A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE
Replies
-
Once again, I'm not saying that a calorie deficit isn't important. It is. But so the quality of the calories you consume to achieve that deficit. Two separate premises, both of which are important and impact fat and weight loss.
and the original post was about nothing that you have been going on an on about ..
it was about Quality trumping Quantity ...
Nope, it wasn't. That was the conclusion that the OP was trying to draw, which I disagreed with. The thread was about all calories not being the same, especially in a deficit.
But keep telling yourself otherwise if it makes you feel better.0 -
Not sure if any of you recall but Linsay is also the poster who came into the Keto thread and argue for that as well...for pages and pages and pages...
This one is adament in their correctness and rightness....based on beliefs...not science...
she also argued for Paleo for about 20 pages or some variant of it ..even after admitting the science was not sound and then cited studies she could never produce...
That's a gross misrepresentation, or possibly even a downright lie. I never admitted that science wasn't sound. In fact, I argued the exact opposite. That I found the science sound and persuasive enough to give it a try myself. I even cited resources -- books and a website that cites various studies in its articles. Some (probably you) wanted me to go dig out the cites myself and I refused to do that -- I just pointed you to resources that I found.0 -
Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.
Our body needs quality food.
after ten pages that is all you got, really?
so cow meat vs cow meat is not cow meat????
OT, but sadly, I read something recently that said McDonald's patties were something like 15% meat/protein. The rest was binders and whatnot. I'll see if I can find the article. It was pretty scary.
15% protein is pretty good seeing as pure raw meat is something like 22% protein.
http://www.snopes.com/business/market/allbeef.asp
McDonald's uses 100% USDA inspected beef in their patties.0 -
Once again, I'm not saying that a calorie deficit isn't important. It is. But so the quality of the calories you consume to achieve that deficit. Two separate premises, both of which are important and impact fat and weight loss.
and the original post was about nothing that you have been going on an on about ..
it was about Quality trumping Quantity ...
Nope, it wasn't. That was the conclusion that the OP was trying to draw, which I disagreed with. The thread was about all calories not being the same, especially in a deficit.
But keep telling yourself otherwise if it makes you feel better.
I wish I could wall myself off in my own little world and plug my ears and just keep saying "I am right" over and over over like you do, not realizing how foolish it appears...0 -
I have to applaud you though, whether or not you're right or wrong. You actually sound pretty level headed while stating your claims. Most people would have resulted to insults and rage quit by now lol.
ETA this was directed at lindsay1975. Not the individual above me LOL
Thanks, SassyJae. There is really a lot of good info and well-intentioned people on this site, but when things devolve into name calling and insults, that all becomes far too obscurred.
I love good debates -- it's how I learn about new things. Sometimes I get taught, other times I teach.
that is hilarious...considering your first post into this thread said that anyone who did not agree with you was "ignorant"
oh the irony....
You really struggle with reading comprehension.
I didn't say people were ignorant, but continuing to ignore a very basic, common tenet of science was willful ignorance. And I stand behind that statement.
Please stop misquoting and mischaracterizing my statements.0 -
Not sure if any of you recall but Linsay is also the poster who came into the Keto thread and argue for that as well...for pages and pages and pages...
This one is adament in their correctness and rightness....based on beliefs...not science...
she also argued for Paleo for about 20 pages or some variant of it ..even after admitting the science was not sound and then cited studies she could never produce...
That's a gross misrepresentation, or possibly even a downright lie. I never admitted that science wasn't sound. In fact, I argued the exact opposite. That I found the science sound and persuasive enough to give it a try myself. I even cited resources -- books and a website that cites various studies in its articles. Some (probably you) wanted me to go dig out the cites myself and I refused to do that -- I just pointed you to resources that I found.
LOL..I am still waiting for those "sources"
ETA - marks daily apple is not a peered reviewed source0 -
Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.
Our body needs quality food.
*McDonald's
I have no problem swallowing either one.
ummmm tempting...but I will not go where the mind wants me to go ...
As long as one is well-rounded in the choices of what one swallows, one should remain quite healthy, swallowing whatever one would like, overall.0 -
Lindsey, if you're at the same deficit, the weight loss will be the same. The quality does not play into that.
What the article was talking about, as seen especially in that one paragraph that was quoted a lot in here already, is that the quality is a means to an end. The end being a calorie deficit. It's easier to have a calorie deficit on quality food than on not quality food, simply because it's more filling and you won't feel hungry as much.
So it doesn't actually play into the weight loss directly, it just helps you staying in the calorie restrictions (quantity) you set for yourself.0 -
Wrong. Health impacts weight loss. How much weight you lose is DIRECTLY affected by what sort of tissue you're catabolizing -- whether it's muscle or fat. The more muscle you catabolize, the greater your weight loss will be. The more fat you catabolize, the less weight you'll lose.
Once again, you'll lose weight in both scenarios. But, if you want to maximize your efforts, you want to focus on fat loss, not weight loss generally as you want to retain as much muscle as possible.
Do you want to work hard? Or work both hard and smart? If it's the latter, then you want to focus on quality as well as quantity to maximize your efforts. Period.
Again this is about weight loss not the quality of the weight loss.
You can go around in this circle as many times as you want and yet prove nothing becaue you have nothing to back up what you are saying.
Yes we (most here who eat 80/20) agree it is best to watch macros to ensure we don't lose muscle...etc.
But we also agree if you want to lose weight(jsut that number on the scale nothing more nothing less) it is about quantity of calories and you have nothing concrete to suggest otherwise except your daunting need to be right.
Nothing to back up what you are saying...even the harvard article doesn't say it because it references studies of non calorie counting diets so that is mute in your argument.
And to be frank I don't care what you believe, there are too many of us that know better..and prove it day after day after day and "recruit" others to our side and feed them cookies :devil: and icecream sandwiches made with poptarts...and AMG they lose weight...because they are in a calorie deficet.
Oh And just because you think it doesn't make it so...
Science and cold hard facts are not on your side.
*flips hair, does a duck face and watches for the argument to flow forth*
Right fighters...have to be right...even when in the end they are wrong and look totally well...silly.
Not really true either. If you just wanted to lose weight, then you'd actually want to increase your muscle loss as that will produce the most bang for your buck for your deficit. So, it matters there as well (though, obviously, I think that's a horrible strategy).
Not to mention if you don't get some baseline protein and fat in, you'll hurt your weight loss efforts as the body needs some essential fatty acids and essential amino acids on a regular basis. You'll totally screw up your system if you only ate 100% carbs, calorie deficit or not.
Okay what you just said makes no sense as a response to what I said...honestly...again you are talking about the quality of weight loss not just weight loss...
You always seem to "twist" things to make it "appear' you are correct...you are wrong...so dead wrong even zombies think you are one of them...
We are talking about losing weight..not the quality of the weight...
If I want to lose 10lbs and I don't care where it comes from I will eat in a calorie deficet...
if I want to lose 10lbs of fat I will eat in a calorie deficet and watch my macros and lift heavy, and I can do that while eating all my protien from Dairy Queen or MacDonalds or KFC or Taco bell...0 -
I don't understand why this has to be an "either or" argument. Why can't it be a "both and" argument?
Those that think that the content of calories doesn't affect metabolism and fat/muscle loss are simply incorrect. You may lose weight in a caloric deficit, but the type of weight you lose (i.e. muscle vs. fat) is definitely affected by the content of your calories and many different factors in any given individual (body type, natural propensity to build muscle, hormone levels, sensitivity to carbs, etc.). For example, it has been shown that one way to minimize LBM loss while in a caloric deficit is to eat a certain amount of protein. If all calories were created equal, this wouldn't matter. But, it does. So, although "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" is nice for its simplicity and definitely gets the message across that quantity of calories does matter, it's simply incorrect as pertains to metabolism, body composition, fat/muscle loss and health. And, really, isn't that what we're truly interested in?
Same goes for exercise. Burning 200 calories running, walking or weight lifting is going to have seriously different effects on your body. Just burning calories isn't the end all be all. It's important but so is how you choose to do it. It won't result in the same weight loss as it affects how much muscle vs. fat is metabolized -- and the more muscle you lose vs. fat, the more weight you will lose as a lb of fat metabolizes 3500 calories and a lb of muscle releases considerably fewer (somewhere in the 600-1500 calorie range). So if you're losing a higher percentage of fat, the scale will go down more slowly compared with someone that is losing more muscle.
That being said, it's not a reason to swing 100% the other way either -- restricting a whole bunch of foods unnecessarily. Some restrict for different reasons -- whether medical or based on burgeoning evidence of certain food groups having different effects on the body (obviously, this research is far from definitive and there are many that disagree with it).
However, BOTH quantity of calories AND quality of calories makes a difference in weight loss, fat vs. muscle catabolism, micro nutrient, metabolic response and over all health. To pretend that it doesn't is willful ignorance.
Let the flaming begin.
way to brand everyone who disagrees with you as ignorant...
great start...
ETA - OP's post was specifically referring to a study (which did not even back up her claim) that it is not about calories in vs calories out but about calorie "quality"....which I suppose means you can disregard the whole calories in vs calories out energy balance and just eat "quality" calories and you will lose...so I eat 1000 calories over maintenance of "quality" calories I can still lose weight...
You then somehow went off a tangent about an "either or" argument that has nothing to do with the original post..
but good attempt at derailing the thread to what you want to talk about..
It is ignorance. Period. This isn't actually an area of legitimate debate. How those different calories affect those areas -- now that is up for debate. But to state that there is literally no difference is incorrect.
The point is that the OP is correct, in part, as are others correct, in part. But, both ends of the spectrum (i.e. only quality matters vs. only quantity matters) are wrong. They're both important and affect the overall equation.
It would be better if people just acknowledged that than rather trying to extrapolate to non-sense like you said with ignoring the whole calorie in calorie out equation. That too would be incorrect.
^ I am reposting this so that everyone can see you clearly said "it is is Ignorance. Period" You did not put a qualifier on it.0 -
Somewhere I read about a Macdonalds's hamburger. A grass fed "healthy fat" burger just does not compare to a Maconald's hamburger... I know it is hard for many people to swallow... but, unfortunately, it is the case. A calorie of one food is NOT the same as a calorie of another.
Our body needs quality food.
after ten pages that is all you got, really?
so cow meat vs cow meat is not cow meat????
OT, but sadly, I read something recently that said McDonald's patties were something like 15% meat/protein. The rest was binders and whatnot. I'll see if I can find the article. It was pretty scary.
15% protein is pretty good seeing as pure raw meat is something like 22% protein.
http://www.snopes.com/business/market/allbeef.asp
McDonald's uses 100% USDA inspected beef in their patties.
Yep, just higher fat content (85/15) which is what most burger patties are made of in grocery stores as well, as most people prefer, as they hold together in the patty better that way, and 'taste" better due to the fat content. (juicy burger, anyone?)0 -
Maybe I can help.
I think that what nearly everyone here is trying to get across, is that weight loss happens in an calorie deficit.
The reason that people started going in is because she said it is the phrase "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY". All that matters in weight loss when it comes to calories, is quantity. That's it.
Then you came in talking about how calories are acutally used in the body. This is a different topic. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, because honestly, I don't know enough about that to argue that point. But I, along with the rest of us here, know that for weight loss, only quantity matters. And from her oringinal statement, OP was talking about weight loss. If she wasn't, then she didn't specify. Or if she did, idk cause that was like 47 pages ago
That's all.
I appreciate that, but it's not true. A deficit is necessary for weight loss -- yes -- I'm in total agreement with you there. But how you create that deficit (i.e which calories you consume) will impact how much weight you actually lose.
For example (again):
--- 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. So, if you are able to catabolize only fat and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 1 lb.
--- 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals (I've seen various numbers). If you only catabolize muscle and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 2.3-5.8 lbs.
The good news is that no one loses 100%, unless something is very medically wrong. So, most lose some percentage of fat and some percentage of muscle. Ideally, you want to maximize fat loss and minimize muscle loss. Eating a certain amount of protein and lifting heavy will help you do this is in a caloric deficit.
So, in conclusion, what you eat to create that deficit most certainly impacts your amount and type weight loss (although you will lose weight in a deficit regardless -- just how much of fat vs. muscle and how much total weight will be vary based on what you eat).
Ehh...Ok- I don't have the background to argue with you. But I WILL say is that I just started about 4 months ago getting serious about losing weight. I started with about 10-15lbs to lose. I've lost 8 of it so far, by eating whatever I want, hitting my macros, and staying in a calorie deficit. I don't care where the calories come from as long as I stay under my limit. I have gained muscle from doing resistance training, and I feel great.
If all of what you are saying is true; with the results that I've gotten, how did it happen then? I eat fast food 4 and 5 times a week. All I do is stay under my calorie goal. Because of my results, I can without a doubt say, that for weight loss; it just doesn't matter.
You just said a calorie deficit is neccesary for weight loss. That's really all that matters.
I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.
As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).0 -
Curious to see the "experts" results...........since no ticker and no avi.0
-
Maybe I can help.
I think that what nearly everyone here is trying to get across, is that weight loss happens in an calorie deficit.
The reason that people started going in is because she said it is the phrase "LESS ABOUT QUANTITY". All that matters in weight loss when it comes to calories, is quantity. That's it.
Then you came in talking about how calories are acutally used in the body. This is a different topic. I'm not saying you are right or wrong, because honestly, I don't know enough about that to argue that point. But I, along with the rest of us here, know that for weight loss, only quantity matters. And from her oringinal statement, OP was talking about weight loss. If she wasn't, then she didn't specify. Or if she did, idk cause that was like 47 pages ago
That's all.
I appreciate that, but it's not true. A deficit is necessary for weight loss -- yes -- I'm in total agreement with you there. But how you create that deficit (i.e which calories you consume) will impact how much weight you actually lose.
For example (again):
--- 1 lb of fat releases 3500 kcals. So, if you are able to catabolize only fat and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 1 lb.
--- 1 lb of muscle releases 600-1500 kcals (I've seen various numbers). If you only catabolize muscle and have a 3500 deficit, you will lose 2.3-5.8 lbs.
The good news is that no one loses 100%, unless something is very medically wrong. So, most lose some percentage of fat and some percentage of muscle. Ideally, you want to maximize fat loss and minimize muscle loss. Eating a certain amount of protein and lifting heavy will help you do this is in a caloric deficit.
So, in conclusion, what you eat to create that deficit most certainly impacts your amount and type weight loss (although you will lose weight in a deficit regardless -- just how much of fat vs. muscle and how much total weight will be vary based on what you eat).
Ehh...Ok- I don't have the background to argue with you. But I WILL say is that I just started about 4 months ago getting serious about losing weight. I started with about 10-15lbs to lose. I've lost 8 of it so far, by eating whatever I want, hitting my macros, and staying in a calorie deficit. I don't care where the calories come from as long as I stay under my limit. I have gained muscle from doing resistance training, and I feel great.
If all of what you are saying is true; with the results that I've gotten, how did it happen then? I eat fast food 4 and 5 times a week. All I do is stay under my calorie goal. Because of my results, I can without a doubt say, that for weight loss; it just doesn't matter.
You just said a calorie deficit is neccesary for weight loss. That's really all that matters.
I imagine it happened much as you believe it happened -- through caloric restriction. But, perhaps if you had done a little differently, you'd be at your goal by now or would have been a few weeks ago or would have a better body comp now. Hard to say because it varies so much with the individual.
As I said your way is one way to succeed. I just don't believe it maximizes results for everyone, and there are likely better ways to do it or at least equally good ways to do it (depending on individual factors).
basically your claims that people can lose weight faster by eating only muscle and no fat are preposterous. Losing weight too fast is unhealthy and hard on the organs, regardless of the source of the calories you are taking in.0 -
OT, but sadly, I read something recently that said McDonald's patties were something like 15% meat/protein. The rest was binders and whatnot. I'll see if I can find the article. It was pretty scary.
15% protein is pretty good seeing as pure raw meat is something like 22% protein.
http://www.snopes.com/business/market/allbeef.asp
McDonald's uses 100% USDA inspected beef in their patties.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the link -- bummer it was only a hoax (or probably good that it was).0 -
Lindsey, if you're at the same deficit, the weight loss will be the same. The quality does not play into that.
What the article was talking about, as seen especially in that one paragraph that was quoted a lot in here already, is that the quality is a means to an end. The end being a calorie deficit. It's easier to have a calorie deficit on quality food than on not quality food, simply because it's more filling and you won't feel hungry as much.
So it doesn't actually play into the weight loss directly, it just helps you staying in the calorie restrictions (quantity) you set for yourself.
Steven -- I appreciate what you're saying, but I disagree. Weight loss will be directly impacted by whether you catabolize more muscle than fat. Whether you do so is affected by many factors, including what you're eating to reach that deficit.
As I said earlier, they've shown that a certain level of protein impacts this. If you get that threshold amount, you'll either maintain LBM while in a caloric deficit or minimize its loss. So, you'll lose weight more slowly as you'll be catabolizing more fat than muscle, but overall that's a good thing as you'll lose more fat and maintain more muscle (i.e. better body fat percentage and likely look better as the same volume of fat weighs less than the same volume of muscle).
That's very reason people advocate various macros -- because they're important (though what the balance is is hotly debated).0 -
OT, but sadly, I read something recently that said McDonald's patties were something like 15% meat/protein. The rest was binders and whatnot. I'll see if I can find the article. It was pretty scary.
15% protein is pretty good seeing as pure raw meat is something like 22% protein.
http://www.snopes.com/business/market/allbeef.asp
McDonald's uses 100% USDA inspected beef in their patties.
I stand corrected. Thanks for the link -- bummer it was only a hoax (or probably good that it was).
No prob.
Very good for me... All this talk of Mickey D's has me jonesin' for a burger.0 -
I finally read through all 11 pages.
Lindsey, no one is arguing that nutrients aren't important.
A calorie is a calorie. Eat less, move more to lose weight. That's it.0 -
Not really true either. If you just wanted to lose weight, then you'd actually want to increase your muscle loss as that will produce the most bang for your buck for your deficit. So, it matters there as well (though, obviously, I think that's a horrible strategy).
Not to mention if you don't get some baseline protein and fat in, you'll hurt your weight loss efforts as the body needs some essential fatty acids and essential amino acids on a regular basis. You'll totally screw up your system if you only ate 100% carbs, calorie deficit or not.
Okay what you just said makes no sense as a response to what I said...honestly...again you are talking about the quality of weight loss not just weight loss...
You always seem to "twist" things to make it "appear' you are correct...you are wrong...so dead wrong even zombies think you are one of them...
We are talking about losing weight..not the quality of the weight...
If I want to lose 10lbs and I don't care where it comes from I will eat in a calorie deficet...
if I want to lose 10lbs of fat I will eat in a calorie deficet and watch my macros and lift heavy, and I can do that while eating all my protien from Dairy Queen or MacDonalds or KFC or Taco bell...
I really don't understand how you can't follow this.
You need to be in a deficit either way. But depending on what you eat, you will achieve different results.
If you only want to lose weight -- but don't care how much or what percentage is fat versus LBM -- then, yes, you only need a deficit.
If you want to impact HOW you lose the weight or HOW MUCH weight you lose, then you need to focus on what you're eating as well as the deficit. That's all I'm saying -- that what you eat affects weight loss.0 -
I stand corrected. Thanks for the link -- bummer it was only a hoax (or probably good that it was).
No prob.
Very good for me... All this talk of Mickey D's has me jonesin' for a burger.
Do you have In-N-Outs where you live? Their burgers are the BEST!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions