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 ....
Replies
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Of course! Natural sugars from fruit, etc, though it still counts towards your daily total, are much better than added sugars!
Y?0 -
Sugar is the biggest enemy to weight loss! Even more than trans-fats, saturated fats, or even a calorie surplus! So: conquer sugar, and you'll very soon conquer every other diet or nutrition problem!
Biggest temptation you mean? Not for me.
Indian food is my biggest enemy to weight loss.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.0 -
I've heard don't drink your calories.0
-
tawnyamorgan1983 wrote: »I've heard don't drink your calories.
That's just about personal satiety. For me that's true, but not everyone.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.0 -
I don't track sugar but MFP does it anyway
Can I play? My weight and health are exceptional @numerio
0 -
You must be superhuman then! Normally, sugar doesn't have that effect!0 -
No. Energy surplus is...Sugar is the biggest enemy to weight loss!
NO!Even more than trans-fats, saturated fats, or even a calorie surplus!
Sorry, no. Educate yourself and stop spreading these myths...So: conquer sugar, and you'll very soon conquer every other diet or nutrition problem!0 -
My sugar numbers. Perfectly healthy. Definitely not superhuman...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
You must be superhuman then! Normally, sugar doesn't have that effect!
She isn't superhuman. Neither is the other poster who posted his sugar stats. Quite normal actually. Mine was same. I can easily and without problem eat at or above 70 grams of sugar a day, lose weight and be healthy.
If reducing sugar helps you maintain a deficit, that is great...however it is not necessary for optimal health, at all. Unless recommended by your doctor for a specific condition.
Also, this thread isn't about sugar. It is about a calorie is a calorie. Which is very much fact.
Hush now
I yam too
:bigsmile:
That'll be supah-rabbit to you from now on0 -
You must be superhuman then! Normally, sugar doesn't have that effect!
She isn't superhuman. Neither is the other poster who posted his sugar stats. Quite normal actually. Mine was same. I can easily and without problem eat at or above 70 grams of sugar a day, lose weight and be healthy.
If reducing sugar helps you maintain a deficit, that is great...however it is not necessary for optimal health, at all. Unless recommended by your doctor for a specific condition.
Also, this thread isn't about sugar. It is about a calorie is a calorie. Which is very much fact.
Hush now
I yam too
:bigsmile:
That'll be supah-rabbit to you from now on
She said superhuman. Rabbits, supah or otherwise, are not human. But I digress. Carry on.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
DancingDarl wrote: »I would love to eat just all of my calories as Oreos Nutella maybe some potato chips. The trouble is I feel sick. If I eat a teensy bit here (only if it fits into calories I need to hit) then I feel well.
I totally understand how the nutritional profile is so different but energy is same.
And no one is saying you should get 100% of your calories fromotros and Nutella because you would be lacking in nutrition and macros..,0 -
DancingDarl wrote: »I would love to eat just all of my calories as Oreos Nutella maybe some potato chips. The trouble is I feel sick. If I eat a teensy bit here (only if it fits into calories I need to hit) then I feel well.
I totally understand how the nutritional profile is so different but energy is same.
And no one is saying you should get 100% of your calories fromotros and Nutella because you would be lacking in nutrition and macros..,
I can not wrap my head around why we always go back to that...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
DancingDarl wrote: »I would love to eat just all of my calories as Oreos Nutella maybe some potato chips. The trouble is I feel sick. If I eat a teensy bit here (only if it fits into calories I need to hit) then I feel well.
I totally understand how the nutritional profile is so different but energy is same.
And no one is saying you should get 100% of your calories fromotros and Nutella because you would be lacking in nutrition and macros..,
I can not wrap my head around why we always go back to that...
Me neither. I don't know why you can have some of anything if you make it fit turns into just eating "junk" 24/7.
It's like playing whack-a-mole! Lol0 -
robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
0 -
I saw an episode of Dr oz about negative calories. They did a study and showed they do exist but now how we think.
If you eat 40 calories worth of celery, it winds up actually being 34 because it takes more to burn. These aren't exact numbers. Just an example of what the study showed. So if you have 1500 calories a day and you eat mostly "negative calorie" foods, you will actually be consuming less and may lose weigh faster then if you at 1500 calories of other foods.
It was quite interesting0 -
If someone ate 1500 calories a day of "negative calorie foods" (which I think is nonsense) they would be severely malnourished...phyllisdi711 wrote: »I saw an episode of Dr oz about negative calories. They did a study and showed they do exist but now how we think.
If you eat 40 calories worth of celery, it winds up actually being 34 because it takes more to burn. These aren't exact numbers. Just an example of what the study showed. So if you have 1500 calories a day and you eat mostly "negative calorie" foods, you will actually be consuming less and may lose weigh faster then if you at 1500 calories of other foods.
It was quite interesting
0 -
phyllisdi711 wrote: »I saw an episode of Dr oz about negative calories. They did a study and showed they do exist but now how we think.
If you eat 40 calories worth of celery, it winds up actually being 34 because it takes more to burn. These aren't exact numbers. Just an example of what the study showed. So if you have 1500 calories a day and you eat mostly "negative calorie" foods, you will actually be consuming less and may lose weigh faster then if you at 1500 calories of other foods.
It was quite interesting
Please review the discussion on tef up thread and studies posted.
There are no negative calorie foods and dr oz is a horrible source to be using/citing0 -
Woah ok
Just stating that I saw a study on his show one day. I'm not a dr. I'm not a nutritional guru of any sort. Just thought it seemed interesting.0 -
phyllisdi711 wrote: »I saw an episode of Dr oz about negative calories. They did a study and showed they do exist but now how we think.
If you eat 40 calories worth of celery, it winds up actually being 34 because it takes more to burn. These aren't exact numbers. Just an example of what the study showed. So if you have 1500 calories a day and you eat mostly "negative calorie" foods, you will actually be consuming less and may lose weigh faster then if you at 1500 calories of other foods.
It was quite interesting
That is the TEF. It has absolutely nothing to do with "negative calories". All foods take some energy to digest.0 -
phyllisdi711 wrote: »I saw an episode of Dr oz about negative calories. They did a study and showed they do exist but now how we think.
If you eat 40 calories worth of celery, it winds up actually being 34 because it takes more to burn. These aren't exact numbers. Just an example of what the study showed. So if you have 1500 calories a day and you eat mostly "negative calorie" foods, you will actually be consuming less and may lose weigh faster then if you at 1500 calories of other foods.
It was quite interesting
This would be like saying I have negative weight if I found out my scale had been broken and I weighed 6 pounds less than I thought.
Some foods are harder to digest, or have higher TEF than others. The impact is small, and as others mentioned, you're far more likely to miss weight to get wrong numbers, and filling up on negative calorie food is going to cause weight loss via fullness faster than by discrepancies.0 -
The idea here seems to be that 1500 calories is equally filling no matter what the source.
So if it has a higher TEF you get to eat more/be more satisfied.
But since 1500 calories is going to vary in how satisfying it is, in reality, why not just pick the foods that are satisfying. If you aren't losing as you should, go to 1400.
I think the desire to find tricks to cheat the system (obsessing about TEF or the like) is really pointless -- majoring in the minors again. The bigger issue is how do you like to eat. I could have the highest possible TEF if I ate 85% protein and only essential fats or some such, but I'd have a stupid, unhealthy, and unsustainable diet. Increasing protein beyond 30% or so (whatever the grams give you) UNLESS it's for personal satiety or simply because you like the foods you are choosing doesn't make much sense, and doing so because higher TEF doesn't change that.
For the record, this is aimed at Dr. Oz and all the diet gurus who argue that focusing on things like TEF matter, not the most recent poster who referenced Dr. Oz.
(What people mean by negative calorie foods is normally not TEF but the weird idea that foods like celery burn more calories being digested than they contain.)0 -
phyllisdi711 wrote: »Woah ok
Just stating that I saw a study on his show one day. I'm not a dr. I'm not a nutritional guru of any sort. Just thought it seemed interesting.
this is why you should not get any nutritional information from Dr. Oz….0 -
stevencloser wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
Let me repost the video from I think my first post in this thread.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjKPIcI51lU
And make the statement bold for you too just in case it doesn't get through.
No differences due to atwater, TEF, macro ratios or anything else you can think of will EVER come even CLOSE to our own inability to measure intake properly without counting.
NONE OF THIS MATTERS AS MUCH AS YOUR CALORIE INTAKE.
It seems rather pointless to bring up that you're debating a point I never made. You can bold that all you wish, but unless you dispute something I actually said it's simply making a statement that doesn't apply.
But now that you bring it up, I openly dispute your statement. Energy balance can be maintained by many people without logging food or understanding any specifics of calorie intake. It takes nothing more than a human scale. The human scale in the end accounts for all errors on any level, be it calories in, or calories out.
Being that comparisons in differences for energy calculation factors are known to exist into the double digits depending on the methods used, those calculations are known to be less than exacting.
If you have studies that show energy balance is always an exacting method and that weight control could always be accurately predicted without the feedback loop of the human scale, I'd be more than open to them.robertw486 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
there is no difference between the two ...
And I guess the Atwater factors are all just as accurate as the other as well?
A calorie is a calorie in the most simplistic of explanations. In reality, variances in the methods used to calculate calories, overall dietary composition and intake, and a great number of other factors influence how many of those (estimated) calories are actually absorbed and made available for energy use.
But then again, the body doesn't even use all sugars in the same way either.
Sounds more to me like a quick refresher in the most simplistic of thinking.
the simplest explanation is usually the correct one, and I will refer you to @stevencloser post.
Just because you type a wall of text in a passive aggressive manor does not make your post any more legitimate than anyone else's.
See the above. These variances in energy calculations are known as fact and supported by science. If you choose to ignore the science beyond the most simplistic levels that is your choice.
If you feel that openly disputing statements made by others is passive aggressive, you might want to consider your logic behind that, as there is nothing passive about an openly stated disagreement. If you wished to make an absolute statement regarding something known to not be absolute, maybe a forum section other than nutrition debate might be more appropriate.
The most simple explanation is often just that, simple. Comparing energy availability in a human body by stating that "a calorie is a calorie" would be simple. In reality and use, the differences in available energy are greater due to the factors in the energy calculations. Beyond that, differing food and diet composition also impacts when that potential energy is available, as well as possibly the forms it is available in.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The idea here seems to be that 1500 calories is equally filling no matter what the source.
So if it has a higher TEF you get to eat more/be more satisfied.
But since 1500 calories is going to vary in how satisfying it is, in reality, why not just pick the foods that are satisfying. If you aren't losing as you should, go to 1400.
I think the desire to find tricks to cheat the system (obsessing about TEF or the like) is really pointless -- majoring in the minors again. The bigger issue is how do you like to eat. I could have the highest possible TEF if I ate 85% protein and only essential fats or some such, but I'd have a stupid, unhealthy, and unsustainable diet. Increasing protein beyond 30% or so (whatever the grams give you) UNLESS it's for personal satiety or simply because you like the foods you are choosing doesn't make much sense, and doing so because higher TEF doesn't change that.
For the record, this is aimed at Dr. Oz and all the diet gurus who argue that focusing on things like TEF matter, not the most recent poster who referenced Dr. Oz.
(What people mean by negative calorie foods is normally not TEF but the weird idea that foods like celery burn more calories being digested than they contain.)
Well said.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions