God, your posts are so annoying to read because you're clearly not interested in the topic at hand, and are just looking to argue semantics, similar to a person who goes around forums correcting grammar mistakes and ignoring the content of the posts.
Since you love to argue the point, a calorie as you describe it, isn't even a calorie. It's a 1000 calories. Except instead of going around trying to troll everyone with "wha?! whatre you talking about?! its not 3500 calories in a pound of fat, its 3.5 million! I have no idea where you get your info from, im so confused!!", we use our logical minds to take into account the actual point of the post, and if we have nothing to contribute to said post, we, *gasp* just read and move on!
Speaking of which, on topic, I learned during my health class that trans fats, compared to other fats, even saturated, added a disproportionate amount of visceral fat. So instead of the fat being evenly spread out, it just concentrates around your organs, and pushes your belly out, thus the beer belly. Luckily trans fats are becoming relatively extinct.
First of all, the topic at hand is how different types of calories affect people in different ways. If you would actually read my posts, which you clearly have not - you may have
seen them, but didn't
read them - you would see that I have...
A) pointed out that there is not more than one type of calorie - undeniably on-topic, as the discussion is about 'different types of calories' and how they affect people differently.
B) explained how the title of the thread is misleading, as it is not the calories that differ, rather the nutrients contained within the food from which you are obtaining those calories - once again, undeniably on-topic, as the discussion is about 'different types of calories' and how they affect people differently.
Secondly, you tell me that I'm only arguing semantics, then follow it up by arguing semantics? Hmm interesting. But, your information is on the right track. Your claim that there are 1,000 calories in a calorie is incorrect. It's on the right track though; I'll give you that. But, just to live up to your claim that I do nothing but argue semantics, allow me to argue me up some semantics...
The Calorie (upper case), as we know it on nutrition labels, is actually a kilocalorie. A kilocalorie (kcal) is 1,000 calories (lower case). During labeling, the government enforces the use of the term Calorie (upper case), to eliminate any confusion from the public. The difference between the upper case and lower case 'calorie' is this...
Lower case 'calorie' = 1 calorie. The lower case 'calorie' is used when talking about one actual calorie. It takes 1,000 calories to make a kilocalorie.
Upper case 'Calorie' = 1 kilocalorie. The upper case 'Calorie' is used when talking about the total of 1 kilocalorie. A Calorie (upper case) is made up of 1 kilocalorie, or, in other words, 1,000 calories (lower case).
To make it easier for consumers, the government uses the term Calorie (upper case), which is the equivalent of 1 kilocalorie or 1,000 calories (lower case). It's much easier to read '350 Calories' and understand what it means, as opposed to reading '35,000 calories'. So, when you see a food label that has 350 Calories listed on its nutrition panel, it is technically the equivalent of 35,000 calories.
But, as far as we (the public) are all concerned, the amount of Calories listed on a nutrition label is nothing more than one calorie.
And, a pound of fat is comprised of 3,500 Calories. To burn a pound of fat, you don't need to burn 3.5 million calories; you need to burn 350,000 calories.
) is that 100 calories of protein is no more or no less than the amount of calories you get from 100 calories of carbohydrates, 100 calories of fat, 100 calories of whatever, etc.
