7 ms·
"calories without nutrients" does not makes sense at all. A spoonful of sugar contains 100% nutrients. That link is total nonsense. For example it claims pizz
by c1u 14y ago
"calories without nutrients" does not makes sense at all.
A spoonful of sugar contains 100% nutrients.
That link is total nonsense. For example it claims pizza is empty calories, but bread, cheese, tomatoes, meat & veggies are not? It's ridiculous.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- maxerickson 14y agoYeah, sorry, a better phrase would be "energy calories without any other nutrients". Which I thought was implied. But I forget that imprecise communication works less and less.
- a_c_s 14y agoNo, a spoonful of refined white sugar contains 100% calories. It does not contain any minerals, vitamins, protein, essential fatty acids, micronutrients or antioxidants, which in the context of this discussion, is what is meant by saying it has no nutrients.
- c1u 14y agoThere are only 4 macronutrients (foods metabolism can run on): carbs, fat, protein, & ethanol. So if you believe protein & fat are nutrients, then you must believe carbs are as well.
- enraged_camel 14y agoI must say, you have taken childish pedantry to a whole new level.
- BlackJack 14y agoEven at a basic level, that's not true. Despite popular myth, the body can derive 1.5/2 cal/g of fiber as well. > While there is still some debate in the area, researchers have assigned a caloric value to fiber of 1.5-2 cal/gram (depending on the specific type). Source: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/fiber-its-natures-broom.html http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/fiber-its-natures...
- c1u 14y agoAh yes, but then those are fat calories, not "fibre" calories.
- Dylan16807 14y ago'Macronutrients' are not diet 'nutrients'. Nutrients are chemicals the body needs an external supply of. Building blocks for cells and structures. They have nothing to do with metabolism.