A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE
Replies
-
OP, did you even read your link? It does nothing to discredit the fact that weight loss is based upon calorie consumption. Period. It merely states that different degrees of weight loss can occur at varying macro-nutrient levels and ratio's. Then it talks about different correlations based on food types. obviously, this is not causation, just observational correlations.
Calorie is a calorie. This is self evident. It's a measure of energy.0 -
WOW WHAT A NEWSFLASH THAT CONTEXT AND DOSAGE ARE IMPORTANT IN NUTRITION. THANKS SO MUCH OP FOR THIS GROUNDBREAKING INFORMATION.0
-
Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.
Previous to this she also said quality makes it slower so ...who knows wth she is trying to say.
For the same caloric deficit, focusing on quality will make weight loss slower -- because you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle. And when you catabolize more fat and less muscle for the same calorie deficit, you will have less weight loss (because 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals where as 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals). Just basic math.
It really isn't that hard, people.0 -
In other words, a calorie is a calorie, and people who say otherwise don't know what they are talking about. So you actually linked an article in an attempt to prove your point that actually went ahead and said that your argument is wrong and you don't know what you're talking about. Kind of amusing, really. :laugh:
If you can't understand the difference of losing fat versus muscle and how that impacts weight loss, I can't help you.
And, Lyle also pointed out how there were other factors that impacted it. If you look he specifically talks about diets with the same MACRO nutrient profiles. So, obviously he supports the idea of what you eat is important. That no every calorie is the same.
Poor reading comprehension.0 -
I didn't. That's why I only posited it as a possibility. And, as I said, it varies with the individual because there are a lot of factors at play.
When you say things like "doing it any faster is unhealthy" requires certain assumptions. And when those assumptions differ between people, you get different results. As a general rule, I think it's likely true for most people and that's why it's often stated as such. But there are always exceptions to every general rule -- and for good reason.
Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.
But I said "maybe". Maybe you would have lost it faster. Maybe you would have lost more fat rathe than muscle. Maybe you would have a better body comp right now. Maybe.
Maybe does not equal scientific fact![:\](https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
. With that said, I would rather eat the way I eat, enjoy my life, eat fast foods whenever I want, and stay under my calorie goal and still lose weight than to restrict a certain type of foods for some "maybe" results that probably won't happen. 0 -
Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.
Previous to this she also said quality makes it slower so ...who knows wth she is trying to say.
For the same caloric deficit, focusing on quality will make weight loss slower -- because you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle. And when you catabolize more fat and less muscle for the same calorie deficit, you will have less weight loss (because 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals where as 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals). Just basic math.
It really isn't that hard, people.
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..0 -
Of course there are, but we were talking about ME. You said had I switched things up, maybe I would have lost faster. Of course for very obese people, more than 2lbs per week is acceptable. But I told you I only had 10-15 to lose. So in my case, this is not an assumption, but a fact.
Previous to this she also said quality makes it slower so ...who knows wth she is trying to say.
For the same caloric deficit, focusing on quality will make weight loss slower -- because you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle. And when you catabolize more fat and less muscle for the same calorie deficit, you will have less weight loss (because 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals where as 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals). Just basic math.
It really isn't that hard, people.
dafuq?? You just told me earlier had I focused on quality, maybe I would be at goal by now?? Now you're saying it would be slower?0 -
don't waste your time brother..she is never wrong...must be nice..
Actually I admitted to being wrong on this very thread about the McDonald's burger hoax.
I have no problem admitting I'm wrong -- that's how you learn and evolve.
But, I am right about the biology here. Some you either can't follow it or you refuse to because it interferes with your more comforting, but factually inaccurate life view that all calories are created equal.0 -
OP, did you even read your link? It does nothing to discredit the fact that weight loss is based upon calorie consumption. Period. It merely states that different degrees of weight loss can occur at varying macro-nutrient levels and ratio's. Then it talks about different correlations based on food types. obviously, this is not causation, just observational correlations.
Calorie is a calorie. This is self evident. It's a measure of energy.
Right, so if macros are important, aren't calories as well? Is that the basis of following certain macros? If they weren't, then macros wouldn't matter either because, as you say, a calorie is a calorie.0 -
The message everyone must take is weight loss and good nutrition is LESS about quantity and MORE about quality. I'm sure everyone with common sense gets it. It is just a matter of implementing it ... it's difficult because of all the junk that has been snuck into our foods... But we will get there.
I am so happy that the word is coming out about this. It's about time.
Conflation. Weight Loss and "good nutrition" are only slightly related. Achieving optimal weight loss and body composition is mostly independent of any focus on nutrition, quality of food source, etc, unless there is some major absence of a critical nutrient, which is rare.0 -
Interesting how everyone reads that article differently.
What I read:
Calories matter.
Calories which come from high nutrient foods support weight loss and maintaining weight loss.
I did not read:
Calories from high nutrient foods don't matter.
Only high nutrient foods support weight loss and maintain weight loss.
I've lost weight a million times and gained it back a million and one times. The only time I've been able to lose weight and keep it off was by focusing on high nutrient foods.
Just my experience, take from it what you will.0 -
Maybe does not equal scientific fact. With that said, I would rather eat the way I eat, enjoy my life, eat fast foods whenever I want, and stay under my calorie goal and still lose weight than to restrict a certain type of foods for some "maybe" results that probably won't happen.
I totally agree with you. Everyone should make their choices based on their own observations. What works for you works for you. But that doesn't negate the basic biological difference in catabolism of muscle versus fact or how calories of fat, protein and carbs impact bodies differently.
As I said, your path is successful. But it isn't the ONLY path to success for EVERYONE. There are others.0 -
OP, did you even read your link? It does nothing to discredit the fact that weight loss is based upon calorie consumption. Period. It merely states that different degrees of weight loss can occur at varying macro-nutrient levels and ratio's. Then it talks about different correlations based on food types. obviously, this is not causation, just observational correlations.
Calorie is a calorie. This is self evident. It's a measure of energy.
Right, so if macros are important, aren't calories as well? Is that the basis of following certain macros? If they weren't, then macros wouldn't matter either because, as you say, a calorie is a calorie.
I dont understand anything you just said, But macro ratios matter very little for weight loss. If reducing muscle loss is desired, then some protein standard must be met. Outside of that, doesn't matter. Macro ratios matter more for optimizing body composition, not strictly weight loss. Besides, macros are calories. There are no calories that arent macros...so not sure what you're even trying to say.0 -
God help me... I want this in mah mouth!!!!0 -
I read the article and it is quite good and doesn't state a calorie is not a calorie. It actual states that calories are important plus quality of food is a factor as well as genetics and lifestyle (no one-size-fits all).
The big mistake the poster made was the provocative title and this statement "This is not something that some people don't like to hear and we are hearing it again and again. For the large percentage of people who do like to hear it." This comes across all Jack Nicholson "You can't handle the truth" like and as if there are those "who have seen the light" and the rest of us who haven't figured this out - idiots with our heads in the sand. I'm not saying that this was the intent, just the impression left.
If the intro had been "Here is an interesting article about diet and health that you may find helpful" the response probably would have been different.
I think most MFPs are like me, we like to read articles like this, add it to everything else we have learned and know about our own situation, and make informed choices. Our analyatical minds like to be exercised too!0 -
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).0 -
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
uh oh- gloves are off. LMAO0 -
For the same caloric deficit, focusing on quality will make weight loss slower -- because you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle. And when you catabolize more fat and less muscle for the same calorie deficit, you will have less weight loss (because 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals where as 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals). Just basic math.
It really isn't that hard, people.
dafuq?? You just told me earlier had I focused on quality, maybe I would be at goal by now?? Now you're saying it would be slower?
It depends on what your goal is. Is it just the number on the scale? If so, then being really unhealthy and trying to lose as much muscle as possible during your deficit would get you there quicker. But, I don't think that's a good goal.
If you were looking to lost most/all fat, then it will take longer to get there as weight comes off more slowly when more of it is fat.
There are a lot of factors at play -- I have no idea what your personal deficit was/is, your various hormone levels, you're natural propensity to hold onto or burn fat, your NEAT. That's why I said maybe for such things.
Perhaps the weight you've lost is mostly muscle. Perhaps it's mostly fat. Perhaps you could have done better, perhaps not. Hard to draw a conclusion with so few factors known.0 -
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
LOL. Ok, so do I and many others here. It's MUCH more likely that you are just wrong.
You have a BS in biology w/ honors huh?. Uh oh, we got ourselves a biology expert here! The automatic sign of a completely failed argument is an appeal to authority like that one.0 -
I read the article and it is quite good and doesn't state a calorie is not a calorie. It actual states that calories are important plus quality of food is a factor as well as genetics and lifestyle (no one-size-fits all).
The big mistake the poster made was the provocative title and this statement "This is not something that some people don't like to hear and we are hearing it again and again. For the large percentage of people who do like to hear it." This comes across all Jack Nicholson "You can't handle the truth" like and as if there are those "who have seen the light" and the rest of us who haven't figured this out - idiots with our heads in the sand. I'm not saying that this was the intent, just the impression left.
If the intro had been "Here is an interesting article about diet and health that you may find helpful" the response probably would have been different.
I think most MFPs are like me, we like to read articles like this, add it to everything else we have learned and know about our own situation, and make informed choices. Our analyatical minds like to be exercised too!
You learned something today. Even though you probably knew most of what was in the article already, you obviously learned something.
Jack Nicholson in Lululemon.0 -
Then explain this statement in reference to them eating at MacDonalds 4-5x a week...based on this you believe that better quality foods help you lose weight faster but yet you say previous to this...it makes the weight loss slower as you are just losing fat not muscle...
so which is it? you lose weight faster by quality or is it the quality that makes you lose fat only therefore slowing weight loss????
Edit to fix quote
It's both, along with other individual factors, and depends on the individual. That's why a simple statement like "a calorie is a calorie" isn't true -- it's simply not that simple in regards to weight/fat/muscle loss. It's only true when you're talking about it in purely physicist terms as a unit of measurement.
so when you contradict yourself you back track and say both statements are correct when they are in complete opposition to each other...
okay gotcha...right fighters are always right
I bow out because I actually do have to do some heavy lifting now...
If nothing else (because lindsey is not educational) it's been entertaining to watch someone so doggidly say one thing then say the complete opposite and then say both are correct....:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
It's like arguing with my mother about religion...I would rather be happy lifting then be laughing at this charade of intelligence...
Where is their a contradiction? I've been saying the same thing ALL the time. That they're both important. I've just been debunking the idea that quality isn't important and the only thing that is important is quantity. Consistent the ENTIRE time.
Weight loss = quantity of calories only matters
Health, fitness, etc = quantity of calories AND quality of macros
Can we stop arguing about nonsense now?0 -
oh my word..why do these threads keep popping up? Join a "a calorie is NOT a calorie!!!!!!!!!!!!!" group. Please!!
Oh she has a group and a glance of the posts there will show you how ridiculous it is.
I am not even sure she is a real person at this point. She is a manifestation of the souls from those who have died due to the TOXIC NATURE OF SUGAR.
BAHAHAHAHAHA. Thanks for the laugh LOL that was awesome!0 -
The message everyone must take is weight loss and good nutrition is LESS about quantity and MORE about quality. I'm sure everyone with common sense gets it. It is just a matter of implementing it ... it's difficult because of all the junk that has been snuck into our foods... But we will get there.
I am so happy that the word is coming out about this. It's about time.
Conflation. Weight Loss and "good nutrition" are only slightly related. Achieving optimal weight loss and body composition is mostly independent of any focus on nutrition, quality of food source, etc, unless there is some major absence of a critical nutrient, which is rare.
Do you think protein intake doesn't matter for body comp and weight loss (especially of fat)?0 -
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
:laugh:In other words, a calorie is a calorie, and people who say otherwise don't know what they are talking about. So you actually linked an article in an attempt to prove your point that actually went ahead and said that your argument is wrong and you don't know what you're talking about. Kind of amusing, really. :laugh:
If you can't understand the difference of losing fat versus muscle and how that impacts weight loss, I can't help you.
And, Lyle also pointed out how there were other factors that impacted it. If you look he specifically talks about diets with the same MACRO nutrient profiles. So, obviously he supports the idea of what you eat is important. That no every calorie is the same.
Poor reading comprehension.
I'm the one with the poor reading comprehension, sure. Hilarious, considering in the article I was commenting on, LYLE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANY SPECIFIC MACROS OR ANY SPECIFIC DIET. So if my reading comprehension is poor, what must yours be, since you're talking about things that aren't even in the article in question?0 -
OP, did you even read your link? It does nothing to discredit the fact that weight loss is based upon calorie consumption. Period. It merely states that different degrees of weight loss can occur at varying macro-nutrient levels and ratio's. Then it talks about different correlations based on food types. obviously, this is not causation, just observational correlations.
Calorie is a calorie. This is self evident. It's a measure of energy.
Right, so if macros are important, aren't calories as well? Is that the basis of following certain macros? If they weren't, then macros wouldn't matter either because, as you say, a calorie is a calorie.
I dont understand anything you just said, But macro ratios matter very little for weight loss. If reducing muscle loss is desired, then some protein standard must be met. Outside of that, doesn't matter. Macro ratios matter more for optimizing body composition, not strictly weight loss. Besides, macros are calories. There are no calories that arent macros...so not sure what you're even trying to say.
But doesn't body comp impact weight loss? i.e. that more muscle you lose, the greater your weight loss? Or the more fat you lose, the lesser the weight loss?0 -
In other words, a calorie is a calorie, and people who say otherwise don't know what they are talking about. So you actually linked an article in an attempt to prove your point that actually went ahead and said that your argument is wrong and you don't know what you're talking about. Kind of amusing, really. :laugh:
Friggin' hilarious, actually.0 -
The message everyone must take is weight loss and good nutrition is LESS about quantity and MORE about quality. I'm sure everyone with common sense gets it. It is just a matter of implementing it ... it's difficult because of all the junk that has been snuck into our foods... But we will get there.
I am so happy that the word is coming out about this. It's about time.
Conflation. Weight Loss and "good nutrition" are only slightly related. Achieving optimal weight loss and body composition is mostly independent of any focus on nutrition, quality of food source, etc, unless there is some major absence of a critical nutrient, which is rare.
Do you think protein intake doesn't matter for body comp and weight loss (especially of fat)?
Did I say that?
Use your B.S. in Biology critical reading skills here before making conclusions like that.0 -
The message everyone must take is weight loss and good nutrition is LESS about quantity and MORE about quality. I'm sure everyone with common sense gets it. It is just a matter of implementing it ... it's difficult because of all the junk that has been snuck into our foods... But we will get there.
I am so happy that the word is coming out about this. It's about time.
Conflation. Weight Loss and "good nutrition" are only slightly related. Achieving optimal weight loss and body composition is mostly independent of any focus on nutrition, quality of food source, etc, unless there is some major absence of a critical nutrient, which is rare.
Do you think protein intake doesn't matter for body comp and weight loss (especially of fat)?
IT DOES!!!!!!!!!
But the article says nothing about body composition or fat loss. It refers only to fat loss. Why are you arguing something that has nothing to do with the original topic?0 -
right, we are all too stupid to understand your brilliance.
Maybe you need to step back and realize that there are about ten to fifteen people telling you that you are wrong and you keep contradicting yourself. Yet, every time that is pointed out you just say "stop misrepresenting me" or "you do not understand"..Yes, we understand....you are wrong..deal with it..
Maybe you are. I don't find it that difficult to understand these issues. But I also have degrees and tests that put me in the top 1% of the US population IQ/intelligence-wise. So, it's MUCH more likely that some of you simply aren't able to understand this rather than I'm incorrect about this basic biology (and that was what I got my degree in -- with honors).
Oh Lindsey... this was a bad choice.
Oh... eeee...0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions