Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
A quick refresher on a calorie is a calorie ....
Options
Replies
-
Mapalicious wrote: »
if it bothers you so much, then maybe you should stop coming in here before you suffer a major heart attack ....you seem to take this MFP/internet stuff way too seriously...Mapalicious wrote: »Mapalicious 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.
all calories provide energy, and they cannot be wasted....
@ndj1979 when someone puts quotation marks around words, as this person did with "wasted calories" it is called using SCARE QUOTES. It is a literary tool that allows the author to convey to the reader that what is within the quotes is being used in a "non-standard, ironic, or otherwise special sense" (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes ).
I would venture to guess you know quite well what @trinty425 was meaning to convey, as you can read on to understand exactly what they meant when using the scare quotes, because they describe it in the next sentence: "They didn't give me nutrition...they didn't help me fill [sic] full."
Unless you just enjoy arguing for the sake of argument, in which case you are free to continue to perform that role however obnoxious this lemur may find it to be.
If you believe NDJ already understood all that, isn't your pedantry really just avoiding understanding what NDJ said? The idea that calories aren't nutrition in and of themselves is a case of First World Problems - no longer having the concern of starvation as the ultimate form of dietary deficiency.
Anytime anyone says anything about CICO, calories vs. nutrition, starvation mode myth, or cleanses/detoxes, a predictable host of people come out of the woodwork who comment in antagonistic, curt, demeaning ways. They pounce on any hint of a mis-spoken word about these debates that get rehashed here, honestly, ever flipping day. These MFP forums are chock-full of people who take these kind of statements and argue with them interminably, in a sort of red-blooded posturing. I find it the most obnoxious and unhelpful behavior. Are they hoping to deter people from reaching out for help, by answering so smugly?
Additionally...I don't "believe NDJ already understood that" - I "venture to guess that" perhaps he knew and clarified in case he didn't.
Yes, they are 1st world problems. I live in the 1st world and thus suffer it's problems, as do the majority of MFP-ers. There is nothing wrong with trying to get a nice range of nutrients in your diet merely because we live in the 1st world. That, and I *kitten**ng love broccoli and eat the stuff like it was going out of style. I am not sure what point you were trying to make here.
I'm pretty chill about it, but thank you for your concern, I think?
This is not just a "debate" forum, it's a help forum as well. I can have an analysis about haughty replies that I think are more about self-aggrandizing posturing than actually wanting to help & educate people, without having a myocardial infarction - thank goodness!
this is the debate forum ..
if you want 100% support with minimal back and forth then go to the main forums and you will get 100% support for detoxes, cleanse, and every other woo woo idea about health and nutrition ...however, this forum was specifically set up for debate and back and forth...0 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Does dietary composition affect how calories are absorbed? Absolutely.
Does TEF change with diet composition? Yep.
Does processing and ageing and cooking impact food calorie availability? Of course.
Do the Atwater constants miscalculate basic available calorie amounts for certain foods? You betcha.
Does any of the above really matter? Nope.
In a generally consistent diet, one will always be more successful focusing on creating a standard trackable calorie deficit, than focusing on the minors.
"A calorie is a calorie" is good guidance, if not 100% exact.
I find the pyramid of priorities by Helms to be useful (even if I don't agree 100% on some of them)
What really bothers me about this is the word PRIORITIES.
WHOSE priorities? WHAT priorities?
If your priority is a scale number, then DEFICIT IS ALL YOU NEED.
You'll lose weight......of some sort!!!
You'll get results......a lower number on the scale. BUT I hope you like the results on your body, because a deficit doesn't mean you get the body composition you want, or improved blood sugar readings, or better blood pressure, or better moods, or better sleep.......It just means you'll lose weight.
Actually, weight loss alone will do all those things if you had problems with them before.
Losing weight will make you lose fat and the more fat you have the higher the ratio of fat loss to LBM loss is.
Losing weight will improve your blood readings, including blood glucose and insulin sensitivity.
It will improve blood pressure if the high blood pressure was caused by being overfat.
It will improve mood if it was caused by hormone imbalance because losing weight improves your hormone profile.
Better sleep if it was caused by pressure on your torso causing apnea? Hell yeah losing weight will improve that.
It can, and I hope it does. But macros and types of food (quinoa vs. white rice, or hamburger and fries vs salmon and wild rice for example) are available to manipulate so you can maximize YOUR results based on your own body and how it's responding to what you are doing.
no, actually what matters is the context of ones overall diet and that one is hitting micro and macro goals..
IF you eat a hamburger for lunch and you still meet your protein and fat minimums,and get adequate nutrition for the day, there is nothing wrong with that.
and why are you implying that hamburger is bad but salmon is good? They both provide fat and protein ....
This. A single choice will change nothing about your overall outcome. It's the nutrition of the diet as a whole if you're into minmaxing your results.
But to just get results, reducing calories and not having a batshit insane idea of what foods you should eat in that deficit is all that's needed.
i would still like to know why that person thinks that hamburger is bad but salmon is good....I am pretty sure that the fat and protein content of salmon is about the same as a burger....I would guess that salmon has more fat...
And what's wrong with white rice? Why is it always demonized?
because fast absorbing carbs...
Yup. When I went in for diabetes white rice was off the list, brown rice was on as white rice spikes the sugar levels more than brown because it has a higher glycemic index.0 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Does dietary composition affect how calories are absorbed? Absolutely.
Does TEF change with diet composition? Yep.
Does processing and ageing and cooking impact food calorie availability? Of course.
Do the Atwater constants miscalculate basic available calorie amounts for certain foods? You betcha.
Does any of the above really matter? Nope.
In a generally consistent diet, one will always be more successful focusing on creating a standard trackable calorie deficit, than focusing on the minors.
"A calorie is a calorie" is good guidance, if not 100% exact.
I find the pyramid of priorities by Helms to be useful (even if I don't agree 100% on some of them)
What really bothers me about this is the word PRIORITIES.
WHOSE priorities? WHAT priorities?
If your priority is a scale number, then DEFICIT IS ALL YOU NEED.
You'll lose weight......of some sort!!!
You'll get results......a lower number on the scale. BUT I hope you like the results on your body, because a deficit doesn't mean you get the body composition you want, or improved blood sugar readings, or better blood pressure, or better moods, or better sleep.......It just means you'll lose weight.
Actually, weight loss alone will do all those things if you had problems with them before.
Losing weight will make you lose fat and the more fat you have the higher the ratio of fat loss to LBM loss is.
Losing weight will improve your blood readings, including blood glucose and insulin sensitivity.
It will improve blood pressure if the high blood pressure was caused by being overfat.
It will improve mood if it was caused by hormone imbalance because losing weight improves your hormone profile.
Better sleep if it was caused by pressure on your torso causing apnea? Hell yeah losing weight will improve that.
It can, and I hope it does. But macros and types of food (quinoa vs. white rice, or hamburger and fries vs salmon and wild rice for example) are available to manipulate so you can maximize YOUR results based on your own body and how it's responding to what you are doing.
no, actually what matters is the context of ones overall diet and that one is hitting micro and macro goals..
IF you eat a hamburger for lunch and you still meet your protein and fat minimums,and get adequate nutrition for the day, there is nothing wrong with that.
and why are you implying that hamburger is bad but salmon is good? They both provide fat and protein ....
This. A single choice will change nothing about your overall outcome. It's the nutrition of the diet as a whole if you're into minmaxing your results.
But to just get results, reducing calories and not having a batshit insane idea of what foods you should eat in that deficit is all that's needed.
i would still like to know why that person thinks that hamburger is bad but salmon is good....I am pretty sure that the fat and protein content of salmon is about the same as a burger....I would guess that salmon has more fat...
And what's wrong with white rice? Why is it always demonized?
because fast absorbing carbs...
Yup. When I went in for diabetes white rice was off the list, brown rice was on as white rice spikes the sugar levels more than brown because it has a higher glycemic index.
I was actually joking...
Unless you have a medical condition it does not matter....
I eat white rice all the time...0 -
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.
So you're saying my food scale measures mass, but when I flip the switch to lbs, it no longer measures mass at all? It magically switches beyond just the units?
We do realize we are in fact living on the planet Earth, right? Are some people measuring their food in a different gravitational field? Are astronauts living in the international space station confused about portion control and asking for help logging food on the MFP forums?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.
I understood what she meant and why she said it, and enjoyed her comment. What mystifies me is why you think you are making a point that is meaningful to the discussion.0 -
I love white rice, I don't like brown rice as far as taste/texture goes. Bleh.vivmom2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Does dietary composition affect how calories are absorbed? Absolutely.
Does TEF change with diet composition? Yep.
Does processing and ageing and cooking impact food calorie availability? Of course.
Do the Atwater constants miscalculate basic available calorie amounts for certain foods? You betcha.
Does any of the above really matter? Nope.
In a generally consistent diet, one will always be more successful focusing on creating a standard trackable calorie deficit, than focusing on the minors.
"A calorie is a calorie" is good guidance, if not 100% exact.
I find the pyramid of priorities by Helms to be useful (even if I don't agree 100% on some of them)
What really bothers me about this is the word PRIORITIES.
WHOSE priorities? WHAT priorities?
If your priority is a scale number, then DEFICIT IS ALL YOU NEED.
You'll lose weight......of some sort!!!
You'll get results......a lower number on the scale. BUT I hope you like the results on your body, because a deficit doesn't mean you get the body composition you want, or improved blood sugar readings, or better blood pressure, or better moods, or better sleep.......It just means you'll lose weight.
Actually, weight loss alone will do all those things if you had problems with them before.
Losing weight will make you lose fat and the more fat you have the higher the ratio of fat loss to LBM loss is.
Losing weight will improve your blood readings, including blood glucose and insulin sensitivity.
It will improve blood pressure if the high blood pressure was caused by being overfat.
It will improve mood if it was caused by hormone imbalance because losing weight improves your hormone profile.
Better sleep if it was caused by pressure on your torso causing apnea? Hell yeah losing weight will improve that.
It can, and I hope it does. But macros and types of food (quinoa vs. white rice, or hamburger and fries vs salmon and wild rice for example) are available to manipulate so you can maximize YOUR results based on your own body and how it's responding to what you are doing.
no, actually what matters is the context of ones overall diet and that one is hitting micro and macro goals..
IF you eat a hamburger for lunch and you still meet your protein and fat minimums,and get adequate nutrition for the day, there is nothing wrong with that.
and why are you implying that hamburger is bad but salmon is good? They both provide fat and protein ....
This. A single choice will change nothing about your overall outcome. It's the nutrition of the diet as a whole if you're into minmaxing your results.
But to just get results, reducing calories and not having a batshit insane idea of what foods you should eat in that deficit is all that's needed.
i would still like to know why that person thinks that hamburger is bad but salmon is good....I am pretty sure that the fat and protein content of salmon is about the same as a burger....I would guess that salmon has more fat...
And what's wrong with white rice? Why is it always demonized?
because fast absorbing carbs...
Yup. When I went in for diabetes white rice was off the list, brown rice was on as white rice spikes the sugar levels more than brown because it has a higher glycemic index.
I was actually joking...
Unless you have a medical condition it does not matter....
I eat white rice all the time...
There was a study done, and albeit it was back in 2010 that showed a diet of 1-5 servings of white rice can cause an increased risk of type 2 diabetes - White Rice, Brown Rice, and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in US Men and Women - http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1124294.files/White Rice, Brown Rice, and Risk of Type 2 Diabetes.pdf0 -
Yes. And as mentioned, elevation even on Earth (whether someone is living by the ocean or in a mountainous area) does make a difference in the weight of an object. This is due to the fact that the gravitational acceleration decreases with increasing altitude, which affects the weight of an object. That's just simply physics. See these links.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.
So you're saying my food scale measures mass, but when I flip the switch to lbs, it no longer measures mass at all? It magically switches beyond just the units?
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/periodic_table/mass.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/42-our-solar-system/the-earth/gravity/93-does-gravity-vary-across-the-surface-of-the-earth-intermediate
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/The-Value-of-g
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes. And as mentioned, elevation even on Earth (whether someone is living by the ocean or in a mountainous area) does make a difference in the weight of an object. This is due to the fact that the gravitational acceleration decreases with increasing altitude, which affects the weight of an object. That's just simply physics. See these links.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.
So you're saying my food scale measures mass, but when I flip the switch to lbs, it no longer measures mass at all? It magically switches beyond just the units?
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/periodic_table/mass.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/42-our-solar-system/the-earth/gravity/93-does-gravity-vary-across-the-surface-of-the-earth-intermediate
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/The-Value-of-g
I don't think you understand how scales work.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.
Ummm... grams are weight. Most definitely weight. There's no difference between grams and pounds besides a mathematical conversion.0 -
According to my college level physics book, "We can also weigh a body with a spring scale. The body stretches a spring, moving a pointer along a scale that has been calibrated and marked in either mass or weight units. (Most bathroom scales in the United States work this way and are marked in the force unit pounds.) If the scale is marked in mass units, it is accurate only where the value of g is the same as where the scale was calibrated."ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yes. And as mentioned, elevation even on Earth (whether someone is living by the ocean or in a mountainous area) does make a difference in the weight of an object. This is due to the fact that the gravitational acceleration decreases with increasing altitude, which affects the weight of an object. That's just simply physics. See these links.ForecasterJason wrote: »
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.
So you're saying my food scale measures mass, but when I flip the switch to lbs, it no longer measures mass at all? It magically switches beyond just the units?
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/periodic_table/mass.html
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/42-our-solar-system/the-earth/gravity/93-does-gravity-vary-across-the-surface-of-the-earth-intermediate
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-3/The-Value-of-g
I don't think you understand how scales work.
0 -
When I took physics in college we measured mass in grams, not weight in grams. Maybe physics has changed in the last few years, but I was taught that grams is a measure of mass, not weight.Alatariel75 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.
Ummm... grams are weight. Most definitely weight. There's no difference between grams and pounds besides a mathematical conversion.
0 -
Majoring in the minor...lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
AKA making a funny - a really nerdy funny...
Lol! Clearly I was/am not quick enough to pick up on that...
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
???0 -
It may have been better suited to another thread, but I was expounding on the point made that I quoted.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.
I understood what she meant and why she said it, and enjoyed her comment. What mystifies me is why you think you are making a point that is meaningful to the discussion.
0 -
Nope. Once you add fat and protein (a complete meal) the glycemic index is null...vivmom2014 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Lovee_Dove7 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Does dietary composition affect how calories are absorbed? Absolutely.
Does TEF change with diet composition? Yep.
Does processing and ageing and cooking impact food calorie availability? Of course.
Do the Atwater constants miscalculate basic available calorie amounts for certain foods? You betcha.
Does any of the above really matter? Nope.
In a generally consistent diet, one will always be more successful focusing on creating a standard trackable calorie deficit, than focusing on the minors.
"A calorie is a calorie" is good guidance, if not 100% exact.
I find the pyramid of priorities by Helms to be useful (even if I don't agree 100% on some of them)
What really bothers me about this is the word PRIORITIES.
WHOSE priorities? WHAT priorities?
If your priority is a scale number, then DEFICIT IS ALL YOU NEED.
You'll lose weight......of some sort!!!
You'll get results......a lower number on the scale. BUT I hope you like the results on your body, because a deficit doesn't mean you get the body composition you want, or improved blood sugar readings, or better blood pressure, or better moods, or better sleep.......It just means you'll lose weight.
Actually, weight loss alone will do all those things if you had problems with them before.
Losing weight will make you lose fat and the more fat you have the higher the ratio of fat loss to LBM loss is.
Losing weight will improve your blood readings, including blood glucose and insulin sensitivity.
It will improve blood pressure if the high blood pressure was caused by being overfat.
It will improve mood if it was caused by hormone imbalance because losing weight improves your hormone profile.
Better sleep if it was caused by pressure on your torso causing apnea? Hell yeah losing weight will improve that.
It can, and I hope it does. But macros and types of food (quinoa vs. white rice, or hamburger and fries vs salmon and wild rice for example) are available to manipulate so you can maximize YOUR results based on your own body and how it's responding to what you are doing.
no, actually what matters is the context of ones overall diet and that one is hitting micro and macro goals..
IF you eat a hamburger for lunch and you still meet your protein and fat minimums,and get adequate nutrition for the day, there is nothing wrong with that.
and why are you implying that hamburger is bad but salmon is good? They both provide fat and protein ....
This. A single choice will change nothing about your overall outcome. It's the nutrition of the diet as a whole if you're into minmaxing your results.
But to just get results, reducing calories and not having a batshit insane idea of what foods you should eat in that deficit is all that's needed.
i would still like to know why that person thinks that hamburger is bad but salmon is good....I am pretty sure that the fat and protein content of salmon is about the same as a burger....I would guess that salmon has more fat...
And what's wrong with white rice? Why is it always demonized?
because fast absorbing carbs...
Yup. When I went in for diabetes white rice was off the list, brown rice was on as white rice spikes the sugar levels more than brown because it has a higher glycemic index.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.
I understood what she meant and why she said it, and enjoyed her comment. What mystifies me is why you think you are making a point that is meaningful to the discussion.
This is a perfect example of overcomplicating the process...0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
It may have been better suited to another thread, but I was expounding on the point made that I quoted.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.
I understood what she meant and why she said it, and enjoyed her comment. What mystifies me is why you think you are making a point that is meaningful to the discussion.
Ah. Your college class in physics may not have covered humor.0 -
What does this have to do in regards to a calorie being a calorie?ForecasterJason wrote: »
When I took physics in college we measured mass in grams, not weight in grams. Maybe physics has changed in the last few years, but I was taught that grams is a measure of mass, not weight.Alatariel75 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.
Ummm... grams are weight. Most definitely weight. There's no difference between grams and pounds besides a mathematical conversion.
0 -
Lol, true (though I did have a fun professor).lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
It may have been better suited to another thread, but I was expounding on the point made that I quoted.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
When we measure food in grams, that is a measure of mass, not weight. When we measure food in pounds, that is a measure of force. To get the weight, the mass is multiplied by the gravitational force being exerted. What Katie is saying is that the weight of an object will differ between, say, Earth and the moon. But there are minor gravitational differences even on Earth, which depends on elevation. This means that the weight of an object will vary here on Earth. That's what she means by "a lb is not always a lb".lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.lemurcat12 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.
I agree with all of the above! Except that a lb is a lb. Because a lb is not always a lb unless you're specific about it. There are lb-m and lb-f (pound mass and pound force) and while we are on Earth they are they same, technically that isn't true in other locations. Actually... I guess it even depends on how far below/above sea level the comparisons are being made too...
Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.
I understood what she meant and why she said it, and enjoyed her comment. What mystifies me is why you think you are making a point that is meaningful to the discussion.
Ah. Your college class in physics may not have covered humor.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions