A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie
Options
Replies
-
No. I was in better health and more energetic and more active because I'm not lazy and didn't just sit around all day complaining about the consequences of being lazy and overeating and making excuses. You did get the part where we all weren't eating the same amounts and I was eating a lot more than they were, right? Or were you too busy imagining how sugar could be blamed for all the world's problems?
Way to completely miss the point. I ate tons of sugar AND DID STUFF and was always in good health. Others SAT ON THE COUCH and did nothing else and even without eating a bunch of sugar they were in crappy health and overweight. It wasn't the amount of sugar any of us ate, it was the fact that I ate an appropriate amount of calories for my activity level, and they didn't.
When I was younger was thin and I ate tons of sugar while people sat around on the couch all day complaining that they couldn't eat like me because they'd gain weight if they did.I ate spoonfuls of sugar growing up.
* and Betty Crocker straight from the can.
I have known thin folks who ate a LOT of sugar--apparently their bio-chemistry could tolerate it (some people lack fructokinase and cannot even digest table sugar or fructose). But what has that to do with anything?
For some people, sugar seems to rev them up. For others, it makes them sluggish. Likely a lot of it has to do with the blood sugar/insulin levels mentioned earlier. High blood sugar makes people sluggish (the reason why many people cap Thanksgiving dinner with a nap). Low blood sugar often makes people wakeful, jittery and hyperactive. One of the first things that many pediatricians recommend for hyperactive children is that their parents cut way back or eliminate added sugar and chemical food additives from their diets and add in essential fatty acids. It appears to be beneficial for many.
No, I was quite aware of the point you were making but perhaps the difference between you and them was that you were feeling better (because of your better health) and more energetic, and THAT led to more activity. I know that when my arthritis is flaring up, I have a LOT less energy than other days when the inflammation has subsided. When I watch my granddaughters reaction to sweets it is interesting. The six-year-old (who is quite tall and slender) becomes lethargic and whiny when she eats candy (and always has). The effect is entirely different in her three-year-old sister, who is short and petite for her age, though quite muscular for one so young---you can actually see definition. She is already a budding athlete and becomes happily "supercharged" on candy. Their genetic inheritance is quite obviously different in spite of having the same mother and father. Judging others when we have not walked in their shoes is neither kind nor prudent.
Judging by the amount of hostility from sugar-eaters toward anyone who questions the safety of eating sugar, perhaps it IS part of the "world-problem" scenario. *cue* "What the world needs now, is
sweet ....it's the only thing that there's just too little of..." 
0 -
Either that or we're just sick of people blaming certain types of food for their own failings.
Haha. I'm so silly. Of course it's all sugar's fault. Or was it gluten. Or dietary cholesterol. Or saturated fat. It's hard to keep track of the current Evil Nutrient.0 -
It is certainly interesting how those who are bashing processed foods and blaming sugar for their levels of obesity are the ones with no pictures and locked diaries.0
-
It is certainly interesting how those who are bashing processed foods and blaming sugar for their levels of obesity are the ones with no pictures and locked diaries.
Well our paleo friend has put pictures up in another thread.0 -
Link to thread? Would like to see....0
-
On an unrelated note calories on packaging are usually kilocalories but say calories, I don't know why they do that.0
-
On an unrelated note calories on packaging are usually kilocalories but say calories, I don't know why they do that.
Actually the packaging normally says Calories. 1 Calorie = 1 kilocalorie = 1000 calories. For whatever reason, capital C calories means 1000 calories.0 -
A kilocalorie is a 1000 calories, I think it is confusing to use Cal instead of kcal. It would be like using Gram instead of kilograms for 1000 grams. It's MADNESS!!!On an unrelated note calories on packaging are usually kilocalories but say calories, I don't know why they do that.
Actually the packaging normally says Calories. 1 Calorie = 1 kilocalorie = 1000 calories. For whatever reason, capital C calories means 1000 calories.
0 -
A kilocalorie is a 1000 calories, I think it is confusing to use Cal instead of kcal. It would be like using Gram instead of kilograms for 1000 grams. It's MADNESS!!!On an unrelated note calories on packaging are usually kilocalories but say calories, I don't know why they do that.
Actually the packaging normally says Calories. 1 Calorie = 1 kilocalorie = 1000 calories. For whatever reason, capital C calories means 1000 calories.
0 -
bump0
-
A couple of years back I got totally involved in the whole food thing and found that my choices were so limited that when I went outside my normal everyday stuff I couldn't find anything to eat that didn't contain "bad" stuff so I often wouldn't eat. I mean it was great if I preplanned every second of my day but really who can do that! 0
-
A kilocalorie is a 1000 calories, I think it is confusing to use Cal instead of kcal. It would be like using Gram instead of kilograms for 1000 grams. It's MADNESS!!!On an unrelated note calories on packaging are usually kilocalories but say calories, I don't know why they do that.
Actually the packaging normally says Calories. 1 Calorie = 1 kilocalorie = 1000 calories. For whatever reason, capital C calories means 1000 calories.0 -
TBH, I just get down to the basics.... Calorie is a calorie, nothing less, nothing more... I think as long as we meet healthy macro goals, the view on processed vs whole foods aren't really that significant.
Humans get too bogged down into the details, whatever works for you really that makes you lose weight ????0 -
It is certainly interesting how those who are bashing processed foods and blaming sugar for their levels of obesity are the ones with no pictures and locked diaries.
I don't have any issues opening my diary. I don't log all the time, though, generally just to double check myself to make sure reality matches where my brain is.
Also, I think saying that I'm blaming sugar for anything is a gross misrepresentation of everything I've said in this thread.0 -
It is certainly interesting how those who are bashing processed foods and blaming sugar for their levels of obesity are the ones with no pictures and locked diaries.
I don't have any issues opening my diary. I don't log all the time, though, generally just to double check myself to make sure reality matches where my brain is.
Also, I think saying that I'm blaming sugar for anything is a gross misrepresentation of everything I've said in this thread.
He wasn't talking about you.0 -
TBH, I just get down to the basics.... Calorie is a calorie, nothing less, nothing more... I think as long as we meet healthy macro goals, the view on processed vs whole foods aren't really that significant.
Humans get too bogged down into the details, whatever works for you really that makes you lose weight
My feelings on this are a bit in-depth, but I'll try to avoid a wall of text there.
Obviously, from an existentialism standpoint, a calorie is a calorie. From a human dietary standpoint, it's difficult to argue against the idea that different foods are handled and processed differently within our body. Some people tolerate some foods better than others - it comes down to individual body chemistry, current disease state, and about a thousand other variables.
I don't think anyone disagrees that losing weight on a calorie restricted diet is possible. Many people do it. I could drop down to 1800kcal, at a 50/30/20 type ratio of carb/pro/fat, and lose weight. I've done it. From experience, I'm going to be pretty hungry all the time, and my blood sugar is going to be poorly controlled (I'm T2 diabetic), which will result in raised triglycerides.
Switching to a diet that's in the 65-80/15-30/<5 fat/protein/carb range has both greatly increased satiety (I no longer get hungry at 1800kcal, and find I lose weight just fine at 2200kcal -- some days I don't eat close to that, because I'm just not super hungry) and allows me to lose weight at a decent pace. It's far more maintainable, comfortable, and easy.
I'm not bashing processed foods. In general, I try to avoid them if a better option exists, simply because it seems to make sense to me (as weight loss is not the only goal I have) to avoid imbibing as many chemicals as are in some processed foods, but I'm far from a hardliner on it. If it's what I have, I'll eat it.
I eat according to my macros as well. My macros are just considerably different than yours. And that's cool. You've found something that you can live with that works for you, I've found something that works for me. Do I think sugar is bad, for me? Absolutely. Do I think sugar is bad for humans in general? I think the possibility exists, but we need to do some science to see what comes up.0 -
It is certainly interesting how those who are bashing processed foods and blaming sugar for their levels of obesity are the ones with no pictures and locked diaries.
I don't have any issues opening my diary. I don't log all the time, though, generally just to double check myself to make sure reality matches where my brain is.
Also, I think saying that I'm blaming sugar for anything is a gross misrepresentation of everything I've said in this thread.
He wasn't talking about you.
Fair 'nuff.0 -
I would be interested in seeing what would happen to someone if they ate a diet of primarily table sugar for a week or two.
Another interesting consideration would be to examine the people who lost weight with low fat, calorie deficit diets both before and afterwards, determining exactly how much carbohydrate restriction they employed just as a mechanism of going from SAD to LFCD.
Of course, these studies have not been done. The first because any sane person realizes it's unhealthy and the second because no good reason that I can think of.
Uh... the Twinkie diet.
^^^^ The twinkie diet. 10 weeks eating primarily twinkies/junk food (2/3 of his intake) at a calorie deficit.
Every know health marker improved. Weight down. Bad cholesterol down. Good cholesterol up. Triglycerides down. Body fat down. and so on and so forth.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html0 -
So I've lost track of all the thoughts ideas and opinions in this thread and ive just really been the annoying gif poster but some how i think this fits in....
So here is the SIMPLE answer :laugh:
trying to place blame on one type of food or another is absurd. everything in moderation. its not sugars fault (stop picking on her she's just too sweet) its not proteins fault (he's just trying to build himself up) its not the carbohydrate and fat sisters faults (they're just trying to find a place to rest) alcohol (just wants to party)
Its the person behind the behavior!
Calories are energy that's all. just like you need a certain amount of fuel to run a car. you need a certain number of calories to run your body. Too much = a full tank,Too Little = a not so full tank and your car might break down
Like a car runs more efficiently based on the gas you use and the maintenance you keep. So does your body.
You have to find what your body runs the best on. Find the right fuel for your body in the right amounts. If you choose not to then your reap the consequences. and turn into one of these raving crazies that blame the food
A prime example, a diabetic cant eat things that spike their insulin - that's not just a candy bar or processed white bread, that's potatoes and corn too among other things (last i checked those were vegetables)
Someone lactose intolerant cant have dairy, last i checked dairy was an important part of a healthy diet. Its not the dairy thats the problem its the body right?
People are allergic to carrots
etc etc etc
If these people eat the things that negatively affect their systems they reap the consequences.
If you know your body cant handle a serving of sugar or carrots in your diet DON'T EAT IT!!
If you think about it "back in the day" they had junk food too. (before you jump on me) (Based on the types of diet in the time period you were raised in, junk food vs healthy food changes regularly. ) "back in the day" they didn't calorie count, they portion controlled and MOVED THEIR BUTTS!
If you don't lose weight with exercise and calorie restriction its still just as simple as figuring out what your body still needs to run the way its meant to.
Why does common sense have to be infected with science?
A calorie really is just a calorie - its purpose hasn't changed just the quality of it and the body of the person it goes into.
Ok back to my little corner of the world :bigsmile:1 -
So I've lost track of all the thoughts ideas and opinions in this thread and ive just really been the annoying gif poster but some how i think this fits in....
So here is the SIMPLE answer :laugh:
trying to place blame on one type of food or another is absurd. everything in moderation. its not sugars fault (stop picking on her she's just too sweet) its not proteins fault (he's just trying to build himself up) its not the carbohydrate and fat sisters faults (they're just trying to find a place to rest) alcohol (just wants to party)
Its the person behind the behavior!
Calories are energy that's all. just like you need a certain amount of fuel to run a car. you need a certain number of calories to run your body. Too much = a full tank,Too Little = a not so full tank and your car might break down
Like a car runs more efficiently based on the gas you use and the maintenance you keep. So does your body.
You have to find what your body runs the best on. Find the right fuel for your body in the right amounts. If you choose not to then your reap the consequences. and turn into one of these raving crazies that blame the food
A prime example, a diabetic cant eat things that spike their insulin - that's not just a candy bar or processed white bread, that's potatoes and corn too among other things (last i checked those were vegetables)
Someone lactose intolerant cant have dairy, last i checked dairy was an important part of a healthy diet. Its not the dairy thats the problem its the body right?
People are allergic to carrots
etc etc etc
If these people eat the things that negatively affect their systems they reap the consequences.
If you know your body cant handle a serving of sugar or carrots in your diet DON'T EAT IT!!
If you think about it "back in the day" they had junk food too. (before you jump on me) (Based on the types of diet in the time period you were raised in, junk food vs healthy food changes regularly. ) "back in the day" they didn't calorie count, they portion controlled and MOVED THEIR BUTTS!
If you don't lose weight with exercise and calorie restriction its still just as simple as figuring out what your body still needs to run the way its meant to.
Why does common sense have to be infected with science?
A calorie really is just a calorie - its purpose hasn't changed just the quality of it and the body of the person it goes into.
Ok back to my little corner of the world :bigsmile:
I'm sorry... but no one wants you to be logical here.
MOAR GIFS!1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions