Calories in, Calories out?

ariamythe
ariamythe Posts: 130 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I am having some interesting conversations in the comments right now. Thiought I'd share the link here and ask the MFP community perspective on the basic adage "calories in vs. calories out." Is a calorie a calorie the world around? Or does weight loss rely on the source of the calorie, not just the amount?

Replies

  • kelly_e_montana
    kelly_e_montana Posts: 1,999 Member
    ooooh i visualize a car exploding into flames
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,056 Member
    A calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy.

    A mile is a mile. Whether I walk or run the distance, it's STILL a mile. Now usage of energy will be different, just like macronutrients are utilized differently by the body when consuming calories.

    But a calorie is a calorie.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Healthy, sustainable weight loss most assuredly rests on the source(s) of the calorie. This is the reason for macros.
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    Macros are about nutrition. Calories are about energy. A calorie is a calorie. An inch is an inch whether it's an inch of spaghetti or of the Great Wall.
  • EvanKeel
    EvanKeel Posts: 1,903 Member
    A calorie is a unit of energy and has a consistent definition. People are not, however, uniformly calibrated bomb calorimeters.

    The general statement holds true: If you burn more than you take in, you lose weight. Note that there is nothing in that statement that directly addresses the fact that some people seem to be more efficient at burning calories than others, and not everyone has the same caloric needs.

    I won't even touch issues of health, micronutrients, and that probability that most people are interested in burning fat while maintaining muscle, all of which affect what sources of calories people might want to use based on their goals and activities.
  • Siansonea
    Siansonea Posts: 917 Member
    If people can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies (and yes, they can), then from a weight loss perspective, YES, a calorie is a calorie.

    If the person who wishes to lose weight also has other health/fitness goals, then NO, a calorie is not just a calorie. Clearly the person eating nothing but Twinkies is going to lose weight, but they're going to suffer some health consequences too.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    A calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy.

    A mile is a mile. Whether I walk or run the distance, it's STILL a mile. Now usage of energy will be different, just like macronutrients are utilized differently by the body when consuming calories.

    But a calorie is a calorie.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    Well put.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    A calorie is a unit of energy and has a consistent definition. People are not, however, uniformly calibrated bomb calorimeters.

    The general statement holds true: If you burn more than you take in, you lose weight. Note that there is nothing in that statement that directly addresses the fact that some people seem to be more efficient at burning calories than others, and not everyone has the same caloric needs.

    I won't even touch issues of health, micronutrients, and that probability that most people are interested in burning fat while maintaining muscle, all of which affect what sources of calories people might want to use based on their goals and activities.
    Also well put.
  • jwdieter
    jwdieter Posts: 2,582 Member
    I just wish people would stop using wildly inaccurate characterizations of the "Twinkie Diet" as an example in their posts.
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    Calories in vs calories out is absolutely incontrovertible - it's basic physics.

    HOWEVER, I'm sure there's plenty of cases the type of calories in CAN affect the calories out.

    One obvious way is that your body may burn less calories if you have severely reduced eating - I notice feeling a bit colder at night in some cases for instance.

    It would seem if you're healthier, you the type of calories may matter less.
    This is my normal first link for such things...
    http://www.simplyshredded.com/the-science-of-nutrition-is-a-carb-a-carb.html
  • WalkingAlong
    WalkingAlong Posts: 4,926 Member
    I just wish people would stop using wildly inaccurate characterizations of the "Twinkie Diet" as an example in their posts.

    Why? The professor of nutrition who did that test did it for exactly this reason-- to show that a calorie is a calorie.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    I just wish people would stop using wildly inaccurate characterizations of the "Twinkie Diet" as an example in their posts.

    Why? The professor of nutrition who did that test did it for exactly this reason-- to show that a calorie is a calorie.

    But he didn't eat nothing but Twinkies, which I assume was the point.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
  • geebusuk
    geebusuk Posts: 3,348 Member
    Well, the person I saw mentioning it suggested it would make the person less healthy.
    I believe in that case it made them MORE healthy.
    :)

    Of course, again; I suspect the critical point there was the exercise and weight loss.
  • Mr_Excitement
    Mr_Excitement Posts: 833 Member
    A calorie is a calorie.

    I think the only difference from a weight loss perspective is psychological. Some foods are easier to measure accurately. Some are more filling than others.
  • Siansonea
    Siansonea Posts: 917 Member
    I just wish people would stop using wildly inaccurate characterizations of the "Twinkie Diet" as an example in their posts.

    I wish people would stop being passive-aggressive t___s, but I don't see that happening any time soon. Maybe you should get glad in the same pants you got mad in? :flowerforyou:
  • jwdieter
    jwdieter Posts: 2,582 Member
    I just wish people would stop using wildly inaccurate characterizations of the "Twinkie Diet" as an example in their posts.

    Why? The professor of nutrition who did that test did it for exactly this reason-- to show that a calorie is a calorie.

    Funny story: he actually kept a food log. You can review it. He ate a total of 8 twinkies in 10 weeks. It's a fairly unremarkable diet and blown completely out of proportion by the media.
  • Stage14
    Stage14 Posts: 1,046 Member
    I just wish people would stop using wildly inaccurate characterizations of the "Twinkie Diet" as an example in their posts.

    Why? The professor of nutrition who did that test did it for exactly this reason-- to show that a calorie is a calorie.

    But he didn't eat nothing but Twinkies, which I assume was the point.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    You're right, he also ate nutty bars, powdered donuts, oreos, and doritos and junk food only made up 65-70% of his diet. Obviously this completely invalidates the point.
  • jwdieter
    jwdieter Posts: 2,582 Member
    I just wish people would stop using wildly inaccurate characterizations of the "Twinkie Diet" as an example in their posts.

    Why? The professor of nutrition who did that test did it for exactly this reason-- to show that a calorie is a calorie.

    But he didn't eat nothing but Twinkies, which I assume was the point.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    You're right, he also ate nutty bars, powdered donuts, oreos, and doritos and junk food only made up 65-70% of his diet. Obviously this completely invalidates the point.

    It's nowhere near that amount. Check it out here: http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/diary/who/haub/
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    I just wish people would stop using wildly inaccurate characterizations of the "Twinkie Diet" as an example in their posts.

    Why? The professor of nutrition who did that test did it for exactly this reason-- to show that a calorie is a calorie.

    But he didn't eat nothing but Twinkies, which I assume was the point.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    You're right, he also ate nutty bars, powdered donuts, oreos, and doritos and junk food only made up 65-70% of his diet. Obviously this completely invalidates the point.

    I don't believe I made any comment as to whether or not the point was invalid. I just like sharing information when the opportunity comes available.
  • Stage14
    Stage14 Posts: 1,046 Member
    I just wish people would stop using wildly inaccurate characterizations of the "Twinkie Diet" as an example in their posts.

    Why? The professor of nutrition who did that test did it for exactly this reason-- to show that a calorie is a calorie.

    But he didn't eat nothing but Twinkies, which I assume was the point.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    You're right, he also ate nutty bars, powdered donuts, oreos, and doritos and junk food only made up 65-70% of his diet. Obviously this completely invalidates the point.

    It's nowhere near that amount. Check it out here: http://www.livestrong.com/thedailyplate/diary/who/haub/

    So, are you claiming that this is a healthy and nutritious diet of clean eating? Because either a. his point of calories in vs calories out was proven or b. BBQ sandwiches on white bread, sugary cereals, and fried Chinese food is considered good solid nutrition. Until you answer which one you believe, I'm not bothering with mathematics to prove that approximately 2/3 of Haub's food during the time of the experiment was processed crap.
  • ariamythe
    ariamythe Posts: 130 Member
    If the context of the OP seems missing, it's apparently because linking to off site articles are forbidden if you're the author, even if it's for the purposes of actual discussion. However, if anyone wants to PM me I will happily point you in the right direction.
  • Stage14
    Stage14 Posts: 1,046 Member
    I just wish people would stop using wildly inaccurate characterizations of the "Twinkie Diet" as an example in their posts.

    Why? The professor of nutrition who did that test did it for exactly this reason-- to show that a calorie is a calorie.

    But he didn't eat nothing but Twinkies, which I assume was the point.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    You're right, he also ate nutty bars, powdered donuts, oreos, and doritos and junk food only made up 65-70% of his diet. Obviously this completely invalidates the point.

    I don't believe I made any comment as to whether or not the point was invalid. I just like sharing information when the opportunity comes available.

    You actually did say that you assumed the point was that he ate nothing but twinkies. You were trying to invalidate the point, but but you were wrong, because that was not the point nor did he ever claim that.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    If people can lose weight eating nothing but Twinkies (and yes, they can), then from a weight loss perspective, YES, a calorie is a calorie.

    If the person who wishes to lose weight also has other health/fitness goals, then NO, a calorie is not just a calorie. Clearly the person eating nothing but Twinkies is going to lose weight, but they're going to suffer some health consequences too.

    Summed up perfectly.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    But he didn't eat nothing but Twinkies, which I assume was the point.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    The "Twinkies" were a large enough percentage of macros to establish the point.
  • Siansonea
    Siansonea Posts: 917 Member
    People will fight about literally anything. :laugh:
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Funny story: he actually kept a food log. You can review it. He ate a total of 8 twinkies in 10 weeks. It's a fairly unremarkable diet and blown completely out of proportion by the media.

    When he wasn't eating Twinkies, he was eating Little Debbie. He averaged 3 bits of "crap" a day.

    I'm looking one day here...

    Little Debbie Mini Powdered Donuts
    Little Debbie Nutty Bar
    Hostess Twinkie
    Mountain Dew
    Mountain Dew
    Corn Pops
    Brownie
    Ice Cream

    Focusing on the fact that not every bit of "crap" was specifically Twinkies is missing the forest for the trees.
  • diannethegeek
    diannethegeek Posts: 14,776 Member
    I just wish people would stop using wildly inaccurate characterizations of the "Twinkie Diet" as an example in their posts.

    Why? The professor of nutrition who did that test did it for exactly this reason-- to show that a calorie is a calorie.

    But he didn't eat nothing but Twinkies, which I assume was the point.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    You're right, he also ate nutty bars, powdered donuts, oreos, and doritos and junk food only made up 65-70% of his diet. Obviously this completely invalidates the point.

    I don't believe I made any comment as to whether or not the point was invalid. I just like sharing information when the opportunity comes available.

    You actually did say that you assumed the point was that he ate nothing but twinkies. You were trying to invalidate the point, but but you were wrong, because that was not the point nor did he ever claim that.

    Then either I misspoke or you read farther into it then I intended. I will rephrase my post.

    Hey! I think the other poster was referring to the fact that he didn't actually eat entirely Twinkie! Isn't that cool to know? Here's a link for more information so that you can find out more about it and draw your own conclusions as to what this study means in the context of this post: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
  • Siansonea
    Siansonea Posts: 917 Member
    Funny story: he actually kept a food log. You can review it. He ate a total of 8 twinkies in 10 weeks. It's a fairly unremarkable diet and blown completely out of proportion by the media.

    When he wasn't eating Twinkies, he was eating Little Debbie. He averaged 3 bits of "crap" a day.

    I'm looking one day here...

    Little Debbie Mini Powdered Donuts
    Little Debbie Nutty Bar
    Hostess Twinkie
    Mountain Dew
    Mountain Dew
    Corn Pops
    Brownie
    Ice Cream

    Focusing on the fact that not every bit of "crap" was specifically Twinkies is missing the forest for the trees.

    But be honest, isn't quibbling over semantics vastly preferable to addressing a salient point that doesn't have an easy refutation? :laugh:

Categories