Have you guys seen this?

A calorie is a unit of measurement. What you're talking about most likely has nothing to do with calories but instead focuses on the nutritional makeup of certain foods. After all, an inch is an inch, right?

brianpperkins wrote: »

I'm on the side of a "study" that is a scanning of other "studies" that lack control groups and depend on self reporting isn't really a study.

Thats why I called it an article. All it says nutrition and choice of nutrition is important in terms of having a successful sustainable diet. How many of you are going to disagree with that? Its obvious some of you havent even read the article.

A lot of crap about glycemic load, imo.

callsitlikeiseeit wrote: »

some calories have more or less NUTRITION than others, but as for as weight loss goes, they are equal.

and no, i didn't read the article. I try to eliminate stupid annoyances from my life.

Then how do you know what was discussed? How do you know in what context it discusses calories or that it didnt differentiate between a calorie being a unit of measurement amd that nutrition is an importnat part of successful dieting?

People commenting without reading the article in question is just crazy. You are entirely reliant on the Ops spin on things, which fails to take into account wahts actually said in the article.

There's a little bit of truth to both sides I believe. "Calories in/Calories Out" - all you need to do is to eat a deficit to lose weight. That one is true. However, fuel-mix is important too. Have you ever noticed that you feel different on those days you don't eat optimally? If it weren't for recognizing that our bodies have the need for a certain mix of foods, there would be no science of Nutrition. The diet industry kind of skewed things on this by trying to find the right mix of foods to eat for weight loss. The more I try, the more I write down what I eat, the more or less results I have with weight loss, the more I am beginning to believe that fuel mix is highly individual.

PolythenePam910 wrote: »

This was in the news today. Supposedly "studies" show that not all calories are created equal. Thoughts?http://www.cbsnews.com/news/foods-that-help-keep-the-pounds-off-as-you-age/

Don't fall for articles like that. Calories in/calorie out, no one food helps or hinders weight loss, it's all about balance and eating less calories than you burn.

DeguelloTex wrote: »

A lot of crap about glycemic load, imo.

it started out with that yes but then went to say

"But I don't want people to think calories don't matter," Wright stressed. There are also no "magic bullet" foods that will melt off the pounds, she said. Nor can people avoid weight gain, and stay healthy, simply by avoiding a few "bad" foods.

Mind you even tho there are some good points in this article it is still confusing weight loss CICO with health, macro balance etc

Which leads people to think they can eat a lot of calories as long as they are the "right ones" and still lose weight when in fact they can't.

PolythenePam910 wrote: »

This was in the news today. Supposedly "studies" show that not all calories are created equal. Thoughts?http://www.cbsnews.com/news/foods-that-help-keep-the-pounds-off-as-you-age/

I'm agreeing with others here. This seems to be more about counting calories than it realizes. Things that have a high glycemic index tend to be high in calories. Sometimes higher than people realize. They also don't fill you up so much so you get hungrier more often. A bagel with cream cheese might equal a three egg omelette with cheese and veggies. Which holds you longer?

I tried cutting down on high GI foods. I lost, but only about 15. Counting kcal and I'm down 30 in less time.

Low-glycemic foods have the same calories that high-glycemic foods do: 4/protein, 4/carbs, 9/fats. Low-glycemic foods may have more complex carbs, fiber, protein and fat and may therefore be more satisfying and thus result in less over-eating or food consumption. They're not magic. It just seems like the same nutrition common sense packaged with this name (again).

There was another thread from last weekend (I think) from a member who was debating this on FB with a friend--the friend said all calories were not created equal. The actual study on glycemic index the to which the friend was referring was written about 5 years ago. There have been other studies since that contradicted its main points about all calories not being created equal (I put a few links in my post, as did others).

Seems like it's a slow news day for CBS if they're resorting to this.