Stirring the Pot: are all calories equal
Replies
-
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.
"Available energy" was code for the function of carbohydrates.
"digestive regularity" was code for fiber.
Neither one will change CICO as the rule for weight loss. My point was that there are reasons to choose one food rather than another for reasons other than weight loss.
0 -
So let's say someone eats a relatively higher percentage of "processed" food...which for this purpose we're going to consider foods with a high bioavailability/ efficiency of nutrients. They consistently track and log their food and after 4-6 weeks, evaluate their progress, and make the necessary adjustments to their targets. Repeat until goal.
Now someone else eats a relatively lower percentage of "processed" food similarly defined. Track, log, evaluate, adjust. Repeat until goal.
Based on this information, which of these two approaches is so clearly superior that all other factors in someone's life could/should be ignored? And are you filled with such ardent fervor for your cause that you're compelled to preach the good word of the superior choice to all who will listen?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.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and the study.
0 -
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This was the 2nd reply to this thread, and in my opinion the one and only one needed!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 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »In recent studies, Dr. Ludwig has shown that high-carbohydrate diets appear to slow metabolic rates compared to diets higher in fat and protein...
Well that part is clearly not correct. You know who has awesomely revved up metabolisms? Athletes. You know who typically eats crap ton loads of carbs? Athletes.
0 -
This was the 2nd reply to this thread, and in my opinion the one and only one needed!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.
ill second that ...0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »In recent studies, Dr. Ludwig has shown that high-carbohydrate diets appear to slow metabolic rates compared to diets higher in fat and protein...
Well that part is clearly not correct. You know who has awesomely revved up metabolisms? Athletes. You know who typically eats crap ton loads of carbs? Athletes.
I'm not a real athlete, but my calculated TDEE (without any significant exercise) is now ~3300 (based on daily food/exercise logs) and I eat a relative crap ton of carbs.
What does this have to do with anything? Probably nothing. I just like saying that my TDEE ~3300.
:drinker:0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »So let's say someone eats a relatively higher percentage of "processed" food...which for this purpose we're going to consider foods with a high bioavailability/ efficiency of nutrients. They consistently track and log their food and after 4-6 weeks, evaluate their progress, and make the necessary adjustments to their targets. Repeat until goal.
Now someone else eats a relatively lower percentage of "processed" food similarly defined. Track, log, evaluate, adjust. Repeat until goal.
Based on this information, which of these two approaches is so clearly superior that all other factors in someone's life could/should be ignored? And are you filled with such ardent fervor for your cause that you're compelled to preach the good word of the superior choice to all who will listen?
I don't think either are superior, but I wonder if it would influence people's dietary choices if there was more information/research about bioavailability and it made a reasonable difference by choosing one thing over the another.
I find it interesting learning about all aspects of nutrition, and I appreciate that the OP posted it. I didn't see it as preaching a cause if you were referring to the OP.
0 -
robbackatya wrote: »Nope all calories are not = when it relates to weight loss.
Yes they are.0 -
What? I don't understand this.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.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
prettykitty1515 wrote: »"Dr. David Ludwig, the director of the obesity program at Boston Children’s Hospital, argues in the film (Fed Up) that they are not. In recent studies, Dr. Ludwig has shown that high-carbohydrate diets appear to slow metabolic rates compared to diets higher in fat and protein, so that people expend less energy even when consuming the same number of calories. Dr. Ludwig has found that unlike calories from so-called low glycemic foods (like beans, nuts and non-starchy vegetables), those from high glycemic foods (such as sugar, bread and potatoes) spike blood sugar and stimulate hunger and cravings, which can drive people to overeat."
Now I do not know if Dr. Ludwig is correct or incorrect. But I do know that when anyone suggests that the theory of calories in calories out may not be correct, there is a total freak out on this site. Why? Because if it can be proved without a shadow of a doubt that CICO is no longer valid and is based on dated science, Myfitnesspal ceases to exist. And there are lots of people who have a financial interest in this site continuing and succeeding.
Meanwhile, just keep thinking that a 200-calorie sugar-laden carb-laden donut is the same as a 200-calorie piece of fish when it comes to weight loss. That's your right.
You're using "Fed Up" as a source?
Try again.
Also? Try this one on for size.
I am eating the EXACT same food I've been eating for the past 5 years. I'm simply counting calories now and eating less of it. I've lost 25 pounds in the last 6 months. (I lost 10 before coming to MFP). Do tell me how CICO is not valid.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
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.
very interesting article - I am going to add more raw vegetable to my diet0 -
prettykitty1515 wrote: »"Dr. David Ludwig, the director of the obesity program at Boston Children’s Hospital, argues in the film (Fed Up) that they are not. In recent studies, Dr. Ludwig has shown that high-carbohydrate diets appear to slow metabolic rates compared to diets higher in fat and protein, so that people expend less energy even when consuming the same number of calories. Dr. Ludwig has found that unlike calories from so-called low glycemic foods (like beans, nuts and non-starchy vegetables), those from high glycemic foods (such as sugar, bread and potatoes) spike blood sugar and stimulate hunger and cravings, which can drive people to overeat."
Now I do not know if Dr. Ludwig is correct or incorrect. But I do know that when anyone suggests that the theory of calories in calories out may not be correct, there is a total freak out on this site. Why? Because if it can be proved without a shadow of a doubt that CICO is no longer valid and is based on dated science, Myfitnesspal ceases to exist. And there are lots of people who have a financial interest in this site continuing and succeeding.
Meanwhile, just keep thinking that a 200-calorie sugar-laden carb-laden donut is the same as a 200-calorie piece of fish when it comes to weight loss. That's your right.
If it can be proven without a shadow of a doubt then prove it. Show us the proof and spot spewing nonsense as always saying CICO is not valid. You have yet to prove anything ever. Also, there you go again trying to compare a donut to something else. Now it's fish. So very pathetic.
You pop up talking about Lustig and Fed, can you just come clean now? You're trolling aren't you? You can't honestly believe the things you type. No one can.
Also, when are you going to bother showing the members here that you've lost any weight?
PrettyKitty, I await your non response.
They also mentioned Jimmy Moore as a source in another thread. I could barley contain the LOL's0 -
Then how come a lot of the vocal low carb proponents are still fat and wear girdles to hide their guts?prettykitty1515 wrote: »"Dr. In recent studies, Dr. Ludwig has shown that high-carbohydrate diets appear to slow metabolic rates compared to diets higher in fat and protein,
Ever hear of the Tukisenta's who eat huge amounts of carbs, or the Kitavans (69% carb diet), or the Ewe Tribe (who eat a diet of basically NOTHING BUT insulin-spiking carbs ... like 90% of the diet) or the traditional Okinawa's (85% carbs).
0 -
What? I don't understand this.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.
Wow! Five pages into this and I'm still being quoted?
What I mean is that though the concept of a food calorie is based on the energy calorie (divided by 1000), the food calorie serves as a shorthand to cover a bunch of other stuff. For example, the 1200 calorie minimum has nothing to do with providing the human body with enough energy to survive. What foods those calories come from is important for a person's health. The nutrients in food get moved around the body and are used as building blocks for various things the cells do. But once our body has enough of those building blocks to do what it needs, all the extra food, no matter how healthy it is, is just stored as fat and the stuff the body doesn't need is flush out of the system.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »
Read the article. Do some research. For example: 100 calories from nuts is not what your body gets. 1/5 is lost/not absorbed. Fiber affects the rate calories are asymilated. Which effects your blood sugar, which affects your insulin level, which effects the rate that you store fats... Its not 100 for 100. That is over simplistic.
In a lab setting, sure the heat value is the same. Calorie estimation does not mimic human digestion.0 -
yopeeps025 wrote: »
Read the article. Do some research. For example: 100 calories from nuts is not what your body gets. 1/5 is lost/not absorbed. Fiber affects the rate calories are asymilated. Which effects your blood sugar, which affects your insulin level, which effects the rate that you store fats... Its not 100 for 100. That is over simplistic.
In a lab setting, sure the heat value is the same. Calorie estimation does not mimic human digestion.
That is not really what the article is saying though… in fact, the article doesn't mention blood sugar or insulin levels at any moment.
Regardless, the fact that our body processes foods differently does not mean that calories are not equal. Calories is simply a measure of the energy contained inside a food source. The difference lies in how much of that energy your body can extract from those sources.
I am not sure how make a working analogy, but it's more or less the difference between burning a chunk of wood completely, and a burning chunk of wood that turns into coals and then goes out. There is still energy in the coals, it just wasn't consumed by the fire.
Yes, that is a very clumsy, but unless I go into the laws of thermodynamics (which I would most likely butcher horribly) I am not sure how else to explain it.
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »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.
That was my impression as well. Unfortunately, reading through this discussion it seems that a lot of people either people are misinterpreting the article or not reading it.
The question is, I think, if it really makes a difference. From what I gather from the article, in the end there would be no instance where the amount of calories your body absorbed would be underestimated rather than overestimated. The amount of calories on the label corresponds to the actual amount of calories present in the food it is labelling. (zero calorie products notwithstanding)
So, really, if you are count in calories and eating at a deficit, the only difference that it would make is that eating "unprocessed" foods would create, in fact, a larger deficit than you are aiming at. Thus, you would lose weight faster, because you are absorbing less calories.
It still boils down to CI < CO, really.
I also question if the difference made is really large enough to be significant in humans. Unfortunately, the article doesn't give any clues to that.0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »I also question if the difference made is really large enough to be significant in humans. Unfortunately, the article doesn't give any clues to that.
the amount of calories left in your waste can be measured and accounted for, it isn't huge. Over time it might be significant as a few calories a day is a lot over 10 years.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »
What? I don't understand this.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.
Wow! Five pages into this and I'm still being quoted?
What I mean is that though the concept of a food calorie is based on the energy calorie (divided by 1000), the food calorie serves as a shorthand to cover a bunch of other stuff. For example, the 1200 calorie minimum has nothing to do with providing the human body with enough energy to survive. What foods those calories come from is important for a person's health. The nutrients in food get moved around the body and are used as building blocks for various things the cells do. But once our body has enough of those building blocks to do what it needs, all the extra food, no matter how healthy it is, is just stored as fat and the stuff the body doesn't need is flush out of the system.
Is this a fancy way of saying surplus food leads to weight gain? Otherwise, what you're saying doesn't make sense.0 -
As a unit of measure, 1=1, no matter what it is. 1 always equals 1 and will never equal anything else.
That's not correct. It depends on context.
It took Principia Mathematica about 500 pages worth of logical proofs to establish that "1+1=2" - usually. Even then ended up with a circular definition. And if 1 plus 1 being 2 is a "sometimes", then it's not possible that "1 always equals 1".
In what context is 1 = 1 incorrect?
I did pretty well in math, but didn't go so far that 1 did not equal 1.
Is it possible to explain that to someone who wasn't a math major?
0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »I also question if the difference made is really large enough to be significant in humans. Unfortunately, the article doesn't give any clues to that.
the amount of calories left in your waste can be measured and accounted for, it isn't huge. Over time it might be significant as a few calories a day is a lot over 10 years.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men were fed a diet that was high in fiber, then low in fiber (12g/day vrs 1g/day). When on the high fiber diet, their feces contained 900 more calories over the course of a week than when they were on the low fiber diet. 900x52 = 46,800 = would be 13 pounds fat difference in a year by making changes in what sort of food people ate (high versus low fiber).0 -
As a unit of measure, 1=1, no matter what it is. 1 always equals 1 and will never equal anything else.
That's not correct. It depends on context.
It took Principia Mathematica about 500 pages worth of logical proofs to establish that "1+1=2" - usually. Even then ended up with a circular definition. And if 1 plus 1 being 2 is a "sometimes", then it's not possible that "1 always equals 1".
In what context is 1 = 1 incorrect?
I did pretty well in math, but didn't go so far that 1 did not equal 1.
Is it possible to explain that to someone who wasn't a math major?
Add 1 banana to 1 banana and you have two bananas. Add 1 drop of water to 1 drop of water and you have....1 drop of water.
There are waaaaaay more weird examples than this in our crazy universe....but that's one that's easy to visualize.
0 -
GingerbreadCandy wrote: »I also question if the difference made is really large enough to be significant in humans. Unfortunately, the article doesn't give any clues to that.
the amount of calories left in your waste can be measured and accounted for, it isn't huge. Over time it might be significant as a few calories a day is a lot over 10 years.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/7/1149.full.pdf+html
Men were fed a diet that was high in fiber, then low in fiber (12g/day vrs 1g/day). When on the high fiber diet, their feces contained 900 more calories over the course of a week than when they were on the low fiber diet. 900x52 = 46,800 = would be 13 pounds fat difference in a year by making changes in what sort of food people ate (high versus low fiber).
Very interesting. I do wish the study was repeated with a larger sample of people, but I did not expect the difference to be that evident.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