Are the calories of a banana used differently to the calories of cake?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »Man, they really should have thought about that whole "syns" spelling thing.
I swear a kitten must die or something every time someone uses it. It's that cringe-worthy.
I noticed that too...so the program is inherently telling you that certain foods are classified as sins and must be called out as such. Not cool.
Sorry to quote you, which obviously led to the untimely death of another kitten.0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »You could eat 1,500 calories of donuts for six months, or 1,500 calories of fish, salad, Greek Yogurt, eggs, chicken and vegetables for six months. If you lose 20.6 lbs. eating donuts you will lose exactly 20.6 lbs eating the healthy stuff, as per 98% of the posters on this site.
Pay no attention to the hundreds of articles and studies, and dozens of recently published books that state anything else than a calorie is a calorie. Every single one of the writers them are scam artists just trying to make a buck. It's like stating the earth is flat.
Enjoy your donuts.
Right on time with the straw man donut diet I see.
No one argues for a diet made up solely of donuts. No one. A donut in the context of an overall balanced diet will not do anyone any harm, and the calories in it will effect that person's overall calorie consumption in the same exact way the calories from their intake of vegetables will. A calorie is a unit of measure. Nothing more, nothing less.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
The banana will also increase dopamine, so will a steak.
Well that's brilliant, thanks. Honestly the most empowering thing I've read in a while. I'll choose the healthy dopamine version, thanks!
And just because SW got a bit of a pasting in this thread - and probably deservedly so - my high dopamine moment - getting "Miss Slinky" last autumn. Better than any cake or steak!
Well whatever it is it sounds cool... congrats! Don't hate congratulate
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »You could eat 1,500 calories of donuts for six months, or 1,500 calories of fish, salad, Greek Yogurt, eggs, chicken and vegetables for six months. If you lose 20.6 lbs. eating donuts you will lose exactly 20.6 lbs eating the healthy stuff, as per 98% of the posters on this site.
Pay no attention to the hundreds of articles and studies, and dozens of recently published books that state anything else than a calorie is a calorie. Every single one of the writers them are scam artists just trying to make a buck. It's like stating the earth is flat.
Enjoy your donuts.
LOL and who is making the argument that anyone should eat nothing but donuts for six months??? Nice Straw man ...
but yes you are right, the weight loss would be the same...because calories are units of energy ...
what most people are arguing is that overall diet, context, and dosage is what matter..not individual foods...
Never said anyone should eat donuts for six months. It's a hypothetical. And a hard one to believe.
it is a straw man argument....
but hey, you come in here all the time with the calorie is not a calorie argument and make absurd statements not grounded in reality ...
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »You could eat 1,500 calories of donuts for six months, or 1,500 calories of fish, salad, Greek Yogurt, eggs, chicken and vegetables for six months. If you lose 20.6 lbs. eating donuts you will lose exactly 20.6 lbs eating the healthy stuff, as per 98% of the posters on this site.
Pay no attention to the hundreds of articles and studies, and dozens of recently published books that state anything else than a calorie is a calorie. Every single one of the writers them are scam artists just trying to make a buck. It's like stating the earth is flat.
Enjoy your donuts.
LOL and who is making the argument that anyone should eat nothing but donuts for six months??? Nice Straw man ...
but yes you are right, the weight loss would be the same...because calories are units of energy ...
what most people are arguing is that overall diet, context, and dosage is what matter..not individual foods...
Never said anyone should eat donuts for six months. It's a hypothetical. And a hard one to believe.
No one said that YOU said anyone should eat donuts for six months, but you always post as if someone else is saying it.
The hypothetical is a straw man. You are arguing against something that doesn't exist.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
prettykitty1515 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »You could eat 1,500 calories of donuts for six months, or 1,500 calories of fish, salad, Greek Yogurt, eggs, chicken and vegetables for six months. If you lose 20.6 lbs. eating donuts you will lose exactly 20.6 lbs eating the healthy stuff, as per 98% of the posters on this site.
Pay no attention to the hundreds of articles and studies, and dozens of recently published books that state anything else than a calorie is a calorie. Every single one of the writers them are scam artists just trying to make a buck. It's like stating the earth is flat.
Enjoy your donuts.
Right on time with the straw man donut diet I see.
No one argues for a diet made up solely of donuts. No one. A donut in the context of an overall balanced diet will not do anyone any harm, and the calories in it will effect that person's overall calorie consumption in the same exact way the calories from their intake of vegetables will. A calorie is a unit of measure. Nothing more, nothing less.
Glad you can dismiss the dozens of recent books and hundreds of articles and studies that challenges this notion. There is so much new evidence regarding what sugar does in terms of weight gain. But hey, these people must be a bunch of frauds.
Please. Those books and articles are based on sensationalism and fear-mongering, not evidence-based science. There is not one study to show that a calorie is not a calorie. Goodness knows, you've been asked to provide links to one, and you never have.
0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »You could eat 1,500 calories of donuts for six months, or 1,500 calories of fish, salad, Greek Yogurt, eggs, chicken and vegetables for six months. If you lose 20.6 lbs. eating donuts you will lose exactly 20.6 lbs eating the healthy stuff, as per 98% of the posters on this site.
Pay no attention to the hundreds of articles and studies, and dozens of recently published books that state anything else than a calorie is a calorie. Every single one of the writers them are scam artists just trying to make a buck. It's like stating the earth is flat.
Enjoy your donuts.
Right on time with the straw man donut diet I see.
No one argues for a diet made up solely of donuts. No one. A donut in the context of an overall balanced diet will not do anyone any harm, and the calories in it will effect that person's overall calorie consumption in the same exact way the calories from their intake of vegetables will. A calorie is a unit of measure. Nothing more, nothing less.
Glad you can dismiss the dozens of recent books and hundreds of articles and studies that challenges this notion. There is so much new evidence regarding what sugar does in terms of weight gain. But hey, these people must be a bunch of frauds.
please provide peer reviewed studies showing a calorie is not a calorie...0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »If all you're concerned about is weight, it doesn't make much difference. If you're also concerned about health and the ability to exercise, there are significant differences.
THANK YOU!0 -
So_Much_Fab wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »Man, they really should have thought about that whole "syns" spelling thing.
I swear a kitten must die or something every time someone uses it. It's that cringe-worthy.
I noticed that too...so the program is inherently telling you that certain foods are classified as sins and must be called out as such. Not cool.
Sorry to quote you, which obviously led to the untimely death of another kitten.
Yes, and no. Obviously when the word "Syn" is said out loud it sounds like "Sin" - and it's used as a verb in the group "I've been Syning" but what they're really thinking is " I've been sinning".
SW would say that the word is short for synergy - ugh- another horrible word- and it refers to the different parts of your diet combining to form a wondrous whole. So you never feel deprived. To be fair to the Consultant she has a fit when people say they aren't having their "Syns" as she believes it's really important to have them so you don't feel deprived and so you keep going.
But it is an awful term I agree.
0 -
Non straw-man argument:
Person A eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats all "clean" with zero added sugars, "processed" foods, or whatever.
Person B eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats some fresh and some processed foods, and includes things like pizza, chips, ice cream, a little fast food, and plenty of donuts and cake, within his/her macros.
After 6 months, how will health markers, weight, etc. differ?0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Non straw-man argument:
Person A eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats all "clean" with zero added sugars, "processed" foods, or whatever.
Person B eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats some fresh and some processed foods, and includes things like pizza, chips, ice cream, a little fast food, and plenty of donuts and cake, within his/her macros.
After 6 months, how will health markers, weight, etc. differ?
my assumption is that they would be similar if not the same.
0 -
I'm pissed this thread isn't about banana cake.
0 -
More than likely, but there will be some differences and probably not in favor of the latter, but I'm probably splitting hairs though.SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Non straw-man argument:
Person A eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats all "clean" with zero added sugars, "processed" foods, or whatever.
Person B eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats some fresh and some processed foods, and includes things like pizza, chips, ice cream, a little fast food, and plenty of donuts and cake, within his/her macros.
After 6 months, how will health markers, weight, etc. differ?
my assumption is that they would be similar if not the same.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
More than likely, but there will be some differences and probably not in favor of the latter, but I'm probably splitting hairs though.SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Non straw-man argument:
Person A eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats all "clean" with zero added sugars, "processed" foods, or whatever.
Person B eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats some fresh and some processed foods, and includes things like pizza, chips, ice cream, a little fast food, and plenty of donuts and cake, within his/her macros.
After 6 months, how will health markers, weight, etc. differ?
my assumption is that they would be similar if not the same.
I would assume eating some processed foods would make cholesterol come in a little higher...but I think the overall differences would be marginal...0 -
Actually I think cholesterol would drop slightly, but not in a good way and more than likely trigs would increase, insulin sensitivity would decrease and generally speaking CRP would increase, but that's just an educated guess from most studies I've looked at. Understand though nothing really bad happens until someone over eats.neanderthin wrote: »
More than likely, but there will be some differences and probably not in favor of the latter, but I'm probably splitting hairs though.SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Non straw-man argument:
Person A eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats all "clean" with zero added sugars, "processed" foods, or whatever.
Person B eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats some fresh and some processed foods, and includes things like pizza, chips, ice cream, a little fast food, and plenty of donuts and cake, within his/her macros.
After 6 months, how will health markers, weight, etc. differ?
my assumption is that they would be similar if not the same.
I would assume eating some processed foods would make cholesterol come in a little higher...but I think the overall differences would be marginal...
0 -
So, comparing apples to apples (organic whole apples vs. a variety of organic/non-organic raw, cooked, and juiced apples, metaphorically speaking) probably does not make a huge impact on health, all other things being equal, right? If you take the bizarre donut diet strawmen out of the equation, and compare real diets, as long as the cals and macros are the same, the outcomes are likely to be very similar, yes?0
-
Yup, I'd go along with that, but your shoring up the differences though. 40% carbs with the lions share from whole foods and 40% carbs mostly from highly processed foods will have an impact then less as they become more comparable.SnuggleSmacks wrote: »So, comparing apples to apples (organic whole apples vs. a variety of organic/non-organic raw, cooked, and juiced apples, metaphorically speaking) probably does not make a huge impact on health, all other things being equal, right? If you take the bizarre donut diet strawmen out of the equation, and compare real diets, as long as the cals and macros are the same, the outcomes are likely to be very similar, yes?
0 -
If we're just talking about energy intake and expenditure, yes.
We all know that nutritionally speaking, cake and bananas are not equal.0 -
I suppose what I'm driving at is if you were inclined to go over on calories would be less likely to gain weight if you stuck to healthy foods or would it simply not matter?
There isn't one answer to that. Even for any given person, it would depend on context. For example, the effect of a Snickers bar is much different if I'm laying on the couch being a potato vs in the middle of a 40 mile bike ride.
You'll have to find your own body's response.
0 -
I wouldn't necessarily assume that as fact.Showcase_Brodown wrote: »If we're just talking about energy intake and expenditure, yes.
We all know that nutritionally speaking, cake and bananas are not equal.
0 -
I suppose what I'm driving at is if you were inclined to go over on calories would be less likely to gain weight if you stuck to healthy foods or would it simply not matter?
There isn't one answer to that. Even for any given person, it would depend on context. For example, the effect of a Snickers bar is much different if I'm laying on the couch being a potato vs in the middle of a 40 mile bike ride.
You'll have to find your own body's response.
Not really. What it does is basically the same. What is different is what you do about it.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Yup, I'd go along with that, but your shoring up the differences though. 40% carbs with the lions share from whole foods and 40% carbs mostly from highly processed foods will have an impact then less as they become more comparable.SnuggleSmacks wrote: »So, comparing apples to apples (organic whole apples vs. a variety of organic/non-organic raw, cooked, and juiced apples, metaphorically speaking) probably does not make a huge impact on health, all other things being equal, right? If you take the bizarre donut diet strawmen out of the equation, and compare real diets, as long as the cals and macros are the same, the outcomes are likely to be very similar, yes?
Fair enough. I guess I just know few people who get all or even most of their carbs from processed foods, although I'm sure there are some who simply don't cook or who live in "food desert" areas where fresh produce is hard to come by. But for the average person who eats a bit of this and a bit of that, with some fresh stuff in the fridge and some frozen and canned stuff as well, eating out a few times a week, health markers should not be much different from someone who only eats "whole" foods, if they're sticking to the same macro ratios/relative caloric intake, etc. Right? I mean, barring the outliers, a normal IIFYM dieter would not have vastly different markers than a normal "clean" or "whole foods" dieter, would they?0 -
Agreed. But there is a large percentage of the population that consume far too much fast/highly processed food daily as a percentage of their total caloric intake, who are overweight and as we know that demographic have poor health markers, just ask Harvard, those smug *kitten* , sorry they piss me off, but that's another story. If we're consuming a diet as prescribed by IIFYM then the differences in health would probably lie in their lifestyle as opposed to diet, again just a guess.SnuggleSmacks wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Yup, I'd go along with that, but your shoring up the differences though. 40% carbs with the lions share from whole foods and 40% carbs mostly from highly processed foods will have an impact then less as they become more comparable.SnuggleSmacks wrote: »So, comparing apples to apples (organic whole apples vs. a variety of organic/non-organic raw, cooked, and juiced apples, metaphorically speaking) probably does not make a huge impact on health, all other things being equal, right? If you take the bizarre donut diet strawmen out of the equation, and compare real diets, as long as the cals and macros are the same, the outcomes are likely to be very similar, yes?
Fair enough. I guess I just know few people who get all or even most of their carbs from processed foods, although I'm sure there are some who simply don't cook or who live in "food desert" areas where fresh produce is hard to come by. But for the average person who eats a bit of this and a bit of that, with some fresh stuff in the fridge and some frozen and canned stuff as well, eating out a few times a week, health markers should not be much different from someone who only eats "whole" foods, if they're sticking to the same macro ratios/relative caloric intake, etc. Right? I mean, barring the outliers, a normal IIFYM dieter would not have vastly different markers than a normal "clean" or "whole foods" dieter, would they?
0 -
Showcase_Brodown wrote: »If we're just talking about energy intake and expenditure, yes.
We all know that nutritionally speaking, cake and bananas are not equal.
again, you don't eat those foods in a vaccum ...so overall diet and dosage is what matters...
unless you are saying your dietary choices consist ONLY of bananas and cake..???0 -
Showcase_Brodown wrote: »If we're just talking about energy intake and expenditure, yes.
We all know that nutritionally speaking, cake and bananas are not equal.
again, you don't eat those foods in a vaccum ...so overall diet and dosage is what matters...
unless you are saying your dietary choices consist ONLY of bananas and cake..???
Depends on the list of ingredients of the cake, they are not create equal, where banana's basically are. Not so cut and dry.0 -
Showcase_Brodown wrote: »If we're just talking about energy intake and expenditure, yes.
We all know that nutritionally speaking, cake and bananas are not equal.
again, you don't eat those foods in a vaccum ...so overall diet and dosage is what matters...
And those "matter" because the content/effect of each food is different.
It's just another way of saying the same thing.
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Non straw-man argument:
Person A eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats all "clean" with zero added sugars, "processed" foods, or whatever.
Person B eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats some fresh and some processed foods, and includes things like pizza, chips, ice cream, a little fast food, and plenty of donuts and cake, within his/her macros.
After 6 months, how will health markers, weight, etc. differ?
my assumption is that they would be similar if not the same.
I think this would depend on the person. Some people can eat all sorts of things and never have elevated cholesterol levels due to 'good' genes. Another might eat a diet that fit all the dietary recommendations to lower heart risk and still have high cholesterol etc. The key is to find out how your diet effects you and then go from there.
0 -
Just want to say thanks for all the splendid and scholarly responses. I've learned a lot reading this, and feel much more empowered to go forwards.
I've had a really really healthy day, and I've lost 3lb in the last week ( so am learning that my 1450 may be too slight)
Now I'm going to nip downstairs for something sugary and sinful and lovely. Thanks xxxxxxxxxxx0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions