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.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Is a calorie equal to a calorie?
Replies
-
You can gain weight on a nutritious diet. You can lose weight on a non-nutritious diet.
You can lose weight on a nutritious diet. You can gain weight on a non-nutritious diet.
Why? Because proper nutrition and weight management are separate and distinct.
Too many people are under the impression that if something is "good for you" it doesn't make you fat.
That isn't how things work.16 -
The calorie unit of energy is not disputable but the way our bodies processed different calories is. If anyone thinks a 100 calorie oreo pack is the same as a 100 calorie apple your nuts.31
-
Aztec4Life wrote: »The calorie unit of energy is not disputable but the way our bodies processed different calories is. If anyone thinks a 100 calorie oreo pack is the same as a 100 calorie apple your nuts.
You are confusing calories with nutrients/food.12 -
Aztec4Life wrote: »The calorie unit of energy is not disputable but the way our bodies processed different calories is. If anyone thinks a 100 calorie oreo pack is the same as a 100 calorie apple your nuts.
You mean different nutrients, right?5 -
Aztec4Life wrote: »The calorie unit of energy is not disputable but the way our bodies processed different calories is. If anyone thinks a 100 calorie oreo pack is the same as a 100 calorie apple your nuts.Aztec4Life wrote: »The calorie unit of energy is not disputable but the way our bodies processed different calories is. If anyone thinks a 100 calorie oreo pack is the same as a 100 calorie apple your nuts.
You are confusing calories with nutrients/food.
Yes, foods are different. That does not mean calories are different.
I really think these debates tend to be based on a misunderstanding of what calories are, most of the time.7 -
Aztec4Life wrote: »The calorie unit of energy is not disputable but the way our bodies processed different calories is. If anyone thinks a 100 calorie oreo pack is the same as a 100 calorie apple your nuts.
It is also silly to compare foods in isolation. Your comparison is meaningless with the context of the entire diet...8 -
Aztec4Life wrote: »The calorie unit of energy is not disputable but the way our bodies processed different calories is. If anyone thinks a 100 calorie oreo pack is the same as a 100 calorie apple your nuts.
It is also silly to compare foods in isolation. Your comparison is meaningless with the context of the entire diet...
Yes -- to follow up on that, 100 cal of shrimp is not the same as 100 cal apple either. Shrimp would be a good thing to eat as part of a meal to contribute protein. An apple also might be a nice thing to have as part of a meal or a snack, but if someone thinks they can rely on the apple for protein, they need to do more research (or just learn a little about food).
But that doesn't mean the calories are not calories, and it doesn't mean a healthy diet cannot (and should not) include both.
A better point might be that a 2000 calorie diet can be healthy or not. But if your maintenance is 2000, that's separate from whether it causes weight gain (which it wouldn't, unless you are unable to sustain it).7 -
Aztec4Life wrote: »The calorie unit of energy is not disputable but the way our bodies processed different calories is. If anyone thinks a 100 calorie oreo pack is the same as a 100 calorie apple your nuts.
Did you read the rest of the thread?10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Aztec4Life wrote: »The calorie unit of energy is not disputable but the way our bodies processed different calories is. If anyone thinks a 100 calorie oreo pack is the same as a 100 calorie apple your nuts.
Did you read the rest of the thread?
I think it's clear they didn't.9 -
Aztec4Life wrote: »The calorie unit of energy is not disputable but the way our bodies processed different calories is. If anyone thinks a 100 calorie oreo pack is the same as a 100 calorie apple your nuts.
Sigh...the body doesn't "process calories." The body processes macronutrients to derive energy. That energy is measured in calories.
100 calories derived from an apple will have the exact same impact on weight loss/gain as 100 calories derived from Oreos.
The fact that Oreos will deliver a different selection of macronutrients and micronutrients than an apple and have different affects on hunger/satiety is completely irrelevant to the subject of calories.17 -
Sugar is sugar, but with the apple you get a hefty dose of fiber. Fiber cost more for the body to break down. So, yes a calorie is a calorie, but 100 cals of apples does not equal 100 cals of oreos. Layne Norton did a good video about this!17
-
psychod787 wrote: »Sugar is sugar, but with the apple you get a hefty dose of fiber. Fiber cost more for the body to break down. So, yes a calorie is a calorie, but 100 cals of apples does not equal 100 cals of oreos. Layne Norton did a good video about this!
It's just like Groundhog Day..17 -
That was a true hug @Alatariel75.
As I was handing you a calming beverage of your choice
Cheers, h.
Ps: @psychod787, if you haven't, read the whole thread.4 -
psychod787 wrote: »Sugar is sugar, but with the apple you get a hefty dose of fiber. Fiber cost more for the body to break down. So, yes a calorie is a calorie, but 100 cals of apples does not equal 100 cals of oreos. Layne Norton did a good video about this!
Why do people think Apples have "hefty doses of fibre"?? They don't!
I often eat 700ish grams of watermelon and cantaloupe which gives me a piddly 5g of fibre, 52g sugar and 57g of carbs... That 5g of fibre aint doing nothing to negate that amount of sugar!10 -
Yeah, they have some (depending on the fruit), not huge amounts. 100 calories of apple (about 192 g) = 26.5 g carbs, and 4.5 g fiber.
As those carbs would be 106 calories, and there's a little protein too (about 2 calories) and a tiny bit of fat (3 cal), I assume the cals for the fiber are discounted some anyway.
Also, everything discussed in the thread about TEF and so on.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Yeah, they have some (depending on the fruit), not huge amounts. 100 calories of apple (about 192 g) = 26.5 g carbs, and 4.5 g fiber.
As those carbs would be 106 calories, and there's a little protein too (about 2 calories) and a tiny bit of fat (3 cal), I assume the cals for the fiber are discounted some anyway.
Also, everything discussed in the thread about TEF and so on.
When you figure that the average American takes on less than 20grams of fiber a day, it is a goodly dose lol.5 -
middlehaitch wrote: »That was a true hug @Alatariel75.
As I was handing you a calming beverage of your choice
Cheers, h.
Ps: @psychod787, if you haven't, read the whole thread.
I will.. thanks1 -
Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
17 -
Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
Ironically, however, if you had to live off one of them, you'd stay healthier longer with the peanut butter. There's only 1.5g of fibre in 100g of lettuce, and its otherwise pretty nutritionally void.14 -
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference.
But as covered earlier in the thread, many times, the difference is NOT between the calories but between the foods. There's no such thing as a "peanut butter calorie," and everyone knows that foods differ in lots of other respects (like nutrients).Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
These single food comparisons never make sense to me -- no one eats just one food, it wouldn't be healthy, and I can't imagine ever choosing between peanut butter and lettuce.
I don't find lettuce that filling, either.
13 lbs of lettuce? (That's the amount of romaine you need to eat for 1000 calories.) Yeah, maybe, although I think I'd just be sick of eating, as well as sick in general.
Is the point that if you want to mindlessly eat you might as well choose something low cal? That's going to vary by person. Nibbling on plain lettuce between meals wouldn't do me much good. A salad, sure, but because it's mixed with a variety of ingredients, some high cal density, some low cal density.
Or are you really confused and think that people are saying that foods are all identical?7 -
Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
Not much of this makes sense but the one that I have to challenge is the notion that lettuce is filling?
These extreme comparisons are so unhelpful. No one eats only one kind of food - and has to choose between lettuce and peanut butter, why can't a person eat both? Why always a false dilemma?10 -
JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
A calorie is a calorie ( A unit of energy)
Just like a gallon is a a gallon ( a unit of volume ).
Athough your car probably runs smoother on a gallon of high quality gas, instead of cheap gas mixed with water & particles. Runs smoother, runs longer, doesn't clog up the system, doesn't damage parts.
And your body is the same.
Your body runs better on nutritious fuel, instead of empty calories.
Your cardio-vascular system works better, your digestive system works better, metabolism works better, less disease, less stress on all the parts, etc etc etc.
16 -
Pound is a pound . It's a unit of weight.
But the there's VALUE of the item isn't strictly based on it's weight .
Example ~ Most of us would value a pound of gold, more than a pound of manure.
14 -
Again, do people imagine that anyone is making the argument that foods are all identical or that nutrition does not matter? That suggests that you did not read the thread and are (insultingly) assuming that others are arguing something silly that no one is arguing.
But calories don't have nutrients; foods do.
No one has said "a food is a food." "A calorie is a calorie" does not imply that, or that nutrition does not matter.
I wonder how many times that has been said in this thread.
Also, that your body runs better if given enough nutrients (which is true) is NOT the same thing as saying that your body will be hurt by or not adequately fueled if some of the sources of calories are basically just providing calories. For example, if I am doing a marathon and consume a gel or some jelly beans (because straight sugar is basically all I am going to be able to digest), will that fuel me worse than, say, some salmon and brussels sprouts? No, it will not, quite the opposite.8 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
Calories are calories
Calories are calories
Calories are calories
Calories are calories
2 -
Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
What difference do you suppose there would be in 2kg of either of them being dropped on your head? Other than the size of the mass being dropped upon you?14 -
Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
What difference do you suppose there would be in 2kg of either of them being dropped on your head? Other than the size of the mass being dropped upon you?
Packed densely enough, the feathers could break your neck.12 -
Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
What difference do you suppose there would be in 2kg of either of them being dropped on your head? Other than the size of the mass being dropped upon you?
This. I'd rather not have 2kg of anything dropped on my head. The feather are still 2kg so the exact same weight. Just because they're feathers doesn't negate how much they weigh? One of the weirder analogies I've seen on MFP.9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
What difference do you suppose there would be in 2kg of either of them being dropped on your head? Other than the size of the mass being dropped upon you?
This. I'd rather not have 2kg of anything dropped on my head. The feather are still 2kg so the exact same weight. Just because they're feathers doesn't negate how much they weigh? One of the weirder analogies I've seen on MFP.
indeed. Height also matters.
A box containing 2 kg of feathers dropped from 10 ft will do more damage than 2 kg of lead shot dumped from 2 ft.
5 -
Calories are calories
Weight is Weight
But would you rather have 2KG of lead dropped on your head or 2KG of feathers?
Just like weight calories are calories, but eating 1000 calories of lettuce vs 1000 calories of peanut butter is a big difference. Lettuce has fibre, is filling and the volume of lettuce you have to eat for that many calories is insane.... In comparison it is less than 200mg of peanut butter.
If I only ate 1000 calories of lettuce I would be extremely malnourished...5
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.5K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions