A Calorie is a Caloire is a...... let's compare...
Options
Replies
-
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 -
I'd take the salmon minus the quinoa....b/c I love seafood. I'll take fish over steak anyday.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.
The problem with all this is that you can't point to any particular health effect caused by the burrito that's not caused by the other meal.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.
Answer the question, if you state it's "detrimental to overall health" then the answer should be clear.0 -
Well, a calorie is just a measure of energy, nothing more, so in that context a calorie is just a calorie and not to be confused with food preferences where their matrix is composed of different nutrients, which can have advantages or disadvantages for individuals and their goals based on context and dosage. Either meal could be beneficial depending on what else that person ate on any given day.
^ 100% this.
I'd go for the burrito in most situations due to taste.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.
The problem with all this is that you can't point to any particular health effect caused by the burrito that's not caused by the other meal.
huh? we're not talking about a particular health effect caused by either meal in a vacuum. simply that meal one is MORE nutritious than meal 2. Of course one meal in a vacuum won't make much of a difference to your overall health, but it all comes down to how consistently you make "good" or "bad" choices. (read: nutritious or less nutritious)
make more of the less nutritious choices, and you'll suffer the consequences whether those choices fit your calorie intake or not.
let me put it this way - at 26 I have more energy than I did when I was 16 and falling asleep in school, even though I've now got 8 thousand more things on my plate. people think getting sluggish and tired as you get older is just a "fact of life" - but it isn't. It's all based on what you put in your body as fuel. I know I'm still young, but it's my goal not to give in to the conventional wisdom that says you have to slow down as you age. Color me idealistic if you want, I'll gladly wear that label.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.
Answer the question, if you state it's "detrimental to overall health" then the answer should be clear.
i'm not arguing semantics with you. you know exactly what i'm saying.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.
Answer the question, if you state it's "detrimental to overall health" then the answer should be clear.
i'm not arguing semantics with you. you know exactly what i'm saying.
Not semantics, answer the question. Or is it that you won't answer it, since it directly contradicts the nonsense that was spouted above?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.
Answer the question, if you state it's "detrimental to overall health" then the answer should be clear.
i'm not arguing semantics with you. you know exactly what i'm saying.
Not semantics, answer the question. Or is it that you won't answer it, since it directly contradicts the nonsense that was spouted above?
please see my answer to jonnythan. thanks.0 -
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.But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.
Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
"That's where the head scratching comes," Haub said. "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?"
Despite his temporary success, Haub does not recommend replicating his snack-centric diet.
"I'm not geared to say this is a good thing to do," he said. "I'm stuck in the middle. I guess that's the frustrating part. I can't give a concrete answer. There's not enough information to do that."
Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.
So he ate a bit of veg and had vitamins 'artificially'.
All the evidence we have points to his body being healthier than he was before.0 -
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.But you might expect other indicators of health would have suffered. Not so.
Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
"That's where the head scratching comes," Haub said. "What does that mean? Does that mean I'm healthier? Or does it mean how we define health from a biology standpoint, that we're missing something?"
Despite his temporary success, Haub does not recommend replicating his snack-centric diet.
"I'm not geared to say this is a good thing to do," he said. "I'm stuck in the middle. I guess that's the frustrating part. I can't give a concrete answer. There's not enough information to do that."
Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.
So he ate a bit of veg and had vitamins 'artificially'.
All the evidence we have points to his body being healthier than he was before.
and yet even he says you shouldn't do it.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions