Is it really just all about the Calories?

calories are calorie in terms of weight gain or loss....thats like saying you cant over fill your cars gas tank with gas but could with water or something that isnt suppose to be in there. Believe it or not your body doesnt have a food scanner in it.....overage of calories is just that an overage

I count calories to lose weight. I cut down on high amounts of sugary foods because i feel better doing so. As stated above, it's really that simple.

Yes, calories are the important thing for weight loss/gain. Nutrients and macros are for health.

Eating one pound of broccoli is approximately 150 calories, I'd be stuffed to the gill. I'd rather eat the fries, just saying'

Yes for weight loss/ gain , it really does come down to calories. People like to believe the hype and fads that say certain food groups are bad and such. But in reality, it does come down to calories. Eat less then you burn and you'll lose weight.
If you ate 200 cals of broccoli , its the same as 200 cals of French fries as far as the calories go. But for overall health and well being - eating a well balanced diet is best. You can still incorporate French fries into your day ( I have treats everyday along side of a healthy well balanced diet) but I wouldn't suggest a diet of all French fries . if you ate 200 cals of broccoli you may feel Fuller ( more volume ) then 200 cals of French fries . but it doesn't change the fact that each 200 cal option in this hypothetical conversation would be exactly the same as far as calories go.

I've lost 65 pounds counting calories and mostly eating junk. If I had to do it over, I would have been more careful about hitting my protein macros because I lost a lot of muscle.

I disagree that a calorie is a calorie. I've recently had lots of sessions with a sports nutritionist. I was eating about 2,300 a day, still am but have dropped a lot of sugar, and am eating carbs in a pyramid style and have dropped lots of weight. Same calories, different foods. Sugar makes me store fat.

Heatherthecyclist wrote: »

I disagree that a calorie is a calorie. I've recently had lots of sessions with a sports nutritionist. I was eating about 2,300 a day, still am but have dropped a lot of sugar, and am eating carbs in a pyramid style and have dropped lots of weight. Same calories, different foods. Sugar makes me store fat.

A calorie is a unit of measurement, which is a definite magnitude of a physical quantity that is used as a standard for measurement of the same physical quantity. Any other value of the physical quantity can be expressed as a simple multiple of the unit of the same unit of measurement.

Thus a calorie, is exactly that, a calorie. Just as an inch is an inch and on ounce is an ounce.

Heatherthecyclist wrote: »

I disagree that a calorie is a calorie. I've recently had lots of sessions with a sports nutritionist. I was eating about 2,300 a day, still am but have dropped a lot of sugar, and am eating carbs in a pyramid style and have dropped lots of weight. Same calories, different foods. Sugar makes me store fat.

A calorie is just a calorie and sugar doesn't make you store fat, too many calories does. If you eat too many calories in the form of sugar or in the form of kale, you will store fat.

kitujainen wrote: »

it's also a lot of other things like metabolism and how tired you are and how active you keep yourself and the taste of food and how much you crave the bad things

They are all variables, and to a varying extent controllable.

Calories, being a unit of measurement are an absolute.

Energy consumed (calories) and the balance of energy (calories) is the be all and end all. That's how we work. Everything else is a way to create that energy balance.

I've seen 3 sports nutritionists recently. All disagree. This 'calorie is a calorie' is very old school, and they all now believe the body processes calories in different ways

nictiffss wrote: »

Hi everyone! I have a serious question cause I cannot find any straight answers online or from people. Is it true the only thing that generally makes you gain/lose weight are calories? This just does not make sense to me. for example, If you ate 200 calories worth of broccoli, vs 200 calories worth of fries, would you gain the same amount of weight? would you even gain weight from the broccoli? I'm so confused. I feel like diets are too calorie-based and not really nutritional based. Like is it ok to go over your calorie limit if you are going over with fruit? please help! im sorry if this is common sense to others, I am really just super confused!

it makes perfect sense when you understand that a calorie is a unit of energy and weight management is about energy consumed vs expended. when you consume energy (calories) in excess of what your body needs, that surplus of energy is stored for later use...your fat stores are like your backup generator. when you consume less energy than your body requires to function optimally, your backup generator kicks on and you burn fat to make up for that energy deficiency.

if you exceed your maintenance calories on a consistent basis, you will put on fat regardless of whether it was an apple or a slice of apple pie. keep in mind that your calorie targets on MFP aren't maintenance...if you stated that your goal was to lose weight then your calorie targets are for weight loss...so if you go over them, it's likely you're still in a deficiency of energy.

there are other variables, but by and large it's about calories. proper nutrition is a whole other matter that matters a lot.

nictiffss wrote: »

Hi everyone! I have a serious question cause I cannot find any straight answers online or from people. Is it true the only thing that generally makes you gain/lose weight are calories? This just does not make sense to me. for example, If you ate 200 calories worth of broccoli, vs 200 calories worth of fries, would you gain the same amount of weight?

If your calories were otherwise the same (and above your maintenance), yeah. However, if you eat 200 calories of broccoli you might fill up much more. If you order fries and get 500 calories worth you might not be able to stop at 200 (or realize how much you are eating). That doesn't mean that calories differ, they do not, but different foods are different nutritionally and in how we react to them.

would you even gain weight from the broccoli?

Yes, you can gain weight from broccoli, although no one only eats broccoli and it would be hard to overeat it if you did. But there's nothing special about broccoli that makes it's calories not count; it's simply a low calorie food, whereas fries are (usually) a high calorie food.

I feel like diets are too calorie-based and not really nutritional based.

Only if you choose to make it so. For weight loss calories are what matter (along with whatever helps you keep calories in check), but it's sensible to think that nutrition also matters, both for health and because many find it easier to not overeat if they focus on nutrition (on the other hand, I know I can overeat with a nutritionally-focused diet unless I'm mindful about it).

Like is it ok to go over your calorie limit if you are going over with fruit? please help! im sorry if this is common sense to others, I am really just super confused!

If you want to lose weight, it will be a problem if you consistently go over you maintenance calories or fail to keep a calorie deficit, even with fruit. If you go over your calorie goal with fruit (or anything else) you will typically lose less quickly than expected, all else equal. Again, there's nothing special about fruit that makes their calories not count.

That said, while fruit has more calories than vegetables, typically, I still find it pretty filling for the calories and choosing some berries vs. some cookies will likely result in fewer calories (but doesn't help if you still want the cookies and so end up eating them too).

Heatherthecyclist wrote: »

I've seen 3 sports nutritionists recently. All disagree. This 'calorie is a calorie' is very old school, and they all now believe the body processes calories in different ways

did they expound on this?

rileyes wrote: »

My understanding is that broccoli uses more energy to digest than fries.

Please explain.