A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie
Replies
-
Therefore a whole food, minimally "processed" diet is more likely to deliver less calories than a diet higher in junk food although they may have both been calculated as say 2,000 calories or whatever the target figure is by the individual based on food labels etc.
As a result there is a greater buffer against miscalculation and you have to be more careful the more processed foods you are consuming to ensure preserving your deficit.
^ This is actually something I've been thinking about when looking at cases where people consume mostly processed foods. Just the labeling errors could account for a significant amount of energy.0 -
Therefore a whole food, minimally "processed" diet is more likely to deliver less calories than a diet higher in junk food although they may have both been calculated as say 2,000 calories or whatever the target figure is by the individual based on food labels etc.
As a result there is a greater buffer against miscalculation and you have to be more careful the more processed foods you are consuming to ensure preserving your deficit.
^ This is actually something I've been thinking about when looking at cases where people consume mostly processed foods. Just the labeling errors could account for a significant amount of energy.
Yeah, I guess I could see the point there.0 -
Therefore a whole food, minimally "processed" diet is more likely to deliver less calories than a diet higher in junk food although they may have both been calculated as say 2,000 calories or whatever the target figure is by the individual based on food labels etc.
As a result there is a greater buffer against miscalculation and you have to be more careful the more processed foods you are consuming to ensure preserving your deficit.
^ This is actually something I've been thinking about when looking at cases where people consume mostly processed foods. Just the labeling errors could account for a significant amount of energy.
Especially bearing in mind that when we talk about processed foods we are usually referring to high energy density foods without much volume so if you are not weighing / measuring carefully the deficit you are creating isn't what you really think it is...
However, from this flows some strange conclusions "I can eat 1,200 calories of clean food and I lose but I eat 1,200 calories of junk food and I gain!"
You might have matched it on the label but have you matched the intake in reality? No.0 -
You cannot isolate macros to the degree that is indicated in such studies, so how can you apply the science here?
Well, sure, but if 100 calories of almonds is really 75 calories to my body vs. 100 calories of cookies, that makes a difference in the choices I might make if counting calories on this site.
BUT what's this about alcohol being more thermogenic? Because if that means I can drink more whiskey and stay under goal, sign me up!
How many obese alcoholics do you see? Haha...yes it's up there. very high TEF, like 20-30% in some individuals. Also alcohol abuse leads to hunger suppression. How's that for dangling the carrot?
I've only known a few true alcoholics. Only one was was not overweight or obese, and he was one of those people that couldn't gain weight if he tried.
But I know a lot of people that abuse alcohol regularly and almost all of them are overweight or obese. This is not all due to the booze. Most of them eat a lot of crap and do little or no exercise outside daily activity. But beer has calories and a lot of beer has a lot of calories.0 -
Sorry but I'm stuck on this one. Do some of us swallow the potato whole without chewing it? Links to video?Calories in processed foods are likely close to the values that the Atwater system estimates. For example, if you eat a mashed potato that's been calculated by the Atwater system to contain 300 calories, you're likely getting most of those calories, Carmody said. But if you eat a whole, unprocessed potato of the same size, you'll take in around 200 calories, she said.0 -
I think I have read too many topics in the forums. I swear this covers at least three or four topics I have read here before.
Your definition of "processing" pretty much means cooking and preparing food in anyway, and not the standard definition of "processing" that clean eaters refer to as being prepared at a factory with additives. Therefore, I don't really feel like this study supports your position.
Unless your concept of clean-eating means to eat only raw food?
I think the idea here is that the more processing a food goes through (be it mechanical, cooking, chewing...etc.), the more calories you absorb from it. So, you'll like absorb nearly 100% of the calories in an oreo, but not as much in a steak that you cooked medium rare. If you want to absorb even less calories from your steak, eat it raw. This is just my interpretation of the information.
As Sidesteel pointed out, your body will absorb 100% of the calories regardless... however, your body might use some of those calories in the process of digesting the food (depending upon how processed it is). An Oreo requires some energy for digestion, but a raw potato requires more. It's a bad study that only weakly supports the OP's position.
Not everyone absorbs 100% of calories eaten regardless of the source of the calories.0 -
thank you.. bumping for later0
-
To study these effects, Secor's lab wrapped a steak around a rat and fed it to the snake (apparently, "you can feed anything to a python as long as you put a rat's head on it").
The more you know...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2E8xKLIIVU
Amateurs! You wouldn't need to wrap a rat in the steak, just rub it on the steak. Worst case put a patch of fur on it. Total newbie mistake.0 -
Therefore a whole food, minimally "processed" diet is more likely to deliver less calories than a diet higher in junk food although they may have both been calculated as say 2,000 calories or whatever the target figure is by the individual based on food labels etc.
As a result there is a greater buffer against miscalculation and you have to be more careful the more processed foods you are consuming to ensure preserving your deficit.
Exactly my point. Probably explains why so many people seem to lose more on whole food diets, raw, whatever - not only is that stuff more filling, it also delivers fewer net calories than what is logged. I don't know if this info will change the way I eat - I just had a bagel with nova and a schmear for lunch.0 -
I think I have read too many topics in the forums. I swear this covers at least three or four topics I have read here before.
Your definition of "processing" pretty much means cooking and preparing food in anyway, and not the standard definition of "processing" that clean eaters refer to as being prepared at a factory with additives. Therefore, I don't really feel like this study supports your position.
Unless your concept of clean-eating means to eat only raw food?
I think the idea here is that the more processing a food goes through (be it mechanical, cooking, chewing...etc.), the more calories you absorb from it. So, you'll like absorb nearly 100% of the calories in an oreo, but not as much in a steak that you cooked medium rare. If you want to absorb even less calories from your steak, eat it raw. This is just my interpretation of the information.
As Sidesteel pointed out, your body will absorb 100% of the calories regardless... however, your body might use some of those calories in the process of digesting the food (depending upon how processed it is). An Oreo requires some energy for digestion, but a raw potato requires more. It's a bad study that only weakly supports the OP's position.
Not everyone absorbs 100% of calories eaten regardless of the source of the calories.
Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make, but I don't think I got it across very well.0 -
We also have to account for the fact that we really don't know our own actual BMR or TDEE numbers. Both sides of the equation are estimates. But unless your eating habits totally change on a random basis, you can still calibrate the (inaccurate but mostly consistent) number of calories you are eating vs the (inaccurate but mostly consistent) number of calories you are burning off.You might have matched it on the label but have you matched the intake in reality? No.
Same goes for the other side: if your activity levels change on a random basis you will need to account for that too.
Calories in/out gets you in the ballpark. YMMV. Adjust as needed.
But I don't see the point of eating raw unchewed food as some sort of 'healthy eating' strategy.:laugh:0 -
For example, if you eat a mashed potato that's been calculated by the Atwater system to contain 300 calories, you're likely getting most of those calories, Carmody said. But if you eat a whole, unprocessed potato of the same size, you'll take in around 200 calories, she said.
THEY MADE PEOPLE IN THIS STUDY EAT RAW POTATOES?! That's just mean.
I love raw potatos in slices always have ever since I was a kid. But of course I am a bit strange. Raw red or yellow Potatos Yummiiii excellent source of potassium.0 -
I think I have read too many topics in the forums. I swear this covers at least three or four topics I have read here before.
Your definition of "processing" pretty much means cooking and preparing food in anyway, and not the standard definition of "processing" that clean eaters refer to as being prepared at a factory with additives. Therefore, I don't really feel like this study supports your position.
Unless your concept of clean-eating means to eat only raw food?
I think the idea here is that the more processing a food goes through (be it mechanical, cooking, chewing...etc.), the more calories you absorb from it. So, you'll like absorb nearly 100% of the calories in an oreo, but not as much in a steak that you cooked medium rare. If you want to absorb even less calories from your steak, eat it raw. This is just my interpretation of the information.
As Sidesteel pointed out, your body will absorb 100% of the calories regardless... however, your body might use some of those calories in the process of digesting the food (depending upon how processed it is). An Oreo requires some energy for digestion, but a raw potato requires more. It's a bad study that only weakly supports the OP's position.
Yeah but what about corn? It looks like nothing happened when it comes out0 -
I think the good calories are in proteins and good carbos, the bad ones are the fat calories and the bad carbos...0
-
You cannot isolate macros to the degree that is indicated in such studies, so how can you apply the science here?
Well, sure, but if 100 calories of almonds is really 75 calories to my body vs. 100 calories of cookies, that makes a difference in the choices I might make if counting calories on this site.
BUT what's this about alcohol being more thermogenic? Because if that means I can drink more whiskey and stay under goal, sign me up!
How many obese alcoholics do you see? Haha...yes it's up there. very high TEF, like 20-30% in some individuals. Also alcohol abuse leads to hunger suppression. How's that for dangling the carrot?
This is a ridiculous argument. Alcohol in the body prevents fat loss.
And I was an obese alcoholic.
I lost 50 lbs within a year when I quit drinking, and started gaining again when I went back to it. I would have several mixed drinks on a pretty much daily basis. That's a big reason why I rarely drink anymore.0 -
But that's counterbalanced by the fact that you can poop corn without having eaten any of it. Clearly it sometimes just materializes inside your digestive system.Yeah but what about corn? It looks like nothing happened when it comes out0 -
As Sidesteel pointed out, your body will absorb 100% of the calories regardless... however, your body might use some of those calories in the process of digesting the food (depending upon how processed it is). An Oreo requires some energy for digestion, but a raw potato requires more. It's a bad study that only weakly supports the OP's position.
Whilst TEF is generally not worth worrying about the point David Despain makes in the article I linked is an excellent one - you are more likely to get at the higher end of the maximum deliverable calories as shown on a food label etc the more processing the food has undergone.
tef of protein on 25% avg is pretty significant. also on top of 33% loss for gluconeogenesis.0 -
I cannot prove this, but I'm willing to bet that the main reason "so many people seem to lose more on whole food diets, raw, whatever" is because those people are paying attention to what they are eating. Which likely means more accurate logging.Therefore a whole food, minimally "processed" diet is more likely to deliver less calories than a diet higher in junk food although they may have both been calculated as say 2,000 calories or whatever the target figure is by the individual based on food labels etc.
As a result there is a greater buffer against miscalculation and you have to be more careful the more processed foods you are consuming to ensure preserving your deficit.
Exactly my point. Probably explains why so many people seem to lose more on whole food diets, raw, whatever - not only is that stuff more filling, it also delivers fewer net calories than what is logged. I don't know if this info will change the way I eat - I just had a bagel with nova and a schmear for lunch.
Further, I suspect more accurate logging would likely account for a greater variance than the difference in energy burned/delivered/absorbed comparing processed and raw foods.
As has been stated already, most of us are dealing with best-guess calorie estimates. We can make those guesses more accurate with certain tools and behaviors (food scale, diligent measuring, HRM, etc.), but they are still estimates and will contain variation.
Is the variation in calories between processed and non-processed foods being discussed greater than the variation in the calorie estimates the majority of us are already using? Does the former even get close to the latter?1 -
The most obvious example of this is alcohol. They give a breathalyzer test to find out how much is in your bloodstream because much of it will be exhaled as completely unprocessed alcohol molecules. Same disclaimer as others used - I certainly do not suggest that alcohol is good for your diet. It is just an example of something that contains more raw energy than we get from it when ingested.Not everyone absorbs 100% of calories eaten regardless of the source of the calories.0 -
The worst thing you can do for people trying to lose weight is make them focus on the wrong things.
And that's exactly what this thread does.
Nutrients are important. Whether a food is "processed" or not is not important. Move on with yourl ife.0 -
So the moral of the story is that processed foods are more efficient at delivering nutrients and therefore superior, while unprocessed whole raw foods are inefficient and inferior and should be avoided.0
-
So the moral of the story is that processed foods are more efficient at delivering nutrients and therefore superior, while unprocessed whole raw foods are inefficient and inferior and should be avoided.
Might be true if the processed foods in question had any nutrients to begin with. I wonder if artificially injected micro nutrients in processed foods have the same benefits.0 -
YOu haven't tasted my steak tartare. :happy:I think I have read too many topics in the forums. I swear this covers at least three or four topics I have read here before.
Your definition of "processing" pretty much means cooking and preparing food in anyway, and not the standard definition of "processing" that clean eaters refer to as being prepared at a factory with additives. Therefore, I don't really feel like this study supports your position.
Unless your concept of clean-eating means to eat only raw food?
I think the idea here is that the more processing a food goes through (be it mechanical, cooking, chewing...etc.), the more calories you absorb from it. So, you'll like absorb nearly 100% of the calories in an oreo, but not as much in a steak that you cooked medium rare. If you want to absorb even less calories from your steak, eat it raw. This is just my interpretation of the information.
mmmmm yummy :sick: I like medium rare but raw is not an option.0 -
You cannot isolate macros to the degree that is indicated in such studies, so how can you apply the science here?
Well, sure, but if 100 calories of almonds is really 75 calories to my body vs. 100 calories of cookies, that makes a difference in the choices I might make if counting calories on this site.
BUT what's this about alcohol being more thermogenic? Because if that means I can drink more whiskey and stay under goal, sign me up!
How many obese alcoholics do you see? Haha...yes it's up there. very high TEF, like 20-30% in some individuals. Also alcohol abuse leads to hunger suppression. How's that for dangling the carrot?
This is a ridiculous argument. Alcohol in the body prevents fat loss.
And I was an obese alcoholic.
I lived in the boston area, you saw those everywhere. Throw a quarter and you'd hit either a phd or a drunk fatty.0 -
The worst thing you can do for people trying to lose weight is make them focus on the wrong things.
Why do you find this to be true? Do you think that the majority of processed foods provide as much nutrients as whole "less-processed foods"?0 -
The worst thing you can do for people trying to lose weight is make them focus on the wrong things.
Why do you find this to be true? Do you think that the majority of processed foods provide as much nutrients as whole "less-processed foods"?
Because demonizing foods they love, but are "unhealthy" or "processed" like ice cream, Pop-tarts, Taco Bell, etc, makes them feel like a failure when they finally give in and eat those foods. That sends them into a downward spiral that results in yo-yo dieting.
It's infinitely more important to teach them to focus on appropriate nutrients, like protein, fat, and fiber, so that they can fit the foods they crave and love into their diets in sustainable healthy ways.
Pegging certain foods as "worse" or "unhealthy" or some foods as "clean" and "good" is the absolute wrong approach. It's not individual foods that are clean or good or healthy, it's the overall diet. A good, healthy diet can include ice cream and McDonald's.0 -
Because demonizing foods they love, but are "unhealthy" or "processed" like ice cream, Pop-tarts, Taco Bell, etc, makes them feel like a failure when they finally give in and eat those foods. That sends them into a downward spiral that results in yo-yo dieting.
It's infinitely more important to teach them to focus on appropriate nutrients, like protein, fat, and fiber, so that they can fit the foods they crave and love into their diets in sustainable healthy ways.
Pegging certain foods as "worse" or "unhealthy" or some foods as "clean" and "good" is the absolute wrong approach. It's not individual foods that are clean or good or healthy, it's the overall diet. A good, healthy diet can include ice cream and McDonald's.
Depends on the person. Every approach requires willpower and dedication. Avoidance may be easier than moderation. Especially with high salt/fat/sugar foods.0 -
this article helped me solve a medical mystery i have been experiencing thank you.:happy:0
-
this article helped me solve a medical mystery i have been experiencing thank you.:happy:
no, your medical mystery is consuming more than body requirements0 -
Demonizing any specific food or group of food doesn't help anything or anyone.0
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
- 232.6K 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