YOUR opinion
 

I just want to hear your opinions!

I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter HOW you get your calories (protein, carbs, fat... chocolate, spinach, roast beef) it's the TOTAL calories that really matter.

I do agree that it's far better to get the bulk of calories from fruits, veggies, and lean meats - I think the human body thrives on the basics.

However... 1200 calories is 1200 calories... no matter how you slice it - when it comes to weight gain or weight loss.

Or do you believe differently?

What if you ate 12 100-calorie packs for your 1200 calories? Besides being nutrient deficient, you would be so hungry and likely wind up binge eating. And you'd never learn how to eat properly.

I completely agree! - I'm certainly not saying that "it's OK" to eat "whatever" ... I'm just saying in the general game of weight loss/weight gain, a calorie is a calorie is a calorie. :dizzy:

I believe differently.

You're right that 1200 calories in is 1200 calories in, no matter what you're eating. But the other half of the weight loss equation is calories OUT, and what you eat does have an impact THERE. For example, refined carbs take almost no energy to digest, but protein takes 15-30% of the calories it contains just to make the energy available. Not to mention, protein and other appropriate nutrients help you to build muscles, and muscles also help you to burn more calories at rest. There is also some evidence that blood sugar spikes can slow down metabolism...eating lots of refined sugar is going to send you on that blood sugar rollercoaster, which may reduce that calorie OUTPUT.

Beyond the idea that it's more difficult to stick to a plan with bad food choices (due to the blood sugar rollercoaster and lack of satiety from the low fiber choices), it really does make a difference in calories burned, so while a calorie IS a calorie, some food calories have less impact on your body than others because they support your body in burning the calories from the food off.

There's a theory that if the nutrient density in your food is low, your body can perceive that as potential starvation and store more fat, even if calories are adequate. A corollary would be that low nutrient density is perceived by your body and it responds with more hunger. Makes a lot of sense to me. Certainly, on a gross level, calories are a far bigger factor - you'll lose on 1000 calories of junk vs 2500 calories of healthy food. But comparing 1400 calories of junk to 1600 calories of super healthy food may be a different story.

I believe differently. :)

We don't have a good enough grasp of how nutrients work yet. Why does 100mg of Vitamin C from an orange absorb more effectively than 100mg from a tablet? My husband is bipolar, and we've been researching diet/exercise as a control. Bipolars who take a Vitamin B12 supplement alone are less depressed and more manic. But, if they EAT the B12, then it levels both.

Of course, nutrients are just scratching the surface. High levels of insulin support weight gain (hyperinsulenic hypoglycemics gain weight quickly); low levels support weight loss (untreated diabetics lose weight quickly). Protein and fat do not affect glucose levels, one of the defining factors in insulin, as much as carbohydrates do.

If I eat 1000 calories of pure carbs, I'm giving my body much more glucose than I would be if I ate 1000 calories of fat and protein. When the insulin gets involved, it starts stocking the glucose wherever it can. It's used for immediate needs, then pushed into muscles as glycogen, then, when all other space has run out, it starts storing it away in fat cells.

So...I don't believe the calorie is a calorie is a calorie mantra. I believe in keeping insulin levels as low as possible and forcing my body to derive glucose from protein and fat (very difficult) and use the stores it already has.

i see your point and kind of agree. if i ate 2 snickers bars and 2 liter of soda every day, i WOULD lose weight, but, id feel like crap and probably pass out every day. calories are calories, its more that if you're sticking to a plan, you want to try to get the MOST out of your calories so that you aren't hungry all the time. also, most of us are trying to be healthier along with our weight loss, so we eat accordingly. but yes, calories in needs to be less than calories out to lose weight, no matter what you eat.

Oooh. I definitely believe differently. In my book, not all calories are created equally. Eating a double helping of steamed veggies for 100 calories is going to be handled far differently than a 100 calorie snack pack. Plus, what effect is a 100 calorie snack packs and other processed nothings going to have on your overall health and appearance? For me, a wide variety of whole foods is most definitely the ticket for health and appearance.

Also, wanted to add--I always aim for the most NUTRIENT DENSE food for the lowest calories. I strive to get the most BANG for my buck so to speak.

I'll also throw in on top of the insulin-fat connection, there are several studies that link Omega-6 fatty acids to fat storage. They also trigger fat storage in plants, so they are found in high quantities in seeds, nuts and grains.

A calorie is only a calorie in the lab's bomb calorimeter. Genetics make everyone's mitochondria work a little differently in how the energies from different foods are used by our bodies. I think that's why some people thrive and lose weight on low carb, and others can eat pasta all day without gaining, and some need a different balance. When I was trying to find my own way, I tried both of them and found that I could lose on about 500 calories more per day on Atkins than I could on Zone. There's lots of ways that could be interpreted (root cause), but what it certainly meant for me is that a calorie is not just a calorie! I think I'm a "flyer" in the data, though, and for the +/- 2 sigma population (about 95%), calorie counting is very, very helpful.

Of course we could eat 1200 calories of jelly beans but we wouldn't get good nutrition . And I personally would take a long nap after so much sugar. Best to eat a well balanced diet of wholesome food.

I believe differently. I've been losing weight for awhile now (125 pounds gone - 8.5 to go!!) and I find that it does make a difference what calories I eat. Some weeks I'll have a "bad" week where I'll eat the right number of calories but my food choices will be less healthy and other weeks I'll have "good" weeks where I'll eat my calories but with healthy foods - fruit, veggies, whole grains, etc. Even though I eat the same amount of calories my weight loss is ALWAYS better after a "good" eating week than a bad. I still lose weight on the bad weeks but not enough.

That is by no means a scientific answer, but it's what I've found in my personal experience.

I'm also pretty committed to my workouts and when I eat bad calories I can't work as hard in my workout, that equals less calories burned at the end of the day as well.

So far, it seems the consensus is that most folks do not agree that "a calorie is a calorie". But keep the opinions coming! - I'm still interested in what you all have to say!