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.
Is a calorie equal to a calorie?
Replies
-
Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
If I only ate 1000 calories of lettuce I would be extremely malnourished...
You would be better off with 1000 calories of apple pie or Bacon cheeseburgers.10 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
If I only ate 1000 calories of lettuce I would be extremely malnourished...
You would be better off with 1000 calories of apple pie or Bacon cheeseburgers.
Indeed...
0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
If I only ate 1000 calories of lettuce I would be extremely malnourished...
You would be better off with 1000 calories of apple pie or Bacon cheeseburgers.
Cue the comments saying "the CICO crowd says you should eat nothing but cheeseburgers and apple pie"
18 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
Not much of this makes sense but the one that I have to challenge is the notion that lettuce is filling?
These extreme comparisons are so unhelpful. No one eats only one kind of food - and has to choose between lettuce and peanut butter, why can't a person eat both? Why always a false dilemma?
How dare you introduce common sense to this line of thinking...4 -
Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
If I only ate 1000 calories of lettuce I would be extremely malnourished...
I logged 5900 g of romaine lettuce, and it was actually surprisingly well rounded. Lower on fat than I would want (although 1000 cal will do that), but not bad for protein on that low a cal diet, and with that much, all 9 amino acids were covered.
But who can eat 13 lbs of romaine lettuce? It's absurd, and not healthy for the reasons monodiets are generally not a good idea. And possibly that that insane amount would have other bad effects, of course.
(Only spinach is better, nutritionally and in terms of amount, but again over 9 and a half lbs would be a struggle, and a completely insane and stupid diet that would no doubt leave you feeling poorly.)
I really am curious why people think the lettuce vs. peanut butter comparison is meaningful. Yeah, they are different, but not because one is clearly better on its own (different diets may be better with the addition of one or the other or both, depending), and -- back to the topic -- not because their calories are different or distinct or have special properties depending on where they come from.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
If I only ate 1000 calories of lettuce I would be extremely malnourished...
I logged 5900 g of romaine lettuce, and it was actually surprisingly well rounded. Lower on fat than I would want (although 1000 cal will do that), but not bad for protein on that low a cal diet, and with that much, all 9 amino acids were covered.
But who can eat 13 lbs of romaine lettuce? It's absurd, and not healthy for the reasons monodiets are generally not a good idea. And possibly that that insane amount would have other bad effects, of course.
(Only spinach is better, nutritionally and in terms of amount, but again over 9 and a half lbs would be a struggle, and a completely insane and stupid diet that would no doubt leave you feeling poorly.)
I really am curious why people think the lettuce vs. peanut butter comparison is meaningful. Yeah, they are different, but not because one is clearly better on its own (different diets may be better with the addition of one or the other or both, depending), and -- back to the topic -- not because their calories are different or distinct or have special properties depending on where they come from.
The quantity of vitamin K would also be a concern even for someone with otherwise normal coagulation factors and a relatively sedentary lifestyle.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
If I only ate 1000 calories of lettuce I would be extremely malnourished...
I logged 5900 g of romaine lettuce, and it was actually surprisingly well rounded. Lower on fat than I would want (although 1000 cal will do that), but not bad for protein on that low a cal diet, and with that much, all 9 amino acids were covered.
But who can eat 13 lbs of romaine lettuce? It's absurd, and not healthy for the reasons monodiets are generally not a good idea. And possibly that that insane amount would have other bad effects, of course.
(Only spinach is better, nutritionally and in terms of amount, but again over 9 and a half lbs would be a struggle, and a completely insane and stupid diet that would no doubt leave you feeling poorly.)
I really am curious why people think the lettuce vs. peanut butter comparison is meaningful. Yeah, they are different, but not because one is clearly better on its own (different diets may be better with the addition of one or the other or both, depending), and -- back to the topic -- not because their calories are different or distinct or have special properties depending on where they come from.
I don't get why people always choose these ridiculous mono diet examples to make a point.
No adult that I know eats a mono diet, so it's a ridiculous illustration of what they're trying to say.
And what they're trying to illustrate misses the mark anyway.
It's just so patently absurd no matter how you look at it.
It's also quite obvious that people keep chiming in who have not read the thread with their brilliant insights. That's pretty funny in and of itself.
ETA: I wonder how doable the 9 pounds of spinach would be cooked down. That stuff is notorious for disappearing into practically nothing when you wilt it for a long enough time. FTR, I won't be trying this experiment any time soon. Spinach and I don't play very well together. I love it, but need to limit my consumption of it.5 -
My favorite analogy is that your calories are like your fiscal budget.NorthCascades wrote: »UltraVegBabe wrote: »I’m just curious if anybody has any links to a scientific article or journal talking about calories in terms of if 100 calories of apples is equal to 100 calories of oreos.
Of course they're not the same. You have the Oreos with milk and the apples with peanut butter.
A calorie is like a dollar, you can get it and spend it different ways and some are better than others, but it has the same buying power.
you have 50$ this week. You can buy lipstick and wine- or you can buy food and gas for your car.
You can put it on credit and do both. If you do that once in a while- it's fine. if you constantly put it on the CC- you're going to find yourself in a hole.
Same with food- you can make good choices. or bad choices. and sometimes you can do both. And it's no big deal. But if you constantly make bad choices- you're going to have a bad time.
6 -
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers
lol whut?
no- this is like saying what's heavier- 1 pound of lead or 1 pound of feathers. NEITHER- it's a pound. One's just going to take more space than the other because it's LESS DENSE.
You're dead either way.
Don't be ridiculous.7 -
The iron, I think, in spinach makes my teeth feel funny if cooked. So no to eating mountains of it.0
-
VintageFeline wrote: »The iron, I think, in spinach makes my teeth feel funny if cooked. So no to eating mountains of it.
What if you got hit on the head with 2KG of spinach? Think of how badly that would hurt because of the iron!18 -
WinoGelato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »The iron, I think, in spinach makes my teeth feel funny if cooked. So no to eating mountains of it.
What if you got hit on the head with 2KG of spinach? Think of how badly that would hurt because of the iron!
Would it hurt as much as 2kg of feathers tho'?3 -
JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...1 -
Yes, a calorie is a calorie however I find it far easier to stick to my calorie goal and less likely to crave sugar if I skip the refined carbs and get plenty of my calories from protein and fats. I’m big believer that nutrient rich foods have a satiating effect.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
They're going to hurt just the same because they are just as heavy as each other. Why is this so hard for some to compute?9 -
This content has been removed.
-
I guess, for those who are struggling with that one:
1lb of muscle occupies less volume/space than fat. So it's accurate to state that one cubic meter of muscle is heavier than one cubic meter of fat. But a pound is a pound; a kilogram is a kilogram. If you put a pound of muscle in one pan of a balance scale and a pound of fat in the other, the pans will be even, but the pan with the muscle will hold a smaller amount.1 -
Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
What difference do you suppose there would be in 2kg of either of them being dropped on your head? Other than the size of the mass being dropped upon you?
Suppose you eat the precise amount of apples to derive an equal amount of calories as the calories of kinetic energy of an apple which has been thrown at your head.
A calorie is just a calorie but is an apple just an apple?
In all seriousness though, if 2 kg of feathers were contained so that the entire 2 kg impacted one’s head with the same velocity and surface area, it would feel no different than 2 kg of lead.
The notion that feathers wouldn’t hurt is based on imagining either 1) loose feathers, in which case not all 2kg will make contact and the feather that do make contact will not do so simultaneously or 2) a bag of feather (like a pillow), in which case still not the entire 2kg will make contact at once, some feathers being compacted throughout the time of impact and others pulling the bag to the side of the head after initial impact.
Pack those feathers into a nice tight little box and drop that...you’ll have a sore head for sure.
And bringing it all back around to the point of calories: energy is a constant. It is neither created nor destroyed. Your body only burns calories as fast as energy is utilized (as you move, breathe, think...). If you consume energy faster than you expend it (moving, breathing, heart pumping, liver functioning) you will store the excess as fat. If you consume energy slower than you expend it, your body has no choice but to pull from the reserves (fat loss).
All of this is irrelevant to proper nutrition. Weight loss has nothing to do with how “good for you” your food is and everything to do with energy balance.
You need vitamins to be healthy. This has nothing to do with fat loss or calories.
You need protein for muscle building. This has nothing to do with fat loss or calories.
You need fat for vitamin absorption, joint health and a host of other things. This has nothing to do with fat loss or calories.
Over the years, people have confused “good for you” with “won’t make you fat.” There’s a misconception that “healthy food” is food that leads to weight loss and/or doesn’t cause weight gain.
This is ignorance of how nutrition and weight loss work.
Proper nutrition and eating for weight loss are completely independent things that have nothing to do with each other.
To lose weight, eat fewer calories than you burn.
To be healthy, eat foods that provide good nutrition.
To do both, eat foods that provide good nutrition in small enough quantities to allow for burning more calories than you eat.9 -
kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
why?
it's still 10 pounds. It's just going to be a lot more actual surface area hitting you.
A sake of 10 pounds of feathers is going to be like pillowcase or larger- vs a bowling ball- that's just you know- 10 pounds.
it's still going to suck. I'm so confused about why you said this.0 -
You can have them WEIGH the same- but because one is more DENSE than the other the AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL SPACE they take up will be different in order to get them to balance the scale.
2 -
You can have them WEIGH the same- but because one is more DENSE than the other the AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL SPACE they take up will be different in order to get them to balance the scale.
Although IIRC the difference isn't as dramatic as that image portrays. Don't ask me for sources though because lazy AF.0 -
moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.8 -
VintageFeline wrote: »You can have them WEIGH the same- but because one is more DENSE than the other the AMOUNT OF PHYSICAL SPACE they take up will be different in order to get them to balance the scale.
Although IIRC the difference isn't as dramatic as that image portrays. Don't ask me for sources though because lazy AF.
wait- you're saying all muscle doesn't come pre-stamped with a 5 lb label on it?
#devastated.5 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
I think in the "getting hit by" scenario- my assumption is the material is compacted into the smallest space possible- so not just ten pounds of feathers in a big garbage bag and good luck letting it waft down and strike you- like putting them in a pillow case- or a grocery bag- smallest container possible. It would super suck.
I feel like we *may* have jumped the shark a wee bit on the calorie conversation also. LMAO3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
I think in the "getting hit by" scenario- my assumption is the material is compacted into the smallest space possible- so not just ten pounds of feathers in a big garbage bag and good luck letting it waft down and strike you- like putting them in a pillow case- or a grocery bag- smallest container possible. It would super suck.
I feel like we *may* have jumped the shark a wee bit on the calorie conversation also.
Exactly, compacted down, one is just as bad as the other.
So the example continues to refute the very argument it’s being used for (the whole “Apple calories are better than chocolate calories because feather pounds are better than bowling ball pounds). Nope, all calories have the same impact in your weight and all pounds have the same impact on your noggin. Lol
9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »The iron, I think, in spinach makes my teeth feel funny if cooked. So no to eating mountains of it.
What if you got hit on the head with 2KG of spinach? Think of how badly that would hurt because of the iron!
Just not 2 kg of peanut butter. Pretty sure that stuff is a nightmare to get out of one's hair.3 -
Oh, can't believe I found this.
They said the lettuce dropped on my head would be fine!
10 -
But if you used the crunchy PB it would probably be a good exfoliate (and moisturizer) for the face.
Cheers, h.2 -
Isn't there an urban legend that peanut butter gets chewing gum out of hair? I think someone made it up to get people to add to the icky hair...1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions