Jump to content

Talk:Empty calories

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Fortification

The previous wording was "Empty calorie describes a calorie with little or no marked nutritional value, typically from processed carbohydrates and/or fats." As the article goes on to point out, this is a contradiction since its very caloric value gives these "empty calories" the same nutritional value as any other calories,--rather the phrase refers to the lack of accompanying micronutrients, fiber, complex carbohydrates, etc. typical of processed and refined foods. NTK 19:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article says that white bread and white rice are high in "empty calories", but in the U.S. at least, both of these are almost always fortified with vitamins and minerals. Therefore, they can't be empty calories.

Incorrect. Fortification is an afterthought that does not come even remotely close to restoring the nutrients lost (at least in the case of white flour). Though it is not a source that could be cited in the main article, this page has some pretty interesting numbers taken from the USDA. --Warrior-Poet 21:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wine and beer also contain nutrients. Granted, not a huge amount, but both of them, in moderation, can be a healthy part of a person's diet. 65.41.187.75 02:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase 'empty calories' seems particularly uninformative and not based on sound science. Is the claim that the health risk is that 'empty calories' taste so good and are so convenient that it encourages overeating and resultant obesity? That seems plausible. Or is the claim that 'empty calorie' diets will result in poor health due to lack of vitamins, minerals, etc? Is there any evidence of of the latter argument? And couldn't a simple daily vitamin remove any risk of that? Scotchex 18:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are both missing the point of the article. Nowhere does it assert that the foods listed here cannot be a healthy part of a person's diet - although that is a rather tenuous argument for many of the foods listed here. Nor does it assert that one cannot take vitamin supplements and make up for what empty calorie foods cannot provide. Those are separate arguments to be handled in another article. The article asserts that a) Dietitians consider some foods to be "empty calorie" foods on the basis of poor nutritional content and b) that empty calorie foods can lead to malnutrition (the reasons for this are somewhat obvious, though I suppose that direct evidence to support this claim would be to the benefit of the article). The article also states that dietitians recommend nutrient-dense foods over the "empty (or near empty) calorie" foods listed, which does not strike me as something that

needs to be further supported either. That readers may take exception to their favorite foods being dubbed "empty" in no way undermines the legitimacy or relevance of the article. --Warrior-Poet 21:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where ELSE would you get calories from than carbohydrates and fats? We don't utilize any other hydrocarbon for energy unless we're deprived of those two.

Misinformation - It is unfortunate that the term "empty calories" has received widespread use, or even use at all. It is typical popularized bad science. To the uninformed "empty" sounds as if the calories will have no impact. Calories are calories. The term "low quality calories" or something similar would be more accurate. (Please don't assume the excuse that the use of "empty calories" is accepted and widespread. Disseminating misinformation simply because of popular use is not what Wikipedia is about. Wikipedia is an opportunity to elucidate such misapprehensions.) The article should stress that the danger is that these calories can be consumed in_addition_to normal caloric food intake, resulting in an intake of an excessive number of calories. The issue of "empty calories" replacing "good" calories with subsequent loss of vitamins/minerals/etc could be made more clear. We should also state that one can live perfectly normally on what are termed "empty calories", provided_that_there_is_adequate_dietary_supplementation_with_vitamins_minerals_fiber_and_amino_acids. It would be most accurate to say that the only "empty calorie" substances in a typical diet are fiber and water.

It should also state that watching and limiting _all_ forms of calories is important for sedentary individuals. Overeating even "good" calories is deleterious to health. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.20.3.72 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "empty calories" is a popular term used for both food with high glycemic index and for food that contains very little or no protein. But whether I'm right or wrong, this article needs to either be more specific, or be deleted.

Move

Although I never put the move tag on this page, and the above discussion doesn't appear to be about the move, so I'll create the discussion here. Personally, I'd oppose a move to junk food because empty calories are dealt with more on a nutritional side, rather than an over-all on junk food. Kilo•T 19:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with this argue that empty calorie should not be moved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobDBuck (talk • contribs) 23:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the merge tag. Cburnett (talk) 02:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad bad article

This article is just a load of nonsense, scientific sounding but not real science. Any food that provides energy has nutritional value, so this phrase "a measure of the digestible energy present in high-energy foods with little nutritional value" is nonsense. It is pseudo science invented by faddy nutritionists and should be stated as such. Hzh (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is indeed utter rubbish. A calorie is a measure of energy content, it can't ever contain anything or be full or empty. Anyway, even a bucket of pure saturated fat has nutritional value. A cup of white sugar has nutritional value. Unfortunately I can't yet find a good reference to insert under "controversy".

If someone was marooned on a desert island with only water and they found a stash of honey and animal fat, I think they would find these empty calories pretty nutritious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.211.178 (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The quote starting "Refined sugar is lethal when ingested by humans..." from Sugar Blues is an extreem statement that is not Wikipedia appropriate at all. No doubt overconsumption of sugar is bad for long term health. But this statement is hyperbole and from a secondary 'pop science' source. Statements about the nutritional risks of low quality calorie consumption should be made from academic (or government) medical review articles or drawn from meta studies from a credible source. I will remove this quote in time if there are no strong objections. Fincle (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The quote sounds extreme, presented as it is. It suggests that the context should at least be explored, which shouldn't be that difficult, since the source is a well-known and controversial book. As for sources for nutritional risk of empty calories, I disagree that they should be limited to "academic (or government) medical review articles or drawn from meta studies from a credible source," any quality reliable source can be considered, depending on what information is being used and how. --Tsavage (talk) 10:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If its sounds extreme that's a pretty bad start. Controversial books are not really a great primary source for an encyclopaedic entry and the fact that it is well known is not a measure of its usefulness. The whole point of relying on academic or government published results is that they are typically peer reviewed: this raises the standards of scientific work by creating pressure for it to be honest and verifiable. Remember it really does have to be scientific if its going to make some claim of fact of some medical nature. Someone who published a non-peer reviewed book is not subject to the same scrutiny before it goes to print. Judgements about what is quality and reliable can be pretty subjective, unless reviewed by an expert wiki author. It can be bad practice to leave that to wiki authour/s to make that ultimate judgement. People go to wikipedia because of its reputation as a great repository of human knowledge. As editors we have a duty of care to ensure that that base of knowledge has pedigree and provenience to good primary sources. Best practice is to go back to originating studies and worlds-best scientific work: this means peer reviewed and without clear conflict of interest. Fincle (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since I seem to be the only other one commenting here at the moment after a few days, I agree that the Sugar Blues section should be removed, the source doesn't seem sufficiently solid for the quote in the context it's presented in, and it doesn't look like anyone is going to step in and make any improvements. Thanks for going through the process, it really is a positive thing to do that, even on a quiet page!
As for the whole sources/experts thing, of course, I believe we should use sources of the highest quality, and I also think they should be accessible for verification by any reasonably well-educated English-speaking person. The question of Wikipedia experts is troublesome, because we are all anonymous editors of equal standing in all respects. So experts can be extremely helpful and necessary, in discussions and working out ways to make proper use of technical source material and to satisfy accessible verifiability, but I don't believe we can or should have our anonymous self-claimed experts synthesizing results on a technical level and publishing their synthesis as "expert summary" (and, arguably, perhaps, this does happen). Anyhow, there are tons of editors to argue this into the ground, we needn't get into it here. Let common sense rule! --Tsavage (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to François Magendie to see where the science originated, and note that Sugar Blues identifies this source.Rgdboer (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article has gotten shorter, as has the quote from Sugar Blues. David notMD (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's just David notMD's opinion in his edit summary. He deleted a sentence from a quotation from a source on topic. Francois Megendie is also cited here:

Ira Wolinsky (1997) Nutrition in Exercise and Sport, 3rd edition, page 22, CRC Press ISBN 0849385601: "I took a dog of three years old, fat, and in good health, and put it to feed upon sugar alone...It expired the 32nd day of the experiment."

The argument citing tax upon body systems is well-reasoned. — Rgdboer (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the two sentences quoted from Sugar Blues: "A diet exclusively of refined sugar is lethal when ingested by humans because it provides only that which nutritionists describe as empty or naked calories. In addition, sugar is worse than nothing because it drains and leeches the body of precious vitamins and minerals through the demand its digestion, detoxification, and elimination make upon one's entire system." A diet of sugar is not lethal. What is lethal is the absence of all essential nutrients (vitamins, minerals, amino acids, essential fatty acids) other than just calories. To say that "...sugar is worse than nothing..." would require a human trial in which some people got nothing but water and the second group got water and sugar. This has not been done. A dead dog is not sufficient evidence. (Note that Megendie did not compare starving a dog to feeding a dog only sugar. All he did was show that a carnivore - ill-suited to sugar - would die if fed only sugar.) A rational expectation is that for humans consuming only water versus those getting water and sugar, the first group would die first. Deleting only the second sentence leaves the first to address the concept of empty calories - the topic of this article. Any by the way - a diet of solely vegetable oil would be as "lethal" as a diet of sugar, for same reason - no essential nutrients. The second sentence is more appropriate to an article on the book, Sugar Blues, or else, Sugar. David notMD (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trying again to achieve neutral point of view, this time by removing the entire Dufty/Sugar Blues quote. The 'empty calories' concept is valid - a diet high in foods that provide only calories will perforce be deficient in all other essential nutrients. Whether some of the empty calorie foods are themselves acutely or chronically damaging is not germane to this article. Ill effects of sugar consumption should be taken up in Sugar. Ditto for Ethanol. And Fat. I ask that debate take place here in Talk before reversing my deletion of the Dufty/Sugar Blues content. David notMD (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Empty calorie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol

Added content and ref on alcohol as example of empty calories. For alcohol (ethanol), empty calories and also directly causing tissue damage. David notMD (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better article?

Under Bad Bad Article I have explained reasons for deleting the Dufty/Sugar Blues content. The article is not long, but there is not much more to add to the concept. Dietitians and other healthcare professionals find the concept of "empty calories" easy to explain to their patients when trying to describe foods to eat less of or avoid entirely. It is easier to explain than "nutrient density." Also upped the rating in Medicine to C-class. David notMD (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For an online source, look at The Sweetest Poison of Them All where there is a section "Harmful to humans and animals" which almost describes your experiment: in 1793 a shipwreck left sailors with nothing but sugar and rum. The public relations battle over the sweetener has a long history; this article is a late chapter. Reference to earlier dialogue contributes to depth of understanding. — Rgdboer (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I shipwreck sailors on four islands? A) Only water; B) Water and sugar; C) Water and rum; D) Water and rum and sugar. Attempts at levity aside, this article is about empty calories, which means calories in the absence or near-absence of essential nutrients. It is not about harm done by the empty calorie foods. There is a Wikipedia article "Sugar Blues." David notMD (talk) 17:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 August 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) The editor whose username is Z0 09:40, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Empty calorie → Empty calories – Usage is almost exclusively in plural. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - I don't think this meets the exceptions at WP:PLURAL. --Gonnym (talk) 09:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, 'calorie' is a tiny measurement pertaining to a unit of energy, and in the plural form offers examples for the common expression 'empty calories', so this is a common sense title change. WP:PLURAL actually seems to favor 'calories' when stating an exception for "Articles on groups or classes of specific things" (this article is not about a single empty calorie, but the descriptors and effects of groups of those calories). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Google Trends and Scholar show 'Empty calories' to be vastly more popular. I think it meets the "With irregular plurals whose usage far exceeds the usage of the singular, we prefer the common and unastonishing title" criterion at WP:PLURAL. — bieχχ (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Randy Kryn, I think you are misunderstanding the "group or classes of specific things" as there isn't any example there even remotely close to what you are describing. What you are describing is more akin to Dog, which is still in singular. Also, per WP:CONSISTENCY with other similar topics which are all in singular: Nutrient, Vitamin, Amino acid, Fatty acid, Protein and also with Calorie. @bieχχ, you are quoting something which contradicts your point - Cases where the title only exists in the plural is the header of your quote, but Calorie exists and in the singular form. --Gonnym (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, my understanding is based on "groups of specific things", i.e. calories. Yes, the article 'calorie' is in the singular, because it is describing a unit of energy. This title, on the other hand, is about a collective of massive amounts of calories, defined as "empty calories", which can not, by volume and size alone, be described as a single calorie. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:57, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gonnym: I think there is something wrong with the formatting of that guideline — it lists as examples bacteria and algae, whose singulars exist (I think empty calories is very similar to this examples). The policy contradicts itself. — bieχχ (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are examples where the singular form of the word is widely different than the plural form and according to the article will cause readers to be WP:ASTONISH (bacterium vs bacteria; alga vs algae), which is not the case for calorie which is not an irregular plural. --Gonnym (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Statement and source about obesity

Hongon wrote this for the lede: "The term empty calories is inherentley flawed as both sugar and fat is required for the sustainment of the human body, obesity is a sign of overeating calories no matter what source" citing this source. The sentence is not English grammar, and contains careless spelling (underlining). The source is off topic and does not support the idea. It is not lede material. Hongon has refused discussion and exceeded WP:3RR. --Zefr (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo Science the Article

Some kind of warning should be put on this article. This has to be one of the worst articles I've seen on Wikipedia. It doesn't even adequately explain what the term means, just what it is synonymous with. It relates the term to nutrition but the term itself is referring to calories, a measurement of energy.

https://healthfully.com/360283-recommended-calories-per-day-for-men.html

This source doesn't list a definition at all. It doesn't even mention the term. So the article is poorly sourced to boot. 86.41.241.105 (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Empty_calories&oldid=1257500441"