# Do You Count Your Vegetable Calories?



## Echo (Sep 24, 2013)

*Do You Count Your Vegetable Calories?*​
Yes 4054.05%No3445.95%


----------



## Echo (Sep 24, 2013)

Do you count your vegetable calories?

Poll above


----------



## IGotTekkers (Jun 6, 2012)

By veg you mean chips right?


----------



## ConP (Aug 18, 2013)

I do, I usually just count my greens/peppers/onions as 10 carbs per meal (exact number falls between 6-12 grams usually).

For most people this is NOT needed I just have done this for years and do this when writing client plans so I do it for my self.


----------



## Bora (Dec 27, 2011)

IGotTekkers said:


> By veg you mean chips right?


nd garlic? nd chilli? sh!t a hate cutting

fvck it- this kebab DOES fit my macros


----------



## kitinboots (Oct 20, 2013)

Yes, but I'm more likely to estimate.


----------



## Northern Lass (Aug 10, 2011)

Yes I count my veg calories..


----------



## Adz (Jan 29, 2008)

Yea I guess at the weight, dont count sauces though.

Mmmmm chilli sauce :001_tt2:


----------



## Stephen9069 (Dec 11, 2013)

I don't count calories plus I don't eat much veg


----------



## mrwright (Oct 22, 2013)

What is this vegetable of what you speak?


----------



## Mike90 (Nov 21, 2013)

You mean your multi-vitamin calories? No i don't


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

If you are counting calories then you should count your veg calories too...a calorie is a calorie...this question is almost as dumb as "Should I count the weight of the bar"


----------



## fitrut (Nov 20, 2007)

during prep - yes, offseason - no way


----------



## Echo (Sep 24, 2013)

ellisrimmer said:


> If you are counting calories then you should count your veg calories too...a calorie is a calorie...this question is almost as dumb as "Should I count the weight of the bar"


No, your analogy is very crap

There are many books which say about Negative Calories. So for example - Broccoli is 30 calories but the body takes 80 calories to digest it

Which is why I added a poll to see who counts them, and if you actually look the vote is 50/50, so the question isn't 'dumb'


----------



## Kickboxer.Stu (Feb 24, 2013)

Count all calories, just find it easier to keep track


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Echo said:


> No, your analogy is very crap
> 
> There are many books which say about Negative Calories. So for example - Broccoli is 30 calories but the body takes 80 calories to digest it
> 
> Which is why I added a poll to see who counts them, and if you actually look the vote is 50/50, so the question isn't 'dumb'


Your question is getting even dumber because negative calories are a load of bull...if you're counting calories COUNT THE CALORIES.


----------



## Mogy (Oct 21, 2013)

Echo said:


> Do you count your vegetable calories?
> 
> Poll above


Yes, calories are calories imo.


----------



## kreig (May 12, 2008)

Echo said:


> No, your analogy is very crap
> 
> There are many books which say about Negative Calories. So for example - Broccoli is 30 calories but the body takes 80 calories to digest it
> 
> Which is why I added a poll to see who counts them, and if you actually look the vote is 50/50, so the question isn't 'dumb'


It takes calories to digest all food so are you going to start subtracting that from your count as well?

Ignore the negative calorie b0llocks if it's going in its got calories.


----------



## ar4i (Jan 29, 2013)

Yes I do.


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

ellisrimmer said:


> If you are counting calories then you should count your veg calories too...a calorie is a calorie...this question is almost as dumb as "Should I count the weight of the bar"


Not really, let's say the average person benches 100kg (including the bar), the bar makes up 20% of the total weight so it's quite a large amount proportionally

But when we're talking about the average 600 calorie meal, the vegetables might take up about 50 calories, 10 of them being fiber, so only accounts for about 6% of the total calories, which is negligible.


----------



## jammie2013 (Nov 14, 2013)

Depends which veg (resistant starch content, soluble starch content, its metabolic fate, i.e. is it merely fuel to produce short chain fatty acids)

Starchy veg? Yes of course count them

Leafy veg? Nah


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

I Do.However, The flax or olive oil that I cook them in, usually has more calories, than the veg im frying.Yes, I do fry some vegetables.


----------



## perrypower (Dec 5, 2013)

yes I count my calories


----------



## a.notherguy (Nov 17, 2008)

Depends on the veg. If its the main varb source (spuds,squash etc) then yep. If it's a bit of stuff on the side (broccoli, salad etc) then nope.

My daily cal expenditure varies daily by more than the cals in a small portion of veg so I ain't gonna get hung up on cal counting to that extreme


----------



## badly_dubbed (Nov 21, 2011)

i dont count the calories of my fat or protein or well...anything....so no.


----------



## Inapsine (Dec 17, 2011)

depends on what stage of training im at moving into cutting now everything must be accounted for.


----------



## ki3rz (Sep 12, 2011)

I get a bit OCD and have a kind've ''all or nothing mentality''. So yes I like to count everything, including the veg.


----------



## stoatman (Sep 13, 2012)

Nah, hardly any in veg.

Cauliflower cheese with bacon for me tonight . Calorie free. Lol


----------



## jonnym4 (May 8, 2011)

Life is too short. Just keep my veg intake consistent and I do t have to worry about it


----------



## andyhuggins (Nov 21, 2008)

Yep I count all my calories.


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

L11 said:


> Not really, let's say the average person benches 100kg (including the bar), the bar makes up 20% of the total weight so it's quite a large amount proportionally
> 
> But when we're talking about the average 600 calorie meal, the vegetables might take up about 50 calories, 10 of them being fiber, so only accounts for about 6% of the total calories, which is negligible.


Why would the take up 50 calories? it depends how much veg you want...


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

ellisrimmer said:


> Why would the take up 50 calories? it depends how much veg you want...


I'm taking an average portion of veg (in an average meal, as stated.. And I assume we're talking about broccoli, cauliflower, green beans etc since I'm sure everyone on here knows to count the calories in potatoes).. Even 400g of broccoli (huge portion) is only like 100 calories


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

L11 said:


> I'm taking an average portion of veg (in an average meal, as stated.. And I assume we're talking about broccoli, cauliflower, green beans etc since I'm sure everyone on here knows to count the calories in potatoes).. Even 400g of broccoli (huge portion) is only like 100 calories


The point i'm making is that if you're anal enough in the first place to be counting calories, why wouldn't you count all of them?


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

ellisrimmer said:


> The point i'm making is that if you're anal enough in the first place to be counting calories, why wouldn't you count all of them?


I don't see why it needs to be an all or nothing thing..?

I dont see a problem calories to get an overall idea of macros but leaving a 10% margin of error for sauces, sweetener, fibrous veg, milk in your tea etc

As for "why" you wouldn't.. Well because its a ball ache that's why


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

L11 said:


> I don't see why it needs to be an all or nothing thing..?
> 
> I dont see a problem calories to get an overall idea of macros but leaving a 10% margin of error for sauces, sweetener, fibrous veg, milk in your tea etc
> 
> As for "why" you wouldn't.. Well because its a ball ache that's why


The point of counting calories is to make sure you're precise about macros and energy expenditure, so what is the point of counting if you're then going to have food on top or whatever? If you've decided you're gonna have 2500 calories a day, are you gonna have 2500 calories and whatever veg on top of that (does it not count)? they're all calories that go in to your body. Obviously you can do what you want but most top bodybuilders want to be more accurate than 10% so i'm answering assuming the person is a bodybuilder.


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

The vast majority of us aren't top bodybuilders so there is absolutely no necessity for precision.


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

The maths is still the same. If you want to eat 2500 calories a day but don't count milk, sauces, veg etc you're gonna go over the calories you intend to eat. If you don't wanna be precise about macros there isn't point in counting in the first place as surely anybody with half an interest in nutrition can make a decent estimate of calories.


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

ellisrimmer said:


> The maths is still the same. If you want to eat 2500 calories a day but don't count milk, sauces, veg etc you're gonna go over the calories you intend to eat. If you don't wanna be precise about macros* there isn't point in counting in the first place* as surely anybody with half an interest in nutrition can make a decent estimate of calories.


The statement in bold is just ridiculous.. There is a level of accuracy that all of us would find unnecessary.. For you it might be weighing grains of rice..? Would you consider weighing something to 0.1g necessary? 1g?

OF course if you're aiming for 2500, count 2500 from normal food and don't count the rest you're gonna go over your target, but *the amount is neglible*.. And you could just count 2300 from normal food, knowing you'll get roughly 200 calories from the added stuff, yea you might be about by 100 calories under or over, but seriously...?


----------



## Mez (Jul 31, 2012)

L11 said:


> I don't see why it needs to be an all or nothing thing..?
> 
> I dont see a problem calories to get an overall idea of macros but leaving a 10% margin of error for sauces, sweetener, fibrous veg, milk in your tea etc
> 
> As for "why" you wouldn't.. Well because its a ball ache that's why


So if you have 10/11 cups of tea/coffee a day and 2 meals with loads of veg to fill the plate you could easily get to 4/500 cals.

If your cutting on 2500 cals then this would be a large percentage of it. So you've got to count everything going in.


----------



## L11 (Jan 21, 2011)

Mez said:


> So if you have 10/11 cups of tea/coffee a day and 2 meals with loads of veg to fill the plate you could easily get to 4/500 cals.
> 
> If your cutting on 2500 cals then this would be a large percentage of it. So you've got to count everything going in.


Personally I'd never have 10/11 cups of tea day, maybe that's why it works for me :confused1:


----------



## fastcar_uk (Jan 30, 2013)

Was gonna say no but realised I have my meals stored in myfitnesspal inc the salad. So yes. But it's feck all.


----------



## Pictor (Jan 10, 2011)

I count 30 kcals per meal for 100g greens or 1 serving of greens powder!


----------



## hollisbball (Mar 1, 2014)

When I'm bulking I don't, but when I'm cutting I do. However if eating some veggies will push me slightly over my daily macros then I still eat them, they're too important to miss really.


----------



## scott08 (Feb 14, 2014)

i count the calories from veg (through myfitnesspal) but im bulking so its not really for the calories, its to make sure i get enough fiber


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

If I'm kcal counting I count everything... but I rarely calorie count any more because I'm more relaxed about my goals. When pushing it though to a particular body weight or body comp target I count kcals and macros both when cutting and lean bulking.

In truth the figures are never totally accurate, simply because the 4/4/9 kcal figures for c/p/f aren't really accurate anyway... but it does help nonetheless with consistency and for minor adjustments, which is what it's all about IMO.


----------



## scott08 (Feb 14, 2014)

ellisrimmer said:


> The maths is still the same. If you want to eat 2500 calories a day but don't count milk, sauces, veg etc you're gonna go over the calories you intend to eat. If you don't wanna be precise about macros there isn't point in counting in the first place as surely anybody with half an interest in nutrition can make a decent estimate of calories.


i think it comes down to your goals. if youre cutting (and have a small amount of calories to work with) then yeah counting everything is probably necessary, as being a little over turns into a significant percentage of total calories, and therefore can be bad news for progress. if youre bulking though, its different. e.g. im on roughly 3700 cals a day, i usually track about 3300~ a day, hitting most of my fat, all of my protein and most of carbs. i usually just estimate the other 400~. as i would have already hit my protein and fat, the makeup of that other 400 dont really matter (could be partly from veg), aslong as im hitting near my caloric goal for the day. even if im 100-200 calories below i'd still be at a 400-500 cal surplus. its not 100% precise, but it doesnt need to be.

as for you may aswell not count all together, you could do that and be wayyy off. estimating can be very hard, even if you have decent understanding in nutrition and things add up. i get your point but depends on where you're at and what your goals are


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

ellisrimmer said:


> Your question is getting even dumber because negative calories are a load of bull...if you're counting calories COUNT THE CALORIES.


incorrect they are negative when you consider impact on the body, by this post you are saying that digestion and TEF does not count nor matter this is not true not true at all....

to the OP i do not count any green veg be this off season or pre comp, there is no need but then i don't count the protein in Oats or the fat in chicken and it has down me no harm....

an issue will arise if you (and many do) think that they can lower the calorie base of your actual meal or if you eat so many to counter the balance......


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> incorrect they are negative when you consider impact on the body, by this post you are saying that digestion and TEF does not count nor matter this is not true not true at all....
> 
> to the OP i do not count any green veg be this off season or pre comp, there is no need but then i don't count the protein in Oats or the fat in chicken and it has down me no harm....
> 
> an issue will arise if you (and many do) think that they can lower the calorie base of your actual meal or if you eat so many to counter the balance......


I am saying negative calories aren't real. Do you believe it to be true? if so you would have to back that up as the claims are quite outlandish


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

ellisrimmer said:


> I am saying negative calories aren't real. Do you believe it to be true? if so you would have to back that up as the claims are quite outlandish


no i am saying calories from veg do not count, but whilst we are on the matter can you post your proof they do not exist it would be good to read.....


----------



## dtlv (Jul 24, 2009)

The calorie figures for macros, 4/4/9 for C/P/F are not what most people think they are. The usual assumption (because it's what is taught at school and repeated endlessly in popular understanding) is that those are the energy values for those macros before eating them. Is also usually assumed that macros of the same mass but different types (starch v sugar or saturated fat v monounsaturated fat etc) have equal calorie value... but neither of those things are actually true.

The calorie values given are based on a set of averages called Atwater Specific Factors - these values are an average of differing types of each macro assuming a fairly standard mixed macro diet. They are also not the gross energy (GE) values for the food uneaten, but are Metabolizable Energy (ME) values - this means that they have already accounted for the energy the body uses to digest them and the energy loss due to non digestible portions of the macros - loss/cost of calories due to the following factors have already been calculated in the 4/4/9 calorie measuring system - loss of faecal energy (FE), gas due to microbial fermentation and digestion (GaE), and urinary energy and excretion due to digestion (UE). With all of this combined you have the ME values on food labels and the values given on things like MyFitnessPal.

What is not accounted for are the the heat energy losses due to fermentation (as opposed to the loss of chemical energy in the gas produced which is calculated as GaE and mentioned above), and obligatory and non obligatory thermogenesis (including adaptive thermogenesis).

The thermogenic values for macros again varies within type (different carbs, proteins and fatty acids have slightly different values) but, once deducted leave an average positive calorie contribution in all cases. This value is named the Net Metabolizable Energy value (NME) and represents the calories that your body then uses for basal metabolism and storage (basically the calories that will eventually be burned as ATP) after all of the calories used to digest and absorb the food have been considered. Approx values (assuming mixed diet) given below -

NME Average Values

Protein: 3.2 kcals/1g

Fat: 9 kcals/1g

Monosaccharides: 3.8 kcals/1g

Disaccharides (most sugars): 3.7 kcals/1g

Polysaccharides (complex carbs/starches): 4.2 kcals/1g

Fermentable Fibre: 2 kcals/1g

Acohol: 6.3 kcals/1g

Organic Acids: 2.1 kcals/1g

The reason these averages are considered using a mixed diet is because combinations of macros at the same time during digestion affect the energy taken to digest the meal - in general add fibre and protein and you increase the energy cost to digest the meal and reduce the overall NME value. In some cases, especially with very high fibre meals such as those with a lot of fibrous veggies, it will make a difference to lower the NME contribution to a noticeable degree but it never actually goes negative... and food processing (cooking, blending) can increase the energy contribution a tiny amount... so I do agree with you @Pscarb in that unprocessed veggies can sometimes impact the (NME) caloric load of a meal by a small amount, but not that it will actually take it negative, nor that there is such a thing as a negative calorie food.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

dtlv said:


> The calorie figures for macros, 4/4/9 for C/P/F are not what most people think they are. The usual assumption (because it's what is taught at school and repeated endlessly in popular understanding) is that those are the energy values for those macros before eating them. Is also usually assumed that macros of the same mass but different types (starch v sugar or saturated fat v monounsaturated fat etc) have equal calorie value... but neither of those things are actually true.
> 
> The calorie values given are based on a set of averages called Atwater Specific Factors - these values are an average of differing types of each macro assuming a fairly standard mixed macro diet. They are also not the gross energy (GE) values for the food uneaten, but are Metabolizable Energy (ME) values - this means that they have already accounted for the energy the body uses to digest them and the energy loss due to non digestible portions of the macros - loss/cost of calories due to the following factors have already been calculated in the 4/4/9 calorie measuring system - loss of faecal energy (FE), gas due to microbial fermentation and digestion (GaE), and urinary energy and excretion due to digestion (UE). With all of this combined you have the ME values on food labels and the values given on things like MyFitnessPal.
> 
> ...


I find myself constantly liking your posts buddy but for good reason, excellent post and explanation


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

Pscarb said:


> no i am saying calories from veg do not count, but whilst we are on the matter can you post your proof they do not exist it would be good to read.....


Youare making the outlandish claim but here you go

http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1896439_1896359_1896346,00.html

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZaioR5Ac5fQC&pg=PA189&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.globalhealthandfitness.com/metabolism%20myths.htm

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-01-31/coke-and-nestle-hit-with-a-lawsuit-for-negative-calories - companies getting sued for it

Pseudoscience...


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

I am not making any claim read back through my posts I said I did not count them and when you look at everything they do not matter...

Read @dtlv post as he explains it in a much better way than I could.....


----------



## Dan94 (Dec 29, 2013)

Yep. Calorie is a calorie.


----------



## C.Hill (Nov 21, 2010)

Never.

Doesn't the body burn more kcals digesting the veg than there is in there?


----------



## big vin (Apr 18, 2010)

C.Hill said:


> Never.
> 
> Doesn't the body burn more kcals digesting the veg than there is in there?


No thats just celery


----------



## Echo (Sep 24, 2013)

C.Hill said:


> Never.
> 
> Doesn't the body burn more kcals digesting the veg than there is in there?


I posted that and all hell broke lose lol, read all the pages in this thread.

Some excellent posts have been made regarding it


----------



## samb213 (Jun 27, 2012)

noo ...i eat roughly the same amount of veg per day while cutting ...soo i work out my macros not including veg..stick to it for a week ..see how much i loose if im not loosing enough ill cut calories elsewhere ..so yer i factor in my veg but dont look to closley at how many calories my veg actually contains


----------



## daffodil (Aug 6, 2009)

yes, i count every single calorie that goes in my mouth, i'm a bit obsessed by it all


----------



## miguelmolez (Apr 12, 2010)

Yes and No.

If i'm cooking something with lots of different veg, I just account for around 100cals. Weighing a segment of pepper, onion etc would drive me bananas.


----------

