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

ndj1979 wrote: »

show previous quotes

vivmom2014 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

ndj1979 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)

Spoiler

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...

lemurcat12 wrote: »

show previous quotes

ForecasterJason wrote: »

VeryKatie 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.

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...

Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.

Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.

ForecasterJason wrote: »

show previous quotes

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

VeryKatie 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.

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...

Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.

Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.

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".

auddii wrote: »

show previous quotes

ForecasterJason wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

VeryKatie 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.

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...

Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.

Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.

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".

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?

ForecasterJason wrote: »

show previous quotes

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

VeryKatie 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.

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...

Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.

Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.

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".

Alatariel75 wrote: »

show previous quotes

ForecasterJason wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

VeryKatie 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.

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...

Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.

Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.

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".

Ummm... grams are weight. Most definitely weight. There's no difference between grams and pounds besides a mathematical conversion.

ForecasterJason wrote: »

show previous quotes

VeryKatie 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.

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...

Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.

Afura wrote: »

show previous quotes

ndj1979 wrote: »

vivmom2014 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

ndj1979 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)

Spoiler

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.

ForecasterJason wrote: »

show previous quotes

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

VeryKatie 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.

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...

Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.

Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.

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".

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.

It may have been better suited to another thread, but I was expounding on the point made that I quoted.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

show previous quotes

ForecasterJason wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

ForecasterJason wrote: »

VeryKatie 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.

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...

Good point. When we weight food, we're either measuring the mass of the food or the force being exerted. This is basic physics.

Katie was joking (not saying she was wrong, of course). What point are you making? I'm not following.

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".

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.

It may have been better suited to another thread, but I was expounding on the point made that I quoted.

Ah. Your college class in physics may not have covered humor.

zyxst wrote: »

If my scale shows pounds, will that convert the Canadian money I put on into British pounds?

Aside: grams are for mass, not weight. People bastardized the meaning and made grams = weight.

J72FIT wrote: »

show previous quotes

Afura wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

vivmom2014 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

ndj1979 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)

Spoiler

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.

Nope. Once you add fat and protein (a complete meal) the glycemic index is null...

Afura wrote: »

show previous quotes

J72FIT wrote: »

Afura wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

vivmom2014 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

ndj1979 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)

Spoiler

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.

Nope. Once you add fat and protein (a complete meal) the glycemic index is null...

Interesting, where is that information at? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested in the knowing and understanding portion.

Afura wrote: »

show previous quotes

J72FIT wrote: »

Afura wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

vivmom2014 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

ndj1979 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)

Spoiler

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.

Nope. Once you add fat and protein (a complete meal) the glycemic index is null...

Interesting, where is that information at? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just interested in the knowing and understanding portion.