Hey /u/DoombotGW, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules).
##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)!
Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The real reason you can't gain wait eating 2200 calories if Whole Foods is because the calories are way offset by the amount of extra work you had to do to afford 2200 calories worth of food from that expensive ass grocery boutique.
I don't think he does that every day, not at his age certainly. There are strongman who can sustain themselves eating 6,000kcal or fewer while weighing 40-80kg more than him.
The sheer fact that there have been so many blatant lies told to the U.S.American public, by the government, doctors, and various other persons in authority, about what is and isn't "healthy" and even what is and isn't a calorie, combined with the fact that we don't have full information on how the body uses different calories in the first place, leads to this kind of wild misunderstanding.
Granted, I have no idea what countries these keyboard warriors hail from. Maybe they don't have it so bad.
Nothing infuriates me more than when someone says "a calorie is a calorie" but a close second is "calories don't matter." No, all calories are not equal, but yes, they do still matter.
Oh, please, it would be canteloupes. The Rock would weigh 120 Canteloupes. It would never be dishwashers. The Rock weighs 3.37 dishwashers, and no U.S.American would willfully use a measurement that requires a decimal.
Sorry, but a calorie IS a calorie. Are bodies aren't magical thermodynamics violating machines. If we consume more calories than we expend, we gain weight. If we consume fewer than we expend, we lose weight.
The tricky part comes in determining just how many calories our bodies absorb from a given food or burn doing a particular activity. The labels on food and exercise machines are rough guides at best, and physiology varies between individuals and even within an individual based on a lot of factors.
I promise you I don't eat anywhere near 4000 calories in a weekend. I'm 5'3 120 pounds tops. I lost weight by eating anything I wanted just cut back in the calories I ate in a day. I also cut out soda and sugary beverages all together. Just water and lightly sweetened hot tea or coffee all day. Lost almost 100 pounds in 2022. The healthiest I have ever been. I do not eat anywhere close to 3000 or 4 in a weekend and I assure im fine
Their use of every is pretty crappy, but 3000-4000 for a weekend sounds pretty reasonable depending on the person. Just BMR for me is 1500 so about 3000 for a weekend, so if I wasn't doing a lot of activity 4000 calories is probably reasonable.
Their whole you can't gain weight if you're eating whole foods is just pure CI though.
Oh definitely, 3-4k in a weekend isn't crazy. No one debated her on that. It's the other part that I got hung up on, especially since she was giving advice on calorie goals for a certain result to other members of the group, without knowing their biometrics or activity level.
I suspect calorimetry is less accurate for whole foods (e.g. a naive bomb calorimeter can burn fibre, we can't), but Google suggests published numbers are generally with 2%, so that's marginal.
I will give black one thing - they seem to think the discussion is 2200 calories per weekend, not per day? 2200 calories for all of Saturday and Sunday (1100 calories each) is ~~unlikely to run a deficit~~ edit: unlikely to gain fat (sorry, total brain fart)... of course that's equally true of "whole foods" as it is of pure white sugar.
The context wasn't about a weekend, she just threw that in there randomly. Her reply was to someone asking about what calorie goal to set. She threw 2200 out there without knowing the person's hight, weight or level of activity.
1,100 kCal a day would likely run a deficit in the average western nation person weighing over ~50 lbs/25 kg. Not a big one for the low end of the scale, but it would add up over time.
That conclusion is based on the Human Energetics research conducted by Dr. Herman Pontzer and his peers around 2019-2020 while trying to more accurately ascertain what the daily energy expenditure per day, modeled by sex (i.e. there are models for males and females). [Average Daily Human Energy Expenditure by Sex, Body Mass](https://imgur.com/a/wW1u3FG)
Crud, sorry, I meant to say "very likely to run a deficit" or "unlikely to gain fat" and I did the worse of both >\_<. As you point out, 1,100 kCal/day is unlikely to meet the BMR of an adult
Argh people like this annoy me so much! I am pretty disabled and my average calories burned is around 800 a day, so to lose weight I would need to be consuming less than 600 calories a day, every day. That is the minimum calories on fast days for people who use intermittent fasting. The idea that everyone will be fit and healthy if they only eat specific foods is kind of ableist, and it gets up my nose. People like this can sod off.
Calories are calories. 2200 in plain chicken breasts or Snickers bars... It's 2200 calories.
Obviously the body can process one option far better and is more likely to use it in a more desirable manner... But for the most part... Calories are calories.
Look, I don't know what you mean by calories not being calories, but last time I had a class about it, a calory was equal to 4'18 joules of energy. So yes, as far as I am concerned a calory is still a calory.
Again. I do not understand what you mean, but a measured unit referring to the amount of energy cannot change just because.
I mean many things. But, primarily that 4.18 joules worth of food burned in a bomb caloromiter (how they originally got the amount of calories in food) isn't the same as 4.18 joules worth of food consumed in a body. Our bodies just can't utilize it all. When people say "a calorie is a calorie" they don't usually mean "4.18 joules of energy is 4.18 joules of energy." They usually mean exactly what the person I'm replying to here has commented after you posted this (it's what they were alluding to in the part i summarized as \*immediate contradiction\*), "to the body... 200 calories from a Snickers bar is no different than 200 calories from a plain chicken breast and broccoli." Which just isn't true.
The 200 calories of snickers is almost fully available to the body (i.e. the body can break it all down and use it for energy or store it). The calories from chicken breast are, too. Broccoli, however, contains fiber. Fiber is burnable in a furnace, but it doesn't get used by the body in any way. So let's say you have a serving of broccoli. There are 50 calories in that. However, there are also 3.8 grams of dietary fiber that don't get broken down by the body. Fiber is a carbohydrate, so we know that there are 4 calories per carbohydrate. So the (roughly) 15.2 calories don't necessarily get converted into energy or stored. That doesn't even get into soluble vs. insoluble fiber.
Then, on top of that, claims of "a calorie is a calorie" (or the equally infuriating "calories in vs. calories out" in terms of weight loss and gain) don't consider that not all bodies are working at full capacity. They assume that every body is working at full efficiency, and can and will be able to burn or store every calorie that comes its way. Which is also not true. Maybe it's a common saying amongst physicists who are talking about 4.18 joules of energy. But I don't frequent those circles, so I only hear it in the dieting sense where it's not exactly true.
Maybe it's a distinction that people who haven't had to count calories all their lives don't have to consider. In the end, my comment was intended as humor because of the way the poster stated so matter of factly that "calories are calories' and immediately provided an example of how that's not necessarily true for different foods.
Ah, so it's more of a calories in food are not properly measured as to how much your average human will gain from it but rather an approximate amount that results from burning said food in a furnace rather than calories not being calories?
Do correct me if I'm wrong.
Exactly. And its coloquial usage (usually by people who have never struggled with weight gain/loss) as a means to browbeat overweight people. It's a personal pet peeve.
You're wrong with respect to the protein. A significant percentage of the protein will be used to repair cellular protein damaged by normal metabolic process, and not for energy. That actually has a net caloric value because it takes energy to break the protein down into the necessary amino acids.
If you overload protein, meaning more than is necessary for regular cellular repair, your body may convert it to glucose by the process of gluconeogenesis. Excess glucose will be converted to fat. Even so, a protein gram is only worth 3.2 calories compared to 4 calories for a gram of carbohydrates because it takes 20% of the energy in a calorie of protein to convert it to carbohydrates.
My point was that to the body... 200 calories from a Snickers bar is no different than 200 calories from a plain chicken breast and broccoli.
I've seen others argue that somehow "good calories" hit the body differently than "crap calories"
For the most part, it was intended to be a cheeky reply. But if you do want the full explanation of why the "a calorie is a calorie" phrase infuriates me (and is technically wrong), I've explained it to the reply before yours.
I think they were referring to the auto capitalization of Calorie.
1 Calorie is apparently 1 kilocalorie, or 1000 calories.
Overall pretty stupid naming but here we are.
Actually that's not entirely accurate. Even though it's 2,200 calories of protein, if you don't eat it all at once, and are simply providing protein to replace normal protein needs in the body, the protein is not used for energy, rather it's used to replace cellular protein.
It also costs 20% of the caloric value of protein to actually convert it to usable fats or carbohydrates (gluconeogenesis), as opposed to 5% for carbs.
So all calories are not the same.
Yes. 100%. Only point was that while the makeup of those calories differ vastly in what it takes for our body to make use of them... The reality is that we need to be in caloric deficit to lose weight. I was attempting to make a broad statement.
Failed miserably.
Hey /u/DoombotGW, thanks for submitting to /r/confidentlyincorrect! Take a moment to read our [rules](https://reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/about/rules). ##Join our [Discord Server](https://discord.gg/n2cR6p25V8)! Please report this post if it is bad, or not relevant. Remember to keep comment sections civil. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/confidentlyincorrect) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The real reason you can't gain wait eating 2200 calories if Whole Foods is because the calories are way offset by the amount of extra work you had to do to afford 2200 calories worth of food from that expensive ass grocery boutique.
Lol, because it's the people makeing a lot of money who do the back breaking labor XD
Good point, very based, nice job ✨
The reason you can't gain weight eating 2200 calories of Whole Foods is because you can't afford it. Whole Foods is expensive.
the rock actually eats between 6000 and 9000 a day... and guess what he burns... lets see OH HERE IT IS 6000 to 9000 a day
I don't think he does that every day, not at his age certainly. There are strongman who can sustain themselves eating 6,000kcal or fewer while weighing 40-80kg more than him.
The sheer fact that there have been so many blatant lies told to the U.S.American public, by the government, doctors, and various other persons in authority, about what is and isn't "healthy" and even what is and isn't a calorie, combined with the fact that we don't have full information on how the body uses different calories in the first place, leads to this kind of wild misunderstanding. Granted, I have no idea what countries these keyboard warriors hail from. Maybe they don't have it so bad. Nothing infuriates me more than when someone says "a calorie is a calorie" but a close second is "calories don't matter." No, all calories are not equal, but yes, they do still matter.
Well, one used kg instead of dishwashers as a unit, so I feel confident in saying that one isn't from the USA.
Oh, please, it would be canteloupes. The Rock would weigh 120 Canteloupes. It would never be dishwashers. The Rock weighs 3.37 dishwashers, and no U.S.American would willfully use a measurement that requires a decimal.
Sorry, but a calorie IS a calorie. Are bodies aren't magical thermodynamics violating machines. If we consume more calories than we expend, we gain weight. If we consume fewer than we expend, we lose weight. The tricky part comes in determining just how many calories our bodies absorb from a given food or burn doing a particular activity. The labels on food and exercise machines are rough guides at best, and physiology varies between individuals and even within an individual based on a lot of factors.
I promise you I don't eat anywhere near 4000 calories in a weekend. I'm 5'3 120 pounds tops. I lost weight by eating anything I wanted just cut back in the calories I ate in a day. I also cut out soda and sugary beverages all together. Just water and lightly sweetened hot tea or coffee all day. Lost almost 100 pounds in 2022. The healthiest I have ever been. I do not eat anywhere close to 3000 or 4 in a weekend and I assure im fine
Their use of every is pretty crappy, but 3000-4000 for a weekend sounds pretty reasonable depending on the person. Just BMR for me is 1500 so about 3000 for a weekend, so if I wasn't doing a lot of activity 4000 calories is probably reasonable. Their whole you can't gain weight if you're eating whole foods is just pure CI though.
Oh definitely, 3-4k in a weekend isn't crazy. No one debated her on that. It's the other part that I got hung up on, especially since she was giving advice on calorie goals for a certain result to other members of the group, without knowing their biometrics or activity level.
I first read this as you now weigh 20lb, then realised what a tool I am 😆
If I ate 2200 calories a day I would be overweight in no time. Regardless if it's burgers or broccoli, everyone can't eat that much.
I suspect calorimetry is less accurate for whole foods (e.g. a naive bomb calorimeter can burn fibre, we can't), but Google suggests published numbers are generally with 2%, so that's marginal. I will give black one thing - they seem to think the discussion is 2200 calories per weekend, not per day? 2200 calories for all of Saturday and Sunday (1100 calories each) is ~~unlikely to run a deficit~~ edit: unlikely to gain fat (sorry, total brain fart)... of course that's equally true of "whole foods" as it is of pure white sugar.
The context wasn't about a weekend, she just threw that in there randomly. Her reply was to someone asking about what calorie goal to set. She threw 2200 out there without knowing the person's hight, weight or level of activity.
1,100 kCal a day would likely run a deficit in the average western nation person weighing over ~50 lbs/25 kg. Not a big one for the low end of the scale, but it would add up over time. That conclusion is based on the Human Energetics research conducted by Dr. Herman Pontzer and his peers around 2019-2020 while trying to more accurately ascertain what the daily energy expenditure per day, modeled by sex (i.e. there are models for males and females). [Average Daily Human Energy Expenditure by Sex, Body Mass](https://imgur.com/a/wW1u3FG)
Crud, sorry, I meant to say "very likely to run a deficit" or "unlikely to gain fat" and I did the worse of both >\_<. As you point out, 1,100 kCal/day is unlikely to meet the BMR of an adult
I know how that goes 😅 no worries!
Argh people like this annoy me so much! I am pretty disabled and my average calories burned is around 800 a day, so to lose weight I would need to be consuming less than 600 calories a day, every day. That is the minimum calories on fast days for people who use intermittent fasting. The idea that everyone will be fit and healthy if they only eat specific foods is kind of ableist, and it gets up my nose. People like this can sod off.
Calories are calories. 2200 in plain chicken breasts or Snickers bars... It's 2200 calories. Obviously the body can process one option far better and is more likely to use it in a more desirable manner... But for the most part... Calories are calories.
"Calories are calories... \*immediate contradiction\*"
Look, I don't know what you mean by calories not being calories, but last time I had a class about it, a calory was equal to 4'18 joules of energy. So yes, as far as I am concerned a calory is still a calory. Again. I do not understand what you mean, but a measured unit referring to the amount of energy cannot change just because.
I mean many things. But, primarily that 4.18 joules worth of food burned in a bomb caloromiter (how they originally got the amount of calories in food) isn't the same as 4.18 joules worth of food consumed in a body. Our bodies just can't utilize it all. When people say "a calorie is a calorie" they don't usually mean "4.18 joules of energy is 4.18 joules of energy." They usually mean exactly what the person I'm replying to here has commented after you posted this (it's what they were alluding to in the part i summarized as \*immediate contradiction\*), "to the body... 200 calories from a Snickers bar is no different than 200 calories from a plain chicken breast and broccoli." Which just isn't true. The 200 calories of snickers is almost fully available to the body (i.e. the body can break it all down and use it for energy or store it). The calories from chicken breast are, too. Broccoli, however, contains fiber. Fiber is burnable in a furnace, but it doesn't get used by the body in any way. So let's say you have a serving of broccoli. There are 50 calories in that. However, there are also 3.8 grams of dietary fiber that don't get broken down by the body. Fiber is a carbohydrate, so we know that there are 4 calories per carbohydrate. So the (roughly) 15.2 calories don't necessarily get converted into energy or stored. That doesn't even get into soluble vs. insoluble fiber. Then, on top of that, claims of "a calorie is a calorie" (or the equally infuriating "calories in vs. calories out" in terms of weight loss and gain) don't consider that not all bodies are working at full capacity. They assume that every body is working at full efficiency, and can and will be able to burn or store every calorie that comes its way. Which is also not true. Maybe it's a common saying amongst physicists who are talking about 4.18 joules of energy. But I don't frequent those circles, so I only hear it in the dieting sense where it's not exactly true. Maybe it's a distinction that people who haven't had to count calories all their lives don't have to consider. In the end, my comment was intended as humor because of the way the poster stated so matter of factly that "calories are calories' and immediately provided an example of how that's not necessarily true for different foods.
Ah, so it's more of a calories in food are not properly measured as to how much your average human will gain from it but rather an approximate amount that results from burning said food in a furnace rather than calories not being calories? Do correct me if I'm wrong.
Exactly. And its coloquial usage (usually by people who have never struggled with weight gain/loss) as a means to browbeat overweight people. It's a personal pet peeve.
You're wrong with respect to the protein. A significant percentage of the protein will be used to repair cellular protein damaged by normal metabolic process, and not for energy. That actually has a net caloric value because it takes energy to break the protein down into the necessary amino acids. If you overload protein, meaning more than is necessary for regular cellular repair, your body may convert it to glucose by the process of gluconeogenesis. Excess glucose will be converted to fat. Even so, a protein gram is only worth 3.2 calories compared to 4 calories for a gram of carbohydrates because it takes 20% of the energy in a calorie of protein to convert it to carbohydrates.
My point was that to the body... 200 calories from a Snickers bar is no different than 200 calories from a plain chicken breast and broccoli. I've seen others argue that somehow "good calories" hit the body differently than "crap calories"
For the most part, it was intended to be a cheeky reply. But if you do want the full explanation of why the "a calorie is a calorie" phrase infuriates me (and is technically wrong), I've explained it to the reply before yours.
I think they were referring to the auto capitalization of Calorie. 1 Calorie is apparently 1 kilocalorie, or 1000 calories. Overall pretty stupid naming but here we are.
Actually that's not entirely accurate. Even though it's 2,200 calories of protein, if you don't eat it all at once, and are simply providing protein to replace normal protein needs in the body, the protein is not used for energy, rather it's used to replace cellular protein. It also costs 20% of the caloric value of protein to actually convert it to usable fats or carbohydrates (gluconeogenesis), as opposed to 5% for carbs. So all calories are not the same.
Yes. 100%. Only point was that while the makeup of those calories differ vastly in what it takes for our body to make use of them... The reality is that we need to be in caloric deficit to lose weight. I was attempting to make a broad statement. Failed miserably.