Perspective - Not all calories created equal
Replies
-
Read my post again. "and so on" I wrote, it's many different claims about many different things people like to mention as to what is better for weight loss, often coupled with gratuitous "a calorie is not a calorie" exclamations.stevencloser wrote: »I'd like to dispute the fact, after I looked up other such claims over other certain foods/drinks "boosting metabolism" or "taking more calories to digest than others" and so on
Please read the above. Neither I nor the studies referenced (and there are dozens more out there) make the claims you think I'm making.
We are talking about poop here.
More specifically, the amount of not fully digested and absorbed carbs and fats in the poop of those enjoying high fibre diets is higher than those who live on low fibre diets even though both consume the same base mix of carbs/fats/proteins and the same base caloric intake.
Put more simply, if it makes it out the other end undigested/unabsorbed, it's as if it wasn't there in the first place.
Bonus round: 30 - 40,000 kcal/year is a bunch of "free" beers (about 180 bottles).
Since you already posted a source: 8% of a piece of bread isn't anything to write home about, and thinking the 8% would carry over to all foods consumed is a stretch at best.
Edit after what reading what others wrote: Seems like I was exactly right and this belongs on the same pile as "protein burns more calories than carbs!" and "X will make you burn more calories!"
The "Wow, it's nothing." pile.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You presume that people who would eat a donut cannot also enjoy a fiber rich diet.
That's a false presumption.
Please show me where I've stated this let alone presumed it.
Well, see, the thing is, the OP wasn't really going on with the whole a "calorie is not a calorie" (which is not true no matter what you want to say) in the way most people usually do, but you went there anyway. So I'm going with how you interpreted it.
I wasn't responding to the OP. I was responding to a facet of the following statement:A calorie is a calorie. Just like a inch is an inch and a centimeter is a centimeter. What material you're MEASURING may be different though.
Lots of foods offer more VOLUME and NUTRIENTS per calorie than others, but if you're going to compared 300 calories of a wrap and 300 calories of a donut, it's still 300 calories to the body in terms of energy.
And I quantified my response by stating that what ninerbuff said was true while the foodstuffs are on the plate, the practical reality out the rear end is a little different.
All the presumptions relating to my contributions are being made by others, including you.
Except it is pragmatically incorrect to consider fiber in isolation. What happens when an increase in fiber shifts dietary macronutrients?
In a regular, non lab diet, moving from one diet to another to increase fiber might displace protein. Instead of eggs in the morning you are now consuming some nice steel rolled oats that have sat overnight. You went full koolaid without drinking the koolaid. Or you added some bran to your eggs (gross? Tell my father, he likes it with mustard).
So you eat more fiber and maybe get rid of 1-2% energy out the back door. Supah!
Well, except that if you are eating less protein you lose out on the TEF factor. Instead of 10%-15% digestion cost, you are looking at 5%. So a small decrease in protein in diet due to eating more cereal and dat dar rye bread, let's say a 10% decrease in protein ... Oh, look about 1-1.5% more energy available.
You say you didn't decrease your protein? Maybe, but most people that increase fiber tend to (see Nurse I And Nurse II and the other Harvard studies on this.).
But in reality it doesn't matter - because that small change in energy - that 1-2% change alone doesn't result in weight gain or weight loss. There is a thing called homeostasis. We observe that small changes in diet result in up regulation of NEAT, body temp, etc in such a way that weight fluctuates less than it should if our TDEE was really constant.
You gotta make bigger steps that a few percent to see change.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I have celiac disease. I guess I'm stuck with a low fiber destiny and 2% more calories. What will I do?
Prunes for you.
Oddly? They do absolutely nothing for me in that regard. Stupid thyroid. Spinach on the other hand? Winner every time.
But now that you said that, I want prunes. I'm a weirdo, I think they're delicious.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I have celiac disease. I guess I'm stuck with a low fiber destiny and 2% more calories. What will I do?
Prunes for you.
Oddly? They do absolutely nothing for me in that regard. Stupid thyroid. Spinach on the other hand? Winner every time.
But now that you said that, I want prunes. I'm a weirdo, I think they're delicious.
I prefer figs. But prunes are delicious.
Spinach smoothy for you.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I have celiac disease. I guess I'm stuck with a low fiber destiny and 2% more calories. What will I do?
Prunes for you.
Oddly? They do absolutely nothing for me in that regard. Stupid thyroid. Spinach on the other hand? Winner every time.
But now that you said that, I want prunes. I'm a weirdo, I think they're delicious.
I prefer figs. But prunes are delicious.
Spinach smoothy for you.
Does that mean I get to drink gluten free beer? Do I have to? Can it be cider instead? Something tells me I lost the plot somewhere here. The 2% thing must have confused me, it was THAT profound.
0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I have celiac disease. I guess I'm stuck with a low fiber destiny and 2% more calories. What will I do?
Prunes for you.
Oddly? They do absolutely nothing for me in that regard. Stupid thyroid. Spinach on the other hand? Winner every time.
But now that you said that, I want prunes. I'm a weirdo, I think they're delicious.
I prefer figs. But prunes are delicious.
Spinach smoothy for you.
Does that mean I get to drink gluten free beer? Do I have to? Can it be cider instead? Something tells me I lost the plot somewhere here. The 2% thing must have confused me, it was THAT profound.
There was a plot?
I only saw sad donuts. In for cider, out for gluten-free anything. Just out.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »What kind of mustard is that?
The authentic stadium mustard. really good! only 5 cals per serving.
Those spring rolls look WAY better than the donut and I like donuts
The Thai place next to work has awesome spring rolls that I get often. I should just make them myself!
0 -
A tiny bowl of cereal or 4 eggs. Same calories but I get hungry superfast eating the cereal instead of the eggs. No fun!0
-
Some people asked, here's what's in the spring roll: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/recipe/view/173479692210029 I don't know if its public or not, please let me know if you have trouble accessing.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I have celiac disease. I guess I'm stuck with a low fiber destiny and 2% more calories. What will I do?
Prunes for you.
Oddly? They do absolutely nothing for me in that regard. Stupid thyroid. Spinach on the other hand? Winner every time.
But now that you said that, I want prunes. I'm a weirdo, I think they're delicious.
I prefer figs. But prunes are delicious.
Spinach smoothy for you.
Does that mean I get to drink gluten free beer? Do I have to? Can it be cider instead? Something tells me I lost the plot somewhere here. The 2% thing must have confused me, it was THAT profound.
There was a plot?
I only saw sad donuts. In for cider, out for gluten-free anything. Just out.
Honestly? As someone who was diagnosed ages ago? I agree with you. Eating foods that are naturally gluten free is a far better solution to dealing with celiac disease than eating GF substitutes (with a few rare exceptions when I'm sick).
It's a conclusion I reached years ago. There's a whole world of cuisine out there based on foods that naturally have no gluten in them, including desserts.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »*facepalm*
There are many studies showing your excrement on a high fibre diet contains more energy (calories) from excreted unabsorbed dietary sources.
To put it simply, if that's even necessary, if it's in your poop, it's as if you didn't consume it.
What part of this do you wish to dispute? Do you really think the human digestive system is 100% efficient regardless of foodstuffs shovelled in the front end? That transit time through the digestive system doesn't matter?
Come on.
*facepalm*
I'd like to dispute the fact, after I looked up other such claims over other certain foods/drinks "boosting metabolism" or "taking more calories to digest than others" and so on, that the difference is for this is probably not even enough to justify eating another half of those giant spring roll burritos. I.E. your poop on such a diet may contain more energy, but even 10-20 calories average would be considered "more". See people talking about TEF and how sugar takes less energy to digest than meat.
You're way off on your research. Mwyvr was talking about calorie absorption. Not boosting metabolism or TEF. The difference in absorption can be significant based on different types of foods.
0 -
For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
0 -
For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
Didn't read the full study, but could the difference in energy content vs. absorption be largely due to fiber content. In the Almond case, there is some fiber and fiber calories could be discounted as not absorbed?0 -
PaulaWallaDingDong wrote: »I think the take away from this thread is there needs to be some sort of donut-spingroll hybrid. Like maybe donuts stuffed in the springroll or maybe instead of rice paper you have something like donut paper with veggies still inside of it. Either way it's glazed. That's a given. Also I'm using nacho cheese instead of mustard. That's just me though.
This has my vote.
Coming soon to a "Chopped" episode near you?
0 -
Labeling of calories for foods I believe has already accounted for this though. Apparently it's only the metabolisable calories that are listed.mamapeach910 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »You presume that people who would eat a donut cannot also enjoy a fiber rich diet.
That's a false presumption.
Please show me where I've stated this let alone presumed it.
Well, see, the thing is, the OP wasn't really going on with the whole a "calorie is not a calorie" (which is not true no matter what you want to say) in the way most people usually do, but you went there anyway. So I'm going with how you interpreted it.
I wasn't responding to the OP. I was responding to a facet of the following statement:A calorie is a calorie. Just like a inch is an inch and a centimeter is a centimeter. What material you're MEASURING may be different though.
Lots of foods offer more VOLUME and NUTRIENTS per calorie than others, but if you're going to compared 300 calories of a wrap and 300 calories of a donut, it's still 300 calories to the body in terms of energy.
And I quantified my response by stating that what ninerbuff said was true while the foodstuffs are on the plate, the practical reality out the rear end is a little different.
All the presumptions relating to my contributions are being made by others, including you.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
Didn't read the full study, but could the difference in energy content vs. absorption be largely due to fiber content. In the Almond case, there is some fiber and fiber calories could be discounted as not absorbed?
Fiber is one factor but it doesn't account for the majority of the discrepancy. There plenty of other factors as well. For example, almost 30% of the calories in coarse ground wheat flour are excreted before they're absorbed. Whereas the calories from finely milled flour are almost completely absorbed. Harder foods also aren't digested as readily.
0 -
For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
Didn't read the full study, but could the difference in energy content vs. absorption be largely due to fiber content. In the Almond case, there is some fiber and fiber calories could be discounted as not absorbed?
Doesn't seem to be the case.
"The amount of total dietary fiber and protein did not increase be- tween the 42- and 84-g/d doses of almonds.
The digestibility of macronutrients and energy from the diet as a whole was significantly affected by the addition of almonds to the diet (Table 3). The fat digestibility of the total diet decreased by nearly 5% when 42 g almonds were incorporated into the daily diet and by nearly 10% when 84 g almonds were in- corporated into the diet daily (P , 0.0001). Carbohydrate, fiber, and protein digestibility decreased between the control diet and the diet containing 84 g/d (P , 0.0001). Total carbohydrate digestibility of the 42-g/d diet decreased compared with the control diet and was intermediate to the 84-g/d diet"
The issue is digestibility of nut. The Atwater factors already take into consideration fiber presence, however, nuts are apparently poorly digested (the study argues) and Atwater factors do not correspond well for them. Good to know.
Given that the OP is about donuts and spring rolls this study is, while interesting, irrelevant.
The discussion spells it out:Nuts are a food group for which the Atwater factors may be particularly poorly suited. A key component of the Atwater factors is the coefficient of digestibility. Numerous studies and varied evidence suggest that the coefficient of digestibility for nuts and peanuts is different from that for other foods. Levine and Silvis (4) provided volunteers with one of 3 peanut treatments: whole peanuts, peanut butter, or peanut oil. Daily fat excretion was highest for subjects consuming whole peanuts and lowest for subjects consuming peanut oil. Therefore, it can be assumed that macronutrients (and therefore energy) from whole peanuts were less available than those from peanut butter and peanut oil. Another study in 63 adults in the United States and Brazil showed that consumption of whole peanuts resulted in greater excretion of both fecal fat and fecal energy compared with consumption of a control diet (5). Two additional studies have suggested that nut digestibility may be limited for the intact nut. In one study, increased mastication of almonds resulted in less fat excretion in feces (12). In another study, feces of adults consuming almonds contained intact cotyledon cells (embry- onic tissue within the seed of a plant), encapsulating lipid and other material within cell walls and rendering it unavailable for digestion (13). These studies support the premise that the coefficient of digestibility for at least fat from nuts is signif- icantly less than that for other foods.
But not relevant to donuts...0 -
For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
Didn't read the full study, but could the difference in energy content vs. absorption be largely due to fiber content. In the Almond case, there is some fiber and fiber calories could be discounted as not absorbed?
Doesn't seem to be the case.
"The amount of total dietary fiber and protein did not increase be- tween the 42- and 84-g/d doses of almonds.
The digestibility of macronutrients and energy from the diet as a whole was significantly affected by the addition of almonds to the diet (Table 3). The fat digestibility of the total diet decreased by nearly 5% when 42 g almonds were incorporated into the daily diet and by nearly 10% when 84 g almonds were in- corporated into the diet daily (P , 0.0001). Carbohydrate, fiber, and protein digestibility decreased between the control diet and the diet containing 84 g/d (P , 0.0001). Total carbohydrate digestibility of the 42-g/d diet decreased compared with the control diet and was intermediate to the 84-g/d diet"
The issue is digestibility of nut. The Atwater factors already take into consideration fiber presence, however, nuts are apparently poorly digested (the study argues) and Atwater factors do not correspond well for them. Good to know.
Given that the OP is about donuts and spring rolls this study is, while interesting, irrelevant.
There is a similar issue for veggies, just not as significant. On average we only absorb 3.57 calories per gram carb and 2.44 calories per gram protein in a non-starchy vegetable. Whereas we would absorb about 4.12 calories per carb from a donut.
Of course cooking the veggies will increase how many calories we can absorb from them. It's not a huge difference in one meal, but it adds up over time.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5022e/y5022e04.htm0 -
For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
39 calories is a huge difference now? When was the last time you filled half your day's calories with almonds to make it a significant amount?0 -
I would eat the spring roll in a heartbeat, as long as it was made with yummy pork. I was thinking about those on my drive in to work and now? Drooling. Darn you.0
-
I made myself some giant veggie/chicken spring rolls for lunch today and it just amazed me the comparison of calories between them and some donuts my husband brought home this weekend. What are some calorie comparisons that you have discovered since using mfp that are pretty amazing?
I can't even get through the comments. I don't care about the research, and yes a calorie is a calorie, blah blah blah. I am totally with you on your original point. I've grown to truly enjoy food that allows me much more volume per calorie. Over the weekend, as a guest in someone's house, I made a deli meat sandwich on a bun. It looked tiny, felt tiny, and was about 300 calories. I didn't feel satisfied at all. At home I would have had something with a lot of veggies (salad, or scrambled eggs with sauteed veggies) and felt much more satisfied.
I do agree that if you REALLY just want a donut, but all means find a way to fit it into your budget. But most of the time it isn't worth it for me because then I'm still hungry.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
39 calories is a huge difference now? When was the last time you filled half your day's calories with almonds to make it a significant amount?
You can argue all day about what defines a "huge difference." Over the course of a day, choosing a seemingly equally caloric amount of whole foods versus highly refined foods will lead a difference in calories absorbed that is significant over time.
0 -
So people SHOULDN'T pay as much attention to fiber filled foods calories? That the calories on their are overestimated?stevencloser wrote: »For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
39 calories is a huge difference now? When was the last time you filled half your day's calories with almonds to make it a significant amount?
You can argue all day about what defines a "huge difference." Over the course of a day, choosing a seemingly equally caloric amount of whole foods versus highly refined foods will lead a difference in calories absorbed that is significant over time.
Again, my understanding is that calories on labels are considered calories for metabolic use.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'd like to dispute the fact, after I looked up other such claims over other certain foods/drinks "boosting metabolism" or "taking more calories to digest than others" and so on
Please read the above. Neither I nor the studies referenced (and there are dozens more out there) make the claims you think I'm making.
We are talking about poop here.
More specifically, the amount of not fully digested and absorbed carbs and fats in the poop of those enjoying high fibre diets is higher than those who live on low fibre diets even though both consume the same base mix of carbs/fats/proteins and the same base caloric intake.
Put more simply, if it makes it out the other end undigested/unabsorbed, it's as if it wasn't there in the first place.
Bonus round: 30 - 40,000 kcal/year is a bunch of "free" beers (about 180 bottles).
Why are you going on so much about this? It's not an either/or proposition.
You presume that people who would eat a donut cannot also enjoy a fiber rich diet.
That's a false presumption.
Eh, for the average person who is overweight it's a pretty likely assumption (at least where I live in the USA). Of course if someone is eating a well balanced diet with plenty of veggies, protein, fiber, etc then choosing a donut instead of even more veggies is fine. But donuts don't provide the same nutrients that veggies do. Veggies provide have things like fiber, protein, antioxidants, etc that donuts lack.0 -
So people SHOULDN'T pay as much attention to fiber filled foods calories? That the calories on their are overestimated?stevencloser wrote: »For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
39 calories is a huge difference now? When was the last time you filled half your day's calories with almonds to make it a significant amount?
You can argue all day about what defines a "huge difference." Over the course of a day, choosing a seemingly equally caloric amount of whole foods versus highly refined foods will lead a difference in calories absorbed that is significant over time.
Again, my understanding is that calories on labels are considered calories for metabolic use.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm sorry but your understanding is wrong. Calories on food lables are based on incineration with a small "across the board" correction factor for all types foods.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »For those who actually care about science as opposed to arguing about whose right on the internet:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/96/2/296.abstract
As you can see, there can be a huge difference between calories listed and calories absorbed. So no, "300 calories" of a donut is not even remotely similar to "300 calories" of almonds.
Didn't read the full study, but could the difference in energy content vs. absorption be largely due to fiber content. In the Almond case, there is some fiber and fiber calories could be discounted as not absorbed?
Doesn't seem to be the case.
"The amount of total dietary fiber and protein did not increase be- tween the 42- and 84-g/d doses of almonds.
The digestibility of macronutrients and energy from the diet as a whole was significantly affected by the addition of almonds to the diet (Table 3). The fat digestibility of the total diet decreased by nearly 5% when 42 g almonds were incorporated into the daily diet and by nearly 10% when 84 g almonds were in- corporated into the diet daily (P , 0.0001). Carbohydrate, fiber, and protein digestibility decreased between the control diet and the diet containing 84 g/d (P , 0.0001). Total carbohydrate digestibility of the 42-g/d diet decreased compared with the control diet and was intermediate to the 84-g/d diet"
The issue is digestibility of nut. The Atwater factors already take into consideration fiber presence, however, nuts are apparently poorly digested (the study argues) and Atwater factors do not correspond well for them. Good to know.
Given that the OP is about donuts and spring rolls this study is, while interesting, irrelevant.
There is a similar issue for veggies, just not as significant. On average we only absorb 3.57 calories per gram carb and 2.44 calories per gram protein in a non-starchy vegetable. Whereas we would absorb about 4.12 calories per carb from a donut.
Of course cooking the veggies will increase how many calories we can absorb from them. It's not a huge difference in one meal, but it adds up over time.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/y5022e/y5022e04.htm
Aware of the specific factors... Proposed. Other researchers came up with slight variations.
Anyway - as the authors note:
"The Atwater specific factor system appears to be superior to the original Atwater general system, which took only protein, fat, total carbohydrate and alcohol into account. However, it may not be vastly superior to the more extensive general factor system, which takes into account the differentiation between available carbohydrate and dietary fibre, and recognizes sources of energy other than protein, carbohydrates and fat."
Edit: in general we should understand that these are estimators with +\- factors. "300" cals of donuts more or less corresponds to "300" of something else, within the variety of food we eat.
Edit edit: thanks for linking the fao doc. It's a better summary than a few other documents I have.0 -
I'd be miserable on a breakfast of 4 eggs. Boring. I like eggs, but the only way I like them by themselves is hard boiled and I couldn't eat 4 of those. This doesn't mean that that's not a great breakfast for someone else, of course, but I don't get the idea that it's somehow superior.
I like having a two-egg veggie omelet with something else (today, leftover chicken, often fruit or dairy).
For the same basic calories I can have a reasonable-sized bowl of oatmeal (a kind of cereal) with berries, protein powder, and veggies on the side.
I enjoy both of these breakfasts, although I have the eggs more, and find them equally filling.
So this idea of eggs being inherently superior to cereal seems odd to me. (I hate cold cereal, but that's a taste preference thing.)
I'm completely confused about what this thread is supposed to be about, though. I mean, surely we are all sufficiently competent that we can manage to eat in ways that don't leave us hungry, right? Do some of you imagine that most of us are struggling with hunger every day since we don't eat right? Is it really a surprise to anyone that some foods have more calories per volume than others (and that many of those are still great foods to eat, like IMO eggs vs. egg whites)?0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I'd like to dispute the fact, after I looked up other such claims over other certain foods/drinks "boosting metabolism" or "taking more calories to digest than others" and so on
Please read the above. Neither I nor the studies referenced (and there are dozens more out there) make the claims you think I'm making.
We are talking about poop here.
More specifically, the amount of not fully digested and absorbed carbs and fats in the poop of those enjoying high fibre diets is higher than those who live on low fibre diets even though both consume the same base mix of carbs/fats/proteins and the same base caloric intake.
Put more simply, if it makes it out the other end undigested/unabsorbed, it's as if it wasn't there in the first place.
Bonus round: 30 - 40,000 kcal/year is a bunch of "free" beers (about 180 bottles).
Why are you going on so much about this? It's not an either/or proposition.
You presume that people who would eat a donut cannot also enjoy a fiber rich diet.
That's a false presumption.
Eh, for the average person who is overweight it's a pretty likely assumption (at least where I live in the USA). Of course if someone is eating a well balanced diet with plenty of veggies, protein, fiber, etc then choosing a donut instead of even more veggies is fine. But donuts don't provide the same nutrients that veggies do. Veggies provide have things like fiber, protein, antioxidants, etc that donuts lack.
AGAIN... why bring in outside people when we're here discussing among ourselves? I was talking about us, here on MFP. It's not fair, when one conscientious dieter is talking to other conscientious dieters who happen to eat donuts to bring in the strawman of people who eat SAD.
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
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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