Stirring the Pot: are all calories equal
Options
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 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 -
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 -
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
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
- 921 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions