All calories may not be equal
Options
Replies
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065KetoneKaren wrote: »@ndj1979
I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.
I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.
http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf
3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.
I'm a 5'6", 49 yo female and I can hit or come close to 3,000 gross calories occasionally and still lose weight. 3,000 calories while not trying to lose weight would be no effort at all. And, except for the very occasional Captain & Coke, I'm not a soda drinker, or an eater of big bags of chips.
6 -
The fact that 3k is eating like a pig basically proves that @gonetothedogs19 is very, very confused on how many calories most people eat.
3k per day is a 2lb per week deficit for me at the moment and I'm 38. I can only imagine how much I was eating when I was 20.9 -
earthakin66 wrote: »It just seems obvious to me that 200 calories in almonds vs. 200 calories in a doughnut will not have the same result in your body. It actually seems like people here agree on that so I don't really know what the issue is. Part of the idea is that if we eat 1400 calories worth of nutritionally dense, higher fat foods then we will be less hungry than if we ate 1400 calories of processed, low fat foods.
I read the review, interesting points.
I dont trust doctors blindly, just was pointing out that he isn't a stick insect.
You are confusing the concept of calories (a unit of energy) with macros (and all the other attributes of food). Nobody here is going to argue that almonds and doughnuts will have different effects on your blood sugar, your level of satiety, etc. (Because duh, no kidding.) We will point out that the same caloric amount of doughnuts and almonds will make no difference in terms of weight loss EXCEPT if they impact your hunger level (and one makes you more likely to overeat). A calorie is the same as any other calorie. A macro is NOT the same as any other macro.
^^^^ This, no need to say more.1 -
BreezeDoveal wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065KetoneKaren wrote: »@ndj1979
I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.
I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.
http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf
3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.
Sorry, but not as hard as you may think for people that eat out.
Cheesecake Factory The Bistro Shrimp Pasta - 3,120 calories
Cheesecake Factory Bruleed French Toast - 2780 calories
Cheesecake Factory - Farfalle With Chicken and Roasted Garlic - 2410 calories
Sonic: Large Peanut Butter Caramel Pie Malt (just one milkshake) - 2170 calories
Maggiano's Little Italy Veal Porterhouse - 2,710 calories
Johnny Rockets Bacon & Cheddar Double Cheeseburger (just the burger) - 1,770 calories.
I could go on.
Of course all that factory made food is going to be dreadful for you.
I've personally never eaten at The Cheesecake Factory, I just know they have some very high calories menu items. Granted, I really don't think it would matter if I did or not. Not really sure if that was a serious comment or not.
ETA: Whoops! Left out the word 'sure' originally.0 -
Lol. You guys still arguing with this fella!?3
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »
So explain how epigenetics changes DNA sequence. I'd like to hear it.BreezeDoveal wrote: »
Lol, when you say "convert" you're talking about someone changing their genetics?BreezeDoveal wrote: »An efficient metabolism is able to do more work with less input.
ETA: Just like an efficient car gets better gas mileage, so you need to fill it up less often.
Some people convert their cars to run on grease trap leavings. They then collect the leavings for free so their car essentially is the best mileage of all when you think about the costs.
Maybe some people's metabolisms are like that.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm not sure you understand what DNA is when you ask that question.
If your DNA doesn't change, then explain why people can even lose weight by exercising more or eating better, instead of their weight just being what their DNA says it should be.
What?!?! Your DNA does not "say what your weight should be". Your DNA contains information that your body uses to make proteins (in a multistep process; I'm not ignoring RNA) some of which are involved in building your body and some of which are involved in running your body.
*YOU* decide what/how much you're going to eat and how/how much you're going to be active.
DNA contributes to your weight by making you predisposed to being tall/short (presuming sufficient nutrition to allow you to grow to your full potential), genetic conditions affecting metabolism (e.g. thyroid conditions) and appetite control via sensitivity of receptors to hunger/satiety messages. But it doesn't decide what you weigh - and it sure as heck doesn't change when you gain/lose weight.4 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065KetoneKaren wrote: »@ndj1979
I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.
I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.
http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf
3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.
Sorry, but not as hard as you may think for people that eat out.
Cheesecake Factory The Bistro Shrimp Pasta - 3,120 calories
Cheesecake Factory Bruleed French Toast - 2780 calories
Cheesecake Factory - Farfalle With Chicken and Roasted Garlic - 2410 calories
Sonic: Large Peanut Butter Caramel Pie Malt (just one milkshake) - 2170 calories
Maggiano's Little Italy Veal Porterhouse - 2,710 calories
Johnny Rockets Bacon & Cheddar Double Cheeseburger (just the burger) - 1,770 calories.
I could go on.
Of course all that factory made food is going to be dreadful for you.
I've personally never eaten at The Cheesecake Factory, I just know they have some very high calories menu items. Granted, I really don't think it would matter if I did or not. Not really if that was a serious comment or not.
Breeze excels in making comments exaggerated just plausible enough to get responses - in this case, I think the hope was the response of "it's not a real factory!!" 4 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »BreezeDoveal wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065KetoneKaren wrote: »@ndj1979
I was looking for studies that show how much people err in estimating caloric intake and the numbers are all over the place. Could you direct me to the source of your information that people's estimates are off by 30-50%? Thanks in advance.
I am curious to know just how accurate MFP loggers are...I use a food scale, and after reading on these forums how inaccurate the weight of packaged foods can be, I weigh & measure those, too. It's illuminating to weigh pre-packaged foods.
The Behavioural Insights Team points to scientific and economic data showing people eat 3,000 calories, compared to the 2,000 cited in official surveys.
http://www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-07-12-Counting-Calories-Final.pdf
3,000 calories? Do you know how much that it is? Sorry, but unless your have a big meal with drinks at a restaurant, drinking a six-pack of Coke, or eating entire giant bags of chips, you are not eating 3,000 calories. And if we were, just about every woman and most men would be obese.
Sorry, but not as hard as you may think for people that eat out.
Cheesecake Factory The Bistro Shrimp Pasta - 3,120 calories
Cheesecake Factory Bruleed French Toast - 2780 calories
Cheesecake Factory - Farfalle With Chicken and Roasted Garlic - 2410 calories
Sonic: Large Peanut Butter Caramel Pie Malt (just one milkshake) - 2170 calories
Maggiano's Little Italy Veal Porterhouse - 2,710 calories
Johnny Rockets Bacon & Cheddar Double Cheeseburger (just the burger) - 1,770 calories.
I could go on.
Of course all that factory made food is going to be dreadful for you.
I've personally never eaten at The Cheesecake Factory, I just know they have some very high calories menu items. Granted, I really don't think it would matter if I did or not. Not really if that was a serious comment or not.
Breeze excels in making comments exaggerated just plausible enough to get responses - in this case, I think the hope was the response of "it's not a real factory!!"
Not all of them are plausible. Some are just random.0 -
Random troll-ish comments - on numerous threads0
-
The name of this thread is "all calories may not be equal."
This is what Dr. Mark Hyman has to say. He is chairman of The Institute for Functional Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
"The truth is there are good and bad calories. And that’s because this involves more than a simple math equation. If you eat the same amount of calories in kale or gummy bears, do they do the same thing to your body? No!
When we eat, our food interacts with our biology, which is a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite. Every bite affects your hormones, brain chemistry and metabolism. Sugar calories cause fat storage and spikes hunger. Protein and fat calories promote fat burning.
What counts even more than the quantity of calories are the quality of the calories."
1 -
Mark Hyman, a known quack who shouldn't be taken seriously.
http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=Mark+Hyman6 -
He's using calories as a synonym for food and arguing that foods are different. That's true, but a strawman--no one says otherwise, and calorie does not mean "food." It's a unit of energy. I'm sure if asked, Hyman -- despite his own diet that he likes to promote -- would acknowledge that there's not really any such thing as a "kale calorie" or a "gummy bear calorie."
Claiming that protein and fat calories promote fat burning sounds like a scammy way to try and promote a particular diet (and you can easily find pedigreed doctors even now who will tell you fat and protein are the problems). The true -- and I am sure Hyman would admit it if forced to address is -- is that if your maintenance is 2000 and you eat 3000 calories of only fat and protein, you will be putting on fat fast.8 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The name of this thread is "all calories may not be equal."
This is what Dr. Mark Hyman has to say. He is chairman of The Institute for Functional Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
"The truth is there are good and bad calories. And that’s because this involves more than a simple math equation. If you eat the same amount of calories in kale or gummy bears, do they do the same thing to your body? No!
When we eat, our food interacts with our biology, which is a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite. Every bite affects your hormones, brain chemistry and metabolism. Sugar calories cause fat storage and spikes hunger. Protein and fat calories promote fat burning.
What counts even more than the quantity of calories are the quality of the calories."
Kale has thallium and tastes like grass and gummy bears have sugar and are delicious. Hard to decide which one is better.6 -
queenliz99 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »The name of this thread is "all calories may not be equal."
This is what Dr. Mark Hyman has to say. He is chairman of The Institute for Functional Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.
"The truth is there are good and bad calories. And that’s because this involves more than a simple math equation. If you eat the same amount of calories in kale or gummy bears, do they do the same thing to your body? No!
When we eat, our food interacts with our biology, which is a complex adaptive system that instantly transforms every bite. Every bite affects your hormones, brain chemistry and metabolism. Sugar calories cause fat storage and spikes hunger. Protein and fat calories promote fat burning.
What counts even more than the quantity of calories are the quality of the calories."
Kale has thallium and tastes like grass and gummy bears have sugar and are delicious. Hard to decide which one is better.
I eat freshed picked kale once or twice per day. Nom nom nom.
I have no interest in gummy bears.0 -
Mark Hyman, a known quack who shouldn't be taken seriously.
http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=Mark+Hyman
Quackwatch is a front for Big Pharma.1 -
Big Pharma is a life saver!6
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Mark Hyman, a known quack who shouldn't be taken seriously.
http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=Mark+Hyman
Quackwatch is a front for Big Pharma.
K.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?s=Mark+Hyman7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 391 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
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions