Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!

Is a calorie equal to a calorie?

11112141617

Replies

  • Posts: 13,454 Member
    A calorie is a calorie.
    Don't confuse energy with nutrients
    The body breaks your food down to simple units to use, it uses these individual units the same way regardless of the source

    Third post in this thread.
  • Posts: 24 Member

    What? How can you go through the posts we've had here and get to osmosis as the reason you lost weight?

    What? How can you go through the posts we've had here and get to osmosis as the reason you lost weight?

    It was in response to the person who commented that changing the type of foods I get calories from had no effect on me losing weight
  • Posts: 13,454 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    The nutrients from which the energy is obtained can be different which doesn't negate the fact that a calorie is a measure of energy and all calories are calories regardless of their source. Calories are fungible. For body energy balance, 100 calories obtained from apples are exactly equal to 100 calories from Oreos.

    5th post in the thread.
  • Posts: 24 Member
    PikaJoyJoy wrote: »

    Okay, so you were eating less calories. Again, it's great you are finding better satiety with how you are eating now, but the fact of the matter is you are eating less calories. Period. Therefore it is no surprise you lost weight.

    Even if you ate "not so good" and you didn't find as good of satiety but you were eating those foods in a deficit, you would still lose weight.
    PikaJoyJoy wrote: »

    Okay, so you were eating less calories. Again, it's great you are finding better satiety with how you are eating now, but the fact of the matter is you are eating less calories. Period. Therefore it is no surprise you lost weight.

    Even if you ate "not so good" and you didn't find as good of satiety but you were eating those foods in a deficit, you would still lose weight.
    Carlos_421 wrote: »

    You’re confusing calories with food.
    Perhaps you’re consuming fewer calories because you’re eating foods that leave you feeling more full.
    That’s not eating “different kinds of calories.”

    Exactly
  • Posts: 6,771 Member

    It was in response to the person who commented that changing the type of foods I get calories from had no effect on me losing weight

    Not directly no. The types of foods you ate had an effect on compliance/your ability to maintain a deficit. But the number of calories, if held constant in both scenarios, would have resulted in the same losses. It's just that focusing on nutrition increased satiety.
  • Posts: 13,454 Member

    It was in response to the person who commented that changing the type of foods I get calories from had no effect on me losing weight

    It didn't. The fact that you still don't understand what people are saying about the differences between calories, nutrients and satiety leads me to believe that no matter what anyone says, since this has been patiently explained directly to you, that you will not understand or that you are willfully misinterpreting things just to antagonize us.
  • Posts: 6,771 Member

    Exactly I eat better food that gives longer energy keeps me full which empowers me to lose wait

    The say blanket statement calories is a calorie to a person who is first trying to lose weight can be very misleading

    Au contraire, to say a calorie isn't a calorie is what is confusing. Nutrition matters. Doesn't change the effect of calories in the energy balance equation.
  • Posts: 18,878 Member

    Exactly I eat better food that gives longer energy keeps me full which empowers me to lose wait

    The say blanket statement calories is a calorie to a person who is first trying to lose weight can be very misleading

    Unless it is accompanied with further information regarding the importance of nutrition for health and satiety, which is almost always is in the responding post and, if not there, in subsequent posts by subsequent posters.

    I'd really consider that perhaps the fault often lies with the party who stops listening at " a calorie is a calorie" and fails to pay attention or logically consider that the source of the calories will contribute to how healthy they are and how satisfied they remain.
  • Posts: 6,252 Member

    My calorie intake is less because the calories I take in work better

    ...and your proof is?

    j6r9vydpz8k0.png

  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »

    IMO it's the root of the communication problem here.

    "A calorie is not a calorie" is using synecdoche.

    That is why I always explain that "a calorie is a calorie" does not mean "a food is a food" and that "a calorie" -- at least as used here -- is NOT a synonym for food.

    I've had people insist "I'm not doing that!" and in the same post insist that calories are not the same because broccoli has more nutrients than donuts.
  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Sometimes people forget that a calorie is a unit of measurement (as discussed above) and think it's a synonym for food. That seems to be what you are doing in your first post, OP. When people say "a calorie is a calorie," they don't mean foods are the same in terms of nutrients or how full you might feel. They mean that they are the same unit of measurement and, of course, that if you overeat on a "healthy" diet you will gain and if you have a calorie deficit on a less healthy diet you will still lose.

    Acknowledging that truth doesn't mean that someone is recommending that you not eat a healthful diet, obviously.

    In line with what WinoGelato is pointing out, I looked to see what my first post in this thread was (yes, it's about ME), and at least I seem to have been consistent, even if it makes me realize how much I am tilting at windmills.

    From page one, heh.
  • Posts: 7,682 Member
    When I go on my holiday to the land of the Americans I'm going to get some weird flavoured Oreos (we have some here but not as many as the literal 100s in the States) and do an MFP taste test.

    we dont have 100s. they now have a red hots candy flavored(hot cinnamon creme) and now a hazelnut one. but some of the flavors are seasonal and some are sold only at walmart and some only sold at target while others are sold at other stores as well.
  • Posts: 233 Member

    And I may not have actually been being literal. I'm British, we enjoy exaggeration laced with sarcasm.

    Make sure you try Banana Split! And Cookie Dough!! And Peanut Butter!!! And Mint!!!! And Red Velvet!!!!!

    Wait... we DO have a lot of flavors for Oreos! :o
  • Posts: 7,682 Member

    And I may not have actually been being literal. I'm British, we enjoy exaggeration laced with sarcasm.

    well there are so many that yeah sure it seems like 100s though. :)
  • Posts: 280 Member

    Make sure you try Banana Split! And Cookie Dough!! And Peanut Butter!!! And Mint!!!! And Red Velvet!!!!!

    Wait... we DO have a lot of flavors for Oreos! :o

    Ew. Original only (with the exception of the original thins. Those are great)
  • Posts: 7,682 Member
    if eating bad foods or diet foods prevented me from losing weight Id still be over 200lbs. I got fat eating a lot of fruits and veggies because I ate more calories than I was taking in. I lost weight this time because I ate what I wanted in moderation,some days moderation went out the window. The thing is eating too much of any food can cause weight gain,ask the vegans or vegetarians here that are overweight or were overweight.

    now Im still eating things I like just less of them which is less "calories" and Im losing weight. certain foods that may make one person overeat causing weight gain,may not cause another to overeat.My cholesterol and other health markers improved from losing weight and being on a low fat,low cholesterol,high fiber diet.But then again I have a health issue that calls for that type of diet.
  • Posts: 35,766 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    That is why I always explain that "a calorie is a calorie" does not mean "a food is a food" and that "a calorie" -- at least as used here -- is NOT a synonym for food.

    I've had people insist "I'm not doing that!" and in the same post insist that calories are not the same because broccoli has more nutrients than donuts.

    Yes. Some people are - it seems - somehow unable to understand this - to understand that they themselves use the same word to mean different things. They know what they mean by the word in each case, and seemingly have trouble putting themselves in the reader's shoes, when the reader (you, in the case you describe) is confounded by their usage.

    I think there's a tendency, perhaps especially common among people who are not as natively inclined to be abstract and analytic, to tightly bind words to what they mean by them in the moment, as if the word were the thing meant, not just a label for the thing.

    I'm not sure some of the professional writers (magazines, blogs) even understand that when they say "a broccoli calorie is not like a donut calorie" that they're using a figure of speech, either.

    For sure, many of their readers completely do not understand that. Instead, they may think of calories as some kind of compartmentalizing subdivision of that food, as if you minced the donut up into 1-calorie bits that still had all the properties of donut-ness.

    This is a tempting conceptualization, I think, partly because calories are numeric.

    Obviously, (to some, anyway) the number of calories in a food is a descriptor or attribute of the food, analogous to the food's color or texture or flavor. It's not a subdivision of the food, even though it's countable. Most people wouldn't make this conceptual misstep with the color of the food - thinking, somehow, that the color can stand in for the food in other respects.

    But they might have that same synecdoche-confusion problem with other countable things - believe that a square inch (cm) of broccoli is not the same as a square inch (cm) of donut, for example. I think that's where some of the "pound of feathers vs. pound of bricks" arguments go south, for example.

    But I think the "calorie as subdivision" fallacy is easier to fall into, and a little harder to explain to someone who's fallen into it, because exactly what calories are is a little abstract or arcane, whereas inches (cm) are an everyday, kind of concrete thing we all deal with.

    I don't know that there's any effective way to explain this to someone who's really stuck in that "calorie as subdivision" conceptual frame.

    On the flip side, there are some of what I might call language strict constructionists, who consider (rightly IMO) "a calorie is a calorie" to be a completely obvious tautology, even when you throw in modifiers ("broccoli calorie").

    Because some of these people are highly analytical, I would've thought that more in this group might understand the nature of the problem as I do, as rooted in in a synecdoche gone bad, where a figure of speech has slipped over to become a conceptual trap.

    I've seen a few threads where the old "muscle heavier than fat" trap has actually been at least partly reconciled by sort of pointing out the invisible ellipsis ("for the same volume") that is implicitly meant . . . sometimes implicitly meant by people who don't necessarily have the analytic or abstraction conceptual tools that let them clearly recognize that they did implicitly mean it.

    I have a fond hope that we could achieve a similar reconciliation someday for "a calorie is/is not a calorie", but its inarguably a tougher case.

    I feel like I'm rattling on badly (as usual ;) ) and not explaining very clearly what I mean - *baby feline* words, anyway! - so I'm just gonna stop, even though there are doubtless still typos, maybe bad ones.

  • Posts: 280 Member

    I see your red velvet Oreos and raise you..........

    7qjymo75cg2r.jpg

    landscape-1458727991-giphy.gif?resize=768:*
  • Posts: 16,049 Member
    I know that isn't earth shattering for any of you, but I'm telling myself to let all this go.

    I do this every day on here @cmriverside . A random internet forum/people is so not worth getting worked up over! I don't even click on the ACV, keto etc etc etc threads any more. Also, if someone wants to start a shitfight with me I just click onto another thread, move on and forget about it. I just couldn't be bothered...

    I'm determined to make MFP a happy place to visit, debating and arguing ad lib just frustrates me and makes coming here an annoying experience :(
  • Posts: 30,886 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Because some of these people are highly analytical, I would've thought that more in this group might understand the nature of the problem as I do, as rooted in in a synecdoche gone bad, where a figure of speech has slipped over to become a conceptual trap.

    I think what you said is very insightful, although I'm less nice or understanding or patient than you, and I actually think if people continue to misunderstand they must be trying to. My working theory is that they get something from the misunderstanding (or pretended belief that we are saying that all foods are the same) -- namely the ability to tell themselves that everyone else (or all but their select few) are falling into this calorie myth where we are too dumb to get that broccoli is not a donut. Because I see it -- not initially, initially I agree with you about the source, but when persisted in despite clear and repeated explanation -- as coming from this kind of negative place, I think it is willful ignorance, and not mere failure to understand.

    But like I said, you are likely nicer than me! ;-)
    I've seen a few threads where the old "muscle heavier than fat" trap has actually been at least partly reconciled by sort of pointing out the invisible ellipsis ("for the same volume") that is implicitly meant . . . sometimes implicitly meant by people who don't necessarily have the analytic or abstraction conceptual tools that let them clearly recognize that they did implicitly mean it.

    Yes, agreed, and although this one frustrates me too (I think "for the same volume" is obviously implied and pretending that someone who says "muscle weighs more than fat" more likely means "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat" -- a belief so bizarre and incomprehensible that it would strike me as insulting for someone to attribute it to me unless I said that precise thing -- to be annoying, I do often try to explain it and on occasion it works.

    That's similar to why I do pedantically explain that "a calorie" is not a small piece of a food or a measure of that food, but a quality of food, and that there is no such thing as a "steak calorie" and that "a calorie is a calorie" does not mean "a food is a food" and all the rest.

    So far, I usually don't even get a response that is substantive. I get told that I clearly don't care about nutrition.

    Sigh.

    But I do appreciate that you are less jaded on this topic than I am.
  • Posts: 35,766 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »

    I think what you said is very insightful, although I'm less nice or understanding or patient than you, and I actually think if people continue to misunderstand they must be trying to. My working theory is that they get something from the misunderstanding (or pretended belief that we are saying that all foods are the same) -- namely the ability to tell themselves that everyone else (or all but their select few) are falling into this calorie myth where we are too dumb to get that broccoli is not a donut. Because I see it -- not initially, initially I agree with you about the source, but when persisted in despite clear and repeated explanation -- as coming from this kind of negative place, I think it is willful ignorance, and not mere failure to understand.

    But like I said, you are likely nicer than me! ;-)

    Yes, agreed, and although this one frustrates me too (I think "for the same volume" is obviously implied and pretending that someone who says "muscle weighs more than fat" more likely means "a lb of muscle weighs more than a lb of fat" -- a belief so bizarre and incomprehensible that it would strike me as insulting for someone to attribute it to me unless I said that precise thing -- to be annoying, I do often try to explain it and on occasion it works.

    That's similar to why I do pedantically explain that "a calorie" is not a small piece of a food or a measure of that food, but a quality of food, and that there is no such thing as a "steak calorie" and that "a calorie is a calorie" does not mean "a food is a food" and all the rest.

    So far, I usually don't even get a response that is substantive. I get told that I clearly don't care about nutrition.

    Sigh.

    But I do appreciate that you are less jaded on this topic than I am.

    Thank you. This gives me hope that I sort of got my point across, though I know you to be a careful and thoughtful reader, so I'm sure you met me more than half way.

    I'm mulling whether one might construct an analogy around a nutrient that would be more useful or persuasive, along the lines of "apricots and beef each have potassium, but most of us wouldn't say 'a beef potassium is not an apricot potassium'", but the thought is still problematic, not fully mature yet . . . I may just stick it in the idea incubator for a while and see if anything eventually hatches.

    Shifting slightly: I feel like some of the willful misunderstanding in these threads - usually happening some on both sides - is about digging a defensive trench around one's own argument once the firing starts, focusing on perceived gaps in the other side's arguments (even if that requires misinterpreting them!), throwing zingers, etc. At that point, some/many/most parties are not invested at all in finding common understanding. Finding a disarming communication strategy - metaphorically, sorta using Aiki - is probably the only way in, and that's not easy.

    As far as being nicer: Way no. Remember, I'm the one who made the helpful, patient, and genuinely nice @diannethegeek, whom I appreciate and admire, think I was jerkily laughing at everyone earlier in this thread.

    Nor patient: So far from! I'll admit to wanting to try to help newer people in a place that's been so transformationally helpful to me, even though my native tendency toward sarcasm and snark trips that up sometimes. Mostly, it's that I think the ways words & language work in human brains are bizarre and fascinating, so that (non-life-threatening) communication challenges are a fun kind of puzzle to work at sometimes.
  • Posts: 5,575 Member

    Why are people feeding the T ........

    I think someone has made a second account...again.
This discussion has been closed.