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.
Is a calorie equal to a calorie?
Replies
-
formybabies79 wrote: »A calorie is a calorie I think that has been clearly established by all the comments. What’s different are the nutrients. You can eat empty calories or you can fuel your body with the things you eat. You know the saying: you are what you eat. While eating a clean and nutritious diet you fuel your body to function right, have more energy and feel good. I liked that example of a mile being a mile... hey I rather take the mile with umbrella and drink at 75 degree weather than the crawling across glass. Same with your calories... make them count and let them make you feel good. Calories from fiber help you poop, calories from protein help build muscles, calories from orios give you a sugar crash and increase your sugar cravings and that in turn makes it harder to stick to your calorie goal.
Do you see examples of people saying that nutrition isn't important? If so can you point them out?
What I see in this thread like every other is that calories are all that matter for weight loss, that eating a balanced nutrient dense diet is important for overall health, that satiety varies from person to person, and that context and dosage matters. If I eat a variety of foods with macro and micro nutrients, why is eating two Oreos (which is a serving) within my calorie allotment going to be an issue for me?
I'm just not sure why people feel that this is counter to what is being said in the thread?11 -
WinoGelato wrote: »formybabies79 wrote: »A calorie is a calorie I think that has been clearly established by all the comments. What’s different are the nutrients. You can eat empty calories or you can fuel your body with the things you eat. You know the saying: you are what you eat. While eating a clean and nutritious diet you fuel your body to function right, have more energy and feel good. I liked that example of a mile being a mile... hey I rather take the mile with umbrella and drink at 75 degree weather than the crawling across glass. Same with your calories... make them count and let them make you feel good. Calories from fiber help you poop, calories from protein help build muscles, calories from orios give you a sugar crash and increase your sugar cravings and that in turn makes it harder to stick to your calorie goal.
Do you see examples of people saying that nutrition isn't important? If so can you point them out?
What I see in this thread like every other is that calories are all that matter for weight loss, that eating a balanced nutrient dense diet is important for overall health, that satiety varies from person to person, and that context and dosage matters. If I eat a variety of foods with macro and micro nutrients, why is eating two Oreos (which is a serving) within my calorie allotment going to be an issue for me?
I'm just not sure why people feel that this is counter to what is being said in the thread?
Whenever we talk about the caloric values inevitably the straw man rears it's head. Oh, but what about clean/good/nutritious/kosure or whatever else they want to throw in as if we ever said that you can eat all your calories in the form of a bag of sugar, a tub of lard, and a protein shake.
5 -
formybabies79 wrote: »A calorie is a calorie I think that has been clearly established by all the comments. What’s different are the nutrients. You can eat empty calories or you can fuel your body with the things you eat. You know the saying: you are what you eat. While eating a clean and nutritious diet you fuel your body to function right, have more energy and feel good. I liked that example of a mile being a mile... hey I rather take the mile with umbrella and drink at 75 degree weather than the crawling across glass. Same with your calories... make them count and let them make you feel good. Calories from fiber help you poop, calories from protein help build muscles, calories from orios give you a sugar crash and increase your sugar cravings and that in turn makes it harder to stick to your calorie goal.
I'm going to be pedantic, because I honesty think that there's a persistent misunderstanding that some have re "a calorie is a calorie" meaning that people don't understand that foods are different.
A "calorie" is NOT a synonym for food. It's a measure of the energy value in a food. Calories are fungible; there is no such thing as a "fiber calorie" that your body can distinguish from a "sugar calorie." However, of course your body can tell sugar from fiber.
Thus, when you say "calories from fiber help you poop," that is not correct (although fiber, or some types of fiber, is useful for that purpose for SOME people, depending on overall diet). The CALORIES from the food that contains fiber do not themselves do anything to help with digestive functions or BMs. Do you see the distinction that I am making?
And of course I agree with janejellyroll that eating an Oreo within the context of a healthy diet with adequate everything else will not give me a sugar crash or increase cravings (nor is an Oreo only sugar, it has fat too).
Bigger point is that overall diet is what matters for nutrition. Sure, for some individuals it may be difficult to have a healthy diet if they include certain foods because of individual food issues, but for the most part ANY healthy diet is going to have a mix of foods, some really nutrient dense, some less nutrient dense but providing some things the more nutrient dense food does not, some that help you enjoy a meal that includes lots of nutrient dense foods that happen to taste better when cooked with a little oil or butter, say, or a bit of sugar that makes the rhubarb sauce cook better or, of course, some salt that just adds to the taste of foods when used when cooking. An approach that would eliminate olive oil because it is not in itself nutrient dense and ignore the context and dosage or, similarly, say that a little chocolate is bad because it doesn't measure up to a vegetable when it comes to micros makes no sense to me.
I am curious if this is just misunderstanding or a genuinely different view of nutrition, so I'd actually appreciate some kind of reply here. I'm not just saying this for the sake of it, but hoping to have a conversation. You seem to think that you are disagreeing with people who have said nutrients don't matter, and I don't think anyone has said that, so I am confused by your apparent belief to the contrary.11 -
WinoGelato wrote: »formybabies79 wrote: »A calorie is a calorie I think that has been clearly established by all the comments. What’s different are the nutrients. You can eat empty calories or you can fuel your body with the things you eat. You know the saying: you are what you eat. While eating a clean and nutritious diet you fuel your body to function right, have more energy and feel good. I liked that example of a mile being a mile... hey I rather take the mile with umbrella and drink at 75 degree weather than the crawling across glass. Same with your calories... make them count and let them make you feel good. Calories from fiber help you poop, calories from protein help build muscles, calories from orios give you a sugar crash and increase your sugar cravings and that in turn makes it harder to stick to your calorie goal.
Do you see examples of people saying that nutrition isn't important? If so can you point them out?
What I see in this thread like every other is that calories are all that matter for weight loss, that eating a balanced nutrient dense diet is important for overall health, that satiety varies from person to person, and that context and dosage matters. If I eat a variety of foods with macro and micro nutrients, why is eating two Oreos (which is a serving) within my calorie allotment going to be an issue for me?
I'm just not sure why people feel that this is counter to what is being said in the thread?
Heh, you said much more briefly what I went on and on to say!4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »formybabies79 wrote: »A calorie is a calorie I think that has been clearly established by all the comments. What’s different are the nutrients. You can eat empty calories or you can fuel your body with the things you eat. You know the saying: you are what you eat. While eating a clean and nutritious diet you fuel your body to function right, have more energy and feel good. I liked that example of a mile being a mile... hey I rather take the mile with umbrella and drink at 75 degree weather than the crawling across glass. Same with your calories... make them count and let them make you feel good. Calories from fiber help you poop, calories from protein help build muscles, calories from orios give you a sugar crash and increase your sugar cravings and that in turn makes it harder to stick to your calorie goal.
Do you see examples of people saying that nutrition isn't important? If so can you point them out?
What I see in this thread like every other is that calories are all that matter for weight loss, that eating a balanced nutrient dense diet is important for overall health, that satiety varies from person to person, and that context and dosage matters. If I eat a variety of foods with macro and micro nutrients, why is eating two Oreos (which is a serving) within my calorie allotment going to be an issue for me?
I'm just not sure why people feel that this is counter to what is being said in the thread?
Heh, you said much more briefly what I went on and on to say!
I hope that the poster comes back to discuss why we seem to have this disconnect about what I believe people are saying and what others are interpreting. This is the second time today I've asked for examples of where the gap is coming from. I feel some specifics might help us understand why we are apparently talking past each other.4 -
formybabies79 wrote: »A calorie is a calorie I think that has been clearly established by all the comments. What’s different are the nutrients. You can eat empty calories or you can fuel your body with the things you eat. You know the saying: you are what you eat. While eating a clean and nutritious diet you fuel your body to function right, have more energy and feel good. I liked that example of a mile being a mile... hey I rather take the mile with umbrella and drink at 75 degree weather than the crawling across glass. Same with your calories... make them count and let them make you feel good. Calories from fiber help you poop, calories from protein help build muscles, calories from orios give you a sugar crash and increase your sugar cravings and that in turn makes it harder to stick to your calorie goal.
Maybe they do that to you, but they do not do that to me...6 -
formybabies79 wrote: »A calorie is a calorie I think that has been clearly established by all the comments. What’s different are the nutrients. You can eat empty calories or you can fuel your body with the things you eat. You know the saying: you are what you eat. While eating a clean and nutritious diet you fuel your body to function right, have more energy and feel good. I liked that example of a mile being a mile... hey I rather take the mile with umbrella and drink at 75 degree weather than the crawling across glass. Same with your calories... make them count and let them make you feel good. Calories from fiber help you poop, calories from protein help build muscles, calories from orios give you a sugar crash and increase your sugar cravings and that in turn makes it harder to stick to your calorie goal.
My Oreo calories make me happy, don't cause a sugar crash, and don't make me crave more sugar. I get plenty of fiber, protein, and fat. My bloodwork always comes back great, I lost 20 lbs and have been maintaining a healthy weight for two years. So can you explain why having 2 Oreos for 140 calories after dinner is not optimal?6 -
formybabies79 wrote: »A calorie is a calorie I think that has been clearly established by all the comments. What’s different are the nutrients. You can eat empty calories or you can fuel your body with the things you eat. You know the saying: you are what you eat. While eating a clean and nutritious diet you fuel your body to function right, have more energy and feel good. I liked that example of a mile being a mile... hey I rather take the mile with umbrella and drink at 75 degree weather than the crawling across glass. Same with your calories... make them count and let them make you feel good. Calories from fiber help you poop, calories from protein help build muscles, calories from orios give you a sugar crash and increase your sugar cravings and that in turn makes it harder to stick to your calorie goal.
Not me.
Your comment is a generalization that you've made based on your own experiences, but it's not a fact.4 -
formybabies79 wrote: »A calorie is a calorie I think that has been clearly established by all the comments. What’s different are the nutrients. You can eat empty calories or you can fuel your body with the things you eat. You know the saying: you are what you eat. While eating a clean and nutritious diet you fuel your body to function right, have more energy and feel good. I liked that example of a mile being a mile... hey I rather take the mile with umbrella and drink at 75 degree weather than the crawling across glass. Same with your calories... make them count and let them make you feel good. Calories from fiber help you poop, calories from protein help build muscles, calories from orios give you a sugar crash and increase your sugar cravings and that in turn makes it harder to stick to your calorie goal.
Sorry you have such issues, but that doesn't make it a universal truth. I ate lots of vegetables yesterday, hit my protein macro goal (actually went significantly over it) and still had room for 4 Oreos and a glass of milk after dinner and stayed within my calorie goal. No sugar crash, no cravings afterward. They were delicious!4 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
This is exactly what I meant, if you are hit with feathers they have lower density, hence 10 lbs is not really 10 pounds because technically you wont be hit with them all at once due to their low density. Unless of course they have been compressed to have the same density as a bowling ball in which case, ouch... TLDR; A calorie is not a calories just like a pound is not a pound for the same reason, density...23 -
kelly_stevens81 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
This is exactly what I meant, if you are hit with feathers they have lower density, hence 10 lbs is not really 10 pounds because technically you wont be hit with them all at once due to their low density. Unless of course they have been compressed to have the same density as a bowling ball in which case, ouch... TLDR; A calorie is not a calories just like a pound is not a pound for the same reason, density...
Oh, no.
9 -
kelly_stevens81 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
This is exactly what I meant, if you are hit with feathers they have lower density, hence 10 lbs is not really 10 pounds because technically you wont be hit with them all at once due to their low density. Unless of course they have been compressed to have the same density as a bowling ball in which case, ouch... TLDR; A calorie is not a calories just like a pound is not a pound for the same reason, density...
Speaking in terms of energy balance, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
Speaking in terms of nutrition, individual satiety/adherence, energy levels, workout performance, etc., macronutrient (and micronutrient) balances matter (i.e., how many calories of carbohydrates, fats and protein you're consuming).
I don't see why this is so *kitten* hard to comprehend.12 -
kelly_stevens81 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
This is exactly what I meant, if you are hit with feathers they have lower density, hence 10 lbs is not really 10 pounds because technically you wont be hit with them all at once due to their low density. Unless of course they have been compressed to have the same density as a bowling ball in which case, ouch... TLDR; A calorie is not a calories just like a pound is not a pound for the same reason, density...
Is there a facepalm emoji?9 -
kelly_stevens81 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
This is exactly what I meant, if you are hit with feathers they have lower density, hence 10 lbs is not really 10 pounds because technically you wont be hit with them all at once due to their low density. Unless of course they have been compressed to have the same density as a bowling ball in which case, ouch... TLDR; A calorie is not a calories just like a pound is not a pound for the same reason, density...
I am really not following your analogy. Just like any other strawman argument, I'd rather not be hit by either. Nobody is just going to eat lettuce or just eat Oreos. There is room in a nutritious, calorie appropriate diet for lettuce and Oreos. And no one here is arguing otherwise.
Edited to add: Also, density really doesn't apply to "Is a calorie a calorie". Some foods can be more or less calorie dense, but different calories don't have different densities, right? This thread just keeps getting more desperately weird.7 -
kelly_stevens81 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
This is exactly what I meant, if you are hit with feathers they have lower density, hence 10 lbs is not really 10 pounds because technically you wont be hit with them all at once due to their low density. Unless of course they have been compressed to have the same density as a bowling ball in which case, ouch... TLDR; A calorie is not a calories just like a pound is not a pound for the same reason, density...
Speaking in terms of energy balance, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie.
Speaking in terms of nutrition, individual satiety/adherence, energy levels, workout performance, etc., macronutrient (and micronutrient) balances matter (i.e., how many calories of carbohydrates, fats and protein you're consuming).
I don't see why this is so *kitten* hard to comprehend.
This, this, this, this. End of story.0 -
kelly_stevens81 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
This is exactly what I meant, if you are hit with feathers they have lower density, hence 10 lbs is not really 10 pounds because technically you wont be hit with them all at once due to their low density. Unless of course they have been compressed to have the same density as a bowling ball in which case, ouch... TLDR; A calorie is not a calories just like a pound is not a pound for the same reason, density...
If you're hit with a 10 pound bowling ball it will hurt. If you broke the 10 pound bowling ball into very small pieces and scattered them over a person similar to the feathers it likely would not hurt or hurt less (depending on the velocity of the pieces). Same thing with feathers. Floating down individually, not a big deal. Condensed into a tiny ball the size of a bowling ball and they'll be a whole lot of hurt. A calorie is a calorie and a pound is a pound, but other factors like velocity, density, can change the impact they have.
Either way, it's a metaphor that breaks apart quickly when you try and apply it to calories.13 -
diannethegeek wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
This is exactly what I meant, if you are hit with feathers they have lower density, hence 10 lbs is not really 10 pounds because technically you wont be hit with them all at once due to their low density. Unless of course they have been compressed to have the same density as a bowling ball in which case, ouch... TLDR; A calorie is not a calories just like a pound is not a pound for the same reason, density...
If you're hit with a 10 pound bowling ball it will hurt. If you broke the 10 pound bowling ball into very small pieces and scattered them over a person similar to the feathers it likely would not hurt or hurt less (depending on the velocity of the pieces). Same thing with feathers. Floating down individually, not a big deal. Condensed into a tiny ball the size of a bowling ball and they'll be a whole lot of hurt. A calorie is a calorie and a pound is a pound, but other factors like velocity, density, can change the impact they have.
Either way, it's a metaphor that breaks apart quickly when you try and apply it to calories.
I see what you did there
5 -
diannethegeek wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
This is exactly what I meant, if you are hit with feathers they have lower density, hence 10 lbs is not really 10 pounds because technically you wont be hit with them all at once due to their low density. Unless of course they have been compressed to have the same density as a bowling ball in which case, ouch... TLDR; A calorie is not a calories just like a pound is not a pound for the same reason, density...
If you're hit with a 10 pound bowling ball it will hurt. If you broke the 10 pound bowling ball into very small pieces and scattered them over a person similar to the feathers it likely would not hurt or hurt less (depending on the velocity of the pieces). Same thing with feathers. Floating down individually, not a big deal. Condensed into a tiny ball the size of a bowling ball and they'll be a whole lot of hurt. A calorie is a calorie and a pound is a pound, but other factors like velocity, density, can change the impact they have.
Either way, it's a metaphor that breaks apart quickly when you try and apply it to calories.
I see what you did there
And it was fabulous...4 -
diannethegeek wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
This is exactly what I meant, if you are hit with feathers they have lower density, hence 10 lbs is not really 10 pounds because technically you wont be hit with them all at once due to their low density. Unless of course they have been compressed to have the same density as a bowling ball in which case, ouch... TLDR; A calorie is not a calories just like a pound is not a pound for the same reason, density...
If you're hit with a 10 pound bowling ball it will hurt. If you broke the 10 pound bowling ball into very small pieces and scattered them over a person similar to the feathers it likely would not hurt or hurt less (depending on the velocity of the pieces). Same thing with feathers. Floating down individually, not a big deal. Condensed into a tiny ball the size of a bowling ball and they'll be a whole lot of hurt. A calorie is a calorie and a pound is a pound, but other factors like velocity, density, can change the impact they have.
Either way, it's a metaphor that breaks apart quickly when you try and apply it to calories.
I see what you did there
And it was fabulous...
Agreed.1 -
kelly_stevens81 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »moosmum1972 wrote: »kelly_stevens81 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »A calorie is a calorie. Like an inch is an inch and a pound is a pound.
TBH though Id rather get hit by 10 pounds of feathers in a pillowcase than 10 pounds of bowling balls...
Why?
Because of a lack of understanding of physics.
The reason a 10 lb pillow seems less threatening than a 10 lb bowling ball is because not all ten pounds of feathers will make simultaneous impact like the bowling ball will.
Replace the pillowcase with something that will compact the feathers into a tight ball so that the sponginess is lost (meaning that the entire 10 lbs of feathers will make simultaneous impact) and it isn’t fun anymore.
When you compare getting hit with a ten pound bowling ball to a ten pound pillow, you’re really comparing ten pounds of bowling ball to a couple ounces (if that) of feathers, because that’s all that’s going to make impact at once. The rest of the feathers hit you later.
It’s like saying I’d rather take ten bites out of a ten pound bowl of lettuce rather than eat an entire jar of peanut butter.
No duh, it’s because you don’t have to eat it all.
That actually may shed some light on why people try to compare 1,000 calories of lettuce to 1,000 calories of [insert favorite junk food].
It’s because they know they ain’t gonna eat no 1,000 calories of lettuce. That, to me, further proves the point that it’s all about how many calories you eat.
If eating lettuce means you eat fewer calories, that’s why eating lettuce works for you.
It has nothing to do with the calories in lettuce being better than the calories in Oreos.
This is exactly what I meant, if you are hit with feathers they have lower density, hence 10 lbs is not really 10 pounds because technically you wont be hit with them all at once due to their low density. Unless of course they have been compressed to have the same density as a bowling ball in which case, ouch... TLDR; A calorie is not a calories just like a pound is not a pound for the same reason, density...
It's amazing how people can just ignore the entire point and fish out whatever they want to believe, even though that wasn't what was said.7 -
Reading into your question I think you are asking if the calories from different food sources are the same.
The answer is "no".
Rather than type out a long answer, just read this:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie
19 -
Reading into your question I think you are asking if the calories from different food sources are the same.
The answer is "no".
Rather than type out a long answer, just read this:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie
Or, you know... read the 8 PAGE THREAD THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
15 -
Reading into your question I think you are asking if the calories from different food sources are the same.
The answer is "no".
Rather than type out a long answer, just read this:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie
Reading into your question I think you are asking if the calories from different food sources are the same.
The answer is "no" "yes".
Rather than type out a long answer, just read the answers already supplied in the thread.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/6-reasons-why-a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie .8 -
I think people take internet blogs/articles etc more seriously than average Joe's opinions/references on an internet forum...2
-
How come some people can pick up a 10lb pack of copying paper with no problem, but can't pick up a 10lb dumbbell?1
-
See, I think the calories from Oreo's are yucky. They are totally different from the calories in potato chips.
<<runs and hides under desk>>13 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »See, I think the calories from Oreo's are yucky. They are totally different from the calories in potato chips.
<<runs and hides under desk>>
Shut up.
Now I wouldn't argue with: An Oreo is a nice counterpoint to some salty potato chips, all washed down with a beer. #truefacts6 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »See, I think the calories from Oreo's are yucky. They are totally different from the calories in potato chips.
<<runs and hides under desk>>
I also think Oreo calories are yucky. And before any of you Oreo fans condemn me, just remember this; if there is ever a Nuclear/Zombie/Sharknado Apocalypse, it just means more Oreos for you.
3 -
cmriverside wrote: »How come some people can pick up a 10lb pack of copying paper with no problem, but can't pick up a 10lb dumbbell?
*Raises hand* "Because a 10lb dumbbell is heavier than a 10lb ream of paper "
LMAO
Please don't hate me.3 -
I ate a lot of potato chips today. Salt erases calories, though. It's only water weight. The potassium causes the fat to go out in my pee.
*nods*
Also, if you eat broken Oreos it's okay, the calories leak out.
^^previously read on MFP.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions