Calories are NOT equal

zombiefreak_oq

no i think as long as you eat a decent sized portion for example instead of eating the normal *for most plp* 2 or three mc dubbles eat one and log that in, it doesn't matter WHAT you eat it's how MUCH you eat!

mike_ny

Calories strictly measured as energy units of different foods are equal going in. What varies are the processes used to digest not only different types of nutrients but even the same food depending on whether it it raw, cooked, mashed, etc... All food requires some energy expended by the body to digest it. Carbs are the most direct since breaking chains of sugars into glucose is about as simple as it gets, so for carbs you will net closer to 100% of the calories you take in. Fats take more energy to break down and probably net more like 75% of the original calories. Proteins are even mode inefficient to use as fuel than fats.

There have been studies that found that the same food (potatoes for example) require different amounts of efforts to digest depending on whether they are raw or cooked, hot or cold, and also the sizes of the pieces. More chewing and bigger pieces take more energy to break down.

Then consider that essential proteins and fats are needed by the body as nutrients and the body would rather use them for repair and things it needs than as fuel. it will burn additional protein as fuel, or if that's the only choice it has, but you need many of those amino acids and essential fatty acids the same way you need vitamins and minerals and you can use what you burn as fuel.

So, calories in are all the same, but calories netted are not. For basic weight control, however, calories in works fine. If you consistently run a calorie deficit, you will lose weight and if you consistently run an overage you will gain weight even if the counted calories themselves are not exact. As for accuracy, measuring calories burned is also just an approximation unless you're in a fitness lab measuring oxygen, CO2, and taking blood samples. Most of us can settle for that level of inaccuracy and figure that both netted calories in and calories burned are good approximations at best and the errors in both combined sometimes cancel out and other times give us false highs or lows.

whierd

Ever notice that its almost always relative newbies claiming that it's essential to eat clean, and old-timers who have lost 50+ pounds saying that it's rubbish. That speaks volumes if you ask me.

Yup. Another poster has been pointing out that it is the posters who have been around awhile with less than 200 posts that spew the nonsense and get worked up when they feel someone is "mean".

Achrya

And what in the name of all that's holy is a macro, please? Sounds like something Hubs might put on my computer for playing MMORPGs.

There are three (well, really four if you count alcohol) macros (macronutrient)

Protein, Fats and Carbs.

there r also some laboratory made macros - sugar alcohols. sweet as sugar but about half the cals.

Um no... there isn't.

He's right. Xylitol, sorbitol, etc. These are used in sugar-free gum and syrup, among other things. They taste sweet and are artificial but still have calories. The difference is they're sweeter than sugar so you need less and each molecule has fewer calories to boot. They're mostly found in nature, but produced synthetically.

Those are considered carbs.

carbs have about 4cal per gram. these have less.

Calorie count is irrelevant. Fiber is also considered a carb, yet it has less than 4 calories per gram. A carbohydrate is a molecule containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Sugar alcohols are made from sugar (also a carbohydrate.) Sugar Alcohols are a type of carbohydrate, which is why you will find them under the carbohydrate heading on nutrition labels.

sorry, not correct. fiber is a carb so it has 4 cals. it is just that r bodies do not digest it well to get all the cals from it. sugar alcohols are a kind alcohol made from carbs. the alcohol that we drink is made from carbs but it is not a carb. it is ethyl alcohol 7cals per gram.

I thought soluble fiber had 2 cals.

kennethmgreen

This debate seems fairly ridiculous when you consider that the following two statements are pretty much universally agreed to be true:

1.) Calories in versus calories out is what determines *weight* (not necessarily *fat*) gain or loss.
2.) Eating a variety of fresh, real, "whole" foods will do much better at providing the nutrients one needs for overall health and vitality than eating garbage.

Can anyone actually argue with those points?

Of course we can argue with these points. This thread is at 11 pages so far, and this topic comes up on MFP a few times each week.

Like magnets flipped the wrong way, we seem unable to consider both of your points together. Most of the arguments in debates like this will look at point 1 OR point 2, at the exclusion of the other. And we like to pontificate.

BrainyBurro

Ever notice that its almost always relative newbies claiming that it's essential to eat clean, and old-timers who have lost 50+ pounds saying that it's rubbish. That speaks volumes if you ask me.

a lot of forums have a 100-post rule.

since we have so many bang/murder/pickpocket/dump/marry threads on here where newbs can inflate their post count, maybe we should have a 1000-post rule???

Cindyinpg

Ever notice that its almost always relative newbies claiming that it's essential to eat clean, and old-timers who have lost 50+ pounds saying that it's rubbish. That speaks volumes if you ask me.

a lot of forums have a 100-post rule.

since we have so many bang/murder/pickpocket/dump/marry threads on here where newbs can inflate their post count, maybe we should have a 1000-post rule???

666+ only, so can prove our evil meanness. :devil:

needtoloseafewpounds

I think what a lot of people are mistaking is that the OP is describing the difference between calories if you want to be healthy. You can be eating 1800 calories of healthy, clean food in a day and you can be eating 1800 calories of heart attack food in a day. Maybe you will lose weight regardless, but the point is that you'd be much healthier if you ate healthier. This is true and we know it but I could never give up some of the junk that I eat hahah >:D My honest opinion is that moderation is the key.

DatMurse

all calories arent equal

neither are centimeters or inches

There is no spoon.

This is the matrix
Amidoingitright?

NonnyMary

Ever notice that its almost always relative newbies claiming that it's essential to eat clean, and old-timers who have lost 50+ pounds saying that it's rubbish. That speaks volumes if you ask me.

You have a good point! I am guilty of that too.

jonnythan

Maybe you will lose weight regardless, but the point is that you'd be much healthier if you ate healthier. This is true and we know it but I could never give up some of the junk that I eat hahah >:D My honest opinion is that moderation is the key.

The point is that this is nonsense. There's nothing wrong with the "junk" you speak of.

Achrya

all calories arent equal

neither are centimeters or inches

There is no spoon.

This is the matrix
Amidoingitright?

rosellasweet

Ever notice that its almost always relative newbies claiming that it's essential to eat clean, and old-timers who have lost 50+ pounds saying that it's rubbish. That speaks volumes if you ask me.

Ha, yes!

highervibes

Ever notice that its almost always relative newbies claiming that it's essential to eat clean, and old-timers who have lost 50+ pounds saying that it's rubbish. That speaks volumes if you ask me.

I was feeling a bit judged and then I looked at her ticker and LOL'd. Get off your high horse OP. Who cares what other people eat? Worry about yourself and you'll get farther than if you worry about others.

YaGigi

I have been surprised to find so many people staying under their calorie goal, yet when you see what they eat is shocks me. Yes, they stayed under, BUT they ate crap! Fast food, processed foods, white breads, and soda.

This site is great for calorie counting and nutrition data, but it doesn't teach how to eat to fuel your body the best way possible. You body is not going to burn/use those crap calories the same way healthy foods will. When you eat healthy, your body burns it fast and uses pretty much every bit of that food, but when you eat processed, high sodium and fat foods, you will more then likely store some of that food into fat. Proof? Give a person the same number of calories but one eats all the healthy/clean foods while the other eats the junk. Whose body looks better? Also, it's not just weight gain that's affected, it's your hair and skin health too.

When you eat healthy, you feel healthy

What do YOU think?

I absolutely agree.

But it's not just who looks better. It's also about who is healthier. Somehow on this web site healthy =healthy weight. But you can be in healthy weight and exercise regularly but have problems with digestion, or high cholesterol, or other problems that were results of bad diet.

Not all calories are equal. Not all slim people have healthy diets either.

tigersword

And what in the name of all that's holy is a macro, please? Sounds like something Hubs might put on my computer for playing MMORPGs.

There are three (well, really four if you count alcohol) macros (macronutrient)

Protein, Fats and Carbs.

there r also some laboratory made macros - sugar alcohols. sweet as sugar but about half the cals.

Um no... there isn't.

He's right. Xylitol, sorbitol, etc. These are used in sugar-free gum and syrup, among other things. They taste sweet and are artificial but still have calories. The difference is they're sweeter than sugar so you need less and each molecule has fewer calories to boot. They're mostly found in nature, but produced synthetically.

Those are considered carbs.

carbs have about 4cal per gram. these have less.

Calorie count is irrelevant. Fiber is also considered a carb, yet it has less than 4 calories per gram. A carbohydrate is a molecule containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Sugar alcohols are made from sugar (also a carbohydrate.) Sugar Alcohols are a type of carbohydrate, which is why you will find them under the carbohydrate heading on nutrition labels.

sorry, not correct. fiber is a carb so it has 4 cals. it is just that r bodies do not digest it well to get all the cals from it. sugar alcohols are a kind alcohol made from carbs. the alcohol that we drink is made from carbs but it is not a carb. it is ethyl alcohol 7cals per gram.

You're stuck on this calorie thing. That's a rule of thumb, not part of the definition of the molecule. If you want to get technical about it, alcohol is also a type of carbohydrate, but it's generally considered separate due to the way it's processed by the body. Sugar Alcohols are carbohydrates.

needtoloseafewpounds

Maybe you will lose weight regardless, but the point is that you'd be much healthier if you ate healthier. This is true and we know it but I could never give up some of the junk that I eat hahah >:D My honest opinion is that moderation is the key.

The point is that this is nonsense. There's nothing wrong with the "junk" you speak of.

I am not going to sit around and argue with you about the vitamins and nutrients that are essential to our bones, muscles, ligaments, cholesterol levels, heart, skin, hair, nails, eyes, etc. but you should keep that into consideration when you read my comment. Eating foods high in cholesterol every day will increase the risk of a heart attack and other issues. I eat in moderation for the sake of my health and satisfication but it's not like I'm telling you to live a certain way. I'm just trying to be open minded here.

tigersword

Maybe you will lose weight regardless, but the point is that you'd be much healthier if you ate healthier. This is true and we know it but I could never give up some of the junk that I eat hahah >:D My honest opinion is that moderation is the key.

The point is that this is nonsense. There's nothing wrong with the "junk" you speak of.

I am not going to sit around and argue with you about the vitamins and nutrients that are essential to our bones, muscles, ligaments, cholesterol levels, heart, skin, hair, nails, eyes, etc. but you should keep that into consideration when you read my comment. Eating foods high in cholesterol every day will increase the risk of a heart attack and other issues. I eat in moderation for the sake of my health and satisfication but it's not like I'm telling you to live a certain way. I'm just trying to be open minded here.

Hitting your nutrient goals is all that matters, regardless of food choices. Also, there is no correlation between cholesterol intake and heart disease, that's outdated thinking that's been disproven time and again.

jonnythan

Maybe you will lose weight regardless, but the point is that you'd be much healthier if you ate healthier. This is true and we know it but I could never give up some of the junk that I eat hahah >:D My honest opinion is that moderation is the key.

The point is that this is nonsense. There's nothing wrong with the "junk" you speak of.

I am not going to sit around and argue with you about the vitamins and nutrients that are essential to our bones, muscles, ligaments, cholesterol levels, heart, skin, hair, nails, eyes, etc. but you should keep that into consideration when you read my comment. Eating foods high in cholesterol every day will increase the risk of a heart attack and other issues. I eat in moderation for the sake of my health and satisfication but it's not like I'm telling you to live a certain way. I'm just trying to be open minded here.

"I don't want to argue, I just want to tell you that you're wrong and ignorant and have that be the end of it" :laugh: