Stirring the Pot: are all calories equal
Options
Replies
-
As a unit of measure, 1=1, no matter what it is. 1 always equals 1 and will never equal anything else.
That's not correct. It depends on context.
It took Principia Mathematica about 500 pages worth of logical proofs to establish that "1+1=2" - usually. Even then ended up with a circular definition. And if 1 plus 1 being 2 is a "sometimes", then it's not possible that "1 always equals 1".
-1 -
I find it hard to believe that the labels are OVERestimating by any significant amount. I'd be losing weight a lot faster....0
-
mbanfield13 wrote: »I also found this study interesting about how groups that severely energy restrict end up weighing less than groups who do not because their bodies become much more efficient at metabolizing energy: http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/eating-less-doesnt-cause-long-term-fat-loss/
Wow. What a load of crap.-3 -
Since this thread is already being reported, I have two requests:
1. Please stay on topic and don't insult other users when making your point. We all know where this thread is probably going, but I figured I'd at least make an attempt.
2. Please stop flagging each other unless the post warrants a flag. Here's a reminder of how the flagging/reporting system works.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007789/flagged-content-reported-posts-warning-points
Yes, the moderators can see who is flagging which posts. I'm in the process of removing flags from this thread that do not meet the guidelines above.
LOL Slippy kitty!0 -
AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »Jokes aside, I still stand behind the fact that consumers are entitled to accurate information on the products they buy. And knowledge about what goes into your body and how your body processes it is valuable - pounds lost or not. This article highlights an area where we don't have the scientific precision to untangle the variables that result in calories digested. Seems worth pursuing. Many a technical advancements have been achieved by chasing seemingly pointless curiosity.
:drinker:
Scientific curiosity FTW!
0 -
Since this thread is already being reported, I have two requests:
1. Please stay on topic and don't insult other users when making your point. We all know where this thread is probably going, but I figured I'd at least make an attempt.
2. Please stop flagging each other unless the post warrants a flag. Here's a reminder of how the flagging/reporting system works.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007789/flagged-content-reported-posts-warning-points
Yes, the moderators can see who is flagging which posts. I'm in the process of removing flags from this thread that do not meet the guidelines above.
Hey you gotz the big buttons now. When did that happen? Congrats, I think
Would it be possible to warn also users who flag unnecessarily?
Thank you. The big buttons are nice, but getting to wear a sash and tiara while operating them really is the best part. I found the required "I
Olivia" tattoo to be a bit unorthodox, but rules are rules.
To answer your question, yes, users can be warned for unnecessary flagging.
0 -
I'd be interested to see some numbers for comparative purposes on bioavailabilty of nutrients from processed sources vs unprocessed sources. Also some numbers on calories expended through digestion of processed vs unprocessed. It would be interesting to see what combined affect thee two of these have for processed vs unprocessed foods with the same theoretical calorie amount.
Did anyone read the study a little while ago about cooled/cooled and re-heated pasta having less available calories than freshly cooked pasta due to the presence of resistent starch.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/11167883/Cool-and-reheat-pasta-to-make-it-less-fattening.html
P.s. I'm ignoring the whole calorie = a calorie thing. We all know what the OP was getting at - as in comparitive nutritional value for the same energy value NOT just energy value. There's always the people who respond unhelpfully in this topic though0 -
I have tooth pain!
0 -
I'd be interested to see some numbers for comparative purposes on bioavailabilty of nutrients from processed sources vs unprocessed sources. Also some numbers on calories expended through digestion of processed vs unprocessed. It would be interesting to see what combined affect thee two of these have for processed vs unprocessed foods with the same theoretical calorie amount.
Did anyone read the study a little while ago about cooled/cooled and re-heated pasta having less available calories than freshly cooked pasta due to the presence of resistent starch.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/11167883/Cool-and-reheat-pasta-to-make-it-less-fattening.html
P.s. I'm ignoring the whole calorie = a calorie thing. We all know what the OP was getting at - as in comparitive nutritional value for the same energy value NOT just energy value. There's always the people who respond unhelpfully in this topic though
Yes, I read it, but I found it hard to believe. I mean, I would LOVE for it to be true.0 -
I find it hard to believe that the labels are OVERestimating by any significant amount. I'd be losing weight a lot faster....
Between the error bars on measuring, weighing, food labels, getting every last drop of sauce out of the pot, the scales we weight ourselves, variance in individual RMRs and exercise burns...
Honestly, anything within 10% would be pure genius.
0 -
I'd be interested to see some numbers for comparative purposes on bioavailabilty of nutrients from processed sources vs unprocessed sources. Also some numbers on calories expended through digestion of processed vs unprocessed. It would be interesting to see what combined affect thee two of these have for processed vs unprocessed foods with the same theoretical calorie amount.
Did anyone read the study a little while ago about cooled/cooled and re-heated pasta having less available calories than freshly cooked pasta due to the presence of resistent starch.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/11167883/Cool-and-reheat-pasta-to-make-it-less-fattening.html
P.s. I'm ignoring the whole calorie = a calorie thing. We all know what the OP was getting at - as in comparitive nutritional value for the same energy value NOT just energy value. There's always the people who respond unhelpfully in this topic though
Yes, I read it, but I found it hard to believe. I mean, I would LOVE for it to be true.
Random unpublished experiment by a TV doctor?0 -
I am not normally one to stir, or to wave the red cape a trolls
But I saw this on IFLS - who normally have very good sources.
- http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/why-most-food-labels-are-wrong-about-calories
I've seen and done experiments with artificial stomachs that back this up. (phd in chemistry before all the trolls jump up and down on me.)
I am not trying to change people who have schemes that work for them - if it aint broke don't fix it and all that ... but i thought there may be some who will find it interesting.
Thank you. I find it fascinating. I also found this article/study really interesting as well.
It would be interesting to know the difference in someone eating what is generally considered a balanced diet (eg. based on national guidelines) that includes cooked and uncooked foods such as raw and cooked fruit and veg compared to a highly processed diet with the same cals...put it into context of the overall diet. Probably not much. The problem is always that human studies are difficult to control. Animals studies are easier, but don't always translate.
The other interesting aspect is the metabolic cost of mounting an immune response for uncooked food that may contain bugs normally destroyed by cooking. Fever can increase REE by 7–13% for each 1 °C increase in body temperature.
0 -
It's the articles like this that IFLS posts from time to time that is making me pretty disappointed in the site. Sugar is also the devil and sole cause of weight gain, according to one article that has been posted in the last few months from them. Things have gone a little downhill after the original site moderator hired interns; it seems they either aren't vetted well or there's no review process before posting.
Off topic, can someone tell me why there are a few posts that have a locked gate over them? I'm on the Android app and this is the first I've seen them.0 -
I think if a post generates enough flags, it goes invisible/blocked. At least, I've seen that happen a couple of times.
0 -
As a unit of measure, 1=1, no matter what it is. 1 always equals 1 and will never equal anything else.
That's not correct. It depends on context.
It took Principia Mathematica about 500 pages worth of logical proofs to establish that "1+1=2" - usually. Even then ended up with a circular definition. And if 1 plus 1 being 2 is a "sometimes", then it's not possible that "1 always equals 1".
Usually? Stop making things up.
0 -
Interesting article, but what does that say about corn? Cooked or raw, just doesn't seem to get digested? Any thoughts?0
-
I think if a post generates enough flags, it goes invisible/blocked. At least, I've seen that happen a couple of times.
Thanks. That was my initial thought as well. I had seen the thing where posts go "ghost" almost but you could click them to read it anyway so this seemed new and different, even if it isn't.
0 -
how the hell did I miss out on this????0
-
Seriously, I'm pretty sure my chocolate calorie is the same as my peanut butter calorie.
0 -
Yes, all calories are the same they are units of energy.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions