Stirring the Pot: are all calories equal
Options
Replies
-
I'm super cranky today, to preface this.Mauigirl62 wrote: »As I have always said, I didn't get this way by eating too many carrots (cooked OR raw). I agree with others who say it is overthinking it to worry about how processed (cooked) your fresh spinach is - if I am eating fresh spinach, cooked or raw, I am not eating a Twinkie. Therefore I will lose weight! ;-)
You've lost two pounds eating spinach instead of twinkies. I've lost 65 eating pretty much exactly what I want to (while meeting my nutritional goals). So please don't act as if your choices are superior to mine, or that a certain type of food will render a person a failure.
Now, onto the article - it has nothing to do with calories being equal - for *energy* purposes, OF COURSE they are.
Of course changing a food will change the way our bodies process it. I don't even understand why this is a topic worth discussing. The difference is likely so insignificant that I'm burning enough calories typing this up to render it irrelevant.0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »Because the problem with obesity is that we think raw spinach is just too high-cal to justify? Stupidest assertion ever.
Are you familiar with the term "straw man"? The article didn't say that raw spinach had too many calories to justify.
Yes, if an apple and a Twinkie are both labeled 100 calories it is absolutely understandable that someone who thought "well, a calorie is a calorie" would choose the Twinkie. If 100% of the Twinkie's calories are absorbed but only 50% of the apple's are, that - spread across millions of similar decisions - would make a difference in the obesity rate of a population.
It would be interesting to know what the actual discrepancy is between what is absorbed by the body and what a machine reads - which is exactly the author's point! That info would be useful, and we don't have it.
My example was not a straw-man argument, it was an example of the problem that the author's system proposes to solve. Yes, it is ridiculous, but it isn't a straw-man.
The article proposed informing consumers of the amount of processing involved in producing given foods with a stoplight system, such that consumers could make better-informed decisions about the bioavailability of the calories listed on product packaging whether they were minimally, moderately, or highly processed.
The tacit implication is that better information about the bioavailability of calories would lead to consumers making better-informed choices, based on consumers' personal estimates of the fraction of listed calories their body would process.
Thus, if someone realized that raw spinach had 100 rather than 200 calories per unit mass, they would decide to eat more spinach or less of something else; perhaps that the additional information would enable them to stay within calorie targets; perhaps that the greater availability of information would help people somehow in any way.
I contend these and any similar assertions are complete and utter nonsense. I make this contention without disputing that less-processed foods may be less bioavailable.
0 -
jenluvsushi wrote: »hollydubs85 wrote: »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.
Even if this is true (which I'm not sure that it is), the difference between energy burned digesting raw and cooked foods is so minuscule that the calories are negligible. I'm not going to eat only raw foods in the day just so I could burn a hypothetical 40 more calories, or whatever.
I agree...although there is a skinny little hamster sitting in a science lab that might disagree. LOL! As a side note-I wonder if they take into consideration that the difference in the calories burned in digestion for a rodent might be significantly different in a human? It's basically bringing back the "negative calorie" food debate. Still an interesting article either way.
Which is why the only experiments to date that show any difference are in rats. Very slight changes in calories equate to relatively big changes in body composition in rats because they are so small.
Practically speaking, the difference in bioavailable calories between the food fed to rat colony 1 and the food fed to rat colony 2 that resulted in the 30% difference in fat cited in the article has to be miniscule, or the rats fed the puffed grains would have blown up like blimps.
Do a similar experiment in humans and you probably wouldn't get a difference in weight that met statistical significance.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
Two diets given to subjects, with different macronutrient percentages. One group lost weight eating at calculated TDEE, the other gained. The reasearcher theorized the difference was the higher amount of fiber in the high carb group. People who eat more dairy and/or more fiber excrete more fat. Many studies on calorie restricted and ad libitum diets show higher levels of weight loss, or different distributions of fat (less/more visceral fat) when calories are taken from specific sources, i.e. oat fiber, fiber in general, yogurt, whey, percentage of protein, O3 fats, vrs HFCS/sucrose, white flour, red meat, deep fried, and trans fats.
One of the difficulties with the whole "it doesn't matter what you eat" message is that it appears to give validity to fad dieting, and ignores the contribution of non-caloric nutrition, which is just as important as calories in obvious and immediate (will die without water after a few days) and subtle and gradual (colon cancer and low levels of fiber) ways.0 -
For purposes of weight loss, sure - the inaccuracy is actually a "bonus". By that token, perhaps the food industry should paternalistically do us all a favor and artificially inflate the calorie counts on labels by 20%?
Jokes aside, I still stand behind the fact that consumers are entitled to accurate information on the products they buy. And knowledge about what goes into your body and how your body processes it is valuable - pounds lost or not. This article highlights an area where we don't have the scientific precision to untangle the variables that result in calories digested. Seems worth pursuing. Many a technical advancements have been achieved by chasing seemingly pointless curiosity.0 -
jenluvsushi wrote: »hollydubs85 wrote: »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.
Even if this is true (which I'm not sure that it is), the difference between energy burned digesting raw and cooked foods is so minuscule that the calories are negligible. I'm not going to eat only raw foods in the day just so I could burn a hypothetical 40 more calories, or whatever.
I agree...although there is a skinny little hamster sitting in a science lab that might disagree. LOL! As a side note-I wonder if they take into consideration that the difference in the calories burned in digestion for a rodent might be significantly different in a human? It's basically bringing back the "negative calorie" food debate. Still an interesting article either way.
Which is why the only experiments to date that show any difference are in rats. Very slight changes in calories equate to relatively big changes in body composition in rats because they are so small.
Practically speaking, the difference in bioavailable calories between the food fed to rat colony 1 and the food fed to rat colony 2 that resulted in the 30% difference in fat cited in the article has to be miniscule, or the rats fed the puffed grains would have blown up like blimps.
Do a similar experiment in humans and you probably wouldn't get a difference in weight that met statistical significance.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
Two diets given to subjects, with different macronutrient percentages. One group lost weight eating at calculated TDEE, the other gained. The reasearcher theorized the difference was the higher amount of fiber in the high carb group. People who eat more dairy and/or more fiber excrete more fat. Many studies on calorie restricted and ad libitum diets show higher levels of weight loss, or different distributions of fat (less/more visceral fat) when calories are taken from specific sources, i.e. oat fiber, fiber in general, yogurt, whey, percentage of protein, O3 fats, vrs HFCS/sucrose, white flour, red meat, deep fried, and trans fats.
One of the difficulties with the whole "it doesn't matter what you eat" message is that it appears to give validity to fad dieting, and ignores the contribution of non-caloric nutrition, which is just as important as calories in obvious and immediate (will die without water after a few days) and subtle and gradual (colon cancer and low levels of fiber) ways.
The "calories in" in that study were not rigorously controlled0 -
It may not matter in the short term, but getting calories from a lack of fruit and vegetables, or whatever food group, may have long term affects on health, ie: developing cancer, heart disease, or other diseases. Up to you I guess, whether you want to nourish your body with healthier nutrition, or calories from over processed foods that may be harmful in the long term. We know it can be done, Jared with his Subway, the professor in KS with his junk food, but is it worth it in the long term?0
-
AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »For purposes of weight loss, sure - the inaccuracy is actually a "bonus". By that token, perhaps the food industry should paternalistically do us all a favor and artificially inflate the calorie counts on labels by 20%?
Jokes aside, I still stand behind the fact that consumers are entitled to accurate information on the products they buy. And knowledge about what goes into your body and how your body processes it is valuable - pounds lost or not. This article highlights an area where we don't have the scientific precision to untangle the variables that result in calories digested. Seems worth pursuing. Many a technical advancements have been achieved by chasing seemingly pointless curiosity.
What if it is the other way 20%?
0 -
I thought that the main reason the nutrition content per serving had errors was that the servings differ from the serving size in grams and content. For example, one slice of raisin bread may be 50g while another may be 55g and have a few more raisins. This is even more so if eating a whole meal out at a restaurant where servings and content per servings may vary greatly. Also, in the US, labels tend to round to the nearest 5 or 10. I think this certainly counts more than the assumed negligible variation in digestion nutrition.0
-
AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »For purposes of weight loss, sure - the inaccuracy is actually a "bonus". By that token, perhaps the food industry should paternalistically do us all a favor and artificially inflate the calorie counts on labels by 20%?
Jokes aside, I still stand behind the fact that consumers are entitled to accurate information on the products they buy. And knowledge about what goes into your body and how your body processes it is valuable - pounds lost or not. This article highlights an area where we don't have the scientific precision to untangle the variables that result in calories digested. Seems worth pursuing. Many a technical advancements have been achieved by chasing seemingly pointless curiosity.
I'm all for consumer awareness, but at some point you hit levels of precision that are simply unnecessary. The current overestimates on food labels aren't hurting anything and are likely completely washed out by fifty other inherent errors found in trying to calculate CI/CO.
As for further study in the field. The field of research involving gut flora is booming, but its greatest realm of impact is unlikely to occur in nutrition label calorie calculations.0 -
jenluvsushi wrote: »hollydubs85 wrote: »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.
Even if this is true (which I'm not sure that it is), the difference between energy burned digesting raw and cooked foods is so minuscule that the calories are negligible. I'm not going to eat only raw foods in the day just so I could burn a hypothetical 40 more calories, or whatever.
I agree...although there is a skinny little hamster sitting in a science lab that might disagree. LOL! As a side note-I wonder if they take into consideration that the difference in the calories burned in digestion for a rodent might be significantly different in a human? It's basically bringing back the "negative calorie" food debate. Still an interesting article either way.
Which is why the only experiments to date that show any difference are in rats. Very slight changes in calories equate to relatively big changes in body composition in rats because they are so small.
Practically speaking, the difference in bioavailable calories between the food fed to rat colony 1 and the food fed to rat colony 2 that resulted in the 30% difference in fat cited in the article has to be miniscule, or the rats fed the puffed grains would have blown up like blimps.
Do a similar experiment in humans and you probably wouldn't get a difference in weight that met statistical significance.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
Two diets given to subjects, with different macronutrient percentages. One group lost weight eating at calculated TDEE, the other gained. The reasearcher theorized the difference was the higher amount of fiber in the high carb group. People who eat more dairy and/or more fiber excrete more fat. Many studies on calorie restricted and ad libitum diets show higher levels of weight loss, or different distributions of fat (less/more visceral fat) when calories are taken from specific sources, i.e. oat fiber, fiber in general, yogurt, whey, percentage of protein, O3 fats, vrs HFCS/sucrose, white flour, red meat, deep fried, and trans fats.
One of the difficulties with the whole "it doesn't matter what you eat" message is that it appears to give validity to fad dieting, and ignores the contribution of non-caloric nutrition, which is just as important as calories in obvious and immediate (will die without water after a few days) and subtle and gradual (colon cancer and low levels of fiber) ways.
The "calories in" in that study were not rigorously controlled
The calories were controled by having caterers provide all food eaten. The researchers kept having to increase the calories in the high carb group (asian diet) to prevent weight loss, and decrease calories in the high fat group (western diet) to prevent weight gain. Original calories were based on participants TDEE. So, the participants on the asian diet group had to eat above TDEE to maintain weight, and the participants on the western diet had to eat below TDEE to maintain weight. Different weight effects at isocaloric levels of different macronutrient distribution - what you eat matters (even for weight loss).0 -
I agree that 1) bioavailability of calories differs between foods and this is not something that is measured by the way calories are calculated but I think this is a slightly different point from 2) different foods have different effects on hormones, which impact how much energy our body stores vs how much it uses from fat stores which is probably the single largest factor impacting weight loss. I agree that you can impact this hormonal balance (or cause your body to not store energy + instead use fat stores) by eating at a deficit on a daily basis, but I dont think it is the only way. By eating a low carb diet (e.g. minimally processed grains, but not atkins), your body will have low insulin levels and therefore not store the food that you are eating as fat and then on the days that you DO eat at a deficit (which happens occasionally but not everyday for most people who are not on a MFP - type calorie counting diet), the body uses fat stores for energy and weight loss is achieved. Obviously this is a much slower mechanism for weight loss. The foods that you eat impact your hormones, which impact fat storage, satiety, and energy absorption.
(Please note that this is a different point than saying that low carb diets suppress appetite
and therefore it truly is just "calories are calories" -- I am saying that your body does not gain weight even if you eat slightly above calorie requirement because of low levels of insulin.)
I also found this study interesting about how groups that severely energy restrict end up weighing less than groups who do not because their bodies become much more efficient at metabolizing energy: http://thesmarterscienceofslim.com/eating-less-doesnt-cause-long-term-fat-loss/
Anyway, just my current thinking. There is defintiely a lot to be discovered on this topic so I look forward to new developments.0 -
MissHolidayGolightly wrote: »I thought that the main reason the nutrition content per serving had errors was that the servings differ from the serving size in grams and content. For example, one slice of raisin bread may be 50g while another may be 55g and have a few more raisins. This is even more so if eating a whole meal out at a restaurant where servings and content per servings may vary greatly. Also, in the US, labels tend to round to the nearest 5 or 10. I think this certainly counts more than the assumed negligible variation in digestion nutrition.
But!! If you ate proportionately the same amount of grapes, sugar, yeast, egg, milk, and wheat (unprocessed flour), you would have even fewer calories than you would in a slice of baked (aka "processed") raisin bread (this is of course assuming the proportionality was identical and the net weight of the unprocessed ingredients was equal [55 or 50 grams, depending, within your example.])
0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »MissHolidayGolightly wrote: »I thought that the main reason the nutrition content per serving had errors was that the servings differ from the serving size in grams and content. For example, one slice of raisin bread may be 50g while another may be 55g and have a few more raisins. This is even more so if eating a whole meal out at a restaurant where servings and content per servings may vary greatly. Also, in the US, labels tend to round to the nearest 5 or 10. I think this certainly counts more than the assumed negligible variation in digestion nutrition.
But!! If you ate proportionately the same amount of grapes, sugar, yeast, egg, milk, and wheat (unprocessed flour), you would have even fewer calories than you would in a slice of baked (aka "processed") raisin bread (this is of course assuming the proportionality was identical and the net weight of the unprocessed ingredients was equal [55 or 50 grams, depending, within your example.])
Milk! That's been processed by a cow! Just eat the grass, promise you won't absorb many calories from that.0 -
jenluvsushi wrote: »hollydubs85 wrote: »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.
Even if this is true (which I'm not sure that it is), the difference between energy burned digesting raw and cooked foods is so minuscule that the calories are negligible. I'm not going to eat only raw foods in the day just so I could burn a hypothetical 40 more calories, or whatever.
I agree...although there is a skinny little hamster sitting in a science lab that might disagree. LOL! As a side note-I wonder if they take into consideration that the difference in the calories burned in digestion for a rodent might be significantly different in a human? It's basically bringing back the "negative calorie" food debate. Still an interesting article either way.
Which is why the only experiments to date that show any difference are in rats. Very slight changes in calories equate to relatively big changes in body composition in rats because they are so small.
Practically speaking, the difference in bioavailable calories between the food fed to rat colony 1 and the food fed to rat colony 2 that resulted in the 30% difference in fat cited in the article has to be miniscule, or the rats fed the puffed grains would have blown up like blimps.
Do a similar experiment in humans and you probably wouldn't get a difference in weight that met statistical significance.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
Two diets given to subjects, with different macronutrient percentages. One group lost weight eating at calculated TDEE, the other gained. The reasearcher theorized the difference was the higher amount of fiber in the high carb group. People who eat more dairy and/or more fiber excrete more fat. Many studies on calorie restricted and ad libitum diets show higher levels of weight loss, or different distributions of fat (less/more visceral fat) when calories are taken from specific sources, i.e. oat fiber, fiber in general, yogurt, whey, percentage of protein, O3 fats, vrs HFCS/sucrose, white flour, red meat, deep fried, and trans fats.
One of the difficulties with the whole "it doesn't matter what you eat" message is that it appears to give validity to fad dieting, and ignores the contribution of non-caloric nutrition, which is just as important as calories in obvious and immediate (will die without water after a few days) and subtle and gradual (colon cancer and low levels of fiber) ways.
The "calories in" in that study were not rigorously controlled
The calories were controled by having caterers provide all food eaten. The researchers kept having to increase the calories in the high carb group (asian diet) to prevent weight loss, and decrease calories in the high fat group (western diet) to prevent weight gain. Original calories were based on participants TDEE. So, the participants on the asian diet group had to eat above TDEE to maintain weight, and the participants on the western diet had to eat below TDEE to maintain weight. Different weight effects at isocaloric levels of different macronutrient distribution - what you eat matters (even for weight loss).
The TDEE was estimated using the same online calculators most regular people use
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/10/metabolic-effects-of-traditional-asian.html
"The best available evidence continues to suggest that the calorie value of food impacts body fatness, but macronutrient composition doesn't"0 -
snowflake930 wrote: »It may not matter in the short term, but getting calories from a lack of fruit and vegetables, or whatever food group, may have long term affects on health, ie: developing cancer, heart disease, or other diseases. Up to you I guess, whether you want to nourish your body with healthier nutrition, or calories from over processed foods that may be harmful in the long term. We know it can be done, Jared with his Subway, the professor in KS with his junk food, but is it worth it in the long term?
When do we start "developing cancer, heart disease, or other diseases"? Just wondering at what point of moderation that begins. All I see around these boards are people suggesting enjoying these foods in moderation (outside the individuals who use extremes to prove some sort of point...I guess)
Same thing with professor in KS, his blood work got better.... Is he still at risk for said diseases, higher risk (even though his blood work got better), or lower risk?0 -
QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »Burt_Huttz wrote: »MissHolidayGolightly wrote: »I thought that the main reason the nutrition content per serving had errors was that the servings differ from the serving size in grams and content. For example, one slice of raisin bread may be 50g while another may be 55g and have a few more raisins. This is even more so if eating a whole meal out at a restaurant where servings and content per servings may vary greatly. Also, in the US, labels tend to round to the nearest 5 or 10. I think this certainly counts more than the assumed negligible variation in digestion nutrition.
But!! If you ate proportionately the same amount of grapes, sugar, yeast, egg, milk, and wheat (unprocessed flour), you would have even fewer calories than you would in a slice of baked (aka "processed") raisin bread (this is of course assuming the proportionality was identical and the net weight of the unprocessed ingredients was equal [55 or 50 grams, depending, within your example.])
Milk! That's been processed by a cow! Just eat the grass, promise you won't absorb many calories from that.
You're right! I'll call my new breakfast "deconstructed toast" except I won't actually toast it because processing.0 -
-
jenluvsushi wrote: »hollydubs85 wrote: »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.
Even if this is true (which I'm not sure that it is), the difference between energy burned digesting raw and cooked foods is so minuscule that the calories are negligible. I'm not going to eat only raw foods in the day just so I could burn a hypothetical 40 more calories, or whatever.
I agree...although there is a skinny little hamster sitting in a science lab that might disagree. LOL! As a side note-I wonder if they take into consideration that the difference in the calories burned in digestion for a rodent might be significantly different in a human? It's basically bringing back the "negative calorie" food debate. Still an interesting article either way.
Which is why the only experiments to date that show any difference are in rats. Very slight changes in calories equate to relatively big changes in body composition in rats because they are so small.
Practically speaking, the difference in bioavailable calories between the food fed to rat colony 1 and the food fed to rat colony 2 that resulted in the 30% difference in fat cited in the article has to be miniscule, or the rats fed the puffed grains would have blown up like blimps.
Do a similar experiment in humans and you probably wouldn't get a difference in weight that met statistical significance.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0106851
Two diets given to subjects, with different macronutrient percentages. One group lost weight eating at calculated TDEE, the other gained. The reasearcher theorized the difference was the higher amount of fiber in the high carb group. People who eat more dairy and/or more fiber excrete more fat. Many studies on calorie restricted and ad libitum diets show higher levels of weight loss, or different distributions of fat (less/more visceral fat) when calories are taken from specific sources, i.e. oat fiber, fiber in general, yogurt, whey, percentage of protein, O3 fats, vrs HFCS/sucrose, white flour, red meat, deep fried, and trans fats.
One of the difficulties with the whole "it doesn't matter what you eat" message is that it appears to give validity to fad dieting, and ignores the contribution of non-caloric nutrition, which is just as important as calories in obvious and immediate (will die without water after a few days) and subtle and gradual (colon cancer and low levels of fiber) ways.
The "calories in" in that study were not rigorously controlled
The calories were controled by having caterers provide all food eaten. The researchers kept having to increase the calories in the high carb group (asian diet) to prevent weight loss, and decrease calories in the high fat group (western diet) to prevent weight gain. Original calories were based on participants TDEE. So, the participants on the asian diet group had to eat above TDEE to maintain weight, and the participants on the western diet had to eat below TDEE to maintain weight. Different weight effects at isocaloric levels of different macronutrient distribution - what you eat matters (even for weight loss).
The TDEE was estimated using the same online calculators most regular people use
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2014/10/metabolic-effects-of-traditional-asian.html
"The best available evidence continues to suggest that the calorie value of food impacts body fatness, but macronutrient composition doesn't"
Participants were "advised to limit" eating out and drinking alcohol.
16 week study - - enough time to ascertain the short term effects of a change in diet, which yielded the results of the study. Enough time to ascertain the long term effects of a change in diet? Don't know.0 -
MissHolidayGolightly wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »Burt_Huttz wrote: »MissHolidayGolightly wrote: »I thought that the main reason the nutrition content per serving had errors was that the servings differ from the serving size in grams and content. For example, one slice of raisin bread may be 50g while another may be 55g and have a few more raisins. This is even more so if eating a whole meal out at a restaurant where servings and content per servings may vary greatly. Also, in the US, labels tend to round to the nearest 5 or 10. I think this certainly counts more than the assumed negligible variation in digestion nutrition.
But!! If you ate proportionately the same amount of grapes, sugar, yeast, egg, milk, and wheat (unprocessed flour), you would have even fewer calories than you would in a slice of baked (aka "processed") raisin bread (this is of course assuming the proportionality was identical and the net weight of the unprocessed ingredients was equal [55 or 50 grams, depending, within your example.])
Milk! That's been processed by a cow! Just eat the grass, promise you won't absorb many calories from that.
You're right! I'll call my new breakfast "deconstructed toast" except I won't actually toast it because processing.
That's why I don't eat chicken. It's just processed eggs.
Or wait, are eggs processed chicken?
AHHH BRAIN ANYEURISM!
0 -
Burt_Huttz wrote: »MissHolidayGolightly wrote: »QueenBishOTUniverse wrote: »Burt_Huttz wrote: »MissHolidayGolightly wrote: »I thought that the main reason the nutrition content per serving had errors was that the servings differ from the serving size in grams and content. For example, one slice of raisin bread may be 50g while another may be 55g and have a few more raisins. This is even more so if eating a whole meal out at a restaurant where servings and content per servings may vary greatly. Also, in the US, labels tend to round to the nearest 5 or 10. I think this certainly counts more than the assumed negligible variation in digestion nutrition.
But!! If you ate proportionately the same amount of grapes, sugar, yeast, egg, milk, and wheat (unprocessed flour), you would have even fewer calories than you would in a slice of baked (aka "processed") raisin bread (this is of course assuming the proportionality was identical and the net weight of the unprocessed ingredients was equal [55 or 50 grams, depending, within your example.])
Milk! That's been processed by a cow! Just eat the grass, promise you won't absorb many calories from that.
You're right! I'll call my new breakfast "deconstructed toast" except I won't actually toast it because processing.
That's why I don't eat chicken. It's just processed eggs.
Or wait, are eggs processed chicken?
AHHH BRAIN ANYEURISM!
If it weren't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college.0
![:\](https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\"){kind=small}
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions