250 calories per day on chocolate?

Chocolate is necessary for survival. Not mine, everyone else's...

Eat it, savor it, log it, carry no shame about it.

^^^^I love this response. YES! This, lol. ^^^^

Oh, reality is not nearly as fantastical as that magical place where folks need to pretend 250 calories of chocolate furthers fitness the same as 250 calories of beef, but at least I don't have to look ignorant and rationalize - or completely fabricate a disagreement over nothing.

I guess it depends on your fitness goals. Personally, 250 calories of beef aren't going to put me that far ahead of 250 calories of anything else. I get enough protein and fat.

Actually 250 cals of nearly pure simple sugars *does* put me ahead. Miles ahead. I hit my macros most days, but before a big endurance event, I (modestly) carb load. Endurance athletes often suck down mixtures & gels of glucose during events - cuz the body metabolizes - and then utilizes - glucose very rapidly. And if you are dragging *kitten*, that's the jolt you might need. Believe it or not, sometimes sugar is a good thing. I wish people would please quit demonizing sugar. It ain't the Beelzebub of the food pyramid.

No one demonized sugar - at least not in this discussion. I've made the point repeatedly that simple sugars have a place, especially for endurance athletes. I've also made the point that started the "You're not taking away my sugar" crazies on their Defense of Sugar, that the body burns fuels in a basic ranking of order. Ergo, if you're fueling with sugars because you'll be engaging in eactivity long enough to go well beyond your glycogen stores, you are not burning body fat unless and until you've run through the dietary sugars. You can fuel for endurance with sugars or you can burn significant fat for fuel, but you cannot do both simultanously.

I go through plenty of gels in races. I go through fewer during training (because if you're fueling with gels you're not training the body to store maximum glycogen). I do not consume the same amount of sugars in rest periods or breaks in training. Why? Because I don't need it for fuel and it will use that before it uses body fat.

Although, if you're fueling with glucose rather than maltodextrin, you're missing out.

calories are calories as long as you are within your goal

Dear God...

Oh, reality is not nearly as fantastical as that magical place where folks need to pretend 250 calories of chocolate furthers fitness the same as 250 calories of beef, but at least I don't have to look ignorant and rationalize - or completely fabricate a disagreement over nothing.

I guess it depends on your fitness goals. Personally, 250 calories of beef aren't going to put me that far ahead of 250 calories of anything else. I get enough protein and fat.

Actually 250 cals of nearly pure simple sugars *does* put me ahead. Miles ahead. I hit my macros most days, but before a big endurance event, I (modestly) carb load. Endurance athletes often suck down mixtures & gels of glucose during events - cuz the body metabolizes - and then utilizes - glucose very rapidly. And if you are dragging *kitten*, that's the jolt you might need. Believe it or not, sometimes sugar is a good thing. I wish people would please quit demonizing sugar. It ain't the Beelzebub of the food pyramid.

No one demonized sugar - at least not in this discussion. I've made the point repeatedly that simple sugars have a place, especially for endurance athletes. I've also made the point that started the "You're not taking away my sugar" crazies on their Defense of Sugar, that the body burns fuels in a basic ranking of order. Ergo, if you're fueling with sugars because you'll be engaging in eactivity long enough to go well beyond your glycogen stores, you are not burning body fat unless and until you've run through the dietary sugars. You can fuel for endurance with sugars or you can burn significant fat for fuel, but you cannot do both simultanously.

I go through plenty of gels in races. I go through fewer during training (because if you're fueling with gels you're not training the body to store maximum glycogen). I do not consume the same amount of sugars in rest periods or breaks in training. Why? Because I don't need it for fuel and it will use that before it uses body fat.

Although, if you're fueling with glucose rather than maltodextrin, you're missing out.

Okay, true. I kinda jumped the fence with the "demonizing sugar" statement. I think I/we lost track of the whole point of this tread anyway (a common demise of most threads.) I guess the roundabout point I'm trying to get to (rather aimlessly) is that 250 cals from a high sugar and fat food (most chocolates) isn't going to upset most folk's catabolic processes. And I could see that even folks who only run at the gym can easily metabolize the extra sugar, along with their other macronutrients over the course of an average day.

Generally speaking, we aren't dealing with elite athletes here on MFP. We're dealing with normal folks who - with or without chocolate - will do just fine in the long term with mild fluctuations in their macro distributions… Okay, many will fail completely. But it won't be because they chose 250 cals of chocolate vs 250 cals of wild Atlantic salmon. It's because of gross dietary indiscretion leading to failure.

And speaking of replenishing glycogen during events… I detest gels myself. I'm more of a Shot Bloks girl. Plus some Accelerade in the bottles for good measure (yes, it contains protein - hush.) Bloks are mostly brown rice syrup, which is 45% maltose, 3% glucose, and 52% maltotriose. I think I might suffer from dumping syndrome (egads) if I mainlined glucose. So, no pure glucose is not recommended (except for diabetics having an episode).

I have 81% dark chocolate, 2 squares, maybe every other day or so. 140 calories.
Either that, or I stick to 50g of nuts and dried fruit.
I try to avoid milk chocolate now because I tend to want more and more once I get a taste, but I do occasionally have it.
I had a kitkat today while out cycling and enjoyed it thoroughly.
And I will no doubt have some at Easter since my mum sends me a bag.

That truly depends on your goals.

If your goal is to lose weight only, then go ahead and eat whatever you want "if it fits your macros" - eat chocolate each day

If you have other goals that include improved body composition, improved overall health etc., then you may want to re-think that strategy.

I am confused by this statement.

How does fitting your macros not include improved body composition (re diet) - what should they do? Not hit their macros?

Chocolate is necessary for survival. Not mine, everyone else's...

Eat it, savor it, log it, carry no shame about it.

^ THIS!

Okay, true. I kinda jumped the fence with the "demonizing sugar" statement. I think I/we lost track of the whole point of this tread anyway (a common demise of most threads.) I guess the roundabout point I'm trying to get to (rather aimlessly) is that 250 cals from a high sugar and fat food (most chocolates) isn't going to upset most folk's catabolic processes. And I could see that even folks who only run at the gym can easily metabolize the extra sugar, along with their other macronutrients over the course of an average day.

Generally speaking, we aren't dealing with elite athletes here on MFP. We're dealing with normal folks who - with or without chocolate - will do just fine in the long term with mild fluctuations in their macro distributions… Okay, many will fail completely. But it won't be because they chose 250 cals of chocolate vs 250 cals of wild Atlantic salmon. It's because of gross dietary indiscretion leading to failure.

Well, presuming they aren't an athlete taking in 3,000 calories 200 plus grams of protein, and still losing fat, 250 calories on a more than infrequent basis is going to upset lots of processes and will crowd out macros and some important micronutrients. But the point, all along, has been that it will reduce the amount of fat lost overall simply because 250 calories of milk chocolate has about 29 grams of sugar the body will either burn or convert to fat and store, over and above the 16 grams of fat. Considering the carbs are on the plus side of 30 as well, it's quite an impact, especially for the average former overeater here.

And, while no one will succeed or fail at the base minimum goal of weight loss with 250 calories of milk chocolate over 250 calories of salmon, it cannot be a surprise to anyone that the person who picks the salmon more often than not will lose more fat, build more muscle, and be more likely to reduce injuries than the person who more often picks the chocolate - especially considering how many people trying to lose weight cut out many creatine heavy foods like beef in an effort to trim fat and calories.

And speaking of replenishing glycogen during events… I detest gels myself. I'm more of a Shot Bloks girl. Plus some Accelerade in the bottles for good measure (yes, it contains protein - hush.) Bloks are mostly brown rice syrup, which is 45% maltose, 3% glucose, and 52% maltotriose. I think I might suffer from dumping syndrome (egads) if I mainlined glucose. So, no pure glucose is not recommended (except for diabetics having an episode).

Yeah, gels aren't the food of choice of lots of folks, given their druthers. I'm not eating for pleasure though when I'm running or training. I'm fueling my body, sparing muscle, and promoting recovery. It's not a casual dinner with friends, so I make my choices based on health, performance, and recovery.

The good news: a moderate amount of DARK chocolate has good nutrients and less sugar than crappy chocolate bars. Like having a small serving of red wine with dinner, it's probably good for you or at least not bad for you.

The rest of the reality: if you're eating a minimum of 250 calories of it a day, that's probably too much of your overall daily intake. Worse, if it's milk chocolate or otherwise low quality junk, you're sabotaging yourself big time.

The folks who say "a calorie is a calorie" and those who say "all carbs are evil" are both oversimplifying, and the science doesn't agree with them. It DOES absolutely matter what you eat, not just how much. Yes, you can loose fat in a calorie deficit with plenty of your intake being sugar and booze and transfats (and you might as well smoke some cigarettes there, too). But you'll loose more fat more quickly if you minimize any sugars you eat (and highly refined foods like white rice and flour, too). More importantly, you'll feel better if you eat more whole foods and fewer processed foods, many more vegetables, more greens and less grains, and minimize processed and refined foods. Sure, have some treats (everything in moderation), but they're TREATS, not staples.

Lookie thar, almost a handful of thinking folks now. Great post.

And, while no one will succeed or fail at the base minimum goal of weight loss with 250 calories of milk chocolate over 250 calories of salmon, it cannot be a surprise to anyone that the person who picks the salmon more often than not will lose more fat, build more muscle, and be more likely to reduce injuries than the person who more often picks the chocolate...

Again, moderation. After glancing around, most MFPers are not competitive athletes on performance-tuned diets. They're average people who don't typically "eat clean" anyway. When an average person elects to eat 250 calories of a treat like chocolate, he/she usually compensates by consuming less "junk" normally consumed elsewhere in the day's budget. I doubt most folks will trade the day's lean protein (ex: 8oz chicken breast) for a Butterfinger. [/quote]

Except, the fact that the majority of people here have been overweight in their lifetime strongly argues your assumption is misplaced.

Helpful tidbit: salmon and tuna have almost as much creatine monohydrate (4.5g/lb) as lean beef (5.0g/lb). Good to know if folks grow tired of lean beef/chicken/beef/chicken...

Yeah, that was my point. They largely eschew beef because of an irrational aversion to saturated fats and in having a chicken heavy diet they are already limiting the health and recovery of their body by shorting creatine - and doing so in a way that will not be reflected in their macros.

Of course, it's worth noting that tuna is a particularly poor option for women of childbearing years as the limits are two small servings per week, which means women cannot obtain much protein from tuna from ages 18-44 or thereabouts.

And there are athletes who use alternatives to gels. And I'd never serve gels at an intimate dinner gathering - couldn't stand fishing those sticky spent packets out of the damn wine glasses or off my Persian rug. Racers are insufferable litterbugs.

They do, because they're generally making the same fueling mistakes that land so many people here - eating for soley taste and texture and not health and performance. Short term goals. To be fair, a few of them are taking in the maltodextrin in other formats.

No, cyclist are insufferable litter bugs. The water bottle tossing is insane. Honestly, though, people are insufferable litter bugs. That's why littering fines are so high.

I'm the odd one out there as I always put my cups and wrappers in the trash, or carry them with me. My momma taught me if I didn't bring my maid, I had to clean up after myself.

Not condoning daily indulgence. Most importantly, not condoning eating low-quality or *bad* chocolate. And what's with the milk chocolate hate-a-thon? We need to nip that in the cocoa nib.

Milk chocolate is like coffee light and sweet - it's what you think chocolate/coffee is if you've never had actual, good chocolate/coffee and you just like sugar and dairy - which in both cases is the overwhelming majority of what you're tasting. It also makes a handy scapegoat since it's more socially acceptable to crave/need coffee or chocolate.