some calories/nutrients/energy, it's better than nothing. I also believe medical marijuana could have helped her in this circumstance.

    I'm sorry about your aunt. My dad was pretty much just eating milkshakes, peaches, and ice cream at the end but by the time he was diagnosed, he was only given two weeks to live, so nutrition was pretty moot in his case.

    We've had medical marijuana here since 2012. Over 200 medical conditions qualify for the program.
  • Carlos_421
    Carlos_421 Posts: 5,132 Member
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    stormcrow2 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tapwaters wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tapwaters wrote: »
    I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.

    Like, literally fatty on the inside? How does that work?

    Not literally :P

    I guess I don't understand how someone who understands how much energy their body needs and consistently consumes that amount of energy is still a fatty on the inside. I became fat because I disregarded how much energy my body needed. Adjusting that changed the situation. But you're arguing that if I don't meet certain nutritional standards (as determined by you), I might still be considered fat?

    sounds like he is making the mythical connection that anyone who says it is OK to eat within your calories and you will still lose weight, is advocating for a diet of 100% oreos, or something...

    I want this mythical 100% Oreo diet.

    Here's a menu!

    14 Oreos (one packet) for breakfast

    14 Oreos (one packet) for lunch

    14 Oreos (one packet) for dinner

    Total: 2226 calories

    Nutritional information

    Fat: 992.4g
    of which saturates: 46.2g

    Carbohydrate: 319.2g
    of which sugars: 172.2g

    Fibre: 12.6g

    Protein 21g

    Salt: 4.2g

    Haha just have to ask, not to say this was ever recommended or ever happened, so both sides are equally an educated guess; but do you think this would result in equal FAT loss if compared to a balanced and more nutrient dense diet with less sugar, more protein and less fat, but with the exact same calorie intake? How about weight loss?

    Fat loss, specifically? No, because a diet higher in protein would (assuming a progressive lifting routine) prevent muscle loss, resulting in a greater proportion of weight loss to be from fat.
    Weight loss in general? Yes. Weight loss/gain/maintenance is determined solely by energy balance (science).
    More/less sugar and more/less fat have no bearing on whether there would be a difference in weight OR fat loss from one diet to another.

    This doesn't sound correct. Weight loss is about more than energy balance because weight is comprised of more than just fat and muscle.

    My bad, I forgot my disclaimer "excluding water retention, constipation and/or amputations."
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,439 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    clicketykeys wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    I'd actually argue there's an over-emphasis on eating clean and all veg and lean meat etc. That's an insurmountable and miserable sounding life for a lot of people. You see it all the time when people talk about dieting and all the salads they have to eat or memes about eating bacon or being skinny.

    So actually, being told you don't have to live on steamed fish and broccoli for the rest of your days is MORE helpful than being told to eat your veg.

    I don't know how unpopular it actually is, but I tend to be very quiet about encouraging patients on chemo to eat whatever the hell makes them feel good. Yes, getting the right nutrition is important, but priority #1 is being able to make it through the chemo. If that healthy lentil soup turns your stomach and you want a Twinkie, eat the damn Twinkie. Eat things (and, by extension, DO things) that make you look forward to getting better.

    This hits a very personal note. My aunt basically died of malnutrition/starvation while being treated for cancer because they couldn't get her to eat. If a milkshake is going to provide some calories/nutrients/energy, it's better than nothing. I also believe medical marijuana could have helped her in this circumstance.

    I'm sorry about your aunt. My dad was pretty much just eating milkshakes, peaches, and ice cream at the end but by the time he was diagnosed, he was only given two weeks to live, so nutrition was pretty moot in his case.

    We've had medical marijuana here since 2012. Over 200 medical conditions qualify for the program.

    She lived in Oregon, and I think the option was available at the time.
  • Rivers2k
    Rivers2k Posts: 380 Member
    edited June 2017
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Rivers2k wrote: »
    I finally have a place to say this :)Not all calories are equal. Calories from a hot fudge brownie sundae is going to affect your body differently than equivalent amount of calories from broccoli and a nice piece of steak. one is going to satiate and make you energized the other will leave you hungry and lethargic. The whole world knows this (even if they don't practice it) but you get death threats if you express this on MFP. So that is my "unpopular health/fitness opinion" wow that feels good. LOL

    You are confusing calories with food.
    The calories in the sundae and the calories in the steak and broccoli would be exactly the same (assuming proportionate amounts of food to provide an equal number of calories) in that the calories from each would provide the same amount of energy (calories are nothing but a measurement of energy) to fuel the body.
    Thus, either food choice would have the exact same impact on weight loss/gain/maintenance as they would result in an identical energy balance.

    The difference between a sundae and a steak lies not in the calories but in the nutritional profile. A sundae will not have as much fiber or micronutrients as the broccoli and not as much protein as the steak. This has nothing to do with calories and nothing to do with weight loss.

    If the calorie count between two diets is equal, the weight loss from both diets will be equal (assuming activity levels remain equal as well).
    Saying "all calories are equal" does not mean that all foods are equal or that all foods have similar nutritional profiles or that all foods will leave you equally satiated. It means that 2,000 calories from candy and 2,000 calories from vegetables will have equal impacts on body weight. That is all.

    ETA: This reply is not a death threat against you. Simply an explanation for why your statement is incorrect.

    I understand calories is the unit of measurement that raises 1 gram of water 1c. How ever I was using the term as used by fitness community and by the whole CICO crowd.

    Your longer explanation basically said what I was trying to say. People say eat what ever you want as long as you count that calories it doesn't matter what it is. But really it does matter because the food you are getting the calories from have different nutritional values. So we are on the same page I just didn't go into it as in depth as you did and maybe I should have.
  • Rivers2k
    Rivers2k Posts: 380 Member
    edited June 2017
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Rivers2k wrote: »
    I finally have a place to say this :)Not all calories are equal. Calories from a hot fudge brownie sundae is going to affect your body differently than equivalent amount of calories from broccoli and a nice piece of steak. one is going to satiate and make you energized the other will leave you hungry and lethargic. The whole world knows this (even if they don't practice it) but you get death threats if you express this on MFP. So that is my "unpopular health/fitness opinion" wow that feels good. LOL

    You are confusing calories with food.
    The calories in the sundae and the calories in the steak and broccoli would be exactly the same (assuming proportionate amounts of food to provide an equal number of calories) in that the calories from each would provide the same amount of energy (calories are nothing but a measurement of energy) to fuel the body.
    Thus, either food choice would have the exact same impact on weight loss/gain/maintenance as they would result in an identical energy balance.

    The difference between a sundae and a steak lies not in the calories but in the nutritional profile. A sundae will not have as much fiber or micronutrients as the broccoli and not as much protein as the steak. This has nothing to do with calories and nothing to do with weight loss.

    If the calorie count between two diets is equal, the weight loss from both diets will be equal (assuming activity levels remain equal as well).
    Saying "all calories are equal" does not mean that all foods are equal or that all foods have similar nutritional profiles or that all foods will leave you equally satiated. It means that 2,000 calories from candy and 2,000 calories from vegetables will have equal impacts on body weight. That is all.

    ETA: This reply is not a death threat against you. Simply an explanation for why your statement is incorrect.

    I was thinking, when @Rivers2k first posted, was that the sundae would actually fuel my heavy lifting better than the steak. Carbs for energy!

    Really!? good for you then. Does not have that affect on me when I lift. If I have a bunch of sugar before I lift I feel shaky and cant lift as long. If I have some eggs or turkey I left much better. Our bodies are all different wish I could have the sundae before lifting.
  • Rivers2k
    Rivers2k Posts: 380 Member
    edited June 2017
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Rivers2k wrote: »
    I finally have a place to say this :)Not all calories are equal. Calories from a hot fudge brownie sundae is going to affect your body differently than equivalent amount of calories from broccoli and a nice piece of steak. one is going to satiate and make you energized the other will leave you hungry and lethargic. The whole world knows this (even if they don't practice it) but you get death threats if you express this on MFP. So that is my "unpopular health/fitness opinion" wow that feels good. LOL

    You are confusing calories with food.
    The calories in the sundae and the calories in the steak and broccoli would be exactly the same (assuming proportionate amounts of food to provide an equal number of calories) in that the calories from each would provide the same amount of energy (calories are nothing but a measurement of energy) to fuel the body.
    Thus, either food choice would have the exact same impact on weight loss/gain/maintenance as they would result in an identical energy balance.

    The difference between a sundae and a steak lies not in the calories but in the nutritional profile. A sundae will not have as much fiber or micronutrients as the broccoli and not as much protein as the steak. This has nothing to do with calories and nothing to do with weight loss.

    If the calorie count between two diets is equal, the weight loss from both diets will be equal (assuming activity levels remain equal as well).
    Saying "all calories are equal" does not mean that all foods are equal or that all foods have similar nutritional profiles or that all foods will leave you equally satiated. It means that 2,000 calories from candy and 2,000 calories from vegetables will have equal impacts on body weight. That is all.

    ETA: This reply is not a death threat against you. Simply an explanation for why your statement is incorrect.

    I was thinking, when @Rivers2k first posted, was that the sundae would actually fuel my heavy lifting better than the steak. Carbs for energy!

    And I was thinking that the sundae would leave me feeling full longer than the steak. Meat and veggies alone don't leave me feeling full for very long (important to note since most of the "not all calories are equal" people tend to forget that "not all people's experiences with satiety are equal").

    That is very true, not all people work the same. Carbs give me to much of a rush in to short of a time leaving me feeling depleted. Be careful lumping people because I never once said everyone has the same experience. I could say the same about the CICO crowd and they are very vocal about it.

    Also just like not all calories are the same not all Carbs are the same (simple vs complex). I don't see athletes carbo loading with hotfudge they tend to use complex carbs.

    But at the end of the day is my unpopular opinion nobody else has to like it.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,575 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    RAD_Fitness wrote: »
    HeliumIsNoble wrote: »
    stormcrow2 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tapwaters wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    tapwaters wrote: »
    I think the whole "eat what you want as long as it fits in your calories" tripe is total *kitten*. Yea, you'll lose weight, but you'll still be fatty on the inside and not healthy.

    Like, literally fatty on the inside? How does that work?

    Not literally :P

    I guess I don't understand how someone who understands how much energy their body needs and consistently consumes that amount of energy is still a fatty on the inside. I became fat because I disregarded how much energy my body needed. Adjusting that changed the situation. But you're arguing that if I don't meet certain nutritional standards (as determined by you), I might still be considered fat?

    sounds like he is making the mythical connection that anyone who says it is OK to eat within your calories and you will still lose weight, is advocating for a diet of 100% oreos, or something...

    I want this mythical 100% Oreo diet.

    Here's a menu!

    14 Oreos (one packet) for breakfast

    14 Oreos (one packet) for lunch

    14 Oreos (one packet) for dinner

    Total: 2226 calories

    Nutritional information

    Fat: 992.4g
    of which saturates: 46.2g

    Carbohydrate: 319.2g
    of which sugars: 172.2g

    Fibre: 12.6g

    Protein 21g

    Salt: 4.2g

    Haha just have to ask, not to say this was ever recommended or ever happened, so both sides are equally an educated guess; but do you think this would result in equal FAT loss if compared to a balanced and more nutrient dense diet with less sugar, more protein and less fat, but with the exact same calorie intake? How about weight loss?

    Fat loss, specifically? No, because a diet higher in protein would (assuming a progressive lifting routine) prevent muscle loss, resulting in a greater proportion of weight loss to be from fat.
    Weight loss in general? Yes. Weight loss/gain/maintenance is determined solely by energy balance (science).
    More/less sugar and more/less fat have no bearing on whether there would be a difference in weight OR fat loss from one diet to another.

    This doesn't sound correct. Weight loss is about more than energy balance because weight is comprised of more than just fat and muscle.

    My bad, I forgot my disclaimer "excluding water retention, constipation and/or amputations."

    No problem. Why bother with all the facts?
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    SezxyStef wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    stanmann571 wrote: »
    born_of_fire74 wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    I'd love to see how cavalier the "life ain't fair" attitudes displayed in this thread would be to this whole workplace ish if we had a matriarchal society that deferred to women and the gender norms were reversed.

    Well, you see, the problem isn't the things the mansplainers are doing, the problem is that we are calling the things they are doing "mansplaining".

    The problem is you're pretending those things are being done because you're a woman.

    They happen to men just as often.

    I have a friend who has transitioned from woman to man. He says that there is considerable difference in the way people treat him now. He is immediately afforded more respect in many different aspects of his life. Perhaps your lack of understanding stems from lack of experience.

    hmm I find this interesting.

    I am ex military and I was the 8th woman in my trade in the military in the country (same country as the parts technician) and I actually didn't run into much mansplaining...

    I don't now either...

    As for your friend yes he probably is...but then there are parts where he is afforded less.

    For example as a woman I am a soft place for my child to run to and hug when they are hurt etc not the dad...just saying...

    I sometimes think because some people "anticipate" things they see it where it might not be....I have often said you look hard enough and you will find an issue....

    I'm not talking about mansplaining (a term I actually haven't used, until this post, and never in real life), the point was more regarding this assertion that men are treated no different from women. Which I disagree with. I think that both men and women are guilty of it, which is why I don't necessarily agree with the term mansplaining. I do find some of this conversation challenging to read through though because it has been very dismissive (I'm not referring to your post).

    I agree wholeheartedly with the statement in bold.
    Absolutely, some men are dismissive of women's input/ideas/advice/etc. but I've absolutely experienced it from women toward myself as a man, as well (I've also been disregarded due to being single before I was married and also because I don't have children, both in cases where my status had nothing to do with the situation).
    The term "mansplaining" insinuates two things:
    1) Only men do it and 2) all men do it because they are men.
    These insinuations are just as sexist as the affronts being offered up in this thread.

    ETA, I've also witnessed women being dismissive of other women so it's safe to say that the biases/expectations set upon us by our culture/society are not limited to interactions between opposing sexes (it's not a man thing to expect the mechanic to be a man).

    Exactly! You get me, Oreo-man :bigsmile:
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    Rivers2k wrote: »
    People say eat what ever you want as long as you count that calories it doesn't matter what it is.

    This is a huge strawman. Link to a thread where this is what is said. Not your interpretation of what was said, but the actual text of a post where someone is advocating this.

    And a calorie is a calorie regardless of what food is being eaten. Calories and nutrition are 2 different concepts and it does no good to try to make them about the same thing.

  • stanmann571
    stanmann571 Posts: 5,727 Member
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    Rivers2k wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    Carlos_421 wrote: »
    Rivers2k wrote: »
    I finally have a place to say this :)Not all calories are equal. Calories from a hot fudge brownie sundae is going to affect your body differently than equivalent amount of calories from broccoli and a nice piece of steak. one is going to satiate and make you energized the other will leave you hungry and lethargic. The whole world knows this (even if they don't practice it) but you get death threats if you express this on MFP. So that is my "unpopular health/fitness opinion" wow that feels good. LOL

    You are confusing calories with food.
    The calories in the sundae and the calories in the steak and broccoli would be exactly the same (assuming proportionate amounts of food to provide an equal number of calories) in that the calories from each would provide the same amount of energy (calories are nothing but a measurement of energy) to fuel the body.
    Thus, either food choice would have the exact same impact on weight loss/gain/maintenance as they would result in an identical energy balance.

    The difference between a sundae and a steak lies not in the calories but in the nutritional profile. A sundae will not have as much fiber or micronutrients as the broccoli and not as much protein as the steak. This has nothing to do with calories and nothing to do with weight loss.

    If the calorie count between two diets is equal, the weight loss from both diets will be equal (assuming activity levels remain equal as well).
    Saying "all calories are equal" does not mean that all foods are equal or that all foods have similar nutritional profiles or that all foods will leave you equally satiated. It means that 2,000 calories from candy and 2,000 calories from vegetables will have equal impacts on body weight. That is all.

    ETA: This reply is not a death threat against you. Simply an explanation for why your statement is incorrect.

    I was thinking, when @Rivers2k first posted, was that the sundae would actually fuel my heavy lifting better than the steak. Carbs for energy!

    And I was thinking that the sundae would leave me feeling full longer than the steak. Meat and veggies alone don't leave me feeling full for very long (important to note since most of the "not all calories are equal" people tend to forget that "not all people's experiences with satiety are equal").

    That is very true, not all people work the same. Carbs give me to much of a rush in to short of a time leaving me feeling depleted. Be careful lumping people because I never once said everyone has the same experience. I could say the same about the CICO crowd and they are very vocal about it.

    Also just like not all calories are the same not all Carbs are the same (simple vs complex). I don't see athletes carbo loading with hotfudge they tend to use complex carbs.

    But at the end of the day is my unpopular opinion nobody else has to like it.

    LOL. Sour patch kids, not hot fudge. Less messy. ;)

    I'll have to try that instead of the Annie's Bunnies Gummies I've been using.
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,439 Member
    edited June 2017
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    quiksylver296 wrote: »
    clicketykeys wrote: »
    VintageFeline wrote: »
    I'd actually argue there's an over-emphasis on eating clean and all veg and lean meat etc. That's an insurmountable and miserable sounding life for a lot of people. You see it all the time when people talk about dieting and all the salads they have to eat or memes about eating bacon or being skinny.

    So actually, being told you don't have to live on steamed fish and broccoli for the rest of your days is MORE helpful than being told to eat your veg.

    I don't know how unpopular it actually is, but I tend to be very quiet about encouraging patients on chemo to eat whatever the hell makes them feel good. Yes, getting the right nutrition is important, but priority #1 is being able to make it through the chemo. If that healthy lentil soup turns your stomach and you want a Twinkie, eat the damn Twinkie. Eat things (and, by extension, DO things) that make you look forward to getting better.

    This hits a very personal note. My aunt basically died of malnutrition/starvation while being treated for cancer because they couldn't get her to eat. If a milkshake is going to provide some calories/nutrients/energy, it's better than nothing. I also believe medical marijuana could have helped her in this circumstance.

    I do consulting work with Cancer Treatment Centers of America and there's a long list of foods to help stimulate appetite and easy on the stomach:

    https://www.cancer.gov/publications/patient-education/eatinghints.pdf

    KFC mashed potatoes/gravy are a very popular option. Basically this list packs on butter, gravy, calorie dense foods and additives to load you up on calories. Quite frankly my advice is to do whatever it takes while sick - worry about "eating healthy" when you're healthy.

    Never a great option, but IV nutritional therapy is always there.

    I wasn't in the same state while she was going through treatment, but my understanding is that she was trying to "eat clean" and not put any additives, etc, in her body. Kinda typical woo like we hear here.
  • Rivers2k
    Rivers2k Posts: 380 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Rivers2k wrote: »
    I finally have a place to say this :)Not all calories are equal. Calories from a hot fudge brownie sundae is going to affect your body differently than equivalent amount of calories from broccoli and a nice piece of steak.

    Calories is often misused to mean food, but that's not what it means. It's a unit of measurement for energy.

    OBVIOUSLY (and it's not an unpopular opinion, everyone agrees), a sundae is different in many ways from a steak or from broccoli. They have different macros, different calories per volume and serving, are not identically satiating (although that differs person to person), have different micros, may trigger a specific person to eat more, may be tasty or not for a person, so on and so on.

    NONE of this means, however, that the calories are not equal, as a calorie is just energy, a specific unit thereof.

    There's not really such a thing as a "calorie of hot fudge sundae" or a "steak calorie." The steak and the broccoli and the sundae provide your body with a bunch of things, that your body breaks down, including calories. Your body cannot tell that a particular calorie is from a particular food.

    I think -- and this may or may not be an unpopular opinion, again -- that most people who claim that not all calories are equal are confusing "calorie" with "food" or using it as a metaphor for food without realizing it's just a metaphor.

    I also think that most people who complain that their view that foods are different are unpopular are misreading what other people say, and I am always confused about how they manage to do this after all the many, many explanations. I think it's just that they cannot get their head around the fact that calorie means something other than "unit of a specific food" and indeed, that using calorie to mean food is an imprecise, metaphorical usage and not a particularly helpful one.

    You also shouldn't assert something hyperbolic like getting death threats when that's not at all true, it's defamatory and harms discussion. (In the off chance I'm wrong here, you should alert MFP, as someone is mentally screwed up and it has nothing to do with views on nutrition.)

    I am aware of what a calorie is. Just saying 100 calories of hot fudge is going to have a different affect on someone from 100 calories of steak. But the CICO crowd says nope its all the same. At least for me it will have a very differn't affect. I didn't realize I was going to have to be so specific. I am sorry I didn't elaborate more.

    Also the death threat thing is obviously an exaggeration. I was just saying how passionate about it people can be. Some do get nasty about it. Not to me because I really don't post much but from what I read. As far as this topic goes I hope I am not comping across as overly passionate I really don't care one way or another.

  • Rivers2k
    Rivers2k Posts: 380 Member
    edited June 2017
    diannethegeek wrote: »
    Rivers2k wrote: »
    I finally have a place to say this :)Not all calories are equal. Calories from a hot fudge brownie sundae is going to affect your body differently than equivalent amount of calories from broccoli and a nice piece of steak. one is going to satiate and make you energized the other will leave you hungry and lethargic. The whole world knows this (even if they don't practice it) but you get death threats if you express this on MFP. So that is my "unpopular health/fitness opinion" wow that feels good. LOL

    @Rivers2k Did you truly get death threats on this board for expressing that? That's something I'd take very seriously. Deets?

    No I was exaggerating. I don't post often I mostly lurk and now I know I have to be so careful of what and how I say things. I was saying the CICO people are very passionate about saying there is no difference in calories so eat what ever you want.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories