All Calories are not created equal!
Replies
-
drawaimfire wrote: »Firstly, the commenting on here is making my afternoon fly by, Thank you!
Secondly, Veterans, how do you not lose your ever loving minds with the almost daily repeats of this crap? I've only really been on the forums since this time last year and I've had to take breaks, and that was just from READING posts, not replying.
/Salute!
Thirdly,
Eventually your eyes will roll so far back that you won't be able to read any more comments. Works like a charm.19 -
drawaimfire wrote: »Firstly, the commenting on here is making my afternoon fly by, Thank you!
Secondly, Veterans, how do you not lose your ever loving minds with the almost daily repeats of this crap? I've only really been on the forums since this time last year and I've had to take breaks, and that was just from READING posts, not replying.
/Salute!
Thirdly,
Lately, I just envision posters looking like this and it helps.
11 -
I'm going to take a crack at answering this fully.
Calories are a unit of measurement of energy in the form of heat. Specifically one calorie is the amount of energy necessary to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree celsius. When you are talking calories in food then it is written as Calorie and you are actually talking about kilocalories or the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degree celsius. 1 kg of water is the same as 1 liter of water.
Hydrocarbons (combinations of hydrogen and carbon) react with oxygen in high heat to form carbon dioxide and water plus releasing heat. All of our macros, protein/fat/carbs are hydrocarbons. The fact that the reaction releases heat means that once started it can self-sustain.
Take glucose (sugar) for example, it is a hydrocarbon...specifically it is a carbohydrate (hydrated carbon). Hydrated carbons have the chemical formula of C(x)H(2x)O(x) because they are literally carbon C with water H20. Glucose is C6H12O6.
If you heat up glucose in atmosphere containing oxygen the following reaction happens.
C6H12O6 + 602 + heat ==> 6CO2 + 6 H2O + heat
In atmosphere with sufficient heat this manifests as fire where the CO2 billows off as smoke and the water produced turns gaseous from the heat and leaves with the smoke as steam. If you capture all the heat produced from this reaction you would find that burning 10 grams of glucose would provide enough to heat 40 liters of water by 1 degree celsius (which is actually a very large amount of energy) and that amount of energy is equal to 40 Calories. Therefore carbohydrates have about 40 Calories in 10 grams or 4 Calories per gram.
In your body you injest the glucose and you breath in oxygen. Rather than cause the chemical reaction between glucose and oxygen by heat your body instead uses enzymatic catalysis by having enzymes in your body arrange the molecules in such a way that the reaction happens at 37 degrees celsius instead of much hotter. The reaction proceeds through many different enzymatic steps at the end of which 6 CO2 and 6 H2O are produced. Heat is also produced which helps maintain your body at 37 degrees celsius (or hotter in which case you perspire) and your body gets rid of the CO2 through exhaling and the H20 through urination. The reason more heat isn't produces (as in the case of a fire) is that most of that energy is actually captured and contained by enzymatically coupoling the metabolic breakdown of the carbohydrate to the formation of new chemical bonds in other molecules. Commonly this is in the form of the molecule ATP which can then be used in other chemical reactions as a means of supplying the energy required to carry out those reactions.
Reactions breaking down molecules are called catabolic, reactions building molecules are called anabolic and combined they are called metabolic. The metabolic breakdown of glucose forms ATP molecules and some waste heat in addition to CO2 and H2O in pretty much what amounts to a controlled burning of the molecule.
So with all of that said a "calorie" isn't a physical thing, its a unit of energy. Our bodies derive that energy from the metabolic conversion of foods in the forms of hydrocarbons into water, carbon dioxide, a little waste heat and ATP that can be used for other useful work. The amount of energy we derive from a certain amount of hydrocarbon is measured in Calories because it is a measure of energy production. When you say this hamburger has 600 Calories you are literally saying that if you fully metabolized (burning or enzymatically breaking down) that hamburger it would release enough energy to heat 600 liters of water by 1 degree celsius.26 -
This content has been removed.
-
drawaimfire wrote: »Firstly, the commenting on here is making my afternoon fly by, Thank you!
Secondly, Veterans, how do you not lose your ever loving minds with the almost daily repeats of this crap? I've only really been on the forums since this time last year and I've had to take breaks, and that was just from READING posts, not replying.
/Salute!
Thirdly,
Lately, I just envision posters looking like this and it helps.
Me after a day reading and replying on the forums.3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Every time I post calories for human meat I get at least 1 woo. It cracks me up. Not sure if someone thinks I eat people or if talking about this is some kind of a taboo, but it's amusing either way.
You're getting woo hoos from the lurking cannibal members?3 -
drawaimfire wrote: »Firstly, the commenting on here is making my afternoon fly by, Thank you!
Secondly, Veterans, how do you not lose your ever loving minds with the almost daily repeats of this crap? I've only really been on the forums since this time last year and I've had to take breaks, and that was just from READING posts, not replying.
/Salute!
Thirdly,
I just look like this a lot of the time...
3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Every time I post calories for human meat I get at least 1 woo. It cracks me up. Not sure if someone thinks I eat people or if talking about this is some kind of a taboo, but it's amusing either way.
You're getting woo hoos from the lurking cannibal members?
*slinks back into the shadows*10 -
jessiferrrb wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Every time I post calories for human meat I get at least 1 woo. It cracks me up. Not sure if someone thinks I eat people or if talking about this is some kind of a taboo, but it's amusing either way.
they just think that your calories are off maybe. like, why is brain so calorie dense? and wouldn't an lean arm have less calories than one with some serious disco wings? also, are disco wings a thing? it doesn't sound right.
Bat wings. But now I'm imagining making the bat wings dance so thanks for that!
1 -
My boyfriend is the perfect example of counting calories, there is no healthy or unhealthy calories its just calories at the end of the day, he is the fussiest eater I have ever met, he eats crisps (potato chips) oven baked fries, breaded chicken oven cooked, a lot of heavy carb, high fat foods and because he is keeping it all within his calories he is losing weight, he uses MFP to log his food and exercise and continues to lose weight, he weighs himself every saturday morning, he usually loses between 1lb - 2lb most weeks sometimes more, sometimes less depending on his cheat day that he calls Saturday Faturday lol but yeah its all about calories... high sodium intake can cause water retention and weight gain that way but calories are the king of weight loss/weight gain.6
-
jessiferrrb wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Every time I post calories for human meat I get at least 1 woo. It cracks me up. Not sure if someone thinks I eat people or if talking about this is some kind of a taboo, but it's amusing either way.
they just think that your calories are off maybe. like, why is brain so calorie dense? and wouldn't an lean arm have less calories than one with some serious disco wings? also, are disco wings a thing? it doesn't sound right.
No "disco wings" there I'm afraid. The data is based on men averaging 145 pounds in weight. I vote lurking cannibals. I guess not all calories are created equal. Some calories will rot your brain.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »jessiferrrb wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Every time I post calories for human meat I get at least 1 woo. It cracks me up. Not sure if someone thinks I eat people or if talking about this is some kind of a taboo, but it's amusing either way.
they just think that your calories are off maybe. like, why is brain so calorie dense? and wouldn't an lean arm have less calories than one with some serious disco wings? also, are disco wings a thing? it doesn't sound right.
No "disco wings" there I'm afraid. The data is based on men averaging 145 pounds in weight. I vote lurking cannibals. I guess not all calories are created equal. Some calories will rot your brain.
Who said anything about lurking...
6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
I'm going to take a crack at answering this fully.
Calories are a unit of measurement of energy in the form of heat. Specifically one calorie is the amount of energy necessary to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree celsius. When you are talking calories in food then it is written as Calorie and you are actually talking about kilocalories or the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degree celsius. 1 kg of water is the same as 1 liter of water.
Hydrocarbons (combinations of hydrogen and carbon) react with oxygen in high heat to form carbon dioxide and water plus releasing heat. All of our macros, protein/fat/carbs are hydrocarbons. The fact that the reaction releases heat means that once started it can self-sustain.
Take glucose (sugar) for example, it is a hydrocarbon...specifically it is a carbohydrate (hydrated carbon). Hydrated carbons have the chemical formula of C(x)H(2x)O(x) because they are literally carbon C with water H20. Glucose is C6H12O6.
If you heat up glucose in atmosphere containing oxygen the following reaction happens.
C6H12O6 + 602 + heat ==> 6CO2 + 6 H2O + heat
In atmosphere with sufficient heat this manifests as fire where the CO2 billows off as smoke and the water produced turns gaseous from the heat and leaves with the smoke as steam. If you capture all the heat produced from this reaction you would find that burning 10 grams of glucose would provide enough to heat 40 liters of water by 1 degree celsius (which is actually a very large amount of energy) and that amount of energy is equal to 40 Calories. Therefore carbohydrates have about 40 Calories in 10 grams or 4 Calories per gram.
In your body you injest the glucose and you breath in oxygen. Rather than cause the chemical reaction between glucose and oxygen by heat your body instead uses enzymatic catalysis by having enzymes in your body arrange the molecules in such a way that the reaction happens at 37 degrees celsius instead of much hotter. The reaction proceeds through many different enzymatic steps at the end of which 6 CO2 and 6 H2O are produced. Heat is also produced which helps maintain your body at 37 degrees celsius (or hotter in which case you perspire) and your body gets rid of the CO2 through exhaling and the H20 through urination. The reason more heat isn't produces (as in the case of a fire) is that most of that energy is actually captured and contained by enzymatically coupoling the metabolic breakdown of the carbohydrate to the formation of new chemical bonds in other molecules. Commonly this is in the form of the molecule ATP which can then be used in other chemical reactions as a means of supplying the energy required to carry out those reactions.
Reactions breaking down molecules are called catabolic, reactions building molecules are called anabolic and combined they are called metabolic. The metabolic breakdown of glucose forms ATP molecules and some waste heat in addition to CO2 and H2O in pretty much what amounts to a controlled burning of the molecule.
So with all of that said a "calorie" isn't a physical thing, its a unit of energy. Our bodies derive that energy from the metabolic conversion of foods in the forms of hydrocarbons into water, carbon dioxide, a little waste heat and ATP that can be used for other useful work. The amount of energy we derive from a certain amount of hydrocarbon is measured in Calories because it is a measure of energy production. When you say this hamburger has 600 Calories you are literally saying that if you fully metabolized (burning or enzymatically breaking down) that hamburger it would release enough energy to heat 600 liters of water by 1 degree celsius.
This needs to be a sticky...
\m/Oo\m/5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »
I'm going to take a crack at answering this fully.
Calories are a unit of measurement of energy in the form of heat. Specifically one calorie is the amount of energy necessary to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 degree celsius. When you are talking calories in food then it is written as Calorie and you are actually talking about kilocalories or the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kg of water by 1 degree celsius. 1 kg of water is the same as 1 liter of water.
Hydrocarbons (combinations of hydrogen and carbon) react with oxygen in high heat to form carbon dioxide and water plus releasing heat. All of our macros, protein/fat/carbs are hydrocarbons. The fact that the reaction releases heat means that once started it can self-sustain.
Take glucose (sugar) for example, it is a hydrocarbon...specifically it is a carbohydrate (hydrated carbon). Hydrated carbons have the chemical formula of C(x)H(2x)O(x) because they are literally carbon C with water H20. Glucose is C6H12O6.
If you heat up glucose in atmosphere containing oxygen the following reaction happens.
C6H12O6 + 602 + heat ==> 6CO2 + 6 H2O + heat
In atmosphere with sufficient heat this manifests as fire where the CO2 billows off as smoke and the water produced turns gaseous from the heat and leaves with the smoke as steam. If you capture all the heat produced from this reaction you would find that burning 10 grams of glucose would provide enough to heat 40 liters of water by 1 degree celsius (which is actually a very large amount of energy) and that amount of energy is equal to 40 Calories. Therefore carbohydrates have about 40 Calories in 10 grams or 4 Calories per gram.
In your body you injest the glucose and you breath in oxygen. Rather than cause the chemical reaction between glucose and oxygen by heat your body instead uses enzymatic catalysis by having enzymes in your body arrange the molecules in such a way that the reaction happens at 37 degrees celsius instead of much hotter. The reaction proceeds through many different enzymatic steps at the end of which 6 CO2 and 6 H2O are produced. Heat is also produced which helps maintain your body at 37 degrees celsius (or hotter in which case you perspire) and your body gets rid of the CO2 through exhaling and the H20 through urination. The reason more heat isn't produces (as in the case of a fire) is that most of that energy is actually captured and contained by enzymatically coupoling the metabolic breakdown of the carbohydrate to the formation of new chemical bonds in other molecules. Commonly this is in the form of the molecule ATP which can then be used in other chemical reactions as a means of supplying the energy required to carry out those reactions.
Reactions breaking down molecules are called catabolic, reactions building molecules are called anabolic and combined they are called metabolic. The metabolic breakdown of glucose forms ATP molecules and some waste heat in addition to CO2 and H2O in pretty much what amounts to a controlled burning of the molecule.
So with all of that said a "calorie" isn't a physical thing, its a unit of energy. Our bodies derive that energy from the metabolic conversion of foods in the forms of hydrocarbons into water, carbon dioxide, a little waste heat and ATP that can be used for other useful work. The amount of energy we derive from a certain amount of hydrocarbon is measured in Calories because it is a measure of energy production. When you say this hamburger has 600 Calories you are literally saying that if you fully metabolized (burning or enzymatically breaking down) that hamburger it would release enough energy to heat 600 liters of water by 1 degree celsius.
Can I just say--WOW!3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »jessiferrrb wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Every time I post calories for human meat I get at least 1 woo. It cracks me up. Not sure if someone thinks I eat people or if talking about this is some kind of a taboo, but it's amusing either way.
they just think that your calories are off maybe. like, why is brain so calorie dense? and wouldn't an lean arm have less calories than one with some serious disco wings? also, are disco wings a thing? it doesn't sound right.
No "disco wings" there I'm afraid. The data is based on men averaging 145 pounds in weight. I vote lurking cannibals. I guess not all calories are created equal. Some calories will rot your brain.
Who said anything about lurking...
3 -
jpaulparis wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.
If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?
Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?
Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.
How much are you willing to bet? I've got some student loans that need paying and I could use the easy money.14 -
stevencloser wrote: »jpaulparis wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.
If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?
Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?
Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.
How much are you willing to bet? I've got some student loans that need paying and I could use the easy money.
I'm so tempted to try this, for real. I'm just worried about what my friends and family will think of me looking like death all the time.
But then again it is only a week. I could say I had a stomach bug or something.5 -
When I was 40 I lost about 30 lbs. in less than 3 months eating pretty much nothing but 900 calories of packaged food a day. I'll take you up on your offer.
Note: I am not recommending anyone eat below 1200 calories a day, it's a crap way to treat your body. The point is that weight loss is connected to how much you eat not what.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »jpaulparis wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.
If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?
Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?
Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.
How much are you willing to bet? I've got some student loans that need paying and I could use the easy money.
I'm half tempted to game on this, except Twinkies are hard to get and damn expensive over here.0 -
@Aaron_K123
Thanks for that.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jpaulparis wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.
If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?
Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?
Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.
How much are you willing to bet? I've got some student loans that need paying and I could use the easy money.
I'm half tempted to game on this, except Twinkies are hard to get and damn expensive over here.
I couldn't do it, I don't particularly like Twinkies. But with all this talk about them, I'm probably going to have to go get one if only to remind myself why I don't like them. #cakeculture6 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jpaulparis wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.
If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?
Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?
Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.
How much are you willing to bet? I've got some student loans that need paying and I could use the easy money.
I'm half tempted to game on this, except Twinkies are hard to get and damn expensive over here.
I couldn't do it, I don't particularly like Twinkies. But with all this talk about them, I'm probably going to have to go get one if only to remind myself why I don't like them. #cakeculture
I don't like them either, they coat my mouth with ick. But I'm stubborn and a bit of an a'hole, so if it wouldn't cost a bomb, I'd give it a go, just to make the point.2 -
On second thought, I could go for a Moon pie and RC Cola "diet" challenge instead. Kill two woo's at once.Alatariel75 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »jpaulparis wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.
If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?
Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?
Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.
How much are you willing to bet? I've got some student loans that need paying and I could use the easy money.
I'm half tempted to game on this, except Twinkies are hard to get and damn expensive over here.
I couldn't do it, I don't particularly like Twinkies. But with all this talk about them, I'm probably going to have to go get one if only to remind myself why I don't like them. #cakeculture
I don't like them either, they coat my mouth with ick. But I'm stubborn and a bit of an a'hole, so if it wouldn't cost a bomb, I'd give it a go, just to make the point.10 -
I agree with OP & I didn't see where she posted that you can eat as many of the "better" calories as you want & still lose wt, so I don't think it has to do with cico. I agree because I find it to be true for me, I lose better when I eat the way she posted19
-
jpaulparis wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Aren't you the same person espousing 800 cals a day? No matter what you eat, you're going to lose on 800 cals a day. Eat 800 calories of twinkies if you want. It doesn't make it healthy.
If it's not how many calories you eat, but what you eat, why starve yourself at 800 calories per day? Why not eat whatever you want of the "good" calories and lose away?
Also, by the logic that if you eat the good ones you will lose, how come people who don't need to lose and only eat the "good" calories don't slowly starve to death? Or do they have to add some "bad" to maintain?
Please eat 800 calories of twinkies for even a week.... guarantee you'll gain... and be pre diabetic.
I would be miserable eating 800 calories of twinkies for a week, but I would lose weight. If you mean 800 total for the week I would be even more miserable. If it was 800 a day, a little less miserable, but would still lose weight. At the end of it I would likely hate twinkies though.2 -
This is a very thoughtful post. It’s sound advice for eating guidelines, if calorie counting isn’t possible, but it does look like you confused “calorie” and “nutrition.” It’s a good way to eat low calorie, filling foods, without counting calories, but no matter what you are eating, calories ultimatly determine weight loss; not nutrition.4
-
This content has been removed.
-
While reading through the posts as the OP was getting beat up on, I couldn't help but wonder that if the only way to lose weight is by having a calorie deficit, how do people on Atkins type diets manage to lose weight while eating more calories then required. Is it possible that there is more then one scientifically based method to losing weight.15
-
They aren't. There's perception and there's reality. Just like the dieter that says they don't each much at all (until it's actually tracked and measured), the same happens with people who CLAIM they eat a lot. I get this from males who say they eat a lot and CAN'T gain weight. Horsefeathers. When I've actually got males like this to sit down and do it, they normally find out they they are eat at or under their maintenance calories.While reading through the posts as the OP was getting beat up on, I couldn't help but wonder that if the only way to lose weight is by having a calorie deficit, how do people on Atkins type diets manage to lose weight while eating more calories then required. Is it possible that there is more then one scientifically based method to losing weight.
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
13 -
Personally for me, it's because I hear some form of it everyday at the gym.drawaimfire wrote: »Firstly, the commenting on here is making my afternoon fly by, Thank you!
Secondly, Veterans, how do you not lose your ever loving minds with the almost daily repeats of this crap? I've only really been on the forums since this time last year and I've had to take breaks, and that was just from READING posts, not replying.
/Salute!
Thirdly,
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
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions