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
-
Tacklewasher wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »
No, all calories are not created equal the same way that a pound of cement is not the same as a pound of feathers. Calories from junk food are not the same as calories from clean whole foods. your body just uses them differently.UltraVegBabe wrote: »I’m just curious if anybody has any links to a scientific article or journal talking about calories in terms of if 100 calories of apples is equal to 100 calories of oreos.
I was debating this in my head while reading some other discussions. Depending on what I eat, how hungry I am, and how active I am, I eat between 1700-3000 calories. On average it’s around 2000. My calories only come from whole fruits and vegetables. I’m just thinking...I don’t think a calorie really equals a calorie because the body uses the food differently. White bread vs Sweet Potato, PB2 vs Almond Butter, Cane sugar vs Dates, Faux Chicken vs spinach, etc etc
Are you denying they're both a pound?
Oh god, please don't. Was hoping this comment would fly under the radar.
4 -
Synecdoche. Synecdoche. Synecdoche
Gonna keep sayin' it; ain't gonna change a thing. Well, maybe it'll let me keep reading for laffs and kittez without my head exploding. It's like my modern mantra. Wait, that's a different thread, isn't it?5 -
myinsbroker wrote: »
» show previous quotes
I eat less calories over all because the calories I changed to gave me more energy that last longer and also no longer binge eat because the calories I eat now fulfill me, So I am not starving any more
It's been said, but, as a calorie IS a unit of energy, you cannot argue that a calorie, from different sources provides more or less energy.
One calorie of food delivers one calorie of energy.
1 -
Ok but the point is If someone is new and dont know what is what.diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »Not sure what you mean a calories is a unit of measure in energy
If you have 300 calories in pure suger vrs 300 calories in complex carbs you will have difrent longevity of energy
that would be like going to the Indy 500 with a beat up old car because a car is a car
Maybe come back when you have an understanding of what 'energy' is (in the sense of 'energy balance', which is what defines how weight is lost or gained) and it will make more sense to you.
I do now, The point is at one time I didn't, I looked for advise from those that are supposed to be experts. to say a calorie is a calorie and then say well you need to learn physics is ridiculous.
I am not going to sell and Insurance policy without breaking it down to an understandable language that people can understand in a practical real world way
Same way giving that advice to a person new to losing weight is harmful
and that's the last I will say on it
We're saying that because there are multiple types of energy. And you are confusing two of them. You are telling us we aren't correct because you aren't understanding the terms we are using. But you don't want to talk about it anymore so it is what it is I guess :drinker:
Because I don't really want to argue or make everyone angry and I can see this is going nowhere
All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
I didnt get it here when I was told this it was from my heart doctor well before I seen this forum. All I am saying is that blanket advice took me from 320lbs to 360 lbs and a lot of pain struggling with binging.
I have since went to the internet becuase I was 368 and learned how to eat right. Now I am at 305
I know see this same blanket statement on this forum and all I want is for the next person to not be misled. I am not trying to start a fight I just know the pain I have had over it and dont want to see others do the same, That is all
...but...but...myinsbroker wrote:and that's the last I will say on it
You lost weight because your caloric intake was less than your caloric output. How is this confusing?
My calorie intake is less because the calories I take in work better
To elaborate. You ate "better" (whatever "better" is to you) which more than likely means you were eating more less calorie dense foods and less of the heavy calorie dense foods than you were eating before.
Which means *DRUM ROLL* - you were eating less calories and therefore by the powers of SCIENCE, I deem you were eating less calories (regardless of calorie origins) and therefore lost weight because you were eating less than was required to maintain your weight.
I eat less calories over all because the calories I changed to gave me more energy that last longer and also no longer binge eat because the calories I eat now fulfill me, So I am not starving any more
If you took the word "calories" out of this statement and replaced it with "foods" I doubt that you'd get any pushback. The foods you chose sustain you longer and help your hunger levels. That's never been in doubt. I've said that already in this thread at least a couple of times to you. Foods are different and have different effects on the body. That's true. Period. End of statement. But it's not because the calories are different. Calories are not synonymous with food. Calories are not synonymous with nutrients.
It's like saying you switched to spinach instead of iceburg lettuce because the color green isn't always green. Green is green. But spinach comes with different nutrients than iceburg. It's the nutrients that are different not the calories.
Do you think they will automaticly know that without being educated, Thats my piont When the average person who is not as knowledgable in this are hears a calorie in just a calorie, Like my Doc said dont worry about what foods you eat just cap your calories.
Hell all I knew hearing that was cut calories I went to the supermarket and baught all sorts of things diet. It turned out real bad for me
Poiint is most times when you hear a calorie is just a calorie there is not dosclaimer or explination,
This might not make as much a dif when someone is just trying to lose 50 lbs or so but trying to lose more then 150 lbs makes a big dif
9 -
myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »Not sure what you mean a calories is a unit of measure in energy
If you have 300 calories in pure suger vrs 300 calories in complex carbs you will have difrent longevity of energy
that would be like going to the Indy 500 with a beat up old car because a car is a car
Maybe come back when you have an understanding of what 'energy' is (in the sense of 'energy balance', which is what defines how weight is lost or gained) and it will make more sense to you.
I do now, The point is at one time I didn't, I looked for advise from those that are supposed to be experts. to say a calorie is a calorie and then say well you need to learn physics is ridiculous.
I am not going to sell and Insurance policy without breaking it down to an understandable language that people can understand in a practical real world way
Same way giving that advice to a person new to losing weight is harmful
and that's the last I will say on it
We're saying that because there are multiple types of energy. And you are confusing two of them. You are telling us we aren't correct because you aren't understanding the terms we are using. But you don't want to talk about it anymore so it is what it is I guess :drinker:
Because I don't really want to argue or make everyone angry and I can see this is going nowhere
All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
I didnt get it here when I was told this it was from my heart doctor well before I seen this forum. All I am saying is that blanket advice took me from 320lbs to 360 lbs and a lot of pain struggling with binging.
I have since went to the internet becuase I was 368 and learned how to eat right. Now I am at 305
I know see this same blanket statement on this forum and all I want is for the next person to not be misled. I am not trying to start a fight I just know the pain I have had over it and dont want to see others do the same, That is all
Have you read this thread in it's entirety?
Have you read the stickied Most Helpful Forum Posts?
I am guessing the answer is no - so let me just quickly summarize some key points for you that are discussed in this thread and so many others.
Calories are a unit of energy. The definition has been provided above. They are fundamental to the energy balance which drives weight management, commonly abbreviated as CICO. If your calories in are less than your calories out, you will lose weight. When people use the term energy, and calories, they are not talking about feeling energized - or having energy - other than in the fundamental sense that if you don't consume enough total calories, your body will not have enough energy to sustain it's biophysical functions.**
In order to lose weight, a person needs to be in a calorie deficit. That is immutable, it is basic thermodynamics.
In order to be healthy, nutrition is important. This comes from macro and micro nutrients and has nothing to do with calories. A food can be calorie dense, and not offer much in the way of nutrients, or it can be calorie dense and very nutritious. Similarly, there are low calorie foods that are nutritious and low calorie foods that provide little in the way of macro and micronutrients. See why it's important not to confuse those things?
In order to find a sustainable approach - it's important to eat foods that provide you satiety when eating at a calorie deficit. Sounds like that's what you were missing in your failed attempts at weight loss, you cut calories, but didn't eat satiating foods. Many people, when they experience similar, look at the types of foods they are eating and make adjustments -but what is satiating is very individualized. Some people find fat satiating, others carbs, me personally I find a balance of protein, fat and carbs at most meals is what helps keep me going.
The fact that you've misinterpreted what "a calorie is a calorie" means, doesn't negate the fact that calories truly are a unit of energy. You've adjusted the other two factors I mention - nutrition and satiety - and are now able to keep your energy balance tilted in favor of weight loss, your CI<CO.
** I have to admit, for how redundant this thread is and how many times the same basic concepts have to be explained -I've never heard someone mistakenly conflating energy from calories with the energy you have to live life. So that at least is a new one for me...
11 -
Here is my example. Not that it will help much as it seems that some people still don't understand the basics.
It does not matter what the calories are made from 400 calories is still 400 calories.
The nutrient content does not change the amount of calories in 400 calories
The nutrient content does not change the weight loss/gain effect of eating 400 calories
The nutrient content may change how you feel after you have eaten 400 calories but that does not mean that the calories themselves have changed in any way because a calorie is a measurement of energy in the food not a measurement of quality of that food.
14 -
Synecdoche. Synecdoche. Synecdoche
Gonna keep sayin' it; ain't gonna change a thing. Well, maybe it'll let me keep reading for laffs and kittez without my head exploding. It's like my modern mantra. Wait, that's a different thread, isn't it?
I honestly have no idea what your point is other than that you're laughing at us? I guess that's the MFP way.2 -
myinsbroker wrote: »
Ok but the point is If someone is new and dont know what is what.diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »Not sure what you mean a calories is a unit of measure in energy
If you have 300 calories in pure suger vrs 300 calories in complex carbs you will have difrent longevity of energy
that would be like going to the Indy 500 with a beat up old car because a car is a car
Maybe come back when you have an understanding of what 'energy' is (in the sense of 'energy balance', which is what defines how weight is lost or gained) and it will make more sense to you.
I do now, The point is at one time I didn't, I looked for advise from those that are supposed to be experts. to say a calorie is a calorie and then say well you need to learn physics is ridiculous.
I am not going to sell and Insurance policy without breaking it down to an understandable language that people can understand in a practical real world way
Same way giving that advice to a person new to losing weight is harmful
and that's the last I will say on it
We're saying that because there are multiple types of energy. And you are confusing two of them. You are telling us we aren't correct because you aren't understanding the terms we are using. But you don't want to talk about it anymore so it is what it is I guess :drinker:
Because I don't really want to argue or make everyone angry and I can see this is going nowhere
All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
I didnt get it here when I was told this it was from my heart doctor well before I seen this forum. All I am saying is that blanket advice took me from 320lbs to 360 lbs and a lot of pain struggling with binging.
I have since went to the internet becuase I was 368 and learned how to eat right. Now I am at 305
I know see this same blanket statement on this forum and all I want is for the next person to not be misled. I am not trying to start a fight I just know the pain I have had over it and dont want to see others do the same, That is all
...but...but...myinsbroker wrote:and that's the last I will say on it
You lost weight because your caloric intake was less than your caloric output. How is this confusing?
My calorie intake is less because the calories I take in work better
To elaborate. You ate "better" (whatever "better" is to you) which more than likely means you were eating more less calorie dense foods and less of the heavy calorie dense foods than you were eating before.
Which means *DRUM ROLL* - you were eating less calories and therefore by the powers of SCIENCE, I deem you were eating less calories (regardless of calorie origins) and therefore lost weight because you were eating less than was required to maintain your weight.
I eat less calories over all because the calories I changed to gave me more energy that last longer and also no longer binge eat because the calories I eat now fulfill me, So I am not starving any more
If you took the word "calories" out of this statement and replaced it with "foods" I doubt that you'd get any pushback. The foods you chose sustain you longer and help your hunger levels. That's never been in doubt. I've said that already in this thread at least a couple of times to you. Foods are different and have different effects on the body. That's true. Period. End of statement. But it's not because the calories are different. Calories are not synonymous with food. Calories are not synonymous with nutrients.
It's like saying you switched to spinach instead of iceburg lettuce because the color green isn't always green. Green is green. But spinach comes with different nutrients than iceburg. It's the nutrients that are different not the calories.
Do you think they will automaticly know that without being educated, Thats my piont When the average person who is not as knowledgable in this are hears a calorie in just a calorie, Like my Doc said dont worry about what foods you eat just cap your calories.
Hell all I knew hearing that was cut calories I went to the supermarket and baught all sorts of things diet. It turned out real bad for me
Poiint is most times when you hear a calorie is just a calorie there is not dosclaimer or explination,
This might not make as much a dif when someone is just trying to lose 50 lbs or so but trying to lose more then 150 lbs makes a big dif
Which is why again, if a person had read through this thread, or the stickied most helpful forum posts, they would have much of this information at hand since it is covered in EVERY SINGLE THREAD on this topic.
You didn't bother to read it, or try to understand it, just immediately jumped to the same conclusion that everyone else does which is that calories, food, energy, nutrition and satiety are words that can be used interchangeably. That is on YOU, not on the rest of us.
Here is a link to one of those great sticked threads - I recommend you spend some time familiarizing yourself with the various threads it references...
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10260499/i-like-old-posts-and-i-cannot-lie/p14 -
manderson27 wrote: »
Here is my example. Not that it will help much as it seems that some people still don't understand the basics.
It does not matter what the calories are made from 400 calories is still 400 calories.
The nutrient content does not change the amount of calories in 400 calories
The nutrient content does not change the weight loss/gain effect of eating 400 calories
The nutrient content may change how you feel after you have eaten 400 calories but that does not mean that the calories themselves have changed in any way because a calorie is a measurement of energy in the food not a measurement of quality of that food.
6 -
myinsbroker wrote: »All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
Again, what is a calorie then?
5 -
PikaJoyJoy wrote: »manderson27 wrote: »
Here is my example. Not that it will help much as it seems that some people still don't understand the basics.
It does not matter what the calories are made from 400 calories is still 400 calories.
The nutrient content does not change the amount of calories in 400 calories
The nutrient content does not change the weight loss/gain effect of eating 400 calories
The nutrient content may change how you feel after you have eaten 400 calories but that does not mean that the calories themselves have changed in any way because a calorie is a measurement of energy in the food not a measurement of quality of that food.
2 -
myinsbroker wrote: »
Ok but the point is If someone is new and dont know what is what.diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »Not sure what you mean a calories is a unit of measure in energy
If you have 300 calories in pure suger vrs 300 calories in complex carbs you will have difrent longevity of energy
that would be like going to the Indy 500 with a beat up old car because a car is a car
Maybe come back when you have an understanding of what 'energy' is (in the sense of 'energy balance', which is what defines how weight is lost or gained) and it will make more sense to you.
I do now, The point is at one time I didn't, I looked for advise from those that are supposed to be experts. to say a calorie is a calorie and then say well you need to learn physics is ridiculous.
I am not going to sell and Insurance policy without breaking it down to an understandable language that people can understand in a practical real world way
Same way giving that advice to a person new to losing weight is harmful
and that's the last I will say on it
We're saying that because there are multiple types of energy. And you are confusing two of them. You are telling us we aren't correct because you aren't understanding the terms we are using. But you don't want to talk about it anymore so it is what it is I guess :drinker:
Because I don't really want to argue or make everyone angry and I can see this is going nowhere
All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
I didnt get it here when I was told this it was from my heart doctor well before I seen this forum. All I am saying is that blanket advice took me from 320lbs to 360 lbs and a lot of pain struggling with binging.
I have since went to the internet becuase I was 368 and learned how to eat right. Now I am at 305
I know see this same blanket statement on this forum and all I want is for the next person to not be misled. I am not trying to start a fight I just know the pain I have had over it and dont want to see others do the same, That is all
...but...but...myinsbroker wrote:and that's the last I will say on it
You lost weight because your caloric intake was less than your caloric output. How is this confusing?
My calorie intake is less because the calories I take in work better
To elaborate. You ate "better" (whatever "better" is to you) which more than likely means you were eating more less calorie dense foods and less of the heavy calorie dense foods than you were eating before.
Which means *DRUM ROLL* - you were eating less calories and therefore by the powers of SCIENCE, I deem you were eating less calories (regardless of calorie origins) and therefore lost weight because you were eating less than was required to maintain your weight.
I eat less calories over all because the calories I changed to gave me more energy that last longer and also no longer binge eat because the calories I eat now fulfill me, So I am not starving any more
If you took the word "calories" out of this statement and replaced it with "foods" I doubt that you'd get any pushback. The foods you chose sustain you longer and help your hunger levels. That's never been in doubt. I've said that already in this thread at least a couple of times to you. Foods are different and have different effects on the body. That's true. Period. End of statement. But it's not because the calories are different. Calories are not synonymous with food. Calories are not synonymous with nutrients.
It's like saying you switched to spinach instead of iceburg lettuce because the color green isn't always green. Green is green. But spinach comes with different nutrients than iceburg. It's the nutrients that are different not the calories.
Do you think they will automaticly know that without being educated, Thats my piont When the average person who is not as knowledgable in this are hears a calorie in just a calorie, Like my Doc said dont worry about what foods you eat just cap your calories.
Hell all I knew hearing that was cut calories I went to the supermarket and baught all sorts of things diet. It turned out real bad for me
Poiint is most times when you hear a calorie is just a calorie there is not dosclaimer or explination,
This might not make as much a dif when someone is just trying to lose 50 lbs or so but trying to lose more then 150 lbs makes a big dif
I try to give advice to at least 10 threads a day. I try to type out nuanced and specific posts on my cell phone if I'm away from my computer and see a post that's in my area of interest. I try to go through diaries and food choices with people. I fail most of the time, and instead I typed up and saved two nuanced, generalized posts for hunger problems and plateau threads. Even those, specific bulleted lists are overlooked, ignored, wooed, called spam, and often cannot possibly be nuanced enough to help a specific poster.
We're all giving the advice we can give. Often on the fly. Often hoping that someone else can chime in and add more details. And we're often told that we're the mean and nasty ones with a new person gets frustrated with us because we can't hold their hand and be the trained dietitian they all want.
You found your way. I'm truly very glad of that. But if you cannot forgive us for trying to give newbies the very most fundamental rules of weight loss first, before we overload them with too many options, then I fear there is nothing left to say.10 -
myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »Not sure what you mean a calories is a unit of measure in energy
If you have 300 calories in pure suger vrs 300 calories in complex carbs you will have difrent longevity of energy
that would be like going to the Indy 500 with a beat up old car because a car is a car
Maybe come back when you have an understanding of what 'energy' is (in the sense of 'energy balance', which is what defines how weight is lost or gained) and it will make more sense to you.
I do now, The point is at one time I didn't, I looked for advise from those that are supposed to be experts. to say a calorie is a calorie and then say well you need to learn physics is ridiculous.
I am not going to sell and Insurance policy without breaking it down to an understandable language that people can understand in a practical real world way
Same way giving that advice to a person new to losing weight is harmful
and that's the last I will say on it
We're saying that because there are multiple types of energy. And you are confusing two of them. You are telling us we aren't correct because you aren't understanding the terms we are using. But you don't want to talk about it anymore so it is what it is I guess :drinker:
Because I don't really want to argue or make everyone angry and I can see this is going nowhere
All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
I didnt get it here when I was told this it was from my heart doctor well before I seen this forum. All I am saying is that blanket advice took me from 320lbs to 360 lbs and a lot of pain struggling with binging.
I have since went to the internet becuase I was 368 and learned how to eat right. Now I am at 305
I know see this same blanket statement on this forum and all I want is for the next person to not be misled. I am not trying to start a fight I just know the pain I have had over it and dont want to see others do the same, That is all
...but...but...myinsbroker wrote:and that's the last I will say on it
You lost weight because your caloric intake was less than your caloric output. How is this confusing?
My calorie intake is less because the calories I take in work better
Your calorie intake is less because your calorie intake is less...6 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Synecdoche. Synecdoche. Synecdoche
Gonna keep sayin' it; ain't gonna change a thing. Well, maybe it'll let me keep reading for laffs and kittez without my head exploding. It's like my modern mantra. Wait, that's a different thread, isn't it?
I honestly have no idea what your point is other than that you're laughing at us? I guess that's the MFP way.
IMO it's the root of the communication problem here.
"A calorie is not a calorie" is using synecdoche.
Two of our very frequent tail-chasing thread topics here are "a calorie is/isn't a calorie" and "muscle is heavier than fat". Both involve miscommunication that involves conflicting uses of language. Much of the disagreement revolves around either or both sides of the argument not being willing (or not being able) to recognize what the other side is trying to communicate, but instead focusing on the words with which they say it.
Edited: typo, missing phrase3 -
@diannethegeek You have the patience of a saint and I for one have learned a lot from your posts. I am sure many many other users have also benefitted from your help.
MFP would be a poorer place without you. Please don't stop.
8 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Synecdoche. Synecdoche. Synecdoche
Gonna keep sayin' it; ain't gonna change a thing. Well, maybe it'll let me keep reading for laffs and kittez without my head exploding. It's like my modern mantra. Wait, that's a different thread, isn't it?
I honestly have no idea what your point is other than that you're laughing at us? I guess that's the MFP way.
P.S. Not laughing at you, or other individuals, not even a little. Laughing at the overall twists and turns of the thread, though. It's like freestyle folk dancing, only words instead of movement.3 -
-
diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »
Ok but the point is If someone is new and dont know what is what.diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »Not sure what you mean a calories is a unit of measure in energy
If you have 300 calories in pure suger vrs 300 calories in complex carbs you will have difrent longevity of energy
that would be like going to the Indy 500 with a beat up old car because a car is a car
Maybe come back when you have an understanding of what 'energy' is (in the sense of 'energy balance', which is what defines how weight is lost or gained) and it will make more sense to you.
I do now, The point is at one time I didn't, I looked for advise from those that are supposed to be experts. to say a calorie is a calorie and then say well you need to learn physics is ridiculous.
I am not going to sell and Insurance policy without breaking it down to an understandable language that people can understand in a practical real world way
Same way giving that advice to a person new to losing weight is harmful
and that's the last I will say on it
We're saying that because there are multiple types of energy. And you are confusing two of them. You are telling us we aren't correct because you aren't understanding the terms we are using. But you don't want to talk about it anymore so it is what it is I guess :drinker:
Because I don't really want to argue or make everyone angry and I can see this is going nowhere
All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
I didnt get it here when I was told this it was from my heart doctor well before I seen this forum. All I am saying is that blanket advice took me from 320lbs to 360 lbs and a lot of pain struggling with binging.
I have since went to the internet becuase I was 368 and learned how to eat right. Now I am at 305
I know see this same blanket statement on this forum and all I want is for the next person to not be misled. I am not trying to start a fight I just know the pain I have had over it and dont want to see others do the same, That is all
...but...but...myinsbroker wrote:and that's the last I will say on it
You lost weight because your caloric intake was less than your caloric output. How is this confusing?
My calorie intake is less because the calories I take in work better
To elaborate. You ate "better" (whatever "better" is to you) which more than likely means you were eating more less calorie dense foods and less of the heavy calorie dense foods than you were eating before.
Which means *DRUM ROLL* - you were eating less calories and therefore by the powers of SCIENCE, I deem you were eating less calories (regardless of calorie origins) and therefore lost weight because you were eating less than was required to maintain your weight.
I eat less calories over all because the calories I changed to gave me more energy that last longer and also no longer binge eat because the calories I eat now fulfill me, So I am not starving any more
If you took the word "calories" out of this statement and replaced it with "foods" I doubt that you'd get any pushback. The foods you chose sustain you longer and help your hunger levels. That's never been in doubt. I've said that already in this thread at least a couple of times to you. Foods are different and have different effects on the body. That's true. Period. End of statement. But it's not because the calories are different. Calories are not synonymous with food. Calories are not synonymous with nutrients.
It's like saying you switched to spinach instead of iceburg lettuce because the color green isn't always green. Green is green. But spinach comes with different nutrients than iceburg. It's the nutrients that are different not the calories.
Do you think they will automaticly know that without being educated, Thats my piont When the average person who is not as knowledgable in this are hears a calorie in just a calorie, Like my Doc said dont worry about what foods you eat just cap your calories.
Hell all I knew hearing that was cut calories I went to the supermarket and baught all sorts of things diet. It turned out real bad for me
Poiint is most times when you hear a calorie is just a calorie there is not dosclaimer or explination,
This might not make as much a dif when someone is just trying to lose 50 lbs or so but trying to lose more then 150 lbs makes a big dif
I try to give advice to at least 10 threads a day. I try to type out nuanced and specific posts on my cell phone if I'm away from my computer and see a post that's in my area of interest. I try to go through diaries and food choices with people. I fail most of the time, and instead I typed up and saved two nuanced, generalized posts for hunger problems and plateau threads. Even those, specific bulleted lists are overlooked, ignored, wooed, called spam, and often cannot possibly be nuanced enough to help a specific poster.
We're all giving the advice we can give. Often on the fly. Often hoping that someone else can chime in and add more details. And we're often told that we're the mean and nasty ones with a new person gets frustrated with us because we can't hold their hand and be the trained dietitian they all want.
You found your way. I'm truly very glad of that. But if you cannot forgive us for trying to give newbies the very most fundamental rules of weight loss first, before we overload them with too many options, then I fear there is nothing left to say.
1 -
I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
13 -
So we have a good troll, why is everyone actually treating this person like they are sincere?5
-
myinsbroker wrote: »I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
You've seen it multiple times, but I be tin the context of "Can I eat XX and still lose weight?" and people say "yes, calories are what matter for weight loss". HOWEVER, it's almost invariable followed up about how macros and nutrients are important for health and satiety.2 -
myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »Not sure what you mean a calories is a unit of measure in energy
If you have 300 calories in pure suger vrs 300 calories in complex carbs you will have difrent longevity of energy
that would be like going to the Indy 500 with a beat up old car because a car is a car
Maybe come back when you have an understanding of what 'energy' is (in the sense of 'energy balance', which is what defines how weight is lost or gained) and it will make more sense to you.
I do now, The point is at one time I didn't, I looked for advise from those that are supposed to be experts. to say a calorie is a calorie and then say well you need to learn physics is ridiculous.
I am not going to sell and Insurance policy without breaking it down to an understandable language that people can understand in a practical real world way
Same way giving that advice to a person new to losing weight is harmful
and that's the last I will say on it
We're saying that because there are multiple types of energy. And you are confusing two of them. You are telling us we aren't correct because you aren't understanding the terms we are using. But you don't want to talk about it anymore so it is what it is I guess :drinker:
Because I don't really want to argue or make everyone angry and I can see this is going nowhere
All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
I didnt get it here when I was told this it was from my heart doctor well before I seen this forum. All I am saying is that blanket advice took me from 320lbs to 360 lbs and a lot of pain struggling with binging.
I have since went to the internet becuase I was 368 and learned how to eat right. Now I am at 305
I know see this same blanket statement on this forum and all I want is for the next person to not be misled. I am not trying to start a fight I just know the pain I have had over it and dont want to see others do the same, That is all
...but...but...myinsbroker wrote:and that's the last I will say on it
You lost weight because your caloric intake was less than your caloric output. How is this confusing?
My calorie intake is less because the calories I take in work better
Your calorie intake is less because your calorie intake is less...myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »Not sure what you mean a calories is a unit of measure in energy
If you have 300 calories in pure suger vrs 300 calories in complex carbs you will have difrent longevity of energy
that would be like going to the Indy 500 with a beat up old car because a car is a car
Maybe come back when you have an understanding of what 'energy' is (in the sense of 'energy balance', which is what defines how weight is lost or gained) and it will make more sense to you.
I do now, The point is at one time I didn't, I looked for advise from those that are supposed to be experts. to say a calorie is a calorie and then say well you need to learn physics is ridiculous.
I am not going to sell and Insurance policy without breaking it down to an understandable language that people can understand in a practical real world way
Same way giving that advice to a person new to losing weight is harmful
and that's the last I will say on it
We're saying that because there are multiple types of energy. And you are confusing two of them. You are telling us we aren't correct because you aren't understanding the terms we are using. But you don't want to talk about it anymore so it is what it is I guess :drinker:
Because I don't really want to argue or make everyone angry and I can see this is going nowhere
All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
I didnt get it here when I was told this it was from my heart doctor well before I seen this forum. All I am saying is that blanket advice took me from 320lbs to 360 lbs and a lot of pain struggling with binging.
I have since went to the internet becuase I was 368 and learned how to eat right. Now I am at 305
I know see this same blanket statement on this forum and all I want is for the next person to not be misled. I am not trying to start a fight I just know the pain I have had over it and dont want to see others do the same, That is all
...but...but...myinsbroker wrote:and that's the last I will say on it
You lost weight because your caloric intake was less than your caloric output. How is this confusing?
My calorie intake is less because the calories I take in work better
Your calorie intake is less because your calorie intake is less...
Just by osmosis right
All I needed to do was wait for osmosis to begin9 -
myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »Not sure what you mean a calories is a unit of measure in energy
If you have 300 calories in pure suger vrs 300 calories in complex carbs you will have difrent longevity of energy
that would be like going to the Indy 500 with a beat up old car because a car is a car
Maybe come back when you have an understanding of what 'energy' is (in the sense of 'energy balance', which is what defines how weight is lost or gained) and it will make more sense to you.
I do now, The point is at one time I didn't, I looked for advise from those that are supposed to be experts. to say a calorie is a calorie and then say well you need to learn physics is ridiculous.
I am not going to sell and Insurance policy without breaking it down to an understandable language that people can understand in a practical real world way
Same way giving that advice to a person new to losing weight is harmful
and that's the last I will say on it
We're saying that because there are multiple types of energy. And you are confusing two of them. You are telling us we aren't correct because you aren't understanding the terms we are using. But you don't want to talk about it anymore so it is what it is I guess :drinker:
Because I don't really want to argue or make everyone angry and I can see this is going nowhere
All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
I didnt get it here when I was told this it was from my heart doctor well before I seen this forum. All I am saying is that blanket advice took me from 320lbs to 360 lbs and a lot of pain struggling with binging.
I have since went to the internet becuase I was 368 and learned how to eat right. Now I am at 305
I know see this same blanket statement on this forum and all I want is for the next person to not be misled. I am not trying to start a fight I just know the pain I have had over it and dont want to see others do the same, That is all
...but...but...myinsbroker wrote:and that's the last I will say on it
You lost weight because your caloric intake was less than your caloric output. How is this confusing?
My calorie intake is less because the calories I take in work better
Your calorie intake is less because your calorie intake is less...myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »Not sure what you mean a calories is a unit of measure in energy
If you have 300 calories in pure suger vrs 300 calories in complex carbs you will have difrent longevity of energy
that would be like going to the Indy 500 with a beat up old car because a car is a car
Maybe come back when you have an understanding of what 'energy' is (in the sense of 'energy balance', which is what defines how weight is lost or gained) and it will make more sense to you.
I do now, The point is at one time I didn't, I looked for advise from those that are supposed to be experts. to say a calorie is a calorie and then say well you need to learn physics is ridiculous.
I am not going to sell and Insurance policy without breaking it down to an understandable language that people can understand in a practical real world way
Same way giving that advice to a person new to losing weight is harmful
and that's the last I will say on it
We're saying that because there are multiple types of energy. And you are confusing two of them. You are telling us we aren't correct because you aren't understanding the terms we are using. But you don't want to talk about it anymore so it is what it is I guess :drinker:
Because I don't really want to argue or make everyone angry and I can see this is going nowhere
All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
I didnt get it here when I was told this it was from my heart doctor well before I seen this forum. All I am saying is that blanket advice took me from 320lbs to 360 lbs and a lot of pain struggling with binging.
I have since went to the internet becuase I was 368 and learned how to eat right. Now I am at 305
I know see this same blanket statement on this forum and all I want is for the next person to not be misled. I am not trying to start a fight I just know the pain I have had over it and dont want to see others do the same, That is all
...but...but...myinsbroker wrote:and that's the last I will say on it
You lost weight because your caloric intake was less than your caloric output. How is this confusing?
My calorie intake is less because the calories I take in work better
Your calorie intake is less because your calorie intake is less...
Just by osmosis right
All I needed to do was wait for osmosis to begin
What? How can you go through the posts we've had here and get to osmosis as the reason you lost weight?3 -
myinsbroker wrote: »I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
Point us to a thread where the concept of a calorie is a calorie is stated that does not include, in the post itself or in those posts on the same page, that nutrition and satiety are also important. You say this is common place then he shouldn't be hard to find.4 -
myinsbroker wrote: »I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
Did you post more context in any of these multiple posts you've seen? Or did you decide all the newbies were most likely to hang out in the debate forum rather than having it blocked?5 -
myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »Not sure what you mean a calories is a unit of measure in energy
If you have 300 calories in pure suger vrs 300 calories in complex carbs you will have difrent longevity of energy
that would be like going to the Indy 500 with a beat up old car because a car is a car
Maybe come back when you have an understanding of what 'energy' is (in the sense of 'energy balance', which is what defines how weight is lost or gained) and it will make more sense to you.
I do now, The point is at one time I didn't, I looked for advise from those that are supposed to be experts. to say a calorie is a calorie and then say well you need to learn physics is ridiculous.
I am not going to sell and Insurance policy without breaking it down to an understandable language that people can understand in a practical real world way
Same way giving that advice to a person new to losing weight is harmful
and that's the last I will say on it
We're saying that because there are multiple types of energy. And you are confusing two of them. You are telling us we aren't correct because you aren't understanding the terms we are using. But you don't want to talk about it anymore so it is what it is I guess :drinker:
Because I don't really want to argue or make everyone angry and I can see this is going nowhere
All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
I didnt get it here when I was told this it was from my heart doctor well before I seen this forum. All I am saying is that blanket advice took me from 320lbs to 360 lbs and a lot of pain struggling with binging.
I have since went to the internet becuase I was 368 and learned how to eat right. Now I am at 305
I know see this same blanket statement on this forum and all I want is for the next person to not be misled. I am not trying to start a fight I just know the pain I have had over it and dont want to see others do the same, That is all
...but...but...myinsbroker wrote:and that's the last I will say on it
You lost weight because your caloric intake was less than your caloric output. How is this confusing?
My calorie intake is less because the calories I take in work better
Your calorie intake is less because your calorie intake is less...myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »Not sure what you mean a calories is a unit of measure in energy
If you have 300 calories in pure suger vrs 300 calories in complex carbs you will have difrent longevity of energy
that would be like going to the Indy 500 with a beat up old car because a car is a car
Maybe come back when you have an understanding of what 'energy' is (in the sense of 'energy balance', which is what defines how weight is lost or gained) and it will make more sense to you.
I do now, The point is at one time I didn't, I looked for advise from those that are supposed to be experts. to say a calorie is a calorie and then say well you need to learn physics is ridiculous.
I am not going to sell and Insurance policy without breaking it down to an understandable language that people can understand in a practical real world way
Same way giving that advice to a person new to losing weight is harmful
and that's the last I will say on it
We're saying that because there are multiple types of energy. And you are confusing two of them. You are telling us we aren't correct because you aren't understanding the terms we are using. But you don't want to talk about it anymore so it is what it is I guess :drinker:
Because I don't really want to argue or make everyone angry and I can see this is going nowhere
All I wanted to do is try and make people aware that the blanket statement that a calorie is just a calorie can cause harm.
I didnt get it here when I was told this it was from my heart doctor well before I seen this forum. All I am saying is that blanket advice took me from 320lbs to 360 lbs and a lot of pain struggling with binging.
I have since went to the internet becuase I was 368 and learned how to eat right. Now I am at 305
I know see this same blanket statement on this forum and all I want is for the next person to not be misled. I am not trying to start a fight I just know the pain I have had over it and dont want to see others do the same, That is all
...but...but...myinsbroker wrote:and that's the last I will say on it
You lost weight because your caloric intake was less than your caloric output. How is this confusing?
My calorie intake is less because the calories I take in work better
Your calorie intake is less because your calorie intake is less...
Just by osmosis right
All I needed to do was wait for osmosis to begin
Now you're just being ridiculous.
You lost weight because you lowered your calorie level.
The method through which you sustainably lowered your calorie level involved you changing the sources of the calories you consumed.
The method of lowering the calorie intake doesn't change the scientific fact that weight loss occurred because you lowered your calorie intake.4 -
diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
Did you post more context in any of these multiple posts you've seen? Or did you decide all the newbies were most likely to hang out in the debate forum rather than having it blocked?diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
Did you post more context in any of these multiple posts you've seen? Or did you decide all the newbies were most likely to hang out in the debate forum rather than having it blocked?diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
Did you post more context in any of these multiple posts you've seen? Or did you decide all the newbies were most likely to hang out in the debate forum rather than having it blocked?diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
Did you post more context in any of these multiple posts you've seen? Or did you decide all the newbies were most likely to hang out in the debate forum rather than having it blocked?
No just guess seeing it so many times I finally decided to voice it5 -
myinsbroker wrote: »I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
And you still don't get it...
1. You found a way of eating that works for you - this is terrific!
2. Calories are all that matter for WEIGHT loss
3. Nutrition is important for health
4. Calories are inherent in all foods (there also calories in water, wood, rocket fuel, etc)
5. There is no such thing a broccoli calorie or a potato chip calorie - calories are simply calories
6. You can eat a total *kitten* diet and as long as you eat fewer calories than you burn, you WILL lose weight (do some google searches on the twinkie diet or the McDonalds diet if you don't believe me).4 -
6 -
myinsbroker wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
Did you post more context in any of these multiple posts you've seen? Or did you decide all the newbies were most likely to hang out in the debate forum rather than having it blocked?diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
Did you post more context in any of these multiple posts you've seen? Or did you decide all the newbies were most likely to hang out in the debate forum rather than having it blocked?diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
Did you post more context in any of these multiple posts you've seen? Or did you decide all the newbies were most likely to hang out in the debate forum rather than having it blocked?diannethegeek wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »I appreciate that I'm sure your a good person and help a lot of people and probably go through much detail with them
I am not mad nor unforgiving nor do I say you or anyone specific said this or that
No I didn't read the whole thread
I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
I just felt that it Needs to be said because most times there is not all this detailed info and that blanket statement is misleading and easily misunderstood for someone whe is new looking at the forum for the first time
Did you post more context in any of these multiple posts you've seen? Or did you decide all the newbies were most likely to hang out in the debate forum rather than having it blocked?
No just guess seeing it so many times I finally decided to voice it
Where? Show us some of these posts4
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
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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