Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
A quick refresher on a calorie is a calorie ....
Options
Replies
-
You must never speak in absolutes, it will guarantee you're wrong! Joke aside, the point is, while many processed foods are easier to digest, I can assure it isn't always true. Some processing like cooking carbohydrate foods in a way the produces resistant starch reduces the available calories compared to the ingredients.sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
At the extreme, I'm going to say a Fiber One food with the added fiber content is harder to digest than all natural grapes.0 -
sourpower434 wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.
1) TEF is not negligible according to some studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
2) Processing a food means altering it from it's natural state in some way. For example, blending bananas and strawberries into a smoothie is processing them, the body uses less energy to digest the blended fruit than the whole fruit.
Altering the solid state of food doesn't alter the molecular composition. There are still simple/complex carbs, fats and proteins which need to be broken down into sugars, fatty acids and amino acids, respectively. A banana which has been put through a blender still contains everything it did immediately after you peeled it and before you put it in the blender. If I grind a steak into hamburger, it will take no less energy to process the proteins and fats in that burger than it would have in the steak. The only (very negligible difference) would possibly be the microscopically fewer calories I'd expend chewing it.
And as mentioned above, all food is "processed" in your mouth before ingesting it by the chewing process. I don't know of anybody who swallows bananas and strawberries whole in an effort to avoid them being "processed".
Good point, AnvilHead, yes of course molecular composition is the same blended or unblended, and the food still contains the same amount of energy before it goes into your body whether it's whole or chopped up. As for chewing, it's part of the whole digestion process (enzymes in the saliva start to break down food in your mouth), this requires energy. I haven't looked for studies specifically concerning the amount of energy consumed breaking down food in the mouth (through chewing or digestive enzyme activity), it might be negligible.
Anyway, thanks all for letting me be part of the debate
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.
1) TEF is not negligible according to some studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
2) Processing a food means altering it from it's natural state in some way. For example, blending bananas and strawberries into a smoothie is processing them, the body uses less energy to digest the blended fruit than the whole fruit.
I got the full text of the first link you posted.
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/pdfs/discussionEssay/thermogenesisSatiety/JohnstonThermogenesis2002.pdf
8 kcal/hour higher was the difference after 2.5 hours for breakfast and lunch, 14 for dinner. If it would stay that high (which it won't) it would be 200+ in 24 hours. More reasonable, though they didn't check at later points again to see the differences, would be that it ebbs out pretty quickly to end up at 100 at best.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
This one showed a total of 21 kcal difference for a whole day with a diet of 15% protein vs. 35% protein.
The other thing that strikes me about studies like this is the only significant difference is with protein percentage. There are good reasons to keep protein a bit higher than the RDA, IMO, but the sensible range for protein is somewhat narrow and dictated by considerations other than maximizing calorie burn. Yeah, having a diet 70% or even 50% protein might allow for slightly more calories (or even more than that), but it's probably not a great diet for most and there are more significant considerations than how many calories can I eat without gaining weight.0 -
DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).0 -
DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
I know there was a reason why I like you!0 -
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
so you have never ever eaten 16 oreos in one sitting....ever?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
so you have never ever eaten 16 oreos in one sitting....ever?
A few years ago in my local paper they ran a story of a 93-year-old woman who ate a box of Oreos every day......for the last 40 years0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
So then don't eat them? Good for you? Not sure what kind of response you're looking for.
It shouldn't be a blanket statement that eating 1000 calories of cookies will give someone a stomach ache.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
so you have never ever eaten 16 oreos in one sitting....ever?
A few years ago in my local paper they ran a story of a 93-year-old woman who ate a box of Oreos every day......for the last 40 years
thats my kind of lady!!!!!!!!0 -
Well to be fair, I have eaten a lot sweets at one sitting before (probably the equivalent of that). As for just oreos, I don't think I've eaten that many at one sitting. Maybe up to 10-12. But lately I haven't gorged myself at one sitting with sweets much, and I think it's certainly possible I wouldn't be able to get away with it now.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
so you have never ever eaten 16 oreos in one sitting....ever?
0 -
I'm sure the word choice used in that post could have been different, like "may get".ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
So then don't eat them? Good for you? Not sure what kind of response you're looking for.
It shouldn't be a blanket statement that eating 1000 calories of cookies will give someone a stomach ache.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well to be fair, I have eaten a lot sweets at one sitting before (probably the equivalent of that). As for just oreos, I don't think I've eaten that many at one sitting. Maybe up to 10-12. But lately I haven't gorged myself at one sitting with sweets much, and I think it's certainly possible I wouldn't be able to get away with it now.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
so you have never ever eaten 16 oreos in one sitting....ever?
16 oreos and a glass of milk is hardly gorging yourself...
although, it is not something I would recommend one do regularly ..when I was bulking I easily put away about ten and a glass of milk with zero issues.0 -
Well unfortunately the whole discussion is for naught...as I only have 8 left anyway (though I've already had two today).
Of course...the grocery store is only a couple blocks from my office...
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
As most mouths are higher than the general level food starts at, the fact that'd you'd have to move 140 grams upwards (possibly .25 meters) against a gravitational force of roughly 9.8 Newtons means it would definitely work.0 -
Sugar is the biggest enemy to weight loss! Even more than trans-fats, saturated fats, or even a calorie surplus! So: conquer sugar, and you'll very soon conquer every other diet or nutrition problem!0
-
-
queenliz99 wrote: »
Yes, but moderation is key! Mesomorphs don't need to worry as much about sugar from a weight loss standpoint! But it causes many other health problems!0 -
More unsubstantiated claims0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 937 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions