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
-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 929 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions