Calorie is a calorie?

generic2012

popolive wrote: »

But whats the same process with a gram of carbs or fat instead ?

Do you end up with more or less than 3.2 calories after a gram of carbs or fat ?

I wrote a post on page two of this thread that will answer that for you.

SteelyDanJalapeno

Bruno26 wrote: »

You are crazy to believe fat make you fat. Fat does not make you fat - in fact the opposite. I suppose you buy low fat? If so you've been fooled by industry.

There are far more people making money off your beliefs than a few guys going against the grain!

Feels like we're going around in circles here,

"Fat does not make you fat - in fact the opposite."

Excess calories will make you "fat", decreasing below your maintenance will make you lose weight, it's simple science.

mulbot

TiltedBrain wrote: »

Feels like we're going around in circles here,

"Fat does not make you fat - in fact the opposite."

Excess calories will make you "fat", decreasing below your maintenance will make you lose weight, it's simple science.

excess won't necessarily make you fat-plenty of bodybuilders can increase their calories and gain weight in muscle,not fat

runawaybishop

mulbot wrote: »

excess won't necessarily make you fat-plenty of bodybuilders can increase their calories and gain weight in muscle,not fat

That's not an excess then. Its the right amount.

Bruno26

runawaybishop wrote: »

That's not an excess then. Its the right amount.

It is an excess- it's an excess from fat and protein.

mulbot

runawaybishop wrote: »

That's not an excess then. Its the right amount.

of course it's excess,gaining WEIGHT can only happen with an excess,doesn't mean the extra weight will end up being fat

fat to ripped

Bruno26 wrote: »

It is an excess- it's an excess from fat and protein.

Are you and Mulbot the same person? I honestly don't mean to be rude, but are you just willingly ignorant? In this case you only prove that you that you have absolutely zero understanding of the topic.

Excess is always excess, and any excess is stored as fat. Calories are not stored as muscle; calories fuel muscle. A surplus of calories is beneficial for muscle growth as it as it fuels the endeavor; they are used and, therefore, not excess. Any excess or remaining calories, not used, will be stored as fat. Calories, if not used, will always be stored as fat.

We are not talking about weight, because it's an inconclusive variable. Water weight can account for lbs of gain/loss at a time. Carbohydrates tend to store more water. Muscle weighs more than fat. I'm holding an enormous ****. You get it?

mulbot

fat to ripped wrote: »

Are you and Mulbot the same person? I honestly don't mean to be rude, but are you just willingly ignorant? In this case you only prove that you that you have absolutely zero understanding of the topic.

Excess is always excess, and any excess is stored as fat. Calories are not stored as muscle; calories fuel muscle. A surplus of calories is beneficial for muscle growth as it as it fuels the endeavor; they are used and, therefore, not excess. Any excess or remaining calories, not used, will be stored as fat. Calories, if not used, will always be stored as fat.

We are not talking about weight, because it's an inconclusive variable. Water weight can account for lbs of gain/loss at a time. Carbohydrates tend to store more water. Muscle weighs more than fat. I'm holding an enormous ****. You get it?

if i have a REQUIREMENT of 2000 cals a day for maintenance, then i will need an excess( Definition:that which is more than REQUIRED) to increase weight,those excess calories will not necessarily be stored as fat..

fat to ripped

mulbot wrote: »

if i have a REQUIREMENT of 2000 cals a day for maintenance, then i will need an excess( Definition:that which is more than REQUIRED) to increase weight,those excess calories will not necessarily be stored as fat..

I'll try this once more. If you don't gain fat, then you're not consuming an excess of calories. If you consume an excess of calories and they are not used, which defines the very word, then they will be stored as fat.

Bruno26

fat to ripped wrote: »

Are you and Mulbot the same person? I honestly don't mean to be rude, but are you just willingly ignorant? In this case you only prove that you that you have absolutely zero understanding of the topic.

Excess is always excess, and any excess is stored as fat. Calories are not stored as muscle; calories fuel muscle. A surplus of calories is beneficial for muscle growth as it as it fuels the endeavor; they are used and, therefore, not excess. Any excess or remaining calories, not used, will be stored as fat. Calories, if not used, will always be stored as fat.

We are not talking about weight, because it's an inconclusive variable. Water weight can account for lbs of gain/loss at a time. Carbohydrates tend to store more water. Muscle weighs more than fat. I'm holding an enormous ****. You get it?

What about hormones? What about type of calories? So it does not matter one bit what type of calories are consumed?

popolive

Blacktie. wrote: »

He's just stirring the pot. But on a side note why do you think there's something wrong with eggs???

I don't

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

What's a salmonella egg?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/3/newsid_2519000/2519451.stm

A reference to an old controversy. People used to be able to eat eggs raw with little worry. Nowadays best advice is they must be cooked.

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

What's a salmonella egg?

And what's wrong with horse meat? Aside from that, and as bad as the government may be, I'm pretty sure no one from the government issues advice suggesting we should be eating cheap, highly-processed burgers.

Theres nothing wrong with horse meat (In fact I believe it contains less fat and higher protein) so long as it is traceable and labelled honestly.Otherwise it can come from horses which have been fed with substances harmful to human health etc. The problem is a long list of scandals. Remember CJD Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, mad cow disease, BSE , foot and mouth , recalled pig meat ... what else oh yes this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_2913000/2913807.stm

A constant stream of scandals coupled with meaningless* assurances. Eat what you want but just remember that slimy politician forcing his innocent child to eat a burger hence the answer to your question as to why I wrote '' I don't trust the government (or any government) to advise us about food.'' I can find countless other examples from the USA and other countries too.



*By 1992, three cows in every 1,000 in Britain had BSE.
John Gummer's attention-grabbing photocall rebounded dramatically when, in 1996, the government was finally forced to admit there was a link between BSE and the human form of the disease, new variant CJD.

The EU banned the export of British beef - a ban that was not completely lifted for ten years - and the cattle market collapsed as selective culls were carried out of cattle most at risk.

Blacktie.

mulbot wrote: »

if i have a REQUIREMENT of 2000 cals a day for maintenance, then i will need an excess( Definition:that which is more than REQUIRED) to increase weight,those excess calories will not necessarily be stored as fat..

So you think if you eat at an excess over 2000 cals a day and once it comes from fat and protein you won't gain fat? With no stimuli to the muscle to grow? Seriously!?

A reference to an old controversy. People used to be able to eat eggs raw with little worry. Nowadays best advice is they must be cooked.

Ah fair enough. It still is better to cook eggs as there is more protein bioavailability.

mulbot

Blacktie. wrote: »

So you think if you eat at an excess over 2000 cals a day and once it comes from fat and protein you won't gain fat? With no stimuli to the muscle to grow? Seriously!?



Ah fair enough. It still is better to cook eggs as there is more protein bioavailability.

i've made reference a few posts back about BODYBUILDERS doing this- it's hardly gonna be the case for someone sitting around on their a**e now

Blacktie.

i've made reference a few posts back about BODYBUILDERS doing this- it's hardly gonna be the case for someone sitting around on their a**e now

if i have a REQUIREMENT of 2000 cals a day for maintenance

Are you a bodybuilder?

Also if a bodybuilder eats in excess of what his body can use to build muscle (natural or enhanced there's always a limit. Drugs just make it much higher) then even they will put on fat.

mulbot

Blacktie. wrote: »

Are you a bodybuilder?

Also if a bodybuilder eats in excess of what his body can use to build muscle (natural or enhanced there's always a limit. Drugs just make it much higher) then even they will put on fat.

very true,but i didn't say any different,i said it's not necessarilly true that excess calories above your maintenance would end up as fat

Blacktie.

mulbot wrote: »

very true,but i didn't say any different,i said it's not necessarilly true that excess calories above your maintenance would end up as fat

I guess. But the way I see it is maintenance gets adjusted because of stimuli not because of macro composition. So correct you wouldn't gain fat if you eat within your bodies ability to build muscle but that's because you're eating within the ability to build muscle... Obviously if you go over this regardless of where your calories are coming from fat will be gained.

Alf Veedersane

mulbot wrote: »

excess won't necessarily make you fat-plenty of bodybuilders can increase their calories and gain weight in muscle,not fat

Depends on what you're judging it as an excess against.

You need to go over maintenance to build muscle but I wouldn't classify that as an excess. Semantics, perhaps.

Edit: I see you were referring to maintenance as the threshold. Still wouldn't call it an 'excess' if it's required for building muscle though.

SteelyDanJalapeno

mulbot wrote: »

excess won't necessarily make you fat-plenty of bodybuilders can increase their calories and gain weight in muscle,not fat

They're is still a value where "bodybuilders" can eat more than they need to repair damaged muscle, the maintenance or threshold line is just moved to include activities that increase the need for more calories.

And believe me when I tell you, when anybody lifting goes on a bulk they will also put on fat, not just muscle. It's the cut after that will lose that fat.

Bruno26 wrote: »

It is an excess- it's an excess from fat and protein.

Can you provide an example with some values?

mulbot wrote: »

if i have a REQUIREMENT of 2000 cals a day for maintenance, then i will need an excess( Definition:that which is more than REQUIRED) to increase weight,those excess calories will not necessarily be stored as fat..

Unless you're exercising ( and if you are this will increase you're minimum number of calories needed not to lose weight) then any excess will more than likely barring some sort of medical condition bes stored as fat.

Bruno26 wrote: »

What about hormones? What about type of calories? So it does not matter one bit what type of calories are consumed?

Of course it does, consumed 10 grams of carbs in excess and they'll hold 20 grams water with them over the same amount of Protein/Fat, but any of the 3 in excess will be stored as fat.

runawaybishop

mulbot wrote: »

of course it's excess,gaining WEIGHT can only happen with an excess,doesn't mean the extra weight will end up being fat

Wrong. If the calories are used then it is not an excess.

mulbot

runawaybishop wrote: »

Wrong. If the calories are used then it is not an excess.

runawaybishop

mulbot wrote: »

No, it is not more than you require it is the amount you require. Any excess is then converted to fat.

Alf Veedersane

mulbot wrote: »

To increase your weight with muscle, you require more than maintenance so it's not an excess.

If you eat more than is required to build the muscle, then you're eating to excess and you'll put on some fat.

mulbot

runawaybishop wrote: »

No, it is not more than you require it is the amount you require. Any excess is then converted to fat.

complete horsesh*t- even when you get the amount you require,if the body is in musclebuilding mode,any excess calories will not necessarilly be stored as fat-

Alf Veedersane

mulbot wrote: »

complete horsesh*t- even when you get the amount you require,if the body is in musclebuilding mode,any excess calories will not necessarilly be stored as fat-

So what exactly does it get stored as, when it's in excess of what their body needs to build muscle?

dor843088

Guys the body is constantly storing and burning fat and the same with building and losing muscle. Even when in a calorie defecit there will be times during the day when fat is stored and when in a calorie surplus times when fat is burned . Its not an on off switch , you will both be in a defecit and a surplus at various times throughout the day .

mulbot

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

So what exactly does it get stored as, when it's in excess of what their body needs to build muscle?

it doesn't always get stored in the fat cells of the body,alot depends on the needs of the muscles to absorb calories,,the existing fat level of the person and the actual bodytype(ecto,meso,endo) it's too much to write up here,my point was in relation to earlier posts about excess calories ending up as fat,in some they will,in others no they wont

Alf Veedersane

mulbot wrote: »

it doesn't always get stored in the fat cells of the body,alot depends on the needs of the muscles to absorb calories,,the existing fat level of the person and the actual bodytype(ecto,meso,endo) it's too much to write up here,my point was in relation to earlier posts about excess calories ending up as fat,in some they will,in others no they wont

My point is that what is required is what the muscles need to absorb. Above that is excess. Excess isn't defined by the maintenance level.

But I suspect we're not actually that far apart.

I do disagree with those bodytype classification though. I'm open to correction but I think they're largely guff.

mulbot

i get your point,i do see both sides in normal day to day experiences,i think the bodytype thing though does hold merit,we all know the "skinny" guy,eats what he wants,as much as he wants,whenever he wants,never gets fat,on the other hand,won't build muscle- then the natural athlete,gets muscular,low fat levels,and the "hefty" guy,chubby,big muscles,but bulky,... from my own experience,i had to really get a detailed analysis before i was able to benefit,i.e diet,exercise etc


the thing is,EVERY person is different so every "rule" will change from one person to the next

Theresalwaysone

Semantics.

You are both essentially arguing over the definition of 'require'.

Mulbot- anything over maintainence needs is an excess.

Alf-anything over maintainence + hypertrophy needs is excess.

diarmuid05

Time Magazine...

Opinions are changing (slowly)

http://time.com/2988142/you-asked-are-all-calories-created-equal/

runawaybishop

diarmuid05 wrote: »

Time Magazine...

Opinions are changing (slowly)

http://time.com/2988142/you-asked-are-all-calories-created-equal/

Terrible article though.

Bruno26

diarmuid05 wrote: »

Time Magazine...

Opinions are changing (slowly)

http://time.com/2988142/you-asked-are-all-calories-created-equal/

Excellent article. The simple truth.

mulbot

Bruno26 wrote: »

Excellent article. The simple truth.

yea agree,simple explanation,and true

rubadub

Theresalwaysone wrote: »

Semantics.

You are both essentially arguing over the definition of 'require'.

Mulbot- anything over maintainence needs is an excess.

Alf-anything over maintainence + hypertrophy needs is excess.

I would go with the later, the other was specifically brought up bodybuilders. "Excess" usually has a negative connotation, dersirable is in the definition below. I doubt there is any bodybuilder who put on muscle and no fat who would say he ate an excessive amount calories.

excess
ɪkˈsɛs,ɛk-,ˈɛksɛs/Submit
noun
1.
an amount of something that is more than necessary, permitted, or desirable.
"are you suffering from an excess of stress in your life?"
synonyms: surplus, surfeit, overabundance, superabundance, superfluity, oversufficiency, profusion, plethora, glut; too much, more than enough, enough and to spare; informalmore … than one can shake a stick at; rarenimiety
"an excess of calcium in the bloodstream"
remainder, rest, residue, remaining quantity, overflow, overspill;
leftovers, remnants, leavings;
surplus, extra, difference;
technicalresiduum
"we eat more than we need, so the excess is turned into fat"

Anybody who believes in the perfect thermodynamics of calories can do a simple test. Gulp down a tin of sweetcorn without chewing and see what comes out the other end, now liquidise a tin another day and take a look. If you think you extract the exact same amount of energy on both days then consult a doctor -a psychatrist...

dor843088

rubadub wrote: »

I would go with the later, the other was specifically brought up bodybuilders. "Excess" usually has a negative connotation, dersirable is in the definition below. I doubt there is any bodybuilder who put on muscle and no fat who would say he ate an excessive amount calories.



Anybody who believes in the perfect thermodynamics of calories can do a simple test. Gulp down a tin of sweetcorn without chewing and see what comes out the other end, now liquidise a tin another day and take a look. If you think you extract the exact same amount of energy on both days then consult a doctor -a psychatrist...

You are using an exception to prove the rule. Anyone experiencing a bunch of sweetcorn exiting their arse needs to review their chewing technique .

rubadub

dor843088 wrote: »

You are using an exception to prove the rule. Anyone experiencing a bunch of sweetcorn exiting their arse needs to review their chewing technique .

More like I am using 1 of 100's of examples I could give to disprove the commonly accepted rule.

There was a study done showing the differnce in usable energy aquired from eating peanuts vs peanut butter too. I think the peanuts were eaten in a normal way and less energy was got.

My example is extreme but is by no means an exception, it will hopefully make these pseudo-experts in thermodynamics think twice about what they are stating.

Eating overcooked rice vs undercooked would lead to more energy being available too. I don't care if its even only 1% difference, it shows its not an exact science which some people do think.

There was a poster here before who confirmed he thought that drinking 500kcal of petrol per day for a year vs 500kcal extra of a sugary drink would have the exact same effect on the body as far as weight/fat gain. That was a far more extreme and ridiculous proposition that I threw out to see if he would finally admit it was not an exact science, but he stuck to his guns, and he was not joking.

dor843088

rubadub wrote: »

More like I am using 1 of 100's of examples I could give to disprove the commonly accepted rule.

There was a study done showing the differnce in usable energy aquired from eating peanuts vs peanut butter too. I think the peanuts were eaten in a normal way and less energy was got.

My example is extreme but is by no means an exception, it will hopefully make these pseudo-experts in thermodynamics think twice about what they are stating.

Eating overcooked rice vs undercooked would lead to more energy being available too. I don't care if its even only 1% difference, it shows its not an exact science which some people do think.

There was a poster here before who confirmed he thought that drinking 500kcal of petrol per day for a year vs 500kcal extra of a sugary drink would have the exact same effect on the body as far as weight/fat gain. That was a far more extreme and ridiculous proposition that I threw out to see if he would finally admit it was not an exact science, but he stuck to his guns, and he was not joking.

I think you are nitpicking to an extreme degree here. Its like saying a day is not exactly24 hours long or the speedo in your car is not exact because of the weight in the car or the pressure in the tyre. Its the best weve got and is acceptable accuracy for the sake of not being bogged down with minute calculations which for the most part are a waste of time.

rubadub

dor843088 wrote: »

I think you are nitpicking to an extreme degree here.

And this is necessary to get it into peoples head that its not an exact science. It is far from it for some people, these are the ones that really annoy me.

And it is important information for some, for some things it is not a small difference. As a heavy drinker I do not really bother counting calories from alcohol, I have always known anecdotally that they did not count as much. And they are certainly not a waste of time to consider. As a nation with lots of heavy drinkers I consider it quite important to know it is not an exact science.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/04/health/why-the-body-may-waste-the-calories-from-alcohol.html

For example, weight gain was negligible in alcoholics who were given 2,000 calories of alcohol daily on top of the 2,500 calories from foods they consumed to maintain their weight. But when the same number of additional calories were fed as chocolate, a steady weight gain resulted.