Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: SF1900 on June 28, 2011, 08:41:14 AM
-
just a calorie? :D :D There was a nutritional expert on the radio who said that a calorie in a doughnut is different than a calorie found in chicken. He stated that the body processes a calorie from a doughnut different than a calorie from a piece of chicken.
Truth?
-
Yes. And no. HTH.
-
Yes. And no. HTH.
Where is the coach and tbombz when you need them :D :D
-
Calories are Calories but Macronutrients are not Macronutrients. It does not matter what you eat as long as you don`t overeat as you will get your complete nutrition by default if you are bodybuilding naturally.
-
Yes, a calorie is a calorie. Like a gram is a gram.
-
Yes, a calorie is a calorie. Like a gram is a gram.
:o :o :o :o
-
Calories are Calories but Macronutrients are not Macronutrients. It does not matter what you eat as long as you don`t overeat as you will get your complete nutrition by default if you are bodybuilding naturally.
x2.
-
:o :o :o :o
But other than that, what TA said. All the hype about exact macro ratios is complete BS. As long as you watch your protein a little bit and eat a normal diet, it's practically impossible not to get enough of all nutrients for optimal body composition. Training is much more important.
-
just a calorie? :D :D There was a nutritional expert on the radio who said that a calorie in a doughnut is different than a calorie found in chicken. He stated that the body processes a calorie from a doughnut different than a calorie from a piece of chicken.
Truth?
He is correct.
-
Calories are Calories but Macronutrients are not Macronutrients. It does not matter what you eat as long as you don`t overeat as you will get your complete nutrition by default if you are bodybuilding naturally.
Contest prep - Try taking the same amount of calories in donuts as you would in chicken then come back with your answer and see what your body composition looks like.. You have 8 weeks.
-
Contest prep - Try taking the same amount of calories in donuts as you would in chicken then come back with your answer and see what your body composition looks like.
One would look like Coach, and the other, Alice23.
-
Contest prep - Try taking the same amount of calories in donuts as you would in chicken then come back with your answer and see what your body composition looks like.. You have 8 weeks.
BINGO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D
-
A calorie is a calorie however nutrition wise you arent gonna much from a doughnut. As far weight gain/loss its all math take in more than you need you less you lose.
-
Contest prep - Try taking the same amount of calories in donuts as you would in chicken then come back with your answer and see what your body composition looks like.. You have 8 weeks.
I think you didn't understand what he meant. Plus, you're taking it to the extreme with your example.
-
A calorie is a calorie however nutrition wise you arent gonna much from a doughnut. As far weight gain/loss its all math take in more than you need you less you lose.
Right now I`m shredded...............I think I`ll surpass my best conditioning yet.
If I was eating like shit but only ate 1000 cals a day,I`d lose weight for sure, as long as I was active,but I doubt if I would like a fraction of the way I look right now.
As a matter of FACT,I would look skinny fat as opposed to lean and muscular.
HERE WE GO AGAIN !!!!! LOL ;D
-
all calories are NOT created equal
-
Contest prep - Try taking the same amount of calories in donuts as you would in chicken then come back with your answer and see what your body composition looks like.. You have 8 weeks.
Why would anyone just eat doughnuts all day and nothing else? You do realize that you would have to FORCE yourself to do this (for what reason, I have no idea).
-
Maybe regarding contest prep, but for the other 99% of people, a calorie is a calorie. Consider the twinkie diet guy: Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too. He shed 27 pounds in two months. His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds. Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
Or the potatoe diet guy: Chris Voigt,the head of the Washington State Potato Commission lost 21 pounds in two months eating nothing but potatoes every day all day. What impact did the diet have on Voigt's health? He said his weight dropped from 197 pounds to 176 pounds and his cholesterol level fell 67 points. His doctor was shocked, Voigt said.
-EK
-
Maybe regarding contest prep, but for the other 99% of people, a calorie is a calorie. Consider the twinkie diet guy: Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too. He shed 27 pounds in two months. His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds. Haub's "bad" cholesterol, or LDL, dropped 20 percent and his "good" cholesterol, or HDL, increased by 20 percent. He reduced the level of triglycerides, which are a form of fat, by 39 percent.
Or the potatoe diet guy: Chris Voigt,the head of the Washington State Potato Commission lost 21 pounds in two months eating nothing but potatoes every day all day. What impact did the diet have on Voigt's health? He said his weight dropped from 197 pounds to 176 pounds and his cholesterol level fell 67 points. His doctor was shocked, Voigt said.
-EK
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20024131-10391704.html#ixzz1QaazRhVY
I spoke with Mark Haub a bit via email and sent him some pictures and my eating patterns so he can use them for his research and his students.
-
I think you didn't understand what he meant. Plus, you're taking it to the extreme with your example.
Even if I were not talking bodybuilding, macros are important. Anyone can lose weight being calorie deficit but body composition in ANYONE is important. You also have to take into consideration body types as well as health and genetic predisposition. It's never black and white as TA and wavelength claim.
-
Even if I were not talking bodybuilding, macros are important. Anyone can lose weight being calorie deficit but body composition in ANYONE is important. You also have to take into consideration body types as well as health and genetic predisposition. It's never black and white as TA and wavelength claim.
Damn, you sound like one of them liberals you hate so much.
-
Even if I were not talking bodybuilding, macros are important. Anyone can lose weight being calorie deficit but body composition in ANYONE is important. You also have to take into consideration body types as well as health and genetic predisposition. It's never black and white as TA and wavelength claim.
What are you bantering on about? If you eat like a normal human being and not overeat, by default, you will get adequate nutrition. You can then combine this with your weight training and you will look exactly the same as you would had you been beating yourself into the ground with dogmatic bro-science bodybuilding eating principles.
-
Why would anyone just eat doughnuts all day and nothing else? You do realize that you would have to FORCE yourself to do this (for what reason, I have no idea).
Even if you were taking the right amount of protein and ate shit the rest of the day even if you kept within your calorie range the result would be........shit. The right foods mean EVERYTHING.
-
Even if you were taking the right amount of protein and ate shit the rest of the day even if you kept within your calorie range the result would be........shit. The right foods mean EVERYTHING.
Why would anyone eat feces? ???
-
Why would anyone eat feces? ???
If I'm pwning you again in these types of theads then just bail out, you're arguement is weak which is why you come back with juvenile answers such as this.
-
Unfortunately, I do not remember what the nutritional expert said, but he stated that the body breaks it down differently.
-
If I'm pwning you again in these types of theads then just bail out, you're arguement is weak which is why you come back with juvenile answers such as this.
You stated "eating shit". I take that as eating feces as I do not know what else to interpret it as.
Can you please provide a comprehensive and complete list of what "eating shit" entails?
-
Unfortunately, I do not remember what the nutritional expert said, but he stated that the body breaks it down differently.
Then you have "nutritional experts" who claim you can lose weight on a twinkie diet......no shit. You can lose weight on anything is calories are low enough.
-
Then you have "nutritional experts" who claim you can lose weight on a twinkie diet......no shit. You can lose weight on anything is calories are low enough.
That was my point exactly. For 99% of the people on this planet, a calorie is just a calorie. And sorry, I'm going to take the advice of a nutrition professor with a doctorate in his field of the advice of someone on an internet forum. -EK
-
Unfortunately, I do not remember what the nutritional expert said, but he stated that the body breaks it down differently.
Of course, but that has little to do with what we are talking about. Getting adequate and complete nutrition is relatively easy to do by default and this includes the necessary amounts for weight training/bodybuilding.
For instance, you can`t treat Scurvy with Protein. This is not what we are debating.
-
That was my point exactly. For 99% of the people on this planet, a calorie is just a calorie. And sorry, I'm going to take the advice of a nutrition professor with a doctorate in his field of the advice of someone on an internet forum. -EK
Got any pics of these nutrition professors?
-
Got any pics of these nutrition professors?
What does that have to do with anything? Google the guy if you're interested in his appearance. It doesn't discount his knowledge. -EK
-
That was my point exactly. For 99% of the people on this planet, a calorie is just a calorie. And sorry, I'm going to take the advice of a nutrition professor with a doctorate in his field of the advice of someone on an internet forum. -EK
My 14 year old son could have told you the same thing. But our advisors do have doctorates so I'm just not talking out my ass.
-
My 14 year old son could have told you the same thing. But our advisors do have doctorates so I'm just not talking out my ass.
I didn't say- or mean to imply that you were. The way you put nutrition experts in quotes made it seem like they have no knowledge, training, or viable advice to offer though, which is short-sighted and not correct. -EK
-
What does that have to do with anything? Google the guy if you're interested in his appearance. It doesn't discount his knowledge. -EK
It has a lot to do with it..........I understand that they aren`t bodybuilders,but we already agreed you can lose weight eating anything you want as long as you are in a calorie deficit.
I`d like to see their fat to muscle ratio.
Anyway,eat all the crap you want......I`ll do it my way as it has always worked even if you wanna` call it "bro science" matters not to me.
At 56 I look as good as I ever did .......possibly better and eat I no twinkies.
-
It has a lot to do with it..........I understand that they aren`t bodybuilders,but we already agreed you can lose weight eating anything you want as long as you are in a calorie deficit.
I`d like to see their fat to muscle ratio.
Anyway,eat all the crap you want......I`ll do it my way as it has always worked even if you wanna` call it "bro science" matters not to me.
At 56 I look as good as I ever did .......possibly better and eat I no twinkies.
Great for you. But, we actually did NOT all agree on that. Someone on page one started in with the macronutrient stuff, and while it's an applicable point for people who weight train, it isn't the end all, be all for everyone. Regarding muscle to fat ratio, twinkie diet guy improved his substantially. How many people on this board actually have won anything at the national or world level? Stop taking life so seriously! -EK
-
Some dude on here said he was eating dog food wonder how that figures into the mix?
-
Great for you. But, we actually did NOT all agree on that. Someone on page one started in with the macronutrient stuff, and while it's an applicable point for people who weight train, it isn't for everyone. Regarding muscle to fat ratio, twinkie diet guy improved his substantially. -EK
I agreed on it and that`s all that matters to me!
I bet twinkie guy is a fucking twinkie.
Eat marshmallows,look like a marshmallow.
Carry on ! :)
-
Some dude on here said he was eating dog food wonder how that figures into the mix?
Makes you chase cars and piss on fire hydrants......bad side effects bro!! LOL ;D
-
I didn't say- or mean to imply that you were. The way you put nutrition experts in quotes made it seem like they have no knowledge, training, or viable advice to offer though, which is short-sighted and not correct. -EK
The thing that bothers me about these media happy experts is that they capitalize on things most of the public already knows. TA changes his tune quite a bit when these types of threads come up. Just about everyone on here knows he's just on here to instigate. He was called out BIG TIME on here by mindspin who offered an all expenses paid trip to So. Cal (Corona Del Mar) to debate with Dr. Connely. I offered to set him up with a debate with Dr. John Berardi. He made excuses and refused. As far as I'm concerned these threads are pretty useless but I still get baited.
-
Makes you chase cars and piss on fire hydrants......bad side effects bro!! LOL ;D
:D
-
The thing that bothers me about these media happy experts is that they capitalize on things most of the public already knows. TA changes his tune quite a bit when these types of threads come up. Just about everyone on here knows he's just on here to instigate. He was called out BIG TIME on here by mindspin who offered an all expenses paid trip to So. Cal (Corona Del Mar) to debate with Dr. Connely. I offered to set him up with a debate with Dr. John Berardi. He made excuses and refused. As far as I'm concerned these threads are pretty useless but I still get baited.
1. I am not here to just instigate contrary to your claim.
2. The only reason I would ever go to California would be to see the Redwoods and Sequoias, hopefully staying at Hearst Castle. I`d also like to visit some historic sites there and some of their museums. The VERY LAST THING I`D EVER want to do is debate a hackneyed point that should be rather elementary by now.
3. I`m too busy with archaeological digs on my property as it is to be bothered by someone like Berardi who sits in some office all day counting Protein grams and praying to Jesus. I`d rather find rusted horseshoes than give him audience.
-
What's so hard to understand???
A calorie IS a calorie if you are looking to simply lose weight. In other words, if you want to lose 30 pounds in 2-3 months, make sure to only eat 1000 calories or less per day, regardless of what you eat. Doing this, you will lose a lot of weight, but your body composition will look shitty.
A calorie IS not a calorie if you want to actually look slim and muscular. If you consume a decent amount of protein, fats & carbs, all the while maintaining a caloric deficit under 1000 calories, you will also lose a lot of weight, but your end result will be slightly better by way of retaining more muscle mass.
The major difference between the first scenario and the second is that during the first scenario, you don't have to worry about doing any form of exercise. In the second scenario, exercise will make a huge difference.
What is the problem here?
"1"
-
The thing that bothers me about these media happy experts is that they capitalize on things most of the public already knows. TA changes his tune quite a bit when these types of threads come up. Just about everyone on here knows he's just on here to instigate. He was called out BIG TIME on here by mindspin who offered an all expenses paid trip to So. Cal (Corona Del Mar) to debate with Dr. Connely. I offered to set him up with a debate with Dr. John Berardi. He made excuses and refused. As far as I'm concerned these threads are pretty useless but I still get baited.
That's cool. I'm new here, and don't know him, you, or anyone else. What I do know is that there is a big world out there outside of the realm of lifting, and for most people, counting calories is still the best way to manipulate body fat- at least to start with. Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. Carry on. -EK
-
Another TA excuse.
-
Even if I were not talking bodybuilding, macros are important. Anyone can lose weight being calorie deficit but body composition in ANYONE is important. You also have to take into consideration body types as well as health and genetic predisposition. It's never black and white as TA and wavelength claim.
Sure, but eating a well balanced diet will assure someone getting his adequate macros. High protein intakes are not necessary, so by eating a wide variety of foods one can get optimal protein, carbs & fats and focus on calories in order to lose fat or gain muscle. For example if I choose to get 200 of calories from bread instead of oatmeal, I don't think there is any difference.
I'm referring to non competitive naturals of course. When someone is on drugs and doing bb contests it may be different.
You maybe right about body types, genetics, etc. I can only speak for myself and I honestly much prefer eating sort of like TA does. Results are similar to when I was eating like a "bodybuilder", actually I'm leaner than before.
-
these debates are best solved doing this:
1. i eat this (list your food)
2. i look like this (post your picture)
whoever wins by a clear majority is right, yes?
-
these debates are best solved doing this:
1. i eat this (list your food)
2. i look like this (post your picture)
whoever wins by a clear majority is right, yes?
Yes.
"1"
-
these debates are best solved doing this:
1. i eat this (list your food)
2. i look like this (post your picture)
whoever wins by a clear majority is right, yes?
Correct.
I have yet to see someone with a nutritional degree diet an olympia competitor.
I think the bottom line is, nutrition people generaly have a different priority than people who visit this website.
They are not after the lowest bodyfat possible, as people who are dieting for contests are. They simply care about proper nutrition for health and mainting a certain BMI.
Of course, these are just my observations, but IMHO, im gonna follow the guys advice that gets people shredded, not the guy who has the degree in nutrition that makes people look like smaller versions of themselves.
-
Correct.
I have yet to see someone with a nutritional degree diet an olympia competitor.
I think the bottom line is, nutrition people generaly have a different priority than people who visit this website.
They are not after the lowest bodyfat possible, as people who are dieting for contests are. They simply care about proper nutrition for health and mainting a certain BMI.
Of course, these are just my observations, but IMHO, im gonna follow the guys advice that gets people shredded, not the guy who has the degree in nutrition that makes people look like smaller versions of themselves.
Reality check here. I don't see Jay, Ronnie, or any other pros on this board. What? Everyone here is dieting down to look great for 90 seconds on stage and a plastic trophy? Irrespective of overall health, and f*** what is considered a healthy lifestyle as long as I look good? Seriously? I'll take overall health, my three national powerlifting titles, and clean living over extremist views on dieting any day. -EK
-
Reality check here. I don't see Jay, Ronnie, or any other pros on this board. What? Everyone here is dieting down to look great for 90 seconds on stage and a plastic trophy? Irrespective of overall health, and f*** what is considered a healthy lifestyle as long as I look good? Seriously? I'll take overall health, my three national powerlifting titles, and clean living over extremist views on dieting any day. -EK
My point was, for the people on this board shooting for low bodyfat, none of those things are as important.
They are for YOU, and thats why you choose to follow the guy with the nutritional degree.
But its stupid of you to insinuate that your choice is somehow better than other people's who have different priorities.
-
My point was, for the people on this board shooting for low bodyfat, none of those things are as important.
They are for YOU, and thats why you choose to follow the guy with the nutritional degree.
But its stupid of you to insinuate that your choice is somehow better than other people's who have different priorities.
It's equally stupid to insinuate that the only end result of fitness should be an Olympia quality physique. -EK
-
Contest prep - Try taking the same amount of calories in donuts as you would in chicken then come back with your answer and see what your body composition looks like.. You have 8 weeks.
I thought True Adonis already proved this was possible?
-
It's equally stupid to insinuate that the only end result of fitness should be an Olympia quality physique. -EK
No where did I insinuate that.
I showed you how rediculous your post was with a simple parody and flip of yours. ::)
And you proved my point by melting down with this.
Reality check here. I don't see Jay, Ronnie, or any other pros on this board. What? Everyone here is dieting down to look great for 90 seconds on stage and a plastic trophy? Irrespective of overall health, and f*** what is considered a healthy lifestyle as long as I look good? Seriously? I'll take overall health, my three national powerlifting titles, and clean living over extremist views on dieting any day. -EK
Sorry. ::)
-
just a calorie? :D :D There was a nutritional expert on the radio who said that a calorie in a doughnut is different than a calorie found in chicken. He stated that the body processes a calorie from a doughnut different than a calorie from a piece of chicken.
Truth?
YUP. A DIET 0F ALL CARBS AND SUGAR WILL HAVE Y0U HAVE A DIFFERENT B0DY C0MP0SITI0N THAN A DIET 0F FAT AND MEAT.
-
A calorie is a calorie however nutrition wise you arent gonna much from a doughnut. As far weight gain/loss its all math take in more than you need you less you lose.
TRUE Y0U'LL L0SE WEIGHT BUT Y0U W0N'T HAVE THE SAME B0DY C0MP0SITI0N. A DIET FULL 0F D0NUTS WILL HAVE Y0U L0SE MUSCLE MASS ANS ST0RE B0DY FAT EVEN IN A CAL0RIE DEFECIT.
-
Correct.
I have yet to see someone with a nutritional degree diet an olympia competitor.I think the bottom line is, nutrition people generaly have a different priority than people who visit this website.
They are not after the lowest bodyfat possible, as people who are dieting for contests are. They simply care about proper nutrition for health and mainting a certain BMI.
Of course, these are just my observations, but IMHO, im gonna follow the guys advice that gets people shredded, not the guy who has the degree in nutrition that makes people look like smaller versions of themselves.
This line implies that. Or at least it did to me. Not going to get into a pissing match with you. We disagree. Resorting to calling people stupid is childish. I apologize. -EK
-
This line implies that. Or at least it did to me. Not going to get into a pissing match with you. We disagree. Resorting to calling people stupid is childish. I apologize. -EK
NUTRITI0NAL DEGREES ARE W0RTHLESS. IT'S A BI0CHEMISTRY DEGREE WITH RESEARCH THAT SEPARATES A DIETICIAN AT A L0CAL H0SPITAL AND A SCIENTIST.
-
NUTRITI0NAL DEGREES ARE W0RTHLESS. IT'S A BI0CHEMISTRY DEGREE WITH RESEARCH THAT SEPARATES A DIETICIAN AT A L0CAL H0SPITAL AND A SCIENTIST.
Dumbest statement ever. Research what it takes to earn a degree in dietetics, then get back to me. And typing in all caps doesn't make your point more valid. -EK
-
This line implies that. Or at least it did to me. Not going to get into a pissing match with you. We disagree. Resorting to calling people stupid is childish. I apologize. -EK
Fair enough. Same here.
-
Dumbest statement ever. Research what it takes to earn a degree in dietetics, then get back to me. And typing in all caps doesn't make your point more valid. -EK
N0T MUCH. IT'S THE SAME PR0CEDUCRE AS ANY DEGREE WITH LESS CLASSES. IN FACT I CAN GET A DIETICIAN DEGREE IN A C0UPLE 0F M0NTHS D0ING 0NLINE C0URSES. Y0U N0T KN0WING H0W EASY IT IS T0 GET SUCH A DEGREE SH0WS WHAT KIND 0F FUCKING M0R0N Y0U REALLY ARE. ANY RETARD 0FF THE STREET CAN GET A NUTRI0NAL DEGREE. IT'S THE EASIEST AND W0RTHLESS DEGREE 0UT THERE. ME TYPING IN CAPS IS IRRELEVANT. IT D0SEN'T CHANGE THE FACTS.
-
N0T MUCH. IT'S THE SAME PR0CEDUCRE AS ANY DEGREE WITH LESS CLASSES. IN FACT I CAN GET A DIETICIAN DEGREE IN A C0UPLE 0F M0NTHS D0ING 0NLINE C0URSES. Y0U N0T KN0WING H0W EASY IT IS T0 GET SUCH A DEGREE SH0WS WHAT KIND 0F FUCKING M0R0N Y0U REALLY ARE. ANY RETARD 0FF THE STREET CAN GET A NUTRI0NAL DEGREE. IT'S THE EASIEST AND W0RTHLESS DEGREE 0UT THERE. ME TYPING IN CAPS IS IRRELEVANT. IT D0SEN'T CHANGE THE FACTS.
Wow. Didn't think you could post something dumber than your initial post, but you proved me wrong. You can NOT get a dietician degree (at least not one accepted by any hospitals) online. U of Phoenix doesn't offer a program in it, and Kaplan's is worhtless. A nutritional certificatiom (the kind you get online) is NOT the same thing as a degree in dietetics. For shits and giggles, here's the requirements from UNC- but ANY medical school is going to be pretty mush the same (that's right, medical school). In addition to holding a BS in some science, you need the following for an MS: 37 hours in non-thesis work and 40 hours in thesis specific work. For the Doctoral program, you need an ADDITIONAL 40+ hours and a dissertation. I'm premed, I know what I'm talking about here. -EK
-
Damn, you sound like one of them liberals you hate so much.
lol
-
just a calorie? :D :D There was a nutritional expert on the radio who said that a calorie in a doughnut is different than a calorie found in chicken. He stated that the body processes a calorie from a doughnut different than a calorie from a piece of chicken.
Truth?
as far as calore is concerned, no difference. But as "they" say for example, rice is much better for glycogen loading than let's say potato or bread. Proteins also have a "biological value", different amino acid profile, so maybe chicken and egg is better than soy. And so on.. It's not all about calories.
-
TRUE Y0U'LL L0SE WEIGHT BUT Y0U W0N'T HAVE THE SAME B0DY C0MP0SITI0N. A DIET FULL 0F D0NUTS WILL HAVE Y0U L0SE MUSCLE MASS ANS ST0RE B0DY FAT EVEN IN A CAL0RIE DEFECIT.
I've read it all here on getbig. :o :-\
-
My diet is super strict at the moment and extremely healthy.
Clean/lean protein sources,low complex clean carbs,low fats and no saturated fat,lots of fibrous vegetables,lots of clean water,and best of all,no chemicals,no sugars,no greasy stuff to clog the intestines as well as the arteries,and I`m looking pretty fucking good to boot.
Have another donut,I`ll eat my tuna,water,and rice cakes with a bit of old natty PB ! :)
-
just a calorie? :D :D There was a nutritional expert on the radio who said that a calorie in a doughnut is different than a calorie found in chicken. He stated that the body processes a calorie from a doughnut different than a calorie from a piece of chicken.
Truth?
search dr.c.f.smith for his take on the subject.
-
Wow. Didn't think you could post something dumber than your initial post, but you proved me wrong. You can NOT get a dietician degree (at least not one accepted by any hospitals) online. U of Phoenix doesn't offer a program in it, and Kaplan's is worhtless. A nutritional certificatiom (the kind you get online) is NOT the same thing as a degree in dietetics. For shits and giggles, here's the requirements from UNC- but ANY medical school is going to be pretty mush the same (that's right, medical school). In addition to holding a BS in some science, you need the following for an MS: 37 hours in non-thesis work and 40 hours in thesis specific work. For the Doctoral program, you need an ADDITIONAL 40+ hours and a dissertation. I'm premed, I know what I'm talking about here. -EK
WHERE DID I SAY ANYTHING AB0UT AN MS? I'M N0T TALKING AB0UT A PHD 0R MS IN NUTRITI0N AND EVEN THEN IT'S STILL CAKEWALK C0MPARED T0 A BI0CHEM DEGREE.
-
WHERE DID I SAY ANYTHING AB0UT AN MS? I'M N0T TALKING AB0UT A PHD 0R MS IN NUTRITI0N AND EVEN THEN IT'S STILL CAKEWALK C0MPARED T0 A BI0CHEM DEGREE.
How's that work? You would need either a degree in Bio, chem or biochem to get into the program. Stop talking. You're embarrasing yourself. -EK
-
search dr.c.f.smith for his take on the subject.
I've read he sort of advocated calorie is a calorie, am I right?
-
How's that work? You would need either a degree in Bio, chem or biochem to get into the program. Stop talking. You're embarrasing yourself. -EK
N0 Y0U D0N'T. PLENTY 0F UNIVERSITIES 0FFER A BS IN NUTRITI0N. I'LL GIVE Y0U 0NE.
http://nutrition.ucdavis.edu/undergrad/index.cfm
-
N0 Y0U D0N'T. PLENTY 0F UNIVERSITIES 0FFER A BS IN NUTRITI0N.
