A calorie is a calorie ...

kimny72 wrote: »

Christine_72 wrote: »

In all fairness to the OP, there are plenty of posts flying around here saying "I pay no attention to macros/micros, i only watch calories", or "only want friends who don't eat clean or healthy" or something like that.

I know what you mean, but it's still painting everyone into one corner or the other. The thread looking for friends who don't eat clean isn't someone looking for friends who eat only crap, it was looking for friends who won't judge you for logging a bag of chips every once and a while. And people who say they "only watch calories" doesn't mean they don't care about eating healthy, just that they don't stress about hitting their protein goal or getting enough potassium.

For every thread where someone is told to stop freaking out because they ate a hamburger bun and they're sure they have ruined their diet because calories are the important thing, there's another thread where someone says they are always hungry and they get a bunch of posts letting them know they should be eating more veggies or protein.

I just don't understand why some people always get the impression that the main theme on the forums is that you can eat nothing but crap and lose weight with no consequences. I've never seen it. Maybe I'm just coincidentally missing the threads where that's what is going on? Oh well

It's really unfortunate that the "forum regulars say you can eat junk all day" strawman has to be debunked so often.

fattinater wrote: »

Great article! I've always been annoyed by the people who truly think a calorie is just a calorie (implying nutrition doesn't matter) probably because it always comes from someone who isn't really as healthy or in shape as they claim to be, and think they know it all. I've never heard someone with an amazing physique say it.
Dieting is about healthier food choices and staying in your macros of protein, fat, and carbs while aiming for a calorie goal. It's not just about a number on a scale. You could gain muscle mass, loose fat, look a thousand times better, and not loose much weight or even gain it. If you're just a calorie for a calorie kinda person, try eating nothing but sugar and butter for six months. Guaranteed you would look gross, get rotten stinky teeth, and probably die.

Check out this guy...he looks pretty fit at least to me and had no issues for 10 months eating "junk" by his definition....

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1

ETA- Not many people feel that nutrition doesn't matter for overall health at least none that care about their overall health. That's how it seems to me anyway.

fattinater wrote: »

Great article! I've always been annoyed by the people who truly think a calorie is just a calorie (implying nutrition doesn't matter) probably because it always comes from someone who isn't really as healthy or in shape as they claim to be, and think they know it all. I've never heard someone with an amazing physique say it.
Dieting is about healthier food choices and staying in your macros of protein, fat, and carbs while aiming for a calorie goal. It's not just about a number on a scale. You could gain muscle mass, loose fat, look a thousand times better, and not loose much weight or even gain it. If you're just a calorie for a calorie kinda person, try eating nothing but sugar and butter for six months. Guaranteed you would look gross, get rotten stinky teeth, and probably die.

Did you read any of the comments in the thread?

This may or may not be related to the topic, but this has been bugging me lately. Why is "eating healthy" often attached to "dieting and losing weight"? Many people don't give a fly about nutrition until they decide to diet, then suddenly things that were "meh, not too healthy but whatever" suddenly become "if I eat this once I will drop dead", although in many cases health is not the primary driver for their weight loss, which is why this is confusing to me. Is it a case of all or nothing and going all in? Do people feel like they shouldn't bother with nutrition unless they're losing weight? Could this be the reason why there is so much focus on a calorie not being a calorie (in a sense of using calories as a proxy for foods) in the dieting culture but not so much in the general food culture? I wonder if this is how this whole "you can only lose weight on nutritious foods" thing got started, as is often the case with any idea taken to an extreme.

In my mind, nutrition has always been a stand-alone concept and just one modular part of health. Asking if a calorie is a calorie in a nutritional sense sounded like an odd question to me when I first decided to do internet dieting. That's why I gravitated towards flexible dieting and latched onto it as soon as I found it, because it keeps the two concepts separate like they are in my mind. Probably because this is my first time dieting and I did not have a pre-existing dieting baggage.

Using sunscreen and having a good posture are not prerequisites for dieting, so why would nutrition be? A nutritious diet being a good thing is a given. I don't feel this disclaimer needs to be made every time someone asks if they could eat anything they want within their calories, but I make it anyway because people tend to find the most bizarre ways of misunderstanding. I don't like it. Telling a grown up "to eat their vegetables" feels insulting to their intelligence. That's also why I don't like these dish comparisons. They remind me too much of early grade school pictures of "good" and "bad" comparisons.

I feel the issue is not whether or not nutrition is important, and it's shocking how many people interpret it that way, but if foods need to be micromanaged on an individual level vs as a part of the overall diet.

amusedmonkey wrote: »

I don't like it. Telling a grown up "to eat their vegetables" feels insulting to their intelligence. That's also why I don't like these dish comparisons. They remind me too much of early grade school pictures of "good" and "bad" comparisons.

I feel the issue is not whether or not nutrition is important, and it's shocking how many people interpret it that way, but if foods need to be micromanaged on an individual level vs as a part of the overall diet.

Totally agree, especially with the last sentence. The commonalities I always see in posts like these are the attempt to label individual foods as good/bad or healthy/unhealthy without looking at the context of the overall diet on a day to day or week to week basis; and also the tendencies to paint everything as extremes.

The straw man example above is a great one "if people think a calorie is just a calorie they should try eating nothing but butter and sugar for 6 months". That is the silliest and most insulting example I've seen posted on here, and I've seen a lot. Why is it that if you say nutrition is important you are granted a hypothetical diet filled with a variety of foods like the one in the article (although lacking meat), but the people who say calories are just calories get a diet of just butter and sugar, or donuts, or Doritos, to name a couple of other silly strawmen.., is it really so hard to believe you can eat an overall nutritious diet simply because you understand that calories are a unit of energy?

amusedmonkey wrote: »

This may or may not be related to the topic, but this has been bugging me lately. Why is "eating healthy" often attached to "dieting and losing weight"? Many people don't give a fly about nutrition until they decide to diet, then suddenly things that were "meh, not too healthy but whatever" suddenly become "if I eat this once I will drop dead", although in many cases health is not the primary driver for their weight loss, which is why this is confusing to me. Is it a case of all or nothing and going all in? Do people feel like they shouldn't bother with nutrition unless they're losing weight? Could this be the reason why there is so much focus on a calorie not being a calorie (in a sense of using calories as a proxy for foods) in the dieting culture but not so much in the general food culture? I wonder if this is how this whole "you can only lose weight on nutritious foods" thing got started, as is often the case with any idea taken to an extreme.

In my mind, nutrition has always been a stand-alone concept and just one modular part of health. Asking if a calorie is a calorie in a nutritional sense sounded like an odd question to me when I first decided to do internet dieting. That's why I gravitated towards flexible dieting and latched onto it as soon as I found it, because it keeps the two concepts separate like they are in my mind. Probably because this is my first time dieting and I did not have a pre-existing dieting baggage.

Using sunscreen and having a good posture are not prerequisites for dieting, so why would nutrition be? A nutritious diet being a good thing is a given. I don't feel this disclaimer needs to be made every time someone asks if they could eat anything they want within their calories, but I make it anyway because people tend to find the most bizarre ways of misunderstanding. I don't like it. Telling a grown up "to eat their vegetables" feels insulting to their intelligence. That's also why I don't like these dish comparisons. They remind me too much of early grade school pictures of "good" and "bad" comparisons.

I feel the issue is not whether or not nutrition is important, and it's shocking how many people interpret it that way, but if foods need to be micromanaged on an individual level vs as a part of the overall diet.

I regret that I have but one awesome to give this post. You have beautifully put words to how I feel about this issue. I've never quite been able to articulate it until now. Something has always bothered me about this argument, and you've nailed it right on the head.

KatzeDerNacht22 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

If you think nutrients are so important, eat nothing but broccoli for 6 months vs. someone who eats a diet consisting of the foods they like within their calorie needs.

Eating just one single thing can't possible provide with enough nutrients, your example is flawed there.

That's the point. When the straw men examples are raised, it usually goes like:

"Sure a calorie is a calorie and you may lose weight but you won't be healthy. Try eating nothing but (insert demonized food here) and see what happens"

Upthread someone said that exact thing and the chosen food was butter and sugar. @stevencloser is pointing out that any diet that restricts to a single food, even a "healthy" food like broccoli isn't a healthy diet...

robertw486 wrote: »

As for the original link and thought from @lizery I personally think it gives a really good visual representation of how calories are only equal in the energy measurement sense.

So one food is not the same as another food. Everyone knows that, I think. No one disagrees about that, which is why I think the idea that we need to be told it is so odd.

Some people use "calories" as a synonym for food and therefore think that when someone says "a calorie is a calorie" they are saying all foods are the same, food choice doesn't matter. But no one thinks that, really. Those who say "a calorie is a calorie" don't think it is helpful to confuse a unit of measurement and the food that provides that unit of measurement.

Let's say my TDEE is 2200. A calorie is a calorie means that if I regularly eat about 2500 calories I will gain weight, no matter how nutrient dense my diet is, or even if I avoid added sugar or whatever else people think is a "bad food." It also means I would maintain my weight eating 2200 calories, whether made up of those nutrient dense food choices or mostly fries and cake (not that it makes sense to assume that I would).

Am I thereby saying that eating a nutrient-dense balanced diet is the same as eating the same number of calories from only fries and cake? Obviously not! So the question is why would any think they need to correct this misapprehension that no one has. I find it quite puzzling and rather presumptuous, insulting to my intelligence, in fact.