Stirring the Pot: are all calories equal
Replies
-
swilkinson0705 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »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.
Your comment "calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement" is not correct. According to the article the work the body has to do to process that calorie greatly influences whether the food will cause you to gain or not. Example 300 calories of broccoli is A LOT. Your body would have to work harder to digest this food rather than say 300 calories of cookie. Because the body doesn't have to do much to digest the cookie you gain weight. Seems very logical to me. All calories are not equal.
ahhh - but what if they are broccoli cookies!
0 -
swilkinson0705 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »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.
Your comment "calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement" is not correct. According to the article the work the body has to do to process that calorie greatly influences whether the food will cause you to gain or not. Example 300 calories of broccoli is A LOT. Your body would have to work harder to digest this food rather than say 300 calories of cookie. Because the body doesn't have to do much to digest the cookie you gain weight. Seems very logical to me. All calories are not equal.
How much harder do you think your body works for that? 5 cals, 10 cals?
How about eating ice? The calorie effect of melting that ice? About the same.
It's a minor element when compared to total calories in or out.0 -
Explaining what and why gets complicated, which is why I didn't post. I've got a post-graduate theoretical math background which did not emphasize simplistic explanation in any way, shape, or form. LOL.
I wanna party with YOU! :drinker:
I tried pure math, couldn't cut it. It kept triggering my "mind blown" gene.
Ended up with four years of engineering/science math, subsequently coloured by living in the land of quantitative finance. 0 -
At this point, I'm pretty much convinced a calorie is a unit of pedantry.
0 -
A Calorie is what I'm naming the next cat I get. Or dog - whichever comes first.
At that point, it will be appropriate to say "A Calorie isn't a Calorie." No, (s)he's a cat, or dog.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »swilkinson0705 wrote: »snowflake930 wrote: »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.
Your comment "calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement" is not correct. According to the article the work the body has to do to process that calorie greatly influences whether the food will cause you to gain or not. Example 300 calories of broccoli is A LOT. Your body would have to work harder to digest this food rather than say 300 calories of cookie. Because the body doesn't have to do much to digest the cookie you gain weight. Seems very logical to me. All calories are not equal.
How much harder do you think your body works for that? 5 cals, 10 cals?
How about eating ice? The calorie effect of melting that ice? About the same.
It's a minor element when compared to total calories in or out.
Burning just 10 calories a day more makes a 1 pound difference in fat over a year. Some calories do count more towards weight gain than others. And some calories count more towards muscle gain than others. And some calories count more towards cancer prevention and meeting micros than others. Food is so much more than calories, and calories from different sources impact the body differently. Viva la difference!0 -
In what I'm sure will be a vain attempt at finding a common/middle ground here, are we all able to agree to the following:
1. There is a difference between the laboratory measured caloric content of a food and how many calories are available to the human body once that food has been consumed
2. There is room for debate/further study on how large that difference is
3. We know the difference is typically bigger than zero, so for people who are close to their fitness goals and monitoring very closely, it may make a difference
4. We know the difference is unlikely to be more than approximately 20%, so for people with considerable weight to lose it is unlikely to make a notable difference
0 -
In what I'm sure will be a vain attempt at finding a common/middle ground here, are we all able to agree to the following:
1. There is a difference between the laboratory measured caloric content of a food and how many calories are available to the human body once that food has been consumed
2. There is room for debate/further study on how large that difference is
3. We know the difference is typically bigger than zero, so for people who are close to their fitness goals and monitoring very closely, it may make a difference
4. We know the difference is unlikely to be more than approximately 20%, so for people with considerable weight to lose it is unlikely to make a notable difference
vain attempt or not, I applaud this post.
yes.0 -
Sure, works for me.0
-
Explaining what and why gets complicated, which is why I didn't post. I've got a post-graduate theoretical math background which did not emphasize simplistic explanation in any way, shape, or form. LOL.
I wanna party with YOU! :drinker:
I tried pure math, couldn't cut it. It kept triggering my "mind blown" gene. Ended up with four years of engineering/science math, subsequently coloured by living in the land of quantitative finance.
Oh, yeah, I'm a blast to hang out with.
In all honesty, theoretical math isn't a love of mine and it sure as all hell ain't my specialty. I did a Master's in computer science, which required a year of theoretical math. During the class, I attracted the attention of the prof, a graph theory specialist, and he ended up as my thesis adviser because we shared an interest in biological applications (I was changing careers from microbiology).
So, I ended up with a lot more education in math theory than I would have ever chosen on my own. Especially after that man's class. Oy. Highest grade in his classes was usually a 40-50 with the mean hovering in the single digits. Did I mention he is a former paratrooper and drill sergeant?
ETA: was to is - thesis adviser is still around and publishing regularly0 -
In what I'm sure will be a vain attempt at finding a common/middle ground here, are we all able to agree to the following:
1. There is a difference between the laboratory measured caloric content of a food and how many calories are available to the human body once that food has been consumed
2. There is room for debate/further study on how large that difference is
3. We know the difference is typically bigger than zero, so for people who are close to their fitness goals and monitoring very closely, it may make a difference
4. We know the difference is unlikely to be more than approximately 20%, so for people with considerable weight to lose it is unlikely to make a notable difference
Sure. Are we talking 20% of our total calories? Because that would make a big difference. For me that's 20% of 1800 cal=360 cal/day. Almost 3/4 of a lb a week! Could the difference really be that much?
0 -
In what I'm sure will be a vain attempt at finding a common/middle ground here, are we all able to agree to the following:
1. There is a difference between the laboratory measured caloric content of a food and how many calories are available to the human body once that food has been consumed
2. There is room for debate/further study on how large that difference is
3. We know the difference is typically bigger than zero, so for people who are close to their fitness goals and monitoring very closely, it may make a difference
4. We know the difference is unlikely to be more than approximately 20%, so for people with considerable weight to lose it is unlikely to make a notable difference
Sure. Are we talking 20% of our total calories? Because that would make a big difference. For me that's 20% of 1800 cal=360 cal/day. Almost 3/4 of a lb a week! Could the difference really be that much?
But after 3-4 weeks when you do your first reevaluation and tweak to your calories, wouldn't you then tweak your target to 1440 (assuming you were actually off a full 20%)? Okay, fine, you wouldn't necessarily make the full adjustment in the first round, but over time, if that was the quantity of your error, you would eventually end up there (in our vacuum for this discussion, all else being unchanged).
I don't get how people think they're locked into their number from day one and that they'll never change it even in the face of unintended results over a long period of time. These interim adjustments are an essential part of the overall process and account for these measurement errors either direction...and to the extent the measurement errors are consistently similar, will eventually be entirely adjusted out.
0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »In what I'm sure will be a vain attempt at finding a common/middle ground here, are we all able to agree to the following:
1. There is a difference between the laboratory measured caloric content of a food and how many calories are available to the human body once that food has been consumed
2. There is room for debate/further study on how large that difference is
3. We know the difference is typically bigger than zero, so for people who are close to their fitness goals and monitoring very closely, it may make a difference
4. We know the difference is unlikely to be more than approximately 20%, so for people with considerable weight to lose it is unlikely to make a notable difference
Sure. Are we talking 20% of our total calories? Because that would make a big difference. For me that's 20% of 1800 cal=360 cal/day. Almost 3/4 of a lb a week! Could the difference really be that much?
But after 3-4 weeks when you do your first reevaluation and tweak to your calories, wouldn't you then tweak your target to 1440 (assuming you were actually off a full 20%)? Okay, fine, you wouldn't necessarily make the full adjustment in the first round, but over time, if that was the quantity of your error, you would eventually end up there (in our vacuum for this discussion, all else being unchanged).
I don't get how people think they're locked into their number from day one and that they'll never change it even in the face of unintended results over a long period of time. These interim adjustments are an essential part of the overall process and account for these measurement errors either direction...and to the extent the measurement errors are consistently similar, will eventually be entirely adjusted out.
1800 calories a day is my level after losing 25 lbs and tweaking to 1lb/wk loss. But apparently, if I eat the right kinds of foods, I could lose another 3/4 of a lb while still eating 1800 calories.
The calorie counts are OVERestimations, so that means, if I tweaked my calories, it would be UP by 20%, not down.
0 -
In what I'm sure will be a vain attempt at finding a common/middle ground here, are we all able to agree to the following:
1. There is a difference between the laboratory measured caloric content of a food and how many calories are available to the human body once that food has been consumed
2. There is room for debate/further study on how large that difference is
3. We know the difference is typically bigger than zero, so for people who are close to their fitness goals and monitoring very closely, it may make a difference
4. We know the difference is unlikely to be more than approximately 20%, so for people with considerable weight to lose it is unlikely to make a notable difference
Sure. Are we talking 20% of our total calories? Because that would make a big difference. For me that's 20% of 1800 cal=360 cal/day. Almost 3/4 of a lb a week! Could the difference really be that much?
When talking about fiber, some fiber calories are counted in total calories for the day, even though they may not be digestible. If someone eats 25g of fiber a day (slightly below what is recommended), then they would have up to 100 of the logged calories for that day biologically unavailable to them (fiber has 4.1 calories/gram like other carbohydrates). Fiber, like yogurt, carries other nutrients through the digestive tract with it (mostly fat), making them metabolically unavailable. Someone eating higher fiber could be actually netting have a 100 calories greater deficit than MFP is showing. 100 calories a day is 10 pounds a year weight loss. At the same time, they wouldn't be as hungry as they would be if they just didn't eat that 100 calories (and their colons would be happier too).
If you are losing at the rate MFP says you should be, then don't worry about it. If you are losing faster, and are eating high-fiber (or eating something else that is less nutritionally unavailable), that could be why. If you are losing super fast for no discernable reason see your Dr.
I've heard estimates of 50-75 calories a day less available due to thermic action of food (i.e. protein takes more work to digest than glucose). Again, 50 calories a day is 5 pounds a year. However, because of all the factors that affect bioavailability of calories, I don't think we'll have reliable formulas to figure out just how much more we can eat if some of it isn't available anytime soon. Just eat enough fiber and protein to be healthy.
Logging can help us be aware of what foods make us naturally fuller. This can vary from person to person. If we have a good sense of what we can eat and lose, or eat and maintain, eventually we shouldn't need to log as much to maintain our weight (if lucky...)0 -
In what I'm sure will be a vain attempt at finding a common/middle ground here, are we all able to agree to the following:
1. There is a difference between the laboratory measured caloric content of a food and how many calories are available to the human body once that food has been consumed
2. There is room for debate/further study on how large that difference is
3. We know the difference is typically bigger than zero, so for people who are close to their fitness goals and monitoring very closely, it may make a difference
4. We know the difference is unlikely to be more than approximately 20%, so for people with considerable weight to lose it is unlikely to make a notable difference
Sure. Are we talking 20% of our total calories? Because that would make a big difference. For me that's 20% of 1800 cal=360 cal/day. Almost 3/4 of a lb a week! Could the difference really be that much?
When talking about fiber, some fiber calories are counted in total calories for the day, even though they may not be digestible. If someone eats 25g of fiber a day (slightly below what is recommended), then they would have up to 100 of the logged calories for that day biologically unavailable to them (fiber has 4.1 calories/gram like other carbohydrates). Fiber, like yogurt, carries other nutrients through the digestive tract with it (mostly fat), making them metabolically unavailable. Someone eating higher fiber could be actually netting have a 100 calories greater deficit than MFP is showing. 100 calories a day is 10 pounds a year weight loss. At the same time, they wouldn't be as hungry as they would be if they just didn't eat that 100 calories (and their colons would be happier too).
If you are losing at the rate MFP says you should be, then don't worry about it. If you are losing faster, and are eating high-fiber (or eating something else that is less nutritionally unavailable), that could be why. If you are losing super fast for no discernable reason see your Dr.
I've heard estimates of 50-75 calories a day less available due to thermic action of food (i.e. protein takes more work to digest than glucose). Again, 50 calories a day is 5 pounds a year. However, because of all the factors that affect bioavailability of calories, I don't think we'll have reliable formulas to figure out just how much more we can eat if some of it isn't available anytime soon. Just eat enough fiber and protein to be healthy.
Logging can help us be aware of what foods make us naturally fuller. This can vary from person to person. If we have a good sense of what we can eat and lose, or eat and maintain, eventually we shouldn't need to log as much to maintain our weight (if lucky...)
you heard wrong - shocking - TEF has been shown to be so minimal that it would barley move the needle one way or the other ….
0 -
In what I'm sure will be a vain attempt at finding a common/middle ground here, are we all able to agree to the following:
1. There is a difference between the laboratory measured caloric content of a food and how many calories are available to the human body once that food has been consumed
2. There is room for debate/further study on how large that difference is
3. We know the difference is typically bigger than zero, so for people who are close to their fitness goals and monitoring very closely, it may make a difference
4. We know the difference is unlikely to be more than approximately 20%, so for people with considerable weight to lose it is unlikely to make a notable difference
Sure. Are we talking 20% of our total calories? Because that would make a big difference. For me that's 20% of 1800 cal=360 cal/day. Almost 3/4 of a lb a week! Could the difference really be that much?
When talking about fiber, some fiber calories are counted in total calories for the day, even though they may not be digestible. If someone eats 25g of fiber a day (slightly below what is recommended), then they would have up to 100 of the logged calories for that day biologically unavailable to them (fiber has 4.1 calories/gram like other carbohydrates). Fiber, like yogurt, carries other nutrients through the digestive tract with it (mostly fat), making them metabolically unavailable. Someone eating higher fiber could be actually netting have a 100 calories greater deficit than MFP is showing. 100 calories a day is 10 pounds a year weight loss. At the same time, they wouldn't be as hungry as they would be if they just didn't eat that 100 calories (and their colons would be happier too).
If you are losing at the rate MFP says you should be, then don't worry about it. If you are losing faster, and are eating high-fiber (or eating something else that is less nutritionally unavailable), that could be why. If you are losing super fast for no discernable reason see your Dr.
I've heard estimates of 50-75 calories a day less available due to thermic action of food (i.e. protein takes more work to digest than glucose). Again, 50 calories a day is 5 pounds a year. However, because of all the factors that affect bioavailability of calories, I don't think we'll have reliable formulas to figure out just how much more we can eat if some of it isn't available anytime soon. Just eat enough fiber and protein to be healthy.
Logging can help us be aware of what foods make us naturally fuller. This can vary from person to person. If we have a good sense of what we can eat and lose, or eat and maintain, eventually we shouldn't need to log as much to maintain our weight (if lucky...)
you heard wrong - shocking - TEF has been shown to be so minimal that it would barley move the needle one way or the other ….
Srsly - why poke the bear...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20613890
Compairison of energetic needs difference to digest "whole food" versus "processed" sandwich composed of 600 calories - 266 kilojoules = 65 calories - over 10% of total calories of the meal went towards digestion in the whole foods sandwich that did not for the processed sandwich.
If whole foods take up an extra 10% of their value to process, that's an extra 120 calories a day expended on thermic energy in my diet that would not be for someone eating a lot of processed foods - sounds like something that would make an impact to me...
20-35% of protein calories are lost through the digestive process (highest thermic cost), and 5-15% of fat calories can be lost this way (lowest thermic cost) - most extreme scenario, someone eats 100 g protein a day = 400 calories, 140 calories lost in digestion. I would think that this should be included in MFP's TDEE calculation, though (giving us more calories to eat if our protein macro is set higher and less if our fat macro is higher).0 -
According to MFP, all calories are different, based on gender, origin, level of processing, and the phase of the moon.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions