Disappointing Realization of Maintenance Calories
Options
Replies
-
cmriverside wrote: »There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.
Where are you coming up with this stuff?
Exactly. The fallacy in this kind of statement is it equates calories for weight loss with nutrition. For weight loss, calories are what matter. For health and satiety, nutrient dense foods are what matter. It's an apples/ oranges comparison.
Yep....I said that above too.3 -
I really miss the gif days...2
-
cmriverside wrote: »There are people who believe "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" and it matters not if it's carb/fat/protein.
For weight loss, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, Liz.
Where are you coming up with this stuff?
Exactly. The fallacy in this kind of statement is it equates calories for weight loss with nutrition. For weight loss, calories are what matter. For health and satiety, nutrient dense foods are what matter. It's an apples/ oranges comparison.
Yep....I said that above too.
Yes, you did!0 -
I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.
Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!
I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?
When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?0 -
PS: AnnPT77, In case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit pedantic myself.;)
#pedanticandproud1 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.
Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!
I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?
When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
There is not a nutritional value to a calorie, literally. Foods, not calories, have nutritional values. You're using the term 'calorie' as a figure of speech, possibly a synechdoche or metonomy.
I believe a calorie is a calorie, in the same way an inch is an inch. Always. No matter what substance it's used to measure.
Calories, in a literal sense, don't have nutritional atributes, any more than miles or inches have texture or color.
Pedantic, literally true.
I believe in nutrition. I believe that jelly beans, lard, green beans, steak, etc., have different nutritional qualities (and satiation value to individuals, etc,), just as they have different calories. Figures of speech make for colorful writing, but confusing their scope and definitions can lead to fuzzy thinking.
Nutrients are not "contained in calories" just as "asphalt" or "gravel" are not "contained in miles".9 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
When you understand it's a unit of energy and not a unit of nutrition.
Making up new meanings for words just gives your arguments even less credibility.10 -
ThinnerLiz wrote: »I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.
Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!
I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?
When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
There is not a nutritional value to a calorie, literally. Foods, not calories, have nutritional values. You're using the term 'calorie' as a figure of speech, possibly a synechdoche or metonomy.
I believe a calorie is a calorie, in the same way an inch is an inch. Always. No matter what substance it's used to measure.
Calories, in a literal sense, don't have nutritional atributes, any more than miles or inches have texture or color.
Pedantic, literally true.
I believe in nutrition. I believe that jelly beans, lard, green beans, steak, etc., have different nutritional qualities (and satiation value to individuals, etc,), just as they have different calories. Figures of speech make for colorful writing, but confusing their scope and definitions can lead to fuzzy thinking.
Nutrients are not "contained in calories" just as "asphalt" or "gravel" are not "contained in miles".
An inch is not just an inch, though. An inch in the wrong direction is an inch in the wrong direction. That’s not just a figure of speech. A phone screen an inch too big to fit in my pocket is an inch too big, whereas in most situations an additional inch of screen is a good thing. Context matters. And it seems nonsensical to say that nutrients aren’t contained in calories when the only possible way to consume nutrients is to consume calories. You have x number of calories you’re allowed to eat if you want to lose weight; within those, you have to consume y amount of nutrients.2 -
I like to eat, so I move more!2
-
rheddmobile wrote: »ThinnerLiz wrote: »I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.
Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!
I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?
When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
There is not a nutritional value to a calorie, literally. Foods, not calories, have nutritional values. You're using the term 'calorie' as a figure of speech, possibly a synechdoche or metonomy.
I believe a calorie is a calorie, in the same way an inch is an inch. Always. No matter what substance it's used to measure.
Calories, in a literal sense, don't have nutritional atributes, any more than miles or inches have texture or color.
Pedantic, literally true.
I believe in nutrition. I believe that jelly beans, lard, green beans, steak, etc., have different nutritional qualities (and satiation value to individuals, etc,), just as they have different calories. Figures of speech make for colorful writing, but confusing their scope and definitions can lead to fuzzy thinking.
Nutrients are not "contained in calories" just as "asphalt" or "gravel" are not "contained in miles".
An inch is not just an inch, though. An inch in the wrong direction is an inch in the wrong direction. That’s not just a figure of speech. A phone screen an inch too big to fit in my pocket is an inch too big, whereas in most situations an additional inch of screen is a good thing. Context matters. And it seems nonsensical to say that nutrients aren’t contained in calories when the only possible way to consume nutrients is to consume calories. You have x number of calories you’re allowed to eat if you want to lose weight; within those, you have to consume y amount of nutrients.
Anything we can't point at is an abstraction. Confusing the relationships among abstractions is fuzzy thinking. Confusing one unit of measurement with the thing measured, or with unrelated attributes of the thing measured, is an example.
Figures of speech are interesting, useful, colorful. I think it's good (but pedantic
) to know if/when they're in play.
I respect you, and your advice, across many threads. On this, we may need to agree to disagree. :flowerforyou:5 -
rheddmobile wrote: »ThinnerLiz wrote: »I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.
Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!
I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?
When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
There is not a nutritional value to a calorie, literally. Foods, not calories, have nutritional values. You're using the term 'calorie' as a figure of speech, possibly a synechdoche or metonomy.
I believe a calorie is a calorie, in the same way an inch is an inch. Always. No matter what substance it's used to measure.
Calories, in a literal sense, don't have nutritional atributes, any more than miles or inches have texture or color.
Pedantic, literally true.
I believe in nutrition. I believe that jelly beans, lard, green beans, steak, etc., have different nutritional qualities (and satiation value to individuals, etc,), just as they have different calories. Figures of speech make for colorful writing, but confusing their scope and definitions can lead to fuzzy thinking.
Nutrients are not "contained in calories" just as "asphalt" or "gravel" are not "contained in miles".
An inch is not just an inch, though. An inch in the wrong direction is an inch in the wrong direction. That’s not just a figure of speech. A phone screen an inch too big to fit in my pocket is an inch too big, whereas in most situations an additional inch of screen is a good thing. Context matters. And it seems nonsensical to say that nutrients aren’t contained in calories when the only possible way to consume nutrients is to consume calories. You have x number of calories you’re allowed to eat if you want to lose weight; within those, you have to consume y amount of nutrients.
I think "food" is the word you are searching for - nutrients are contained in foods, not calories.
9 -
rheddmobile wrote: »ThinnerLiz wrote: »I wasn't talking about weight loss alone. This discussion isn't really about weight loss as much as it is nutrition and wellness. I was talking about how the body responds metabolically to various nutrients. Contained in calories. Which is what I said, up there. ^^^.
I also said one can lose weight on "lard and jellybeans". That's true too.
Sure, if you like: Technically speaking, "a calorie is a calorie". Correct!
I should have asked, "Are all calories created equal in their nutritional value and impact on the body?"
Do you believe that? That a calorie of lard, or a calorie of jelly beans, are all just the same?
That it doesn't matter if it's a bowl of mac and cheese, or a pile of green beans, or a steak? That your body is going to respond the same way to the calories contained in these foods?
When is a calorie "just" a calorie, and not something more?
There is not a nutritional value to a calorie, literally. Foods, not calories, have nutritional values. You're using the term 'calorie' as a figure of speech, possibly a synechdoche or metonomy.
I believe a calorie is a calorie, in the same way an inch is an inch. Always. No matter what substance it's used to measure.
Calories, in a literal sense, don't have nutritional atributes, any more than miles or inches have texture or color.
Pedantic, literally true.
I believe in nutrition. I believe that jelly beans, lard, green beans, steak, etc., have different nutritional qualities (and satiation value to individuals, etc,), just as they have different calories. Figures of speech make for colorful writing, but confusing their scope and definitions can lead to fuzzy thinking.
Nutrients are not "contained in calories" just as "asphalt" or "gravel" are not "contained in miles".
An inch is not just an inch, though. An inch in the wrong direction is an inch in the wrong direction. That’s not just a figure of speech. A phone screen an inch too big to fit in my pocket is an inch too big, whereas in most situations an additional inch of screen is a good thing. Context matters. And it seems nonsensical to say that nutrients aren’t contained in calories when the only possible way to consume nutrients is to consume calories. You have x number of calories you’re allowed to eat if you want to lose weight; within those, you have to consume y amount of nutrients.
No matter whether an inch is in the right direction or the wrong, it doesn't change the size of the inch. It may seem nonsensical to you, but the unit of measure that is a "calorie" is just a unit of measure of energy. Nutrients in food is a whole different measure.8
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions