All calories may not be equal
Options
Replies
-
It actually kind of sucks when people get so nitpicky and scientific that the conversation becomes unsustainable because it's moved so far from the real world. I agree with the argument that a calorie is a calorie, but using the scientific definition of a calorie to claim the question doesn't make sense willfully ignores the actual content of the question and focuses on semantics so much that it becomes a meaningless argument. Sure, you might win that particular point, but you're not doing anything to move the conversation forward and have narrowed the scope to a point that the original conversation can't even be discussed.
It's kind of like if someone came in here saying "I want to weigh less, will eating less carbs do that?" and someone started arguing with them that they're misusing the word "less" by not specifying what they want to weigh less than and continuing to argue it until the conversation is about the definition of the word "less". Yeah, you may be right from a technical standpoint, but now the conversation is about the definition of "less" and not the actual question.5 -
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.
Cheesecake Factory portions are enough for 4 people easily. That place is crazy.0 -
It also seems to me that the conversation has veered off into some interesting lands here, but for me it boils down to two things:
A calorie is a calorie and my body knows no difference. In other words, when it comes to weight, my body cannot tell the difference between 100 calories of ice cream, 100 calories of steak or 100 calories of vegetables. Yes, nutritionally these foods are different, but none of these will make me gain weight or lose weight. These foods just have calories, which are units of measurement. Stay below my total daily energy expenditure and I will lose weight.
To say that there are naturally thin people means that there are also naturally fat people, and even naturally "just right" people. This is plain silly, and sort of a cop out from taking responsibility for our own weight. Setting aside any medical conditions that need attention, our eating behavior, along with muscle mass and activity level, determine what our weight does. No magic, no special snowflake, simple as that.
5 -
Macros =/= calories.5
-
Exactly and when people talk about calories in terms of satiety they have to realize that macros are completely subjective. When I was losing weight, I swore by 40C/30F/30P and preferred more spaced out eating. Now that I'm maintaining my weight, I'm finding I do best closer to 50C/30F/20P and smaller meals every few hours.
1 -
Sorry, but go anywhere in the world and people who are starving because they can't afford food, or it's unobtainable, are thin. Go to a country where food is abundant, obtainable and affordable to that person and the increase of getting overweight/obese greatly increases.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.
If a diet isn't working (barring any health issue), it will usually come down to: one isn't consuming what they need to, to reach whatever goal they are trying to achieve or one isn't accurately measuring their TDEE. That's where the "users" fail in the system.
If you took someone in a coma who was overweight, then reduced their intake from what they are used to, they will lose weight. The brain had nothing to do with it since it's dormant at that stage.
People fail because of many reasons. Lack of discipline, lack of commitment, lack of true desire, etc., but the body works systematically when it comes to consuming of energy. You can't dictate all protein to just go to your muscles. Especially on a low carb diet. The body will systematically use what's consumed, how it sees fit based on that person's activity whether it be low or high.
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 -
It actually kind of sucks when people get so nitpicky and scientific that the conversation becomes unsustainable because it's moved so far from the real world. I agree with the argument that a calorie is a calorie, but using the scientific definition of a calorie to claim the question doesn't make sense willfully ignores the actual content of the question and focuses on semantics so much that it becomes a meaningless argument. Sure, you might win that particular point, but you're not doing anything to move the conversation forward and have narrowed the scope to a point that the original conversation can't even be discussed.
It's kind of like if someone came in here saying "I want to weigh less, will eating less carbs do that?" and someone started arguing with them that they're misusing the word "less" by not specifying what they want to weigh less than and continuing to argue it until the conversation is about the definition of the word "less". Yeah, you may be right from a technical standpoint, but now the conversation is about the definition of "less" and not the actual question.
The thing is that absolutely 0 people are arguing that all foods are nutritionally equivalent to each other, which appears to be the "calorie is not a calorie" argument.
Somehow they (or at least a non-trivial amount of them) think that means you can eat 5000 calories of broccoli but because it's healthy or nutritious or whatever you won't gain weight from that.
But for weight management that's not true, it's calories that matter for that. Not satiety, not the miniscule amount that TEF makes a difference, not micros, not even getting enough fat and protein. Your body requires X amount of energy to keep you living, if you eat less than that your body is forced to use up its stores, no matter what. Your body can convert any macro into ATP for energy, and the difference in difficulty of doing so for different foods is negligible so for your pure energy requirements it matters not if you were to eat all that in meat, vegan, balanced diet, donuts, McDonalds burgers or a bottle of olive oil.
Half of those are gonna make you feel like *kitten* in the long run and you'll become sick and malnourished after a while but no one does those kinds of "diets" anyway seriously, it's just to illustrate the point that, no, eating "clean" or low carb or whatever you got hooked on by watching a youtube video is not going to make you lose faster than any other diet at the same deficit, no, it's not going to make you able to eat unlimited amounts of food, no, you're not healthier than someone who incorporates sensible amounts of sweets or junk food or whatever they like into their diet.
The one thing that makes people successful in a diet is creating a deficit and being able to stick with it. The diet being at least halfway nutritious comes with being able to stick with it. I refuse to believe the holier than thou people who seem to think unless told otherwise everyone is going to just fill their daily calories in cake. It's insulting to our intelligence as grown *kitten* people to even imply that.7 -
And this proves you don't understand how DNA works. Thanks for letting everyone know.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.
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 0 -
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"
Once again, stating that if you eat 2,000 calories of donuts everyday for several years, you would weigh exactly the same if you ate a healthy well-balanced diet (which includes donuts now and then) of 2,000 calories for several years. Please.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »It actually kind of sucks when people get so nitpicky and scientific that the conversation becomes unsustainable because it's moved so far from the real world. I agree with the argument that a calorie is a calorie, but using the scientific definition of a calorie to claim the question doesn't make sense willfully ignores the actual content of the question and focuses on semantics so much that it becomes a meaningless argument. Sure, you might win that particular point, but you're not doing anything to move the conversation forward and have narrowed the scope to a point that the original conversation can't even be discussed.
It's kind of like if someone came in here saying "I want to weigh less, will eating less carbs do that?" and someone started arguing with them that they're misusing the word "less" by not specifying what they want to weigh less than and continuing to argue it until the conversation is about the definition of the word "less". Yeah, you may be right from a technical standpoint, but now the conversation is about the definition of "less" and not the actual question.
The thing is that absolutely 0 people are arguing that all foods are nutritionally equivalent to each other, which appears to be the "calorie is not a calorie" argument.
Somehow they (or at least a non-trivial amount of them) think that means you can eat 5000 calories of broccoli but because it's healthy or nutritious or whatever you won't gain weight from that.
But for weight management that's not true, it's calories that matter for that. Not satiety, not the miniscule amount that TEF makes a difference, not micros, not even getting enough fat and protein. Your body requires X amount of energy to keep you living, if you eat less than that your body is forced to use up its stores, no matter what. Your body can convert any macro into ATP for energy, and the difference in difficulty of doing so for different foods is negligible so for your pure energy requirements it matters not if you were to eat all that in meat, vegan, balanced diet, donuts, McDonalds burgers or a bottle of olive oil.
Half of those are gonna make you feel like *kitten* in the long run and you'll become sick and malnourished after a while but no one does those kinds of "diets" anyway seriously, it's just to illustrate the point that, no, eating "clean" or low carb or whatever you got hooked on by watching a youtube video is not going to make you lose faster than any other diet at the same deficit, no, it's not going to make you able to eat unlimited amounts of food, no, you're not healthier than someone who incorporates sensible amounts of sweets or junk food or whatever they like into their diet.
The one thing that makes people successful in a diet is creating a deficit and being able to stick with it. The diet being at least halfway nutritious comes with being able to stick with it. I refuse to believe the holier than thou people who seem to think unless told otherwise everyone is going to just fill their daily calories in cake. It's insulting to our intelligence as grown *kitten* people to even imply that.
I agree completely! I like this argument being made.
The arguments I was criticizing are the arguments that the definition of a calorie means that a calorie is a calorie and the whole discussion is nonsensical and tautological, ignoring the obvious content behind the thread and instead focusing on a literal interpretation that doesn't apply to the discussion at hand. I'm not going to call out individual people because that just makes people defensive and there's no way I want that, I just hate when people focus so hard on science that forget the actual conversation being had.1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »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"
Once again, stating that if you eat 2,000 calories of donuts everyday for several years, you would weigh exactly the same if you ate a healthy well-balanced diet (which includes donuts now and then) of 2,000 calories for several years. Please.
Everything else being equal, ie: energy output, why do you think they wouldn't?3 -
hmmm2 -
Erzeb eeess Mo hknit A ND can be tinkered about with and still make sense.3
-
stevencloser wrote: »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.
In addition to "awesome"ing this, i really wanted to highlight the bolded. All the posters who argue that the science is "CICO" are at the core arguing this.
All the other issues people want to focus on - metabolism, sugar, clean eating, hormones - it's all majoring in the minors. That's like sitting on the couch cleaning the ash off your TV remote while your house burns down around you. Getting your calories on point is Healthy Weight 101, it's the required intro course everyone should go through first.
IMHO, the biggest cause of the obesity epidemic is easy access to a wide variety of food coupled with increasingly sedentary lifestyle. The second biggest cause is the Diet Industry. They have our entire society so confused about food and exercise, so convinced it is complicated and they need books and pills and programs to have any chance, that they just can't believe it's as simple as it is (simple, but not necessarily easy).12 -
We are omnivores which means we can survive on a variety of combinations of food sources. For instance, I'm sure Native Americans changed their diets during the seasons and ate berries, greens, etc in the spring, summer, and fall that were not available in the winter. It is likely that they ate nuts in the fall when they dropped from the trees. And hunted turkey, deer, snared birds, fished... whenever available. In the dead of the winter the diet was likely more carnivorous. A calorie is a calorie as far as that goes, but we all choose different varieties of food combinations. Thankfully our bodies adapt to what we give it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions