A calorie is a calorie ...

Options
1246716

Replies

  • KatzeDerNacht22
    KatzeDerNacht22 Posts: 200 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    Dnarules 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.

    You just made his point :).

    Hum, i don't see anyone saying one must eat one single thing, I think we all can do as we please and be happy about it, seems easier :neutral:
    EDIT I saw what the other person posted and got the memo :P sorry folks!
  • nokanjaijo
    nokanjaijo Posts: 466 Member
    Options
    Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?

    That's what confuses me.
  • Fairlieboy
    Fairlieboy Posts: 84 Member
    Options
    A calorie is a calorie. That's from a physics perspective. But food we eat is different as we are a bucket of biochemistry so different foods create different responses. Labelling them as "healthy" or "junk" I think that is less helpful for advice. What you eat determines how much you eat, and as trying to manage ones appetite is probably the biggest challenge for those who are trying to lose weight; it makes sense to eat foods that dampen appetite. I.e avoid simple carbs (especially sugars) substituting fat.
  • nokanjaijo
    nokanjaijo Posts: 466 Member
    Options
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?

    That's what confuses me.

    I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.

    See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.

    You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.

    They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.
  • crackpotbaby
    crackpotbaby Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    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.

    To make this comparison it would need to be eat just x food vs eat just y food.

    Say, all calories from broccoli vs all calories from coke. Surely you recognise that both proposals would not address nutritional needs.

    I think you have entirely missed the point.

  • KatzeDerNacht22
    KatzeDerNacht22 Posts: 200 Member
    Options
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?

    That's what confuses me.

    I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.

    See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.

    You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.

    They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.

    I find eating like that much simpler, but I can see why many people would. I like it cos I'm never hungry and fits my day
  • nokanjaijo
    nokanjaijo Posts: 466 Member
    Options
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?

    That's what confuses me.

    I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.

    See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.

    You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.

    They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.

    I find eating like that much simpler, but I can see why many people would. I like it cos I'm never hungry and fits my day

    You find eating like what simpler?
  • KatzeDerNacht22
    KatzeDerNacht22 Posts: 200 Member
    Options
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?

    That's what confuses me.

    I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.

    See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.

    You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.

    They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.

    I find eating like that much simpler, but I can see why many people would. I like it cos I'm never hungry and fits my day

    You find eating like what simpler?

    Several meals, someone said they don't like having 3 meals and snacks and
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?

    That's what confuses me.

    I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.

    See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.

    You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.

    They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.

    3 meals and 3 snacks is way simpler for me, eating like that. I said that cos I do that all the time. But I guess most people don't.
  • Maxematics
    Maxematics Posts: 2,287 Member
    Options
    I get the graphic's point and all, but to maintain my weight I eat around 2100 to 2500 calories per day. Eating 260 grams of carbs and only 50 grams of protein would make me feel pretty crappy. I know it's just a suggestion, but that is just so low to me.
  • nokanjaijo
    nokanjaijo Posts: 466 Member
    Options
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?

    That's what confuses me.

    I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.

    See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.

    You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.

    They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.

    I find eating like that much simpler, but I can see why many people would. I like it cos I'm never hungry and fits my day

    You find eating like what simpler?

    Several meals, someone said they don't like having 3 meals and snacks and
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?

    That's what confuses me.

    I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.

    See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.

    You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.

    They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.

    3 meals and 3 snacks is way simpler for me, eating like that. I said that cos I do that all the time. But I guess most people don't.

    Okay, I think a great many people do that. I bet it's very common.

    What i don't think many people do is have 6 meals, eat almost half the day's calories in one meal then spread the other half over the remaining 5 meals. That's what I'm calling odd. It would be pretty uncommon, I think.

    It seems to me like the author of this article was having a difficult time getting the two menus to come to the same calorie count and look like roughly the same amount of food. So they had to cram a bunch of calories into the dinner meal to force it.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    lizery 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.

    To make this comparison it would need to be eat just x food vs eat just y food.

    Say, all calories from broccoli vs all calories from coke. Surely you recognise that both proposals would not address nutritional needs.

    I think you have entirely missed the point.

    I think he was responding to the poster who suggested that if people think a calorie is just a calorie, they should eat nothing but butter and sugar for 6 months and see what happens. He was matching one ridiculously biased one sided straw man argument with another....

    It's fun.
  • robertw486
    robertw486 Posts: 2,388 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    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.

    I find many things stated here odd, yet rather than take offense to them I accept that within the semantics of the discussion people view things from different angles. As example, on this forum I don't see why anyone chooses to isolate the unit of measure from the food. Nobody here is taking in energy in other than food form, so all calories in impact the nutrition side in some way. If calories could be absorbed into the human body without nutrients of some sort, it would to me make more sense to isolate the terms. But in either case it's the simple semantics of a persons view.

    The energy balance statement in your post is a good example. Many if not most here probably understand energy balance, but those that don't have something to learn from the statement. The original post was simply pointing out something that would help some of the people here on the forum. If we all took offense to the basic information, the people seeking the basic information might not ever find it.
  • RemoteOutpost
    RemoteOutpost Posts: 44 Member
    Options
    You can lose weight eating nothing but twinkies. You shouldn't do that because twinkies are not nutritious. Losing weight eating healthy foods is the better choice. /post
  • KatzeDerNacht22
    KatzeDerNacht22 Posts: 200 Member
    Options
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?

    That's what confuses me.

    I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.

    See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.

    You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.

    They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.

    I find eating like that much simpler, but I can see why many people would. I like it cos I'm never hungry and fits my day

    You find eating like what simpler?

    Several meals, someone said they don't like having 3 meals and snacks and
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    nokanjaijo wrote: »
    Why is this person spending almost half their daily calories on a chick pea curry and a pear?

    That's what confuses me.

    I can't speak for them, but I frequently only eat two meals a day. Multiple small meals and snacks drives me insane. So half my calories on a curry looks perfectly normal to me.

    See, having half the day's calories in half the day's meals does make sense. That isn't what's happening here.

    You can speak for them because the whole day's menu is in the article.

    They have three meals and three snacks. Presumably this is over the course of the day. Doesn't seem like something you'd find people doing that often.

    3 meals and 3 snacks is way simpler for me, eating like that. I said that cos I do that all the time. But I guess most people don't.

    Okay, I think a great many people do that. I bet it's very common.

    What i don't think many people do is have 6 meals, eat almost half the day's calories in one meal then spread the other half over the remaining 5 meals. That's what I'm calling odd. It would be pretty uncommon, I think.

    It seems to me like the author of this article was having a difficult time getting the two menus to come to the same calorie count and look like roughly the same amount of food. So they had to cram a bunch of calories into the dinner meal to force it.

    Ahh I totally hear you, yes it seems they had to try really hard on the dinner