Are Calories all equal?

2

Replies

  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    JaxxieKat wrote: »
    A calorie is a unit of measurement, like amperes or grams. Nothing more, nothing less. You wouldn't say, "well, that's a good inch and that's a bad inch". In terms of weightless a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Now, in terms of overall health, nutrition is a different story. If you needed to eat 1500 calories a day to have enough of a deficit to lose a pound a week you would lose weight regardless of whether or not you consumed 1500 calories worth of whole foods or 1500 calories worth of gummy bears. The issue is how would you feel? The trick is balance. There isn't anything inherently wrong with eating a calorie dense meal or treat, so long as you are eating at a deficit.

    I've heard of an angry inch.
  • bagge72
    bagge72 Posts: 1,377 Member
    Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value. If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods. 200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!

    The simple answer to the simple questions is that a calorie is a calorie, and this is where people get confused and everyone gets blamed for saying people can eat whatever they want.

  • katecarr1998
    katecarr1998 Posts: 3 Member
    Jruzer wrote: »
    Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value. If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods. 200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!

    I see this sentiment posted frequently here. It's a fair point. But in my experience, nutrition took care of itself. And I bet I'm not the only one.

    When I figured out that it was really all about calories for weight loss, that it was really as simple as an energy balance, I was free! I could eat whatever I wanted as long as I kept in an energy deficit.

    But as I put this into practice, I figured out PDQ that eating a variety of nutritious food was a heck of a lot more likely to make me successful than just eating ice cream and candy all day. As I packed my lunches, I realized that fruits and vegetables were great ways to get plenty of food without too much of a dent in my budget. As I lost wright and got in better shape, I took more of an interest in my health. I also realized that I could have some portions of less nutritious treats as well, which relieved a huge burden in my (failed) prior weight loss attempts.

    Why is there this assumption that people will automatically eat nothing but soda and cake if they understand that conservation of energy is the fundamental underlying principle? Aren't we adults? Aren't we supposed to know to eat nutritious food?

    So glad to hear that you are happy now and eating healthier! That's awesome!

    My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer 3 times and recently passed away from stage 4 lung cancer! After she passed, I completely changed my eating habits. I only eat anti inflammatory foods and stay away from processed foods and processed sugars. After doing a lot of research on the links between cancer and food, I was shocked at what I found! According to some studies, up to 30% of cancers can be prevented just by eating a healthy diet and exercising regularly. Other studies show an even higher correlation at 70%.

    I definitely agree that there is a misconception between calorie restriction and eating healthy. I think that most people are well aware that if they want to lose weight then they should eat fewer calories while eating nutritious foods! I apologize for coming across as being ignorant in that aspect! However, I do still believe that a lot of people are unaware of what is in the food we eat! I certainly was oblivious before doing a lot of research!

    A lot of foods that are presumed to be healthy, due to fewer calorie content, just aren't that good for you. What I was trying to say was pay close attention to what's in food.

    I definitely didn't get my point across in my previous post. I should have clearly stated why it was important to look at the nutritional value in foods. If you are trying to lose weight, then yes, you would definitely need to focus on eating fewer calories. I'm extremely passionate about nutrition now so I apologize if I came across as being ignorant in the aspects of eating fewer calories to lose weight.

    My intentions were never to aggravate anyone, simply just to bring attention to the importance of a nutritious diet. I now realize I should've added a lot more information and background as to why it's important.

    Hope everyone has an awesome day :)
  • Jruzer
    Jruzer Posts: 3,501 Member
    Jruzer wrote: »
    Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value. If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods. 200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!

    I see this sentiment posted frequently here. It's a fair point. But in my experience, nutrition took care of itself. And I bet I'm not the only one.

    When I figured out that it was really all about calories for weight loss, that it was really as simple as an energy balance, I was free! I could eat whatever I wanted as long as I kept in an energy deficit.

    But as I put this into practice, I figured out PDQ that eating a variety of nutritious food was a heck of a lot more likely to make me successful than just eating ice cream and candy all day. As I packed my lunches, I realized that fruits and vegetables were great ways to get plenty of food without too much of a dent in my budget. As I lost wright and got in better shape, I took more of an interest in my health. I also realized that I could have some portions of less nutritious treats as well, which relieved a huge burden in my (failed) prior weight loss attempts.

    Why is there this assumption that people will automatically eat nothing but soda and cake if they understand that conservation of energy is the fundamental underlying principle? Aren't we adults? Aren't we supposed to know to eat nutritious food?

    So glad to hear that you are happy now and eating healthier! That's awesome!

    My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer 3 times and recently passed away from stage 4 lung cancer! After she passed, I completely changed my eating habits. I only eat anti inflammatory foods and stay away from processed foods and processed sugars. After doing a lot of research on the links between cancer and food, I was shocked at what I found! According to some studies, up to 30% of cancers can be prevented just by eating a healthy diet and exercising regularly. Other studies show an even higher correlation at 70%.

    I definitely agree that there is a misconception between calorie restriction and eating healthy. I think that most people are well aware that if they want to lose weight then they should eat fewer calories while eating nutritious foods! I apologize for coming across as being ignorant in that aspect! However, I do still believe that a lot of people are unaware of what is in the food we eat! I certainly was oblivious before doing a lot of research!

    A lot of foods that are presumed to be healthy, due to fewer calorie content, just aren't that good for you. What I was trying to say was pay close attention to what's in food.

    I definitely didn't get my point across in my previous post. I should have clearly stated why it was important to look at the nutritional value in foods. If you are trying to lose weight, then yes, you would definitely need to focus on eating fewer calories. I'm extremely passionate about nutrition now so I apologize if I came across as being ignorant in the aspects of eating fewer calories to lose weight.

    My intentions were never to aggravate anyone, simply just to bring attention to the importance of a nutritious diet. I now realize I should've added a lot more information and background as to why it's important.

    Hope everyone has an awesome day :)

    Mazel tov. :+1:
  • Lizzy622
    Lizzy622 Posts: 3,705 Member
    zyxst wrote: »
    A calorie is a unit of energy. Asking if a calorie is a calorie is like asking if an inch is an inch or a gallon is a gallon.

    Yes.

    This^^ Or a pound of muscle weighs more than a pound of fat
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Jruzer wrote: »
    Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value. If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods. 200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!

    I see this sentiment posted frequently here. It's a fair point. But in my experience, nutrition took care of itself. And I bet I'm not the only one.

    When I figured out that it was really all about calories for weight loss, that it was really as simple as an energy balance, I was free! I could eat whatever I wanted as long as I kept in an energy deficit.

    But as I put this into practice, I figured out PDQ that eating a variety of nutritious food was a heck of a lot more likely to make me successful than just eating ice cream and candy all day. As I packed my lunches, I realized that fruits and vegetables were great ways to get plenty of food without too much of a dent in my budget. As I lost wright and got in better shape, I took more of an interest in my health. I also realized that I could have some portions of less nutritious treats as well, which relieved a huge burden in my (failed) prior weight loss attempts.

    Why is there this assumption that people will automatically eat nothing but soda and cake if they understand that conservation of energy is the fundamental underlying principle? Aren't we adults? Aren't we supposed to know to eat nutritious food?

    So glad to hear that you are happy now and eating healthier! That's awesome!

    My mom was diagnosed with breast cancer 3 times and recently passed away from stage 4 lung cancer! After she passed, I completely changed my eating habits. I only eat anti inflammatory foods and stay away from processed foods and processed sugars. After doing a lot of research on the links between cancer and food, I was shocked at what I found! According to some studies, up to 30% of cancers can be prevented just by eating a healthy diet and exercising regularly. Other studies show an even higher correlation at 70%.

    I definitely agree that there is a misconception between calorie restriction and eating healthy. I think that most people are well aware that if they want to lose weight then they should eat fewer calories while eating nutritious foods! I apologize for coming across as being ignorant in that aspect! However, I do still believe that a lot of people are unaware of what is in the food we eat! I certainly was oblivious before doing a lot of research!

    A lot of foods that are presumed to be healthy, due to fewer calorie content, just aren't that good for you. What I was trying to say was pay close attention to what's in food.

    I definitely didn't get my point across in my previous post. I should have clearly stated why it was important to look at the nutritional value in foods. If you are trying to lose weight, then yes, you would definitely need to focus on eating fewer calories. I'm extremely passionate about nutrition now so I apologize if I came across as being ignorant in the aspects of eating fewer calories to lose weight.

    My intentions were never to aggravate anyone, simply just to bring attention to the importance of a nutritious diet. I now realize I should've added a lot more information and background as to why it's important.

    Hope everyone has an awesome day :)

    @katecarr1998 Very good post. I hope you decide to stick around the forums :smiley:
  • STEVE142142
    STEVE142142 Posts: 867 Member
    From a weight loss point or calories are equal doesn't matter where they come from you can lose weight eating snicker bars and drinking vodka. Now speaking from a nutritional point of view not the best diet program to follow.

    From a nutritional point of view calories are different as far as how they affect your body. You need carbs for energy, fats for different reasons and proteins for muscle building. To put things in perspective a lot of people say to eliminate fats from your diet if you do a Google search on something called rabbit starvation it's an interesting process on what happens when your body doesn't get the fat that it needs. I know that by adding fats to my diet I actually didn't have the hunger pangs I used to have.
  • KrisJ125
    KrisJ125 Posts: 93 Member
    The diff between the nutella and candy vs the potatoes cheese and tuna is, the first choice is nutrient poor, whereas the second is nutrient rich. Food has more than just calories in it! You need protein, carbs and fat plus vitamins and minerals. The nutella/candy will give you fat and carbs (nearly all sugar) with little protein and very few micronutrients (vitamins/minerals). Eat real food if you have it available. Save the candy bar for a treat when you have budgeted for the extra calories.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,307 Member
    KrisJ125 wrote: »
    The diff between the nutella and candy vs the potatoes cheese and tuna is, the first choice is nutrient poor, whereas the second is nutrient rich. Food has more than just calories in it! You need protein, carbs and fat plus vitamins and minerals. The nutella/candy will give you fat and carbs (nearly all sugar) with little protein and very few micronutrients (vitamins/minerals). Eat real food if you have it available. Save the candy bar for a treat when you have budgeted for the extra calories.

    Nobody is disputing that all foods are not the same - or that we need protein, carbs,fat, micronutrients.

    That doesnt make the calories unequal.

    I am going on a journey from A to B - the distance is 2 miles.
    If I walk it takes an hour, if I drive it takes 3 minutes.
    But distance is still the same. A mile is a mile.

  • Lou_trition
    Lou_trition Posts: 41 Member
    blubird58 wrote: »
    I do not believe calories are all equal. If you eat 900 calories of cake and candy, it will not have the same results as eating 900 calories of protein and healthy fats. Protein calories are less fattening than calories from carbs and fat, because protein takes more energy to metabolize. Whole foods also require more energy to digest than processed foods.

    This is wrong- factually. There is 4 cals in 1g of carbs, and 4 cals in 1g of protein- The exact same amount. But protein is more satiating. You still need the carbs to produce energy (especially if you are active). 1g of Fat is 9 cals but this will keep you full and fats are very important for certain bodily functions.

    When it comes to weight loss/maintenance 900 cals on bread and nutella is the exact same as 900 cals of potatoes and tuna. The only difference is the potatoes and Tuna will keep you a lot fuller for longer. The body doesn't know the difference between a calorie in a donut or a calorie in a vegetable, it is working all the time to break it down. The easier a food is digested the quicker it breaks down leading to you being hungry quicker.

    You should have whatever you feel is best to have within your plan for that day. Sometimes it will be the potatoes, other times you'll want the nutella!
  • crazyycatlady1
    crazyycatlady1 Posts: 292 Member
    edited April 2017
    Jruzer wrote: »
    Personally, I think we should be less concerned with the amount of calories in food and more concerned with their nutritional value. If one is solely concerned about their caloric consumption they may overlook the importance of nutrient dense foods. 200 calories is 200 calories, however, it is much more beneficial for your general wellbeing to be focusing on the nutritional content in food and not just the number of calories!

    I see this sentiment posted frequently here. It's a fair point. But in my experience, nutrition took care of itself. And I bet I'm not the only one.

    When I figured out that it was really all about calories for weight loss, that it was really as simple as an energy balance, I was free! I could eat whatever I wanted as long as I kept in an energy deficit.

    But as I put this into practice, I figured out PDQ that eating a variety of nutritious food was a heck of a lot more likely to make me successful than just eating ice cream and candy all day.
    As I packed my lunches, I realized that fruits and vegetables were great ways to get plenty of food without too much of a dent in my budget. As I lost weight and got in better shape, I took more of an interest in my health. I also realized that I could have some portions of less nutritious treats as well, which relieved a huge burden in my (failed) prior weight loss attempts.

    Why is there this assumption that people will automatically eat nothing but soda and cake if they understand that conservation of energy is the fundamental underlying principle? Aren't we adults? Aren't we supposed to know to eat nutritious food?

    My experience as well. I'm in a much different place now with what I eat, from where I was when I first started this whole process. But if I hadn't started out where I did, I know with 100% certainty that I wouldn't be where I'm at today. Understanding the actual science of weight loss/management ie CICO, gave me a good starting base and then as I got further along I felt empowered to make more changes :)
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    You can eat what you want, but personally, I'm eating the potatoes, cheese and tuna because it better fits my goals of eating more protein, less refined sugar. Plus, I'm a huge fan of cheese, and I'd take potatoes over bread any day.
  • kwtilbury
    kwtilbury Posts: 1,234 Member
    Not all calories are equal. They vary in macronutrients, micronutrients, satiety, taste, etc.
  • crazyycatlady1
    crazyycatlady1 Posts: 292 Member
    edited April 2017
    kwtilbury wrote: »
    Not all calories are equal. They vary in macronutrients, micronutrients, satiety, taste, etc.

    As its been pointed out already-calories are a unit of energy, so yes a calorie is a calorie is a calorie :p Nutrition is a completely separate subject.
  • zyxst
    zyxst Posts: 9,149 Member
    kwtilbury wrote: »
    Not all calories are equal. They vary in macronutrients, micronutrients, satiety, taste, etc.

    Dude, calories are not nutrition.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,809 Member
    kwtilbury wrote: »
    Not all calories are equal. They vary in macronutrients, micronutrients, satiety, taste, etc.
    @kwtilbury
    I didn't know calories had a taste!

    Please take five seconds to Google what a calorie actually is then you may change your mind, or perhaps just change your sentence to "not all foods are equal". Which hopefully is self-evident.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    kwtilbury wrote: »
    Not all calories are equal. They vary in macronutrients, micronutrients, satiety, taste, etc.

    You're spanning the wagon in front of the horse. The calories don't vary in macronutrient and micronutrients etc., foods do, and macronutrient amounts have a fixed amount of calories per gram.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    kwtilbury wrote: »
    Not all calories are equal. They vary in macronutrients, micronutrients, satiety, taste, etc.

    No, you are mixing up "calories" and foods. The foods are not the same, they vary in calories, macronutrients, micronutrients, taste. They will also be more or less sating and satisfying to a particular person.

    Note that a calorie is a calorie, but a food is not a food. The main reason for these apparent misunderstandings is that some people seem to substitute the word "food" for calories. No, 100 calories of steak and 100 calories of potatoes and 100 calories of raspberries are not the same (all could be good for you, though). They are all, however, going to add 100 calories to your total calories for the day, and if you regularly overeat eating all nutrient dense foods, all low nutrient foods, or (as is most common) a mix of the two, you will gain weight. That foods are nutrient dense doesn't negate the calories (and you wouldn't want it to!).
  • Zoltansbeard
    Zoltansbeard Posts: 27 Member
    On a very basic level all calories are equal.
    My calorie Goal to lose weight at a good rate(around 1-2lbs per week) is 2000 calories per day.

    In theory i can eat 3 Pizzas... or 4-5 Burgers and depending on the Pizza or Burger Size i will be within my 2000 Calorie goal and will actually lose weight. Wich is great for bad days.. because on really bad days now compared to before i tracked my Calories i am still mindfull of staying in my Calorie goal even if i eat bad stuff.. i never overeat anymore. Bad Stuff? yes from time to time.. Over my Calorie Goal? Nope.

    The thing is though this will not lead to improved health and you wont feel very satiated in the long term.

    In the long run i strive to cut down my carbs(still too much Pasta,White Rice etc) and add more Protein and Veggies. Its just so much more healthier and i actually do respond very well to Protein so i know my hunger and cravings will even go down.

    To Summarize: You can lose weight no matter what you eat as long as you stay i your deficit. But slowly step by step its important to try to eat more healthy. We all need to indulge from time to time but 80-90% of the time it should be healthy.

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,030 Member
    kwtilbury wrote: »
    Not all calories are equal. They vary in macronutrients, micronutrients, satiety, taste, etc.
    You can have a liter of water or a liter of milk. It's still a liter. Same with calories. 100 calories of cereal equals 100 calories of oatmeal. It's still 100 calories.

    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

  • vikinglander
    vikinglander Posts: 1,547 Member
    Hornsby wrote: »
    Yes. Calories are the same. The nutrition is different obviously but has nothing to do with the calories.

    This seems right to me. The definition of "calorie" is "the amount of heat required at a pressure of one atmosphere to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius".

    The nutrient content of any particular food is another issue altogether.
  • VeryKatie
    VeryKatie Posts: 5,961 Member
    edited April 2017
    Yes! They are equal! Always!
    What is not equal is the nutrient profile of different foods having the same number of calories.
    It is important to not confuse those. The people who say that calories are not all equal are confusing these exact two things. And are refusing to educate themselves on the difference (based on the fact that I see this exact debate weekly on the forums).
    Saying that not all calories are equal is like saying not all kilograms are equal or that not all miles are equal. A kilogram is a kilogram, a mile is a mile, just as a calorie is a calorie. Always.
  • dfwesq
    dfwesq Posts: 592 Member
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    Yes! They are equal! Always!
    What is not equal is the nutrient profile of different foods having the same number of calories.
    It is important to not confuse those. The people who say that calories are not all equal are confusing these exact two things. And are refusing to educate themselves on the difference (based on the fact that I see this exact debate weekly on the forums).
    Saying that not all calories are equal is like saying not all kilograms are equal or that not all miles are equal. A kilogram is a kilogram, a mile is a mile, just as a calorie is a calorie. Always.

    That's true as far as it goes, but kilograms don't exist except as a characteristic of other things, and similarly calories are a characteristic of foods. They never exist in isolation. To some readers, it seems like a meaningless question. So I can understand people who read this question and think someone is really asking about nutrition, i.e., whether it matters what foods you get calories from.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    dfwesq wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    Yes! They are equal! Always!
    What is not equal is the nutrient profile of different foods having the same number of calories.
    It is important to not confuse those. The people who say that calories are not all equal are confusing these exact two things. And are refusing to educate themselves on the difference (based on the fact that I see this exact debate weekly on the forums).
    Saying that not all calories are equal is like saying not all kilograms are equal or that not all miles are equal. A kilogram is a kilogram, a mile is a mile, just as a calorie is a calorie. Always.

    That's true as far as it goes, but kilograms don't exist except as a characteristic of other things, and similarly calories are a characteristic of foods. They never exist in isolation. To some readers, it seems like a meaningless question. So I can understand people who read this question and think someone is really asking about nutrition, i.e., whether it matters what foods you get calories from.

    So we should probably stop talking about things like weight, height, pressure, temperature... and kilograms, meters, inches, joules, degrees Celsius, degrees Farenheit, and ampoules - since a unit of measurement is meaningless without the context of which it is measuring? I really don't get this effort to constantly justify why people are not understanding something. People who are suggesting that a calorie is not just a calorie are wrong. They need to learn that it is a unit of measurement. Period. They also need to learn that nutrition is different than energy balance. Period. Trying to constantly justify why people are confused about something, or suggest that everyone else needs to change the way that they answer questions because some people lack basic understanding of scientific principles and reading comprehension seems like an extremely futile exercise.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    dfwesq wrote: »
    VeryKatie wrote: »
    Yes! They are equal! Always!
    What is not equal is the nutrient profile of different foods having the same number of calories.
    It is important to not confuse those. The people who say that calories are not all equal are confusing these exact two things. And are refusing to educate themselves on the difference (based on the fact that I see this exact debate weekly on the forums).
    Saying that not all calories are equal is like saying not all kilograms are equal or that not all miles are equal. A kilogram is a kilogram, a mile is a mile, just as a calorie is a calorie. Always.

    That's true as far as it goes, but kilograms don't exist except as a characteristic of other things, and similarly calories are a characteristic of foods. They never exist in isolation. To some readers, it seems like a meaningless question. So I can understand people who read this question and think someone is really asking about nutrition, i.e., whether it matters what foods you get calories from.

    I could understand this IF it weren't explained in great and exhaustive detail over and over, as this thread illustrates.

    At this point, however, anyone who pretends to think that "a calorie is a calorie" means "all foods are the same for nutritional purposes" in such a discussion could not possibly be genuinely confused.

    They have to be creating a strawman. I am curious why they would do that. Since you like to explain other posters, maybe you have a thought?
This discussion has been closed.