We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Is there such thing as good and bad calories?

1356

Replies

  • Posts: 13,575 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    that is a ridiculous definition ..

    so if you go 100 calories over your day is "bad"....

    I wouldn't consider 100 calories over on a single day "bad" because that's easy enough to make up the next. But in all honesty I would consider the calories bad because I have to think about making them up. It's not a definition though, it's my opinion.
  • Posts: 13,575 Member
    edited March 2015
    deksgrl wrote: »

    You're confusing "good for you" with the definition of a calorie as a unit of measure.

    Are calories good or bad? No, they are equal, as a unit of measure of energy.

    Are some foods more good for you than others? Yes. Are some foods more nutritious? Yes. Are some foods more satisfying? Yes.

    Why is this a difficult concept to understand?

    Well, if you read the OP it really doesn't sound like she was talking about a unit of measure. Since, as an example, she asked if fried foods were bad calories it sounds more like the thread is about nutrition.
  • Posts: 29,136 Member

    Well, if you read the OP it really doesn't sound like she was talking about a unit of measure. Since, as an example, she asked if fried foods were bad calories it sounds more like the thread is about nutrition.

    direct from OP

    "Is there a difference between good and bad calories or are calories just calories...like is it ok to eat fried food from home made in the deep fryer? Are those considered bad calories?"

    I don't see anything in there about nutrition, do you?

    sounds like a pretty specific question ...
  • Posts: 13,575 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    direct from OP

    "Is there a difference between good and bad calories or are calories just calories...like is it ok to eat fried food from home made in the deep fryer? Are those considered bad calories?"

    I don't see anything in there about nutrition, do you?

    sounds like a pretty specific question ...

    Nope. I inferred it from the mention of a specific food that is often considered "bad". Specifically, fried food. That's why I said it "sounds more like...".
  • Posts: 29,136 Member

    Nope. I inferred it from the mention of a specific food that is often considered "bad". Specifically, fried food. That's why I said it "sounds more like...".

    sounds like you inferred wrong...
  • Posts: 13,575 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    sounds like you inferred wrong...

    To your ears perhaps. ;)
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Posts: 3,322 Member
    deksgrl wrote: »

    You're confusing "good for you" with the definition of a calorie as a unit of measure.

    Are calories good or bad? No, they are equal, as a unit of measure of energy.

    Are some foods more good for you than others? Yes. Are some foods more nutritious? Yes. Are some foods more satisfying? Yes.

    Why is this a difficult concept to understand?

    All calories are not "equal as a unit of measure of energy"

    Drink a REDBULL when you wake up in the morning and the next day at the same time drink a water. Let me know if the unit of measurement of energy is the same.

  • Posts: 9,003 Member
    laurielima wrote: »

    All calories are not "equal as a unit of measure of energy"

    Drink a REDBULL when you wake up in the morning and the next day at the same time drink a water. Let me know if the unit of measurement of energy is the same.

    O.M.G....

    r8KTUWM.gif
  • Posts: 3,322 Member
    ndj1979 wrote: »

    yes, they are units of energy; however, they are not nutritional twins.

    you are conflating calories with nutrition, not the same thing.

    Dude...the name of the site is MY "FITNESS" PAL. not my skinny pal ....
  • Posts: 1,903 Member
    edited March 2015

    What doesn't make sense? You run 1,500 daily calorie surplus from the time you are 18 to the time you are 50. One would think that would lead to a weight of 400 pounds for many.

    1) Weight loss, and likewise weight gain, are not linear. There's nothing about CICO that implies that they are. There are plenty of complicating factors in the CO part of the equation. People generally use 3500 calories =1 lb fat because that's what it is. You won't necessarily lose 1lb per week at a 500/day deficit, though. I don't know that that's ever been in dispute.

    2) Energy needs change as one gains and loses weight. Eventually you'll find an balance until something comes along to mess up the balance (decreases/increases in activity, changes to eating behavior due to emotional states, etc).

    EDIT: I should add that whether or not we're in a deficit is actually determined by whether or not we lose or gain weight; beforehand we're just guessing because we don't know what the CO is going to be. When people say they're eating at a deficit, they really mean that they're eating at an attempted deficit.
  • Posts: 1,335 Member
    MrM27 wrote: »
    There are no individual are bad food, stuff was trans fat would be the one exception. Look at the overall contents to see if your eating habits are good or bad. If you're meeting to caloric goals while making sure you hit at least your fat and protein minimums along with vitamins and minerals the you're fine.

    If you had to label something as good or bad I would have to say that bad would be the stuff that puts you over your caloric goals. The specific food isn't bad but the choice at the moment could have been better.

    Didn't feel like bringing alcohol into it, eh?
  • Posts: 34,971 Member
    laurielima wrote: »

    Dude...the name of the site is MY "FITNESS" PAL. not my skinny pal ....

    :huh:

    When did he say that? He didn't even infer it.
  • Posts: 4,440 Member
    laurielima wrote: »

    Dude...the name of the site is MY "FITNESS" PAL. not my skinny pal ....

    Are you responding to the wrong thread or something?
  • Posts: 29,136 Member
    laurielima wrote: »

    Dude...the name of the site is MY "FITNESS" PAL. not my skinny pal ....

    eh?

    and that has what to do with my post?

  • Posts: 3,322 Member
    ok lets do gal. is a gal of gas and a gal of water the same thing. they are both a gallon so would you advize us to put them both in our car?
  • Posts: 29,136 Member
    laurielima wrote: »

    All calories are not "equal as a unit of measure of energy"

    Drink a REDBULL when you wake up in the morning and the next day at the same time drink a water. Let me know if the unit of measurement of energy is the same.

    bahahahahahahahaha..

    talk about apples and oranges...

    so you want to compare the calorie content of a red bull vs water...

    considering water has zero calories that is going to be impossible...

  • Posts: 4,334 Member
    laurielima wrote: »

    All calories are not "equal as a unit of measure of energy"

    Drink a REDBULL when you wake up in the morning and the next day at the same time drink a water. Let me know if the unit of measurement of energy is the same.

    An 8.4oz can of Redbull has 110 calories
    A 8oz glass of water has 0 calories.

    I'm confused at your comparison.
  • Posts: 1,650 Member
    edited March 2015
    laurielima wrote: »

    All calories are not "equal as a unit of measure of energy"

    Drink a REDBULL when you wake up in the morning and the next day at the same time drink a water. Let me know if the unit of measurement of energy is the same.

    What are you even trying to say here? Redbull has calories, water doesn't.

    A calorie is a measurement, like an inch, or a milliliter.

    So if I eat 200 calories of broccoli or 200 calories of cookies, I will have eaten 200 calories. Period. The NUTRITION (carbs, fat, protein, vitamins) of the two may vary significantly, but they both have the same amount of calories.
  • Posts: 620 Member
    laurielima wrote: »

    All calories are not "equal as a unit of measure of energy"

    Drink a REDBULL when you wake up in the morning and the next day at the same time drink a water. Let me know if the unit of measurement of energy is the same.

    You need to go back to science class

    Water has no calories

    red bull (depending on the MFP entry as I don't drink these has 45-110 calories per cup. However even if you get the zero calorie (if there is one version), the "energy" you feel is because of the stimulants in it, not because of the calories.
  • Posts: 34,971 Member
    edited March 2015
    laurielima wrote: »
    ok lets do gal. is a gal of gas and a gal of water the same thing. they are both a gallon so would you advize us to put them both in our car?

    :indifferent:

    It's like you purposefully chose an example that only leads to one answer. Do I or anyone with any common sense have to explain why that analogy doesn't work?
  • Posts: 7,237 Member
    laurielima wrote: »

    All calories are not "equal as a unit of measure of energy"

    Drink a REDBULL when you wake up in the morning and the next day at the same time drink a water. Let me know if the unit of measurement of energy is the same.

    Water has no calories, so what is your point?

  • Posts: 29,136 Member
    laurielima wrote: »
    ok lets do gal. is a gal of gas and a gal of water the same thing. they are both a gallon so would you advize us to put them both in our car?

    yes, they are the same measurement.

    However, they do not have the same usage..

    this is just idiotic...
  • Posts: 4,334 Member
    edited March 2015
    laurielima wrote: »
    ok lets do gal. is a gal of gas and a gal of water the same thing. they are both a gallon so would you advize us to put them both in our car?

    You don't know science, do you?

    Here's one for you...

    A gallon of gas and a gallon of water are the same thing according to you, so you would advise us to drink both?
  • Posts: 29,136 Member
    PikaKnight wrote: »

    :indifferent:

    It's like you purposefully chose an example that only leads to one answer. Do I or anyone with any common sense have to explain why that analogy doesn't work?

    well then 12 inches of steel is different then 12 inches of asphalt ...because different uses????????????? wow, my brain hurts...
  • Posts: 1,650 Member
    laurielima wrote: »
    ok lets do gal. is a gal of gas and a gal of water the same thing. they are both a gallon so would you advize us to put them both in our car?

    This example is ridiculous.

    But, if a car was able to run on water the way it runs on gas, then yes, put the gas in the tank.

    Our bodies run on food. Our bodies do not care in which form that food comes.
  • Posts: 1,319 Member
    laurielima wrote: »
    ok lets do gal. is a gal of gas and a gal of water the same thing. they are both a gallon so would you advize us to put them both in our car?

    Huh??
    They are both one gallon...end of story. Why bring the car into it? What does that have to do with the question?
  • Posts: 29,136 Member
    3bambi3 wrote: »

    This example is ridiculous.

    But, if a car was able to run on water the way it runs on gas, then yes, put the gas in the tank.

    Our bodies run on food. Our bodies do not care in which form that food comes.

    so your saying I should not drink this gallon of gas for dinner tonight????
This discussion has been closed.