Cutting junk food out of my diet?
Options
Replies
-
The body uses them first for dancing, though.Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?
If you drink 50 calories of alcohol or let's say 200 calories of alcohol, what do you think your body will be using for energy while the alcohol is in your body?
Please tell me...
Alcohol. And you should know that.
So are those calories "empty" or not?
They provide you with energy don't they?
0 -
The body uses them first for dancing, though.Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?
If you drink 50 calories of alcohol or let's say 200 calories of alcohol, what do you think your body will be using for energy while the alcohol is in your body?
Please tell me...
Alcohol. And you should know that.
So are those calories "empty" or not?
They provide you with energy don't they?
Awesome. I love to dance.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
My reading comprehension is fantastic, actually. You seem to have some issues with context, sadly
Based on your responses in this thread, I would give it an F- or epic failure, your choice.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
My reading comprehension is fantastic, actually. You seem to have some issues with context, sadly
Based on your responses in this thread, I would give it an F- or epic failure, your choice.
I'm not that bothered about your grading system0 -
So is it safe to say there is no such thing as an empty calorie?0
-
The body uses them first for dancing, though.Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?
If you drink 50 calories of alcohol or let's say 200 calories of alcohol, what do you think your body will be using for energy while the alcohol is in your body?
Please tell me...
Alcohol. And you should know that.
So are those calories "empty" or not?
They provide you with energy don't they?
Well there you go. I have very strong suspicion that's her plan. Probably involving some Barcardi.
lol...I'm not a rum kind of girl prefer Ketel One or Tito's
edit: spelling Ketel not Ketle0 -
The body uses them first for dancing, though.Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
I'm still seriously curious, does 50 calories of alcohol give me 50 calories of energy?
If you drink 50 calories of alcohol or let's say 200 calories of alcohol, what do you think your body will be using for energy while the alcohol is in your body?
Please tell me...
Alcohol. And you should know that.
So are those calories "empty" or not?
They provide you with energy don't they?
Well there you go. I have very strong suspicion that's her plan. Probably involving some Barcardi.
lol...I'm not a rum kind of girl prefer Ketel One or Tito's
edit: spelling Ketel not Ketle
...and I think the nutrition in potatoes should be factored in that vodka....just sayin....0 -
-
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
My reading comprehension is fantastic, actually. You seem to have some issues with context, sadly
Based on your responses in this thread, I would give it an F- or epic failure, your choice.
I'm not that bothered about your grading system
so epic failure then, glad we agree.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I suppose. All jokes aside though, I do think there are empty calories, like in alcohol for example.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »here is the list:
Cakes, cookies, pastries, and donuts (contain both solid fat and added sugars)
Sodas, energy drinks, sports drinks, and fruit drinks (contain added sugars)
Cheese (contains solid fat)
Pizza (contains solid fat)
Ice cream (contains both solid fat and added sugars)
Sausages, hot dogs, bacon, and ribs (contain solid fat)
how can pizza be empty if it has protein, fat, and carbs? would vegetable pizza still be empty even though you would get a lot of micros from it???
The link clearly defines it's definition of "empty calories" - solid fat and added sugar.
Which...IMO...is a dumb definition.
I'm guessing I would be pretty safe to assume the article was written/reviewed by someone with at least a Master's Degree in Nutrition and it's calling a spade a spade.
The article does say at the end:
"A small amount of empty calories is okay, but most people eat far more than is healthy. It is important to limit empty calories to the amount that fits your calorie and nutrient needs. You can lower your intake by eating and drinking foods and beverages containing empty calories less often or by decreasing the amount you eat or drink."
I think all of us could agree this is a true statement.
empty implies that said calories have zero benefit …but 50 calories of fat gives you 50 units of energy so it is not empty …
again, ridiculous definition is ridiculous.
the only empty calorie is a zero calorie food like water….
are you saying you feel just as fuelled, energetic, and satiated after a bag of chips as you are with a sandwich for the same cals?
i'd be amazed if so. i know for myself, my stomach might be "full" after eating chips, in the sense that i have to stop at some point, but it's nowhere near as filling as real food (and please, everyone knows what i mean by "real food"). also that "fullness" from chips tends not to last very long, for me at least. got to have more there, there.
where did I say anything about me in that sentence you quoted?
I said 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy. Therefore, to claim that fat is an empty calorie is ridiculous.
feelings have nothing to do with it.
and my point is that if the sandwich is better in teh ways i said, spending those cals on chips is a waste.
which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that 50 calories of fat = 50 calories of energy, hence they are not empty.
Just because you think something is a waste does not negate basic physics.
Physics is physics but humans are biological systems, not machines.
50 cals of fat or low-fiber carbs on their own is not going to do the job for most people. And I'm fairly sure those of us who are not sated on something like that feel that way for physiological and not psychological reasons.
Please re read my comment and try to comprehend it. Your responses have nothing to do with what I am saying.
I read and understood your comment. I added something new to it. That's what happens in a conversation
no, we hare having a conversation about two different things.
You keep bringing up satiety, which, for the purpose of this discussion, I don't give a damn about.
I am talking about the fact that fat is not an empty calories because it containers energy. Hence, my comparison that 50 calories of fat = 50 units of energy.
Try to stay on topic.
No, you are just not interested in the (imo) relevant piece I am bringing to the dialogue. C'est la vie.
What I'm saying is those 50 units of energy are "empty", practically, functionally, with respect to the dieter's weight loss aims, if those 50 calories do not succeed in a) sating the person consuming them or b) fuelling their activity. The practical, functional consequences of this failure of those 50 units of energy to do that might include someone going over their calorie intake goal.
Try to see the forest for the trees
then stop quoting me and we will be fine.
where did I ever say that someone is ONLY going to eat 50 calories of fat? It was an example based on the link that was being discussed, where said link said that solid fat was an empty calorie, which, it is not, because 50 calories of fat will give you 50 calories of energy.
You really need to read and comprehend things better.
My reading comprehension is fantastic, actually. You seem to have some issues with context, sadly
Based on your responses in this thread, I would give it an F- or epic failure, your choice.
I'm not that bothered about your grading system
so epic failure then, glad we agree.
brotastic response
done with you0 -
I’m looking at the label on a bag of BBQ Fritos, and this is junk food. Sorry if this upsets people, but since it is my food and my body, I categorize it in a way that is meaningful to me. Vegetable oil, MSG, a rainbow of weird artificial colors, added sodium and sugar, a bunch of other laboratory concoctions added, etc. I occasionally eat things like this, but I’m not kidding myself into thinking that this is some wonderful, high quality food. It is mass produced crap.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I suppose. All jokes aside though, I do think there are empty calories, like in alcohol for example.
Me too. I think non-alcohol calories can be empty too. But I think it would near impossible to come up with a concrete definition of "empty calories" that would apply to every situation.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I suppose. All jokes aside though, I do think there are empty calories, like in alcohol for example.
Me too. I think non-alcohol calories can be empty too. But I think it would near impossible to come up with a concrete definition of "empty calories" that would apply to every situation.
I would say that calories with zero or almost zero nutritional value are empty. I'm sure some will disagree of course and that's okay. Like you said, this is the internet, say whatever you want.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I suppose. All jokes aside though, I do think there are empty calories, like in alcohol for example.
Me too. I think non-alcohol calories can be empty too. But I think it would near impossible to come up with a concrete definition of "empty calories" that would apply to every situation.
I would say that calories with zero or almost zero nutritional value are empty. I'm sure some will disagree of course and that's okay. Like you said, this is the internet, say whatever you want.
And then we once again return to cucumbers and iceburg lettuce being empty calories by they definition. Then cereal and ice cream can no longer be called empty calories.
I would agree that ice cream and cereal should not be called empty calories because they aren't calories.0 -
If the cukes are used to garnish your cocktail then they're empty.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
I suppose. All jokes aside though, I do think there are empty calories, like in alcohol for example.
Me too. I think non-alcohol calories can be empty too. But I think it would near impossible to come up with a concrete definition of "empty calories" that would apply to every situation.
I would say that calories with zero or almost zero nutritional value are empty. I'm sure some will disagree of course and that's okay. Like you said, this is the internet, say whatever you want.
And then we once again return to cucumbers and iceburg lettuce being empty calories by they definition. Then cereal and ice cream can no longer be called empty calories.
And we're back to cucumbers and lettuce. The issue is you are using extremely low calorie foods. Eat 300 calories of cucumbers or lettuce, and look at how much those small amounts of vitamins and minerals for a regular serving grow. I would amend the previous quote and say anything with high calories and zero to almost zero nutritional value. That's why we keep coming back to alcohol, because it's probably the easiest to understand in terms of something potentially very high in calories that your body couldn't actually live on long term without serious health effects. While eating all of your calories in lettuce or Lucky Charms isn't recommended either, they will at least contribute much more than alcohol to your nutrition needs.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K 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
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions