All Calories Are Not Created Equally
Replies
-
_Terrapin_ wrote: »The calories you consume will influence your satiety, energy levels (pertaining especially to blood glucose), and long-term health. Will you lose weight eating in a deficit while consuming only junk? Sure. Are you going to feel like crap and possibly suffer health issues in the long-term? Yes. All calories are not created equally.
The horse is dead. Beating it more doesn't make it MORE dead.
zombies are pretty popular these days...0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »So… after reading the first page, let me know if I am correct in assuming this is how the discussion is going:
1) A calorie is not a calorie because some are more satiating.
2) You are wrong. A calorie is a calorie. You can eat junk food only and still lose weight.
3) Yes but in terms of nutrition, energy and satiety, what you eat matters.
4) But we are not talking bout nutrition, we are talking about weight loss only.
Bonus arguments: Sugar is evil. Something about ketones.
I also saw something about potatoes that looked cool, though I find there is a noticeable lack of jesus seeds.
Here are some cookies.
By the way, the article itself really isn't that bad. I agree with lemurcat's sentiment that it does not emphasise CICO enough, but overall it is saying reasonable information. Some of the stuff may sound obvious to long-term users of MFP, but still could be useful to someone who just embarked on a nutrition journey.
Well said.
I find it fairly easy to adhere to my calorie goals if I am eating lots of vegetables, and exceedingly difficult if I am indulging in treats. So not just in terms of overall nutrition, but in terms of weight loss, all calories aren't equal in my eyes.
0 -
-
goldthistime wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »So… after reading the first page, let me know if I am correct in assuming this is how the discussion is going:
1) A calorie is not a calorie because some are more satiating.
2) You are wrong. A calorie is a calorie. You can eat junk food only and still lose weight.
3) Yes but in terms of nutrition, energy and satiety, what you eat matters.
4) But we are not talking bout nutrition, we are talking about weight loss only.
Bonus arguments: Sugar is evil. Something about ketones.
I also saw something about potatoes that looked cool, though I find there is a noticeable lack of jesus seeds.
Here are some cookies.
By the way, the article itself really isn't that bad. I agree with lemurcat's sentiment that it does not emphasise CICO enough, but overall it is saying reasonable information. Some of the stuff may sound obvious to long-term users of MFP, but still could be useful to someone who just embarked on a nutrition journey.
Well said.
I find it fairly easy to adhere to my calorie goals if I am eating lots of vegetables, and exceedingly difficult if I am indulging in treats. So not just in terms of overall nutrition, but in terms of weight loss, all calories aren't equal in my eyes.
thankfully, personal opinion does not trump fact….0 -
goldthistime wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »So… after reading the first page, let me know if I am correct in assuming this is how the discussion is going:
1) A calorie is not a calorie because some are more satiating.
2) You are wrong. A calorie is a calorie. You can eat junk food only and still lose weight.
3) Yes but in terms of nutrition, energy and satiety, what you eat matters.
4) But we are not talking bout nutrition, we are talking about weight loss only.
Bonus arguments: Sugar is evil. Something about ketones.
I also saw something about potatoes that looked cool, though I find there is a noticeable lack of jesus seeds.
Here are some cookies.
By the way, the article itself really isn't that bad. I agree with lemurcat's sentiment that it does not emphasise CICO enough, but overall it is saying reasonable information. Some of the stuff may sound obvious to long-term users of MFP, but still could be useful to someone who just embarked on a nutrition journey.
Well said.
I find it fairly easy to adhere to my calorie goals if I am eating lots of vegetables, and exceedingly difficult if I am indulging in treats. So not just in terms of overall nutrition, but in terms of weight loss, all calories aren't equal in my eyes.
Can you elaborate?
I get the argument that limiting treats can make you feel deprived and eliminating them entirely is unsustainable, but it is so much easier for me to stay disciplined (as in eating under goal) if I eat certain foods. Certain calories if you like. More vegetables and less treats is the easiest way for me. More protein helps too if I can manage it.
0 -
SGM_Adonis wrote: »1 Calorie = 4.18400 joules
(1 calorie) + (1 calorie) = 8.36800 joules.
(1 Kale Calorie) + (1 Mashed Cauliflower Calorie) = You're going to heaven.
(1 Bacon Calorie) + (1 Nutella Calorie) = Burn in hell for eternity.
you forgot that sugar is satan ...
0 -
0
-
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »So… after reading the first page, let me know if I am correct in assuming this is how the discussion is going:
1) A calorie is not a calorie because some are more satiating.
2) You are wrong. A calorie is a calorie. You can eat junk food only and still lose weight.
3) Yes but in terms of nutrition, energy and satiety, what you eat matters.
4) But we are not talking bout nutrition, we are talking about weight loss only.
I'd rephrase as:
1) A calorie is not a calorie because some are more satiating.
2) No, some foods are more satiating (although that varies by individual somewhat), as everyone agrees, but that has nothing to do what a calorie is a calorie means.
WHY does everyone who wants to argue "a calorie is not a calorie" (not you, so far as I can see) insist upon misrepresenting what that even means. NO ONE claims that foods are all identical or equal in their effects on the individual. So why do people argue against an argument that no one makes? It's so confusing.
It's like potatoes are dancing or something!
0 -
goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »So… after reading the first page, let me know if I am correct in assuming this is how the discussion is going:
1) A calorie is not a calorie because some are more satiating.
2) You are wrong. A calorie is a calorie. You can eat junk food only and still lose weight.
3) Yes but in terms of nutrition, energy and satiety, what you eat matters.
4) But we are not talking bout nutrition, we are talking about weight loss only.
Bonus arguments: Sugar is evil. Something about ketones.
I also saw something about potatoes that looked cool, though I find there is a noticeable lack of jesus seeds.
Here are some cookies.
By the way, the article itself really isn't that bad. I agree with lemurcat's sentiment that it does not emphasise CICO enough, but overall it is saying reasonable information. Some of the stuff may sound obvious to long-term users of MFP, but still could be useful to someone who just embarked on a nutrition journey.
Well said.
I find it fairly easy to adhere to my calorie goals if I am eating lots of vegetables, and exceedingly difficult if I am indulging in treats. So not just in terms of overall nutrition, but in terms of weight loss, all calories aren't equal in my eyes.
Can you elaborate?
I get the argument that limiting treats can make you feel deprived and eliminating them entirely is unsustainable, but it is so much easier for me to stay disciplined (as in eating under goal) if I eat certain foods. Certain calories if you like. More vegetables and less treats is the easiest way for me. More protein helps too if I can manage it.
I totally agree with this, but it's simply not inconsistent with a claim that "all calories are equal." I find it pretty easy to feel satisfied eating a generally healthy diet with lots of vegetables and protein and not many refined carbs and treats in moderation only (although I don't assume what applies for me will for everyone). However, if someone asked me if a calorie is a calorie I'd say "of course," because I don't think that I could eat 500 calories over my maintenance level on a regular basis and not gain because the calories were from bananas or avocados or a quail I hunted myself.
My understanding of this debate is that "a calorie is not a calorie" (or "all calories are created equal") means that they have identical effects for weight loss, even if you could hold all else equal.
Of course, absent an experiment most people don't really hold all else equal. Obviously I don't assert that eating only cake would be a good idea or that I'd be able to successfully lose weight trying to do it and stay within my calories and at my current activity level. Not because cake magically causes you to gain weight beyond its calories, but because I'd fail if I tried to do it.0 -
This thread is lacking
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »So… after reading the first page, let me know if I am correct in assuming this is how the discussion is going:
1) A calorie is not a calorie because some are more satiating.
2) You are wrong. A calorie is a calorie. You can eat junk food only and still lose weight.
3) Yes but in terms of nutrition, energy and satiety, what you eat matters.
4) But we are not talking bout nutrition, we are talking about weight loss only.
Bonus arguments: Sugar is evil. Something about ketones.
I also saw something about potatoes that looked cool, though I find there is a noticeable lack of jesus seeds.
Here are some cookies.
By the way, the article itself really isn't that bad. I agree with lemurcat's sentiment that it does not emphasise CICO enough, but overall it is saying reasonable information. Some of the stuff may sound obvious to long-term users of MFP, but still could be useful to someone who just embarked on a nutrition journey.
Well said.
I find it fairly easy to adhere to my calorie goals if I am eating lots of vegetables, and exceedingly difficult if I am indulging in treats. So not just in terms of overall nutrition, but in terms of weight loss, all calories aren't equal in my eyes.
Can you elaborate?
I get the argument that limiting treats can make you feel deprived and eliminating them entirely is unsustainable, but it is so much easier for me to stay disciplined (as in eating under goal) if I eat certain foods. Certain calories if you like. More vegetables and less treats is the easiest way for me. More protein helps too if I can manage it.
I totally agree with this, but it's simply not inconsistent with a claim that "all calories are equal." I find it pretty easy to feel satisfied eating a generally healthy diet with lots of vegetables and protein and not many refined carbs and treats in moderation only (although I don't assume what applies for me will for everyone). However, if someone asked me if a calorie is a calorie I'd say "of course," because I don't think that I could eat 500 calories over my maintenance level on a regular basis and not gain because the calories were from bananas or avocados or a quail I hunted myself.
My understanding of this debate is that "a calorie is not a calorie" (or "all calories are created equal") means that they have identical effects for weight loss, even if you could hold all else equal.
Of course, absent an experiment most people don't really hold all else equal. Obviously I don't assert that eating only cake would be a good idea or that I'd be able to successfully lose weight trying to do it and stay within my calories and at my current activity level. Not because cake magically causes you to gain weight beyond its calories, but because I'd fail if I tried to do it.
"All calories are not equal" is just a shortcut way of saying "calorie for calorie, all foods are not equal". Yes, technically incorrect, but I don't get why it irks so many people. I guess if you look at calories like money, that you can spend on vegetables or donuts, you would never say "all dollars are not created equal". Meh. Maybe it is a shortcut phrase that we should work to eliminate.
0 -
0
-
goldthistime wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »GingerbreadCandy wrote: »So… after reading the first page, let me know if I am correct in assuming this is how the discussion is going:
1) A calorie is not a calorie because some are more satiating.
2) You are wrong. A calorie is a calorie. You can eat junk food only and still lose weight.
3) Yes but in terms of nutrition, energy and satiety, what you eat matters.
4) But we are not talking bout nutrition, we are talking about weight loss only.
Bonus arguments: Sugar is evil. Something about ketones.
I also saw something about potatoes that looked cool, though I find there is a noticeable lack of jesus seeds.
Here are some cookies.
By the way, the article itself really isn't that bad. I agree with lemurcat's sentiment that it does not emphasise CICO enough, but overall it is saying reasonable information. Some of the stuff may sound obvious to long-term users of MFP, but still could be useful to someone who just embarked on a nutrition journey.
Well said.
I find it fairly easy to adhere to my calorie goals if I am eating lots of vegetables, and exceedingly difficult if I am indulging in treats. So not just in terms of overall nutrition, but in terms of weight loss, all calories aren't equal in my eyes.
Can you elaborate?
I get the argument that limiting treats can make you feel deprived and eliminating them entirely is unsustainable, but it is so much easier for me to stay disciplined (as in eating under goal) if I eat certain foods. Certain calories if you like. More vegetables and less treats is the easiest way for me. More protein helps too if I can manage it.
I totally agree with this, but it's simply not inconsistent with a claim that "all calories are equal." I find it pretty easy to feel satisfied eating a generally healthy diet with lots of vegetables and protein and not many refined carbs and treats in moderation only (although I don't assume what applies for me will for everyone). However, if someone asked me if a calorie is a calorie I'd say "of course," because I don't think that I could eat 500 calories over my maintenance level on a regular basis and not gain because the calories were from bananas or avocados or a quail I hunted myself.
My understanding of this debate is that "a calorie is not a calorie" (or "all calories are created equal") means that they have identical effects for weight loss, even if you could hold all else equal.
Of course, absent an experiment most people don't really hold all else equal. Obviously I don't assert that eating only cake would be a good idea or that I'd be able to successfully lose weight trying to do it and stay within my calories and at my current activity level. Not because cake magically causes you to gain weight beyond its calories, but because I'd fail if I tried to do it.
"All calories are not equal" is just a shortcut way of saying "calorie for calorie, all foods are not equal". Yes, technically incorrect, but I don't get why it irks so many people. I guess if you look at calories like money, that you can spend on vegetables or donuts, you would never say "all dollars are not created equal". Meh. Maybe it is a shortcut phrase that we should work to eliminate.
There's already a phrase for that. All foods are different. Different nutrients are required for optimal health. Calories are calories as far as energy is concerned. Whether it comes from a hydroelectric plant, coal plant, nuclear plant, or solar, it's the same electricity.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 902 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions