All calories may not be equal

1141517192024

Replies

  • sfcrocker
    sfcrocker Posts: 163 Member
    I think back to my Human Nutrition Professor in college who pretty much told us that if you eat more calories than you burn you gain weight and if you eat fewer than you burn you lose weight--period. She even said that you could do a Pepsi diet and drink a six pack of Pepsi every day and you'd still lose weight, though she pointed out that you'd be missing a ton of vital nutrients.
  • ouryve
    ouryve Posts: 572 Member
    queenliz99 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.

    Both make my jaw ache.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    Real food contains all sorts of elements from the periodic table. I suppose you get no iron or calcium from any of your food?
  • This content has been removed.
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    Real food contains all sorts of elements from the periodic table. I suppose you get no iron or calcium from any of your food?

    I get health from my foods, what about you?

    I get health from many of my foods and pleasure from many of them. I try to overlap the two as much as possible.

    I also get carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc and many many trace elements from them. I rarely choose foods for specific elements and don't particularly care which elements are in which foods because I know that a well balanced diet will make sure that I get all the elements I need. But that doesn't change the fact that those elements are in there.
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    I could easily hit 3000 calories eating at places like cheesecake factory. But getting that much at home day in day out, i reckon I'd struggle. My blowout cheat days rarely hit 2500 calories. I'm a total lightweight failure :tongue:

    Adding one pint of Haagen-Dazs chocolate peanut butter ice cream (1360 calories) to my current deficit intake would put me at 3660. I don't think many people would consider a pint of ice cream per day as an undue hardship.

    Alternately, I could cook my morning eggs in a couple tablespoons of olive oil (+240 calories), have 2 ounces of almonds for a mid-morning snack (+320 calories), slice up half an avocado and add it to my salad for dinner (+130 calories). Add those to my normal daily intake and boom, I'm at 3000 calories and would barely notice any difference in terms of satiety.

    True, true :smile: I'd have no problem eating a pint of ice cream, and yes it would be easy adding lashings of oil to things without noticing it much.

    @Christine_72 Do you have Halo Top ice cream down under? It's protein ice cream--an entire pint is 280 calories max. And it's GOOD. Not like the other stuff I've tried which tastes like frozen ice with a brown crayon mixed in and called "chocolate."

    Also ... Sonics are just plain fun. It's a drive up restaurant and the wait staff is on roller skates. Worth it just for the experience. (And the tater tots.) :wink:
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    I could easily hit 3000 calories eating at places like cheesecake factory. But getting that much at home day in day out, i reckon I'd struggle. My blowout cheat days rarely hit 2500 calories. I'm a total lightweight failure :tongue:

    Adding one pint of Haagen-Dazs chocolate peanut butter ice cream (1360 calories) to my current deficit intake would put me at 3660. I don't think many people would consider a pint of ice cream per day as an undue hardship.

    Alternately, I could cook my morning eggs in a couple tablespoons of olive oil (+240 calories), have 2 ounces of almonds for a mid-morning snack (+320 calories), slice up half an avocado and add it to my salad for dinner (+130 calories). Add those to my normal daily intake and boom, I'm at 3000 calories and would barely notice any difference in terms of satiety.

    True, true :smile: I'd have no problem eating a pint of ice cream, and yes it would be easy adding lashings of oil to things without noticing it much.

    @Christine_72 Do you have Halo Top ice cream down under? It's protein ice cream--an entire pint is 280 calories max. And it's GOOD. Not like the other stuff I've tried which tastes like frozen ice with a brown crayon mixed in and called "chocolate."

    Also ... Sonics are just plain fun. It's a drive up restaurant and the wait staff is on roller skates. Worth it just for the experience. (And the tater tots.) :wink:

    No we dont :( I don't think we have anything even remotely similar.

  • daniip_la
    daniip_la Posts: 678 Member
    queenliz99 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.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thallium
    Thallium is a chemical element with symbol Tl and atomic number 81.
    Real food isn't on the periodic table. You must be talking about some kind of GMO kale.

    I really hope you're trolling.

    Like really, really hope.
  • MrSimmers
    MrSimmers Posts: 32 Member
    A calorie is a unit of energy, not a food, so by definition the type of calorie makes no difference in terms of weight gain/loss. However as echoed by many others, the type of calories you consume perform vastly different biological roles. Proteins and carbohybrates have completely different functions and purposes. Maintaining good health can and does indirectly lead to the amount of weight you lose through many factors. Excess toxins in the diet may cause lethargy and fatigue, leading to lack of motivation and subsequent weight gain. So whilst "all calories are equal" is technically true, indirectly its not so simple, and the quality does matter.
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,235 Member
    edited August 2016
    MrSimmers wrote: »
    A calorie is a unit of energy, not a food, so by definition the type of calorie makes no difference in terms of weight gain/loss. However as echoed by many others, the type of calories you consume perform vastly different biological roles. Proteins and carbohybrates have completely different functions and purposes. Maintaining good health can and does indirectly lead to the amount of weight you lose through many factors. Excess toxins in the diet may cause lethargy and fatigue, leading to lack of motivation and subsequent weight gain. So whilst "all calories are equal" is technically true, indirectly its not so simple, and the quality does matter for nutrition, but not for weight loss.

    I feel the added bold caveat makes that last sentence a bit more accurate.

    Edit to correct the fact that I meant to address just the last sentence and not the whole statement.
  • MrSimmers
    MrSimmers Posts: 32 Member
    I feel the added bold caveat makes that statement a bit more accurate.
    I agree if you're talking about the immediate biochemical effects, but indirectly I'm still of the belief that an unhealthy diet causes lethargy and other symptoms which can lead to weight gain. Of course if someone really did stick to an exercise regime regardless of the type of calories they consume, then you're right.
  • Return2Fit
    Return2Fit Posts: 226 Member
    edited August 2016
    DebSozo wrote: »
    DebSozo wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    DebSozo wrote: »
    DebSozo wrote: »
    Maxematics wrote: »
    MissusMoon wrote: »
    Let me be clear, the OCD comment was aimed at those who stress over weighing a pre-packaged, single serving yogurt just incase the calories are off by +/- 5-10kcal. Those who weigh restaurant food and pick apart meals "just incase".

    Counting calories is one thing but that is just not normal behaviour.

    If I weren't weighing my food, I would be eating at least 200 more calories more than I should every day. Slices of bread, cups of yogurt, packaged food that says it has "about 1.5 servings" that really has more than three. I'm far from OCD, but yeah, I'm going to weigh all of that--because having lost 75lbs is better than not.

    The receptionist at my physical therapist's office and I got to talking. She used to be obese. She has peanut butter and apples for breakfast, and still weighs it all out. She's not OCD either. She's doing what she needs to do to maintain her healthy weight. Over five years and counting.

    Labeling people with a mental condition because you don't understand why they do what they do is ridiculous.

    If you have reached your goal weight, and five years later you are still counting every calorie and weighing and measuring everything you eat, it is OCD.

    God forbid you gain two pounds. Guess what? You can start counting again and lose the two pounds.

    You are clueless about OCD and you have no business speaking about it. At this point I think you are purposely being disrespectful.

    I mean no disrespect and I do not mean to be argumentative. It is just beyond my comprehension that a healthy person who works out and has reached the correct weight by counting, weighing and measuring, would continue to count, weigh and measure meal after meal after meal, year after year after year.

    Just enjoy your food. Weigh yourself every day. I guarantee that nothing bad will happen to you other than gaining two pounds, which you can lose right away by counting, measuring and weighing.

    Sorry, but I do not understand the obsession. And it is, in my opinion, an obsession.

    There is a different between a habit and an obsession. There is a difference between a choice and a compulsion. There is a difference between having an obsession or a compulsion and having obsessive compulsive disorder. There is a difference between choosing to weigh and stressing about weighing. There is a difference between stressing about weighing and having obsessive compulsive disorder. Until you understand any of these differences, you need to stop throwing diagnoses around like they're Mardi Gras beads.

    OK, here is my new diagnosis - it's odd.

    You know what I think is odd? Someone who claims they ate more than all of their college friends and never gained weight. Someone who claims they can recall everything both them and their friends ate when they were in college over 30 years ago. I knew I remembered you. I remember calling you out in that other thread for having problems with a food scale and you said you didn't. I apologized for being mistaken. Now I'm annoyed that I apologized for that because you clearly do.

    That's right. Almost 6' 1", 145 lbs., no exercise other than walking to class (like everyone else), and eating like a horse. That's me! Thanks for remembering.

    And by the way, it's called a fast metabolism. I'm sure you have heard of that term.

    My brother was like that. He was 6'3", 145 pounds, and ate like a horse. So I tend to think that certain individuals do have higher "engine" speeds and fast metabolisms.

    I'll save the others from responding. This is a typical canned response:

    - You weren't with him all the time. How do you know he wasn't running five miles everyday?
    - You say he ate lie a "horse." What does that mean? You weren't counting his calories. And maybe he only ate like a horse when you were with him, and he didn't eat the rest of the day.

    Something like that. In other words, the posters here who never met your brother, know more about him than you do.

    He grew up with me. So I do know. As soon as my mom brought in groceries he was climbing on the counter as a child and eating up food. He kept the fast metabolism into teens and adulthood.

    Did you weigh, measure, and log every morsel of food he ate???

    See. I told you! This is the canned response. Did you weigh, measure and log his food?

    Because you didn't, how dare you comment on his metabolism!!!

    I think people don't want to acknowledge that some people are more efficient burning calories.

    And more efficient means they burn LESS doing the same thing.

    Clarification for you: Efficient Metabolism.

    I have always had a very high metabolism, and other folk I know gain weight if they smell bread baking.
    The MFP estimates were wrong for me, so I simply up-regulated my daily allowance for calories and raised slightly the numbers for exercise burn.
    Worked perfectly... :)
    As for the source for this energy, I prefer nutritious whole foods mostly.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    MrSimmers wrote: »
    A calorie is a unit of energy, not a food, so by definition the type of calorie makes no difference in terms of weight gain/loss. However as echoed by many others, the type of calories you consume perform vastly different biological roles. Proteins and carbohybrates have completely different functions and purposes. Maintaining good health can and does indirectly lead to the amount of weight you lose through many factors. Excess toxins in the diet may cause lethargy and fatigue, leading to lack of motivation and subsequent weight gain. So whilst "all calories are equal" is technically true, indirectly its not so simple, and the quality does matter for nutrition, but not for weight loss.

    I feel the added bold caveat makes that statement a bit more accurate.

    I think Psulemon made a valid point above in that the "quality" of calories does matter for weight loss in the sense of providing satiety and helping with adherence. I mean "quality" in the sense of setting one's macronutrient balance in a way that's most satisfying for them.

    Yes, technically one could lose weight subsisting mainly upon donuts, twinkies, potato chips, etc. as long as they maintained a caloric deficit. This has been proven by the "Twinkie Diet" experiment. However, there's a good chance that one would also spend a lot of time hungry and fighting off urges to binge/cheat on such a diet. No diet, no matter how "healthy" or "unhealthy", will result in weight loss if somebody can't stick to it and make it work for them.
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,235 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MrSimmers wrote: »
    A calorie is a unit of energy, not a food, so by definition the type of calorie makes no difference in terms of weight gain/loss. However as echoed by many others, the type of calories you consume perform vastly different biological roles. Proteins and carbohybrates have completely different functions and purposes. Maintaining good health can and does indirectly lead to the amount of weight you lose through many factors. Excess toxins in the diet may cause lethargy and fatigue, leading to lack of motivation and subsequent weight gain. So whilst "all calories are equal" is technically true, indirectly its not so simple, and the quality does matter for nutrition, but not for weight loss.

    I feel the added bold caveat makes that statement a bit more accurate.

    I think Psulemon made a valid point above in that the "quality" of calories does matter for weight loss in the sense of providing satiety and helping with adherence. I mean "quality" in the sense of setting one's macronutrient balance in a way that's most satisfying for them.

    Yes, technically one could lose weight subsisting mainly upon donuts, twinkies, potato chips, etc. as long as they maintained a caloric deficit. This has been proven by the "Twinkie Diet" experiment. However, there's a good chance that one would also spend a lot of time hungry and fighting off urges to binge/cheat on such a diet. No diet, no matter how "healthy" or "unhealthy", will result in weight loss if somebody can't stick to it and make it work for them.

    It's true that if you gave in to hunger because the food you ate didn't satiate you the same as the same calorific amount of a different food could and ate more, you might not lose as much or you might gain, but then we are no longer discussing equal amounts of calories. Which is what I'm addressing. I'm not addressing the fact that some people may or may not have more or less hunger with different sources for equal calories. I'm only discussing intake of equal calories from different sources. Calories are for weight loss. A calorie is a calorie regardless of source. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you choose to eat more because you don't feel full from your source of calorie, that has no bearing on what the calorie is doing.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,024 Member
    Maxematics wrote: »
    kshama2001 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.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    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.

    How funny to read this now, as others have said. I'm an 108 pound woman who eats 2000 to 2500 just to maintain her weight, so I think it's interesting that despite your "eat like a horse" past you think 3000 calories is a lot. I guess you didn't eat as much as you thought.

    Deny, deny, deny. No such thing as fast metabolisms.

    Give 500 men who are age 22 and the same height, the same amount of calories for a year and have them do the same amount of exercise, and their weight results will be the same. Sure.
    No one's denied that metabolism's are different from person to person. The argument that's always been made to you is that if someone isn't gaining weight, then they aren't EATING ENOUGH to cause weight gain. There AREN'T naturally skinny people. What don't you understand about that?

    I'll make it easy for you:

    22 year old male with a TDEE of 3000
    22 year old male with a TDEE of 4000
    Both eat 4000 calories a day for 6 months.
    The one with the lower TDEE will GAIN weight, the one with the higher won't.


    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

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,024 Member
    kshama2001 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.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    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.
    Only if you over consume. Do we want to discuss inmates in penitentiaries again?

    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

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,024 Member
    edited August 2016
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    auddii 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.
    Lol, when you say "convert" you're talking about someone changing their genetics? :D

    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

    9285851.png


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
    So explain how epigenetics changes DNA sequence. I'd like to hear it.

    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

    9285851.png

    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.
    Lol, DNA DOESN'T say what your weight should be. Environment, lifestyle and habitual behavior contribute to that, but YOU'RE responsible for your own weight.
    Yes I understand DNA just fine.
    So again instead of avoiding questions like you have in the past, explain how epigentics changes DNA sequence? You brought it up.

    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

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,024 Member
    Mentali wrote: »
    kshama2001 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.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    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!!" :D
    Breeze is just short for "full of air" when posting. He wants to be different, which is fine, and comes up with these wacky ideas, but no way to support them sensibly.

    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

    9285851.png
  • sjbuescher
    sjbuescher Posts: 45 Member
    I've done a whole 30 which follows a similar premise - not being afraid of healthy fats, eatingnnon gut disrupting nutritient dense food, etc. I'd never felt better and I lost weight in 30 days without tracking while eating whole full fat foods and nitrient dense foods. In the end, being so strict all the the time isnt sustainable long term for me, but I did learn alot about how my body reacts to different things through it.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,343 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    MrSimmers wrote: »
    A calorie is a unit of energy, not a food, so by definition the type of calorie makes no difference in terms of weight gain/loss. However as echoed by many others, the type of calories you consume perform vastly different biological roles. Proteins and carbohybrates have completely different functions and purposes. Maintaining good health can and does indirectly lead to the amount of weight you lose through many factors. Excess toxins in the diet may cause lethargy and fatigue, leading to lack of motivation and subsequent weight gain. So whilst "all calories are equal" is technically true, indirectly its not so simple, and the quality does matter for nutrition, but not for weight loss.

    I feel the added bold caveat makes that statement a bit more accurate.

    I think Psulemon made a valid point above in that the "quality" of calories does matter for weight loss in the sense of providing satiety and helping with adherence. I mean "quality" in the sense of setting one's macronutrient balance in a way that's most satisfying for them.

    Yes, technically one could lose weight subsisting mainly upon donuts, twinkies, potato chips, etc. as long as they maintained a caloric deficit. This has been proven by the "Twinkie Diet" experiment. However, there's a good chance that one would also spend a lot of time hungry and fighting off urges to binge/cheat on such a diet. No diet, no matter how "healthy" or "unhealthy", will result in weight loss if somebody can't stick to it and make it work for them.

    It's true that if you gave in to hunger because the food you ate didn't satiate you the same as the same calorific amount of a different food could and ate more, you might not lose as much or you might gain, but then we are no longer discussing equal amounts of calories. Which is what I'm addressing. I'm not addressing the fact that some people may or may not have more or less hunger with different sources for equal calories. I'm only discussing intake of equal calories from different sources. Calories are for weight loss. A calorie is a calorie regardless of source. No ifs, ands, or buts. If you choose to eat more because you don't feel full from your source of calorie, that has no bearing on what the calorie is doing.

    We're in full agreement there.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,024 Member
    Hornsby 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.
    Opinion. Got any evidence to show that they are fronted by any manufacturers/sellers of big pharma?

    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

    9285851.png

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,024 Member
    Mentali wrote: »
    kshama2001 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.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-36988065
    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!!" :D

    Well of course not. It is a factory in the factory farm sense. I can't believe they make it that easy for you to know to avoid the place but people still go there.
    You discriminate against any food that's not to your liking. Just because you don't like or approve of it, doesn't mean it's dangerous. All you're doing here is showing newbies that your information isn't legit enough to believe regardless of how smart you try to make yourself seem. There's GROUPS you can hang with that believe like you do and will give you praise if that's what you're looking for.

    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

    9285851.png
  • Isabelle_1929
    Isabelle_1929 Posts: 233 Member
    edited August 2016
    I think that the obesity epidemic can be explained in part by this type of thread.

    The problem is that everybody is so sure to know all there is to know about weight and nutrition. Yet everyone and their dog is on a perpetual diet: gains, and loses, and gain and loses again.

    Our weight is out of control but man, do we HAVE the KNOWLEDGE or what?

    AND THE SCIENCE! AND FACTS !

    Crazy times.

    Ok, off to sleep.

    Qui dort, dîne ...
This discussion has been closed.