A calorie is a calorie????

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.

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.

sijomial wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

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.

That is nutrition though, not calorie count. Absolutely if you have a condition where your body uses the calories more or less efficiently than the average person, then you will need to adjust your calorie count accordingly.
And nutritionwise, you would of course need to be extra aware of what foods will help or hinder your body"s health and ability to process more efficiently.

HvymetalMG wrote: »

I'm trying to look more at what I put in my body than how much.

If you are concerned about possibly gaining weight, you should probably look at both. You could eat all nutrient dense foods (including Quest bars, if they are something you like) and still gain. It's not like you need to look at one or the other only.

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.

If you mean you'd choose a Quest bar over cotton candy (were those the only two choices, and unless for some reason you just really wanted cotton candy on a rare day), then sure, me too (even apart from the fact that I've always hated cotton candy!). ;-) But I would NOT regularly go way over calories to fit in more protein (although you want a small surplus to gain muscle, combined with the right workout program). You should easily be able to fit in sufficient protein without eating more (indeed, many low protein foods aren't that filling and make overeating more likely if you aren't counting). If you are eating more protein on top of more than enough other foods, then you might want to cut back other things, but that doesn't make ALWAYS choosing the lower cal option the better choice. I ate a whole avocado at breakfast this morning (small one, granted), because I find it filling and nutritious. Eating fewer cal at that meal because I could doesn't do me any good, even though overall calories for the day matter even if they are all from nutrient dense foods.

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.

But that's the goal, right? To gain muscle and, therefore, weight? The biggest key there, of course, is progressive strength program.