A Calorie is NOT just a Calorie

I think what people are failing to understand is that we're not talking about eating one thing all day. We are not taking about eating 10 cheeseburgers a day we're talking a cheeseburger, salad, some fruit, maybe fish Greek yogurt, ice cream, quinoa. It's about balance and sustainability. We're not saying "eat 100 cookies and lose weight". You could, but you'd feel like junk. Instead, focus on nutrient density of foods proteins, fats, carbs, and fiber. Get those targets in line and yes, enjoy your big Mac. Eric Helms I Believe said, "You don't get extra credit for getting more nutrients than your body requires. " . So, while I understand wanting to healthy, that doesn't mean slapping trivial labels on something simple. Food.

Thing is, there's people who really see it that way, and actually do it that way... and have junk for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If you are having the occasional cheeseburger, or the daily Oreo for dessert, along with veggies, meat, nuts, etc its all good... but, when some people say that a calorie is a calorie, they say it as way to mean the d have all the junk all the time.

if they do eat junk, and keep within their calorie limit. They will lose weight.

That's the whole point of a calorie is a calorie.


It's kind of like a dollar is a dollar (assuming both dollars are the same currency lol)

I can use a dollar to buy a small chocolate bar. Or I can choose to throw it down a man hole. It doesn't change the fact that it's a dollar. I can walk away with something tangible, or I can throw it away.. but in the end a dollar IS still a dollar.

I can choose to waste it, I can choose to use it to buy candy, I can choose to use it to buy an apple, I can invest it. There are many different things I can do with that dollar. (especially if I have lots of them to put together), but how I choose to use or waste those dollars does not change the inherent fact that a dollar IS a dollar.

I actually really liked that analogy

I do too. And while dollar is a dollar, if you take your paycheck and buy 100 new xbox games, you may not be able to feed your kids. But, if you create a budget, set aside the money for the things you need and be smart about where you go shopping and how to maximize those dollars, you will likely still have plenty of money for 1 or two xbox games. Treats in reasonable amounts.

I really like that analogy actually.

And honestly... I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise... everyone agrees that how you spend your dollar makes a big difference in your quality of life... I like to budget for an xbox game from time to time. I like to have a donut, or a coffee, or something sweet pretty much daily. But I make sure I save for it. And some days I use my credit from the next day, but at the end of the week, I aim to break even.

We just want people to stop saying that a dollar is not a dollar. It is.

Spend wisely, and enjoy. Blow your savings, and suffer. Spend it on the wrong things, and suffer.

Moderation.

Balance.

bump

I think what people are failing to understand is that we're not talking about eating one thing all day. We are not taking about eating 10 cheeseburgers a day we're talking a cheeseburger, salad, some fruit, maybe fish Greek yogurt, ice cream, quinoa. It's about balance and sustainability. We're not saying "eat 100 cookies and lose weight". You could, but you'd feel like junk. Instead, focus on nutrient density of foods proteins, fats, carbs, and fiber. Get those targets in line and yes, enjoy your big Mac. Eric Helms I Believe said, "You don't get extra credit for getting more nutrients than your body requires. " . So, while I understand wanting to healthy, that doesn't mean slapping trivial labels on something simple. Food.

Thing is, there's people who really see it that way, and actually do it that way... and have junk for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If you are having the occasional cheeseburger, or the daily Oreo for dessert, along with veggies, meat, nuts, etc its all good... but, when some people say that a calorie is a calorie, they say it as way to mean the d have all the junk all the time.

if they do eat junk, and keep within their calorie limit. They will lose weight.

That's the whole point of a calorie is a calorie.


It's kind of like a dollar is a dollar (assuming both dollars are the same currency lol)

I can use a dollar to buy a small chocolate bar. Or I can choose to throw it down a man hole. It doesn't change the fact that it's a dollar. I can walk away with something tangible, or I can throw it away.. but in the end a dollar IS still a dollar.

I can choose to waste it, I can choose to use it to buy candy, I can choose to use it to buy an apple, I can invest it. There are many different things I can do with that dollar. (especially if I have lots of them to put together), but how I choose to use or waste those dollars does not change the inherent fact that a dollar IS a dollar.

I actually really liked that analogy

I do too. And while dollar is a dollar, if you take your paycheck and buy 100 new xbox games, you may not be able to feed your kids. But, if you create a budget, set aside the money for the things you need and be smart about where you go shopping and how to maximize those dollars, you will likely still have plenty of money for 1 or two xbox games. Treats in reasonable amounts.

I really like that analogy actually.

And honestly... I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise... everyone agrees that how you spend your dollar makes a big difference in your quality of life... I like to budget for an xbox game from time to time. I like to have a donut, or a coffee, or something sweet pretty much daily. But I make sure I save for it. And some days I use my credit from the next day, but at the end of the week, I aim to break even.

We just want people to stop saying that a dollar is not a dollar. It is.

Spend wisely, and enjoy. Blow your savings, and suffer. Spend it on the wrong things, and suffer.

Moderation.

Balance.

Sorry, I wasn't disagreeing with you, I just like how effect of an analogy it was. While the title of the article sucked, I thought there were a very few redeeming points that were raised worth discussion, particularly how what you eat contributes to satiety. Of course, you also highlighted those points way back on like page 4 of the original thread. Overall, I think everyone hear has ended up feeling the same way about food, but both extremes have been argued to death.

I didn't think you were . Sorry if it seemed that I did. I actually threw that analogy in my blog and quoted you in agreement. :-D

I think what people are failing to understand is that we're not talking about eating one thing all day. We are not taking about eating 10 cheeseburgers a day we're talking a cheeseburger, salad, some fruit, maybe fish Greek yogurt, ice cream, quinoa. It's about balance and sustainability. We're not saying "eat 100 cookies and lose weight". You could, but you'd feel like junk. Instead, focus on nutrient density of foods proteins, fats, carbs, and fiber. Get those targets in line and yes, enjoy your big Mac. Eric Helms I Believe said, "You don't get extra credit for getting more nutrients than your body requires. " . So, while I understand wanting to healthy, that doesn't mean slapping trivial labels on something simple. Food.

Thing is, there's people who really see it that way, and actually do it that way... and have junk for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If you are having the occasional cheeseburger, or the daily Oreo for dessert, along with veggies, meat, nuts, etc its all good... but, when some people say that a calorie is a calorie, they say it as way to mean the d have all the junk all the time.

I don't think people are trying to justify eating nothing but junk. they're trying to educate people about the science and maths of weight loss, because understanding how it works is extremely empowering in terms of being able to succeed at it and improve your health in the process. "a calorie is just a calorie" is a mathematical fact, same as "1+1=2" because a calorie is a unit of energy

one of the biggest barriers people face when trying to lose weight is the huge amount of utter bull**** and misinformation there is out there about how to lose fat. 99% of it originates from people trying to sell people stuff to help them lose weight. Being armed with the correct information is not only empowering, it's free, and will save you a lot of money in all the bull**** schemes you don't fall for. And it'll save your sanity and improve your long term chances of success, because you can tailor your own eating plan to include all the foods you want to eat (in moderation, so you still get all the nutrition you need), rather than fearfully avoiding demonised foods that it's not even necessary to avoid.

That's the motives of most people saying "a calorie is just a calorie"

How much nutrition in terms of protein, fat, vitamins etc you get for your calories is also very important to take into account, but it doesn't change the maths, i.e. a calorie still is just a calorie. 1+1 still equals 2.

Thing is, when you go a little over-board (or a LOT over-board) offsetting all the "utter bull ****" with an over simplification, it just becomes more of the bull **** you were trying to counter-act in the first place. I'm pretty new around here, and when I read it over and over again, I thought you all meant it. I was pretty sure there was more to it than that. But when I said so, rather than an explanation, I got clobbered. I didn't get "80/20". I didn't get "IIFYM". I didn't get "in moderation". I got "you're wrong".

And as said above, people read it and try to do it and then wonder why it's so hard to hit their calorie goals. Then, when asked, the people who told them "c=c, that's all you need to know", start saying things like "How much nutrition in terms of protein, fat, vitamins etc you get for your calories is also very important to take into account." and "You can tailor your own eating plan to include all the foods you want to eat (in moderation)." Oh. Why didn't you say that in the first place? Eat whatever you want! Er, but nutrition is important.... and include all the foods you want in moderation. Those are kinda significant qualifiers. Probably worth this epic thread to make people think about that.

I think what people are failing to understand is that we're not talking about eating one thing all day. We are not taking about eating 10 cheeseburgers a day we're talking a cheeseburger, salad, some fruit, maybe fish Greek yogurt, ice cream, quinoa. It's about balance and sustainability. We're not saying "eat 100 cookies and lose weight". You could, but you'd feel like junk. Instead, focus on nutrient density of foods proteins, fats, carbs, and fiber. Get those targets in line and yes, enjoy your big Mac. Eric Helms I Believe said, "You don't get extra credit for getting more nutrients than your body requires. " . So, while I understand wanting to healthy, that doesn't mean slapping trivial labels on something simple. Food.

Thing is, there's people who really see it that way, and actually do it that way... and have junk for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If you are having the occasional cheeseburger, or the daily Oreo for dessert, along with veggies, meat, nuts, etc its all good... but, when some people say that a calorie is a calorie, they say it as way to mean the d have all the junk all the time.

if they do eat junk, and keep within their calorie limit. They will lose weight.

That's the whole point of a calorie is a calorie.


It's kind of like a dollar is a dollar (assuming both dollars are the same currency lol)

I can use a dollar to buy a small chocolate bar. Or I can choose to throw it down a man hole. It doesn't change the fact that it's a dollar. I can walk away with something tangible, or I can throw it away.. but in the end a dollar IS still a dollar.

I can choose to waste it, I can choose to use it to buy candy, I can choose to use it to buy an apple, I can invest it. There are many different things I can do with that dollar. (especially if I have lots of them to put together), but how I choose to use or waste those dollars does not change the inherent fact that a dollar IS a dollar.

:drinker:

I do a lot of lurking but have learned quite a bit about things from doing so. Here's my two cents: Even if you don't want it to be true, semantics and word choice matters (this is what we're arguing about now, right?). Saying a calorie is not a calorie is misleading and gives credence to the fad diets and pseudoscience. However, if you want to retain as much muscle mass as possible, having nothing but Jamba Juice isn't going to be your best bet. The 350 calories in it will be used for the same amount of energy that a 350 calorie protein shakewould give. Because math. The second option is better for the stated goal since it has protein. Because nutrition.

Before you go on to say that I'm agreeing with your premise of a calorie is not a calorie, I can assure you not. Math != nutrition, which is why words matter.

And as said above, people read it and try to do it and then wonder why it's so hard to hit their calorie goals. Then, when asked, the people who told them "c=c, that's all you need to know", start saying things like "How much nutrition in terms of protein, fat, vitamins etc you get for your calories is also very important to take into account." and "You can tailor your own eating plan to include all the foods you want to eat (in moderation)." Oh. Why didn't you say that in the first place? Eat whatever you want! Er, but nutrition is important.... and include all the foods you want in moderation. Those are kinda significant qualifiers. Probably worth this epic thread to make people think about that.

A lot of it is because people try to oversimplify things or they simply express themselves poorly when giving advice. Another part of it is they don't have all of the information as to what another person is eating, feeling and doing throughout the day. It's easy for me to sit here and say "eat the donuts if you want the donuts!" but if you're aiming for an aggressive caloric deficit and you're already finding it difficult to satiate yourself throughout the day, my advice is pretty horrible for you. On the other hand, it is possible to eat donuts on occasion and fit them into your macros, but a definitive statement that you *should* eat the donut is the wrong answer (IMO).

Personally, I think it's fine for some people to omit certain foods, particularly if these are foods they don't get a great deal of enjoyment out of. If your world revolves around eating a donut for breakfast, you probably shouldn't cut out donuts and you should try to find a way to work them into your diet. But if donuts are simply things that you snack on for empty calories when they're in the breakroom and otherwise couldn't care less about them, I don't really see the harm in cutting them out altogether to make room for other foods you prefer. All too often though, people love to proclaim "you will fail if you do that!" without really considering whether the foods the person is cutting out are actually important to them. Ultimately, I think a lot of these arguments are the result of people misunderstanding some things and oversimplifying other things. Then again though, it's the Internet.

I think what people are failing to understand is that we're not talking about eating one thing all day. We are not taking about eating 10 cheeseburgers a day we're talking a cheeseburger, salad, some fruit, maybe fish Greek yogurt, ice cream, quinoa. It's about balance and sustainability. We're not saying "eat 100 cookies and lose weight". You could, but you'd feel like junk. Instead, focus on nutrient density of foods proteins, fats, carbs, and fiber. Get those targets in line and yes, enjoy your big Mac. Eric Helms I Believe said, "You don't get extra credit for getting more nutrients than your body requires. " . So, while I understand wanting to healthy, that doesn't mean slapping trivial labels on something simple. Food.

Thing is, there's people who really see it that way, and actually do it that way... and have junk for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If you are having the occasional cheeseburger, or the daily Oreo for dessert, along with veggies, meat, nuts, etc its all good... but, when some people say that a calorie is a calorie, they say it as way to mean the d have all the junk all the time.

I don't think people are trying to justify eating nothing but junk. they're trying to educate people about the science and maths of weight loss, because understanding how it works is extremely empowering in terms of being able to succeed at it and improve your health in the process. "a calorie is just a calorie" is a mathematical fact, same as "1+1=2" because a calorie is a unit of energy

one of the biggest barriers people face when trying to lose weight is the huge amount of utter bull**** and misinformation there is out there about how to lose fat. 99% of it originates from people trying to sell people stuff to help them lose weight. Being armed with the correct information is not only empowering, it's free, and will save you a lot of money in all the bull**** schemes you don't fall for. And it'll save your sanity and improve your long term chances of success, because you can tailor your own eating plan to include all the foods you want to eat (in moderation, so you still get all the nutrition you need), rather than fearfully avoiding demonised foods that it's not even necessary to avoid.

That's the motives of most people saying "a calorie is just a calorie"

How much nutrition in terms of protein, fat, vitamins etc you get for your calories is also very important to take into account, but it doesn't change the maths, i.e. a calorie still is just a calorie. 1+1 still equals 2.

Thing is, when you go a little over-board (or a LOT over-board) offsetting all the "utter bull ****" with an over simplification, it just becomes more of the bull **** you were trying to counter-act in the first place. I'm pretty new around here, and when I read it over and over again, I thought you all meant it. I was pretty sure there was more to it than that. But when I said so, rather than an explanation, I got clobbered. I didn't get "80/20". I didn't get "IIFYM". I didn't get "in moderation". I got "you're wrong".

And as said above, people read it and try to do it and then wonder why it's so hard to hit their calorie goals. Then, when asked, the people who told them "c=c, that's all you need to know", start saying things like "How much nutrition in terms of protein, fat, vitamins etc you get for your calories is also very important to take into account." and "You can tailor your own eating plan to include all the foods you want to eat (in moderation)." Oh. Why didn't you say that in the first place? Eat whatever you want! Er, but nutrition is important.... and include all the foods you want in moderation. Those are kinda significant qualifiers. Probably worth this epic thread to make people think about that.

many users have said many many times on this thread that other nutrients are important too.

a calorie is a unit of energy, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not oversimplifying anything. That's what a calorie IS. If you want to get technical, there's a metric unit of energy too, called a joule. It's the amount of energy needed to heat 1 cubic centimetre of water by 1 degree Celsius. I'm not sure what the agreed scientific definition of a calorie is, because it's not an SI unit, but there is one. You can probably find it in an encyclopedia. And you can find unit conversion sites and apps that will convert between calories and kilojoules

I absolutely DO mean "a calorie is just a calorie" - because that's a fact. You're the one who's assuming that the statement "a calorie is just a calorie" is mutually exclusive to "you need to ensure you're eating all the nutrients your body needs" - the two are separate facts, that are not mutually exclusive, they're both correct.

1. weight loss is purely a matter of eating less energy than you burn off (measure the energy in whatever units you want, but it'll only make sense if the unit stands for exactly the same amount of energy each time, i.e. a calore is always the same as every other calorie....)

2. health (and healthy body composition, including ensuring that the weight lost is just fat and not muscle mass or bone density) is a matter of proper nutrition and a sufficient level of exercise/activity to get or maintain a healthy bone density and amount of lean mass.

You can do 2 as much as you like, but without 1, there'll be no weight loss. You can do just 1 and you will lose weight, but without 2 you'll risk losing lean mass along with the fat and you'll put yourself at risk of nutritional deficiency diseases.

It really is that simple. And please note that simple is the opposite of complicated, I'm not using it to be synonymous with easy. Sometimes, creating a deficit can be difficult. It can take some trial and error to find the right number of calories that's a sustainable deficit for you, and for some people metabolic disorders make it even harder to eat at a deficit. But the concept is simple, even if actually doing that can be hard.

I think what people are failing to understand is that we're not talking about eating one thing all day. We are not taking about eating 10 cheeseburgers a day we're talking a cheeseburger, salad, some fruit, maybe fish Greek yogurt, ice cream, quinoa. It's about balance and sustainability. We're not saying "eat 100 cookies and lose weight". You could, but you'd feel like junk. Instead, focus on nutrient density of foods proteins, fats, carbs, and fiber. Get those targets in line and yes, enjoy your big Mac. Eric Helms I Believe said, "You don't get extra credit for getting more nutrients than your body requires. " . So, while I understand wanting to healthy, that doesn't mean slapping trivial labels on something simple. Food.

Thing is, there's people who really see it that way, and actually do it that way... and have junk for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If you are having the occasional cheeseburger, or the daily Oreo for dessert, along with veggies, meat, nuts, etc its all good... but, when some people say that a calorie is a calorie, they say it as way to mean the d have all the junk all the time.

I don't think people are trying to justify eating nothing but junk. they're trying to educate people about the science and maths of weight loss, because understanding how it works is extremely empowering in terms of being able to succeed at it and improve your health in the process. "a calorie is just a calorie" is a mathematical fact, same as "1+1=2" because a calorie is a unit of energy

one of the biggest barriers people face when trying to lose weight is the huge amount of utter bull**** and misinformation there is out there about how to lose fat. 99% of it originates from people trying to sell people stuff to help them lose weight. Being armed with the correct information is not only empowering, it's free, and will save you a lot of money in all the bull**** schemes you don't fall for. And it'll save your sanity and improve your long term chances of success, because you can tailor your own eating plan to include all the foods you want to eat (in moderation, so you still get all the nutrition you need), rather than fearfully avoiding demonised foods that it's not even necessary to avoid.

That's the motives of most people saying "a calorie is just a calorie"

How much nutrition in terms of protein, fat, vitamins etc you get for your calories is also very important to take into account, but it doesn't change the maths, i.e. a calorie still is just a calorie. 1+1 still equals 2.

Thing is, when you go a little over-board (or a LOT over-board) offsetting all the "utter bull ****" with an over simplification, it just becomes more of the bull **** you were trying to counter-act in the first place. I'm pretty new around here, and when I read it over and over again, I thought you all meant it. I was pretty sure there was more to it than that. But when I said so, rather than an explanation, I got clobbered. I didn't get "80/20". I didn't get "IIFYM". I didn't get "in moderation". I got "you're wrong".

And as said above, people read it and try to do it and then wonder why it's so hard to hit their calorie goals. Then, when asked, the people who told them "c=c, that's all you need to know", start saying things like "How much nutrition in terms of protein, fat, vitamins etc you get for your calories is also very important to take into account." and "You can tailor your own eating plan to include all the foods you want to eat (in moderation)." Oh. Why didn't you say that in the first place? Eat whatever you want! Er, but nutrition is important.... and include all the foods you want in moderation. Those are kinda significant qualifiers. Probably worth this epic thread to make people think about that.

many users have said many many times on this thread that other nutrients are important too.

a calorie is a unit of energy, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not oversimplifying anything. That's what a calorie IS. If you want to get technical, there's a metric unit of energy too, called a joule. It's the amount of energy needed to heat 1 cubic centimetre of water by 1 degree Celsius. I'm not sure what the agreed scientific definition of a calorie is, because it's not an SI unit, but there is one. You can probably find it in an encyclopedia. And you can find unit conversion sites and apps that will convert between calories and kilojoules

I absolutely DO mean "a calorie is just a calorie" - because that's a fact. You're the one who's assuming that the statement "a calorie is just a calorie" is mutually exclusive to "you need to ensure you're eating all the nutrients your body needs" - the two are separate facts, that are not mutually exclusive, they're both correct.

1. weight loss is purely a matter of eating less energy than you burn off (measure the energy in whatever units you want, but it'll only make sense if the unit stands for exactly the same amount of energy each time, i.e. a calore is always the same as every other calorie....)

2. health (and healthy body composition, including ensuring that the weight lost is just fat and not muscle mass or bone density) is a matter of proper nutrition and a sufficient level of exercise/activity to get or maintain a healthy bone density and amount of lean mass.

You can do 2 as much as you like, but without 1, there'll be no weight loss. You can do just 1 and you will lose weight, but without 2 you'll risk losing lean mass along with the fat and you'll put yourself at risk of nutritional deficiency diseases.

It really is that simple. And please note that simple is the opposite of complicated, I'm not using it to be synonymous with easy. Sometimes, creating a deficit can be difficult. It can take some trial and error to find the right number of calories that's a sustainable deficit for you, and for some people metabolic disorders make it even harder to eat at a deficit. But the concept is simple, even if actually doing that can be hard.

That's what I said.

Even I'm laughing now. I should have mentioned it earlier... like a billion times. I agree that a calorie is a calorie. Thought I said it. Apparently not. But I'm really amused that you took the time to look it up and put that whole joule thing in there. lol You've convinced me. I used to agree that a calorie is a calorie. But now I see that a calorie is a calorie.

(...sits back and waits for you to tell me I'm wrong)

I think what people are failing to understand is that we're not talking about eating one thing all day. We are not taking about eating 10 cheeseburgers a day we're talking a cheeseburger, salad, some fruit, maybe fish Greek yogurt, ice cream, quinoa. It's about balance and sustainability. We're not saying "eat 100 cookies and lose weight". You could, but you'd feel like junk. Instead, focus on nutrient density of foods proteins, fats, carbs, and fiber. Get those targets in line and yes, enjoy your big Mac. Eric Helms I Believe said, "You don't get extra credit for getting more nutrients than your body requires. " . So, while I understand wanting to healthy, that doesn't mean slapping trivial labels on something simple. Food.

Thing is, there's people who really see it that way, and actually do it that way... and have junk for breakfast, lunch and dinner. If you are having the occasional cheeseburger, or the daily Oreo for dessert, along with veggies, meat, nuts, etc its all good... but, when some people say that a calorie is a calorie, they say it as way to mean the d have all the junk all the time.

I don't think people are trying to justify eating nothing but junk. they're trying to educate people about the science and maths of weight loss, because understanding how it works is extremely empowering in terms of being able to succeed at it and improve your health in the process. "a calorie is just a calorie" is a mathematical fact, same as "1+1=2" because a calorie is a unit of energy

one of the biggest barriers people face when trying to lose weight is the huge amount of utter bull**** and misinformation there is out there about how to lose fat. 99% of it originates from people trying to sell people stuff to help them lose weight. Being armed with the correct information is not only empowering, it's free, and will save you a lot of money in all the bull**** schemes you don't fall for. And it'll save your sanity and improve your long term chances of success, because you can tailor your own eating plan to include all the foods you want to eat (in moderation, so you still get all the nutrition you need), rather than fearfully avoiding demonised foods that it's not even necessary to avoid.

That's the motives of most people saying "a calorie is just a calorie"

How much nutrition in terms of protein, fat, vitamins etc you get for your calories is also very important to take into account, but it doesn't change the maths, i.e. a calorie still is just a calorie. 1+1 still equals 2.

Thing is, when you go a little over-board (or a LOT over-board) offsetting all the "utter bull ****" with an over simplification, it just becomes more of the bull **** you were trying to counter-act in the first place. I'm pretty new around here, and when I read it over and over again, I thought you all meant it. I was pretty sure there was more to it than that. But when I said so, rather than an explanation, I got clobbered. I didn't get "80/20". I didn't get "IIFYM". I didn't get "in moderation". I got "you're wrong".

And as said above, people read it and try to do it and then wonder why it's so hard to hit their calorie goals. Then, when asked, the people who told them "c=c, that's all you need to know", start saying things like "How much nutrition in terms of protein, fat, vitamins etc you get for your calories is also very important to take into account." and "You can tailor your own eating plan to include all the foods you want to eat (in moderation)." Oh. Why didn't you say that in the first place? Eat whatever you want! Er, but nutrition is important.... and include all the foods you want in moderation. Those are kinda significant qualifiers. Probably worth this epic thread to make people think about that.

many users have said many many times on this thread that other nutrients are important too.

a calorie is a unit of energy, nothing more, nothing less. I'm not oversimplifying anything. That's what a calorie IS. If you want to get technical, there's a metric unit of energy too, called a joule. It's the amount of energy needed to heat 1 cubic centimetre of water by 1 degree Celsius. I'm not sure what the agreed scientific definition of a calorie is, because it's not an SI unit, but there is one. You can probably find it in an encyclopedia. And you can find unit conversion sites and apps that will convert between calories and kilojoules

I absolutely DO mean "a calorie is just a calorie" - because that's a fact. You're the one who's assuming that the statement "a calorie is just a calorie" is mutually exclusive to "you need to ensure you're eating all the nutrients your body needs" - the two are separate facts, that are not mutually exclusive, they're both correct.

1. weight loss is purely a matter of eating less energy than you burn off (measure the energy in whatever units you want, but it'll only make sense if the unit stands for exactly the same amount of energy each time, i.e. a calore is always the same as every other calorie....)

2. health (and healthy body composition, including ensuring that the weight lost is just fat and not muscle mass or bone density) is a matter of proper nutrition and a sufficient level of exercise/activity to get or maintain a healthy bone density and amount of lean mass.

You can do 2 as much as you like, but without 1, there'll be no weight loss. You can do just 1 and you will lose weight, but without 2 you'll risk losing lean mass along with the fat and you'll put yourself at risk of nutritional deficiency diseases.

It really is that simple. And please note that simple is the opposite of complicated, I'm not using it to be synonymous with easy. Sometimes, creating a deficit can be difficult. It can take some trial and error to find the right number of calories that's a sustainable deficit for you, and for some people metabolic disorders make it even harder to eat at a deficit. But the concept is simple, even if actually doing that can be hard.

That's what I said.

Even I'm laughing now. I should have mentioned it earlier... like a billion times. I agree that a calorie is a calorie. Thought I said it. Apparently not. But I'm really amused that you took the time to look it up and put that whole joule thing in there. lol You've convinced me. I used to agree that a calorie is a calorie. But now I see that a calorie is a calorie.

(...sits back and waits for you to tell me I'm wrong)

why did you disagree with my post saying a calorie is just a calorie then??? because that's all I've said for this whole thread... oh and a bit about the motives for saying "a calorie is just a calorie" which wasn't in reply to a post of yours. You said I was just adding to all the bull**** out there by oversimplifying stuff..... if you agreed with "a calorie is just a calorie" then what was I oversimplifying???

it didn't take me long to type it up and I know the joule stuff off the top of my head because I'm a science teacher (by qualification, currently self-employed). I type at 90 words a minute, touch typing. That's probably why I have so many TLDR posts lol

Bravo.

Just say it exactly the way you just did. The problem I see is a LOT of people are NOT saying "But the occasional treat is okay too!" They're just saying "A calorie is a calorie so eat whatever you want". And to prove the point we get the anecdote of one guy in Uraguay who lost weight eating nothing but Cinnabon. And even when they begrudgingly, breaking cult rules, admit it's not a great idea, they say it's because it wouldn't be healthy. Well yeah. But no. It's because you couldn't do it. You'd burn though that sugar in no time and be starving for the rest of the day. Normal people couldn't maintain that very long.

As you said, it isn't all or nothing. In other words, neither extreme is appropriate. And advocating one extreme is no better than advocating the other. So let's stop doing it.

"It's about balance. Moderation. Finding a happy medium."

Well said. And that implies that you need to be at least SOMEWHAT selective in your diet choices. And another way of saying that might be that all foods are not equal. Or yet another way of saying that might be "a calorie is NOT a calorie". And yet, if someone dare suggest such heresy against the cult, the members rally to shun the unbeliever!

It's become some kind of self feeding echo chamber of weirdness on here. I get it. Just take it down a notch. Or 100.

The above quote is yours, fast_eddie_72...

I have to say I love that this is still going...

I love your profile pic