Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Are all calories the same??

11112141617

Replies

  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    Luckily no one has ever claimed that all foods are the same.
  • tincanonastringtincanonastring Posts: 3,969Member Member Posts: 3,969Member Member
    All calories are the same, but all foods are not. Steamed broccoli worth 40 calories gives me different nutrients than 40 calories of Half and Half. I still put the half and half in my coffee, but I know it's not broccoli.

    Why...why would you put broccoli in your coffee?
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    I believe ketoacidosis, whether induced by diabetes or poor nutrition, can be fatal and has been recorded. Ketoacidosis is the extreme state brought about by carbohydrate deficiency.

    Ketoacidosis will not be brought on by poor nutrition. Ever. DKA is a life threatening state caused by high glucose and high ketone levels, usually 10+ times higher than what people achieve by restricting carbohydrates, or by fasting for days or weeks.

    Some cases of extreme alcoholism can also, infrequently, lead to ketoacidosis, but simply restricting carbohydrates will not. In fact ketosis is a safe state for T1Ds, and T2Ds, to live in; it is helpful because it reduces insulin needs.

    You can get Ketoacidosis without alcoholism and without diabetes:
    https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937-015-0076-2

    Huh, you found a rare case of starvation ketoacidosis. First I have ever seen. In the vast majority of starvation cases, ketoacidosis is not a factor. It requires high ketones AND glucose. Hard to do for a typical starving person.

    Those who live in nutritional ketosis do not need to worry about DKA anymore than a healthy person who eats a high carb diet (over 45%) would need to worry about glucose toxicity.
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    All calories are the same, but all foods are not. Steamed broccoli worth 40 calories gives me different nutrients than 40 calories of Half and Half. I still put the half and half in my coffee, but I know it's not broccoli.

    Why...why would you put broccoli in your coffee?
    I'm not much of a coffee drinker, but I have used broccoli as an alternative to breads for the purpose of soaking up juices and whatnot. Maybe she uses it like a donut. Put some glazed sugar on that thing and have at it. It's genius! The kids are going to love it.
  • lithezebralithezebra Posts: 3,684Member Member Posts: 3,684Member Member
    If fiber, which isn't supposed to have calories, can be metabolized by gut bacteria to different end products, some of which can be used by human cells for energy, and some of which can't, then calories aren't all the same.

    If different people (or mice) can have different rates of extraction from the same food, because of changes in the microvilli, then the calories in the original food aren't effectively the same in different bodies.
    edited March 2016
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    lithezebra wrote: »
    If fiber, which isn't supposed to have calories, can be metabolized by gut bacteria to different end products, some of which can be used by human cells for energy, and some of which can't, then calories aren't all the same.

    If different people (or mice) can have different rates of extraction from the same food, because of changes in the microvilli, then the calories in the original food aren't effectively the same in different bodies.

    Well it is a good thing one of the points of Atwater coefficients is that fiber is thought to have calories, at least on American food labels. I have this right next to me:
    73jhpvtc7l18.jpg
    Nothing but fiber, label says it has calories. Though interesting that it uses a full 4 kCal per gram, when it probably should use 2 kCal / g.
    It isn't a matter of the calories being different, it is that foods are different. Gasoline has calories, in that it can be oxidized in fire to heat water, but none that a human can make use of.
    Differences in gut bacteria composition's ability to recovery calories out of fiber is a topic that the board has discussed before. A mouse study seemed to indicate that scaled to humans it might change 40 or maybe it was 140 kCal a day at the extreme ends, I forget which.
  • heybalesheybales Posts: 17,091Member Member Posts: 17,091Member Member
    Exactly - when the extremes are even a minor % of the day being discussed, then the deviation by average folks from the average is about meaningless, when viewed against the inaccuracy in labels and other estimates overall.
    While true, in the end it really doesn't matter. (well, except to your gut and how it feels)

  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,630Member Member Posts: 7,630Member Member
    tomteboda wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    I believe ketoacidosis, whether induced by diabetes or poor nutrition, can be fatal and has been recorded. Ketoacidosis is the extreme state brought about by carbohydrate deficiency.

    @tomteboda that statement is true only in the case of someone who can not produce any insulin. Medically there is no such think as carbohydrate deficiency. There and be deficiency of fats and proteins because they are required for humans to have full health.

    There can be glucose and ketone bodies deficiencies but no carbs are required to make either.



  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    tomteboda wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    I believe ketoacidosis, whether induced by diabetes or poor nutrition, can be fatal and has been recorded. Ketoacidosis is the extreme state brought about by carbohydrate deficiency.

    @tomteboda that statement is true only in the case of someone who can not produce any insulin. Medically there is no such think as carbohydrate deficiency. There and be deficiency of fats and proteins because they are required for humans to have full health.

    There can be glucose and ketone bodies deficiencies but no carbs are required to make either.



    Nope, it was already pointed out ketoacidosis can happen in people without Type 1 Diabetes.
  • tomtebodatomteboda Posts: 2,176Member Member Posts: 2,176Member Member
    It happens. Its not common, then again most people don't take stuff to excess. But it *is* possible and when absolutes were brought out it needed to be pointed out.

    Shah, Pankaj, and William L. Isley. "Ketoacidosis during a low-carbohydrate diet." New England Journal of Medicine 354.1 (2006): 97-98.

    I am not an advocate for or against low-carbohydrate diets.
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    I still don't understand what the general public's poor adherence to proper nutritional guidelines has to do with this conversation. We're talking about people who try to limit carbs to 5%, which does not include the general public. Are you're basically saying it's okay to not meet vegetable serving recommendations because most people don't?

    A recommendation is just that, the large majority of the population don't do it and stay alive and well. If someone restricting carbs doesn't meet a recommendation I don't see why that is some sort of issue when the carb eating majority don't either, you can hardly blame the carb restriction as a unique factor.


  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    Why would pushing grains and sugar out of a diet be a health benefit when whole grains and sugar containing fruit consumption show similar, though not as great, epidemiological health and mortality effects as vegetables?

    That's probably for another thread. Epidemiology often conflates "fruitandvegetables" to achieve either statistical significance or an odds ratio below 1.0 - viewed separately the vegetables are usually doing the good and the fruit is either neutral or detrimental.
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    This is the one that yarwell pointed me to. And I am not surprised about the results, despite being funded by Atkins. The fact is, the people on keto has high levels of mono unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and fibrous foods. And I wasn't surprised by the results at all. I think any diet that increase those three items will show favorable results.

    The question I would have, is how many studies repeat similar results? How many studies compare keto vs moderate carbs with equal parts nutrition? And how would these results look if it wasn't just 12 white guys over a 6 week period?

    The funding was by the Atkins Foundation by the way, not the low carb food / diet company.

    Your last point raises the issue nicely - who else funds studies of high fat diets ? I recall one researcher saying how his University were constantly lobbied by dietitians to not perform intervention studies on high fat diets.

    If you make your question overspecific then no study will comply.
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,229Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,229Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    yarwell wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    This is the one that yarwell pointed me to. And I am not surprised about the results, despite being funded by Atkins. The fact is, the people on keto has high levels of mono unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and fibrous foods. And I wasn't surprised by the results at all. I think any diet that increase those three items will show favorable results.

    The question I would have, is how many studies repeat similar results? How many studies compare keto vs moderate carbs with equal parts nutrition? And how would these results look if it wasn't just 12 white guys over a 6 week period?

    The funding was by the Atkins Foundation by the way, not the low carb food / diet company.

    Your last point raises the issue nicely - who else funds studies of high fat diets ? I recall one researcher saying how his University were constantly lobbied by dietitians to not perform intervention studies on high fat diets.

    If you make your question overspecific then no study will comply.

    I would at least hope for diversity though. Even a combination of men and women.
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    yarwell wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    This is the one that yarwell pointed me to. And I am not surprised about the results, despite being funded by Atkins. The fact is, the people on keto has high levels of mono unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and fibrous foods. And I wasn't surprised by the results at all. I think any diet that increase those three items will show favorable results.

    The question I would have, is how many studies repeat similar results? How many studies compare keto vs moderate carbs with equal parts nutrition? And how would these results look if it wasn't just 12 white guys over a 6 week period?

    The funding was by the Atkins Foundation by the way, not the low carb food / diet company.

    Your last point raises the issue nicely - who else funds studies of high fat diets ? I recall one researcher saying how his University were constantly lobbied by dietitians to not perform intervention studies on high fat diets.

    If you make your question overspecific then no study will comply.

    I would at least hope for diversity though. Even a combination of men and women.

    Combining men and women is a really bad idea, massively increases the SD of most measures, making significance harder to find. If the trial is big enough to allow sub-group analysis fair enough, but mixed trials are a mess because the height and weight of men and women is different (P<0.05).

    Same with diversity, where genetics may be a factor why muddy the water. A study can identify some effect and other studies can replicate in different groups if they wish.
  • nvmomketonvmomketo Posts: 12,031Member Member Posts: 12,031Member Member
    senecarr wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    I believe ketoacidosis, whether induced by diabetes or poor nutrition, can be fatal and has been recorded. Ketoacidosis is the extreme state brought about by carbohydrate deficiency.

    @tomteboda that statement is true only in the case of someone who can not produce any insulin. Medically there is no such think as carbohydrate deficiency. There and be deficiency of fats and proteins because they are required for humans to have full health.

    There can be glucose and ketone bodies deficiencies but no carbs are required to make either.



    Nope, it was already pointed out ketoacidosis can happen in people without Type 1 Diabetes.

    That is so ridiculously rare that DKA shouldn't be considered for the vast majority of people. There's probably a stronger correlation with keto'ers being hit by a pie. A low carb pie.
    edited March 2016
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    tomteboda wrote: »
    senecarr wrote: »
    I don't think anyone has died from a carbohydrate deficiency alone (well maybe certain medical metabolic disorders), but isn't ketosis essentially the state of dietary carbohydrate deficiency? Technically, no one suffers from a vitamin D deficiency either, they just don't get enough sunlight to create it, but as we say people do die or suffer from it, one could argue that similarly people can have carbohydrate deficiency, though it doesn't happen just from dietary restriction, but of starvation (not having other nutrients for gluconeogensis).

    I believe ketoacidosis, whether induced by diabetes or poor nutrition, can be fatal and has been recorded. Ketoacidosis is the extreme state brought about by carbohydrate deficiency.

    @tomteboda that statement is true only in the case of someone who can not produce any insulin. Medically there is no such think as carbohydrate deficiency. There and be deficiency of fats and proteins because they are required for humans to have full health.

    There can be glucose and ketone bodies deficiencies but no carbs are required to make either.



    Nope, it was already pointed out ketoacidosis can happen in people without Type 1 Diabetes.

    That is so ridiculously rare that DKA shouldn't be considered for the vast majority of people. There's probably a stronger correlation with keto'ers being hit by a pie. A low carb pie.

    I don't recall anyone saying it was common. Indeed, Tomteboda said it happens in extremes.
    It was brought up in contrast to Gale's universal declaration of "only in the case of someone who can not produce any insulin." It is interesting that you're trying to correct people who haven't said anything wrong because they are correcting someone who has made a factually incorrect statement.
  • lisawinning4losinglisawinning4losing Posts: 732Member Member Posts: 732Member Member
    From a certain standpoint, a calorie is of course a calorie. It's not a tree or a frog. It's a calorie. No doubt. But, I think there are potential pitfalls that can go along with the "a calorie is a calorie" way of thinking, and I know because it's something I've encountered. It's not necessarily a bad way of thinking, but it depends what works for you. For one thing, it might lead to weight loss, but it's not necessarily going to lead to the healthiest diet, depending on what you're eating. You can also end up hungry by restricting calories, especially if you don't have the right macro balance for you, which isn't going to be sustainable. Trying to eat certain foods in moderation might work for you or it might keep you in a crave cycle that's eventually going to break loose. I really believed in the CICO thing for a while but I what I find is that it works for a while and then I get tired of counting calories, and if I'm still in a mode of eating SAD type of food, there's no way I'm going to keep my calories under control once I start just eating freely again. Now I'm trying to take the approach of actually caring more about what I eat and what my body uses as fuel, which I think might actually be more sustainable in the long run, and definitely healthier.
    edited March 2016
  • ndj1979ndj1979 Posts: 29,021Member Member Posts: 29,021Member Member
    From a certain standpoint, a calorie is of course a calorie. It's not a tree or a frog. It's a calorie. No doubt. But, I think there are potential pitfalls that can go along with the "a calorie is a calorie" way of thinking, and I know because it's something I've encountered. It's not necessarily a bad way of thinking, but it depends what works for you. For one thing, it might lead to weight loss, but it's not necessarily going to lead to the healthiest diet, depending on what you're eating. You can also end up hungry by restricting calories, especially if you don't have the right macro balance for you, which isn't going to be sustainable. Trying to eat certain foods in moderation might work for you or it might keep you in a crave cycle that's eventually going to break loose. I really believed in the CICO thing for a while but I what I find is that it works for a while and then I get tired of counting calories, and if I'm still in a mode of eating SAD type of food, there's no way I'm going to keep my calories under control once I start just eating freely again. Now I'm trying to take the approach of actually caring more about what I eat and what my body uses as fuel, which I think might actually be more sustainable in the long run, and definitely healthier.

    not sure how you go from a calorie is a calorie to equating that with feeling like crap and eating a diet rich in so called junk foods and neglecting micronutrients...

    nice straw man argument ...
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    From a certain standpoint, a calorie is of course a calorie. It's not a tree or a frog. It's a calorie. No doubt. But, I think there are potential pitfalls that can go along with the "a calorie is a calorie" way of thinking, and I know because it's something I've encountered. It's not necessarily a bad way of thinking, but it depends what works for you. For one thing, it might lead to weight loss, but it's not necessarily going to lead to the healthiest diet, depending on what you're eating. You can also end up hungry by restricting calories, especially if you don't have the right macro balance for you, which isn't going to be sustainable. Trying to eat certain foods in moderation might work for you or it might keep you in a crave cycle that's eventually going to break loose. I really believed in the CICO thing for a while but I what I find is that it works for a while and then I get tired of counting calories, and if I'm still in a mode of eating SAD type of food, there's no way I'm going to keep my calories under control once I start just eating freely again. Now I'm trying to take the approach of actually caring more about what I eat and what my body uses as fuel, which I think might actually be more sustainable in the long run, and definitely healthier.

    If you are hungry you should adjust your diet.

    If you are not eating a nutrition-conscious diet you should change it.

    The idea that understanding the truth about a calorie is a calorie will cause people to eat a poor diet is weird. I think people who have such ideas probably ate really poor diets in the past and assume that others ate as poorly.
    edited March 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.