Is a calorie alway just a calorie?

tsh0ck

A calorie is a calorie, not doubt about it but the nutritional content of each calorie isn't always the same as it depends on where the calories come from. So there are bad calories and good calories.

Are the good calories the ones that do all their homework, obey thier parents and don't get in trouble at school?

yes. but you forgot "don't eat after 7:34 p.m."

sullus

A calorie is a calorie, not doubt about it but the nutritional content of each calorie isn't always the same as it depends on where the calories come from. So there are bad SOURCES OF calories and good SOURCES OF calories.

*fixed.

Change_is_Good_

Don't listen to their lies! A calorie is not a calorie!

Sometimes it's a hat, or a brooch, maybe a pterodactyl....



Just kidding. Of course a calorie is a calorie.

Totes want a calorie brooch....

Only if there are matching earrings!

alishacupcake

calories are always the same, but what they provide & how they fill you up is different

This seems off to me. 12 oz of chicken breast is in the area of 400 calories and seems like it would be way more filling than shown. I could be wrong though. Also, in the last drawing how much of each? If you're eating mostly eggplant and spinach with only some beans maybe. However, if you're using a whole can of beans that's 350+ on their own.

I agree that the chicken seems a little off and the measurements would be nice on the beans and stuff but this picture is good in theory.

What does the sense of fullness have to do with calories or even health and weight loss for that matter?

I didn't say that it had anything to do with calories. I'm simply saying its a good illustration. It might not have anything to do with this subject but the illustration is good. You will be full if you eat more food that is less calories. Me personally I don't like being hungry. So I will eat the chicken instead of the oil (or whatever).

DavPul

calories are always the same, but what they provide & how they fill you up is different

This seems off to me. 12 oz of chicken breast is in the area of 400 calories and seems like it would be way more filling than shown. I could be wrong though. Also, in the last drawing how much of each? If you're eating mostly eggplant and spinach with only some beans maybe. However, if you're using a whole can of beans that's 350+ on their own.

I agree that the chicken seems a little off and the measurements would be nice on the beans and stuff but this picture is good in theory.

What does the sense of fullness have to do with calories or even health and weight loss for that matter?

Thank you

alishacupcake

calories are always the same, but what they provide & how they fill you up is different

This seems off to me. 12 oz of chicken breast is in the area of 400 calories and seems like it would be way more filling than shown. I could be wrong though. Also, in the last drawing how much of each? If you're eating mostly eggplant and spinach with only some beans maybe. However, if you're using a whole can of beans that's 350+ on their own.

I agree that the chicken seems a little off and the measurements would be nice on the beans and stuff but this picture is good in theory.

What does the sense of fullness have to do with calories or even health and weight loss for that matter?

Thank you

Again, I didn't say that it had anything to do with calories. I'm simply saying its a good illustration. It might not have anything to do with this subject but the illustration is good. You will be full if you eat more food that is less calories. Me personally I don't like being hungry. So I will eat the chicken instead of the oil (or whatever).

mmapags

calories are always the same, but what they provide & how they fill you up is different

This seems off to me. 12 oz of chicken breast is in the area of 400 calories and seems like it would be way more filling than shown. I could be wrong though. Also, in the last drawing how much of each? If you're eating mostly eggplant and spinach with only some beans maybe. However, if you're using a whole can of beans that's 350+ on their own.

I agree that the chicken seems a little off and the measurements would be nice on the beans and stuff but this picture is good in theory.

What does the sense of fullness have to do with calories or even health and weight loss for that matter?

Thank you

Again, I didn't say that it had anything to do with calories. I'm simply saying its a good illustration. It might not have anything to do with this subject but the illustration is good. You will be full if you eat more food that is less calories. Me personally I don't like being hungry. So I will eat the chicken instead of the oil (or whatever).

You keep stating that you think the illustration is good. Good for what? A full stomach does not nessesarily = satiety.

jonnythan

You will be full if you eat more food that is less calories.

This is absolutely true. But it's irrelevant to the discussion. In terms of weight, a calorie is a calorie. In terms of health and body composition, protein is protein (assuming it's complete). In terms of health, micronutrients are micronutrients.

These things are all related in certain ways, but the relations themselves are of no importance.

If you get the right amount of calories, the right amount of each macro, and the right amount of micronutrients, it doesn't matter how you get them.

It's foodism. It's almost like sexism. Where sexism is applying characteristics to an individual because of his or her gender, foodism is applying characteristics to individual foods because of certain categories like "processed" or "fast food" or whatnot.

The things we should be concerned with, in general, are calories, macronutrients, and micronutrients. Where they come from makes no difference whatsoever.

EmmaKarney

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

But some are going to fill you up more than others.

alishacupcake

I apologize if I am not making myself clear. I am saying yes, a calorie is always a calorie.

What I am trying to say (apparently badly) is that I feel more full if I eat the 400 calories of chicken as opposed to the 400 calories of oil. The calories are the same but I will feel more full and I don't like being hungry. So my main "plan" is to eat foods that are less calories so I can eat more food and feel more full. Which is what I interpreted from the illustration.

jonnythan

I apologize if I am not making myself clear. I am saying yes, a calorie is always a calorie.

What I am trying to say (apparently badly) is that I feel more full if I eat the 400 calories of chicken as opposed to the 400 calories of oil. The calories are the same but I will feel more full and I don't like being hungry. So my main "plan" is to eat foods that are less calories so I can eat more food and feel more full. Which is what I interpreted from the illustration.

We're on the same page. Sorry if I made it sound like I was arguing with you. Hard to keep track of who has said what, and I used your quote as a jumping off point.

mmapags

I apologize if I am not making myself clear. I am saying yes, a calorie is always a calorie.

What I am trying to say (apparently badly) is that I feel more full if I eat the 400 calories of chicken as opposed to the 400 calories of oil. The calories are the same but I will feel more full and I don't like being hungry. So my main "plan" is to eat foods that are less calories so I can eat more food and feel more full. Which is what I interpreted from the illustration.

I get what you are saying. I'm not sure you get what I am saying. For example I can eat a boatload so popcorn without butter. It won't have many calories and I'll feel very full. For about an hour.

Or I can have some rice, some veggies and some chicken and included in this will be some fats. I can be very satisfied for about 4 or 5 hours.

Additionally, the stomach expamds and contracts with volume. Volume is not the only thing that signals full to the brain. There is a large hormonal component that involves insulin, leptin and gherlin.

Stomach volume being filled =/= satiety.

alishacupcake

I apologize if I am not making myself clear. I am saying yes, a calorie is always a calorie.

What I am trying to say (apparently badly) is that I feel more full if I eat the 400 calories of chicken as opposed to the 400 calories of oil. The calories are the same but I will feel more full and I don't like being hungry. So my main "plan" is to eat foods that are less calories so I can eat more food and feel more full. Which is what I interpreted from the illustration.

I get what you are saying. I'm not sure you get what I am saying. For example I can eat a boatload so popcorn without butter. It won't have many calories and I'll feel very full. For about an hour.

Or I can have some rice, some veggies and some chicken and included in this will be some fats. I can be very satisfied for about 4 or 5 hours.

Additionally, the stomach expamds and contracts with volume. Volume is not the only thing that signals full to the brain. There is a large hormonal component that involves insulin, leptin and gherlin.

Stomach volume being filled =/= satiety.

I agree with what you are saying there. My thought was not to "eat a boatload of popcorn." It was more like eat foods that are better for you. Such as "rice, some veggies and some chicken." It's obvious you know how to be fit. I wouldn't go as far to say the same about me. I'm just saying in the past (as an overweight person) I ate large quantities of food that were heavy in calories. As I am trying to be healthier what works for me is eating large quantities of food that are less in calories. For instance to your "rice, some veggies and some chicken" I might add much more veggies to make the meal feel more filling for me while still staying within my calorie goal so that I can lose weight.

Jimmygymgym

THAT was funny!