Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Sugar Addiction Myths
Replies
-
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?
I never said sugar was useless or that food with sugar was useless.
You guys continue to point to things that I have not said.
What I am saying is that the phrase "empty calories" is a phrase to describe things that are of low nutrient density.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the way the phrase was brought about, or who brought it about, I am merely saying, the phrase has an understood meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
I guess I misinterpreted what you meant by "Oh gosh... haha wow". I thought you were disagreeing with the statement that it doesn't really make sense to describe a food as "empty calories" when it is a good source of macronutrients. That is, that the category exists but it isn't particularly useful. If that wasn't what you were meaning to convey, then okay.0 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?
I never said sugar was useless or that food with sugar was useless.
You guys continue to point to things that I have not said.
What I am saying is that the phrase "empty calories" is a phrase to describe things that are of low nutrient density.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the way the phrase was brought about, or who brought it about, I am merely saying, the phrase has an understood meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
The term "empty calories" heavily implies that the food/drink is, indeed, useless. Thus it is a contradiction to admit that there is a use for high energy foods like sugar while simultaneously referring to sugar as empty calories.4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?
I never said sugar was useless or that food with sugar was useless.
You guys continue to point to things that I have not said.
What I am saying is that the phrase "empty calories" is a phrase to describe things that are of low nutrient density.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the way the phrase was brought about, or who brought it about, I am merely saying, the phrase has an understood meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
The term "empty calories" heavily implies that the food/drink is, indeed, useless. Thus it is a contradiction to admit that there is a use for high energy foods like sugar while simultaneously referring to sugar as empty calories.
Again, I did not invent the word, so I am not defending the semantics behind it.
I am saying that the phrase is understood to mean that an empty calorie is a food with no or low nutrient density. Call it a full calorie or an ugly calorie or a pretty calorie. Regardless, refined table sugar is a *blank* calorie.3 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
That you consider something empty calories doesn't mean other people agree with you.
My personal view is I think it's a really dumb phrase that just confuses people by obstructing a rational understanding of what a particular food item provides, or alternatively, doesn't provide.
It also confuses people as to what a calorie is - a unit of energy measurement not good, bad, healthy or unhealthy.
Sugar is a carb, carbs are a macronutrient. To say a macro is empty seems rather contrary to me.
I don't eat a lot of sugary foods but when I choose something like an energy drink or carb gel it's precisely for what it provides. That it doesn't have a the range of macros, vitamins, minerals or whatever else is beside the point - I look at my entire diet to provide the full spectrum of my needs, not individual items.
4 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?
I never said sugar was useless or that food with sugar was useless.
You guys continue to point to things that I have not said.
What I am saying is that the phrase "empty calories" is a phrase to describe things that are of low nutrient density.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the way the phrase was brought about, or who brought it about, I am merely saying, the phrase has an understood meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
The term "empty calories" heavily implies that the food/drink is, indeed, useless. Thus it is a contradiction to admit that there is a use for high energy foods like sugar while simultaneously referring to sugar as empty calories.
Again, I did not invent the word, so I am not defending the semantics behind it.
I am saying that the phrase is understood to mean that an empty calorie is a food with no or low nutrient density. Call it a full calorie or an ugly calorie or a pretty calorie. Regardless, refined table sugar is a *blank* calorie.
Everybody understands what the phrase means. I don't understand why you insist on acting like we don't. The challenge that has been made is that it isn't a particularly useful phrase because micronutrients are only part of the picture when it comes to human nutrition. We also need calories.5 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
That you consider something empty calories doesn't mean other people agree with you.
My personal view is I think it's a really dumb phrase that just confuses people by obstructing a rational understanding of what a particular food item provides, or alternatively, doesn't provide.
It also confuses people as to what a calorie is - a unit of energy measurement not good, bad, healthy or unhealthy.
Sugar is a carb, carbs are a macronutrient. To say a macro is empty seems rather contrary to me.
I don't eat a lot of sugary foods but when I choose something like an energy drink or carb gel it's precisely for what it provides. That it doesn't have a the range of macros, vitamins, minerals or whatever else is beside the point - I look at my entire diet to provide the full spectrum of my needs, not individual items.
i would be curious who these people are that eat 100% sugar to the exclusion of everything else....1 -
I'm thinking the term "empty calories" was invented by the "clean eaters"...6
-
RAD_Fitness wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »RAD_Fitness wrote: »
I take it you don't do any endurance sports?
I take it you don't know what empty calories are.
I don't believe in the concept of any empty calorie (unless you're counting alcohol, a reasonable case can be made for that). Everything that I eat contains either carbohydrates, protein, or fat and my body can use all of those for energy.
Now is it possible to eat so much of something that it either gives you an excess of energy (resulting in weight gain) or crowds out something else that you need? Absolutely. But that can be true for just about any food. I've met people on raw diets who are eating too many raw fruits and vegetables, keeping them from meeting their other needs. It doesn't mean fruits and vegetables are therefore "empty" calories just because they can't be consumed in unlimited quantities.
There are certain circumstances where something like a sports drink, gummy bears, or a gel pack (things that would commonly be considered "empty calories") would be very useful.
It doesn't matter if you "believe in it" whatever that means.
It is a phrase used to describe something with caloric content with little or no micronutrient value. Its not something you do or don't believe in, its a phrase that describes things. Just because you don't like the words used to describe it, doesn't change that.
By definition eating raw fruits and vegetables would never be empty calories, unless they were somehow stripped of their nutrients and still contained the calories.
I'm using "I don't believe in it" as a way of saying "I don't accept it." I apologize, I thought this usage would be familiar to most English-speakers. Foods stigmatized as "empty calories" still provide carbohydrates, protein, or fat. I'm unclear why foods must contain significant micronutrient content to be able to make a contribution to the diet. Macronutrients are nutrients too.
I sometimes eat foods that are high carbohydrate (but contain little to no micronutrients) while I'm racing or training. It's fairly common for people during endurance sports and I don't think anyone doing that considers the calories to be "empty."
I'm not arguing that they don't give you energy. Just that the phrase has a meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
If "empty calories" is the phrase in question, I don't deny that it has a meaning. A phrase can have a meaning to the people who use it and still be an inaccurate (or not useful) way to describe how something works.
If you were to talk about the time when dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together, you would know the meaning of those words (and so would I). But you having a meaning in mind wouldn't make it any more factual.
It is a phrase to describe something that has a low nutrient density.
except energy does not equal nutrients..
and who eats sugar as a primary source of nutrients?
right, which is why pure table sugar would be considered empty calories.
I never implied or said sugar was anyone's primary source of nutrients. Maybe someone else did? Not sure.
It doesn't make sense to some of us why you would consider energy value to be useless when you're evaluating a food. If a food provides energy in the form of macronutrients, why is that "empty"?
I never said sugar was useless or that food with sugar was useless.
You guys continue to point to things that I have not said.
What I am saying is that the phrase "empty calories" is a phrase to describe things that are of low nutrient density.
I never said I agreed or disagreed with the way the phrase was brought about, or who brought it about, I am merely saying, the phrase has an understood meaning, and it was used incorrectly.
The term "empty calories" heavily implies that the food/drink is, indeed, useless. Thus it is a contradiction to admit that there is a use for high energy foods like sugar while simultaneously referring to sugar as empty calories.
Again, I did not invent the word, so I am not defending the semantics behind it.
I am saying that the phrase is understood to mean that an empty calorie is a food with no or low nutrient density. Call it a full calorie or an ugly calorie or a pretty calorie. Regardless, refined table sugar is a *blank* calorie.
It is used to describe foods with low micronutrient profiles, yes. However, using the term "empty calories" to describe these foods misinforms the masses by insinuating that there is nothing to be gained by eating such foods and that they are strictly "junk" to be avoided.
ETA: if you didn't invent the term, why are you spending so much energy defending it? Also, why perpetuate its use if the insinuation it makes is counterproductive to spreading helpful information about nutrition?7 -
emp·ty cal·o·ries
noun
calories derived from food containing no nutrients.
or Merriam Webster:
Definition of empty calories:
calories from food that supply energy but have little or no nutritional value
First Known Use: 19552 -
emp·ty cal·o·ries
noun
calories derived from food containing no nutrients.
or Merriam Webster:
Definition of empty calories:
calories from food that supply energy but have little or no nutritional value
First Known Use: 1955
So this wouldn't be true of any food except for alcohol, I don't think. I've never seen a food with calories that was devoid of macronutrients.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »emp·ty cal·o·ries
noun
calories derived from food containing no nutrients.
or Merriam Webster:
Definition of empty calories:
calories from food that supply energy but have little or no nutritional value
First Known Use: 1955
So this wouldn't be true of any food except for alcohol, I don't think. I've never seen a food with calories that was devoid of macronutrients.
alcohol is a macronutrient1 -
RAD_Fitness wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »emp·ty cal·o·ries
noun
calories derived from food containing no nutrients.
or Merriam Webster:
Definition of empty calories:
calories from food that supply energy but have little or no nutritional value
First Known Use: 1955
So this wouldn't be true of any food except for alcohol, I don't think. I've never seen a food with calories that was devoid of macronutrients.
alcohol is a macronutrient
Thanks for the correction.0 -
It's routinely used in the health care and nutritional fields. For example:I'm thinking the term "empty calories" was invented by the "clean eaters"...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200654
https://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa14/dl/health-status-behaviors.pdf
There's a recognized, common understanding of what the phrase means - it's basically a short way to talk about foods that add unneeded extra calories but little else. Sometimes it's put in quotation marks. ETA: It's never used when the calories the food supplies are needed or helpful, only when the extra calories are unneeded and possibly detrimental.
3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »emp·ty cal·o·ries
noun
calories derived from food containing no nutrients.
or Merriam Webster:
Definition of empty calories:
calories from food that supply energy but have little or no nutritional value
First Known Use: 1955
So this wouldn't be true of any food except for alcohol, I don't think. I've never seen a food with calories that was devoid of macronutrients.
Nutrient does not mean macronutrient. If it did the definition would have said "calories derived from food containing no macronutrients"
2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »emp·ty cal·o·ries
noun
calories derived from food containing no nutrients.
or Merriam Webster:
Definition of empty calories:
calories from food that supply energy but have little or no nutritional value
First Known Use: 1955
So this wouldn't be true of any food except for alcohol, I don't think. I've never seen a food with calories that was devoid of macronutrients.
Nutrient does not mean macronutrient. If it did the definition would have said "calories derived from food containing no macronutrients"
The primary nutrient in many foods is protein.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »emp·ty cal·o·ries
noun
calories derived from food containing no nutrients.
or Merriam Webster:
Definition of empty calories:
calories from food that supply energy but have little or no nutritional value
First Known Use: 1955
So this wouldn't be true of any food except for alcohol, I don't think. I've never seen a food with calories that was devoid of macronutrients.
Nutrient does not mean macronutrient. If it did the definition would have said "calories derived from food containing no macronutrients"
A macronutrient is a nutrient.6 -
It's routinely used in the health care and nutritional fields. For example:I'm thinking the term "empty calories" was invented by the "clean eaters"...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200654
https://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa14/dl/health-status-behaviors.pdf
There's a recognized, common understanding of what the phrase means - it's basically a short way to talk about foods that add unneeded extra calories but little else. Sometimes it's put in quotation marks. ETA: It's never used when the calories the food supplies are needed or helpful, only when the extra calories are unneeded and possibly detrimental.
Actually, the US gov seems to mainly use it much more specifically, to refer to calories from "added sugar and solid fat." That's on the MyPlate site and is in your links as well.
Worth noting that in this usage foods are not themselves "empty calories" but CONTAIN empty calories. Pizza is said to be a large contributor of empty calories (mostly because of cheese, I'd imagine), but of course an individual pizza might have lots of vegetables on it, olives, chicken is not an uncommon addition these days, there's also always pineapple! ;-)
Under this definition, added sugar would be empty calories even if desirable for a particular purpose, like fueling endurance activity, which is why I think it's reasonable to dispute the benefits of the designation.
I think it's interesting and worth noting that no one here discussing the usage actually seems ignorant about nutrition, do they? That's what I took exception to, the idea that if you didn't immediately recognize that added sugar should be considered "empty calories," always, that you must be ignorant of nutrition. I am quite interested in nutrition.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »emp·ty cal·o·ries
noun
calories derived from food containing no nutrients.
or Merriam Webster:
Definition of empty calories:
calories from food that supply energy but have little or no nutritional value
First Known Use: 1955
So this wouldn't be true of any food except for alcohol, I don't think. I've never seen a food with calories that was devoid of macronutrients.
Nutrient does not mean macronutrient. If it did the definition would have said "calories derived from food containing no macronutrients"
So macronutrients are not nutrients, really?1 -
It's routinely used in the health care and nutritional fields. For example:I'm thinking the term "empty calories" was invented by the "clean eaters"...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200654
https://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa14/dl/health-status-behaviors.pdf
There's a recognized, common understanding of what the phrase means - it's basically a short way to talk about foods that add unneeded extra calories but little else. Sometimes it's put in quotation marks. ETA: It's never used when the calories the food supplies are needed or helpful, only when the extra calories are unneeded and possibly detrimental.
So if I eat gummy bears pre or post workout they don't have empty calories because helpful but if I eat them during a movie they do have empty calories because unneeded?
They're the same gummy bears...either the calories are empty or not.5 -
No, they can be unneeded in one situation and needed in another. If you are, say, Michael Phelps in training, you can't possibly get enough calories to stay well nourished unless you eat a lot of high-calorie, low-fiber foods. If you are an average Westerner, you're in a different situation. For you, candy is "empty calories," nutritionally speaking. Similarly, glucose can be a lifesaver for a diabetic in insulin shock or a patient in a coma, and doctors don't refer to it as "empty calories" in those circumstances.Carlos_421 wrote: »
It's routinely used in the health care and nutritional fields. For example:I'm thinking the term "empty calories" was invented by the "clean eaters"...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24200654
https://mchb.hrsa.gov/chusa14/dl/health-status-behaviors.pdf
There's a recognized, common understanding of what the phrase means - it's basically a short way to talk about foods that add unneeded extra calories but little else. Sometimes it's put in quotation marks. ETA: It's never used when the calories the food supplies are needed or helpful, only when the extra calories are unneeded and possibly detrimental.
So if I eat gummy bears pre or post workout they don't have empty calories because helpful but if I eat them during a movie they do have empty calories because unneeded?
They're the same gummy bears...either the calories are empty or not.
Sorry if that seems inconsistent to you, but your quarrel is with the doctors and scientists who use the phrase that way.
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions