A calorie is not a calorie is not a calorie

mmipanda

Yay! You invented sarcasm. Congratulations, you're a genius! :drinker:

:ohwell:

fast_eddie_72

(edit) Nah.

See ya at Church!

SKME2013

A calorie is indeed a calorie, but what the body does with it and how it reacts to it is very different!

There is a good book out there called "the calorie myth...", by Jonathan Bailor that discusses exactly this statement.

I personally strongly believe that it matters a lot WHAT we put into our bodies and not only how much.
Stef.

cassylee

bump for later :happy:

Tigredia

Check out Swedish low carb high fat. Several links. Sweden has low obese rate and most of their population eat this way.
They don't watch calories.

nicoleisback

I think the point here is a calorie is just a calorie, but food is not just calories.

I would love to see further long term studies on the effects of different macros settings in ONE STUDY. Most studies seem to focus more heavily on one macro than the others. With such varying conditions between studies it is really hard to get an accurate picture of how one type of macro adjustment compares to others, rather than how it compares to just a control group.

fast_eddie_72

I think the point here is a calorie is just a calorie, but food is not just calories.

That's what it typically boils down to. Interestingly, a calories is food.

Insert obligatory link to dictionary definition - as is the custom when having a nonsensical semantic argument.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/calorie

"2

b : an amount of food having an energy-producing value of one large calorie"

"Ah" you say, "but that's #2! No one uses is that way!" But they do. How many times a day does someone say "I ate 2,300 calories" or something along those lines? Rubbish! You can't eat a unit of measure! "I ate a cup." A cup is a unit of measure, but what would you say to that? "A cup of what?" Well, it's a unit of measure, what difference does it make! All cups are the same!

A calorie is a calorie just as a pound is a pound. Pound of aluminum, pound of lead, makes no difference. Which is exactly why Formula 1 teams spend so much on carbon fiber. Or is it because they want to win races, not arguments on the internet? It's one of those, I'm sure.

Case in point:

However, the trefoil has sugar and fat, etc. so in the end the lettuce is better, but the lettuce still counts.

But what if you are trying to hit your fat and carb macros for the day? Then the lettuce becomes worse while the cookie becomes "better".

What if you are? What if the lettuce is, as you say, "worse"? But wait, that can't be. Worse is not "the same".

Or this:

You probably misunderstand what those nutters are actually saying. No one has ever said all food is the same (cause that would be dumb) but that no food is bad because your diet doesn't exist in a vacuum and that balance is key.

And that's the point. Probably did misunderstand because they didn't say what you just said. They said "a calorie is a calorie". That's how it is with nonsensical semantic arguments, they're misleading (at best). It's a poor way of saying "You can work any food into a calorie deficit". Huh. It's not much harder to say what they actually mean. If they did that, it would probably be more clear. And people wouldn't call them "nutters". It's almost as if they're being intentionally vague in hopes of eliciting a combative response. What do they call that on the internet? Ah. "Flame bating" I think. There should be a rule...

(For the record, people here HAVE said all food is the same. Actually when asked, in those words "Is all food the same?" they responded "yes". I'll leave the subjective assessment of that position to you.)

tennisdude2004

So we're all agreed then High Fat, Medium Protein, Low Carb (not no Carb).

Great lets wrap in up there then.

Only page three - Too soon ^^^

SunofaBeach14

Yay! You invented sarcasm. Congratulations, you're a genius! :drinker:

:ohwell:

Good point, let me go start a thread about my discovery . . . Oh, wait, wut? :flowerforyou:

It's okay, hell at least you're getting it. Butt hurt and all.

neanderthin

It may be opaque, but it's the truth. The "calorie is a calorie" people aren't the ones trying to distort the fact that a calorie is just a calorie as a mile is a mile regardless of whether it is composed of a straight highway, or mountainous terrain, or whatever. Different things make them up, but in the end, a mile is still a mile.

It's the principal

Sure, same measurement. But she said "The mile I ran" which changes things drastically. Because the distance is the same but the impact on the person involved changes based on variables. How fast was she running? Was it in soft sand or on a treadmill? Up a mountain?

Its not the same even though the unit of distance measured is the same. Because that's just oversimplifying to the ultimate degree and ruling out every possible variable. Which to me IS distorting facts. Its like saying I have a metre of chain and a metre of ribbon, and they can be used interchangably because a metre is a metre.

Your confusing energy expenditure with calories........increased energy expenditure increases caloric needs. Make it all uphill and change the mile to an inch, now what do we have.

Confusion over what a calorie is is generally where one is a unit of energy, which it is, and that will never change and the other being the different metabolic pathways the body utilizes to metabolize that energy.....calories from carbs are different than protein are different from fat in the way the body uses them.

tennisdude2004

It may be opaque, but it's the truth. The "calorie is a calorie" people aren't the ones trying to distort the fact that a calorie is just a calorie as a mile is a mile regardless of whether it is composed of a straight highway, or mountainous terrain, or whatever. Different things make them up, but in the end, a mile is still a mile.

It's the principal

Sure, same measurement. But she said "The mile I ran" which changes things drastically. Because the distance is the same but the impact on the person involved changes based on variables. How fast was she running? Was it in soft sand or on a treadmill? Up a mountain?

Its not the same even though the unit of distance measured is the same. Because that's just oversimplifying to the ultimate degree and ruling out every possible variable. Which to me IS distorting facts. Its like saying I have a metre of chain and a metre of ribbon, and they can be used interchangably because a metre is a metre.

Your confusing energy expenditure with calories........increased energy expenditure increases caloric needs. Make it all uphill and change the mile to an inch, now what do we have.

Confusion over what a calorie is is generally where one is a unit of energy, which it is, and that will never change and the other being the different metabolic pathways the body utilizes to metabolize that energy.....calories from carbs are different than protein are different from fat in the way the body uses them.

You make an interesting point!

neanderthin

It may be opaque, but it's the truth. The "calorie is a calorie" people aren't the ones trying to distort the fact that a calorie is just a calorie as a mile is a mile regardless of whether it is composed of a straight highway, or mountainous terrain, or whatever. Different things make them up, but in the end, a mile is still a mile.

It's the principal

Sure, same measurement. But she said "The mile I ran" which changes things drastically. Because the distance is the same but the impact on the person involved changes based on variables. How fast was she running? Was it in soft sand or on a treadmill? Up a mountain?

Its not the same even though the unit of distance measured is the same. Because that's just oversimplifying to the ultimate degree and ruling out every possible variable. Which to me IS distorting facts. Its like saying I have a metre of chain and a metre of ribbon, and they can be used interchangably because a metre is a metre.

Your confusing energy expenditure with calories........increased energy expenditure increases caloric needs. Make it all uphill and change the mile to an inch, now what do we have.

Confusion over what a calorie is is generally where one is a unit of energy, which it is, and that will never change and the other being the different metabolic pathways the body utilizes to metabolize that energy.....calories from carbs are different than protein are different from fat in the way the body uses them.

You make an interesting point!

I must have said something wrong.:bigsmile:

tennisdude2004

Just thought I would drop this one for a bit of fun reading.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/the-energy-balance-equation.html

mccindy72

So we're all agreed then High Fat, Medium Protein, Low Carb (not no Carb).

Great lets wrap in up there then.

Only page three - Too soon ^^^

No one agreed with that.

tennisdude2004

I thought I would be overrun with high fives???

Hornsby

However, the trefoil has sugar and fat, etc. so in the end the lettuce is better, but the lettuce still counts.

But what if you are trying to hit your fat and carb macros for the day? Then the lettuce becomes worse while the cookie becomes "better".

What if you are? What if the lettuce is, as you say, "worse"? But wait, that can't be. Worse is not "the same".

Well, if you notice, I used the word "worse" as a contradiction to his "better". Neither are worse in my eyes. The lettuce just wouldn't help me for that day if I was trying hit my carb/fat macros for the day.

fast_eddie_72

However, the trefoil has sugar and fat, etc. so in the end the lettuce is better, but the lettuce still counts.

But what if you are trying to hit your fat and carb macros for the day? Then the lettuce becomes worse while the cookie becomes "better".

What if you are? What if the lettuce is, as you say, "worse"? But wait, that can't be. Worse is not "the same".

Well, if you notice, I used the word "worse" as a contradiction to his "better". Neither are worse in my eyes. The lettuce just wouldn't help me for that day if I was trying hit my carb/fat macros for the day.

I understood that. The point being, even the way you just said it, you're saying something other than "they're the same".

Hornsby

However, the trefoil has sugar and fat, etc. so in the end the lettuce is better, but the lettuce still counts.

But what if you are trying to hit your fat and carb macros for the day? Then the lettuce becomes worse while the cookie becomes "better".

What if you are? What if the lettuce is, as you say, "worse"? But wait, that can't be. Worse is not "the same".

Well, if you notice, I used the word "worse" as a contradiction to his "better". Neither are worse in my eyes. The lettuce just wouldn't help me for that day if I was trying hit my carb/fat macros for the day.

I understood that. The point being, even the way you just said it, you're saying something other than "they're the same".

I don't think I am, but I understand what you are saying. It's beyond semantics at this point. We all agree, just don't like the other person's wording...lol

cwsreddy

Don't need to read to know where this went.

Y'all can delude yourselves all you want, but the quality of nutrition between two calories is not always identical.

Sowwy.

Bry_Fitness70

Does this also mean that the mile I ran isn't a mile isn't a mile????? :sad:

A mile is just a unit of measure, but conditions present during the the course of traveling the mile are relevant. Would you perform identically for running a mile ran on a treadmill vs on the street vs up the side of a hill vs through snow vs on the beach? Does a mile ran at 10,000 feet of elevation require the same effort as one ran at sea level? A calorie is also just a unit of measure, just like a mile, and stripping away all of the other factors associated with a measurement is a simplistic way to look at a very complex process.

cwsreddy

Does this also mean that the mile I ran isn't a mile isn't a mile????? :sad:

A mile is just a unit of measure, but conditions present during the the course of traveling the mile are relevant. Would you perform identically for running a mile ran on a treadmill vs on the street vs up the side of a hill vs through snow vs on the beach? Does a mile ran at 10,000 feet of elevation require the same effort as one ran at sea level? A calorie is also just a unit of measure, just like a mile, and stripping away all of the other factors associated with a measurement is a simplistic way to look at a very complex process.

DROP THE MIC!

Hornsby

Don't need to read to know where this went.

Y'all can delude yourselves all you want, but the quality of nutrition between two calories is not always identical.

Sowwy.

Luckily, that's exactly where it went, and basically where it has always been

cwsreddy

Don't need to read to know where this went.

Y'all can delude yourselves all you want, but the quality of nutrition between two calories is not always identical.

Sowwy.

Luckily, that's exactly where it went, and basically where it has always been

nice!

LiftAllThePizzas

Does this also mean that the mile I ran isn't a mile isn't a mile????? :sad:

Did you account for spatial contraction? Do you even relativity?

Expect_The_Worst

tennisdude2004

The thing that has surprised me with this thread is the speed it's gone and the lack of familiar faces.

Maybe OP's starting with case studies don't get the same attention as OP's starting blog references!!!! (only page 4 - still too soon).

stealthq

It may be opaque, but it's the truth. The "calorie is a calorie" people aren't the ones trying to distort the fact that a calorie is just a calorie as a mile is a mile regardless of whether it is composed of a straight highway, or mountainous terrain, or whatever. Different things make them up, but in the end, a mile is still a mile.

It's the principal

Sure, same measurement. But she said "The mile I ran" which changes things drastically. Because the distance is the same but the impact on the person involved changes based on variables. How fast was she running? Was it in soft sand or on a treadmill? Up a mountain?

Its not the same even though the unit of distance measured is the same. Because that's just oversimplifying to the ultimate degree and ruling out every possible variable. Which to me IS distorting facts. Its like saying I have a metre of chain and a metre of ribbon, and they can be used interchangably because a metre is a metre.

You can use them interchangeably if you want to measure a meter. When people say a meter is a meter, or a calorie is a calorie, it's limited to the definition of the term - a unit of distance or a unit of energy (or even a non-specific food that produces a calorie of energy). If you want to discuss other information, then you discuss things like the material you have a meter of, or the specific course you ran (for the ran a mile analogy), or the source of the calorie.

A calorie is a calorie is accurate. A calorie of fat is not the same as a calorie of protein is also accurate.

Not sure why so many seem to have a difficult time with this concept.

tigersword

Are we really supposed to be surprised that when you take one macronutrient to a ridiculous extreme and keep the other two at 5% calorie intake each that it will start to mess with your body? This is ESPECIALLY true when you deprive your body of protein and fat, the 2 most important macros. At that point you're starting to play around with actual insulin resistance issues and all the normal rules go out the window. If you're using calorie restriction with any sort of sensible macronutrient breakdown, then you will have the weight loss that you want. If you take anything to extreme, the normal rules become distorted.

The reason that is interesting is because it shows that the macronutrient composition does indeed play a role. While I agree that extremes are not the best for defining optimal, they do show that there is indeed an effect. But I think this should be used as a guide and not a proof.

Agreed. We must remember however that the typical SAD (standard American Diet) has led to a heart disease epidemic while the mediterranean diet may lower the risk for heart disease. It doesn't have to be so extreme for a person, thats not sustainable. But it is one way of demonstrating that macro's do play a role and thats what I want to explore further. If somebody is indeed at risk for heart disease, then eating a diet high in X macro for X amount of time may quickly stabilize their body until they can return to a more typical and sustainable diet. THATS why I am pursuing this.

The Mediterranean diet is a high carb, moderate protein, lower to moderate fat diet. It's actually very similar from a macro ratio perspective to the supposed "SAD." The difference is with portion size, and total caloric intake.

mccindy72

Are we really supposed to be surprised that when you take one macronutrient to a ridiculous extreme and keep the other two at 5% calorie intake each that it will start to mess with your body? This is ESPECIALLY true when you deprive your body of protein and fat, the 2 most important macros. At that point you're starting to play around with actual insulin resistance issues and all the normal rules go out the window. If you're using calorie restriction with any sort of sensible macronutrient breakdown, then you will have the weight loss that you want. If you take anything to extreme, the normal rules become distorted.

The reason that is interesting is because it shows that the macronutrient composition does indeed play a role. While I agree that extremes are not the best for defining optimal, they do show that there is indeed an effect. But I think this should be used as a guide and not a proof.

Agreed. We must remember however that the typical SAD (standard American Diet) has led to a heart disease epidemic while the mediterranean diet may lower the risk for heart disease. It doesn't have to be so extreme for a person, thats not sustainable. But it is one way of demonstrating that macro's do play a role and thats what I want to explore further. If somebody is indeed at risk for heart disease, then eating a diet high in X macro for X amount of time may quickly stabilize their body until they can return to a more typical and sustainable diet. THATS why I am pursuing this.

The Mediterranean diet is a high carb, moderate protein, lower to moderate fat diet. It's actually very similar from a macro ratio perspective to the supposed "SAD." The difference is with portion size, and total caloric intake.

Because olive oil.

Akimajuktuq

Are we really supposed to be surprised that when you take one macronutrient to a ridiculous extreme and keep the other two at 5% calorie intake each that it will start to mess with your body? This is ESPECIALLY true when you deprive your body of protein and fat, the 2 most important macros. At that point you're starting to play around with actual insulin resistance issues and all the normal rules go out the window. If you're using calorie restriction with any sort of sensible macronutrient breakdown, then you will have the weight loss that you want. If you take anything to extreme, the normal rules become distorted.

The reason that is interesting is because it shows that the macronutrient composition does indeed play a role. While I agree that extremes are not the best for defining optimal, they do show that there is indeed an effect. But I think this should be used as a guide and not a proof.

I don't think anyone would argue that the composition of a calorie doesn't matter. I have never heard that debated I don't guess. In the end, a calorie is still just a calorie.

You haven't been around here long then. Anyone who even remotely suggests that what one eats matters (macro ratio vs individual physiology and metabolic issues) gets flamed from a thousand directions by the it's "only calories in/calories out" crowd. As if the human body is such a simple system and has no strategies for avoiding starvation or obesity... (I know my ancestors weren't calculating every calorie that went in their mouths AND they never got obese AND they weren't all athletes.)