A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie
Options
Replies
-
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...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?0 -
In more recent news,
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.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
THEY MADE PEOPLE IN THIS STUDY EAT RAW POTATOES?! That's just mean.
gag!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.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.
mmmmm yummy :sick: I like medium rare but raw is not an option.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.1 -
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?
Hmm, so I have to become an alcoholic for the booze not to count? I really just want a beer and a shot after work.
I was reading a review on this and there may be some truth. It's also a sex based effect and because men have more enzymes to break the alcohol down they actually consume more calories from it. So a glass of wine a day might be more effective for keeping a woman's BMI down than a man. I guess become an alcoholic female.
Interesting question OP. It's why I roll my eyes when people say nutritional science. It's really all so new that most of it is just an estimate, a best guess. We truly dont know how many calories are in that burger, and there are so many different variables from how that burger went from cow to burger, how it was stored, prepared, how much your body actually metabolizes. Then you throw in the additional confounding variable of the human body and it just makes it one big guessing game.
The body is very efficient though and will remove the essential nutrients and calories given it has an adequate substrate, so I still maintain you can be an obese raw eater or an obese processed eater.0 -
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.
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.
Now someone pass me the steak tartare...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.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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions