Calories are calories, but ...

elsalily

I'm just going to complete, and try to clarify my answer, the 5pm thing comes from the principles of chrono-nutrition, and is also applicable more for those of us who work out in the morning, not late afternoon - night time.

It's just stemming from the fact that if your activity is going to decrease at night you should eat less at night. (and your metabolism does decrease while you're sleeping, even if just a little- and before that as I said it depends on your level of activity, and whether it varies from the rest of the day).
Of course your body can process food the same all day long but apparently you tend to store more fat depending on what you eat starting late afternoon.
Again this coming from my teacher, your dinner should only represent 25-30% of your daily calorie intake.
But eveyone finds their own ways of losing weight, and what works for some might not work for others.

This is so untrue. Your body doesn't "clock" it's burning abilities. Straight up, you could overeat in the morning and little in the evening and have a surplus which means you'd gain weight. Pseudoscience like this needs to be debunked so that people that come on here don't get confused.
If you are in deficit by the end of the day you're fine regardless of what times you take those calories in.


A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Okay, I was saying this implying of course that you're staying within the deficit. (that much seemed so obvious i didn't say it, sorry)
This recommandation comes from my fitness teacher's nutrionnist but hey he might be wrong

halfasandwich

I like that.

missikay1970

first i'm confused as to why you would post this unless you are feeling a need to change the behavior. if you feel prompted to stop eating the gummies and sugar snacks, then STOP. dont' rely on posts from others to decide what is best for your body.

second, i don't believe all calories are equal. i guess it depends on what your goals are. my goal is to live a healthier lifestyle (compared to what i did before, not compared to others) and for me, it means giving up sweets almost exclusively. (VERY rarely will i have something sweet.) for someone else, their goal might be to eat a certain number of calories per day and as long as they are losing weight, they don't care what the content of those calories is.

for myself, i believe that 100 calories of fresh veggies and chicken (for example) is a far better choice than 50 calories of candy, gum, soda, etc. that is a personal choice of mine. i have no clue how my body burns it, whether it "sees" these calories as different, but I DO. i feel better when i choose healthy whole foods over sugary processed ones, no matter what the calorie intake might be.

good luck with your choices

funkycamper

To the OP, 70-100 calories is a very small percentage of your daily total. If it makes you happy and helps you stay on your eating plan by eating that small amount of treats each day, go for it. If it's stressful for you or creating urges to eat more sugar, you might want to limit it.

To the posters who are going on tangents about not eating junk to diet, eating nutritiously for weight loss, etc.....well, oh, my goodness. I didn't pay attention to the total calories the OP is eating each day but let's say it's just the bare minimum of 1200/day. Then if she's eating 100 calories in treats, it's only 8.33% of her total calories. If she keeps it at the 70 calories, it's like 5.88%. If someone is eating healthy the other 91.77% or 94.12% of their day, do you really think that negligible amount is going to make them unhealthy? Oh, please.

ahinski

When it comes to weight loss: Calories are calories. No buts.

HOWEVER, people generally lose weight for reasons beyond a number on a scale, and eating healthful foods is going probably help with their fitness goals and body composition goals more than eating a deficit consisting of 0 fruits and vegetables and all simple carbohydrates. Not saying people won't lose weight on it and not saying it should be cut from the diet (I eat it semi-often), but it obviously shouldn't compromise the entire caloric allowance.

You should google "the Twinkie diet." A university professor of nutrition ate nothing but snack cakes, chips, and convenience store junk food, along with 1 protein shake, a multivitamin, and a can of vegetables. He stuck to a caloric deficit, lost nearly 30 pounds and all of his health markers (body fat, triglycerides, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc) improved. Losing weight is much more Important for overall health than specific food choices. Obviously the ideal is healthier food while losing weight, but that's not always totally practical for everybody.

Oh god, if I hear about this twinkie diet one more time...

In the real world, no one would ever do that to their body (nor should they). Calories are calories, but your metabolism is designed to adapt to however many calories you give it and it is constantly trying to reach equilibrium. Stay on a 500 calorie deficit long enough and watch the plateau set in, and then tell me calories are calories.

Lose enough weight, and your calories expended will equal your calories ingested, if you fail to adjust either number over time, of course a plateau will set in. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything. You lose weight, you naturally burn less calories, if you don't decrease the calories you eat or increase exercise to compensate, eventually the 2 numbers will match.

How does that at all prove that a calories isn't a calorie? Calories are calories. It's that simple.

I did say that calories are calories... but that's just the beginning.

i also said a "500 calorie deficit" for long enough will result in a plateau (without variation and proper nutrition)... 500 calorie deficit implies that your total calories eaten changes as your body changes.

ahinski

Not all calories are created equals...100 calories of broccoli is not the same as 100 calories of sugar. Different types of food send different messages to our body. Sugar should be avoided as much as possible. Maybe you should try to eat your sugary treats only once a week or so, so pretty soon you will not feel the need to eat sugar anymore.

A calorie is a calorie. 100 calories of sugar is equal to 100 calories of fat. The laws of thermodynamics don't change here.
Macro/micronutrient contents is different though. They signal what hormones the body will secrete to use them.


A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

No, not all calories are created equal. Your body burns some foods more quickly than it burns others (of equal calories). I'm not a personal trainer or kickboxing instructor and I haven't even been alive for 28+ but I do know that much.

missikay1970

To the OP, 70-100 calories is a very small percentage of your daily total. If it makes you happy and helps you stay on your eating plan by eating that small amount of treats each day, go for it. If it's stressful for you or creating urges to eat more sugar, you might want to limit it.

To the posters who are going on tangents about not eating junk to diet, eating nutritiously for weight loss, etc.....well, oh, my goodness. I didn't pay attention to the total calories the OP is eating each day but let's say it's just the bare minimum of 1200/day. Then if she's eating 100 calories in treats, it's only 8.33% of her total calories. If she keeps it at the 70 calories, it's like 5.88%. If someone is eating healthy the other 91.77% or 94.12% of their day, do you really think that negligible amount is going to make them unhealthy? Oh, please.

i see your point with the % of "unhealthy" food, but if it is so negligible, then why is she posting about it? she is obviously not happy with what she is doing or she wouldn't mention it. i think 8% of my total calories devoted to junk food is too much for me, but that's only my opinion. i don't think it's for everyone, but i try to eat as healthy as i can b/c of my family history and wanting to lead a healthier lifestyle than i did previously.

kittenmitton

Nutritional content of your food does not matter. It is solely the amount of calories you eat.

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

^This guy ate straight up junk food for 10 weeks and lost 27 pounds. If you're concerned about vitamins (though you likely don't need to be since so many foods have vitamins and minerals in them), you may want to speak to your doctor. Granted, it's a good idea to speak to your doctor when starting a diet, anyways.

Calipalm

I'm glad this was asked, because i too have been wondering about this...

missikay1970

Nutritional content of your food does not matter. It is solely the amount of calories you eat.

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

^This guy ate straight up junk food for 10 weeks and lost 27 pounds. If you're concerned about vitamins (though you likely don't need to be since so many foods have vitamins and minerals in them), you may want to speak to your doctor. Granted, it's a good idea to speak to your doctor when starting a diet, anyways.

that was for 10 weeks, but you can't do that your entire life. for me, i am creating a new healthy lifestyle, not just trying to lose weight. i'm not sure what the point is of wanting to lose weight and be fit if you are just going to fill your body with junk. in the LONG TERM, that is NOT a healthy way to live.

MaximalLife

Not all calories are created equals...100 calories of broccoli is not the same as 100 calories of sugar. Different types of food send different messages to our body. Sugar should be avoided as much as possible. Maybe you should try to eat your sugary treats only once a week or so, so pretty soon you will not feel the need to eat sugar anymore.

A calorie is a calorie. 100 calories of sugar is equal to 100 calories of fat. The laws of thermodynamics don't change here.
Macro/micronutrient contents is different though. They signal what hormones the body will secrete to use them.

^^^
THIS

I am seeking optimal health; mere weight loss is not enough.

jennsteff

My nutritionist says "calories are calories" BUT...and other have said this - it's more about your blood sugar reaction to it, being hungry sooner, and wanting to chase the sugar high. I used to get a mocha everyday, figuring that extra 50 calories of chocolate was just fine - however, I didn't realize that starting my day with sugar fueled my need for more! It wasn't the 50 calories, it was the other 100-200 of carbs I ended up eating.

Everyone has a different sensitivity to this stuff, so see what it is for you. Getting off sugar is brutal - but after a week or so it does get easier. Now, I have an Andes mint or two most days, but not first thing in the a.m. - and it doesn't seem to hurt too much and I'm losing weight. For me, the sugars in wine were holding me back much more!

Good luck! It's a journey

tigersword

Not all calories are created equals...100 calories of broccoli is not the same as 100 calories of sugar. Different types of food send different messages to our body. Sugar should be avoided as much as possible. Maybe you should try to eat your sugary treats only once a week or so, so pretty soon you will not feel the need to eat sugar anymore.

A calorie is a calorie. 100 calories of sugar is equal to 100 calories of fat. The laws of thermodynamics don't change here.
Macro/micronutrient contents is different though. They signal what hormones the body will secrete to use them.


A.C.E. Certified Personal Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

No, not all calories are created equal. Your body burns some foods more quickly than it burns others (of equal calories). I'm not a personal trainer or kickboxing instructor and I haven't even been alive for 28+ but I do know that much.

The amount of time a food takes to be digested is not the same as the amount of energy that same food provides. 1 calorie of energy is 1 calorie of energy, it doesn't matter what form it takes.

kittenmitton

Nutritional content of your food does not matter. It is solely the amount of calories you eat.

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

^This guy ate straight up junk food for 10 weeks and lost 27 pounds. If you're concerned about vitamins (though you likely don't need to be since so many foods have vitamins and minerals in them), you may want to speak to your doctor. Granted, it's a good idea to speak to your doctor when starting a diet, anyways.

that was for 10 weeks, but you can't do that your entire life. for me, i am creating a new healthy lifestyle, not just trying to lose weight. i'm not sure what the point is of wanting to lose weight and be fit if you are just going to fill your body with junk. in the LONG TERM, that is NOT a healthy way to live.

No one ever said it was healthy, just that it's possible. Also, someone who eliminates his favorite foods from his diet, such as cookies or chips, isn't going to help him lose any weight. In fact, it will make him more likely to go on an eating binge from denying cravings. It's ok to have a little bit of junk food once in a while. The point of this study the researcher did was to show that people living in food deserts can lose weight. The point can also be extended to show that it doesn't matter if you eat foods high in carbs, low in carbs, high in fat, low in fat, whatever: the only thing that matters are the calories you eat. I eat a buttload of salt and I'm perfectly healthy (granted, my doctor said it's ok to eat the amount of salt I eat anyways since I have low blood pressure (90/50), but that's not the point of what I'm trying to say).

Acg67

Here's a fun study, note the results of the diet that was 43% sucrose (table sugar)

Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high-sucrose diet during weight loss. Am J Clin Nutr. 1997 Apr;65(4):908-15.
www.ajcn.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf

Weight, REE, percentage total body fat, and percentage trunk body fat

Change in weight for the high- and low-sucrose groups across the course of the study is shown in Figure 1. There were
no significant differences between groups in mean weight, REE, percentage total body fat, or percentage trunk fat (Table
4). The time effect was significant for weight (P < 0.001, rı2 = 0.88), percentage total body fat (P < 0.001, rj2 0.51), percentage trunk fat (P < 0.001, rj2 0.50), REE (P < 0.001, ı2 0.54), and diastolic (P > 0.001, iı2 0.10) and systolic (P > 0.001, ı2 0.10) blood pressure; all scores decreased over the duration of the study. All group-by-time interactions were nonsignificant (Table 4), indicating that the groups did not differ in the magnitude of this decrease over the duration of the study, ie, there were no treatment effects. As also shown in Table 4, the proportion of variance explained by the interaction term was uniformly small for all variables.

Fasting glucose, TSH, FT3, and FT4

No significant group differences were found for fasting glucose, urine norepinephrine, TSH, VFı, or VF4 (Table 5).
There was a significant time effect for norepinephrine (P < 0.001, ı 0.15) and VF3 (P < 0.001, ij2 0.51), with concentrations decreasing over time. There was a small but significant increase over time in Ff4 (P = 0.001, ‘rj2 0.13). No significant group-by-time interactions were detected (Table 5).

Plasma lipids

Mean concentrations of fasting total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triacylglycerol were not significantly
different between groups (Table 6). The time effect was significant for all lipid measures: total cholesterol (P < 0.001, ı2 0.63), HDL cholesterol (P < 0.001, ij2 0.73), LDL cholesterol (P < 0.001, ‘q2 0.32), and triacyiglycerol (P 0.04, ı2 0.10). The time-by-group effect, however, was significant for total cholesterol (P = 0.009, ‘rı2 0.16) and LDL cholesterol (P = 0.014, ıj2 0.15), with the low-sucrose group exhibiting a larger decrease than the high-sucrose group for both of these measures (Table 6).

Psychologic and behavioral variables

There were no significant group differences in mean levels of hunger, negative affect, positive affect, depression, or anxiety,
or in the vigilance task (Table 7). The time effect was significant for negative affect (P < 0.001, tıj2 0.47), depression (P < 0.001, q2 0.29), positive affect (P < 0.001, ı 0.43), and the vigilance task (P = 0.005, q2 0.13), with all subjects improving on these measures. The time effect was also significant for hunger (P = 0.008, ij2 0.08); all subjects reported lower levels of hunger at the end of the study than at the beginning. No significant time-by-group interactions were detected.

itontae

You could eat ALL your 1200 calories as jelly tots each evening at 11pm then tumble into bed and you would still lose exactly the same amount of weight as 1200 calories of lean meat, whole grains and vegetables eaten by 6 pm each day.

You might feel a bit more bleaugh on the nighttime jelly tot diet

KaleidoscopeEyes1056

Not all calories are created equals...100 calories of broccoli is not the same as 100 calories of sugar. Different types of food send different messages to our body. Sugar should be avoided as much as possible. Maybe you should try to eat your sugary treats only once a week or so, so pretty soon you will not feel the need to eat sugar anymore.

This is broscience at it's finest. 100 calories of broccoli is exactly the same as 100 calories of sugar. Both are 100 calories. Sure, broccoli has much more of a health benefit, but you'll find out soon that if you try to avoid foods that you love completely, you'll be miserable and you won't be able to control yourself around them. There is no food that is innately horrible, but there are some that have more nutrients than others.

missikay1970

Nutritional content of your food does not matter. It is solely the amount of calories you eat.

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

^This guy ate straight up junk food for 10 weeks and lost 27 pounds. If you're concerned about vitamins (though you likely don't need to be since so many foods have vitamins and minerals in them), you may want to speak to your doctor. Granted, it's a good idea to speak to your doctor when starting a diet, anyways.

that was for 10 weeks, but you can't do that your entire life. for me, i am creating a new healthy lifestyle, not just trying to lose weight. i'm not sure what the point is of wanting to lose weight and be fit if you are just going to fill your body with junk. in the LONG TERM, that is NOT a healthy way to live.

No one ever said it was healthy, just that it's possible. Also, someone who eliminates his favorite foods from his diet, such as cookies or chips, isn't going to help him lose any weight. In fact, it will make him more likely to go on an eating binge from denying cravings. It's ok to have a little bit of junk food once in a while. The point of this study the researcher did was to show that people living in food deserts can lose weight. The point can also be extended to show that it doesn't matter if you eat foods high in carbs, low in carbs, high in fat, low in fat, whatever: the only thing that matters are the calories you eat. I eat a buttload of salt and I'm perfectly healthy (granted, my doctor said it's ok to eat the amount of salt I eat anyways since I have low blood pressure (90/50), but that's not the point of what I'm trying to say).

yes, i see your point. i also have low blood pressure and am required to eat more salt than the "average" person. i think each person has to make up their own mind on how to lose their weight. i have eliminated soda and cookies and cake and pie from my diet (aside from one piece of cake i had in december for my cousin's birthday) and i don't crave it and i don't binge on it. i can do without coke altogether, which is something i could have never said a year ago. i don't think it's fair to assume that b/c someone cuts something from their diet, they will automatically start wanting it more. i think the point of the study is different than the point i was trying to make, and that is the OP'er was asking about her intake of sugary sweets and weight loss, and to me, if you're asking about it, you must not feel very good about doing it. she can lose weight continuing the way she is, but my point was, why would you want to put "junk" into your body if you are trying to create a new healthier lifestyle? everyone is different, and i guess i just want to eat like that anymore, which is why i am here to begin with. i know alot of my friends eat anything and everything they want and stay under calorie goal and they are losing (not as rapidly as i am, i might add) but they ARE losing. but that is their choice. i don't want to eat like that anymore b/c i fear diabetes and heart disease, both of which run in my family.

missikay1970

Sure, broccoli has much more of a health benefit, but you'll find out soon that if you try to avoid foods that you love completely, you'll be miserable and you won't be able to control yourself around them. T

this isn't true 100% of the time. i have eliminated a TON of foods from my diet and i have not been miserable and i have been able to control myself just fine around said foods.

kristi_asco

ugh i do the same thing! i always find myself munching on a small handful of candy or whatnot but i still count it in with my MFP calorie tracking and i figure as long as i'm under my calorie goal then i should be okay!