A quick refresher on a calorie is a calorie ....

gmallan wrote: »

This is a really interesting article on why the calorie isn't a very good unit of measurement. A calorie is still a calorie but the way our body uses energy from different sources varies greatly which is why 1000 calories of Oreos won't have the same weight loss effect as 1000 calories of chicken breast.

http://mosaicscience.com/story/why-calorie-broken

Fascinating article. Thanks for the link

ClosetBayesian wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

trinty425 wrote: »

I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters!

What gets confused is that what you are saying here really has nothing to do with calories. Of course what foods you include in your overall diet matters, but that has nothing to do with calories (calorie is not simply a synonym for food, as some seem to use it, but a unit of measurement).

So I'd say that two things are really important: (1) eating the correct amount of calories for your goals; and (2) eating a diet that covers your nutrient needs and serves your goals in terms of satiety and macro mix. Do (2) well may help out with (1), of course.

But none of this contradicts the true statement that a calorie is a calorie (like a lb is a lb). People often seem intent on interpreting a calorie is a calorie as meaning there are no differences between foods (a food is a food), but of course that's not what it means (any more than a lb of gold is the same price as a lb of cat litter).

I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

I love iced coffee (I drink it black). Almost no calories and it does help me feel full, sometimes.

For me, soda with calories would be wasted calories, as I wouldn't enjoy them, but I'd say that it's a false dichotomy to pit eating food high in nutrients vs. those maybe with fewer nutrients and more calories. I can eat a sensible, filling diet and still fit in some foods that are chosen simply for pleasure (or mostly), like cheese or chocolate.

It is interesting the way people read a calorie is a calorie for weight loss so differently than saying a pound of feathers weighs as much as a pound of lead. Even saying something like a 200 pound body builder weights as much as a 200 pound couch potato is never taken by anyone to mean that those two people have the same health when we say that.
I've said similar before, but I think this comes from a persistent view that some want to defend mentally, very vehemently, regardless of evidence to the contrary - that poor health causes overweight, obesity, and adiposity, rather than those things being their conditions that lead toward poor health.

You'd be amazed at how many people would say that the 200 pound body builder does not weigh as much as the 200 pound couch potato, because a pound of fat cannot possibly weigh as much as a pound of muscle. As much as we would like to believe that people understand things like difference by volume, I have seen threads here which lead me to believe otherwise.

I've actually never once seen anyone say that (and I've seen lots of shocking things said on MFP). I've seen lots of people say that muscle weighs more than fat (meaning, obviously, that it's denser), and I've seen a number of people claim to interpret that as "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat," but I still don't believe anyone really thinks that.

I think a lot of people simply don't realize that a calorie is a unit of measurement (or believe that weight gain can possibly be based on energy like that), so use "calorie" as if it were a synonym for food, and misunderstand "a calorie is a calorie" to mean (weirdly) "beef is broccoli."

I also totally agree that there's a superstitious belief that different foods have effects totally unrelated to calories, like someone who thinks that eating 600 calories of cookies and nothing else will cause weight gain, someone else who claims they gain weight if they have just a bite of bread, my old friend's mom who claimed that eating cheese gave you a big butt (hey, where's that butt implant thread?), or people who insist that you cannot gain weight even if 1000 calories a day over your TDEE if you "eat clean" or eat low carb or some such.

I think the superstition is based on endless dieting lore, a desire to believe that you gained weight without overeating, and the hope that there's some magical weightloss method that will allow you to eat whatever (or at least whatever quantity).

WinoGelato wrote: »

Afura wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

trinty425 wrote: »

I am really on board with it is not just how many calories you eat....but what kind of calories that really matters! I quit drinking soda and iced coffees because I realized I was just drinking sugar....and it was "wasted calories". They didn't give me nutrition....they didn't help me fill full. I feel much better eating a fresh salad with a tiny amount of dressing...than drinking a soda.

This strikes me as kind of an odd comparison. Do people really choose to eat a salad instead of drink a beverage? Right now, I just got back from a walk. I'm thirsty. I'm considering a diet coke or water. It never occurred to me that maybe I should go eat some lettuce instead. Salad doesn't really quench my thirst...

It's not a matter of quenching thirst, it's a matter of what will give you better satiety, eating 200 calories of vegetables, or 200 calories of a soft/flavored drink/altered coffee (cream, sugar, etc). Some people choose not to use their calories with drinks.

I guess, I don't know. It just still seems odd. It seems like a better comparison would be a 200 calorie latte vs drinking black coffee. Or eating 200 cals of salad vs 200 cals of potato chips. Food compared to food. Drinks compared to drinks. When I'm hungry, I don't think of getting a coke. When I'm thirsty I don't think about eating a big mac.

It's also weird because it's a false dichotomy. I almost never consume calories in drinks (had a smoothie on Saturday, so there's an exception). However, let's say I still was a beer drinker. Why insist that 200 calories on beer would leave you hungry vs. 200 calories on salad? First, depending on the context, you might still be hungry (200 calories is too low for me for a meal, including one of salad). Or you might not (having a beer after dinner). Second, why couldn't you fit both in an overall sensible diet that didn't leave you hungry?

Now, if someone said "drink mostly calories from beer," that would be dumb (and irresponsible), but no one ever recommends that, that I've seen. So what's the point?

The issue I see is that some of us use the terminology differently, regardless of what the technical meaning is. People I know IRL do speak of low nutrient dense food such as sugary foods as being "empty calories". I don't think it's that they believe the body can't utilize energy from it, but it's considered "empty" because apart from simply providing pure calories/macros, there's not much other nutritional benefit (in general). So from that standpoint, in common language it could be said that a "calorie is not a calorie", even though of course from a scientific perspective a calorie is a calorie.

zyxst wrote: »

gmallan wrote: »

This is a really interesting article on why the calorie isn't a very good unit of measurement. A calorie is still a calorie but the way our body uses energy from different sources varies greatly which is why 1000 calories of Oreos won't have the same weight loss effect as 1000 calories of chicken breast.

http://mosaicscience.com/story/why-calorie-broken

I can't see your gif so I'll assume you were making fun of me. The TEF of protein is up to 25% higher than that of fat and carbs meaning that the higher protein content in the chicken breast would result in more energy being wasted through the production of heat when it is digested thus less energy available to be utilised by the body. This results in a larger deficit for the chicken breast, therefore a greater weight loss.

I'm glad to see you have finally come around.

gmallan wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

gmallan wrote: »

This is a really interesting article on why the calorie isn't a very good unit of measurement. A calorie is still a calorie but the way our body uses energy from different sources varies greatly which is why 1000 calories of Oreos won't have the same weight loss effect as 1000 calories of chicken breast.

http://mosaicscience.com/story/why-calorie-broken

nope...

First, 1000 caloreis of oreos vs 1000 calories of chicken breast is a straw man because no one is going to do that and no one is advocating it. Additionally, both would be nutritionally lacking.

second, if a 1000 calories of oreos is a 500 calorie deficit for person A and 1000 calories of chicken breast is a 500 calorie deficit for person B then they will both lose the same amount of weight.

Finally, TEF, which I believe is what you are referring to has been shown to be minimal...

Minimal but definitely not negligible. I believe protein is up to 30% and fat and carbs are 5-10%. That's a pretty significant difference and would result in a different deficit in your analysis above. Over the course of one day maybe not so important but added up over a longer period of time it could be.

Yes the example used is extreme for illustration purposes only. It seems like that sort of comparison gets thrown around a lot. I think I could definitely eat 1000 calories of Oreos

Those sound like statistics that should be cited.