Stirring the Pot: are all calories equal
lacewitch
Posts: 766 Member
I am not normally one to stir, or to wave the red cape a trolls
But I saw this on IFLS - who normally have very good sources.
- http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/why-most-food-labels-are-wrong-about-calories
I've seen and done experiments with artificial stomachs that back this up. (phd in chemistry before all the trolls jump up and down on me.)
I am not trying to change people who have schemes that work for them - if it aint broke don't fix it and all that ... but i thought there may be some who will find it interesting.
But I saw this on IFLS - who normally have very good sources.
- http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/why-most-food-labels-are-wrong-about-calories
I've seen and done experiments with artificial stomachs that back this up. (phd in chemistry before all the trolls jump up and down on me.)
I am not trying to change people who have schemes that work for them - if it aint broke don't fix it and all that ... but i thought there may be some who will find it interesting.
-1
Replies
-
I'll agree. Calories are not equal. 100 cals from an apple isn't the same as 100 from a Twinkie. That's why eating cleaner is so important.-6
-
A (k)cal is a (k)cal.
different foods have different macro and micro nutrients which are processed and used by the body in different ways. It's not the calorie itself that's different, it's the other stuff in the food. If all you want is weight loss, than the calorie number is all you need to consider. If you want to tinker with stuff like muscle building, available energy, digestive regularity, saiety, flavor, and micronutrient value, then all foods aren't interchangeable. But, in terms of weight loss, CICO, end of story.0 -
Are all inches equal?
How about yard sticks?
does 1 centimeter = 1 centimeter?
100 calories from an apple are equal to 100 calories from a twinkie.
the NUTRITION is not identical.
But the calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement, the measurement of the amount of heat you need to raise the temp of a kg of water by one celsius degree
0 -
did you read the article?
Yes - Calorie is a unit with a defined value but what is on the food label does not = what the body gets in terms of energy!0 -
what is on the food label is the nutrition, not the 'kind of calorie' - all calories are the same. nutrition differs
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Now you're talking context... we don't do context on MFP - only blanket statements. Bonus points if said statements are only loosely related to the actual question.0
-
When it comes to calories you use, no they aren't equal. When it comes to the calories that are above what you need, they are all equal because they all get stored as fat.0
-
Sigh...this again?0
-
Are all inches equal?
How about yard sticks?
does 1 centimeter = 1 centimeter?
100 calories from an apple are equal to 100 calories from a twinkie.
the NUTRITION is not identical.
But the calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement, the measurement of the amount of heat you need to raise the temp of a kg of water by one celsius degree
^^^She is right. Nutrition is the big difference.
0 -
A calorie is a calorie; the nutritive value of the food being measured varies.
An inch is an inch; the object being measured varies.
Same idea.0 -
-
I literally posted this same article yesterday and I also found it interesting. However, what I think the article was trying to say is that a calorie is a calorie but it's how our bodies process the calories that makes the difference.
Less processed foods require our bodies to do more work to break it down, therefore using more energy in the process.
More processed foods/soft food require less work from our bodies so we burn less energy digesting those foods.
The calorie amount is still the same, the way our bodies process it is different.0 -
excellent article!0
-
sherbear702 wrote: »I literally posted this same article yesterday and I also found it interesting. However, what I think the article was trying to say is that a calorie is a calorie but it's how our bodies process the calories that makes the difference.
Less processed foods require our bodies to do more work to break it down, therefore using more energy in the process.
More processed foods/soft food require less work from our bodies so we burn less energy digesting those foods.
The calorie amount is still the same, the way our bodies process it is different.
Is that not common sense?
0 -
sherbear702 wrote: »I literally posted this same article yesterday and I also found it interesting. However, what I think the article was trying to say is that a calorie is a calorie but it's how our bodies process the calories that makes the difference.
Less processed foods require our bodies to do more work to break it down, therefore using more energy in the process.
More processed foods/soft food require less work from our bodies so we burn less energy digesting those foods.
The calorie amount is still the same, the way our bodies process it is different.
That is kind of my line of thinking. I wonder what the thermic effect between raw foods, processed foods are and if those "resistant" starches are "free" calories since they pass through our systems (fiber?)0 -
0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »When it comes to calories you use, no they aren't equal. When it comes to the calories that are above what you need, they are all equal because they all get stored as fat.
this is incorrect.
0 -
I understand and agree with what is stated in the article. Calories in something, that can be measured with a bomb calorimeter, doesn't necessarily equal calories that your body (not a bomb calorimeter lol) extracts from that food.
Now let's just wait for the deluge of semantic games, naysayers, etc....0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »
What THE ARTICLE is implying is that the processed food calories are more readily absorbed by the body so even though you consumed 100 calories of apple OR 100 calories of a twinkie, your body actually digested/used more of the twinkie than the harder to digest apple. You also burn more calories digesting whole/raw food than cooked food.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
jenluvsushi wrote: »yopeeps025 wrote: »
What THE ARTICLE is implying is that the processed food calories are more readily absorbed by the body so even though you consumed 100 calories of apple OR 100 calories of a twinkie, your body actually digested/used more of the twinkie than the harder to digest apple. You also burn more calories digesting whole/raw food than cooked food.
Sounds like the article is trying to bring back negative calorie foods. Foods that take more calories to digest then the amount of calories in the foods. OK
0 -
For weight loss, I believe a calorie is a calorie. It's a unit of energy, I've used this example many times: if I ate 300 calories of ice cream for breakfast, 300 calories of Ice cream for lunch and 300 calories of ice cream for dinner and ate nothing else at all, I'd lose weight because I'm only consuming 900 calories a day.
However, 900 calories of just ice cream a day is not sustainable. And a 900 calorie diet is pretty dangerous. I believe it is important to eat a variety of foods because that's what, imo, is probably the most satisfying. So when it comes to satisfaction and hunger, there are definitely foods that contain the same calories per serving but satisfy the body and hunger differently.0 -
I really have to wonder if the difference in the raw/cooked food is even statistically significant, let alone falling within/without the margin of error for estimating we all make counting calories to begin with. This article has been posted several times now, and I've thought the same thing every time I've seen it.
I've also thought that raw foodists are probably having a field day with it.
0 -
" If you eat your food raw, you will tend to lose weight. If you eat the same food cooked, you will tend to gain weight. Same calories, different outcome."
I stopped reading at that point as that is simply wrong and laughable.0 -
I'll agree. Calories are not equal. 100 cals from an apple isn't the same as 100 from a Twinkie. That's why eating cleaner is so important.
THIS is wrong. 100 cals from an apple IS the same as 100 cals from a Twinkie... It's the macronutrient and micronutrient breakdown that's different.0 -
In many ways I think it's a moot point. Because we can't necessarily pinpoint our exact calorie expenditure to a specific number, the T.E.F. becomes pretty negligible. It's a law of estimates and averages anyway, so worrying about whether or not your cooked carrots yield more usable calories than raw carrots probably means you're over thinking things. Just getting people to log what they eat is challenging enough as it is.
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »" If you eat your food raw, you will tend to lose weight. If you eat the same food cooked, you will tend to gain weight. Same calories, different outcome."
I stopped reading at that point as that is simply wrong and laughable.
Yeah by the way this thread is going there is no point to read the article. Maybe when I am bored and feeling something comical I will read it then.
0 -
0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions