A quick refresher on a calorie is a calorie ....

robertw486

yarwell wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

yarwell wrote: »

You could isolate a 100 calorie dose of 10 different foods and measure the effect of consuming them. Would they all be the same ? I doubt it. No evidence has been offered to show this.

Probably part of why it has been said repeatedly that a calorie is a calorie, but a food is not a food.

But we eat food, not calories, so where does that get us. Are we back to heating water up and defining units in some self serving semantic loop ?

I would have thought a Nutrition Debate on calories would be something to do with the effect on the body of the calorie according to whichever of the nine definitions of useful energy in a food one chooses, not about the maths of calculating or measuring the value.

After all, "Nutrition is the science that interprets the interaction of nutrients and other substances in food (e.g. phytonutrients, anthocyanins, tannins, etc.) in relation to maintenance, growth, reproduction, health and disease of an organism. It includes food intake, absorption, assimilation, biosynthesis, catabolism and excretion."

But I'm off out to buy some calories, or kWh, or MJ, or perhaps just food....

Being that all calories in humans are taken into our body in the form of food, removing calories or even macros from food brings us back to dictionary definitions and/or lab experiments that simply burn food.

So a calorie remains a calorie, but in the form of food and humans the availability of the fuel and type of energy forms vary, as does the energy overhead of TEF and other factors. But I can't see any useful point in removing the term of the calorie from the food. We know the sun provides energy, but in relation to a human and our TDEE it really means next to nothing.


But as a point, there are close to 1,000 methods currently used to calculate energy in foods. Those that have long since discounted or improved on might bring it down to the 9 you mention, but that is still a lot of variables to prove that modern science still has not found exacts it can agree on. This variance could be accounted for in test forms by ensuring the same type and ratios of various foods are eaten, but often the testing methods of extremes of macros don't even allow this.


Be careful buying your energy. I found that the bulk kWh labels adds the fiber as useful energy, so the smaller containers of kWh are a better deal if you are looking for energy your body can actually use. I picked up several of those, and since I'm hoping for a small intake reduction I also picked up a big container of the variable energy. It's packaged in 49 calorie increments. That way I can ingest them and the body adjusts to change my metabolic rate. I am going to give each family member one a day until we cut our need for food in half. When I did the math it was well worth the price of the metabolic adjusting packets, and the ROI is fairly quick.

Nikion901

This morning I had coconut macaroons and black coffee ... and I'm trying to lose weight ... and I want to finish the day within that possible weight loss range ... but I don't want to be hungry, so I better eat some chicken or steak for lunch, and I want to make a good poo in the morning, so I think I'll toss in a big bowl of salad as well. Then, if I have enough calories left, maybe I'll have another macaroon or two, or maybe I'll have an apple.

PS ... and because I really, really want to finish the day inthat possible weight loss range, I think I'll go ride a bike or take a long walk to burn up some extra calories instead of sitting on the couch in front of the TV the entire day.

lemurcat12

senecarr wrote: »

yarwell wrote: »

senecarr wrote: »

yarwell wrote: »

You could isolate a 100 calorie dose of 10 different foods and measure the effect of consuming them. Would they all be the same ? I doubt it. No evidence has been offered to show this.

Probably part of why it has been said repeatedly that a calorie is a calorie, but a food is not a food.

But we eat food, not calories, so where does that get us. Are we back to heating water up and defining units in some self serving semantic loop ?

I would have thought a Nutrition Debate on calories would be something to do with the effect on the body of the calorie according to whichever of the nine definitions of useful energy in a food one chooses, not about the maths of calculating or measuring the value.

After all, "Nutrition is the science that interprets the interaction of nutrients and other substances in food (e.g. phytonutrients, anthocyanins, tannins, etc.) in relation to maintenance, growth, reproduction, health and disease of an organism. It includes food intake, absorption, assimilation, biosynthesis, catabolism and excretion."

But I'm off out to buy some calories, or kWh, or MJ, or perhaps just food....

I'm sorry you didn't get the argument you were looking for?

One cool thing about MFP is that if you want to have a particular discussion you can post a thread for it. Maybe Yarwell will.

Yi5hedr3

They are not the same!