A Calorie REALLY ISN'T a Calorie

jaygreen55

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.

Gluconeogenesis is the conversion of amino acids into glucose (sugar) by the liver. The calories are not lost but converted into a form where they can be used for energy by your muscles and brain. The TEF of digesting protein is the energy required for the conversion. Amino acids are originally formed in plants by adding Nitrogen absorbed by from the soil to glucose molecules created by photosynthesis

SnicciFit

If we're going to blame the food manufacturers, then how do we explain how so many people *can* eat these products responsibly/in moderation? Or were these people just born with a special gene that makes them immune to the food manufacturers' voodoo magic?

That's a great question, Jof. I am assuming the same reason that not everyone who ever tries cigarettes, crack or heroin ends up in rehab? Even those who *can* eat those products responsibly/in moderation would most likely benefit in some way from reduction or all-together elimination of them. Also, I think that once someone is addicted (for lack of a better term) to these foods (or other substances), the best course of action is avoidance. At the very least until they get it under control.

justjenny

Bump for later

mommabenefield

I was just wondering when sheldon was going to pop in and give his two cents lol!

jofjltncb6

If we're going to blame the food manufacturers, then how do we explain how so many people *can* eat these products responsibly/in moderation? Or were these people just born with a special gene that makes them immune to the food manufacturers' voodoo magic?

That's a great question, Jof. I am assuming the same reason that not everyone who ever tries cigarettes, crack or heroin ends up in rehab? Even those who *can* eat those products responsibly/in moderation would most likely benefit in some way from reduction or all-together elimination of them. Also, I think that once someone is addicted (for lack of a better term) to these foods (or other substances), the best course of action is avoidance. At the very least until they get it under control.

Your comment is consistent with what I believed in 2012. I fought that good fight in the MFP forums back then. (Hopefully no one digs back deep enough into my post history to find those. =P ) However, now, I'm not so convinced...that avoiding the foods is a feasible long-term solution, or that avoiding them for a while will somehow lead one to being able to eat them in moderation later.

That said, I really don't have the "answer". I've found that, for me, self-control/moderation of these "trigger" foods works because I still keep the overall calories in check. I think I used the "addiction" angle as an excuse to eat too much of them like a typical "dieter" uses the "well, I had a 100 calories more than I should have...fell off the diet...might as well eat this entire cheesecake...and a carton of ice cream...and a box of Twinkies" reasoning.

magerum

Yea you sound like you would be aroundthemulberrybush's brother.

Same person.

SanteMulberry

The rush to victimology concerning food is amazing.

Inadequate self-control =/= trapped.

It is not "victimology" at all. It is simply an attempt to counter the human tendency to succumb to temptation when placed in a tempting situation. Let's paint another scenario: You are in a hotel room in a strange city by yourself, and you are lonely. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door and when you open it, a beautiful woman in a mink coat is there and introduces herself as a friend of a friend of yours and that he recommended she contact you as you would likely be lonely and in need of female companionship. You are flattered and invite her in for a drink. You become acquainted and just as you are about to call it a night, she walks over to the bed, throws off the mink coat and, nude, climbs into your bed. Would you say that you were her "victim" if you succumbed to her obvious charms? Would your friend rightly scold you for being lacking in self-control?

I keep re-reading this because it seems to make my point...and it's a fun idea.

I'm responsible for the situations I find myself in. No one else. In support of my marriage, I'd have to turn her away at the door. The decision to bring her in to my hotel room and lower our inhibitions with alcohol would be a decision to subject myself to ever greater temptation. My fault. Not my friends.

Assuming I did bring her in for drinks and giggles, whom do you think my wife would blame, me or the friend who sent the temptation?

To the contrary, it makes MY point. If you turn the woman away at the door, you would be in the position of someone who abstains from situations where you could be tempted. That is exactly what is done by the person who does not flirt with temptation by eating cookies "in moderation". Your "friend" would be the one seeking to tempt you (with the woman being his co-conspirator)--comparable to the junk food manufacturers and the products they sell. As you have rightly observed, you are the one with the ultimate responsibility just as I am when I abstain from eating foods designed to tempt. While it is true that the seriously obese are ultimately responsible for their plight, wouldn't the best advice be to avoid tempting situations rather than having to rely on "willpower" when already in the tempting situation?

iAMsmiling

To the contrary, it makes MY point. If you turn the woman away at the door, you would be in the position of someone who abstains from situations where you could be tempted. That is exactly what is done by the person who does not flirt with temptation by eating cookies "in moderation". Your "friend" would be the one seeking to tempt you (with the woman being his co-conspirator)--comparable to the junk food manufacturers and the products they sell. As you have rightly observed, you are the one with the ultimate responsibility just as I am when I abstain from eating foods designed to tempt. While it is true that the seriously obese are ultimately responsible for their plight, wouldn't the best advice be to avoid tempting situations rather than having to rely on "willpower" when already in the tempting situation?

First, if you don't think I was tempted when I smelled her perfume as she approached the door, it's only because you don't know me that well.
Secondly, I'm not suggesting anyone fill their freezer with their 5 favorite ice cream flavors then rely on sheer will power to keep out of it. Certainly it takes less will power when you don't bring the ice cream home, but it's still will power with which you avoid the temptation.
In any case, temptation avoidance, will power, whatever...it's my responsibility, not the people in the business of selling food.

UsedToBeHusky

If we're going to blame the food manufacturers, then how do we explain how so many people *can* eat these products responsibly/in moderation? Or were these people just born with a special gene that makes them immune to the food manufacturers' voodoo magic?

That's a great question, Jof. I am assuming the same reason that not everyone who ever tries cigarettes, crack or heroin ends up in rehab? Even those who *can* eat those products responsibly/in moderation would most likely benefit in some way from reduction or all-together elimination of them. Also, I think that once someone is addicted (for lack of a better term) to these foods (or other substances), the best course of action is avoidance. At the very least until they get it under control.

Your comment is consistent with what I believed in 2012. I fought that good fight in the MFP forums back then. (Hopefully no one digs back deep enough into my post history to find those. =P ) However, now, I'm not so convinced...that avoiding the foods is a feasible long-term solution, or that avoiding them for a while will somehow lead one to being able to eat them in moderation later.

That said, I really don't have the "answer". I've found that, for me, self-control/moderation of these "trigger" foods works because I still keep the overall calories in check. I think I used the "addiction" angle as an excuse to eat too much of them like a typical "dieter" uses the "well, I had a 100 calories more than I should have...fell off the diet...might as well eat this entire cheesecake...and a carton of ice cream...and a box of Twinkies" reasoning.

I recall many an argument with you back then. LOL!

luckyshilling

For me this is another one of those things that falls in the crouton catagory aka the 'meh, close enough' catagory.

You know, a serving is 2 TBS of cube shaped item that does not measure well in a flippin' spoon.... and I am not getting out my food scale for a few friggin' croutons.

Someday common sense will make a comeback....hell, the 80's did.

UsedToBeHusky

The rush to victimology concerning food is amazing.

Inadequate self-control =/= trapped.

It is not "victimology" at all. It is simply an attempt to counter the human tendency to succumb to temptation when placed in a tempting situation. Let's paint another scenario: You are in a hotel room in a strange city by yourself, and you are lonely. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door and when you open it, a beautiful woman in a mink coat is there and introduces herself as a friend of a friend of yours and that he recommended she contact you as you would likely be lonely and in need of female companionship. You are flattered and invite her in for a drink. You become acquainted and just as you are about to call it a night, she walks over to the bed, throws off the mink coat and, nude, climbs into your bed. Would you say that you were her "victim" if you succumbed to her obvious charms? Would your friend rightly scold you for being lacking in self-control?

I keep re-reading this because it seems to make my point...and it's a fun idea.

I'm responsible for the situations I find myself in. No one else. In support of my marriage, I'd have to turn her away at the door. The decision to bring her in to my hotel room and lower our inhibitions with alcohol would be a decision to subject myself to ever greater temptation. My fault. Not my friends.

Assuming I did bring her in for drinks and giggles, whom do you think my wife would blame, me or the friend who sent the temptation?

To the contrary, it makes MY point. If you turn the woman away at the door, you would be in the position of someone who abstains from situations where you could be tempted. That is exactly what is done by the person who does not flirt with temptation by eating cookies "in moderation". Your "friend" would be the one seeking to tempt you (with the woman being his co-conspirator)--comparable to the junk food manufacturers and the products they sell. As you have rightly observed, you are the one with the ultimate responsibility just as I am when I abstain from eating foods designed to tempt. While it is true that the seriously obese are ultimately responsible for their plight, wouldn't the best advice be to avoid tempting situations rather than having to rely on "willpower" when already in the tempting situation?

The problem comes with the internal stress people create for themselves because they desire the food, but refuse to allow themselves to have it. Additionally, if they should cave for whatever reason, the guilt that they create for themselves becomes an entirely new burden. 'Calories in vs calories out' is a great expression that describes the body's physical function to weight loss, however, there are hormonal factors that can come into play. Some of these hormones can be triggered by stressful situations like if someone gets the idea that the only way they can lose is to avoid sugar (for example). They love sugar, sugar is all around them, and then they give into it. They have created undue stress for themselves by fighting the urge and added to it another layer of guilt-related stress after they lost the battle. That is why so many preach 'moderation' and the IIFYM method. If you cannot stop at one piece of cake, it is best to avoid cake altogether, but you can't follow the absolute mentality that you can never have cake again.

jonnythan

The justification here has literally devolved into "we need to scare people away from this food because they are incapable of using rational reasons to stay away."

rassha01

BLAME THE FORK!!!!!

jofjltncb6

The rush to victimology concerning food is amazing.

Inadequate self-control =/= trapped.

It is not "victimology" at all. It is simply an attempt to counter the human tendency to succumb to temptation when placed in a tempting situation. Let's paint another scenario: You are in a hotel room in a strange city by yourself, and you are lonely. Suddenly, there is a knock at the door and when you open it, a beautiful woman in a mink coat is there and introduces herself as a friend of a friend of yours and that he recommended she contact you as you would likely be lonely and in need of female companionship. You are flattered and invite her in for a drink. You become acquainted and just as you are about to call it a night, she walks over to the bed, throws off the mink coat and, nude, climbs into your bed. Would you say that you were her "victim" if you succumbed to her obvious charms? Would your friend rightly scold you for being lacking in self-control?

I keep re-reading this because it seems to make my point...and it's a fun idea.

I'm responsible for the situations I find myself in. No one else. In support of my marriage, I'd have to turn her away at the door. The decision to bring her in to my hotel room and lower our inhibitions with alcohol would be a decision to subject myself to ever greater temptation. My fault. Not my friends.

Assuming I did bring her in for drinks and giggles, whom do you think my wife would blame, me or the friend who sent the temptation?

To the contrary, it makes MY point. If you turn the woman away at the door, you would be in the position of someone who abstains from situations where you could be tempted. That is exactly what is done by the person who does not flirt with temptation by eating cookies "in moderation". Your "friend" would be the one seeking to tempt you (with the woman being his co-conspirator)--comparable to the junk food manufacturers and the products they sell. As you have rightly observed, you are the one with the ultimate responsibility just as I am when I abstain from eating foods designed to tempt. While it is true that the seriously obese are ultimately responsible for their plight, wouldn't the best advice be to avoid tempting situations rather than having to rely on "willpower" when already in the tempting situation?

Like all good analogies, they have their limits...and this one is not an exception.

My body doesn't care if I have a serving of a blonde brownie...or a handful of red hots...a mocha caramel sundae...as long as I keep my total calories at an appropriate level.

However, my wife and I have a different criteria for what is and is not acceptable behavior when I am traveling on business. There is no "appropriate level" for that activity.

jofjltncb6

If we're going to blame the food manufacturers, then how do we explain how so many people *can* eat these products responsibly/in moderation? Or were these people just born with a special gene that makes them immune to the food manufacturers' voodoo magic?

That's a great question, Jof. I am assuming the same reason that not everyone who ever tries cigarettes, crack or heroin ends up in rehab? Even those who *can* eat those products responsibly/in moderation would most likely benefit in some way from reduction or all-together elimination of them. Also, I think that once someone is addicted (for lack of a better term) to these foods (or other substances), the best course of action is avoidance. At the very least until they get it under control.

Your comment is consistent with what I believed in 2012. I fought that good fight in the MFP forums back then. (Hopefully no one digs back deep enough into my post history to find those. =P ) However, now, I'm not so convinced...that avoiding the foods is a feasible long-term solution, or that avoiding them for a while will somehow lead one to being able to eat them in moderation later.

That said, I really don't have the "answer". I've found that, for me, self-control/moderation of these "trigger" foods works because I still keep the overall calories in check. I think I used the "addiction" angle as an excuse to eat too much of them like a typical "dieter" uses the "well, I had a 100 calories more than I should have...fell off the diet...might as well eat this entire cheesecake...and a carton of ice cream...and a box of Twinkies" reasoning.

I recall many an argument with you back then. LOL!

(Just so we're clear, I'm not saying now that you were right and I was wrong...

...I'm just saying that my views on the subject are slightly more nuanced now.

There's a difference. It's subtle, but still a difference.)


ETA:
I have *no* problem admitting when I'm wrong...if I'm wrong.

I mean, hypothetically speaking, of course.

iAMsmiling

Salt and sugar are moreish, which alot of prepackaged foods have a mix so that you eat more, which is how we got here in the first place (well most of us)

If demonizing them stops some people (who shouldn't be eating them because of medical condition) from eating them, what is the problem.

As alot of said medical conditions are caused by being overweight/obese why shouldn't they reduce prepackaged 'unhealthy'/processed goods in a bid to lose weight in a healthy way?

I'm being mean and making my body work for its calories =]

So, do we scare people into what we believe is the correct behavior by lying and manipulating or do we offer knowledge and truth and let people determine their own life direction?

jonnythan

"It might be better to completely abstain from certain foods if you simply cannot control yourself enough to eat them in moderation.

^^ This is rational and reasonable.


"I am going to tell you things that aren't really true in order to make you so scared of certain foods that you will think it's impossible to consume them in the context of a healthy diet."

^^ This is neither rational nor reasonable. It's stupid and it's dishonest.

SanteMulberry

To the contrary, it makes MY point. If you turn the woman away at the door, you would be in the position of someone who abstains from situations where you could be tempted. That is exactly what is done by the person who does not flirt with temptation by eating cookies "in moderation". Your "friend" would be the one seeking to tempt you (with the woman being his co-conspirator)--comparable to the junk food manufacturers and the products they sell. As you have rightly observed, you are the one with the ultimate responsibility just as I am when I abstain from eating foods designed to tempt. While it is true that the seriously obese are ultimately responsible for their plight, wouldn't the best advice be to avoid tempting situations rather than having to rely on "willpower" when already in the tempting situation?

First, if you don't think I was tempted when I smelled her perfume as she approached the door, it's only because you don't know me that well.
Secondly, I'm not suggesting anyone fill their freezer with their 5 favorite ice cream flavors then rely on sheer will power to keep out of it. Certainly it takes less will power when you don't bring the ice cream home, but it's still will power with which you avoid the temptation.
In any case, temptation avoidance, will power, whatever...it's my responsibility, not the people in the business of selling food.

If you will check back, you will see that is indeed what I said. Once we are able to make our own food choices, the responsibility is always ours. The junk food manufacturers are just doing what every other enterprise does, creating wares and selling them. But they are somewhat in the position of the cigarette manufacturers. They are making a product that appears to harm people. The brother of my son-in-law was once a sales rep for a major tobacco company. He told my sil that he knew he had to quit that job when he was too ashamed to make an appearance at his son's school for "My Dad's Job" day. It would be interesting to know how many food conglomerate CEOs actually eat the junk food they sell. :ohwell:

SanteMulberry

"...The problem comes with the internal stress people create for themselves because they desire the food, but refuse to allow themselves to have it..."

I have never experienced that "stress" ---seems a somewhat odd response.

"...Additionally, if they should cave for whatever reason, the guilt that they create for themselves becomes an entirely new burden..." And that seems even odder. What about all the years of undisciplined eating?---should that person not have "guilt" over that. Seems somewhat illogical to attach so much importance to one episode.

"...'Calories in vs calories out' is a great expression that describes the body's physical function to weight loss, however, there are hormonal factors that can come into play. Some of these hormones can be triggered by stressful situations like if someone gets the idea that the only way they can lose is to avoid sugar (for example). They love sugar, sugar is all around them, and then they give into it. They have created undue stress for themselves by fighting the urge and added to it another layer of guilt-related stress after they lost the battle..."

Sorry, but this seems like just so much psychobabble in a situation that seems far simpler.

"...If you cannot stop at one piece of cake, it is best to avoid cake altogether, but you can't follow the absolute mentality that you can never have cake again...."

We aren't talking about me---I don't eat any cake, ever. I suppose that I could have a piece of cake if I wanted one---but I do not. I don't want cigarettes, scotch or crack cocaine either. For that matter, I don't even want perfume (I am allergic to perfume). Isn't it my choice? Further, if I regard it as a prudent choice for the seriously obese (and that I could possibly even be instrumental in saving their lives, if I am able to convince them that abstaining is important to their recovery) wouldn't I be uncaring if I didn't at least try to convince them?

jonnythan

"...The problem comes with the internal stress people create for themselves because they desire the food, but refuse to allow themselves to have it..."

I have never experienced that "stress" ---seems a somewhat odd response.

You are creating that stress in other people by convincing them that some of the foods they desire and want to eat are horrible and automatically bad.

You are setting up a situation where their choice is to either completely abstain from something they really want or utterly fail.