Either way, you still can not get a DEGREE in dietetics online or as an undergraduate. What part of that do you not get? -EK
-
Either way, you still can not get a DEGREE in dietetics online or as an undergraduate. What part of that do you not get? -EK
Undergraduate Majors
The Clinical Nutrition (formerly Dietetics) major incorporates the same basic core of nutrition classes as the Nutrition Science major, but includes additional courses such as food service management, education, sociology, and communication skills to prepare for work with the public. Clinical Nutrition students spend the first two years completing preparatory course work in the basic biological sciences, along with several of the social sciences. In the final two years, students take courses in normal and clinical nutrition, food science, biochemistry, and management techniques. A checklist for the Clinical Nutrition major is also available online.
http://nutrition.ucdavis.edu/undergrad/index.cfm
-
Undergraduate Majors
The Clinical Nutrition (formerly Dietetics) major incorporates the same basic core of nutrition classes as the Nutrition Science major, but includes additional courses such as food service management, education, sociology, and communication skills to prepare for work with the public. Clinical Nutrition students spend the first two years completing preparatory course work in the basic biological sciences, along with several of the social sciences. In the final two years, students take courses in normal and clinical nutrition, food science, biochemistry, and management techniques. A checklist for the Clinical Nutrition major is also available online.
http://nutrition.ucdavis.edu/undergrad/index.cfm
Thanks for proving my point for me. Formerly means just that- formerly, as in "not any more." -EK
-
Thanks for proving my point for me. Formerly means just that- formerly, as in "not any more." -EK
I THINK Y0U'RE QUITE P0SSIBLY THE STUPIDEST PERS0N 0N THIS F0RUM EVER. F0RMELY MEANS THE NAMES WAS CHANGED Y0U DIMWIT. HERE'S AN0THER EXAMPLE. DIETETICS AND NUTRI0NAL SCIENCE ARE TW0 DIFFERENT THINGS.
http://fshn.msu.edu/programs/dietetics_degreerequirements.html
Dietetics
Requirements for the Bachelor of Science Degree
120 semester credits required for graduation
University Requirements in Integrative Studies
College of Agriculture & Natural Resources Requirements
Major Requirements
Supporting Discipline Courses
Professional Courses
Electives
-
heres a sure fire way to end this debate.
all of those who say a calorie is a calorie post your pics.
all those who say a calorie isnt a calorie, post your pics.
whatever group that has the best physiques wins.
simple enough. btw- heres a heads up- it wont be the 'a calorie is just a calorie' group. ;)
-
A calorie is a unit of energy.
1 gram of protein has about 4 calories, 1 gram of fat about 9 calories, 1 gram of carbs about 4 calories. This is how much energy is released from these substances if you literally burn them in a test tube.
You body processes these three substances in three different ways, none of which include setting fire to them.
Your goal as a bodybuilder is to increase lean mass and reduce fat. To do this you need to eat enough protein not only to maintain your current lean mass, but to enable you to increase it. About a gram of complete (all essential amino acids in useful ratios, eg. meat,fish,eggs,whey etc.) protein per lb of existing lean body mass will do. Exact numbers will vary slightly from individual to individual.
Maintaining lean mass and increasing it requires energy, which your body gets most efficiently from carbs, and less efficiently from fats, even though fats are more calorie-dense. In extremes it will use existing lean mass for energy, though this is less efficient still.
You therefore need supply your body with carbs and fats. If you don't, your body will start using existing muscle tissue for energy to maintain itself/move about/log on to the internet and jerk off to the cuties thread in the porn section here etc.
You DO NOT need to eat so many carbs/fats that you increase in blubber, while gaining lean mass. Gaining lean mass while maintaining existing amounts of blubber will in itself decrease your bodyfat percentage.
To lose fat you need to deplete your body of carbs and ingest small enough amounts of fat that it is forced to use existing fat stores for energy. Reduce breakdown of existing lean mass by maintaining high enough protein intake and preferably using suitable anabolic compounds. Without the latter you ARE going to lose muscle as well as fat when dieting. Muscle is metabolically expensive to maintain and your body will try to get rid of it in times of stress to reduce your resource requirements. It is greatly hindered in its endeavours in this regard by a hormonal environment aggressively encouraging protein synthesis.
Expend more energy than you take in and you will lose fat. Take in enough energy to maintain and grow muscle and you will do just that.
THESE TWO PROCESSES ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Thus:
Count grams of protein. It's calorific value should be of no interest to you.
Count carb/fat calories. Experience (and the mirror) will tell you if you are eating enough, too little, or too many.
Hope all that was clear.
Captain Fucking Obvious, over and out.
-
just a calorie? :D :D There was a nutritional expert on the radio who said that a calorie in a doughnut is different than a calorie found in chicken. He stated that the body processes a calorie from a doughnut different than a calorie from a piece of chicken.
Truth?
Like I have said before, a calorie is a calorie and can't be anything else purely by definition. Now, he is also correct that a calorie from one food will have a different reaction by the body than from another type of food, very simple to understand.
-
Like I have said before, a calorie is a calorie and can't be anything else purely by definition. Now, he is also correct that a calorie from one food will have a different reaction by the body than from another type of food, very simple to understand.
THIS END THREAD HERE.
-
A calorie is a unit of energy.
1 gram of protein has about 4 calories, 1 gram of fat about 9 calories, 1 gram of carbs about 4 calories. This is how much energy is released from these substances if you literally burn them in a test tube.
You body processes these three substances in three different ways, none of which include setting fire to them.
Your goal as a bodybuilder is to increase lean mass and reduce fat. To do this you need to eat enough protein not only to maintain your current lean mass, but to enable you to increase it. About a gram of complete (all essential amino acids in useful ratios, eg. meat,fish,eggs,whey etc.) protein per lb of existing lean body mass will do. Exact numbers will vary slightly from individual to individual.
Maintaining lean mass and increasing it requires energy, which your body gets most efficiently from carbs, and less efficiently from fats, even though fats are more calorie-dense. In extremes it will use existing lean mass for energy, though this is less efficient still.
You therefore need supply your body with carbs and fats. If you don't, your body will start using existing muscle tissue for energy to maintain itself/move about/log on to the internet and jerk off to the cuties thread in the porn section here etc.
You DO NOT need to eat so many carbs/fats that you increase in blubber, while gaining lean mass. Gaining lean mass while maintaining existing amounts of blubber will in itself decrease your bodyfat percentage.
To lose fat you need to deplete your body of carbs and ingest small enough amounts of fat that it is forced to use existing fat stores for energy. Reduce breakdown of existing lean mass by maintaining high enough protein intake and preferably using suitable anabolic compounds. Without the latter you ARE going to lose muscle as well as fat when dieting. Muscle is metabolically expensive to maintain and your body will try to get rid of it in times of stress to reduce your resource requirements. It is greatly hindered in its endeavours in this regard by a hormonal environment aggressively encouraging protein synthesis.
Expend more energy than you take in and you will lose fat. Take in enough energy to maintain and grow muscle and you will do just that.
THESE TWO PROCESSES ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.
Thus:
Count grams of protein. It's calorific value should be of no interest to you.
Count carb/fat calories. Experience (and the mirror) will tell you if you are eating enough, too little, or too many.
Hope all that was clear.
Captain Fucking Obvious, over and out.
MUSCLE WILL BE L0ST IF Y0U G0 0N A L0W FAT DIET UNLESS Y0U'RE 0N DRUGS. FAT WILL SPARE THE MUSCLE.
-
Like I have said before, a calorie is a calorie and can't be anything else purely by definition. Now, he is also correct that a calorie from one food will have a different reaction by the body than from another type of food, very simple to understand.
I thought I made this clear early in the thread when I posted this:
A calorie IS a calorie if you are looking to simply lose weight. In other words, if you want to lose 30 pounds in 2-3 months, make sure to only eat 1000 calories or less per day, regardless of what you eat. Doing this, you will lose a lot of weight, but your body composition will look shitty.
A calorie IS not a calorie if you want to actually look slim and muscular. If you consume a decent amount of protein, fats & carbs, all the while maintaining a caloric deficit under 1000 calories, you will also lose a lot of weight, but your end result will be slightly better by way of retaining more muscle mass.
The major difference between the first scenario and the second is that during the first scenario, you don't have to worry about doing any form of exercise. In the second scenario, exercise will make a huge difference.
What is the problem here?
"1"
-
I thought I made this clear early in the thread when I posted this:
A calorie IS a calorie if you are looking to simply lose weight. In other words, if you want to lose 30 pounds in 2-3 months, make sure to only eat 1000 calories or less per day, regardless of what you eat. Doing this, you will lose a lot of weight, but your body composition will look shitty.
A calorie IS not a calorie if you want to actually look slim and muscular. If you consume a decent amount of protein, fats & carbs, all the while maintaining a caloric deficit under 1000 calories, you will also lose a lot of weight, but your end result will be slightly better by way of retaining more muscle mass.
The major difference between the first scenario and the second is that during the first scenario, you don't have to worry about doing any form of exercise. In the second scenario, exercise will make a huge difference.
What is the problem here?
"1"
First of all I didn't read your post, Secondly you're wrong. A calorie is a calorie. Can a calorie be a tree? or a car? Of course not, but as you say macros can and will have different effects on the body.. So the problem here is that you do not understand what you are talking about.
-
First of all I didn't read your post, Secondly you're wrong. A calorie is a calorie. Can a calorie be a tree? or a car? Of course not, but as you say macros can and will have different effects on the body.. So the problem here is that you do not uinderstand what you are talking about.
I'm not wrong.
I stated that when you don't care about body composition, a calorie becomes just that, a calorie AND losing weight just becomes an issue of maintaining a caloric deficit.
Yet, when you care about body composition (as in maintaining some type of muscle), a calorie is no longer JUST a calorie, but a unit of energy that should come from a well balanced approach that includes the consumption of proteins, carbs and fats.
...and with regards to this: Can a calorie be a tree? or a car? Of course not"
Sure, a calorie also can't be an Indian or an Astronaut, but you're not that stupid either Disgusted. You know very well that a calorie can come in the form of protein, fat or even that of a carb.
Are we not on the same page Disgusted?
"1"
-
The definition of a calorie which is consistant can not change just because you chose to think of it differently or use it in a certain cenario of your chosing.
A calorie is a unit of heat measurement nothing more nothing less. Foods "contain" calories, but no one as far as I know is disputing that.
-
.
Right Jim, but you know that this phrase regarding a calorie being just a calorie surfaced from Mentzer and them thinking that no matter what you eat, the end result will be the same so as long as the total number of calories consumed are kept low.
In this perspective, the unit of heat definition plays no role, because you have to place it in the perspective of what is being discussed.
Again, agree to disagree on this one.
"1"
-
It can get very complicated when discussing this type of thing and although it should not I can see why. I DO NOT and I think we may be on the same page here, believe that you can eat an abundance of sugar carbs and live as long and as healthy of a life as someone who restricts their carbs. I am not talking zero carbs by any means, but insulin is an aging hormone and these guys who are using slin and or eating and abusing lots of carbs will have health problems later in life.
-
It can get very complicated when discussing this type of thing and although it should not I can see why. I DO NOT and I think we may be on the same page here, believe that you can eat an abundance of sugar carbs and live as long and as healthy of a life as someone who restricts their carbs. I am not talking zero carbs by any means, but insulin is an aging hormone and these guys who are using slin and or eating and abusing lots of carbs will have health problems later in life.
That's completely true.
"1"
-
W0W F0R THE FIRST TIME IN GET BIG HIST0RY I AGREE WITH S0ME 0F THE P0STERS 0N HERE.
-
MUSCLE WILL BE L0ST IF Y0U G0 0N A L0W FAT DIET UNLESS Y0U'RE 0N DRUGS. FAT WILL SPARE THE MUSCLE.
Utter bullshit. Where do you get this voodoo nonsense?
I'm always willing to learn though, perhaps you could point to a peer reviewed scientific study verifying your claim?
-
W0W F0R THE FIRST TIME IN GET BIG HIST0RY I AGREE WITH S0ME 0F THE P0STERS 0N HERE.
DO YOU AGREE THE CAPSLOCK THING HAS BEEN GOING ON LONG ENOUGH ??
-
C'mon folks, success in diet is relative to the individual. I've trained 100% and eaten 100% clean....good results. I've trained 100% and eaten 100% unclean......not very good results. I've trained 100% and eaten a mix of clean/unclean.....best results...I don't know? In the simplist terms I suppose this tells me that a more well-rounded approach is best in terms of diet. I've trained next to guys that can eat junk food all day, rarely hit cardio and lean out easily. Me personally, if I get a good mix of clean/unclean and train hard I'll be fine. If I stop the training and eat purely clean or purely unclean or a mix......I get fat. The key for me is the exercise. Still, in general, if you eat 12 cheeseburgers day for a year (all other activity equal) and then suddenly you eat only 10 cheeseburgers a day (all other activity equal) chances are you'll lose weight. There just isn't a magic formula for all. Find what works for you and do that.
-
Utter bullshit. Where do you get this voodoo nonsense?
I'm always willing to learn though, perhaps you could point to a peer reviewed scientific study verifying your claim?
IT'S ALL 0VER THE MEDICAL J0URNALS. FAT SPARES THE MUSCLE. THERE ARE T0NS 0F STUDIES 0UT THERE AND I DID THE RESEARCH MYSELF T00. CARBS ARE A N0N ESSENTIAL FUEL S0URCE. THE B0DY WILL 0NLY BURN AND USE CARbS IF Y0U FEED IT. TRUE FAT ADAPTATI0N INV0LVES N0 CARB L0ADING AND TAKES 2-6 M0NTHS. IN 0RDER F0R THAT T0 HAPPEN TH0UGH FATS NEED T0 BE MAJ0RITY 0F THE DIET PARTICULARY SATURATED FATS. IF GIVEN THE CHANCE THE B0DY WILL RATHER BURN KET0NES 0VER GLUC0SE AND THE BRAIN L0VES THEM T00.
-
C'mon folks, success in diet is relative to the individual. I've trained 100% and eaten 100% clean....good results. I've trained 100% and eaten 100% unclean......not very good results. I've trained 100% and eaten a mix of clean/unclean.....best results...I don't know? In the simplist terms I suppose this tells me that a more well-rounded approach is best in terms of diet. I've trained next to guys that can eat junk food all day, rarely hit cardio and lean out easily. Me personally, if I get a good mix of clean/unclean and train hard I'll be fine. If I stop the training and eat purely clean or purely unclean or a mix......I get fat. The key for me is the exercise. Still, in general, if you eat 12 cheeseburgers day for a year (all other activity equal) and then suddenly you eat only 10 cheeseburgers a day (all other activity equal) chances are you'll lose weight. There just isn't a magic formula for all. Find what works for you and do that.
What I was going to post exactly..
-
If a calorie is just a calorie, can I get big from eating ice cream all day? :D :D
-
Got any pics of these nutrition professors?
He is a beast of a man.
He also didn't eat just snack shit entirely, and exercised for 60-80 minutes a week (see video).
-
I've read he sort of advocated calorie is a calorie, am I right?
correct, i guess that's how he rationlized going to macdonalds on his lunchbreak from the er
-
A Calorie is a Calorie
Not to be confused with a mallory
but a gram is not a gram
pay attention here sam
protein is protein
and carbs are carbs
and that leaves you with fat
stuffed so far in your hat
on top of the cat
are you blind as a bat?
lift some weights for god's sake
And maybe then some muscles you'll make!
And be so proud, you'll jump naked in a lake.
Surround yourself by more men, and stop acting so fake!
???
(http://images.betterworldbooks.com/039/Green-Eggs-and-Ham-Dr-Seuss-9780394800165.jpg)
-
The notion of "post your pics, and we'll end the debate" is pointless. To presume that knowledge about a bodybuilding topic is relative to and dependent upon physique is laughable. I've benched pressed three times my body weight, drug free, in a sanctioned event- does that mean everyone else who hasn't done that (which I'm guessing is the entire freaking board) has less knowledge about powerlifting than I do? Doubtful. -EK
-
A calorie is a calorie. A calorie is not a forest, a race car, a track runner nor is a calorie a tanker floating through the Pacific Ocean (unless you're speaking of Jay Cutlers back).
A calorie will be burned differently, depending on if it's a calorie from carbohydrate, protein or fat. This is where the confusion comes in.
OneMoreRep was correct when he said "in terms of weight loss a calorie is a calorie." You will lose weight as long as your body is in a deficit and you're burning more than you eat. If you're not losing yet still in a deficit, congratulations you're the first person in the history of earth to defy the laws of thermodynamics. Your body composition may not be ideal, you may not look like Rich Gaspari with striated glutes, but you will have lost weight.
How the body reacts to each macronutrient and how each of those nutrients are processed is very different.
People confuse how the body reacts to each calorie source, and this is where the whole debate of a calorie being a calorie or not comes from. Like a pound of fat does not equal a pound of muscle. How can one pound of two different things weight any different, as long as each of them is a pound?!
-
Why would anyone eat feces? ???
;D
-
You eat pieces of shit for breakfast?
Actually almost 20% of American's have the h pylori bacteria sitting in their intestines. Mainly comes from feces. Almost all ice cream(thats made from cow's milk) has trace amounts of feces in it.
-
Adonis indicated the real issue everyone is up in arms about earlier in this thread.
The real point the "calorie is a calorie" people are trying to make is that, as long as your caloric intake AND MACRONUTRIENT PROFILE is suited for your goal, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER MUCH WHERE THOSE CALORIES COME FROM, and no amount of dogmatic "but this is what all the bodybuilders do!!!" reasoning is going to change that.
They are trying to dispel the rampant and ludicrous "bro-science" claims about "clean eating," and why you can have yams but not white potatoes, and why mcdonalds will literally give you an aneurysm if you even sniff it, and why if you cook your quinoa too long it becomes toxic, and why you need to eat two bags of broccoli a day, and why your muscles will actually fall of your body if you don't ingest at least two bone dry unseasoned chicken breasts per meal, and why that evil non-intramuscular-glycogen-replenishing fruit juice is like, totally unacceptable and so on and so forth until everyone's head has completely exploded and Coach's "advisers'" pockets are brimming with cash.
As long as you keep your macro nutrients in some sort of decent balance and your calibrate your caloric intake for your goals, you will achieve the body composition you desire. Whether you fill your daily allotment of carbs, fats, and protein with chicken breast and rice or mcdonalds, you'll end up in roughly the same place. That's the whole fucking reason people invented categories of macronutrients and applied energy ratings (calories) to food in the first place -- so that no matter what you ate you could understand the effect it was going to have on your body.
Yes micronutrition is important too, but for anyone to say that they actually know what sort of effect a particular diet (that isn't extremely simplistic and completely lacking in variety) will have on a person's body composition due to micronutrition is beyond absurd. I don't care how many PhDs they have.
For body composition purposes, wavelength's diet guide is all you need to know. And as far as I can remember you could fit it on the back of a damn napkin.
-
Even if you were taking the right amount of protein and ate shit the rest of the day even if you kept within your calorie range the result would be........shit. The right foods mean EVERYTHING.
this is veyr very wrong,, its not exactly what adonis say but it also far from what you say ,,
its the DRUGS AND DRUG TYPES WHO WILL DETERMINE YOUR BODY COMPOSITION in the big scheme of things,, if you think we get to be 250lb 5% by eating chiken and potato lol then you are severly wrong ,,
i keep saying it to you all again and again ,, you need to have macros in as in protien ,,enough protien yes! but the drugs will determine the condition ,, a drug like trenbolona when taken with hgh after 3-4 months even less! put you at 6% no matter fuckin what ,, down from 13-14 to 6%!! the drug does it not the diet!,, the diet actualy will have to be rich in calories and carbs and protien ,,it is much less to do about the diet and more to do about the drug and the dose and DURATION!! of intake ,,you can get to a point when you take drug too long of a time when later on even if you want! its very hard for you to add bodyfat!
ask anyone who been truly lean .... it is not easy to gain fat back when on the drugs i mention ,, you dont ,, you gain water! ,, once one is truly lean they stay lean and can eat very less strict diet IF on hgh and trenbolona,,even if trenbolona is out and hgh is taken in low dose ...still can eat a lot of shit! and be lean !
now when you talk from 6 to 4% it involve some dieting ,, but! you must get to 6% and big and thick enouhg so you can play with diet between 6 and 4 %,, it is really a matter of the right drugs in system ,,
fi anyone here ever tried trenbolona for 4-5 months and hgh ...they know what im talkin about... if anyone here was consistant with testosterona doses and trenbolona doses for long enough time along with hgh even for short time the hgh...they know what im talkin about,, we need NEED to eat icecream and jamaican and some 5 guy and german and pizza we NEED TO EAT IT because if we dont we lose bodyfat too fast im being very very serious ,,
people need to stop selling balonie about diet very restricted in calories because this is not how it is ,, its just not how it is ,, its the drugs that determine what you can eat or not!
if hgh in blood ,,if trenbolona in blood ,, if testosterona in blood....you can pretty much eat whatever the fuck you want as long as you really dont sit and drink oikl al day long or eat junk food 7 times a day ,, always within some balance...but really on hgh trenbolona and testosterona you pretty much can be normal human being that take more protien and be RIPPED ! yes you may hold some more water,,, but! but! you will be 6% and it will show and you will be lean and ripped to anyone ,, you will look like a bodybuilder and will look in most cases 10 times better than the fella who ate his brokoly and dry chiken and calculated his 276calories for meal number 58 that day...
gh15 approved
-
How important is supplementing with t3 and t4 when on hgh? Anthony Roberts insists that you have to use t4 when on HGH and guys here like Flintstone agree 100%. Some even claim that taking t3 instead of t4 while on gh is bad for you. I find that claim a bit hard to believe as I assume every competitor out there is using both HGH and t3 when prepping.
-
How important is supplementing with t3 and t4 when on hgh? Anthony Roberts insists that you have to use t4 when on HGH and guys here like Flintstone agree 100%. Some even claim that taking t3 instead of t4 while on gh is bad for you. I find that claim a bit hard to believe as I assume every competitor out there is using both HGH and t3 when prepping.
(http://www.tonyrobbinsreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Anthony-Robbins.png)
-
This ongoing discussion seems to take on an almost ideological bent. Of course a calorie is a calorie. A measure of a unit of energy. Or rather a measure of heat energy. The energy needed to raise a gram of water 1 C. One calorie from sugar is the same as one calorie from a peanut. And the only way to lose body weight (not water weight) is to be at a caloric deficit and to gain weight a caloric surplus. No way around this.
But Disgusted is right that a "calorie in" is not the same as a "calorie out" because it makes a difference how it is is processed in the body. Sugar will elicit more of an insulin response than olive oil. If you drink a cup of grape juice a 98.8 degrees and a cup at 30 degrees it will have a different effect on your body. More calories will be expended having to heat up the 25 degree juice to body temp. Processing protein requires more calories than processing a sugar cube. If a food stuff is high in fiber again it will require more energy to process. It is indeed true that because of the amount of cellulose in celery you will burn more energy processing that celery stalk than it's caloric value.
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/celery.asp
"Celery is actually loaded with latent energy, but the plant's composition only allows us to metabolize a small amount. The latent energy is packed tightly in the form of cellulose; a complex sugar which humans are unable to metabolize. It's not that the celery is difficult to digest, but rather it provides fewer calories than what is needed to digest it - so the overall effect is "negative calories."
-
This ongoing discussion seems to take on an almost ideological bent. Of course a calorie is a calorie. A measure of a unit of energy. Or rather a measure of heat energy. The energy needed to raise a gram of water 1 C. One calorie from sugar is the same as one calorie from a peanut. And the only way to lose body weight (not water weight) is to be at a caloric deficit and to gain weight a caloric surplus. No way around this.
But Disgusted is right that a "calorie in" is not the same as a "calorie out" because it makes a difference how it is is processed in the body. Sugar will elicit more of an insulin response than olive oil. If you drink a cup of grape juice a 98.8 degrees and a cup at 30 degrees it will have a different effect on your body. More calories will be expended having to heat up the 25 degree juice to body temp. Processing protein requires more calories than processing a sugar cube. If a food stuff is high in fiber again it will require more energy to process. It is indeed true that because of the amount of cellulose in celery you will burn more energy processing that celery stalk than it's caloric value.
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/celery.asp
"Celery is actually loaded with latent energy, but the plant's composition only allows us to metabolize a small amount. The latent energy is packed tightly in the form of cellulose; a complex sugar which humans are unable to metabolize. It's not that the celery is difficult to digest, but rather it provides fewer calories than what is needed to digest it - so the overall effect is "negative calories."
"Negative Energy" foods and the TEF theory is pointless as can be if you are consuming calories in a consistent caloric deficit. Furthermore, if you are not in a caloric deficit its pointless as well as it is negligible.
-
"Negative Energy" foods and the TEF theory is pointless as can be if you are consuming calories in a consistent caloric deficit. Furthermore, if you are not in a caloric deficit its pointless as well as it is negligible.
Whether it is pointless or not or whether it makes a real world difference the point is that though a calorie is a calorie a "calorie in" is not the same as a "calorie out."
Also, and I believe this will make more of a difference than the energy required processing different food stuffs which I suspect is negligible, there are certain types of foods that leave you feeling more satiated than others making it easier to eat less. It was called foods that "stick to your ribs" back in my day. For example, I can pack in way more calories in one sitting eating glazed donuts and come back for more in a relatively short time than I can, say, eating a lean steak. The common joke about the problem with banging a Chinese girl is that an hour later you're horny again is based on the very true, at least for me, that after gorging myself at a good Chinese restaurant, I'm hungry again in a couple of hours. Not the same when going to Tony Romas and going through a rack of ribs and bake potato.
Losing or gaining weight is simple but for many, if not most, not easy. If you are at a maintenance weight then simply eating less and moving more will put you in a caloric deficit. And if we were simply machines that don't have feelings or experience discomfort and hunger then it would be easy to gain or lose weight. But we are not machines. And that is why the majority of people are fat in this country. The idea of enduring even the slightest bit of discomfort or deprivation, let alone real pain, is something completely foreign in our enormously prosperous and affluent society.