IIFYM vs "a calorie is a calorie"
Options
Replies
-
Just like a mile is a mile, a gallon is a gallon, and an hour is an hour.
I disagree -- a gallon of gas is not the same as a gallon of kerosene. Likewise, the "calorie is a calorie" school of thought disregards the thermic effect of food. The body has to expend more energy digesting some foods than others -- protein, 20-35%; carbohydrates, 5-15%; fat, 5-15%. It also disregards the fact that dietary fiber is not absorbed by the body and converted to energy.
So while it may be true that calorie is a calorie once it has been digested and absorbed, it's not true of calories that are consumed. Consuming 300 calories of protein and high-fiber carbohydrates will result in fewer of those calories being converted to energy in the body than 300 calories of chocolate, since some of the calories will be used in the digestion process itself, and some will move through the digestive tract without being absorbed at all.
this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
http://health.usnews.com/health-news/blogs/eat-run/2012/08/21/when-nutrition-labels-lie0 -
this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.0 -
this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
the same thing applies to your other foods. no two chickens or eggs or cups of broccoli have the same amount of calories. it's just an estimate. you can never know exactly how many calories any food contains unless you burn the food and measure the energy output.
to obsess over the calories due to a smaller error margin (your thermic effect) that can be easily swamped by a larger error margin (the amount you may be off in what you assume your food contains) is what's silly. if you were a scientist or engineer, you'd understand the problem implicitly.
at the end of the day, your calorie input is just an educated guess. it's not exact and there is quite a bit of error margin involved in that guess - regardless whether you are eating packaged food or picking beets from your backyard garden.0 -
this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.0 -
Butcher shops normally wrap in brown wax paper, no nutritional labels.this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.
EDIT: spelling0 -
Buther shops normally wrap in brown wax paper, no nutritional labels.this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.
How can you be sure of what the nutritional content is? Does one really just trust that all cows and chickens are the same and that cut blah from cow B isn't just a little bit fattier naturally? Because it seems there would be some wiggle room there as far as that goes.
Not you, as in you, of course, but the general you that would imply that because their food doesn't have labels the assumed calorie count can't be off. And not to say my beef from the supermarket isn't subject to the same issue (I made some pulled beef the day before yesterday, so beef is on my mind) but I'm also not under the misconception that because it's not a frozen pizza it's calorie content can't be off.0 -
Well, nothing is accurate regardless of how careful we are, so using the USDA or Nutrition Data will be as good as we can get. Even the calculators we use for BMR/TDEE are not accurate so it's all just an estimate anyway. Adjusting to incoming personal data is really the only way we can keep it going in the right direction, whichever it may be
Buther shops normally wrap in brown wax paper, no nutritional labels.this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.
How can you be sure of what the nutritional content is? Does one really just trust that all cows and chickens are the same and that cut blah from cow B isn't just a little bit fattier naturally? Because it seems there would be some wiggle room there as far as that goes.
Not you, as in you, of course, but the general you that would imply that because their food doesn't have labels the assumed calorie count can't be off.0 -
Well, nothing is accurate regardless of how careful we are, so using the USDA or Nutrition Data will be as good as we can get. Even the calculators we use for BMR/TDEE are not accurate so it's all just an estimate anyway. Adjusting to incoming personal data is really the only way we can keep it going in the right direction, whichever it may be
Buther shops normally wrap in brown wax paper, no nutritional labels.this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.
How can you be sure of what the nutritional content is? Does one really just trust that all cows and chickens are the same and that cut blah from cow B isn't just a little bit fattier naturally? Because it seems there would be some wiggle room there as far as that goes.
Not you, as in you, of course, but the general you that would imply that because their food doesn't have labels the assumed calorie count can't be off.
Well I know that. I'm just saying in regards to "My food is superior and doesn't have labels and thus isn't subject to the same question mark as everyone else's food." line of reasoning, not as a personal question.0 -
Ok, you lost me........superior?
Well, nothing is accurate regardless of how careful we are, so using the USDA or Nutrition Data will be as good as we can get. Even the calculators we use for BMR/TDEE are not accurate so it's all just an estimate anyway. Adjusting to incoming personal data is really the only way we can keep it going in the right direction, whichever it may be
Buther shops normally wrap in brown wax paper, no nutritional labels.this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.
How can you be sure of what the nutritional content is? Does one really just trust that all cows and chickens are the same and that cut blah from cow B isn't just a little bit fattier naturally? Because it seems there would be some wiggle room there as far as that goes.
Not you, as in you, of course, but the general you that would imply that because their food doesn't have labels the assumed calorie count can't be off.
Well I know that. I'm just saying in regards to "My food is superior and doesn't have labels and thus isn't subject to the same question mark as everyone else's food." line of reasoning, not as a personal question.0 -
Ok, you lost me........superior?
Well, nothing is accurate regardless of how careful we are, so using the USDA or Nutrition Data will be as good as we can get. Even the calculators we use for BMR/TDEE are not accurate so it's all just an estimate anyway. Adjusting to incoming personal data is really the only way we can keep it going in the right direction, whichever it may be
Buther shops normally wrap in brown wax paper, no nutritional labels.this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.
How can you be sure of what the nutritional content is? Does one really just trust that all cows and chickens are the same and that cut blah from cow B isn't just a little bit fattier naturally? Because it seems there would be some wiggle room there as far as that goes.
Not you, as in you, of course, but the general you that would imply that because their food doesn't have labels the assumed calorie count can't be off.
Well I know that. I'm just saying in regards to "My food is superior and doesn't have labels and thus isn't subject to the same question mark as everyone else's food." line of reasoning, not as a personal question.
i read it the same way. he was coming off as if his superior food choices meant that he didn't have to worry about the fact that all of this is just a giant "back of the envelope" calculation and therefore the inherent error margins already present weren't relevant to his experience. it rubbed me the wrong way too. it smacks of that "clean eating" mentality that has so infected these forums.0 -
Ok, you lost me........superior?
Well, nothing is accurate regardless of how careful we are, so using the USDA or Nutrition Data will be as good as we can get. Even the calculators we use for BMR/TDEE are not accurate so it's all just an estimate anyway. Adjusting to incoming personal data is really the only way we can keep it going in the right direction, whichever it may be
Buther shops normally wrap in brown wax paper, no nutritional labels.this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.
How can you be sure of what the nutritional content is? Does one really just trust that all cows and chickens are the same and that cut blah from cow B isn't just a little bit fattier naturally? Because it seems there would be some wiggle room there as far as that goes.
Not you, as in you, of course, but the general you that would imply that because their food doesn't have labels the assumed calorie count can't be off.
Well I know that. I'm just saying in regards to "My food is superior and doesn't have labels and thus isn't subject to the same question mark as everyone else's food." line of reasoning, not as a personal question.
The word superior was added by me, in reference to the tone I took from the parts I bolded above. It was a mocking dig.
I think you're taking my question too seriously and getting confused.0 -
the same thing applies to your other foods. no two chickens or eggs or cups of broccoli have the same amount of calories. it's just an estimate. you can never know exactly how many calories any food contains unless you burn the food and measure the energy output.
I don't eat "cups of broccoli"; I eat grams of broccoli; likewise, I don't eat whole chickens, and I'm pretty sure that the calorie count per gram falls within a tight range. And even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter, because deviations happen on both the positive and negative side -- the mean would be very consistent.
Anyway, I think we're having two different arguments. I'm saying that there is a significant difference in the net amount of energy derived from a *known* set of calories. I think you'd be better off debating someone who is claiming that calories can be measured with 100% precision, all of the time.0 -
Ok, you lost me........superior?
Well, nothing is accurate regardless of how careful we are, so using the USDA or Nutrition Data will be as good as we can get. Even the calculators we use for BMR/TDEE are not accurate so it's all just an estimate anyway. Adjusting to incoming personal data is really the only way we can keep it going in the right direction, whichever it may be
Buther shops normally wrap in brown wax paper, no nutritional labels.this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.
How can you be sure of what the nutritional content is? Does one really just trust that all cows and chickens are the same and that cut blah from cow B isn't just a little bit fattier naturally? Because it seems there would be some wiggle room there as far as that goes.
Not you, as in you, of course, but the general you that would imply that because their food doesn't have labels the assumed calorie count can't be off.
Well I know that. I'm just saying in regards to "My food is superior and doesn't have labels and thus isn't subject to the same question mark as everyone else's food." line of reasoning, not as a personal question.
i read it the same way. he was coming off as if his superior food choices meant that he didn't have to worry about the fact that all of this is just a giant "back of the envelope" calculation and therefore the inherent error margins already present weren't relevant to his experience. it rubbed me the wrong way too. it smacks of that "clean eating" mentality that has so infected these forums.
Yeah, that.0 -
The word superior was added by me, in reference to the tone I took from the parts I bolded above. It was a mocking dig.
Yeah, mocking digs aren't uncommon on these threads. It's unfortunate. I mean, we're talking about *calories*, for God's sake. Anyway, I think you read too much into my comment.0 -
Because I mentioned butcher shop, seriously? What about fresh produce........where's the nutritional labels.
Ok, you lost me........superior?
Well, nothing is accurate regardless of how careful we are, so using the USDA or Nutrition Data will be as good as we can get. Even the calculators we use for BMR/TDEE are not accurate so it's all just an estimate anyway. Adjusting to incoming personal data is really the only way we can keep it going in the right direction, whichever it may be
Buther shops normally wrap in brown wax paper, no nutritional labels.this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.
How can you be sure of what the nutritional content is? Does one really just trust that all cows and chickens are the same and that cut blah from cow B isn't just a little bit fattier naturally? Because it seems there would be some wiggle room there as far as that goes.
Not you, as in you, of course, but the general you that would imply that because their food doesn't have labels the assumed calorie count can't be off.
Well I know that. I'm just saying in regards to "My food is superior and doesn't have labels and thus isn't subject to the same question mark as everyone else's food." line of reasoning, not as a personal question.
i read it the same way. he was coming off as if his superior food choices meant that he didn't have to worry about the fact that all of this is just a giant "back of the envelope" calculation and therefore the inherent error margins already present weren't relevant to his experience. it rubbed me the wrong way too. it smacks of that "clean eating" mentality that has so infected these forums.0 -
the same thing applies to your other foods. no two chickens or eggs or cups of broccoli have the same amount of calories. it's just an estimate. you can never know exactly how many calories any food contains unless you burn the food and measure the energy output.
I don't eat "cups of broccoli"; I eat grams of broccoli; likewise, I don't eat whole chickens, and I'm pretty sure that the calorie count per gram falls within a tight range. And even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter, because deviations happen on both the positive and negative side -- the mean would be very consistent.
Anyway, I think we're having two different arguments. I'm saying that there is a significant difference in the net amount of energy derived from a *known* set of calories. I think you'd be better off debating someone who is claiming that calories can be measured with 100% precision, all of the time.
and i'm saying it's not a significant difference at all when you account for all of the error margins already built into these calculations.
when we're talking about 3500 calories to lose a pound (and even that's an estimate), those 10 or 20 or 30 calories due to thermic effect that you are worrying about is background noise. it's meaningless. not only is there quite a bit of error on the calorie input side, but you have a lot of error margin on your calorie burn (TDEE).0 -
You seemed confused that some meat was packaged without labels and I mentiopned butcher shops normally don't have labels, that's all, it wasn't meant to be confusing and <i still don't really see how it came to this, oh well, carry on.
Ok, you lost me........superior?
Well, nothing is accurate regardless of how careful we are, so using the USDA or Nutrition Data will be as good as we can get. Even the calculators we use for BMR/TDEE are not accurate so it's all just an estimate anyway. Adjusting to incoming personal data is really the only way we can keep it going in the right direction, whichever it may be
Buther shops normally wrap in brown wax paper, no nutritional labels.this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.
How can you be sure of what the nutritional content is? Does one really just trust that all cows and chickens are the same and that cut blah from cow B isn't just a little bit fattier naturally? Because it seems there would be some wiggle room there as far as that goes.
Not you, as in you, of course, but the general you that would imply that because their food doesn't have labels the assumed calorie count can't be off.
Well I know that. I'm just saying in regards to "My food is superior and doesn't have labels and thus isn't subject to the same question mark as everyone else's food." line of reasoning, not as a personal question.
The word superior was added by me, in reference to the tone I took from the parts I bolded above. It was a mocking dig.
I think you're taking my question too seriously and getting confused.0 -
You seemed confused that some meat was packaged without labels and I mentiopned butcher shops normally don't have labels, that's all, it wasn't meant to be confusing and <i still don't really see how it came to this, oh well, carry on.
Ok, you lost me........superior?
Well, nothing is accurate regardless of how careful we are, so using the USDA or Nutrition Data will be as good as we can get. Even the calculators we use for BMR/TDEE are not accurate so it's all just an estimate anyway. Adjusting to incoming personal data is really the only way we can keep it going in the right direction, whichever it may be
Buther shops normally wrap in brown wax paper, no nutritional labels.this is a silly argument because the error margin on the amount of calories you're ingesting can easily by double or triple or more of the amount of this thermic effect you're worrying about.
the USDA allows for up to 20% error on nutrition labels, so that 1 serving that is listed as 240 calories on the box could actually be anywhere from ~190 calories to ~290 calories.
What does the USDA margin of error have to do with anything? All that demonstrates is that you can't trust food labels. Let's say that, like me, very few of your calories come from food that has a label on it. The chicken, beef, pork, eggs, and vegetables I eat don't have USDA nutrition labels on them, and the things that do have labels make up a very small percentage of my calorie intake.
So yeah, if most of your calories are coming from frozen pizza and other processed foods, then I guess you've got a bigger question mark over your calorie intake.
Wait wait wait.
Your chicken/beef/pork don't have labels? Because mine always do. And the produce nutritional info is usually posted next to the price at the supermarket, so....I'm confused.
How can you be sure of what the nutritional content is? Does one really just trust that all cows and chickens are the same and that cut blah from cow B isn't just a little bit fattier naturally? Because it seems there would be some wiggle room there as far as that goes.
Not you, as in you, of course, but the general you that would imply that because their food doesn't have labels the assumed calorie count can't be off.
Well I know that. I'm just saying in regards to "My food is superior and doesn't have labels and thus isn't subject to the same question mark as everyone else's food." line of reasoning, not as a personal question.
The word superior was added by me, in reference to the tone I took from the parts I bolded above. It was a mocking dig.
I think you're taking my question too seriously and getting confused.
I think you found my original question to be a serious one (it wasn't) and have been working under that pretense since. I don't have a problem with your response, all of my mocking was and still is aimed at the person I was replying to originally. I'm not confused, but I think you made a misstep and it took you somewhere odd.
If you stop viewing my comments through a serious lens I think you'll find yourself less lost.0 -
those 10 or 20 or 30 calories due to thermic effect that you are worrying about is background noise.
I don't know how you came up with those numbers. Yes, that would be meaningless. But 1000 calories of protein at 25% thermic effect is 250 calories burned in digestion. The same number of fat calories at 5% is 50 calories. The delta is 200 calories -- and you totally disregarded the effect of dietary fiber I mentioned in the original post, which could easily account for another 100 calories (that wouldn't be absorbed at all).
So, yes -- 10-30 calories is noise. 200-300 is not. Sure, 1000 calories of protein might be considered high, but that's just an example. Many fruits and vegetables are similarly high in thermic effect.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions