Are the calories of a banana used differently to the calories of cake?
Options
Replies
-
I suppose what I'm driving at is if you were inclined to go over on calories would be less likely to gain weight if you stuck to healthy foods or would it simply not matter?
There isn't one answer to that. Even for any given person, it would depend on context. For example, the effect of a Snickers bar is much different if I'm laying on the couch being a potato vs in the middle of a 40 mile bike ride.
You'll have to find your own body's response.
0 -
I wouldn't necessarily assume that as fact.Showcase_Brodown wrote: »If we're just talking about energy intake and expenditure, yes.
We all know that nutritionally speaking, cake and bananas are not equal.
0 -
I suppose what I'm driving at is if you were inclined to go over on calories would be less likely to gain weight if you stuck to healthy foods or would it simply not matter?
There isn't one answer to that. Even for any given person, it would depend on context. For example, the effect of a Snickers bar is much different if I'm laying on the couch being a potato vs in the middle of a 40 mile bike ride.
You'll have to find your own body's response.
Not really. What it does is basically the same. What is different is what you do about it.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
Yup, I'd go along with that, but your shoring up the differences though. 40% carbs with the lions share from whole foods and 40% carbs mostly from highly processed foods will have an impact then less as they become more comparable.SnuggleSmacks wrote: »So, comparing apples to apples (organic whole apples vs. a variety of organic/non-organic raw, cooked, and juiced apples, metaphorically speaking) probably does not make a huge impact on health, all other things being equal, right? If you take the bizarre donut diet strawmen out of the equation, and compare real diets, as long as the cals and macros are the same, the outcomes are likely to be very similar, yes?
Fair enough. I guess I just know few people who get all or even most of their carbs from processed foods, although I'm sure there are some who simply don't cook or who live in "food desert" areas where fresh produce is hard to come by. But for the average person who eats a bit of this and a bit of that, with some fresh stuff in the fridge and some frozen and canned stuff as well, eating out a few times a week, health markers should not be much different from someone who only eats "whole" foods, if they're sticking to the same macro ratios/relative caloric intake, etc. Right? I mean, barring the outliers, a normal IIFYM dieter would not have vastly different markers than a normal "clean" or "whole foods" dieter, would they?0 -
Agreed. But there is a large percentage of the population that consume far too much fast/highly processed food daily as a percentage of their total caloric intake, who are overweight and as we know that demographic have poor health markers, just ask Harvard, those smug *kitten* , sorry they piss me off, but that's another story. If we're consuming a diet as prescribed by IIFYM then the differences in health would probably lie in their lifestyle as opposed to diet, again just a guess.SnuggleSmacks wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »
Yup, I'd go along with that, but your shoring up the differences though. 40% carbs with the lions share from whole foods and 40% carbs mostly from highly processed foods will have an impact then less as they become more comparable.SnuggleSmacks wrote: »So, comparing apples to apples (organic whole apples vs. a variety of organic/non-organic raw, cooked, and juiced apples, metaphorically speaking) probably does not make a huge impact on health, all other things being equal, right? If you take the bizarre donut diet strawmen out of the equation, and compare real diets, as long as the cals and macros are the same, the outcomes are likely to be very similar, yes?
Fair enough. I guess I just know few people who get all or even most of their carbs from processed foods, although I'm sure there are some who simply don't cook or who live in "food desert" areas where fresh produce is hard to come by. But for the average person who eats a bit of this and a bit of that, with some fresh stuff in the fridge and some frozen and canned stuff as well, eating out a few times a week, health markers should not be much different from someone who only eats "whole" foods, if they're sticking to the same macro ratios/relative caloric intake, etc. Right? I mean, barring the outliers, a normal IIFYM dieter would not have vastly different markers than a normal "clean" or "whole foods" dieter, would they?
0 -
Showcase_Brodown wrote: »If we're just talking about energy intake and expenditure, yes.
We all know that nutritionally speaking, cake and bananas are not equal.
again, you don't eat those foods in a vaccum ...so overall diet and dosage is what matters...
unless you are saying your dietary choices consist ONLY of bananas and cake..???0 -
Showcase_Brodown wrote: »If we're just talking about energy intake and expenditure, yes.
We all know that nutritionally speaking, cake and bananas are not equal.
again, you don't eat those foods in a vaccum ...so overall diet and dosage is what matters...
unless you are saying your dietary choices consist ONLY of bananas and cake..???
Depends on the list of ingredients of the cake, they are not create equal, where banana's basically are. Not so cut and dry.0 -
Showcase_Brodown wrote: »If we're just talking about energy intake and expenditure, yes.
We all know that nutritionally speaking, cake and bananas are not equal.
again, you don't eat those foods in a vaccum ...so overall diet and dosage is what matters...
And those "matter" because the content/effect of each food is different.
It's just another way of saying the same thing.
0 -
SnuggleSmacks wrote: »Non straw-man argument:
Person A eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats all "clean" with zero added sugars, "processed" foods, or whatever.
Person B eats a 1500 calorie diet with exactly 40% carbs, 30% fat and 30% protein, and eats some fresh and some processed foods, and includes things like pizza, chips, ice cream, a little fast food, and plenty of donuts and cake, within his/her macros.
After 6 months, how will health markers, weight, etc. differ?
my assumption is that they would be similar if not the same.
I think this would depend on the person. Some people can eat all sorts of things and never have elevated cholesterol levels due to 'good' genes. Another might eat a diet that fit all the dietary recommendations to lower heart risk and still have high cholesterol etc. The key is to find out how your diet effects you and then go from there.
0 -
Just want to say thanks for all the splendid and scholarly responses. I've learned a lot reading this, and feel much more empowered to go forwards.
I've had a really really healthy day, and I've lost 3lb in the last week ( so am learning that my 1450 may be too slight)
Now I'm going to nip downstairs for something sugary and sinful and lovely. Thanks xxxxxxxxxxx0 -
countjassula wrote: »I'm pissed this thread isn't about banana cake.
For me, I keep reading it and thinking - I'd really like some banana cake. All the arguments are lost on me at the moment.
My input is nutrition, nutrition, nutrition. Food matters, food is your medicine and I'd really like some banana cake and I make a really nice one and that is what I am going to do now.
My recipe is from Pete Evan's Paleo cookbook "Family Food" which is the No. 1 best selling book in Australia this week, including the fiction and non fiction section. Proof that change is on the horizon and people are becoming aware that they need to maximise the nutrients in their food and that the type of food they eat matters.0 -
The difference can come in thermic effect, or the bioavailabilty of the calories.
For example, fiber has 4.1 calories per gram, and some calories from fiber are included in the calorie count for any food with fiber. The percentage isn't standard, by my salad on MFP included 3/4 of the calories for fiber, when the fiber was unsoluble, and thus not available. Fiber can also interfere with the digestion of other nutrients, particularly fat. If you eat a meal with a lot of fiber, the usable calories will be less than the total calories. In that way, eating whole foods would lead to more weight loss than eating processed foods when the same amount of calories are brought into the body.
Some calorie sources are processed more efficiently in the body. Protein is the least efficient, taking as much as 35% of calories ingested through protein to digest it. Fat is the most efficient, where as many as few as 5% of the calories ingested are needed to digest it. Also, calories from processed foods are more efficiently processed by the body. In this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897733/
The energy expenditure to metabolize a processed cheese sandwich was 10.2% of sandwich calories. The energy to metabolize a whole-foods sandwich was 19.9% of sandwich calories. The sandwiches had the same macro ratios.
So yes, both by the contribution of fiber and through being a whole food, the net caloric effect of 100 calories of banana and 100 calories of cake would be different. The amount for 100 calories worth of each would be negligible (maybe 10 calories), but eating a diet that is mostly from whole foods, and reducing processed foods, would most likely result in faster weight loss than a diet mostly composed of highly processed foods.0 -
The difference can come in thermic effect, or the bioavailabilty of the calories.
For example, fiber has 4.1 calories per gram, and some calories from fiber are included in the calorie count for any food with fiber. The percentage isn't standard, by my salad on MFP included 3/4 of the calories for fiber, when the fiber was unsoluble, and thus not available. Fiber can also interfere with the digestion of other nutrients, particularly fat. If you eat a meal with a lot of fiber, the usable calories will be less than the total calories. In that way, eating whole foods would lead to more weight loss than eating processed foods when the same amount of calories are brought into the body.
Some calorie sources are processed more efficiently in the body. Protein is the least efficient, taking as much as 35% of calories ingested through protein to digest it. Fat is the most efficient, where as many as few as 5% of the calories ingested are needed to digest it. Also, calories from processed foods are more efficiently processed by the body. In this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897733/
The energy expenditure to metabolize a processed cheese sandwich was 10.2% of sandwich calories. The energy to metabolize a whole-foods sandwich was 19.9% of sandwich calories. The sandwiches had the same macro ratios.
So yes, both by the contribution of fiber and through being a whole food, the net caloric effect of 100 calories of banana and 100 calories of cake would be different. The amount for 100 calories worth of each would be negligible (maybe 10 calories), but eating a diet that is mostly from whole foods, and reducing processed foods, would most likely result in faster weight loss than a diet mostly composed of highly processed foods.
bolded part is dead wrong …
Also, I love how you type three paragraphs and then say, but yea TEF is pretty much minimal….thanks, we already knew that.
0 -
Now I want a donut.0
-
0
-
Actually, all calories are NOT created equal. A very quick google search:
http://time.com/2988142/you-asked-are-all-calories-created-equal/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-hyman/calories_b_5473743.html0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »All very true, but I can eat a piece of fruit and be content. When I eat the cake, I want more. Maybe it's just me.
Like I said, satiety is a (personal) factor. Personally - activity levels and what I've been eating the prior days is more of an issue than any one item. If I've been eating poorly, no single fruit is going to calm my hunger.
Again, the overall factors leading to total diet diversity are more important than any single item.
0 -
just one note on glycemic index - it's most of the times a gross simplification. Why? because even if the GI of white rice is very high, very few people eat it on its own. Add a protein, or a legume, or fiber and the GI of the meal goes down.
So your white bread has high GI. Add some peanut butter. Bonus - it even tastes better! It still does nothing with the calorie intake, which pretty much is accepted to be the single largest component of the energy balance.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K 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
- 393 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 938 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions