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.
Cals are NOT created equal. CICO isn't the whole story.
Options
Replies
-
jaimeolive wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
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
Sure here is an example of how calories cannot be measure equal:
Sudhair James – undergraduate student at Sri Lanka’s College of Chemical Sciences, and his mentor, Dr Pushparajah Thavarajah experimented with 38 kinds of rice from Sri Lanka, developing a new way of cooking rice that increased the resistant starch content. Add 1 teaspoon of coconut oil to boiling water. Then add a half a cup of rice. Simmer for 40 minutes (or boil for 20-25 minutes). Then refrigerate it for 12 hours.
This procedure increased the Resistant Starch by 10 times for traditional, non-fortified rice and halved the absorbable calories.
Cooling for 12 hours leads to formation of hydrogen bonds between the amylose molecules outside the rice grains which also turns it into a resistant starch. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26693746
The equation is not as simple as calories in > calories out it is more like:
Weight =
(√(sex&Calorie in-Calorie out) x method of preparation (α or 1/α) + blood sugar ^AMPK ^SUPPLEMENTS / Microbiome – Metabiome)_
________________________________________________________________________________
(Culture x [socioeconomics – parental influences]) /Hormones x Metabolism^sex + Leptin) ^ Medication
But yet again, if you studied nutrition and kinesiology (isn't that supposed to be a holistic approach to health??) you would know this and not fuel your body with McDonalds more days than not...
So a calorie is not a calorie because some foods can be altered to have fewer calories than others?
Preparing food in such a way as to reduce the number of absorbable calories is simply a way of reducing the CI side of CICO. It hardly invalidates the equation.28 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »jaimeolive wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
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
Sure here is an example of how calories cannot be measure equal:
Sudhair James – undergraduate student at Sri Lanka’s College of Chemical Sciences, and his mentor, Dr Pushparajah Thavarajah experimented with 38 kinds of rice from Sri Lanka, developing a new way of cooking rice that increased the resistant starch content. Add 1 teaspoon of coconut oil to boiling water. Then add a half a cup of rice. Simmer for 40 minutes (or boil for 20-25 minutes). Then refrigerate it for 12 hours.
This procedure increased the Resistant Starch by 10 times for traditional, non-fortified rice and halved the absorbable calories.
Cooling for 12 hours leads to formation of hydrogen bonds between the amylose molecules outside the rice grains which also turns it into a resistant starch. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26693746
The equation is not as simple as calories in > calories out it is more like:
Weight =
(√(sex&Calorie in-Calorie out) x method of preparation (α or 1/α) + blood sugar ^AMPK ^SUPPLEMENTS / Microbiome – Metabiome)_
________________________________________________________________________________
(Culture x [socioeconomics – parental influences]) /Hormones x Metabolism^sex + Leptin) ^ Medication
But yet again, if you studied nutrition and kinesiology (isn't that supposed to be a holistic approach to health??) you would know this and not fuel your body with McDonalds more days than not...
So a calorie is not a calorie because some foods can be altered to have fewer calories than others?
Preparing food in such a way as to reduce the number of absorbable calories is simply a way of reducing the CI side of CICO. It hardly invalidates the equation.
This is just one example that shows its not all CICO, you cant really truly know your CI... are you counting calories consumed, absorbed or utilized??15 -
Which has more calories?
Six ounces of skinless baked chicken breast
Or
Six ounces of regular chicken breast fried in lard?
Same thing.8 -
jaimeolive wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jaimeolive wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
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
Sure here is an example of how calories cannot be measure equal:
Sudhair James – undergraduate student at Sri Lanka’s College of Chemical Sciences, and his mentor, Dr Pushparajah Thavarajah experimented with 38 kinds of rice from Sri Lanka, developing a new way of cooking rice that increased the resistant starch content. Add 1 teaspoon of coconut oil to boiling water. Then add a half a cup of rice. Simmer for 40 minutes (or boil for 20-25 minutes). Then refrigerate it for 12 hours.
This procedure increased the Resistant Starch by 10 times for traditional, non-fortified rice and halved the absorbable calories.
Cooling for 12 hours leads to formation of hydrogen bonds between the amylose molecules outside the rice grains which also turns it into a resistant starch. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26693746
The equation is not as simple as calories in > calories out it is more like:
Weight =
(√(sex&Calorie in-Calorie out) x method of preparation (α or 1/α) + blood sugar ^AMPK ^SUPPLEMENTS / Microbiome – Metabiome)_
________________________________________________________________________________
(Culture x [socioeconomics – parental influences]) /Hormones x Metabolism^sex + Leptin) ^ Medication
But yet again, if you studied nutrition and kinesiology (isn't that supposed to be a holistic approach to health??) you would know this and not fuel your body with McDonalds more days than not...
So a calorie is not a calorie because some foods can be altered to have fewer calories than others?
Preparing food in such a way as to reduce the number of absorbable calories is simply a way of reducing the CI side of CICO. It hardly invalidates the equation.
This is just one example that shows its not all CICO, you cant really truly know your CI... are you counting calories consumed, absorbed or utilized??
You can't truly know your CI or CO - that doesn't invalidate them or the fact that you need your CI (actual energy utilized by your body from what you consumed) to be lower than your CO (actual energy expended by your body) in order to lose weight. The minutiae don't need to be known in order for the big picture to work. Track what you think your CI and CO are over time, troubleshoot unexpected variances, and make adjustments based upon your personal results. Voila! You now know your personal CICO well enough to lose, maintain, or gain weight as desired.20 -
jaimeolive wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jaimeolive wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
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
Sure here is an example of how calories cannot be measure equal:
Sudhair James – undergraduate student at Sri Lanka’s College of Chemical Sciences, and his mentor, Dr Pushparajah Thavarajah experimented with 38 kinds of rice from Sri Lanka, developing a new way of cooking rice that increased the resistant starch content. Add 1 teaspoon of coconut oil to boiling water. Then add a half a cup of rice. Simmer for 40 minutes (or boil for 20-25 minutes). Then refrigerate it for 12 hours.
This procedure increased the Resistant Starch by 10 times for traditional, non-fortified rice and halved the absorbable calories.
Cooling for 12 hours leads to formation of hydrogen bonds between the amylose molecules outside the rice grains which also turns it into a resistant starch. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26693746
The equation is not as simple as calories in > calories out it is more like:
Weight =
(√(sex&Calorie in-Calorie out) x method of preparation (α or 1/α) + blood sugar ^AMPK ^SUPPLEMENTS / Microbiome – Metabiome)_
________________________________________________________________________________
(Culture x [socioeconomics – parental influences]) /Hormones x Metabolism^sex + Leptin) ^ Medication
But yet again, if you studied nutrition and kinesiology (isn't that supposed to be a holistic approach to health??) you would know this and not fuel your body with McDonalds more days than not...
So a calorie is not a calorie because some foods can be altered to have fewer calories than others?
Preparing food in such a way as to reduce the number of absorbable calories is simply a way of reducing the CI side of CICO. It hardly invalidates the equation.
This is just one example that shows its not all CICO, you cant really truly know your CI... are you counting calories consumed, absorbed or utilized??
The rice with more resistant starch would have a lower caloric value as you would get less energy from it. How does that show a calorie isn't a calorie?8 -
-
Lol, so by chemically affecting the rice, you absorb less calories. Which means it's less in calories from it's original state. Tell you what, I can take a Snickers bar, remove the sugar and guess what.................it's less calories.jaimeolive wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
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
Sure here is an example of how calories cannot be measure equal:
Sudhair James – undergraduate student at Sri Lanka’s College of Chemical Sciences, and his mentor, Dr Pushparajah Thavarajah experimented with 38 kinds of rice from Sri Lanka, developing a new way of cooking rice that increased the resistant starch content. Add 1 teaspoon of coconut oil to boiling water. Then add a half a cup of rice. Simmer for 40 minutes (or boil for 20-25 minutes). Then refrigerate it for 12 hours.
This procedure increased the Resistant Starch by 10 times for traditional, non-fortified rice and halved the absorbable calories.
Cooling for 12 hours leads to formation of hydrogen bonds between the amylose molecules outside the rice grains which also turns it into a resistant starch. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26693746
The equation is not as simple as calories in > calories out it is more like:
Weight =
(√(sex&Calorie in-Calorie out) x method of preparation (α or 1/α) + blood sugar ^AMPK ^SUPPLEMENTS / Microbiome – Metabiome)_
________________________________________________________________________________
(Culture x [socioeconomics – parental influences]) /Hormones x Metabolism^sex + Leptin) ^ Medication
But yet again, if you studied nutrition and kinesiology (isn't that supposed to be a holistic approach to health??) you would know this and not fuel your body with McDonalds more days than not...
And if we're sticking to the OP, of "a calorie is NOT a calorie" then it's still wrong. Yes ALL of the above affect how an individual may react differently than someone else who doesn't have the same metabolic rate, hormonal level etc., but let's be real an not make a strawman argument..............regardless of what the person's metabolism is, if he ate 10 calories of fat or 10 calories of protein, it's STILL 10 calories. If he burned 100 calories of fat, or a 100 calories of glycogen, it's STILL 100 calories.
Lol, and don't hate because I can eat McDonald's and still not have weight issues.
And if you didn't know what kinesiology was:
kinesiology (kə-nē′sē-ŏl′ə-jē, -zē-)
n.
1. The study of the anatomy, physiology, and mechanics of body movement, especially in humans.
2. The application of the principles of kinesiology to the evaluation and treatment of muscular imbalance or derangement.
Nothing holistic about it. It's SCIENCE.
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 15 -
Must be a NET carb counter.jaimeolive wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »jaimeolive wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
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
Sure here is an example of how calories cannot be measure equal:
Sudhair James – undergraduate student at Sri Lanka’s College of Chemical Sciences, and his mentor, Dr Pushparajah Thavarajah experimented with 38 kinds of rice from Sri Lanka, developing a new way of cooking rice that increased the resistant starch content. Add 1 teaspoon of coconut oil to boiling water. Then add a half a cup of rice. Simmer for 40 minutes (or boil for 20-25 minutes). Then refrigerate it for 12 hours.
This procedure increased the Resistant Starch by 10 times for traditional, non-fortified rice and halved the absorbable calories.
Cooling for 12 hours leads to formation of hydrogen bonds between the amylose molecules outside the rice grains which also turns it into a resistant starch. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26693746
The equation is not as simple as calories in > calories out it is more like:
Weight =
(√(sex&Calorie in-Calorie out) x method of preparation (α or 1/α) + blood sugar ^AMPK ^SUPPLEMENTS / Microbiome – Metabiome)_
________________________________________________________________________________
(Culture x [socioeconomics – parental influences]) /Hormones x Metabolism^sex + Leptin) ^ Medication
But yet again, if you studied nutrition and kinesiology (isn't that supposed to be a holistic approach to health??) you would know this and not fuel your body with McDonalds more days than not...
So a calorie is not a calorie because some foods can be altered to have fewer calories than others?
Preparing food in such a way as to reduce the number of absorbable calories is simply a way of reducing the CI side of CICO. It hardly invalidates the equation.
This is just one example that shows its not all CICO, you cant really truly know your CI... are you counting calories consumed, absorbed or utilized??
Quit trying to major in the minors. All you're doing is trying to create more confusion to a VERY SIMPLE equation.
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 12 -
jaimeolive wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
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
Sure here is an example of how calories cannot be measure equal:
Sudhair James – undergraduate student at Sri Lanka’s College of Chemical Sciences, and his mentor, Dr Pushparajah Thavarajah experimented with 38 kinds of rice from Sri Lanka, developing a new way of cooking rice that increased the resistant starch content. Add 1 teaspoon of coconut oil to boiling water. Then add a half a cup of rice. Simmer for 40 minutes (or boil for 20-25 minutes). Then refrigerate it for 12 hours.
This procedure increased the Resistant Starch by 10 times for traditional, non-fortified rice and halved the absorbable calories.
Cooling for 12 hours leads to formation of hydrogen bonds between the amylose molecules outside the rice grains which also turns it into a resistant starch. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26693746
The equation is not as simple as calories in > calories out it is more like:
Weight =
(√(sex&Calorie in-Calorie out) x method of preparation (α or 1/α) + blood sugar ^AMPK ^SUPPLEMENTS / Microbiome – Metabiome)_
________________________________________________________________________________
(Culture x [socioeconomics – parental influences]) /Hormones x Metabolism^sex + Leptin) ^ Medication
But yet again, if you studied nutrition and kinesiology (isn't that supposed to be a holistic approach to health??) you would know this and not fuel your body with McDonalds more days than not...
Here's another example of pure wizardry: Coca-Cola took a Coke, removed the sugar from it and substituted Aspartame. It changed the calories from 160 to 0. So if I drink a regular Coke, I take in 160 calories. If I drink a Diet Coke, I take in 0 calories.
SO THAT PROVES A CALORIE IS NOT A CALORIE!!!1!1!!!!1!!!
38 -
This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.15
-
jaimeolive wrote: »
Carlos_421 wrote: »jaimeolive wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
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
Sure here is an example of how calories cannot be measure equal:
Sudhair James – undergraduate student at Sri Lanka’s College of Chemical Sciences, and his mentor, Dr Pushparajah Thavarajah experimented with 38 kinds of rice from Sri Lanka, developing a new way of cooking rice that increased the resistant starch content. Add 1 teaspoon of coconut oil to boiling water. Then add a half a cup of rice. Simmer for 40 minutes (or boil for 20-25 minutes). Then refrigerate it for 12 hours.
This procedure increased the Resistant Starch by 10 times for traditional, non-fortified rice and halved the absorbable calories.
Cooling for 12 hours leads to formation of hydrogen bonds between the amylose molecules outside the rice grains which also turns it into a resistant starch. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26693746
The equation is not as simple as calories in > calories out it is more like:
Weight =
(√(sex&Calorie in-Calorie out) x method of preparation (α or 1/α) + blood sugar ^AMPK ^SUPPLEMENTS / Microbiome – Metabiome)_
________________________________________________________________________________
(Culture x [socioeconomics – parental influences]) /Hormones x Metabolism^sex + Leptin) ^ Medication
But yet again, if you studied nutrition and kinesiology (isn't that supposed to be a holistic approach to health??) you would know this and not fuel your body with McDonalds more days than not...
So a calorie is not a calorie because some foods can be altered to have fewer calories than others?
Preparing food in such a way as to reduce the number of absorbable calories is simply a way of reducing the CI side of CICO. It hardly invalidates the equation.
This is just one example that shows its not all CICO, you cant really truly know your CI... are you counting calories consumed, absorbed or utilized??
I'm not waiting that long for my rice.10 -
RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
It may be, for someone that isn't new. Many people have seen this thread a lot, but for someone just starting out and trying figure out what to do, this is information they can use. I know when I hit bottom and decided to lose weight, I didn't know the importance CICO, what "macros" or "micros" were. Also, remember common sense isn't necessarily that common. There are people that honestly believe that if they just cut fat out of thier diet (regardless of calories) they'll magically lose weight.6 -
Good point, I just mean there has to be a lot of threads already made on the topic and members can search the forums and see a lot of information already out thereVeronicaA76 wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
It may be, for someone that isn't new. Many people have seen this thread a lot, but for someone just starting out and trying figure out what to do, this is information they can use. I know when I hit bottom and decided to lose weight, I didn't know the importance CICO, what "macros" or "micros" were. Also, remember common sense isn't necessarily that common. There are people that honestly believe that if they just cut fat out of thier diet (regardless of calories) they'll magically lose weight.
1 -
RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
A diet consisting of a single food is never going to be good.... Cupcakes are more balanced, at least they have some fat and protein..10 -
RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
Don't forget to consider context and dosage within your diet (far too many people ignore these concepts).
It sounds simple enough to say "kale is better than a donut", and in some contexts that would be correct. But a diet consisting of entirely kale or entirely donuts would be equally bad (in fact, I'd argue that the diet consisting of entirely donuts would be better because you'd be lacking essential fats eating nothing but kale).
Don't judge foods by themselves as "good" or "bad". Consider their place within the overall diet and aim for well-rounded nutrition consisting mostly of nutrient-dense foods, but with room for treats/less nutritious foods you enjoy. As Eric Helms said, "Once our nutrient needs are met, we don't get extra credit for consuming more nutritious food".14 -
RogueRunner_1 wrote: »
Good point, I just mean there has to be a lot of threads already made on the topic and members can search the forums and see a lot of information already out thereVeronicaA76 wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
It may be, for someone that isn't new. Many people have seen this thread a lot, but for someone just starting out and trying figure out what to do, this is information they can use. I know when I hit bottom and decided to lose weight, I didn't know the importance CICO, what "macros" or "micros" were. Also, remember common sense isn't necessarily that common. There are people that honestly believe that if they just cut fat out of thier diet (regardless of calories) they'll magically lose weight.
Very true, new members also probably haven't figured out how to navigate this site very well. Think of how many "how do I log exercize?", or "how do I post a picture?" threads there are. My grandma told me once, to treat everyone as if it was thier first day doing something. (She was right, grandma's generally are).11 -
A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
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
If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.
The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.
As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.13 -
RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
I agreed with the first part, but a diet of cupcakes AND a diet of just bananas would be terrible, period.
This is really the problem with the "some foods are healthy, some are not" approach.
A daily diet of fish, vegetables, some nuts, and a cupcake would be a LOT healthier than a 100% cupcake free diet of only bananas.
That aside, a calorie is a calorie and no one who says that believes that means that all foods are the same or that diets cannot vary in how nutritious or healthful they are.6 -
VeronicaA76 wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »
Good point, I just mean there has to be a lot of threads already made on the topic and members can search the forums and see a lot of information already out thereVeronicaA76 wrote: »RogueRunner_1 wrote: »This topic is just annoying now. It's simple, calories in calories out will cause weight loss with a deficit. But common sense says certain foods are healthier for you than others. It's that simple. What's better for you, a banana or a cupcake? Easy enough. You can eat 1200 calories in cupcakes or 1200 in bananas. You'll lose weight, but common sense says your overall health is better with bananas.
It may be, for someone that isn't new. Many people have seen this thread a lot, but for someone just starting out and trying figure out what to do, this is information they can use. I know when I hit bottom and decided to lose weight, I didn't know the importance CICO, what "macros" or "micros" were. Also, remember common sense isn't necessarily that common. There are people that honestly believe that if they just cut fat out of thier diet (regardless of calories) they'll magically lose weight.
Very true, new members also probably haven't figured out how to navigate this site very well. Think of how many "how do I log exercize?", or "how do I post a picture?" threads there are. My grandma told me once, to treat everyone as if it was thier first day doing something. (She was right, grandma's generally are).
I would figure out how to use a website first before posting on its message board though. I treat everyone like they should have some sort of sense.12 -
rheddmobile wrote: »A CALORIE is a CALORIE. A unit of measure doesn't change just because what it's made of differs from something else.
A foot is a foot. A liter is a liter. A pound is a pound. You'll NEVER find any scientific journal stating that those actual measurements differ.
Now you can have a foot of grass and a foot of dirt, a liter of milk and a liter of water, or a pound of gold or a pound of feathers. Different materials, but MEASUREMENT is still the same for all.
So tell me, how is 10 calories of protein more in calorie measurement than 10 calories of fat? Or 10 calories of carbs? Again, focusing on the actual 10 calories. How is 10 different than 10?
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
If you are a car, it matters enormously whether you have a gallon of fuel, or a gallon of sugar water. Both are gallons. But one will be translated into forward movement and the other will not.
The body does not use calories the same way a lab measures calories. I got to see this first hand when my diabetes was undiagnosed and I ate thousands of calories of sugary food per day and lost 25 lbs in a single month, due to my liver not responding to insulin. That's a single example of "calories in" being meaningless because of what's happening in the body. There are many.
As a diabetic I have a defective liver and pancreas, which means that I can easily see the difference between how carbs, protein, and fat are metabolized using a measuring device - but everyone alive has a liver and a pancreas, and metabolizes these foods by completely different processes.
Eh? This analogy doesn't work on any level. It's like saying what's better for the human body, a gallon of sugar or a gallon fuel? Not cupcakes vs bananas which are both foods safe for human consumption. Pure sugar water in your car and you'll kill it dead and vice versa with the human and fuel.
And does it matter that my body isn't a controlled lab environment? It is still utilising calories and doesn't distinguish the source purely from a fuel perspective, which is all a calorie is, a unit of measure for a fuel.
Your car may have been lab tested to do 55 miles to the gallon, doesn't mean that's what I'm going to get but all I need is to drive through a few tanks of fuel to know what the number is for me and how far a full tank will take me.
As a diabetic source of calories matter for you, it doesn't change how many you can consume.12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions