calorie isn't a calorie ?

muffinsandcakes
muffinsandcakes Posts: 333 Member
edited November 8 in Food and Nutrition
Helloo beautiful pals is calorie isn't a calorie ?
I've read a lot of articles concerning this:
http://fourhourworkweek.com/2008/02/25/the-science-of-fat-loss-why-a-calorie-isnt-always-a-calorie/
http://www.healthfulpursuit.com/2014/07/why-counting-calories-for-weight-loss-isnt-the-answer-what-im-doing-instead/
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/06/calories-are-out/372690/

so what MFP is doing? could we really lose? :open_mouth:
some people say just eat whatever the heck you want "cakes, kitkat, at restaurants" and just ander your calorie deficit goal.
and then her we hear that "No , it matters what enters to your mouth"
oh am confused and need the truth and only the truth.
«1345

Replies

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    sigh…here we go again ..

    A calorie is a calorie in that they are all measures of energy.

    Calorie deficit is what leads to weight loss. And YES you can eat twinkies and lose weight, just look up the "twinkie diet"…

    so at the end of the day eat the foods that you like, maintain a calorie deficit, and you will lose weight…

  • muffinsandcakes
    muffinsandcakes Posts: 333 Member
    edited November 2014
    hmm
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    dead-horse.gif

    (you can also use that fantastic 'search' feature)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Yes, a calorie is a calorie.

    Yes, it matters what you eat.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Some people are passionate about eat-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-it-fits-within-your-calorie-goals and others are passionate about what-enters-your-mouth, and I admit I'm the latter. But if you choose the former, there is a lot of guidance over on this website.

    It's a false dichotomy. Both of the following are true:

    (1) You can lose weight eating anything, so long as you can sustain a calorie deficit.

    (2) What you eat matters, because (a) it may make it easier to sustain a calorie deficit; and (b) it may affect overall health.

    That's the problem with this silly debate.
  • Calliope610
    Calliope610 Posts: 3,783 Member
    edited November 2014
    OP,

    If, according to your profile, you "want to lose weight with muffins and cake", I suggest you join the "a calorie IS a calorie" camp and eat in a manner which creates a moderate caloric deficit. Lather, rinse, repeat on a daily basis.
  • SnuggleSmacks
    SnuggleSmacks Posts: 3,731 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Some people are passionate about eat-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-it-fits-within-your-calorie-goals and others are passionate about what-enters-your-mouth, and I admit I'm the latter. But if you choose the former, there is a lot of guidance over on this website.

    It's a false dichotomy. Both of the following are true:

    (1) You can lose weight eating anything, so long as you can sustain a calorie deficit.

    (2) What you eat matters, because (a) it may make it easier to sustain a calorie deficit; and (b) it may affect overall health.

    That's the problem with this silly debate.

    Yes of course, the dichotomy is false. For many people both are on a continuum and of course there is a lot of overlap for some. Not for all - as I am pretty much 100% what-food-enters-mouth and I am not a CICO believer whatsoever, but there are also many who are the complete opposite in belief. I was just addressing the perceived dichotomy in OP's opening post. But I probably read it wrong... or too fast as is often the case.

    I do agree with #2, but based on personal experience, I found that #1 was the least useful strategy for me and actually made me struggle immensely.

    Fortunately, science is not like religion. It doesn't care if you believe in it. It's going to work the same regardless.

  • muffinsandcakes
    muffinsandcakes Posts: 333 Member
    but we all know carrot is far more better than a (carrot) cake!
  • My diabetic dietitian explained it this way-calories are calories. Carbs and starches are calories. Proteins are proteins. The difference is what you have with your calories. your body needs calories, fats, nutrients and proteins to be able to function properly. the best example is sandwich. 2 pieces of bread that are high in dietary fiber, piece of cheese, lettuce, tomatoe, some thick ham and even some mayo is much better for you that just having a salad with just vegis and some light dressing. the key is to balance you calories in evey meal with the other aspects of your dietary needs. oh and by the way according the same dietitian we are only supposed to have 0.5grams of trans fat a day. other fats are okay in the right quantity but trans fat is just bad bad bad.
  • LeonCX
    LeonCX Posts: 862 Member
    Sigh. I'm going back to the "detox cleanse" thread.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Some people are passionate about eat-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-it-fits-within-your-calorie-goals and others are passionate about what-enters-your-mouth, and I admit I'm the latter. But if you choose the former, there is a lot of guidance over on this website.

    It's a false dichotomy. Both of the following are true:

    (1) You can lose weight eating anything, so long as you can sustain a calorie deficit.

    (2) What you eat matters, because (a) it may make it easier to sustain a calorie deficit; and (b) it may affect overall health.

    That's the problem with this silly debate.

    Yes of course, the dichotomy is false. For many people both are on a continuum and of course there is a lot of overlap for some. Not for all - as I am pretty much 100% what-food-enters-mouth and I am not a CICO believer whatsoever, but there are also many who are the complete opposite in belief. I was just addressing the perceived dichotomy in OP's opening post. But I probably read it wrong... or too fast as is often the case.

    I do agree with #2, but based on personal experience, I found that #1 was the least useful strategy for me and actually made me struggle immensely.

    #1 isn't a matter of strategy or have to do with what works for you individually. In reality I don't think "you can eat just Twinkies and lose if you count calories" works for anyone, since you'd have to be doing an experiment to be able to sustain it and most people would be miserable. It's a statement of fact--the number of calories you eat vs. your overall energy burn is what matters for losing weight.

    I can't tell if you are actually disagreeing with that. If so, yes, we disagree. I think you are factually wrong.

    If what you are saying is that paying attention to what you eat determines whether or not you will have a calorie deficit, I think that's true, to a greater or lesser extent, for pretty much everyone. No one actually thinks it is a good idea, even for practical weight loss, to eat a diet of 100% cake. That's why the arguments which are based on such a silly hypothetical are beside the point. But will I lose less if I eat 1650 calories of a balanced diet including 250 calories of ice cream vs. 1650 calories of strictly nutrient dense calories? No, or not meaningfully different. The actual calories retained might differ a bit, but other things are likely to make more of a difference in that (like overall protein levels and how well I count) and in any case be more than offset by other noise.
  • muffinsandcakes
    muffinsandcakes Posts: 333 Member
    My diabetic dietitian explained it this way-calories are calories. Carbs and starches are calories. Proteins are proteins. The difference is what you have with your calories. your body needs calories, fats, nutrients and proteins to be able to function properly. the best example is sandwich. 2 pieces of bread that are high in dietary fiber, piece of cheese, lettuce, tomatoe, some thick ham and even some mayo is much better for you that just having a salad with just vegis and some light dressing. the key is to balance you calories in evey meal with the other aspects of your dietary needs. oh and by the way according the same dietitian we are only supposed to have 0.5grams of trans fat a day. other fats are okay in the right quantity but trans fat is just bad bad bad.

    thanks
  • muffinsandcakes
    muffinsandcakes Posts: 333 Member
    so i understand eating healthy will make results come faster ,yeah?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    so i understand eating healthy will make results come faster ,yeah?

    Depends on other stuff.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Some people are passionate about eat-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-it-fits-within-your-calorie-goals and others are passionate about what-enters-your-mouth, and I admit I'm the latter. But if you choose the former, there is a lot of guidance over on this website.

    It's a false dichotomy. Both of the following are true:

    (1) You can lose weight eating anything, so long as you can sustain a calorie deficit.

    (2) What you eat matters, because (a) it may make it easier to sustain a calorie deficit; and (b) it may affect overall health.

    That's the problem with this silly debate.

    Yes of course, the dichotomy is false. For many people both are on a continuum and of course there is a lot of overlap for some. Not for all - as I am pretty much 100% what-food-enters-mouth and I am not a CICO believer whatsoever, but there are also many who are the complete opposite in belief. I was just addressing the perceived dichotomy in OP's opening post. But I probably read it wrong... or too fast as is often the case.

    I do agree with #2, but based on personal experience, I found that #1 was the least useful strategy for me and actually made me struggle immensely.

    if you do not believe in CICO, then, pray tell, how does one lose weight?
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    so i understand eating healthy will make results come faster ,yeah?

    NO
    eating in a calorie deficit will.
  • muffinsandcakes
    muffinsandcakes Posts: 333 Member
    oh am confused i can't eat all the time veggies and fruits -_-
  • SnuggleSmacks
    SnuggleSmacks Posts: 3,731 Member
    edited November 2014
    Except that a nutrition professor actually did eat nothing but junk food for 30 days as an experiment, and lost 27 pounds, because he was eating at a deficit. He did it in order to prove this very point. A calorie is a calorie when it comes to weight loss.


    Overall health? Obviously, that's more complicated and does require a look at macro and micronutrients. But no amount of altering your macros or cutting out food groups is going to allow you to eat more calories than you burn and still lose weight, or to eat less calories than you burn and not lose weight.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    essentially it boils down to this..

    calorie deficit for weight loss..

    macro nutrient adherence for body recomposition and over all health...
  • peachyfuzzle
    peachyfuzzle Posts: 1,122 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Some people are passionate about eat-whatever-you-want-as-long-as-it-fits-within-your-calorie-goals and others are passionate about what-enters-your-mouth, and I admit I'm the latter. But if you choose the former, there is a lot of guidance over on this website.

    It's a false dichotomy. Both of the following are true:

    (1) You can lose weight eating anything, so long as you can sustain a calorie deficit.

    (2) What you eat matters, because (a) it may make it easier to sustain a calorie deficit; and (b) it may affect overall health.

    That's the problem with this silly debate.

    Yes of course, the dichotomy is false. For many people both are on a continuum and of course there is a lot of overlap for some. Not for all - as I am pretty much 100% what-food-enters-mouth and I am not a CICO believer whatsoever, but there are also many who are the complete opposite in belief. I was just addressing the perceived dichotomy in OP's opening post. But I probably read it wrong... or too fast as is often the case.

    I do agree with #2, but based on personal experience, I found that #1 was the least useful strategy for me and actually made me struggle immensely.

    if you do not believe in CICO, then, pray tell, how does one lose weight?

    mr-bean-magic.gif
  • SnuggleSmacks
    SnuggleSmacks Posts: 3,731 Member
    The fact is, you can cut out carbs or sweets or whatever if it helps you to maintain your calorie deficit, and that's fine. Or you can develop a good relationship with food and be able to eat whatever you want in reasonable portions without the urge to binge, and that's fine too.

    The first option might be faster and easier, but the second option is much more rewarding and sustainable for life.

    0042870ce57db71673b1cd19684491b6.jpg
  • ithrowconfetti
    ithrowconfetti Posts: 451 Member
    oh am confused i can't eat all the time veggies and fruits -_-

    Eat any foods that you like, that will satisfy your hunger, and still fit into your daily calorie intake of maintaining a calorie deficit for weight loss. No one is insisting you eat just fruits and vegetables all the time, and no one should, unless you owe them a living.
  • maoribadger
    maoribadger Posts: 1,837 Member
    As I understand it you can lose as long as you eat at a deficit. So you could have (as an example) 1200 calories of fruit and veg or 1200 calories of hamburgers and still lose weight. What you put in your mouth is what makes it sustainable though. For example a mcdonalds double cheeseburger is 440 calories. You can eat one and be hungry later or spread the 440 calories across quite a lot of more nutrient dense food - a 3 egg omelette with low fat cheese, ham, onions and mushrooms runs to much less than 440 and is way more filling as well as leaving calories for later on. I have days where I choose the cheeseburger and days where I choose the veg. More often than not I choose to eat more food thats lower in cals because I dont like feeling hungry so I would prefer to eat more foods that are lower in calories than a couple of calorie dense items. Its what makes me able to stick to this for longer.
  • lsgibbs83
    lsgibbs83 Posts: 254 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    essentially it boils down to this..

    calorie deficit for weight loss..

    macro nutrient adherence for body recomposition and over all health...

    ^^This!
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,148 Member
    In to learn more about how a unit of measurement isn't a unit of measurement.
    Anderson-Cooper-Popcorn-Gif-While-Live-On-CNN.gif
  • maoribadger
    maoribadger Posts: 1,837 Member
    lsgibbs83 wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    essentially it boils down to this..

    calorie deficit for weight loss..

    macro nutrient adherence for body recomposition and over all health...

    ^^This!

    Yeah I prefer this too
  • stackhsc
    stackhsc Posts: 439 Member
    135 lbs down not giving a thought to any thing other that calorie defecit
  • ThePhoenixIsRising
    ThePhoenixIsRising Posts: 781 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    essentially it boils down to this..

    calorie deficit for weight loss..

    macro nutrient adherence for body recomposition and over all health...

    Win!!!
  • muffinsandcakes
    muffinsandcakes Posts: 333 Member
    thanks for all of you for your answering and tips !
    am eating cake and sugars more than two times a week and that something really hard to leave, though am seeing slow (like a turtle) results.
    so you mean for abs to have them flat and something like that we need to fit in the macros ,right?
  • mccindy72
    mccindy72 Posts: 7,001 Member
    oh am confused i can't eat all the time veggies and fruits -_-

    Eat SOME veggies and fruits. Eat SOME meat. Eat SOME cake. Balance.....

    Basicallly eat a little bit of everything you want to eat, and keep the total in a calorie deficit. You will lose weight, and you will enjoy what you are eating at the same time. After all, isn't that the point?
This discussion has been closed.