Stirring the Pot: are all calories equal
Options
Replies
-
I think it's a pretty good article. It explains in simple terms what many people know (that some foods can make them fatter than others of same calories) even though they don't really know why. Outside the body a calorie is a calorie. Once absorbed by our bodies, a calorie is a calorie. Counting calories via labels or databases leaves out all that goes on between the outside and the absorbed stages.0
-
Since this thread is already being reported, I have two requests:
1. Please stay on topic and don't insult other users when making your point. We all know where this thread is probably going, but I figured I'd at least make an attempt.
2. Please stop flagging each other unless the post warrants a flag. Here's a reminder of how the flagging/reporting system works.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007789/flagged-content-reported-posts-warning-points
Yes, the moderators can see who is flagging which posts. I'm in the process of removing flags from this thread that do not meet the guidelines above.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
Yeah, they probably are. But if the calories aren't absorbed, neither are the nutrients. Which is also pretty important.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"
Kind of like how our TDEE is estimated on MFP? Are you saying that using an online calculator to decide how many calories to eat is invalid?
I'm beginning to think that any study that would pass an ethics board would be too loosey-goosey for some people's standards (i.e. participants not locked in metabolic chambers for 5 years continuous study and all food burned in bomb caliometer before consumed). Ve must hef CONTROLL!!!0 -
Since this thread is already being reported, I have two requests:
1. Please stay on topic and don't insult other users when making your point. We all know where this thread is probably going, but I figured I'd at least make an attempt.
2. Please stop flagging each other unless the post warrants a flag. Here's a reminder of how the flagging/reporting system works.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007789/flagged-content-reported-posts-warning-points
Yes, the moderators can see who is flagging which posts. I'm in the process of removing flags from this thread that do not meet the guidelines above.
I don't appreciate you stealing from me. Those ladies work hard at giving me flags.
Actually I was wondering if I could get the 80 or so flags I've gotten from friends in a GROUP removed...
ETA Make that 81.
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"
Kind of like how our TDEE is estimated on MFP? Are you saying that using an online calculator to decide how many calories to eat is invalid?
I'm beginning to think that any study that would pass an ethics board would be too loosey-goosey for some people's standards (i.e. participants not locked in metabolic chambers for 5 years continuous study and all food burned in bomb caliometer before consumed). Ve must hef CONTROLL!!!
It is supposed to be used as a starting point and adjusted over time. Example, MFP says I need 2350 calories to maintain, the reality is I lose weight at that amount I was patient, I monitored and then adjusted the calories.0 -
As a unit of measure, 1=1, no matter what it is. 1 always equals 1 and will never equal anything else.
What the different foods do for (or to) us? Of course that is different.0 -
How many calories in the dead horse that is being beaten?0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »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.
Yeah, they probably are. But if the calories aren't absorbed, neither are the nutrients. Which is also pretty important.
I think the difference is probably not so much in the food itself, but in how much energy it takes to digest. Food in its raw form would probably take more energy to digest than cooked food, but you're still getting the nutrition from it. The question, though, is if that digestion energy difference is even statistically different. I'm thinking no.
0 -
Mauigirl62 wrote: »Now, Weight Watchers has changed their point system so that some things have higher point values than they used to - wine, for instance. I am not sure if they did it because the calories are empty or because there is some different effect on the body. But I do know that if I drink alcohol I tend not to lose weight even if the number of calories is within limits, because alcohol seems to make me retain water weight. So there may be something to the idea that not all calories are equal but not in the way this article is talking about.
And I've lost 21 lbs in the last 12 months drinking at least 36oz of beer a day. So one of us is mistaken in their assumptions.
Cico - but not obsessively.
0 -
Twinkies make me more hyper than apples do, whatever burn I get from digesting an apple quite likely pales in comparison to the burn I get from jumping off the walls after eating a twinkie.0
-
herrspoons wrote: »Sugar is not addi-
Oh God. What's the point? There's only so much banging against a brick wall one's head can take.
Yup.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
and
:sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad: :sad:0 -
Since this thread is already being reported, I have two requests:
1. Please stay on topic and don't insult other users when making your point. We all know where this thread is probably going, but I figured I'd at least make an attempt.
2. Please stop flagging each other unless the post warrants a flag. Here's a reminder of how the flagging/reporting system works.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10007789/flagged-content-reported-posts-warning-points
Yes, the moderators can see who is flagging which posts. I'm in the process of removing flags from this thread that do not meet the guidelines above.
Hey you gotz the big buttons now. When did that happen? Congrats, I think
Would it be possible to warn also users who flag unnecessarily?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"
Kind of like how our TDEE is estimated on MFP? Are you saying that using an online calculator to decide how many calories to eat is invalid?
I'm beginning to think that any study that would pass an ethics board would be too loosey-goosey for some people's standards (i.e. participants not locked in metabolic chambers for 5 years continuous study and all food burned in bomb caliometer before consumed). Ve must hef CONTROLL!!!
No, it's sufficeint to determine TDEE by tracking first at an assumed maintenance and adjusting. Or nitrogen release method.0 -
-
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.
A calorie is a calorie as far as weight loss goes. While you have done experiments on plastic stomachs to show this is not true, my real tummy has been showing me how much food I eat determines whether I lose, gain, or maintain weight. Seriously, it's science.
As for nutrition, body comp, satiety, and individual tastes, type of food and macro balance matters
I personally don't eat a lot of processed food because I love cooking my own meals. End of story.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.
Nope, not as applied to weight loss. CICO as to weight loss.
0 -
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.
If "available energy" is impacted by the type of calories being eaten, then by definition, so is weight loss/gain. Ditto for "digestive regularity".
This entire discussion is depressing. Every damn time, people retreat to soundbite sentences that don't capture even a fraction of the complexity involved, pound their chests in righteous indignation at all the "idiots" saying something different, and it all disintegrates very quickly into a pointless shouting match.
0 -
AbsoluteTara79 wrote: »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.
:drinker:
0
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