Which is it? Let's hear opinions!

barbaratrollman

Calories drive weight loss or weight gain
Macros, along with exercise, drive body composition
Micronutrients drive health and well being

In theory, this, but there are a lot of theories out there saying that protein, fat, carbs don't digest the same way and whatnot. The jury is still out.

In the end though, the basic idea is that for the same amount of calories, eating a cleaner diet will not leave you starving.

I know that I get much better results, both in terms of losing weight/gaining strength, and in terms of my vitality and general health, when I eat with healthy foods as my priority. These are the results of my own research using my body as my lab. I don't function well when I am not eating with best health in mind.

I don't put a taboo on any foods, necessarily...(well, except for GMO and non-organically grown, but that is not a conversation for this thread.) I just generally prefer more healthy foods. The only foods that I really love that may not be considered to be "clean" eating, would be pizza and ice cream. If I was in a situation where I was around those food items and I wanted them, I would eat them and just exercise more later or in some other way compensate for having eaten what I felt like eating. I'm not on a diet.

I think each person should try different things and see what works best for them.

I guess my point is ...though I know that technically a calorie is a calorie, I do not believe that our bodies absorb and use those calories the same way, once we've ingested the foods that contained those calories. I think that the vessel (type of food) those calories came in plays a big part in how many of them are actually converted to energy or stored as fat, etc...

My dad is a doctor with diabetes being a specialty of his. Our conversations about this subject have reinforced what I'm saying.

lporter229

Ugh. This topic always results in more heat than light.


Presently, caloric value of a food is determined by burning the food and seeing how much energy is produced. While on the one hand this model is in some ways not like your body, it still yields an UPPER LIMIT. If a given substance only has the material to produce 100 calories of heat, there is no way to get more than that out of it.

Calories are not meant as a measure of how fattening a food is for any given organism ingesting it. It's merely a way of expressing the upper limit of how much energy could be extracted from something.


In practice, humans are very much alike, and at the same time we are special snowflakes. For instance, your gut flora are your own and no one else's, and they are very much involved in determining efficiency of digestion. On the other hand, the law of thermodynamics applies to ALL energy systems, so none of us are able to gain mass unless we eat more than we expend.

Thank you for posting this. I was thinking of starting a similar thread on the topic of digestion efficiency, but am always hesitant because of where these threads lead. However, a lot of the arguments are based on the notion that our bodies are able to extract energy from our food with 100% efficiency, which is intuitively not correct. I am surprised that this topic doesn't receive more discussion.

ninerbuff

I agree with the "not all calories are created equal" phrase someone coined. Calories from an ounce of chocolate and calories from an ounce of lean/healthy protein are dramatically different.

A calorie is a calorie in terms of energy though.

100 calories of chocolate "energy" is equal to 100 calories of lean protein "energy". How the body utilizes them is different, but don't confuse the actual energy value with how it's absorbed.

Another example is a pound is a pound. A pound of bricks is the same as a pound of flour.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

lporter229

I agree with the "not all calories are created equal" phrase someone coined. Calories from an ounce of chocolate and calories from an ounce of lean/healthy protein are dramatically different.

A calorie is a calorie in terms of energy though.

100 calories of chocolate "energy" is equal to 100 calories of lean protein "energy". How the body utilizes them is different, but don't confuse the actual energy value with how it's absorbed.

Another example is a pound is a pound. A pound of bricks is the same as a pound of flour.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I see what you are saying here, but I'm not sure it really applies to this situation. If I eat 100 calories worth of nuts and half of them pass through my body undigested, did I just "consume" the same amount of calories as if I drank a 100 calorie soda?

jaygreen55

Here is an intresting report on scientific studies into just that question (from the NY times)

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/27/how-carbs-can-trigger-food-cravings/?ref=nutrition

PheonixRizing

It's about what you are eating, not just the calories because there are other things involved like carbs and sugars. If you are eating under your calories but going way over on those other aspects it will negatively effect your weight loss. You have to be eating those calories from good sources otherwise it doesn't work to your benefit.

CysterWigs

It's a bit of both. Laws of thermodynamics dictate that a calorie = a calorie. However, in order to process those calories your body has to do different things with different nutrients, which inherently causes reactions within the body and accounts for much of the variation you see in people's personal accounts of how they've lost weight.

ninerbuff

I agree with the "not all calories are created equal" phrase someone coined. Calories from an ounce of chocolate and calories from an ounce of lean/healthy protein are dramatically different.

A calorie is a calorie in terms of energy though.

100 calories of chocolate "energy" is equal to 100 calories of lean protein "energy". How the body utilizes them is different, but don't confuse the actual energy value with how it's absorbed.

Another example is a pound is a pound. A pound of bricks is the same as a pound of flour.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I see what you are saying here, but I'm not sure it really applies to this situation. If I eat 100 calories worth of nuts and half of them pass through my body undigested, did I just "consume" the same amount of calories as if I drank a 100 calorie soda?

Yes, because the energy available to the body is the same. The oil from the nuts is what you're absorbing not the fiber.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Wetcoaster

It is 20 mins long but he makes some good points.


BioLayne Video Log 12 - Clean Eating vs IIFYM (If it fits your macros)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6H2edyPLU8

lporter229

I agree with the "not all calories are created equal" phrase someone coined. Calories from an ounce of chocolate and calories from an ounce of lean/healthy protein are dramatically different.

A calorie is a calorie in terms of energy though.

100 calories of chocolate "energy" is equal to 100 calories of lean protein "energy". How the body utilizes them is different, but don't confuse the actual energy value with how it's absorbed.

Another example is a pound is a pound. A pound of bricks is the same as a pound of flour.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I see what you are saying here, but I'm not sure it really applies to this situation. If I eat 100 calories worth of nuts and half of them pass through my body undigested, did I just "consume" the same amount of calories as if I drank a 100 calorie soda?

Yes, because the energy available to the body is the same. The oil from the nuts is what you're absorbing not the fiber.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

I am not sure that I agree that you are absorbing all of the oil from the nuts. Consider another scenario ( hoping not to make this too unpleasant a subject). I have Crohn's disease. There have been times when I could consume anything under the sun and it would pass through me practically undigested. This situation leads to rapid weight loss, no matter what you eat. Now, I understand that this is an extreme example, but I have to believe that there are varying degrees to which this applies to everyone. I believe that at least a portion of the calories that we consume are not retained by our bodies and that is dependent, to a degree, on the form in which it was consumed.

Isakizza

What has worked for me is keeping to a certain calorie count. A calorie is a calorie.
Choosing better quality calories will help in overall health and also can aid in better results.




Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

bcattoes

I hear some people say it's how much you eat and "a calorie is a calorie". I also hear some say It's what you eat, not how much. What do you think? I'll keep from voicing my opinion right now but my personal experience leans me towards one answer not the other.

First I think you need to define what "it" is. Weight loss is about calories, unless there a medical condition that changes the basic rules. But what you eat matters for long term health and for body composition.

Isakizza

Calories drive weight loss or weight gain
Macros, along with exercise, drive body composition
Micronutrients drive health and well being

THIS. Also to add, a calorie is a calorie regardless of source.

^^^ Basically this in a nutshell.
No need to complicate things, unless you have health issues that require more in depth research and attention.


Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

Lochlyn_D

It's both.

Everyone's body works differently. For some people, carbs put on the weight, for others it's fat.

Athena53

I believe that at least a portion of the calories that we consume are not retained by our bodies and that is dependent, to a degree, on the form in which it was consumed.

Good point-

I would think that fiber would pass through pretty much undigested and the fatty stuff would take longer to process through and more calories would be absorbed.

barbaratrollman

Ugh. This topic always results in more heat than light.


Presently, caloric value of a food is determined by burning the food and seeing how much energy is produced. While on the one hand this model is in some ways not like your body, it still yields an UPPER LIMIT. If a given substance only has the material to produce 100 calories of heat, there is no way to get more than that out of it.

Calories are not meant as a measure of how fattening a food is for any given organism ingesting it. It's merely a way of expressing the upper limit of how much energy could be extracted from something.


In practice, humans are very much alike, and at the same time we are special snowflakes. For instance, your gut flora are your own and no one else's, and they are very much involved in determining efficiency of digestion. On the other hand, the law of thermodynamics applies to ALL energy systems, so none of us are able to gain mass unless we eat more than we expend.

Thank you for posting this. I was thinking of starting a similar thread on the topic of digestion efficiency, but am always hesitant because of where these threads lead. However, a lot of the arguments are based on the notion that our bodies are able to extract energy from our food with 100% efficiency, which is intuitively not correct. I am surprised that this topic doesn't receive more discussion.

Yes, this is a great topic.

barbaratrollman

I agree with the "not all calories are created equal" phrase someone coined. Calories from an ounce of chocolate and calories from an ounce of lean/healthy protein are dramatically different.

A calorie is a calorie in terms of energy though.

100 calories of chocolate "energy" is equal to 100 calories of lean protein "energy". How the body utilizes them is different, but don't confuse the actual energy value with how it's absorbed.

Another example is a pound is a pound. A pound of bricks is the same as a pound of flour.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

Of course, but a pound of bricks takes up a different amount of space than a pound of flour. A pound of fat is going to be a lot larger than a pound of muscle is.

barbaratrollman

It's a bit of both. Laws of thermodynamics dictate that a calorie = a calorie. However, in order to process those calories your body has to do different things with different nutrients, which inherently causes reactions within the body and accounts for much of the variation you see in people's personal accounts of how they've lost weight.

This is a very good and very simple explanation.

El_Cunado

Calories drive weight loss or weight gain
Macros, along with exercise, drive body composition
Micronutrients drive health and well being

Nicely put!

kenzietate

Calories drive weight loss or weight gain
Macros, along with exercise, drive body composition
Micronutrients drive health and well being

I think though this might work for the majority of people, everyone is different. For me, calories are somewhat important but regardless of if I'm eating 1200 cals or 1700 cals I am going to gain weight if I eat more than 20% of my intake in carbs. But I have learned that I feel the best and have the most energy if I keep carbs under 10%. Others I know can't eat more than 20% fat or they gain weight. I think rather than worrying if you are doing it right according to all these rules, find out what works for you! Find the levels where you feel the best. Once you feel great, the weight will more easily come off b/c you will be full more often, you will move more and you will overall just be happier.

jetlag

I also used to think "a calorie is a calorie" but have recently been convinced otherwise. I've long heard that sugar is REALLY bad for you health-wise, but I was really blown away when I actually heard Robert Lustig's explanation - and that one calorie is not necessarily equal to another calorie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Sadly, I haven't been able to reduce my sugar intake significantly, but I'm working on it!

I would recommend this, very much:
http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

Thanks for posting that, very informative :-)

fannyfrost

A calorie is a calorie is way to simplified overall.

A big point to this is that empty calories are generally not a good choice. Sugar gets a bad rap for many reasons, but bottom line, sugar adds calories, causes health risks for some, etc, but it also has absolutely no health benefit.

I find that when I eat healthier calories, I eat less calories. It just generally works best diet or not to eat calories that are good for you.

HeidiCooksSupper

I learned the "UNIVERSAL ANSWER" to all questions from and old mentor: Some do. Some don't. The differences aren't very great and it's more complication than that.

Presently, caloric value of a food is determined by burning the food and seeing how much energy is produced. While on the one hand this model is in some ways not like your body, it still yields an UPPER LIMIT. If a given substance only has the material to produce 100 calories of heat, there is no way to get more than that out of it.

Calories are not meant as a measure of how fattening a food is for any given organism ingesting it. It's merely a way of expressing the upper limit of how much energy could be extracted from something.

In practice, humans are very much alike, and at the same time we are special snowflakes. For instance, your gut flora are your own and no one else's, and they are very much involved in determining efficiency of digestion. On the other hand, the law of thermodynamics applies to ALL energy systems, so none of us are able to gain mass unless we eat more than we expend.

THIS!!!

And the science is changing as more is learned from well-designed experiments. So, for example, what we used to think about dietary cholesterol consumption leading directly to serum cholesterol has been found inaccurate whereas we are learning more about the link between sugar consumption (fructose especially) and fatty liver disease. (The research evidence is accumulating on the latter, it's not just Robert Lustig.)

So, is a calorie a calorie? Yes and no depending on what you mean by the question.

Will you lose weight if you expend more energy than you consume? Yes, eventually, and to a greater or lesser degree.

Finally, is energy all a body needs to function well? No. You need vitamins and minerals and fluids in appropriate amounts as well as exercise to build aerobic capacity and strength.

Do as I say, not as I did for 60+ years. Eat healthy, control your consumption, and exercise. Drat.