A calorie is a calorie????
Options
HvymetalMG
Posts: 93 Member
I keep reading that at the end of the day calories and not what they come from is what determines weight gain and or loss.
Of course I get some foods are much better nutritious choices than others.
But when it comes to pure weight is there really no difference?
For instance I'm eating a quest protein cookie. 250 calories 17 g fat and 15g of protein. 1g of sugar. My son is eating cotton candy. 150 calories. 0 grams of fat. 45 grams of sugar!
So by most reasoning mine is worse?
Sorry if I'm confused.
Of course I get some foods are much better nutritious choices than others.
But when it comes to pure weight is there really no difference?
For instance I'm eating a quest protein cookie. 250 calories 17 g fat and 15g of protein. 1g of sugar. My son is eating cotton candy. 150 calories. 0 grams of fat. 45 grams of sugar!
So by most reasoning mine is worse?
Sorry if I'm confused.
3
Replies
-
In regards to calories yes what you're eating has more calories than your son, but I doubt the cotton candy is very filling and certainly isn't as healthy. It all depends on what you want from this, just to lose weight or be healthy too. For me personally I want to change my eating habits and eat healthy.5
-
A calorie is a unit of energy. That's it. Yes you can lose weight by eating nothing but pizza and Twinkies in a calorie deficit, but that is not recommended.11
-
Speaking purely in terms of energy balance/fat loss, a calorie is a calorie.
Speaking in terms of satiety/adherence, nutrition, overall health, energy levels, workout performance, body composition, hormonal function, etc., etc., a calorie is not a calorie. Micro and macronutrients matter.
As to the Quest cookie vs. cotton candy, don't judge an individual food/meal. Judge how they fit in your diet overall, in terms of context and dosage. There's nothing wrong with eating cotton candy once in a while. A diet composed mostly or entirely of cotton candy is wrong on many levels. The same goes for most any food, even "healthy" foods such as broccoli, kale, lean meats, etc.16 -
HvymetalMG wrote: »I keep reading that at the end of the day calories and not what they come from is what determines weight gain and or loss.
Of course I get some foods are much better nutritious choices than others.
But when it comes to pure weight is there really no difference?
For instance I'm eating a quest protein cookie. 250 calories 17 g fat and 15g of protein. 1g of sugar. My son is eating cotton candy. 150 calories. 0 grams of fat. 45 grams of sugar!
So by most reasoning mine is worse?
Sorry if I'm confused.
Why would yours be worse? Yours actually has more nutrition...the cotton candy is pretty nutritionally void.
A calorie is a unit of measure...like an inch is an inch...a mile is a mile.
I need around 3,000 calories to maintain my weight...if I eat 3,000 calories I will maintain weight...if I consume more than 3,000 calories on a consistent basis I will gain weight...if I consume less than 3,000 calories per day on a consistent basis, I will lose weight.
I guess I'm not really sure where your confusion is.
3 -
It depends on your body. I'm diabetic. Even a small piece of candy will spike my blood sugar into the 400s which is very dangerous. Then my blood sugar would drop like a rock and causing so much craving and hunger my whole body would shake. I could eat 10k in calories without blind an eye and still feel hungry. People often simplify things but the human body is very complicated.3
-
lilysillycat wrote: »It depends on your body. I'm diabetic. Even a small piece of candy will spike my blood sugar into the 400s which is very dangerous. Then my blood sugar would drop like a rock and causing so much craving and hunger my whole body would shake. I could eat 10k in calories without blind an eye and still feel hungry. People often simplify things but the human body is very complicated.
Doesn't change a calorie being a unit of measurement.10 -
lilysillycat wrote: »It depends on your body. I'm diabetic. Even a small piece of candy will spike my blood sugar into the 400s which is very dangerous. Then my blood sugar would drop like a rock and causing so much craving and hunger my whole body would shake. I could eat 10k in calories without blind an eye and still feel hungry. People often simplify things but the human body is very complicated.
Issues in diseased people do not apply universally to those without the disease. I can eat peanuts with no problem at all. For somebody with an allergy to peanuts, it could cause death. That does not mean that peanuts are universally okay (based upon my situation) or universally deadly (based upon their situation). Context matters.
(I"m not sure how any of that has anything to do with the original question, though.)9 -
I'm trying to look more at what I put in my body than how much. I am looking to build muscle and right now in prioritizing protein so I'm more willing to eat more calories with protein rich foods than something with less calories and devoid of protein.
I just wonder if I keep that up over time am I going to gain weight (with muscle hopefully) eating 3,000 cals a day when I used to be eating 2500 when j was just thinking about losing weight.
I know this may sound nuts. Maybe it's best not to think about it so much.1 -
lilysillycat wrote: »It depends on your body. I'm diabetic. Even a small piece of candy will spike my blood sugar into the 400s which is very dangerous. Then my blood sugar would drop like a rock and causing so much craving and hunger my whole body would shake. I could eat 10k in calories without blind an eye and still feel hungry. People often simplify things but the human body is very complicated.
No, you're just doing what most people do and confusing nutritional value with calories. A calorie is a calorie in the same way that a mile is a mile.
You being diabetic and unable to eat a piece of candy has nothing to do with the fact that a calorie is a unit of measure.8 -
Weight gain and weight loss is all about calories, it doesn't matter where the source comes from. The difference in food comes only outside of that spectrum. For example if you are at a caloric deficit at 2000 calories, if you eat only junk food, you will lose weight....however the lack of fiber in your diet will cause you to be constipated, the lack of vitamins and minerals will make you more likely to get sick much easier than someone who eats healthy foods at 2000 calories. But calories for calories, you will lose weight, regardless. Where it will hurt you is in your internal health. You're not giving the body the right nutrients and in the long run, it can cause more harm than good even if it means you lose weight.0
-
HvymetalMG wrote: »I'm trying to look more at what I put in my body than how much. I am looking to build muscle and right now in prioritizing protein so I'm more willing to eat more calories with protein rich foods than something with less calories and devoid of protein.
I just wonder if I keep that up over time am I going to gain weight (with muscle hopefully) eating 3,000 cals a day when I used to be eating 2500 when j was just thinking about losing weight.
I know this may sound nuts. Maybe it's best not to think about it so much.
It all comes down to CICO. If 3000 calories is a surplus for you, you'll gain weight. If it's a deficit for you, you'll lose weight.
It's a good idea to strive for a reasonably balanced diet regardless. But calories are what matter when it comes to weight.1 -
HvymetalMG wrote: »So by most reasoning mine is worse?
This short sentence jumped out at me.... "Worse".
Not higher, lower or different but attaching some kind of moral ranking to different calorie foods.
Try to look at your overall diet, its nutrition, how well it matches your goals and preferences and don't zone in on individual items or thinking high calorie somehow equals "worse".
In a 3,000 cal diet (coincidentally my maintenance level currently) there's plenty of room for hitting all your macro/micro/fibre/vitamin etc. nutritional needs and still having plenty of space for just enjoying food you like.
I quite like the 80/10/10 idea especially for a generous calorie allowance - 80% good nutritious foods you enjoy, 10% foods that are good for you or achieve a specific goal but you don't really enjoy, 10% fun foods.12 -
This seems like something you already understand based on your comments OP - so I’m not sure the point of the thread. You know a calorie deficit is required for weight loss and you understand that different foods have different macro and micronutrient profiles. You know that because you are trying to build muscle that protein is important. Do you really question if you should have eaten the cotton candy instead? Did you want cotton candy? Do you think that a diet of nothing but cotton candy is a good idea? Or a diet of nothing but Quest cookies for that matter?
I don’t think you do, so I’m not sure what specifically you’re confused about.1 -
HvymetalMG wrote: »So by most reasoning mine is worse?
This short sentence jumped out at me.... "Worse".
Not higher, lower or different but attaching some kind of moral ranking to different calorie foods.
Try to look at your overall diet, its nutrition, how well it matches your goals and preferences and don't zone in on individual items or thinking high calorie somehow equals "worse".
In a 3,000 cal diet (coincidentally my maintenance level currently) there's plenty of room for hitting all your macro/micro/fibre/vitamin etc. nutritional needs and still having plenty of space for just enjoying food you like.
I quite like the 80/10/10 idea especially for a generous calorie allowance - 80% good nutritious foods you enjoy, 10% foods that are good for you or achieve a specific goal but you don't really enjoy, 10% fun foods.
That jumped out at me also. OP, you are conflating nutrition, and food that supports your fitness goals and assigning a value to them based on that. I get that. But it doesn't change what the value is of a unit of energy. That is a calorie.
In your example, yours would only be worse if if kept you from achieving your calorie goal for the day as it relates to calories. Your son's might be worse if it replaced things with a higher nutritional value and he didn't get adequate nutrients for the day. It doesn't change the nature of what comprises a calorie.4 -
Speaking purely in terms of energy balance/fat loss, a calorie is a calorie.
Speaking in terms of satiety/adherence, nutrition, overall health, energy levels, workout performance, body composition, hormonal function, etc., etc., a calorie is not still a calorie. But the Micro and macronutrients that come in the foods along with the calories matter.
As to the Quest cookie vs. cotton candy, don't judge an individual food/meal. Judge how they fit in your diet overall, in terms of context and dosage. There's nothing wrong with eating cotton candy once in a while. A diet composed mostly or entirely of cotton candy is wrong on many levels. The same goes for most any food, even "healthy" foods such as broccoli, kale, lean meats, etc.
FIFY0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Speaking purely in terms of energy balance/fat loss, a calorie is a calorie.
Speaking in terms of satiety/adherence, nutrition, overall health, energy levels, workout performance, body composition, hormonal function, etc., etc., a calorie is not still a calorie. But the Micro and macronutrients that come in the foods along with the calories matter.
As to the Quest cookie vs. cotton candy, don't judge an individual food/meal. Judge how they fit in your diet overall, in terms of context and dosage. There's nothing wrong with eating cotton candy once in a while. A diet composed mostly or entirely of cotton candy is wrong on many levels. The same goes for most any food, even "healthy" foods such as broccoli, kale, lean meats, etc.
FIFY
You know what I meant - but yes, your wording is definitely more clear/correct.
Yes, a calorie is always a calorie - just like a mile is always a mile, a kilogram is always a kilogram and a Fahrenheit degree is always a Fahrenheit degree.1 -
2
-
HvymetalMG wrote: »I keep reading that at the end of the day calories and not what they come from is what determines weight gain and or loss.
Of course I get some foods are much better nutritious choices than others.
But when it comes to pure weight is there really no difference?
For instance I'm eating a quest protein cookie. 250 calories 17 g fat and 15g of protein. 1g of sugar. My son is eating cotton candy. 150 calories. 0 grams of fat. 45 grams of sugar!
So by most reasoning mine is worse?
Sorry if I'm confused.
Yes, a calorie is a calorie. If you eat more than your total daily or weekly allowance of calories you would gain weight. If you eat less than your total daily or weekly allowance of calories you would lose weight. (This doesn't factor anything either of you may be doing for exercise).
Your one cookie, or your son's portion of cotton candy is part of an overall total for the day. For that one specific item, you had a higher calorie intake than him, and he had a crazily higher intake of sugar than you. Your choice also had a lot of fat while his was fat free, but you got some protein and he didn't. BUT remember, this is only a tiny portion of your total daily food intake.
That's why accurate and consistent logging on your MFP Diary is so important so you can see trends and make adjustments along the way.1 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »Speaking purely in terms of energy balance/fat loss, a calorie is a calorie.
Speaking in terms of satiety/adherence, nutrition, overall health, energy levels, workout performance, body composition, hormonal function, etc., etc., a calorie is not still a calorie. But the Micro and macronutrients that come in the foods along with the calories matter.
As to the Quest cookie vs. cotton candy, don't judge an individual food/meal. Judge how they fit in your diet overall, in terms of context and dosage. There's nothing wrong with eating cotton candy once in a while. A diet composed mostly or entirely of cotton candy is wrong on many levels. The same goes for most any food, even "healthy" foods such as broccoli, kale, lean meats, etc.
FIFY
You know what I meant - but yes, your wording is definitely more clear/correct.
Yes, a calorie is always a calorie - just like a mile is always a mile, a kilogram is always a kilogram and a Fahrenheit degree is always a Fahrenheit degree.
Yes, I knew what you meant. I know you understand this very well. But I think the way you originally phrased it just compounds the confusion of people who don't know what you meant, and who don't understand that calories are just a measure of energy, that macronutrients have calories, not the other way around, and that calories don't have micronutrients, but instead calories and micronutrients are different components of the foods they eat. Especially in a thread that's focused on whether "a calorie is a calorie," I can't see how it hurts to try to be as clear as we can be about that.
2 -
Calories and nutrition are two completely different subjects. Keeping your consumed calories below your burned ones will let you lose weight, and that will be pretty much consistent across the board.
What those calories are made of however will determine how full, efficient and healthy your body will be. That is nutrition. You could eat nothing but the cotton candy and still lose weight, but you would likely be hungry, nauseous and very quickly sick. Or ypu could spend the same amount of calories on food that is more filling and has a higher nutritive value and feel much better.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions