Calories are NOT equal

1…1011131516…28

Replies

  • VixenInTraining
    VixenInTraining Posts: 80
    Eh whatever. I lost over 60 pounds eating white bread, pasta, bacon, fast food, chips, cookies icecream every farging day. I hate fruits and veggies, never touch them don't plan on it. I have donuts and coffee from dunkin for breakfast, mcdonalds cheeseburg and fries for lunch and then dinner is whatever the heck i feel like. Usually a meat and heaping pile of mashed potatoes. I stayed under my calories every day and BAM 60 pounds gone. My last doctors visit all my bloodwork came back great. Poo on you and your rabbit foodz haha
  • tigersword
    tigersword Posts: 8,059 Member
    And what in the name of all that's holy is a macro, please? Sounds like something Hubs might put on my computer for playing MMORPGs.

    There are three (well, really four if you count alcohol) macros (macronutrient)

    Protein, Fats and Carbs.
    there r also some laboratory made macros - sugar alcohols. sweet as sugar but about half the cals.

    Um no... there isn't.

    He's right. Xylitol, sorbitol, etc. These are used in sugar-free gum and syrup, among other things. They taste sweet and are artificial but still have calories. The difference is they're sweeter than sugar so you need less and each molecule has fewer calories to boot. They're mostly found in nature, but produced synthetically.

    Those are considered carbs.
    carbs have about 4cal per gram. these have less.
    Calorie count is irrelevant. Fiber is also considered a carb, yet it has less than 4 calories per gram. A carbohydrate is a molecule containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Sugar alcohols are made from sugar (also a carbohydrate.) Sugar Alcohols are a type of carbohydrate, which is why you will find them under the carbohydrate heading on nutrition labels.
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    Well, that one guy Morgan Spurlock (i think that was his name) did that 30 day McDonalds ONLY menu, and he ended up getting really sick after about day 27 and couldn't continue.

    then again, a homeless person who is starving might be able to survive another 30 days by eating McDonalds.

    then again, someone on MFP can eat McDonalds sometimes but they also eat other foods elsewhere.

    That guy was full of crap.

    I was traveling last year for three months and ate fast food 3x per day nearly the entire time. I lost 45lbs and felt great.

    As a contrast to that, for years I ate three to four thousand calories a day of home prepared food, including lots of fruit and vegetables, and got fat and sick. Purely anecdotal evidence, I accept, but these two data points suggest that quantity is far more important than perceived 'quality'.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Well, that one guy Morgan Spurlock (i think that was his name) did that 30 day McDonalds ONLY menu, and he ended up getting really sick after about day 27 and couldn't continue.

    then again, a homeless person who is starving might be able to survive another 30 days by eating McDonalds.

    then again, someone on MFP can eat McDonalds sometimes but they also eat other foods elsewhere.

    That guy was full of crap.

    I was traveling last year for three months and ate fast food 3x per day nearly the entire time. I lost 45lbs and felt great.

    As a contrast to that, for years I ate three to four thousand calories a day of home prepared food, including lots of fruit and vegetables, and got fat and sick. Purely anecdotal evidence, I accept, but these two data points suggest that quantity is far more important than perceived 'quality'.

    Make that 3. Look at my ticker, then look at this graph.

    lipids.png
  • jillybeansalad
    jillybeansalad Posts: 239 Member
    I like Coca-Cola. It is worth the calories. I also enjoy carbs. I build muscle (which helps me burn fat).

    Moderation and vigilance. I'm going to enjoy my life, even if I break the record for "longest life lived," it's too short.
  • margaretturk
    margaretturk Posts: 5,202 Member
    I agree with what WestCoastPhoe said.


    I alsobelieve we all make choices in what we eat. You know yourself best what works for you. I know for myself when I eat more fruits and vegetables and less processed food I do feel better. Is my diet perfect? NOOOOOO! I just try to remember I eat to live rather than live to eat. Life is more fun for me when I feel healthy and strong. To all my fellow MFP may you find the lifestyle diet that works for you. I also appreciate the support I receive on this site.:smile:
  • Cindyinpg
    Cindyinpg Posts: 3,902 Member
    Is this really true? I always thought that all food are alright in moderation, but that it's generally better to eat non processed food because it have more beneficial nutrients compared to, say, McDonalds each day. Is there really no evidence that suggests this?

    Well, that one guy Morgan Spurlock (i think that was his name) did that 30 day McDonalds ONLY menu, and he ended up getting really sick after about day 27 and couldn't continue.

    then again, a homeless person who is starving might be able to survive another 30 days by eating McDonalds.

    then again, someone on MFP can eat McDonalds sometimes but they also eat other foods elsewhere.

    Could have something to do with the fact that he was eating 4000+ calories a day.
    Yeah, he had to Supersize every time the cashier asked him if he wanted to. The whole 'documentary' was ridiculous and made no point whatsoever except that it is not healthy to be a complete glutton.
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    I agree with what WestCoastPhoe said.


    I alsobelieve we all make choices in what we eat. You know yourself best what works for you. I know for myself when I eat more fruits and vegetables and less processed food I do feel better. Is my diet perfect? NOOOOOO! I just try to remember I eat to live rather than live to eat. Life is more fun for me when I feel healthy and strong. To all my fellow MFP may you find the lifestyle diet that works for you. I also appreciate the support I receive on this site.:smile:

    That's a healthy attitude, in my opinion. By all means eat clean because you like to and it makes you feel better. But don't do it because you feel you have to, and don't try to shame others into doing the same.
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    Is this really true? I always thought that all food are alright in moderation, but that it's generally better to eat non processed food because it have more beneficial nutrients compared to, say, McDonalds each day. Is there really no evidence that suggests this?

    Well, that one guy Morgan Spurlock (i think that was his name) did that 30 day McDonalds ONLY menu, and he ended up getting really sick after about day 27 and couldn't continue.

    then again, a homeless person who is starving might be able to survive another 30 days by eating McDonalds.

    then again, someone on MFP can eat McDonalds sometimes but they also eat other foods elsewhere.

    Could have something to do with the fact that he was eating 4000+ calories a day.
    Yeah, he had to Supersize every time the cashier asked him if he wanted to. The whole 'documentary' was ridiculous and made no point whatsoever except that it is not healthy to be a complete glutton.

    Yep. It was completely unscientific because it didn't isolate food choice from quantity consumed.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member

    I love the people who actually debated this, but for those who exploded with defensiveness and hate, makes me see a nerve was hit in a big way...I wonder why that is.

    I think it could be because you are seeing what you want to see.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    And what in the name of all that's holy is a macro, please? Sounds like something Hubs might put on my computer for playing MMORPGs.

    There are three (well, really four if you count alcohol) macros (macronutrient)

    Protein, Fats and Carbs.
    there r also some laboratory made macros - sugar alcohols. sweet as sugar but about half the cals.

    Already been mentioned - but they are still considered carbs.
  • baptiste565
    baptiste565 Posts: 590 Member
    And what in the name of all that's holy is a macro, please? Sounds like something Hubs might put on my computer for playing MMORPGs.

    There are three (well, really four if you count alcohol) macros (macronutrient)

    Protein, Fats and Carbs.
    there r also some laboratory made macros - sugar alcohols. sweet as sugar but about half the cals.

    Um no... there isn't.

    He's right. Xylitol, sorbitol, etc. These are used in sugar-free gum and syrup, among other things. They taste sweet and are artificial but still have calories. The difference is they're sweeter than sugar so you need less and each molecule has fewer calories to boot. They're mostly found in nature, but produced synthetically.

    Those are considered carbs.
    carbs have about 4cal per gram. these have less.
    Calorie count is irrelevant. Fiber is also considered a carb, yet it has less than 4 calories per gram. A carbohydrate is a molecule containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Sugar alcohols are made from sugar (also a carbohydrate.) Sugar Alcohols are a type of carbohydrate, which is why you will find them under the carbohydrate heading on nutrition labels.
    sorry, not correct. fiber is a carb so it has 4 cals. it is just that r bodies do not digest it well to get all the cals from it. sugar alcohols are a kind alcohol made from carbs. the alcohol that we drink is made from carbs but it is not a carb. it is ethyl alcohol 7cals per gram.
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    Ever notice that its almost always relative newbies claiming that it's essential to eat clean, and old-timers who have lost 50+ pounds saying that it's rubbish. That speaks volumes if you ask me.
  • zombiefreak_oq
    zombiefreak_oq Posts: 12
    no i think as long as you eat a decent sized portion for example instead of eating the normal *for most plp* 2 or three mc dubbles eat one and log that in, it doesn't matter WHAT you eat it's how MUCH you eat!
  • mike_ny
    mike_ny Posts: 351 Member
    Calories strictly measured as energy units of different foods are equal going in. What varies are the processes used to digest not only different types of nutrients but even the same food depending on whether it it raw, cooked, mashed, etc... All food requires some energy expended by the body to digest it. Carbs are the most direct since breaking chains of sugars into glucose is about as simple as it gets, so for carbs you will net closer to 100% of the calories you take in. Fats take more energy to break down and probably net more like 75% of the original calories. Proteins are even mode inefficient to use as fuel than fats.

    There have been studies that found that the same food (potatoes for example) require different amounts of efforts to digest depending on whether they are raw or cooked, hot or cold, and also the sizes of the pieces. More chewing and bigger pieces take more energy to break down.

    Then consider that essential proteins and fats are needed by the body as nutrients and the body would rather use them for repair and things it needs than as fuel. it will burn additional protein as fuel, or if that's the only choice it has, but you need many of those amino acids and essential fatty acids the same way you need vitamins and minerals and you can use what you burn as fuel.

    So, calories in are all the same, but calories netted are not. For basic weight control, however, calories in works fine. If you consistently run a calorie deficit, you will lose weight and if you consistently run an overage you will gain weight even if the counted calories themselves are not exact. As for accuracy, measuring calories burned is also just an approximation unless you're in a fitness lab measuring oxygen, CO2, and taking blood samples. Most of us can settle for that level of inaccuracy and figure that both netted calories in and calories burned are good approximations at best and the errors in both combined sometimes cancel out and other times give us false highs or lows.
  • whierd
    whierd Posts: 14,025 Member
    Ever notice that its almost always relative newbies claiming that it's essential to eat clean, and old-timers who have lost 50+ pounds saying that it's rubbish. That speaks volumes if you ask me.

    Yup. Another poster has been pointing out that it is the posters who have been around awhile with less than 200 posts that spew the nonsense and get worked up when they feel someone is "mean".
  • Achrya
    Achrya Posts: 16,913 Member
    And what in the name of all that's holy is a macro, please? Sounds like something Hubs might put on my computer for playing MMORPGs.

    There are three (well, really four if you count alcohol) macros (macronutrient)

    Protein, Fats and Carbs.
    there r also some laboratory made macros - sugar alcohols. sweet as sugar but about half the cals.

    Um no... there isn't.

    He's right. Xylitol, sorbitol, etc. These are used in sugar-free gum and syrup, among other things. They taste sweet and are artificial but still have calories. The difference is they're sweeter than sugar so you need less and each molecule has fewer calories to boot. They're mostly found in nature, but produced synthetically.

    Those are considered carbs.
    carbs have about 4cal per gram. these have less.
    Calorie count is irrelevant. Fiber is also considered a carb, yet it has less than 4 calories per gram. A carbohydrate is a molecule containing carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen. Sugar alcohols are made from sugar (also a carbohydrate.) Sugar Alcohols are a type of carbohydrate, which is why you will find them under the carbohydrate heading on nutrition labels.
    sorry, not correct. fiber is a carb so it has 4 cals. it is just that r bodies do not digest it well to get all the cals from it. sugar alcohols are a kind alcohol made from carbs. the alcohol that we drink is made from carbs but it is not a carb. it is ethyl alcohol 7cals per gram.

    I thought soluble fiber had 2 cals.
  • kennethmgreen
    kennethmgreen Posts: 1,759 Member
    This debate seems fairly ridiculous when you consider that the following two statements are pretty much universally agreed to be true:

    1.) Calories in versus calories out is what determines *weight* (not necessarily *fat*) gain or loss.
    2.) Eating a variety of fresh, real, "whole" foods will do much better at providing the nutrients one needs for overall health and vitality than eating garbage.

    Can anyone actually argue with those points?
    Of course we can argue with these points. This thread is at 11 pages so far, and this topic comes up on MFP a few times each week.

    Like magnets flipped the wrong way, we seem unable to consider both of your points together. Most of the arguments in debates like this will look at point 1 OR point 2, at the exclusion of the other. And we like to pontificate.
  • BrainyBurro
    BrainyBurro Posts: 6,129 Member
    Ever notice that its almost always relative newbies claiming that it's essential to eat clean, and old-timers who have lost 50+ pounds saying that it's rubbish. That speaks volumes if you ask me.

    a lot of forums have a 100-post rule.

    since we have so many bang/murder/pickpocket/dump/marry threads on here where newbs can inflate their post count, maybe we should have a 1000-post rule???
  • Cindyinpg
    Cindyinpg Posts: 3,902 Member
    Ever notice that its almost always relative newbies claiming that it's essential to eat clean, and old-timers who have lost 50+ pounds saying that it's rubbish. That speaks volumes if you ask me.

    a lot of forums have a 100-post rule.

    since we have so many bang/murder/pickpocket/dump/marry threads on here where newbs can inflate their post count, maybe we should have a 1000-post rule???
    666+ only, so can prove our evil meanness. :devil:

Categories