A Calorie is a Caloire is a...... let's compare...

show previous quotes

i'm not a nutritionist and don't have that information off the top of my head - also, i don't have an ingredient list or nutrition facts for both meals... so it's kind of difficult to compare. get me the info and i'll tell you what i think about it as specifically as i can.

Great. I look forward to it.

dude here's the deal YOU told me yourself you're tired, lethargic, feeling old - and you eat nothing but processed foods.

that ALONE is evidence that I'm right. for some reason you're just buying into the fact that it's "normal" to feel that way as you age.

show previous quotes

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.

It's only "more nutritious" when you define nutrition to include vague statements or extrapolate the one food to all other food the person eats.

You say "you'll suffer the consequences" but you can't actually point to anything specifically about either food that will cause any particular consequences.

And the body does slow down as you get older. There's a reason that pro athletes peak and then decline, invariably, with age (unless you want to talk about much less physical sports or positions like golf, pitcher, etc). At 26 you're in your absolute prime. In 10 years your reactions will be slower, you will heal more slowly, you will be more prone to injury, etc. That is a fact of life. No matter what you eat that will happen.

Not just because I'm a Beachbody fanboy, but explain Tony Horton to me then, who kicks the pants off the 26 year olds he competes against. He's able to outperform the "kids" who work for Beachbody in just about every area of fitness. They do live chats and such, and in one of them he had some of the younger employees come up with challenges for him to do like pullups with an 80lb dumbbell between his feet. etc - he beat every one of the guys. he lost to a girl who could do more pistol squats. he's 54 years old

Genetics. It isn't diet. Tons of gifted athletes eat like kids whose parents are on vacation.

so why does HE feel it's diet? he was a fat kid.

show previous quotes

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.

It's only "more nutritious" when you define nutrition to include vague statements or extrapolate the one food to all other food the person eats.

You say "you'll suffer the consequences" but you can't actually point to anything specifically about either food that will cause any particular consequences.

And the body does slow down as you get older. There's a reason that pro athletes peak and then decline, invariably, with age (unless you want to talk about much less physical sports or positions like golf, pitcher, etc). At 26 you're in your absolute prime. In 10 years your reactions will be slower, you will heal more slowly, you will be more prone to injury, etc. That is a fact of life. No matter what you eat that will happen.

Not just because I'm a Beachbody fanboy, but explain Tony Horton to me then, who kicks the pants off the 26 year olds he competes against. He's able to outperform the "kids" who work for Beachbody in just about every area of fitness. They do live chats and such, and in one of them he had some of the younger employees come up with challenges for him to do like pullups with an 80lb dumbbell between his feet. etc - he beat every one of the guys. he lost to a girl who could do more pistol squats. he's 54 years old

Genetics. It isn't diet. Tons of gifted athletes eat like kids whose parents are on vacation.

so why does HE feel it's diet? he was a fat kid.

Because he went from being fat and untrained, and then when he started eating better and training it turned out he's an elite athlete? Personal experience in these matters really means nothing at all.

show previous quotes

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.

It's only "more nutritious" when you define nutrition to include vague statements or extrapolate the one food to all other food the person eats.

You say "you'll suffer the consequences" but you can't actually point to anything specifically about either food that will cause any particular consequences.

And the body does slow down as you get older. There's a reason that pro athletes peak and then decline, invariably, with age (unless you want to talk about much less physical sports or positions like golf, pitcher, etc). At 26 you're in your absolute prime. In 10 years your reactions will be slower, you will heal more slowly, you will be more prone to injury, etc. That is a fact of life. No matter what you eat that will happen.

Not just because I'm a Beachbody fanboy, but explain Tony Horton to me then, who kicks the pants off the 26 year olds he competes against. He's able to outperform the "kids" who work for Beachbody in just about every area of fitness. They do live chats and such, and in one of them he had some of the younger employees come up with challenges for him to do like pullups with an 80lb dumbbell between his feet. etc - he beat every one of the guys. he lost to a girl who could do more pistol squats. he's 54 years old

Genetics. It isn't diet. Tons of gifted athletes eat like kids whose parents are on vacation.

so why does HE feel it's diet? he was a fat kid.

Because he went from being fat and untrained, and then when he started eating better and training it turned out he's an elite athlete? Personal experience in these matters really means nothing at all.

so his athleticism is "genetics" but being overweight when he was younger isn't genetics.... got it.

how do any of us KNOW what he is and isn't genetically pre-disposed to?

show previous quotes

Burrito, I don't like fish.

absolutely the most shocking thing i've read all morning

Just trying to help! :drinker:

show previous quotes

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.

It's only "more nutritious" when you define nutrition to include vague statements or extrapolate the one food to all other food the person eats.

You say "you'll suffer the consequences" but you can't actually point to anything specifically about either food that will cause any particular consequences.

And the body does slow down as you get older. There's a reason that pro athletes peak and then decline, invariably, with age (unless you want to talk about much less physical sports or positions like golf, pitcher, etc). At 26 you're in your absolute prime. In 10 years your reactions will be slower, you will heal more slowly, you will be more prone to injury, etc. That is a fact of life. No matter what you eat that will happen.

Not just because I'm a Beachbody fanboy, but explain Tony Horton to me then, who kicks the pants off the 26 year olds he competes against. He's able to outperform the "kids" who work for Beachbody in just about every area of fitness. They do live chats and such, and in one of them he had some of the younger employees come up with challenges for him to do like pullups with an 80lb dumbbell between his feet. etc - he beat every one of the guys. he lost to a girl who could do more pistol squats. he's 54 years old

Genetics? It's anecdotal. I kick the **** out of people half my age too. Just the other day I did a 40" standing box jump. How many 49 year old 5' 7" dudes do you now can do that? And eat some "processed" foods to boot?

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

show previous quotes

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....

may i know how his lipid profile and gut health was featuring!

read the thread.

A calorie is a calorie just as a pound is a pound, Would you rather have a pound of feathers or pound of gold?

show previous quotes

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.

show previous quotes

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.

his blood work got better because he LOST fat . if he continued eating like that it wouldn't help his case nutritionally.

I'm a total heath nut BUT, in my younger years ....
I've lost weight on junk and I've gained weight eating clean AND vice versa so I'm just going to say it depends on how much you want to eat.

Eat junk = tiny bits of food; heart clogging saturated fats & chemically processed food for the whole day that may potentially lead to unnecessary surgeries later in life. OR ...
Eat healthy = eat more food & more often and stay fall longer while fueling your body with nutrient rich options for your skin, eyes, brain, heart, liver, kidneys, stomach and cholesterol.

Option 1) you're wasting your time losing it in the first place because you WILL gain it back. You haven't changed your habits!
Option 2) you're developing healthier eating habits, demolishing cravings for better mind, body & energy. (Bonus: glowing skin, less cellulite, more energy, less fat, more muscle.)

I'd go with option 2 any day over option 1. I'm terrified to drink tap water, eat processed food or non organic veggies & meat. I eat for longevity. I'm not 20 anymore.
But yes you can lose weight either way.
I chose to live long & look 20 at 40.

As for this "FRIEND" he's an ex body builder, do NOT compare yourself to him. He's done the work to get there and due to his high volume of muscle, his metabolism can handle those type of meals. But he too will eventual pay the price we're all going to pay for abusing our bodies.
Mark my words ... ONE DAY!

and as previously said, nobody said he eats like this every meal everyday!

I believe in MODERATION!

If you need your fix, get it.

show previous quotes

I'm a total heath nut BUT, in my younger years ....
I've lost weight on junk and I've gained weight eating clean AND vice versa so I'm just going to say it depends on how much you want to eat.

Eat junk = tiny bits of food; heart clogging saturated fats & chemically processed food for the whole day that may potentially lead to unnecessary surgeries later in life. OR ...
Eat healthy = eat more food & more often and stay fall longer while fueling your body with nutrient rich options for your skin, eyes, brain, heart, liver, kidneys, stomach and cholesterol.

Option 1) you're wasting your time losing it in the first place because you WILL gain it back. You haven't changed your habits!
Option 2) you're developing healthier eating habits, demolishing cravings for better mind, body & energy. (Bonus: glowing skin, less cellulite, more energy, less fat, more muscle.)

I'd go with option 2 any day over option 1. I'm terrified to drink tap water, eat processed food or non organic veggies & meat. I eat for longevity. I'm not 20 anymore.
But yes you can lose weight either way.
I chose to live long & look 20 at 40.

As for this "FRIEND" he's an ex body builder, do NOT compare yourself to him. He's done the work to get there and due to his high volume of muscle, his metabolism can handle those type of meals. But he too will eventual pay the price we're all going to pay for abusing our bodies.
Mark my words ... ONE DAY!

There wouldn't happen to exist a middle ground between the two endpoints you've listed?

absolutely, but that's the grey area. how much "moderation" is too much? I subscribe to the 90/10 rule, for others it's a 75/25 rule, for others it's 50/50

there has to be a threshold - just no one knows where that is because nutrition is far from an exact science.

Meh, neither, because I don't eat meat. However, when I did eat meat, I really liked fish, so I probably would go with the salmon option. Unless I had to cook it myself, then I'd go for the burrito, cause I really hate cooking.

There are people that have smoked cigarettes their whole life and are 90+ years old.. Would you recommend smoking to people?

There are different kinds of fats, carbs, and proteins. Looking at just the macro nutrient as a whole, they look equal but they are not.

He's also missing out on a lot of micronutrients, antioxidants, phytochemical, and zoochemicals as well...

After reading some of the posts I agree with, that calorie is just a measuring tool for energy and heat (joule).

I guess it is the same question as; "What is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?"

Numeric they are the same, but by volume they are different. I think this is the same with calories in different foods. How they are composed and how the body can use/break it down most efficient.

So, from the numeric standpoint, both meals are alomst the same, but in "volume" they are different. I think both arguments are correct here, or you could say no one is wrong.