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
-
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »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.4 -
diannethegeek wrote: »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?diannethegeek wrote: »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?
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 weight3 -
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.becomingbeautifultoday wrote: »A calorie is a measure of energy, so technically, a calorie is a calorie. However, the composition of those calories can be different, and our bodies process them differently (carbs, fats, proteins, etc).
5th post in the thread.
4 -
PikaJoyJoy wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy 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
That's all good and well but the point is..you were/are consuming less calories, right?
Yes because the calories I now eat work better empowering me to take in less calories overall, I cant say I eat less sometimes I eat more but the calories are now less because I don't have to binge every couple week's any more & I am not suffering with hunger anymore
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: »myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy 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
That's all good and well but the point is..you were/are consuming less calories, right?
Yes because the calories I now eat work better empowering me to take in less calories overall, I cant say I eat less sometimes I eat more but the calories are now less because I don't have to binge every couple week's any more & I am not suffering with hunger anymore
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: »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
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.”
Exactly3 -
myinsbroker wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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?diannethegeek wrote: »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?
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.1 -
myinsbroker wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »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?diannethegeek wrote: »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?
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.2 -
myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy 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
That's all good and well but the point is..you were/are consuming less calories, right?
Yes because the calories I now eat work better empowering me to take in less calories overall, I cant say I eat less sometimes I eat more but the calories are now less because I don't have to binge every couple week's any more & I am not suffering with hunger anymore
So you improved your nutrition and feel better. That's great! You still lost weight because you're now consuming fewer calories than you burn.myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy 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
That's all good and well but the point is..you were/are consuming less calories, right?
Yes because the calories I now eat work better empowering me to take in less calories overall, I cant say I eat less sometimes I eat more but the calories are now less because I don't have to binge every couple week's any more & I am not suffering with hunger anymore
So you improved your nutrition and feel better. That's great! You still lost weight because you're now consuming fewer calories than you burn.
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 misleading10 -
myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy 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
That's all good and well but the point is..you were/are consuming less calories, right?
Yes because the calories I now eat work better empowering me to take in less calories overall, I cant say I eat less sometimes I eat more but the calories are now less because I don't have to binge every couple week's any more & I am not suffering with hunger anymore
So you improved your nutrition and feel better. That's great! You still lost weight because you're now consuming fewer calories than you burn.myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy 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
That's all good and well but the point is..you were/are consuming less calories, right?
Yes because the calories I now eat work better empowering me to take in less calories overall, I cant say I eat less sometimes I eat more but the calories are now less because I don't have to binge every couple week's any more & I am not suffering with hunger anymore
So you improved your nutrition and feel better. That's great! You still lost weight because you're now consuming fewer calories than you burn.
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.3 -
myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy 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
That's all good and well but the point is..you were/are consuming less calories, right?
Yes because the calories I now eat work better empowering me to take in less calories overall, I cant say I eat less sometimes I eat more but the calories are now less because I don't have to binge every couple week's any more & I am not suffering with hunger anymore
So you improved your nutrition and feel better. That's great! You still lost weight because you're now consuming fewer calories than you burn.myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy 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
That's all good and well but the point is..you were/are consuming less calories, right?
Yes because the calories I now eat work better empowering me to take in less calories overall, I cant say I eat less sometimes I eat more but the calories are now less because I don't have to binge every couple week's any more & I am not suffering with hunger anymore
So you improved your nutrition and feel better. That's great! You still lost weight because you're now consuming fewer calories than you burn.
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.1 -
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
...and your proof is?
1 -
myinsbroker wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy 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
That's all good and well but the point is..you were/are consuming less calories, right?
Yes because the calories I now eat work better empowering me to take in less calories overall, I cant say I eat less sometimes I eat more but the calories are now less because I don't have to binge every couple week's any more & I am not suffering with hunger anymore
So you improved your nutrition and feel better. That's great! You still lost weight because you're now consuming fewer calories than you burn.myinsbroker wrote: »PikaJoyJoy 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
That's all good and well but the point is..you were/are consuming less calories, right?
Yes because the calories I now eat work better empowering me to take in less calories overall, I cant say I eat less sometimes I eat more but the calories are now less because I don't have to binge every couple week's any more & I am not suffering with hunger anymore
So you improved your nutrition and feel better. That's great! You still lost weight because you're now consuming fewer calories than you burn.
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
Today I ate Count Chocula for breakfast, a whole, small, gluten free pizza from Dominoes and a pint of Arctic Zero ice cream for lunch, and, my dinner will probably be a couple gluten free Hot Pockets. But, I stayed under my calorie goal. Are you saying that because I ate "crappy" food, I wont lose weight?
And if you are saying that I will, lose weight, than a calorie IS a calorie, no matter where it comes from, right?
Your doctor said to cap your calories, but, he didn't tell you what to eat? But how could he? He would have no idea what foods would keep you fuller longer, because it's different for every person. That just seems like common sense. Find the foods that will keep you fuller, longer, and, use those foods to your advantage.
I have lost 135 lbs eating pizza, burgers, hot pockets, ice cream and potato chips. But if a calorie from "good" foods isn't the same as a calorie in those foods, shouldn't I have gained weight??
10 -
myinsbroker wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »myinsbroker wrote: »
Great you want to make a car trade, All things being equal
Oh also, calories aren't things you can distinguish over properties like cars. They're a measurement of energy content. They're a property themselves. You can have two cars and you can compare then and tell which one is better, you can't say "this calorie is better than that calorie", that doesn't make anny goshdarn sense.
Of course it makes sense I can compare and say calories from this works better for energy and sustaining hunger the those calories
You are mixing up "calories" with "food." Foods differ, but a calorie is a calorie. You have to be trying to misunderstand to not get that at this point.
NO ONE means "broccoli is steak" when they say "a calorie is a calorie."
And there is NO SUCH THING as a steak calorie. Steak has calories, but your body cannot tell that a particular calorie is from steak.
That does not mean that there are not other important differences between steak and broccoli or that your body digests them the same. The differences are just not in the calories (well, the amount of calories, sure).I needed to learn to eat because I never eat properly my whole life and going to experts that told me a calorie is a calorie just work on less calories and you will lose weight.
NO ONE says "a calorie is a calorie" is nutrition advice. If you misunderstood it for nutrition advice, that was on you, not us.
How to eat is not complicated, and I do not believe for one second that someone can grow up and not understand basic ideas like "eating vegetables is good and important" or "making a diet only of junk food is a bad idea" or "nutrients are important" or "eat some protein and fiber" or so on. I just don't. Most of it is like stuff you learn in kindergarten. Eat your veg and meat (not that meat is actually necessary). Don't eat a cookie now, you will spoil dinner. No, you cannot have cake for dinner. Stuff like that.
And of course in the adult world you can sometimes have cake for dinner if you want (pie for breakfast was more my thing) and still not gain weight if you pay attention to overall calories or, you know, eat sensibly most of the time.I spent so much time trying to lose weight on lean cuisine and lean pockets and every diet thing I could find in the supermarket
Again, nothing to do with "a calorie is a calorie."
You can lose on those things if the calories are right (plenty do, although I'm sure they eat other things too), but there's no need to eat diet food, IMO. But again, totally separate topic and nothing to do with what a calorie actually is.It wasn't until I read about how all calories are not created equal di I begin to lose weight that and learning that drinking artificial sugar all day was Also causing me to be hungry
I never, ever get stuff like this.
If I was always hungry, I would think about my diet and eating patterns, and if I was doing something like drinking lots of calories I hope I'd realize that that likely was not filling.
Why would you think that "calories are what determine whether you gain, lose, or maintain" would also mean that "food choice does not matter for satiety or how you feel or nutrition"? It does not follow.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.
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.0 -
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.1 -
VintageFeline wrote: »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.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
And I may not have actually been being literal. I'm British, we enjoy exaggeration laced with sarcasm.9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
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!
3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
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.
0 -
KeithWhiteJr wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
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!
Ew. Original only (with the exception of the original thins. Those are great)0 -
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.0 -
KeithWhiteJr wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
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!
I see your red velvet Oreos and raise you..........
5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
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.
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
Could you PLEASE read more of the thread then? Because the reason we are so frustrated is because we already said that nutrition is important many many times. And I dare you to point us to one thread where all the OP is told is that a calorie is a calorie. There are always several posters who say - you can eat whatever you want and lose weight, but obviously what you eat is important for health and satiety. Of course if all you're doing is reading thread titles and one response, you may get a warped idea of what the prevailing wisdom is here.6 -
VintageFeline wrote: »KeithWhiteJr wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »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.
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!
I see your red velvet Oreos and raise you..........
0 -
cmriverside wrote: »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
2 -
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.2 -
lemurcat12 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.
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
moosmum1972 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
...and your proof is?
Why are people feeding the T ........
I think someone has made a second account...again.0 -
I was like- how are there another 177 comments on this thread since I left on Wednesday at like 4. WTF.
now I know.
No one is mad at you either- but we are actually trying to help you understand.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
This is quiet clear- perhaps you should?myinsbroker wrote: »No I didn't read the whole thread
you're speaking out of turn- it's rarely a "blanket" statement- it's usually given in context of peoples misunderstanding of food intake and calorie consumption.myinsbroker wrote: »I read some and have seen this blanket statement multiple times on this forum
There is frequently lots of information surrounding it- but it gets skipped- because people chose to not want to understand.myinsbroker wrote: »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
A calorie is a unit of energy. Period. It's fixed- and defined by science. It's a unit of MEASUREMENT.
So if you have 300 GRAMS of sugar- it's XXX calories.
if you have 150 GRAMS of meat- it's YYY calories.
If you have 500 GRAMS of vegetables it's ZZZ calories
Meaning the amount of food will generate a different unit of energy.
People spend a lot of time trying to make the 10 pounds of feathers to 10 pound of bowling ball analogy when maybe we should be going the other way.
A truck generates 500 HP
A Honda civic maybe 150 HP
a horse power is a horse power- it's a unit of energy. A defined- measurable unit of energy. You can put the vehicle on a rolling road and figure it out.
The intrinsic VALUE of the vehicle is different because of what it's intended to do. Trucks pull things, Civics race things.
Consider a civic a carb and a truck protein and fat a motorcycle. they all produce "calories" and the calories are different- but the actual unit of measurement of said HP? it's the same thing. But they all surve a different purpose- people have different calorie needs- so they use different vehicles do it.
But in the end- we are all using the horsepower- it's just deciding on how we apply that horsepower.
But it doesn't change that 1 hp is 1 hp.
7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions