A Calorie is a Caloire is a...... let's compare...
Replies
-
Ok, My friend and I were discussing this at an event we both were at. My friend brought a steak egg and cheese burrito from a local taco shop, and I brought almonds and raisins.
So he made the statement that his breakfast had way less calories than mine, and I'm sure it did, so were were discussing quality of Calories. he maintains that a calorie is a calorie.. (he's a former BB competitor and trainer and genetic freak, he sits at probably %12 BF on a Jack in the box as a diet, and he's 40 I hate him.) but I digress...
So I decided to put together two scenarios... lets say this is a mid meal, or breakfast whatever.. which would you rather eat, and why??
Option 1.
4 oz Baked Salmon, 3/4 cup Seeds of Change Organic Quinoa and Brown Rice, 1.6 oz of Raw Almonds
Calories: 675, Carbs: 44, Fat: 38, Protein: 39
Option 2.
Filiberto's Steak Egg and Cheese Burrito (for the record, you have to try one of these Alberto's, Roberto's, Alibertos, some kinda berto's ... all the same)
Calories: 660, Carbs, 44, Fat: 36, Protein: 40
Opinions?
a calorie is not a calorie.
#1 has FAR more NUTRIENTS than #2
anyone who says otherwise is simply fooling themselves
CAVEAT: for weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. For health purposes, this is no longer the case.0 -
You probably will get a lot more vitamins and nutrients from the first meal. Also its probably way better in terms of cholesterol and sodium. So I'd say the first meal is the better choice
But burritos are yummier!
0 -
Since both of those meals sound delicious and reasonably healthy....I would eat whichever I was in the mood for at the time....keeping in mind that I am very fond of salmon, and can get great Mexican food where I live anytime.0
-
I think it matters a great deal where your calories are coming from if your goal is optimum health and physical condition.
I'd definitely go for the salmon and almonds but leave the quinoa stuff on my plate (bleh!).
I often make burritos at home using lean meat/dairy and whole grain tortillas plus chopped cabbage or lettuce, tomatoes, and hot salsa. Major yum with minor calories.0 -
Which means very little as far as context and dosage is concerned.Ok, My friend and I were discussing this at an event we both were at. My friend brought a steak egg and cheese burrito from a local taco shop, and I brought almonds and raisins.
So he made the statement that his breakfast had way less calories than mine, and I'm sure it did, so were were discussing quality of Calories. he maintains that a calorie is a calorie.. (he's a former BB competitor and trainer and genetic freak, he sits at probably %12 BF on a Jack in the box as a diet, and he's 40 I hate him.) but I digress...
So I decided to put together two scenarios... lets say this is a mid meal, or breakfast whatever.. which would you rather eat, and why??
Option 1.
4 oz Baked Salmon, 3/4 cup Seeds of Change Organic Quinoa and Brown Rice, 1.6 oz of Raw Almonds
Calories: 675, Carbs: 44, Fat: 38, Protein: 39
Option 2.
Filiberto's Steak Egg and Cheese Burrito (for the record, you have to try one of these Alberto's, Roberto's, Alibertos, some kinda berto's ... all the same)
Calories: 660, Carbs, 44, Fat: 36, Protein: 40
Opinions?
a calorie is not a calorie.
#1 has FAR more NUTRIENTS than #2
anyone who says otherwise is simply fooling themselves
CAVEAT: for weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. For health purposes, this is no longer the case.
If a person only ate either meal and nothing else, then both meals are a fail. If the balance of their diet makes up all the nutrients they need then either meal works, it's called the big picture. 0 -
Whether for weight loss or not Reddy, the ENERGY unit of a calorie DOESN'T change from macronutrient to macronutrient. You can't change the value of energy because you disagree on the nutrient content. That's a different debate.Ok, My friend and I were discussing this at an event we both were at. My friend brought a steak egg and cheese burrito from a local taco shop, and I brought almonds and raisins.
So he made the statement that his breakfast had way less calories than mine, and I'm sure it did, so were were discussing quality of Calories. he maintains that a calorie is a calorie.. (he's a former BB competitor and trainer and genetic freak, he sits at probably %12 BF on a Jack in the box as a diet, and he's 40 I hate him.) but I digress...
So I decided to put together two scenarios... lets say this is a mid meal, or breakfast whatever.. which would you rather eat, and why??
Option 1.
4 oz Baked Salmon, 3/4 cup Seeds of Change Organic Quinoa and Brown Rice, 1.6 oz of Raw Almonds
Calories: 675, Carbs: 44, Fat: 38, Protein: 39
Option 2.
Filiberto's Steak Egg and Cheese Burrito (for the record, you have to try one of these Alberto's, Roberto's, Alibertos, some kinda berto's ... all the same)
Calories: 660, Carbs, 44, Fat: 36, Protein: 40
Opinions?
a calorie is not a calorie.
#1 has FAR more NUTRIENTS than #2
anyone who says otherwise is simply fooling themselves
CAVEAT: for weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. For health purposes, this is no longer the case.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Whether for weight loss or not Reddy, the ENERGY unit of a calorie DOESN'T change from macronutrient to macronutrient. You can't change the value of energy because you disagree on the nutrient content. That's a different debate.Ok, My friend and I were discussing this at an event we both were at. My friend brought a steak egg and cheese burrito from a local taco shop, and I brought almonds and raisins.
So he made the statement that his breakfast had way less calories than mine, and I'm sure it did, so were were discussing quality of Calories. he maintains that a calorie is a calorie.. (he's a former BB competitor and trainer and genetic freak, he sits at probably %12 BF on a Jack in the box as a diet, and he's 40 I hate him.) but I digress...
So I decided to put together two scenarios... lets say this is a mid meal, or breakfast whatever.. which would you rather eat, and why??
Option 1.
4 oz Baked Salmon, 3/4 cup Seeds of Change Organic Quinoa and Brown Rice, 1.6 oz of Raw Almonds
Calories: 675, Carbs: 44, Fat: 38, Protein: 39
Option 2.
Filiberto's Steak Egg and Cheese Burrito (for the record, you have to try one of these Alberto's, Roberto's, Alibertos, some kinda berto's ... all the same)
Calories: 660, Carbs, 44, Fat: 36, Protein: 40
Opinions?
a calorie is not a calorie.
#1 has FAR more NUTRIENTS than #2
anyone who says otherwise is simply fooling themselves
CAVEAT: for weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. For health purposes, this is no longer the case.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
but that's the debate people THINK they're having. lol of course the "energy content" is the same - does that mean you're able to metabolize and synthesize the same AMOUNT of that energy from each food? Nope.0 -
Which means very little as far as context and dosage is concerned.Ok, My friend and I were discussing this at an event we both were at. My friend brought a steak egg and cheese burrito from a local taco shop, and I brought almonds and raisins.
So he made the statement that his breakfast had way less calories than mine, and I'm sure it did, so were were discussing quality of Calories. he maintains that a calorie is a calorie.. (he's a former BB competitor and trainer and genetic freak, he sits at probably %12 BF on a Jack in the box as a diet, and he's 40 I hate him.) but I digress...
So I decided to put together two scenarios... lets say this is a mid meal, or breakfast whatever.. which would you rather eat, and why??
Option 1.
4 oz Baked Salmon, 3/4 cup Seeds of Change Organic Quinoa and Brown Rice, 1.6 oz of Raw Almonds
Calories: 675, Carbs: 44, Fat: 38, Protein: 39
Option 2.
Filiberto's Steak Egg and Cheese Burrito (for the record, you have to try one of these Alberto's, Roberto's, Alibertos, some kinda berto's ... all the same)
Calories: 660, Carbs, 44, Fat: 36, Protein: 40
Opinions?
a calorie is not a calorie.
#1 has FAR more NUTRIENTS than #2
anyone who says otherwise is simply fooling themselves
CAVEAT: for weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. For health purposes, this is no longer the case.
If a person only ate either meal and nothing else, then both meals are a fail. If the balance of their diet makes up all the nutrients they need then either meal works, it's called the big picture.
but people who eat the burrito are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to not eat well in their other meals.
Fact.0 -
I'd go for Option 1 but only because I don't like cheese :laugh:0
-
LOL, maybe in your world where what you say seems legit. The fact remains though, doesn't it?
Which means very little as far as context and dosage is concerned.Ok, My friend and I were discussing this at an event we both were at. My friend brought a steak egg and cheese burrito from a local taco shop, and I brought almonds and raisins.
So he made the statement that his breakfast had way less calories than mine, and I'm sure it did, so were were discussing quality of Calories. he maintains that a calorie is a calorie.. (he's a former BB competitor and trainer and genetic freak, he sits at probably %12 BF on a Jack in the box as a diet, and he's 40 I hate him.) but I digress...
So I decided to put together two scenarios... lets say this is a mid meal, or breakfast whatever.. which would you rather eat, and why??
Option 1.
4 oz Baked Salmon, 3/4 cup Seeds of Change Organic Quinoa and Brown Rice, 1.6 oz of Raw Almonds
Calories: 675, Carbs: 44, Fat: 38, Protein: 39
Option 2.
Filiberto's Steak Egg and Cheese Burrito (for the record, you have to try one of these Alberto's, Roberto's, Alibertos, some kinda berto's ... all the same)
Calories: 660, Carbs, 44, Fat: 36, Protein: 40
Opinions?
a calorie is not a calorie.
#1 has FAR more NUTRIENTS than #2
anyone who says otherwise is simply fooling themselves
CAVEAT: for weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. For health purposes, this is no longer the case.
If a person only ate either meal and nothing else, then both meals are a fail. If the balance of their diet makes up all the nutrients they need then either meal works, it's called the big picture.
but people who eat the burrito are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to not eat well in their other meals.
Fact.0 -
LOL, maybe in your world where what you say seems legit. The fact remains though, doesn't it?
Which means very little as far as context and dosage is concerned.Ok, My friend and I were discussing this at an event we both were at. My friend brought a steak egg and cheese burrito from a local taco shop, and I brought almonds and raisins.
So he made the statement that his breakfast had way less calories than mine, and I'm sure it did, so were were discussing quality of Calories. he maintains that a calorie is a calorie.. (he's a former BB competitor and trainer and genetic freak, he sits at probably %12 BF on a Jack in the box as a diet, and he's 40 I hate him.) but I digress...
So I decided to put together two scenarios... lets say this is a mid meal, or breakfast whatever.. which would you rather eat, and why??
Option 1.
4 oz Baked Salmon, 3/4 cup Seeds of Change Organic Quinoa and Brown Rice, 1.6 oz of Raw Almonds
Calories: 675, Carbs: 44, Fat: 38, Protein: 39
Option 2.
Filiberto's Steak Egg and Cheese Burrito (for the record, you have to try one of these Alberto's, Roberto's, Alibertos, some kinda berto's ... all the same)
Calories: 660, Carbs, 44, Fat: 36, Protein: 40
Opinions?
a calorie is not a calorie.
#1 has FAR more NUTRIENTS than #2
anyone who says otherwise is simply fooling themselves
CAVEAT: for weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. For health purposes, this is no longer the case.
If a person only ate either meal and nothing else, then both meals are a fail. If the balance of their diet makes up all the nutrients they need then either meal works, it's called the big picture.
but people who eat the burrito are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to not eat well in their other meals.
Fact.
oh i'm sorry, you don't think it's true that the person who eats the burrito is *more likely* to eat similar processed foods for his or her other meals? really? reeeeally?
we can keep arguing about this stupid crap, or you can try and help people instead of hinder. nutrients and micronutrients matter. even if you don't think so.0 -
lol0
-
LOL, maybe in your world where what you say seems legit. The fact remains though, doesn't it?
Which means very little as far as context and dosage is concerned.Ok, My friend and I were discussing this at an event we both were at. My friend brought a steak egg and cheese burrito from a local taco shop, and I brought almonds and raisins.
So he made the statement that his breakfast had way less calories than mine, and I'm sure it did, so were were discussing quality of Calories. he maintains that a calorie is a calorie.. (he's a former BB competitor and trainer and genetic freak, he sits at probably %12 BF on a Jack in the box as a diet, and he's 40 I hate him.) but I digress...
So I decided to put together two scenarios... lets say this is a mid meal, or breakfast whatever.. which would you rather eat, and why??
Option 1.
4 oz Baked Salmon, 3/4 cup Seeds of Change Organic Quinoa and Brown Rice, 1.6 oz of Raw Almonds
Calories: 675, Carbs: 44, Fat: 38, Protein: 39
Option 2.
Filiberto's Steak Egg and Cheese Burrito (for the record, you have to try one of these Alberto's, Roberto's, Alibertos, some kinda berto's ... all the same)
Calories: 660, Carbs, 44, Fat: 36, Protein: 40
Opinions?
a calorie is not a calorie.
#1 has FAR more NUTRIENTS than #2
anyone who says otherwise is simply fooling themselves
CAVEAT: for weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. For health purposes, this is no longer the case.
If a person only ate either meal and nothing else, then both meals are a fail. If the balance of their diet makes up all the nutrients they need then either meal works, it's called the big picture.
but people who eat the burrito are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to not eat well in their other meals.
Fact.
oh i'm sorry, you don't think it's true that the person who eats the burrito is *more likely* to eat similar processed foods for his or her other meals? really? reeeeally?
we can keep arguing about this stupid crap, or you can try and help people instead of hinder. nutrients and micronutrients matter. even if you don't think so.
What about anti nutrients, do they matter?0 -
Would that be classified as antimatter.
LOL, maybe in your world where what you say seems legit. The fact remains though, doesn't it?
Which means very little as far as context and dosage is concerned.Ok, My friend and I were discussing this at an event we both were at. My friend brought a steak egg and cheese burrito from a local taco shop, and I brought almonds and raisins.
So he made the statement that his breakfast had way less calories than mine, and I'm sure it did, so were were discussing quality of Calories. he maintains that a calorie is a calorie.. (he's a former BB competitor and trainer and genetic freak, he sits at probably %12 BF on a Jack in the box as a diet, and he's 40 I hate him.) but I digress...
So I decided to put together two scenarios... lets say this is a mid meal, or breakfast whatever.. which would you rather eat, and why??
Option 1.
4 oz Baked Salmon, 3/4 cup Seeds of Change Organic Quinoa and Brown Rice, 1.6 oz of Raw Almonds
Calories: 675, Carbs: 44, Fat: 38, Protein: 39
Option 2.
Filiberto's Steak Egg and Cheese Burrito (for the record, you have to try one of these Alberto's, Roberto's, Alibertos, some kinda berto's ... all the same)
Calories: 660, Carbs, 44, Fat: 36, Protein: 40
Opinions?
a calorie is not a calorie.
#1 has FAR more NUTRIENTS than #2
anyone who says otherwise is simply fooling themselves
CAVEAT: for weight loss purposes, a calorie is a calorie. For health purposes, this is no longer the case.
If a person only ate either meal and nothing else, then both meals are a fail. If the balance of their diet makes up all the nutrients they need then either meal works, it's called the big picture.
but people who eat the burrito are SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to not eat well in their other meals.
Fact.
oh i'm sorry, you don't think it's true that the person who eats the burrito is *more likely* to eat similar processed foods for his or her other meals? really? reeeeally?
we can keep arguing about this stupid crap, or you can try and help people instead of hinder. nutrients and micronutrients matter. even if you don't think so.
What about anti nutrients, do they matter?0 -
I would take the burrito...I don't care much for salmon so...0
-
Ok, My friend and I were discussing this at an event we both were at. My friend brought a steak egg and cheese burrito from a local taco shop, and I brought almonds and raisins.
So he made the statement that his breakfast had way less calories than mine, and I'm sure it did, so were were discussing quality of Calories. he maintains that a calorie is a calorie.. (he's a former BB competitor and trainer and genetic freak, he sits at probably %12 BF on a Jack in the box as a diet, and he's 40 I hate him.) but I digress...
So I decided to put together two scenarios... lets say this is a mid meal, or breakfast whatever.. which would you rather eat, and why??
Option 1.
4 oz Baked Salmon, 3/4 cup Seeds of Change Organic Quinoa and Brown Rice, 1.6 oz of Raw Almonds
Calories: 675, Carbs: 44, Fat: 38, Protein: 39
Option 2.
Filiberto's Steak Egg and Cheese Burrito (for the record, you have to try one of these Alberto's, Roberto's, Alibertos, some kinda berto's ... all the same)
Calories: 660, Carbs, 44, Fat: 36, Protein: 40
Opinions?
Definitely option 2. Why? Because I seriously dislike fish and quinoa, not a big fan of brown rice <totally dependent on what it's combined with> and I couldn't just have almonds for lunch. However, that burrito sounds awesome! Macro breakdown is way too close to eat something I would loathe, when I could have something I'd relish.0 -
Then they you educate them on macros and micros, but you DON'T confuse them on actual science when it comes to calories as units of energy.but that's the debate people THINK they're having. lol of course the "energy content" is the same - does that mean you're able to metabolize and synthesize the same AMOUNT of that energy from each food? Nope.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Then they you educate them on macros and micros, but you DON'T confuse them on actual science when it comes to calories as units of energy.but that's the debate people THINK they're having. lol of course the "energy content" is the same - does that mean you're able to metabolize and synthesize the same AMOUNT of that energy from each food? Nope.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
a calorie is a calorie is an excuse people like you perpetuate to let people think they can eat whatever they damn well please, so long as they're in a deficit.
to lose weight, that's true. but for some reason y'all never want to actually come out and say that you need to meet your micronutrient requirements in order to be healthy, and by following the advice you advocate, it's harder to do that.0 -
oh i'm sorry, you don't think it's true that the person who eats the burrito is *more likely* to eat similar processed foods for his or her other meals? really? reeeeally?
we can keep arguing about this stupid crap, or you can try and help people instead of hinder. nutrients and micronutrients matter. even if you don't think so.
Your referring to percentiles where something is more likely to happen based on epidemiology. You need to know this is not cause and effect and only correlation. The real science that has been repeated in this thread you've ignored, only because it doesn't conform to your thinking. No wonder epidemiology studies are considered the weapons of mass confusion. It all sounds legit, right, I mean you can come to any conclusion imaginable with this type of data. No surprise if this doesn't make any sense to you.....carry on.0 -
Then they you educate them on macros and micros, but you DON'T confuse them on actual science when it comes to calories as units of energy.but that's the debate people THINK they're having. lol of course the "energy content" is the same - does that mean you're able to metabolize and synthesize the same AMOUNT of that energy from each food? Nope.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
a calorie is a calorie is an excuse people like you perpetuate to let people think they can eat whatever they damn well please, so long as they're in a deficit.
to lose weight, that's true. but for some reason y'all never want to actually come out and say that you need to meet your micronutrient requirements in order to be healthy, and by following the advice you advocate, it's harder to do that.
So we've established that you don't understand standardized units of measurements.0 -
I'll take the burrito, just to annoy Reddy.0
-
I say it all the time. You must not read any of the other threads I post on.
Then they you educate them on macros and micros, but you DON'T confuse them on actual science when it comes to calories as units of energy.but that's the debate people THINK they're having. lol of course the "energy content" is the same - does that mean you're able to metabolize and synthesize the same AMOUNT of that energy from each food? Nope.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
a calorie is a calorie is an excuse people like you perpetuate to let people think they can eat whatever they damn well please, so long as they're in a deficit.
to lose weight, that's true. but for some reason y'all never want to actually come out and say that you need to meet your micronutrient requirements in order to be healthy, and by following the advice you advocate, it's harder to do that.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/663552-the-undeniably-best-way-to-lose-weight?hl=the+most+undeniable
I'm not going to spend time verifying it by searching my other posts I state it on, but the majority of IIFYM constituents here will say to meet your macro/micro nutrients daily, and if you have room for anything else (calorie wise) then eat it.
Just recant your anti statement of "a calorie is a calorie" because you KNOW scientifically it's actually true. And the truth sometimes hurts.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
Meal1, its got to look , taste & feel a healthy meal .0
-
I'll take the burrito, just to annoy Reddy.
:flowerforyou:0 -
instead of responding individually, i'll give you this
when you people say "a calorie is a calorie" - people glean MORE from that than just its literal interpretation. i'm not going to presume to know what people intend it to mean when they say it, but when people hear it they think "oh, that must mean it doesn't matter WHAT I eat, but only how much of it".
follow me so far?
that mindset - while adequate for weight loss - is detrimental to overall health. just because two things carry the same amount of energy, does not make them equally NOURISHING to the body. putting the same amounts of motor oil into two cars will impact the longevity of the engines differently depending on the quality of the oil. Same with the body.
so when you say "they carry the same amount of energy" you're intentionally or unintentionally misleading people. when you say "you're not looking at their diet as a whole" you're giving them a free pass. If you say that for one meal... and then the next... and then the next... pretty soon they've got a whole diet of foods that are CALORICALLY EQUIVALENT but NUTRITIONALLY DEFICIENT.
get it?
probably not.
but here's the bottom line - if you're on this site you've got one of these two options as your priority:
1) Weight Loss
2) Health
If you only care about #1, then go ahead and eat whatever the hell you want in a deficit
If you only care about #2, then you'll need to focus on more nutritionally dense foods, and the weight loss will happen automatically and be a welcomed bi-product of getting healthy.0 -
They both sound good but I would probably pick option one since I am a volume eater and I try to choose less calorie dense foods that are more filling. It allows me to stretch my 1400 cals so I am never hungry. If I had option two I would add a side salad for more volume.0
-
actually there was nutrition professor who proved that to his students, using twinkies and junk food. He stayed within his calorie range and did his normal exercise routine.. dropped 27 pounds....
Meanwhile becoming deficient in probably all of his micro nutrients. Many people are overfed or adequately fed and still starving; he is a perfect example of that.
His blood markers actually improved significantly
He did take a multi and a protein shake as far as I remember0 -
instead of responding individually, i'll give you this
when you people say "a calorie is a calorie" - people glean MORE from that than just its literal interpretation. i'm not going to presume to know what people intend it to mean when they say it, but when people hear it they think "oh, that must mean it doesn't matter WHAT I eat, but only how much of it".
follow me so far?
that mindset - while adequate for weight loss - is detrimental to overall health. just because two things carry the same amount of energy, does not make them equally NOURISHING to the body. putting the same amounts of motor oil into two cars will impact the longevity of the engines differently depending on the quality of the oil. Same with the body.
so when you say "they carry the same amount of energy" you're intentionally or unintentionally misleading people. when you say "you're not looking at their diet as a whole" you're giving them a free pass. If you say that for one meal... and then the next... and then the next... pretty soon they've got a whole diet of foods that are CALORICALLY EQUIVALENT but NUTRITIONALLY DEFICIENT.
get it?
probably not.
but here's the bottom line - if you're on this site you've got one of these two options as your priority:
1) Weight Loss
2) Health
If you only care about #1, then go ahead and eat whatever the hell you want in a deficit
If you only care about #2, then you'll need to focus on more nutritionally dense foods, and the weight loss will happen automatically and be a welcomed bi-product of getting healthy.
So when people lose weight do blood markers of health generally worsen or improve regardless of diet they followed to lose the weight?0 -
Here is a bit more detailed answer for those who would like to learn a bit of biology and dietary labeling. The answer is 'No' and 'Yes'. Every calorie is not actually the same when it comes to the actual science, but this has been largely corrected for on food labels and so for the purpose of dieting you usually don't need to worry. Ironically, the example using almonds is one case where this is NOT true and where a 'calorie is not a calorie'.
Calories, as noted above, are a unit of measure describing heat energy released during a chemical reaction. For organic compounds the reaction that matters is oxidation, which can be measured by combustion, even though oxidation in our bodies does not occur by combustion (lucky for us) but via more controlled chemical reactions, referred to in total as our 'metabolism'. Still, combustion is a handy estimator because both combustion and our metabolism use oxygen (O2) to break the carbon bonds in organic compounds and release energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) as a byproduct.
As it turns out, its not hard to prove that not all calories are created equal, especially with respect to our metabolism. The easiest example of this is the cellulose and lignin that occurs in plant material. Cellulose is actually just a long chain of sugars, but we don't have the chemical machinery in our bodies to break those long chains of sugars into ones we can use so for the most part it passes through our bodies undigested. You know and love this cellulose as part of your dietary 'fiber'. Now here's thing, there is a ton of carbon-bond energy in that cellulose and if you combust it, as you do when you burn wood or paper, it gives off a lot of calories for its mass (it is energy dense). Nonetheless, we can't eat wood or grass and access those cellulose calories (Animals like cows use microbes in their digestive tracts to do the conversions for them).
Also, it is very easy to show that our digestion is not anywhere near as efficient as combustion (as occurs in a bomb calorimeter, the simplest tool to measure calories). We come close with some simple sugars, like glucose, that are absorbed easily and used/stored efficiently by our cells but don't do anywhere near as good with absorbing or metabolizing most proteins. Things get even more complicated when you start working with the reality that foods are complex mixtures of different compounds and those mixtures can interact in funny ways. For example, adding fiber to most diets decreases the efficiency of absorbing other dietary components.
So, no, not every calorie is the same, but this was recognized long ago by people like Wilbur Atwater, who then attempted to work out some conversions between caloric values obtained from combustion and what we humans can actually absorb, convert and assimilate. Atwater gave us the rule of thumb conversions that go into most dietary labels, like 4 calories per gram for proteins and carbs and 9 per gram for fats. For most foods, these conversions come close enough for our needs and so for the most part its not worth losing much sleep over whether to eat one food or another.
Ironically, the example of almonds is one case where, at the moment, a 'calorie is not a calorie'. In 2012, a study by Novotny found that the energy we get from almonds is about 1/3 less than what is reported based on the Atwater values that go into nutrition labels. This is just an example of the challenge of estimating human-specific caloric values. Maybe food labels will be corrected...we'll see.0 -
instead of responding individually, i'll give you this
when you people say "a calorie is a calorie" - people glean MORE from that than just its literal interpretation. i'm not going to presume to know what people intend it to mean when they say it, but when people hear it they think "oh, that must mean it doesn't matter WHAT I eat, but only how much of it".
follow me so far?
that mindset - while adequate for weight loss - is detrimental to overall health. just because two things carry the same amount of energy, does not make them equally NOURISHING to the body. putting the same amounts of motor oil into two cars will impact the longevity of the engines differently depending on the quality of the oil. Same with the body.
so when you say "they carry the same amount of energy" you're intentionally or unintentionally misleading people. when you say "you're not looking at their diet as a whole" you're giving them a free pass. If you say that for one meal... and then the next... and then the next... pretty soon they've got a whole diet of foods that are CALORICALLY EQUIVALENT but NUTRITIONALLY DEFICIENT.
get it?
probably not.
but here's the bottom line - if you're on this site you've got one of these two options as your priority:
1) Weight Loss
2) Health
If you only care about #1, then go ahead and eat whatever the hell you want in a deficit
If you only care about #2, then you'll need to focus on more nutritionally dense foods, and the weight loss will happen automatically and be a welcomed bi-product of getting healthy.
So when people lose weight do blood markers of health generally worsen or improve regardless of diet they followed to lose the weight?
careful, we're getting to elite territory again. stop being intentionally obtuse.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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