Anyway, like I said, I'm excited about learning all of this great stuff and figuring out if I know as much as I thought I did. I came across this bit in my text book the other day and it makes so much sense that I want to share it:
"To eat well without overeating, select nutrient-dense foods - that is, foods that deliver the most nutrients for the least food energy... Just as a financially responsible person pays for rent, food, clothes, and tuition on a limited budget, healthy people obtain iron, calcium, and all the other essential nutrients on a limited energy (calorie) allowance. Success depends on getting many nutrients for each calorie "dollar." For example, a can of cola and a handful of grapes may both provide about the same number of calories, but the grapes deliver many more nutrients." -Understanding Nutrition, 12th Edition by Whitney and Rolfes
When I read this I couldn't help but think of those 100-calorie snack packs. I've always had an issue with them and this is basically why: sure there is 100 calories worth of food in each tiny bag. But you can extract 100 calories from just about anything and put it into a bag; that doesn't make it healthy. I don't suggest that people who use these as a substitute for junk food go back to the full size. They do serve a purpose in that way, just not a nutritional one.
If you're counting calories to try to lose weight, keep in mind what those calories are providing you - if the answer is either "nothing" or "oils and fats and refined white flour" maybe you want to reconsider your plan. Sure, you might shed some pounds by cutting calories dramatically while only eating junk (like this nutrition professor did when he went on a twinkie diet) but you'd be doing yourself more harm than good. Think nutrient density instead and opt for a piece of fruit, low-fat yogurt, handful of almonds, glass of vegetable juice, carrot sticks with hummus, whole-grain cereal bar, sweet potato chips... you get the picture!