Calorie used in a sentence

Calorie in a sentence as a noun

If you really want to blow your calorie budget, go find one of the Goose Island bars in terminal 1 or 3. Have a Matilda.

Well technically, sugar costs more per calorie than fat. As one gram of sugar is 4 calories and one gram of fat is 9 calories.

During this period I also watched my calorie intake. By May, I reached my goal on all three accounts, so she switched me to a routine more focused on free weights.

If I were poor, it'd be hard to justify buying two apples over a Big Mac, given the calorie per dollar ratios.

And the calorie counts, and the min / max temperatures. And the habeas corpus, and the due process prior to incarceration.

Bottom line, calories-in vs calories-out is a fine and dandy statement, but tells us nothing of value about the cause of increased calorie consumption. I agree with you that for weight gain to occur, there must be a greater energy intake than burn, but what causes more caloric intake?

Sleep conserves energy; until recently, humans were calorie-limited. Also, there's probably an advantage to remaining quiet and still in the dark, when human eyesight is at its worst and predators roam.

More than a decade of work on sirtuins have failed to reliably produce even a tiny fraction of the gains to health and life provided by calorie restriction or exercise. This is just one tiny slice of the broader mainstream scientific approach of attempting to alter the operation of metabolism in order to provide benefits.

In an HN thread commenting on a scientific study, our top comment is an N=1 report, followed immediately by the commenter peddling the book of a self-described fitness expert who praises "ultra-high calorie diets", followed downthread by the same commenter peddling some "supplement" called "Pre-Exercise CNS-Carnosine-ATP Augmentor". Really, HN?

May contain more effective calories than in vitro studies predict them to contain. This is because the chemicals aren't digested in the traditional sense, but are fermented and absorbed in the gut. Caloric bioavailability is often different from nominal calorie count.

Arguing anything other than differences in levels of exercise/activity and calorie intake has a large mountain of evidence to overcome. The effects of those two are very large, the effects of everything else comparatively small per decades of animal and longitudinal human studies.

Quote Examples using Calorie

> Again, it all comes back to calories in vs calories out. Which is both true and irrelevant, because the system that governs calories in and calories out is a complex control loop. When it's working correctly, weight is effortlessly maintained within a narrow range thanks to compensating adjustments in appetite and, to a lesser extent, metabolism. When it isn't working right, people try to drive the process with their frontal cortex instead, which only a small fraction of population can actually achieve for any significant length of time. So the most interesting questions in nutrition science are all around what effects satiety and why we have an epidemic of people with broken control loops. Sugar is a very strong suspect in that investigation. And before someone says we aren't evolved for an environment of plenty, and our bodies just hoard every calorie they can get in case of famine -- that's really not it. No mammal simply hoards every calorie it can get without homeostatic feedback. Survival incentivizes balance -- hoarding a calorie means you don't spend that calorie today on something else that would aid your reproductive success.

Anonymous

This is probably because you're likely to substitue the calories and sugars for something else, since your body notices its getting less of something and will crave it. Yet you have things like this: "One large study found that people who drank artificially sweetened soda were more likely to experience weight gain than those who drank non-diet soda" This again is a correlation with the typical behavior of a diet soda drinker. They're not drinking diet soda because they want to lose weight. Rather, they're drinking it because they don't want to gain weight. They could have a terrible diet overall and this alone does nothing but move the problem over into, say, consuming two scoops of ice scream after dinner everyday. All because the soda they had during lunch didn't satisfy their bodily craving of refined sugars. So this is a case of correlation not being causation. These types of articles do nothing but encourage this error to propagate. Perhaps the term "diet soda" is misleading in itself, but perhaps telling people that drinking a calorie-free drink will make them gain weight is just as silly as telling people it will make them lose weight.

Anonymous

What part of the laws of thermodynamics imply calories in -> calories out? This belies a total ignorance of their actual meaning. The first law of thermodynamics would be satisfied in any of the following scenarios: 1. Your stomach explodes, releasing the caloric content of the food as heat over a brief duration 2. Your digestive tract decides to stop digesting, and passes the food through unmodified 3. Normal digestion As you can see, conservation of energy is completely meaningless in the context of diet. The second law of thermodynamics concerns itself with efficiency of processes. To apply it usefully, we'd take into consideration the different metabolic pathways of proteins, carbohydrates, and fats. We know for a fact that the pathway for sugars is thermodynamically more efficient than proteins [1] - the laws of thermodynamics directly contradict "a calorie is a calorie"!

Anonymous