[maxerickson]

The traditional definition of empty calories would be something like a spoonful of sugar.

That's an extreme example, but the idea is that the food in question provides calories without nutrients. So there is such a thing and it makes plenty of sense.

(USDA takes my side: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/weight-management-calories/calo...)

[c1u]

"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.

[a_c_s]

No, 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]

There 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]

I must say, you have taken childish pedantry to a whole new level.

[Dylan16807]

'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.

[BlackJack]

Even 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...

[c1u]

Ah yes, but then those are fat calories, not "fibre" calories.

[maxerickson]

Yeah, 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.