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.
Cals are NOT created equal. CICO isn't the whole story.
Options
Replies
-
peckchris3267 wrote: »The best diet for rapid weight loss is the raw chicken diet. No matter how much you eat you are guaranteed to lose a lot of weight.
start a group!3 -
A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The efficiency of usage of those calories differs based on the source of the calories. Different macros also have different effects on hunger (not everyone the same I think) and depending on how they effect you can effect how much you eat.
None of which contradict his statements and essentially confirms the thesis of CICO that has been discussed. If you eat more you are more likely to be in a caloric surplus and thus gain fat.
Efficiency? What do you mean by this term? Every hypothesis of a macro advantage has been defeated. Some evidence points to a small, but rather insignificant inefficiency in conversion but there is little real affect, and this is often described in terms of net calories available, but in such cases whole grains would be among the best to eat since they have only yield around 70% of total calories in net calories available for use by the body. They are also highly satiating due to the fibre content.5 -
OP: If a person said they weren't losing weight what would you have them do first? Would you have them ensure calorie accuracy or would you have them adjust their macros?
Some folks have fixed their calorie intake (without counting and measuring everything) by fixing their macros. They are more sated and the calories take care of themselves. I would say to watch the macros 1st (cut back on refined sugar and starch stuff) and see where that gets you. Most would lose weight. If that didn't work, then calorie counting could be employed to get there. Counting calories and measuring is only a tool to get the calories down. There are other methods also that might work just as good and not take nearly as much time or effort. I'm one of those people and I can control my calories very well by skipping breakfast, eating a low carb lunch, and then eating ad libitum in the evenings without measuring or counting any calories. I'm two lbs from my lowest weight in the last 28 months after losing 55-lbs without counting or measuring.
Agreed here on much of this but not all. Many have success employing methods other than calorie counting but a lot of people have had great success by lowering fat rather than sugar. There are many ways to get to the goal including calorie counting, macro counting, portion control, low car, low fat, and so on.
I congratulate you on your success and may you continue in the future.
3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The efficiency of usage of those calories differs based on the source of the calories. Different macros also have different effects on hunger (not everyone the same I think) and depending on how they effect you can effect how much you eat.
None of which contradict his statements and essentially confirms the thesis of CICO that has been discussed. If you eat more you are more likely to be in a caloric surplus and thus gain fat.
Efficiency? What do you mean by this term? Every hypothesis of a macro advantage has been defeated. Some evidence points to a small, but rather insignificant inefficiency in conversion but there is little real affect, and this is often described in terms of net calories available, but in such cases whole grains would be among the best to eat since they have only yield around 70% of total calories in net calories available for use by the body. They are also highly satiating due to the fibre content.
Didn't say they were big effects, but they are not zero effects.5 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »OP: If a person said they weren't losing weight what would you have them do first? Would you have them ensure calorie accuracy or would you have them adjust their macros?
Some folks have fixed their calorie intake (without counting and measuring everything) by fixing their macros. They are more sated and the calories take care of themselves. I would say to watch the macros 1st (cut back on refined sugar and starch stuff) and see where that gets you. Most would lose weight. If that didn't work, then calorie counting could be employed to get there. Counting calories and measuring is only a tool to get the calories down. There are other methods also that might work just as good and not take nearly as much time or effort. I'm one of those people and I can control my calories very well by skipping breakfast, eating a low carb lunch, and then eating ad libitum in the evenings without measuring or counting any calories. I'm two lbs from my lowest weight in the last 28 months after losing 55-lbs without counting or measuring.
Agreed here on much of this but not all. Many have success employing methods other than calorie counting but a lot of people have had great success by lowering fat rather than sugar. There are many ways to get to the goal including calorie counting, macro counting, portion control, low car, low fat, and so on.
I congratulate you on your success and may you continue in the future.
Yep, more than one way to skin the cat! Thanks and best wishes to you also!1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »OP: If a person said they weren't losing weight what would you have them do first? Would you have them ensure calorie accuracy or would you have them adjust their macros?
Some folks have fixed their calorie intake (without counting and measuring everything) by fixing their macros. They are more sated and the calories take care of themselves. I would say to watch the macros 1st (cut back on refined sugar and starch stuff) and see where that gets you. Most would lose weight. If that didn't work, then calorie counting could be employed to get there. Counting calories and measuring is only a tool to get the calories down. There are other methods also that might work just as good and not take nearly as much time or effort. I'm one of those people and I can control my calories very well by skipping breakfast, eating a low carb lunch, and then eating ad libitum in the evenings without measuring or counting any calories. I'm two lbs from my lowest weight in the last 28 months after losing 55-lbs without counting or measuring.
Agreed here on much of this but not all. Many have success employing methods other than calorie counting but a lot of people have had great success by lowering fat rather than sugar. There are many ways to get to the goal including calorie counting, macro counting, portion control, low car, low fat, and so on.
I congratulate you on your success and may you continue in the future.
Yep, more than one way to skin the cat! Thanks and best wishes to you also!
Why is everyone picking on cats.
3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »OP: If a person said they weren't losing weight what would you have them do first? Would you have them ensure calorie accuracy or would you have them adjust their macros?
Some folks have fixed their calorie intake (without counting and measuring everything) by fixing their macros. They are more sated and the calories take care of themselves. I would say to watch the macros 1st (cut back on refined sugar and starch stuff) and see where that gets you. Most would lose weight. If that didn't work, then calorie counting could be employed to get there. Counting calories and measuring is only a tool to get the calories down. There are other methods also that might work just as good and not take nearly as much time or effort. I'm one of those people and I can control my calories very well by skipping breakfast, eating a low carb lunch, and then eating ad libitum in the evenings without measuring or counting any calories. I'm two lbs from my lowest weight in the last 28 months after losing 55-lbs without counting or measuring.
Agreed here on much of this but not all. Many have success employing methods other than calorie counting but a lot of people have had great success by lowering fat rather than sugar. There are many ways to get to the goal including calorie counting, macro counting, portion control, low car, low fat, and so on.
I congratulate you on your success and may you continue in the future.
Yep, more than one way to skin the cat! Thanks and best wishes to you also!
Why is everyone picking on cats.
There're tasty?
3 -
When I was losing and eating 1200 calories/day, yes, I watched what I ate very closely. I wanted the most nutrition per calorie while keeping the calorie count low. Once I settled into maintenance, I was able to cut loose more. I am a fan of neither kale nor donuts so let us not go there. Like @AnvilHead I exercise a lot, therefore I have more calories to play with each day. On my big running days, I eat as much as 3000 calories. Sometimes I need fatty food like potato chips or a cheeseburger or (horrors) pizza to get there. I would have to eat low fat, low calorie food all day just to get the calories I need. Don't get me wrong, I eat plenty of nutritious, calorie dense food. I am still a believer in CICO. Yes, some calories are better for me than others.
FYI. I am a 59 year old female. I lost 70+ pounds over maybe a year and have been maintaining my weight for over two years. Except for the dam# snow, I run every day. Elliptical is my substitute. I also walk and do strength training.
@AnnPT77 and @ryenday I hope this post can help get this thread back on track. (Then again, who am I kidding?)
Yeah, my problem with this thread is largely the truth and Untruth I see at the same time In the title.
(Calories are not created equal) A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It is a measurement. A tablespoon is a tablespoon is a tablespoon... of course different things are different - a tablespoon of peanut butter is a very different thing than a tablespoon of water. Likewise a calorie of fat is different from a calorie of protein.
(CICO is not the whole story) This I believe. CICO is the common starting point, the bottom line, etc. But a WHOLE lot of things effect the CI and CO calculations. Every weight story starts and ends with CICO, but each individual has a different story from the next person.
That’s how I see it anyway.
I get the impression you think you are arguing some kind of minority view, but I expect most would agree. I certainly see nothing controversial in that.
Yes, a calorie is a calorie.
Yes, when it comes to one's own weight loss or maintenance, CICO is just a building block, a basic thing it is helpful to understand, and something that is true. HOW we make that work for us is going to differ for different people. For me, it usually starts with being active. I know I could just cut calories and calories are what matter, but I find it much easier to eat the right number of calories when I am active, and I also tend to want to eat better (find it easier to make good food choices) when I have workout/training goals and am excited about them or just generally being energetic, moving more, being healthy in other ways. There are many other things that go into it too, this is just one of them.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »When I was losing and eating 1200 calories/day, yes, I watched what I ate very closely. I wanted the most nutrition per calorie while keeping the calorie count low. Once I settled into maintenance, I was able to cut loose more. I am a fan of neither kale nor donuts so let us not go there. Like @AnvilHead I exercise a lot, therefore I have more calories to play with each day. On my big running days, I eat as much as 3000 calories. Sometimes I need fatty food like potato chips or a cheeseburger or (horrors) pizza to get there. I would have to eat low fat, low calorie food all day just to get the calories I need. Don't get me wrong, I eat plenty of nutritious, calorie dense food. I am still a believer in CICO. Yes, some calories are better for me than others.
FYI. I am a 59 year old female. I lost 70+ pounds over maybe a year and have been maintaining my weight for over two years. Except for the dam# snow, I run every day. Elliptical is my substitute. I also walk and do strength training.
@AnnPT77 and @ryenday I hope this post can help get this thread back on track. (Then again, who am I kidding?)
Yeah, my problem with this thread is largely the truth and Untruth I see at the same time In the title.
(Calories are not created equal) A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. It is a measurement. A tablespoon is a tablespoon is a tablespoon... of course different things are different - a tablespoon of peanut butter is a very different thing than a tablespoon of water. Likewise a calorie of fat is different from a calorie of protein.
(CICO is not the whole story) This I believe. CICO is the common starting point, the bottom line, etc. But a WHOLE lot of things effect the CI and CO calculations. Every weight story starts and ends with CICO, but each individual has a different story from the next person.
That’s how I see it anyway.
I get the impression you think you are arguing some kind of minority view...
Lol, no. Not arguing anything minority or majority. Lol.
3 -
Hmm, maybe I'm wrong about the chip on your shoulder I'm seeing in your posts? Part of this is based on your reaction to Ann's comment about people being here for different reasons when you called the discussions sad or something like that, and then here because you said "my problem with this thread" and then went on to say something that I think most would agree with. My impression from that is that you thought that was a position that you were going to get flack for saying or something. So I was trying to clarify that actually I think it's pretty much conventional wisdom in these parts (and also true).
So much of the disagreement (which is IMO interesting if respectfully expressed) sometimes relates to what seem to be misunderstandings. Here, if you (or anyone else) are assuming that in saying CICO is what matters that others are claiming strategies to get there are not also important for individuals, well, I think you are mistaken. I actually think that's pretty clear from much of the discussion.
I hate it when people claim their own strategy for getting to the CICO they want is right for all (i.e., everyone should be low carb, because carbs are the problem!), but most of the time people on MFP for more than a minute seem to get this and realize that there's a distinction between CICO (how weight loss works, period) and strategies to get there (which are often individual).
My own strategy is activity and not snacking, cooking largely from whole foods, eating a whole lot of veg (volume eating, maybe), focusing on food being enjoyable and eating a nutritious diet, avoiding mindless and emotional eating. I don't think those combinations of strategies are what all should do, and I totally see why things others do that I don't may work for them (IF, keto, lots of mini-meals, 50% protein, 80-10-10, other macro things, eating 50%+ of calories past 6 pm, doing DASH, whatever).
Sorry if this is all tedious and more than you are interested in, but with the LOLing I'm never sure if my point was understandable, and I have this weird desire to at least TRY to communicate effectively.10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Hmm, maybe I'm wrong about the chip on your shoulder I'm seeing in your posts? Part of this is based on your reaction to Ann's comment about people being here for different reasons when you called the discussions sad or something like that, and then here because you said "my problem with this thread" and then went on to say something that I think most would agree with. My impression from that is that you thought that was a position that you were going to get flack for saying or something. So I was trying to clarify that actually I think it's pretty much conventional wisdom in these parts (and also true).
So much of the disagreement (which is IMO interesting if respectfully expressed) sometimes relates to what seem to be misunderstandings. Here, if you (or anyone else) are assuming that in saying CICO is what matters that others are claiming strategies to get there are not also important for individuals, well, I think you are mistaken. I actually think that's pretty clear from much of the discussion.
I hate it when people claim their own strategy for getting to the CICO they want is right for all (i.e., everyone should be low carb, because carbs are the problem!), but most of the time people on MFP for more than a minute seem to get this and realize that there's a distinction between CICO (how weight loss works, period) and strategies to get there (which are often individual).
My own strategy is activity and not snacking, cooking largely from whole foods, eating a whole lot of veg (volume eating, maybe), focusing on food being enjoyable and eating a nutritious diet, avoiding mindless and emotional eating. I don't think those combinations of strategies are what all should do, and I totally see why things others do that I don't may work for them (IF, keto, lots of mini-meals, 50% protein, 80-10-10, other macro things, eating 50%+ of calories past 6 pm, doing DASH, whatever).
Sorry if this is all tedious and more than you are interested in, but with the LOLing I'm never sure if my point was understandable, and I have this weird desire to at least TRY to communicate effectively.
Chip on my shoulder, no. Why my reply to mk2fit who was trying to move the thread back to OP topic engendered your response, unsure. Willingness to go into my opinions and experiences for more of the same that they usually receive on these boards, not so much.
Have a good day5 -
That STILL doesn't change the MEASUREMENT value. When someone states a "calorie is not a calorie" they are misrepresenting what they are actually trying to convey.A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The efficiency of usage of those calories differs based on the source of the calories. Different macros also have different effects on hunger (not everyone the same I think) and depending on how they effect you can effect how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6 -
That STILL doesn't change the MEASUREMENT value. When someone states a "calorie is not a calorie" they are misrepresenting what they are actually trying to convey.A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The efficiency of usage of those calories differs based on the source of the calories. Different macros also have different effects on hunger (not everyone the same I think) and depending on how they effect you can effect how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Not to mention, then you have them talking about "good" and "bad" calories. I've seen this nonsense employed by a local restaurant chain here because they refused to follow the provincial law that requires them to post calorie counts on their menus. When they were about to get fined over it they came out and admitted that many of their "healthy" salads (pet peeve, it's "healthful", your salad isn't exercising for you) had around the same calories as a Big Mac and medium fries. So they started talking about some calories being "good" while others are "bad". Yeah, we get it, quinoa, chia and cranberries are magic so you can eat all you want.
13 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
That STILL doesn't change the MEASUREMENT value. When someone states a "calorie is not a calorie" they are misrepresenting what they are actually trying to convey.A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The efficiency of usage of those calories differs based on the source of the calories. Different macros also have different effects on hunger (not everyone the same I think) and depending on how they effect you can effect how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Not to mention, then you have them talking about "good" and "bad" calories. I've seen this nonsense employed by a local restaurant chain here because they refused to follow the provincial law that requires them to post calorie counts on their menus. When they were about to get fined over it they came out and admitted that many of their "healthy" salads (pet peeve, it's "healthful", your salad isn't exercising for you) had around the same calories as a Big Mac and medium fries. So they started talking about some calories being "good" while others are "bad". Yeah, we get it, quinoa, chia and cranberries are magic so you can eat all you want.
Never thought about the wording but you're right. Laughing so hard at that line though.
8 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
That STILL doesn't change the MEASUREMENT value. When someone states a "calorie is not a calorie" they are misrepresenting what they are actually trying to convey.A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The efficiency of usage of those calories differs based on the source of the calories. Different macros also have different effects on hunger (not everyone the same I think) and depending on how they effect you can effect how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Not to mention, then you have them talking about "good" and "bad" calories. I've seen this nonsense employed by a local restaurant chain here because they refused to follow the provincial law that requires them to post calorie counts on their menus. When they were about to get fined over it they came out and admitted that many of their "healthy" salads (pet peeve, it's "healthful", your salad isn't exercising for you) had around the same calories as a Big Mac and medium fries. So they started talking about some calories being "good" while others are "bad". Yeah, we get it, quinoa, chia and cranberries are magic so you can eat all you want.
I Googled because I was curious... http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/freshii-calories-ontario-law-1.4100200
.Freshii's website states, "Not all calories are created equal. Some calories are healing, some are harming." 5 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
That STILL doesn't change the MEASUREMENT value. When someone states a "calorie is not a calorie" they are misrepresenting what they are actually trying to convey.A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The efficiency of usage of those calories differs based on the source of the calories. Different macros also have different effects on hunger (not everyone the same I think) and depending on how they effect you can effect how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Not to mention, then you have them talking about "good" and "bad" calories. I've seen this nonsense employed by a local restaurant chain here because they refused to follow the provincial law that requires them to post calorie counts on their menus. When they were about to get fined over it they came out and admitted that many of their "healthy" salads (pet peeve, it's "healthful", your salad isn't exercising for you) had around the same calories as a Big Mac and medium fries. So they started talking about some calories being "good" while others are "bad". Yeah, we get it, quinoa, chia and cranberries are magic so you can eat all you want.
I Googled because I was curious... http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/freshii-calories-ontario-law-1.4100200
.Freshii's website states, "Not all calories are created equal. Some calories are healing, some are harming."
Yep, that's the one lol. BS has no limits.3 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
That STILL doesn't change the MEASUREMENT value. When someone states a "calorie is not a calorie" they are misrepresenting what they are actually trying to convey.A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The efficiency of usage of those calories differs based on the source of the calories. Different macros also have different effects on hunger (not everyone the same I think) and depending on how they effect you can effect how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Not to mention, then you have them talking about "good" and "bad" calories. I've seen this nonsense employed by a local restaurant chain here because they refused to follow the provincial law that requires them to post calorie counts on their menus. When they were about to get fined over it they came out and admitted that many of their "healthy" salads (pet peeve, it's "healthful", your salad isn't exercising for you) had around the same calories as a Big Mac and medium fries. So they started talking about some calories being "good" while others are "bad". Yeah, we get it, quinoa, chia and cranberries are magic so you can eat all you want.
I Googled because I was curious... http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/freshii-calories-ontario-law-1.4100200
.Freshii's website states, "Not all calories are created equal. Some calories are healing, some are harming."
They're totally right. The calories a fire uses can be very harming if you get too close
3 -
stevencloser wrote: »estherdragonbat wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
That STILL doesn't change the MEASUREMENT value. When someone states a "calorie is not a calorie" they are misrepresenting what they are actually trying to convey.A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
The efficiency of usage of those calories differs based on the source of the calories. Different macros also have different effects on hunger (not everyone the same I think) and depending on how they effect you can effect how much you eat.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Not to mention, then you have them talking about "good" and "bad" calories. I've seen this nonsense employed by a local restaurant chain here because they refused to follow the provincial law that requires them to post calorie counts on their menus. When they were about to get fined over it they came out and admitted that many of their "healthy" salads (pet peeve, it's "healthful", your salad isn't exercising for you) had around the same calories as a Big Mac and medium fries. So they started talking about some calories being "good" while others are "bad". Yeah, we get it, quinoa, chia and cranberries are magic so you can eat all you want.
I Googled because I was curious... http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/freshii-calories-ontario-law-1.4100200
.Freshii's website states, "Not all calories are created equal. Some calories are healing, some are harming."
They're totally right. The calories a fire uses can be very harming if you get too close
Not if it's a quinoa and avocado fire! Did you even read?
3 -
The calories of a 2 ton truck coming at you at 100 km/h are also a bit harmful.3
-
stevencloser wrote: »The calories of a 2 ton truck coming at you at 100 km/h are also a bit harmful.
It does tend to make quite an impact on people.
4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions