All calories may not be equal
Options
Replies
-
Kinda like this:Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Why isn't it science? "
Saying a calorie isn't always a calorie is like saying a meter isn't always a meter or a pound isn't always a pound. They are units of measurement, by definition they are equivalent in all cases. It is a silly nonsensical statement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkqg6HE888A
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
8 -
...in otherwords, if you find a "calorie" that is not equivalent to another "calorie" its because you measured wrong, not because somehow calories don't equal calories.
Its literally like someone saying hey this 7 inch thing is longer than this other 7 inch thing. First thing that should come into your mind is "I guess one of them was measured incorrectly" not "sounds scientific to me"6 -
Kinda like this:Aaron_K123 wrote: »"Why isn't it science? "
Saying a calorie isn't always a calorie is like saying a meter isn't always a meter or a pound isn't always a pound. They are units of measurement, by definition they are equivalent in all cases. It is a silly nonsensical statement.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fkqg6HE888A
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
Yeah basically. I guess not all calories are the same after all.1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »...in otherwords, if you find a "calorie" that is not equivalent to another "calorie" its because you measured wrong, not because somehow calories don't equal calories.
Its literally like someone saying hey this 7 inch thing is longer than this other 7 inch thing. First thing that should come into your mind is "I guess one of them was measured incorrectly" not "sounds scientific to me"
But in your body they can be different and in your body is where they matter. For instance, your body will not store a calorie of alcohol as fat. It will for carbs, protein, and fat. It also takes more energy to convert a protein to fuel than a carbohydrate. They are all the same as units of measure but can look different to your body. By your argument, a gallon of gasoline is the same as a gallon of water because they are the same unit of measure, so my body should process them the same.3 -
Here is my take on it for what it is worth.
A calorie is a thermal energetic measurement. It is the amount of energy in necessary to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree celsius, by definition. A food calorie, or Calorie, is technically 1 kilocalorie or the amount of energy necessary to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree celsius. That is the fact here, its a unit of measurement of energy contained in something. That said you must understand that it is NOT a measurement of how much energy your body gets consuming something that contains one calorie however it is correlated to that.
It could very well be true that when Sam eats the 100 calorie cookie his body is able to utilize 80 calories of energy from that where as when Bob eats the 100 calorie cookie Bob gets 60 calories out of it. Perhaps it is because Bob recently had some stringent antibiotic treatments and his microbiome hasn't fully recovered decreasing his digestion and therefore caloric absorption. So a calorie isn't a calorie then right? Wrong. A calorie is still a calorie and the ratio of energy gotten from ingesting a food containing those calories is still equivalent.
What I mean is if Sam counts his calories and notices he needs 2000 calories to maintain his weight and Bob counts his calories and recognizes he needs 2500 calories to maintain his weight why exactly does it matter whether that is because Bob is more active or simply because Bob obtains less energy from an equivalent amount of food containing X number of calories than Sam does. It doesn't matter. If they both count calories and both watch their intake they can both use calorie counting as an efficient way of accurately predicting either weight gain or weight loss. If they continue to count while measuring weight loss they will notice if their overall TDEE changes due to either increased muscle or say a recovered microbiome...in the end it doesn't matter.
This is a silly semantic argument that completely ignores the relevant point which is that calorie counting as a method works regardless of how "efficient" or "inefficient" your metabolism is or whatever jargon you wish to use.
If you cut your pizza into 12 slices instead of 8 slices it doesn't suddenly mean you have more pizza.
If one 180 pound 6' 140 pound lean mass guy needs 2400 calories to maintain and another 180 pound 6' 140 pound lean mass guy needs 2900 calories to maintain that doesn't mean we should give up on calorie counting, if anything its an argument for why learning about your own needs through calorie counting is so important.13 -
For MEASUREMENT reasons they are the same. A liter is a liter whether it's a liter of gas or a liter of water. That DOESN'T change the measurement value.Aaron_K123 wrote: »...in otherwords, if you find a "calorie" that is not equivalent to another "calorie" its because you measured wrong, not because somehow calories don't equal calories.
Its literally like someone saying hey this 7 inch thing is longer than this other 7 inch thing. First thing that should come into your mind is "I guess one of them was measured incorrectly" not "sounds scientific to me"
But in your body they can be different and in your body is where they matter. For instance, your body will not store a calorie of alcohol as fat. It will for carbs, protein, and fat. It also takes more energy to convert a protein to fuel than a carbohydrate. They are all the same as units of measure but can look different to your body. By your argument, a gallon of gasoline is the same as a gallon of water because they are the same unit of measure, so my body should process them the same.
A calorie is a calorie. If I burned 10 calories of sugar or 10 calories of fat, it's STILL 10 calories. Same with ingestion.
Now of course the body reacts to different macro to macro on chemical basis. But if I were to set a goal to run a mile and had to do it through sand, uphill, in the rain, with shoes off, etc. all of those would have different intensity levels, but if I did a mile for all of them, it's still a mile.
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
3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »...in otherwords, if you find a "calorie" that is not equivalent to another "calorie" its because you measured wrong, not because somehow calories don't equal calories.
Its literally like someone saying hey this 7 inch thing is longer than this other 7 inch thing. First thing that should come into your mind is "I guess one of them was measured incorrectly" not "sounds scientific to me"
But in your body they can be different and in your body is where they matter. For instance, your body will not store a calorie of alcohol as fat. It will for carbs, protein, and fat. It also takes more energy to convert a protein to fuel than a carbohydrate. They are all the same as units of measure but can look different to your body. By your argument, a gallon of gasoline is the same as a gallon of water because they are the same unit of measure, so my body should process them the same.
What? No that is not at all what I am saying, your gallon analogy doesn't make sense. A gallon of water has the same volume as a gallon of gasoline because a gallon is a unit of volume and not a measure of anything else. 100 calories of cookies has the same energy as 100 calories of broccoli because a calorie is a measure of energy not a measure of anything else. These are just facts. Those who claim that calories are different for different people are attributing a property to calorie that the unit "calorie" does not have. Saying a gallon is equal to a gallon does not make the additional claim that the substance contained with the gallon somehow shares all properties with any other gallon other than volume which is what a gallon is the unit of measure for.
If I say a gallon of water is the same volume as a gallon of gas that is factually correct and it doesn't mean I believe you can run your car off of a gallon of water.
If I say 100 calories of broccoli has the same energy as 100 calories of cookies that is factually correct, that doesn't mean I believe broccoli and cookies are somehow nutritionally equivalent or absorbed exactly the same for all people. But that isn't what a calorie is and if you are ascribing that property to a calorie I think you are expecting caloric information to give you something it isn't meant to give you.
So if someone comes to me and says this gallon of water has more volume than this gallon of gas I'm gonna tell them they are wrong.
Read what I wrote again or read my longer post, I don't think you understood me.10 -
Lets put this another way.
Lets say Bob and Sam have very different "metabolisms" since that seems to be the word people like to use for whatever reason even though all humans have the same core metabolic functions. What they really mean is that Bob obtains less energy from the 100 calories on the box label than Sam does due to his utilization of the food either through variations of digestion, absorption or excretion levels. Perhaps Bob also is specifically not very good at digesting fats and therefore obtains less energy from fats as Sam but carbs and protein Bob and Sam are the same.
So if Bob eats 100 calories of pure carbs its the same as Sams 100 calories but if he eats 100 calories of pure fat he gets way less energy than Sams 100 calories of pure fat.
Tell me. What method should Bob employ to figure this out about his body? Would it be, perhaps, tracking the calories he consumes as written on the box versus his weight over time and determining which macro balance works for hitting a comfortable maintenance and then adjusting accordingly.
Or should he just mope about his inefficient metabolism and laugh at people who suggest he count calories because "a calorie isn't always a calorie"
What is more important here, the semantic argument people seem to love to make about calories or the actual goal that people are working towards attaining and wanting to learn what methods they can employ to better understand their bodies as it pertains to their diet and health?7 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 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
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
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.)
No we dont
I don't think we have anything even remotely similar.
Fropro is sold at my Woolworths but a tub costs almost $14! I am tempted by the product but the price puts me right off!
http://fropro.com.au/0 -
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.
Actually, proteins can fulfill the role of carbs since your body can convert them to carbs...1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
People really like to do that. Same in sugar threads. "Natural and refined sugars are different!" *lists a ton of things that have nothing to do with the sugars*
Or on a later page in here with gallons...
With calories I can still sorta understand the mental disconnect since calorie is an abstract and not a thing you can touch but people somehow want to make it into a thing in their head to wrap their mind around the concept.2 -
There are basics. Math works here. Eat more than you burn, you gain. Eat less than you burn, you lose. Eat what you burn, you maintain. That's not disputed in any Journal of science.Isabelle_1929 wrote: »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 ...
The PROBLEM is people are fallible with how THEY CONTROL the diet they choose.
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 don't disagree with you. But you are talking about the tree, while I was talking about the whole forest.
A diet is as a whole system. Like any computer or information system: it must include the "user". Ex. You are responsible for designing and maintaining the information system, say, of an insurance company. A problem occurs with the program: it does't work as it should and you find that the proximate cause, is the user's actions. They don't use the right command or forget to use capital letters, for example. As a IT specialist you should not say: "My system's great and perfect as it is - but the users can't use it right and that's the problem. So I'll leave it to the managers to deal with their staff issues." That would be ridiculous, of course, because the users - the insurance company's staff in my example -, with their knowledge, or lack thereof, and the way they actually work on their computers on a daily basis, ARE part of the system that you designed.
Of course managers will do their job, and training should be provided to users; but a system will always have to take the users as they are NOW.
It's the exact same things with "diets". They should be seen as a system.
And last time I checked, my brain was a body part. For some reason most diets - including CICO, are designed as if the brain was not a body part. Like it's detached, floating in a Formol jar or something, and you can bring it to a therapist at the end of the week to have it fixed, while the rest of the body is eating clean, doing diligent interval workout and posting the whole on Instagram.
"The diet's great, but your brain is flawed."
This sentence just does not make sense to me. Not when you look at the forest, i.e. thousands of people, over decades.0 -
Calling CICO a diet really shows you don't even know what CICO is.8
-
Isabelle_1929 wrote: »
There are basics. Math works here. Eat more than you burn, you gain. Eat less than you burn, you lose. Eat what you burn, you maintain. That's not disputed in any Journal of science.Isabelle_1929 wrote: »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 ...
The PROBLEM is people are fallible with how THEY CONTROL the diet they choose.
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 don't disagree with you. But you are talking about the tree, while I was talking about the whole forest.
A diet is as a whole system. Like any computer or information system: it must include the "user". Ex. You are responsible for designing and maintaining the information system, say, of an insurance company. So let's sa there's a problem with the program, and it crashes, and you see that the proximate cause is a user action. They don't use the right command or forget to use capital letters - whatever. As a IT specialist you should not say: "My system's great and perfect as it is - but the users can't use it right and that's the problem. So I'll leave it to the managers to deal with their staff issues." That would be ridiculous, of course, because the users - the insurance company's staff -, their knowledge, or lack thereof, and the way they work on their computers, ARE part of the system, that you designed.
Of course managers will do their job and users must be provided training etc., but a system will always have to take the users as they are NOW.
It's the exact same things with "diets". They should be seen as a system.
And last time I checked, my brain was a body part. For some reason most diets - including CICO, are designed as if the brain was not a body part. Like it's detached, floating in a Formol jar or something, and you can bring it to a therapist at the end of the week to have it fixed, while the rest of the body is eating clean, doing diligent interval workout and posting the whole on Instagram.
"The diet's great, but your brain is flawed."
This sentence just does not make sense to me. Not when you look at the forest, i.e. thousands of people, over decades.
As a computer scientist, I know the systems you build should be "idiot proof", because you can't be around babying them over every input.
But as a successful long term maintainer, the idea that you should leave people dumb and spoonfeed them an approach where they don't have to think for themselves instead of educating them makes me shudder.
The big difference between these two scenarios is you CHOOSE the way you eat and can tailor it to your own needs and preferences, you can't really choose what kind of program a programmer is going to give you because he makes it for your whole company, not you personally. So the programmer has to make a program that even the most inept employee can't fudge up, because otherwise it could fudge up the whole company.
As someone who chooses, it is in your own interest and really, your duty, to learn how to use what you choose to do.
None of us here are required to help people who need help, we do it because we want to, because we were in their shoes at some point. We're here to help them help themselves, as corny as that line is. And that entails teaching them to not need help anymore.
And from what I can tell, the vast majority of really long time successful people are the kind who make it as simple for themselves as possible. Eat within your calories and macros, don't be an idiot about nutrition, don't sweat the occasional cookie or two.9 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Lets put this another way.
Lets say Bob and Sam have very different "metabolisms" since that seems to be the word people like to use for whatever reason even though all humans have the same core metabolic functions. What they really mean is that Bob obtains less energy from the 100 calories on the box label than Sam does due to his utilization of the food either through variations of digestion, absorption or excretion levels. Perhaps Bob also is specifically not very good at digesting fats and therefore obtains less energy from fats as Sam but carbs and protein Bob and Sam are the same.
So if Bob eats 100 calories of pure carbs its the same as Sams 100 calories but if he eats 100 calories of pure fat he gets way less energy than Sams 100 calories of pure fat.
Tell me. What method should Bob employ to figure this out about his body? Would it be, perhaps, tracking the calories he consumes as written on the box versus his weight over time and determining which macro balance works for hitting a comfortable maintenance and then adjusting accordingly.
Or should he just mope about his inefficient metabolism and laugh at people who suggest he count calories because "a calorie isn't always a calorie"
What is more important here, the semantic argument people seem to love to make about calories or the actual goal that people are working towards attaining and wanting to learn what methods they can employ to better understand their bodies as it pertains to their diet and health?
This. x1000.
Yes, calculators and counts are going to boil down to estimates. You still need to play with the numbers to find what works.
But counting does work.2 -
Isabelle_1929 wrote: »
There are basics. Math works here. Eat more than you burn, you gain. Eat less than you burn, you lose. Eat what you burn, you maintain. That's not disputed in any Journal of science.Isabelle_1929 wrote: »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 ...
The PROBLEM is people are fallible with how THEY CONTROL the diet they choose.
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 don't disagree with you. But you are talking about the tree, while I was talking about the whole forest.
A diet is as a whole system. Like any computer or information system: it must include the "user". Ex. You are responsible for designing and maintaining the information system, say, of an insurance company. A problem occurs with the program: it does't work as it should and you find that the proximate cause, is the user's actions. They don't use the right command or forget to use capital letters, for example. As a IT specialist you should not say: "My system's great and perfect as it is - but the users can't use it right and that's the problem. So I'll leave it to the managers to deal with their staff issues." That would be ridiculous, of course, because the users - the insurance company's staff in my example -, with their knowledge, or lack thereof, and the way they actually work on their computers on a daily basis, ARE part of the system that you designed.
Of course managers will do their job, and training should be provided to users; but a system will always have to take the users as they are NOW.
It's the exact same things with "diets". They should be seen as a system.
And last time I checked, my brain was a body part. For some reason most diets - including CICO, are designed as if the brain was not a body part. Like it's detached, floating in a Formol jar or something, and you can bring it to a therapist at the end of the week to have it fixed, while the rest of the body is eating clean, doing diligent interval workout and posting the whole on Instagram.
"The diet's great, but your brain is flawed."
This sentence just does not make sense to me. Not when you look at the forest, i.e. thousands of people, over decades.
But here I think you've hit on WHY a lot of us focus on what is known and object to efforts (like with the book under discussion) to create a diet that supposedly magically fixes everything for all of us. There are a million of them. All of them work (in that if you follow them you will lose weight), and all don't (in that the obesity problem continues unchecked despite people following the diet -- even self-proclaimed gurus like Jimmie Moore, who says many of the same things as the author of this book, seems to remain or fall back into obesity all the time).
The truth is that we do know the basics of why we gain or lose weight (calories). We know the basics about nutrition, despite the efforts of some to complicate it or claim that "carbs" are bad or whatever. And we can tell through personal experience and experimentation what makes us hungry or satisfied. We know our own habits and if we are mindful we can recognize when and why we tend to overeat. Therefore, we can, if we choose, work with all this to create a way of eating that will work for us, although I happen to think that in the environment we live in that might well make it harder for some of us. But it is what it is and as humans we are smart and can figure it out.
That's why I object to overcomplicating it and saying one must follow so special program or the like. Understand the basics and then do what you like (including following the book if that appeals to you, of course, as long as you first understand why so are not misled).2 -
As a child, I grew up in food desert. We lived 50 miles from the nearest grocery store(North Africa). We grew our own vegetables, had hens and ate a lot of canned meats. To this day I love spam.4
-
BreezeDoveal wrote: »
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.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.
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
Fine, I'll explain it to you since you can't follow.
DNA is like a recipe
5 free range omega-3 eggs
3 cups of gluten free non-GMO flour
1 cup of pure fair trade can sugar
1 pan
1 oven
Heat @400 for 2 hours
Yields 1 cake, 40 oz
Now, if I can never change that sequence as you put it, I can never make more than 1 cake. By your logic, people can't get fat because no matter how many ingredients (food) you have, you can't make more than one 40 oz cake (weight). Now, clearly, if you give someone more food or different food, you get different outputs, so clearly, the recipe can change, it isn't that rigid set of things above. It is your silly version where a person can't gain weight with more food because the recipe (DNA) is fixed exactly, and can't use more ingredients.
What is your educational background? Did you take a genetics class? You can't change up DNA sequencing within your body in the way you can change ingredients in a cake.0 -
@DebSozo Don't take BreezeDoveal's bait. It's a game.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions