Good and bad calories

A calorie is a measurement of energy food provides. I don't think you mean good or bad calories. Maybe you are referring to good or bad foods? Some people feel certain foods and even food groups are "bad" for them. Others do not.

If the expiration date has passed, then I'd assume the calories are bad

Bad ones put me over my goal.

Food is neither good nor bad. It is food. Trying to assign human traits to your food is useless.

:huh:

of course some foods are more nutritious than others (cake vs. veg) but at the end of the day when it come to weight loss alone..calories are calories and it's the number that will effect the amount you lose not where the number came from.

With that said junk food is so high in calories, you wouldn't be able to eat enough to stay full and stay at your target calorie goal.....for me i see bad calories as white bread, potatoes, high sugar anything, white rice, ect things with no nutritional value versus sweet potatoes, brown rice, fish, chicken, salad, veg, nuts, yogurt ect

I don't understand.

Few weeks ago there were amased comments how I do not know about the topic:

http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2011/07/21/meet-staci-your-new-powerlifting-super-hero/

Now it seems that noone knows what I talk about at all.
Hm...I don't know what to think now...

what you are referring too is empty calories - foods with little or no nutrition , just calories, think cookies ,cake, Doritos,highly refined foods, etc. - compare that too foods with good nutrition - meat, veggies, fruit, - you get the idea. - She's just using the words good and bad - Eastcoast Jim

I smell a troll post.

"Funny, I would gobble down those brussel sprouts but am so so on heavily frosted sweets."

I'm with you. Those look like well-cooked brussels too. Yum.

I looked at the site you posted and and it leads to the book by Gary Taubes called Good Calories, Bad Calories.

The problem with most diet books is that they take a bit of scientific information, or several random bits of information and leap to conclusions. It's taking things to "logical extremes." It's great for writing sensationalist diet books that sell but not very good science.

To learn more about nutrition, go to a source that isn't trying to sell you anything like the NutritionSource. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/

You have to embrace ambiguity in all this. No one has all the answers about the human body and nutrition. As new scientific knowledge is amassed, we have to be ready to change our beliefs in response to what is known. For example, right now, the newer evidence is indicating that carbohydrates are more problematic for cardiovascular health than some fats. The idea of the fat free diet, which had been espoused as healthy, is now being questioned.

Does this adjustment to the accumulated knowledge about fats and carbohydrates mean we should all leap to eating diets heavy in fat and light in carbohydrates? The science isn't saying this for sure yet but that doesn't prevent mendacious diet-book shills from saying it is fact.

What we need to do in the meantime is learn about the nutrional aspects of foods and make our eating choices, based on science not on marketing.