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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
A quick refresher on a calorie is a calorie ....
Replies
-
More examples of what OP was disagreeing with:
"Point.t blank processed calories dont nourish the body.....why they are considered empty"
Again, are we going to claim that this kind of thing makes sense, because calories can be hard to estimate properly?
Also, this again shows that most people who object to "a calorie is a calorie" think that "a calorie" = "a food" and are really saying that foods are not identical, which everyone knows and is unrelated to the claim "a calorie is a calorie." IMO, this kind of insistent mischaracterization or willful misunderstanding of the opposing argument is rude.
(It's also obviously absurd to claim that being processed means that something can't have nutrients, but that better belongs in the "clean" thread.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »More examples of what OP was disagreeing with:
"Point.t blank processed calories dont nourish the body.....why they are considered empty"
Again, are we going to claim that this kind of thing makes sense, because calories can be hard to estimate properly?
Also, this again shows that most people who object to "a calorie is a calorie" think that "a calorie" = "a food" and are really saying that foods are not identical, which everyone knows and is unrelated to the claim "a calorie is a calorie." IMO, this kind of insistent mischaracterization or willful misunderstanding of the opposing argument is rude.
(It's also obviously absurd to claim that being processed means that something can't have nutrients, but that better belongs in the "clean" thread.)
and of course my favorite that sugar and other calorie dense items are "empty calories"....0 -
http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/07/14/low-carb_diets_arent_anything_special_108746.html
"a calorie is not just a calorie. Protein, fat, and carbohydrates -- the three primary macronutrients -- are used by the body and transformed into energy in different ways. But those distinctions are -- when it comes to weight balance -- miniscule, and do not translate to anything game-changing for the health of modern humans."0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/07/14/low-carb_diets_arent_anything_special_108746.html
"a calorie is not just a calorie. Protein, fat, and carbohydrates -- the three primary macronutrients -- are used by the body and transformed into energy in different ways. But those distinctions are -- when it comes to weight balance -- miniscule, and do not translate to anything game-changing for the health of modern humans."
/thread
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »If memory serves right they used another Methode to calculate the fat losses too because dexa isn't accurate enough for such small losses. And that one showed the differences.
DEXA wasn't sensitive enough / the study was too short / the experiment was underpowered so there wasn't a statistically significant physical measurement of body composition changes showing the same thing as the calculated differential fat balance based on food in and gases out.
I always like to see a measurement that backs up the headline news personally.
0 -
KH studied showed minute difference, which would suggest that our bodies would treat calories different. But since it doesn't have a huge impact on weight loss, it should be dismissed.
I disagree that KH showed a "minute difference". In the men an 800 kcal food intake change produced a 160 kcal/day difference between the energy deficits of the two diets. A difference in outcome that is 20% of the input change doesn't strike me as insignificant.
0 -
Oh gawd not the smashthefat guy............a joke among the actual nutrition science world
Rather insulting. The lad's intentions seem genuine enough. I haven't seen anyone bother to do the same and prove he fixed it or misrepresented the results (or indeed indicate how he would have done that).
0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »This is what I was getting at. What advice, in 3 sentences or less, would give the average person the biggest bang for their weight loss buck so to speak.
"Eat less food". Three words, not three sentences.0 -
I disagree that KH showed a "minute difference". In the men an 800 kcal food intake change produced a 160 kcal/day difference between the energy deficits of the two diets. A difference in outcome that is 20% of the input change doesn't strike me as insignificant.
Only if it stays that way. If it evens out after a few weeks once the bodies had gotten used to the different diet it's nothing but a blip on your screen when looking at your total loss.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Problem is that isn't the output of a study but is the prediction of his beloved mathematical model. The same model that was an appalling fit to the short term experiment (especially the low carb arm).
If he re-did the thing with a 3-week run-in on the experimental diets then there might be a case to extrapolate way into the future, but the short trial did not establish a steady state from which one can credibly extrapolate.
0 -
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...
Burgers have a bad rap due to things like "mechanically recovered meat", "pink slime" etc. A burger made from ground prime grass fed beef ought to have the same status as salmon but the public perception is a way apart.
0 -
Burgers have a bad rap due to things like "mechanically recovered meat", "pink slime" etc. A burger made from ground prime grass fed beef ought to have the same status as salmon but the public perception is a way apart.
I'd imagine the omega-3's between the two would still be apart even though grass fed will have more than conventional beef. Like 100 grams of raw beef having 12 grams of fat, only .088 g's of which is omega-3's versus wild salmon having 6 grams of fat per 100 grams, and 2 grams of that fat being omega-3's.0 -
"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
0 -
"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
As the OP said very clearly...0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
As the OP said very clearly...
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.0 -
I
There is nothing clear in any of it. As simple as it's trying to be made to be, it's just not.
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)0 -
I
I think if you want to make it complicated you can - there are a myriad of minutiae, with supporting scientific peer reviewed studies that can brought to bear
But the question is 'Are they relevant to your goals?'
The issue with not taking things back to the lowest common denominator is, as I see it, visible in many different fields of expertise .. it causes inertia
A failure to make a decision or commit to a path because one just needs to consider this other information which will at best result in a couple of percentage points difference
Sometimes good enough is just that
It's good enough to achieve your goals
(I remove elite athletes at the top of their game from this .. but only them)
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.0 -
"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
no one said different macros don't have a different impact on body comp and what not ..
please try to stay on track with the topic….0 -
"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
Yes, as everyone agreed, foods are different. "Calorie" is a unit of measurement, not another way of saying "food."
You are intentionally missing the OP's point.
Eating fewer calories than they burn will cause anyone to lose weight (and can be accomplished with or without counting).
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Yes, as everyone agreed, foods are different. "Calorie" is a unit of measurement, not another way of saying "food."
You are intentionally missing the OP's point.
Eating fewer calories than they burn will cause anyone to lose weight (and can be accomplished with or without counting).
no one said different macros don't have a different impact on body comp and what not ..
please try to stay on track with the topic….
The topic is too broad it's open for interpretation.0 -
maybe for you it is, but it is pretty simple….all calories provide the same unit of energy; hover, they are not nutritionally the same.
pretty simple concept, I am sorry that you can't grasp it.0 -
I feel sorry for you having to copy and paste that same sentence over and over and there'll still be another person saying "But foods are different nutritionally!" anyway.0
-
There is plenty of evidence that goes against a calorie being a calorie. The definition is true, until applied, then what? This is why you have an argument in the first place. A cow is just a cow until it's a hamburger, a hamburger is just a hamburger until it's digested now it's a calorie. The point, a calorie is just a calorie when categorizing, after that they are not the same as we see in proteins, fats, carbs, then we dig deeper layer of layer. It's not simple.
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.0 -
"A calorie is just a calorie."
100 calories of chicken, 100 calories of french fries. Both give energy, but the chicken does more. It's just that simple.
It's all great and wonderful until you compare molecules and how it works in the body. It's the same energy, true, but how the body reacts to that energy is what really matters. Life isn't about a scale and counting calories everyday we were never meant to do that. But if it works for you GREAT.
Do what works for you, but don't proclaim it will works for all, if it did the world would not have a obesity problem.
"A mile is just a mile."
Until you compare the terrain. It's the same distance.
I want to see anyone walk 1 mile on flat ground. Then I want to see someone walk one mile on mountainous terrain.
The distance was the same, but it wasn't the same situation.
Does more what? Mostly it will require your body to do more, more nitrogen excretion.
As for what we were meant to do in life - a nihilist would agree with you. They'd also say were weren't meant to not count calories everyday either.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Carbs, fats and protein, when used as fuel will always be turned into ATP providing an amount of calories. the way they get turned into that is different but the end product is the same.
So actually, they're different until they're not anymore.
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.0 -
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.0 -
Wrong. you are so stuck on looking at fats, proteins, carbs you always forget the others. Fiber is a huge one. Fiber slows down the metabolic rate which uses less calories to process the food, so instead of 160 calories worth of almonds it becomes 130. As I said, it's not that simple.
We've covered almonds.
The calorie counts--including the number of calories we actually obtain from the foods--are estimates, most are close, some may be off by more (like almonds) which will probably result in the calorie estimate being changed at some point. Once it is, will that mean that a calorie is a calorie again?0 -
The OP lays it out clearly. You are intentionally misunderstanding. Why? Beats me.
No one thinks foods are the same. That's not what "a calorie is a calorie" means, and pointing out that there are nutritional and other differences between foods is not an argument to the contrary.
Also, what sense does it make to compare 100 calories of one food vs. another? Any decent diet will include more than 100 calories and many different foods that provide different benefits.0 -
While I don't eat almonds, the funny thing is that with my overall goals, 30 calories a day may actually be significant. If I want to try to gain 0.25 lb a month, it would matter in that regard.stevencloser wrote: »
As I told robert, if you're in a place where a 30 calorie difference is somehow fatal to your goals, you're doing something wrong.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions