A Calorie is NOT just a Calorie

There's nothing wrong with mac donalds once in a while.

But is you at it all the time I think it would prove the point a calorie is not just a calorie.

Except it proves the opposite, which you would know if you got your information from multiple diverse sources and actually had some experience and knowledge in the subject of nutrition and weight loss.

Okay, what nutrition would you get from a burger and fries from MacDonalds????

I don't think you understand what ketones are. When your body doesn't have enough insulin to help it break down glocuse into the blood for energy, it breaks fat down into ketones instead. This is NOT normal and is also VERY dangerous to the body. It's what happens to people with Type I Diabetes that puts them into Diabetic Ketoacidosis and potentially a coma, and even death. It doesn't happen in the NORMAL body.

Please stop with the ketone malarky.

Diabetic ketoacidosis occurs due to a combination of different factors, not simply the presence of ketones in your blood. Mere ketones alone are insufficient to diagnose a state of diabetic ketoacidosis and eating a low carb diet that results in a state of ketosis does not magically lead to diabetic ketoacidosis. Please stop with the fear mongering.

You have to be eating probably less than 50g of carbs a day to be in ketosis, that's not what I am talking about. I agree with this post.

It seems some ones is believing the press a bit too much.

I eat primal.

Wanted to see how other diets stack up.

And I'll be honest not that impressed with MFP.

Some (not all) seem to be a bit naïve and uneducated about how food is broken down in the body,

By educated you of course mean the story made up that cherrypicks a bit of research (generally from low level, low respect journals) that somewhat supports it (ignoring all the stuff that doesn't) despite rejecting and downright laughing at the "wrong" mainstream establishment interpretation of said research and all other research.

Who's the naïve one?

You think that Mark, a suppliment salesman, gets it right, while thousands of pH level nutrition researchers are wrong. Gotcha.

Never go to just one source of information the best way to get information is to go through multiple sources.

Or maybe just do everything people on MFP say?? Is that what you mean?

So, because we're saying: eat a calorie deficit, eat any type of foods at moderation, weigh foods to be accurate, and we've been doing this for a while, doing our research, and we've all been successful at it, we don't know what we're talking about? And you, who is following a fad diet that is not nutritionally sound, still has weight to lose, and hasn't done the research, want to discount everything we're saying? Why are you even in the forums?

I don't know.

I kinda stumbled in and now I'm hooked.

One of your members posted an article which does not in anyway state that what you are doing will not be successful, they just explained how the food you consume is dealt with by your bodies and a lot of you have just dismissed it because it does not fit into the paradigm you have been told.

Believe it or not the earth is not flat.

That article is crap, with constant contradictions and nothing cited. Crap is crap is crap.


As it would happen calories are calories are calorie so the title of this thread? Also crap.

Macros and nutrition are a separate (though related) issue. But the thread didn't state "All food choices aren't equal" or "The Body doesn't break down all macronutrients the same." It says a calorie isn't a calorie. And that's false.

I think what it is trying to say is not all calories are created equal. Different foods do (or offer) different things to the body. I think maybe some of you got a bit hung up on the title.

A lot of you seem really touchy, I don't think anyone is belittling your efforts. You've all been on a journey and come out the other end better for it (or some are still on that journey).

You've lost weight because you've regulated your bodies ability to burn the calories you have consumed either through extra exercise (or general movement) or through consuming less calories.

All the article was trying to do was explain how that worked (it's not magic, there is some science behind it). Agreed there were some patchy bits but on the whole the article was accurate.

Back at yah!

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(07)00129-5

God, what I wouldn't give to sit down with you and, on video, ask you to define many of the terms in that abstract. That would be so much fun.

Have you ever wondered why some of the new people, particularly ones with a lot to lose, struggle so hard to accept such a simple concept?

Maybe it's because many have struggled for years trying to lose weight. Lots of rules, lots of diets, lots of failed attempts. Losing weight has been Hard, and they're not happy.

Then they come here and see all the "happy fit folk" saying its easy. And it's not! In their minds , it is hell. And for us to come in and tell them its not is a huge slap in the face.

This process is personal. And emotional. Some of them need hand holding and a lot of encouragement. Changing your world view is tough. And even though the mechanism of weight loss is simple. Cals in < cals out, the emotional changes are not.

Just a few thoughts. Kinda off topic. I'm sorry.

I do get that, but I also think that they get mad because they want us to tell them they have to give something up, like cake or beef or carbs. Then they can tell themselves they've done that and achieved something, like "eating clean". I kind of compare it to when my sone came out to my husband when he was 16. He was all geared up for this big confrontation and when my husband was calm and said he was okay with it my son blew up and got very angry, simply because he was expecting a big fight. Noobs expect something hard, so they can say, I've made this big change to my eating, not just "I'm still eating the same, only less of it."

So do I put the real sugar, or the sugar free syrup in my mid-morning coffee?

TELL ME WHICH ONE KILLS ME FASTER.

Put both in, they counteract each other.

Lipolysis breaks down the amino acids

Exactly wrong. Lipolysis is the breakdown of lipids. Lipo- means lipids, which are fats, and lysis means hydrolysis, which is the breaking of a chemical bond with the use of a water molecule.

Of course, you wouldn't know that because you learn that sort of thing in organic chemistry. And people who have taken organic chemistry know what a ketone is. People who know something about chemistry don't need to remember what "lipolysis" is because it's obvious from the root words. People who don't know anything about chemistry need to remember what it means, and are therefore prone to misremembering it.

I thought lipolysis was the release of triglycerides and that the fatty acids in the liver are then converted into ketones? well if I'm wrong I apologies.

I will convert to the MFP religion immediately (when do the aliens land)?

I've been struggling with knowing the truth if it matters where my calories come from.. found this AWESOME article that puts logic to it all. Worth the read

http://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/