Is a calorie REALLY just a calorie?
Options
LPflaum
Posts: 174 Member
My nutritionist posted this article on her facebook wall today: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/
I'm curious as to everyone's thoughts on it. You hear a lot on these message boards that "a calorie is a calorie, doesn't matter where you get it." From this article, while it seems that's true in the purely scientific sense (ie a calorie is the amount of energy required to heat 1 Kg of water by 1 degree Celsius), not only does the style of food preparation really matter, but different people extract different amounts of calories from the same foods. Furthermore, it seems that the bioavailablity of these calories does play a part- ie highly processed foods are much easier to digest than, say, cassava root, so even if you eat the same amount of calories, what you net (food cal - digestion expenditure) is actually going to be lower with the cassava root.
I'm curious as to everyone's thoughts on it. You hear a lot on these message boards that "a calorie is a calorie, doesn't matter where you get it." From this article, while it seems that's true in the purely scientific sense (ie a calorie is the amount of energy required to heat 1 Kg of water by 1 degree Celsius), not only does the style of food preparation really matter, but different people extract different amounts of calories from the same foods. Furthermore, it seems that the bioavailablity of these calories does play a part- ie highly processed foods are much easier to digest than, say, cassava root, so even if you eat the same amount of calories, what you net (food cal - digestion expenditure) is actually going to be lower with the cassava root.
0
Replies
-
My nutritionist posted this article on her facebook wall today: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/
I'm curious as to everyone's thoughts on it. You hear a lot on these message boards that "a calorie is a calorie, doesn't matter where you get it." From this article, while it seems that's true in the purely scientific sense (ie a calorie is the amount of energy required to heat 1 Kg of water by 1 degree Celsius), not only does the style of food preparation really matter, but different people extract different amounts of calories from the same foods. Furthermore, it seems that the bioavailablity of these calories does play a part- ie highly processed foods are much easier to digest than, say, cassava root, so even if you eat the same amount of calories, what you net (food cal - digestion expenditure) is actually going to be lower with the cassava root.
Our bodies are really f***ing good at extracting calories and being efficient, top of the food chain, highly evolved organism and all that. Any differences like that are tiny and wouldn't even be worth talking about if magazines wouldn't just love clickbait.4 -
Calories in and calories out are estimates. The method does not have to be perfectly accurate for it to work. The proof are the people who do it and are successful. IMO, your nutritionist is majoring in the minor...3
-
While it's true that calories are estimates, they don't need to be perfect, they need to be good enough. Both your consumed and your burned calories are estimates, but as long as they are close enough, you can use the feedback you get from the scale to adjust your targets appropriately.3
-
Where you get your calories from doesn't matter for weight loss. Macro/micro nutrient profiles of food only matter once you start talking about other stuff like general health.1
-
While echoing what everyone else has stated, all I can say is that after two years at this, the estimates are pretty darned close, I have been able to loose weight, maintain weight, gain weight (bulk) and cut that too, so the true evidence for me is in experience. I can say I have it dialed in to a slight margin of error..1
-
is she a "nutritionist" by any chance, in that she does not need to be board approved? In a lot of places nutritionist is not a protected title. I've heard a lot of people claim to be nutritionists who don't have the faintest clue what they are talking about and are clearly scientifically illiterate.
0 -
SophieSmall95 wrote: »is she a "nutritionist" by any chance, in that she does not need to be board approved? In a lot of places nutritionist is not a protected title. I've heard a lot of people claim to be nutritionists who don't have the faintest clue what they are talking about and are clearly scientifically illiterate.
Yep for $99 you too can become one in as little as 2 hours. No experience necessary.4 -
Just like a liter is a liter and a mile is a mile.
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 -
SophieSmall95 wrote: »is she a "nutritionist" by any chance, in that she does not need to be board approved? In a lot of places nutritionist is not a protected title. I've heard a lot of people claim to be nutritionists who don't have the faintest clue what they are talking about and are clearly scientifically illiterate.
She and her partner both have master's degrees in clinical nutrition. Her partner worked at St Lukes- Roosevelt obesity research center and developed the nutrition plan for equinox fitness. She worked at NY-Presbyterian and focused on weight management, cardiac health, and adolescent nutrition. Together they are published authors and they've been on a ton of tv/news/web shows including WebMD, Shape Mag, Today Show, Time Mag, Health.com, Self Mag, GMA, etc.
In short, no, they are a very legit nutrition consultancy group.0 -
SophieSmall95 wrote: »is she a "nutritionist" by any chance, in that she does not need to be board approved? In a lot of places nutritionist is not a protected title. I've heard a lot of people claim to be nutritionists who don't have the faintest clue what they are talking about and are clearly scientifically illiterate.
She and her partner both have master's degrees in clinical nutrition. Her partner worked at St Lukes- Roosevelt obesity research center and developed the nutrition plan for equinox fitness. She worked at NY-Presbyterian and focused on weight management, cardiac health, and adolescent nutrition. Together they are published authors and they've been on a ton of tv/news/web shows including WebMD, Shape Mag, Today Show, Time Mag, Health.com, Self Mag, GMA, etc.
In short, no, they are a very legit nutrition consultancy group.
Then likely what the problem is, is when scientifically educated people try to find a way to share that science in a more "layman terms" way with the general public. It almost always just causes confusion and misinformation. It's very hard to simplify scientific research that way. It's how a lot of scientific myths, particularly ones to do with weight and health start. It drives me up the wall.0 -
I've read about that too. Here's the thing, I count all calories as the same and make a daily deficit goal. I am losing weight. I eat lots of fiber but it doesn't matter. No matter how I eat, I lose weight if I burn more calories then I eat. I would stick to that. There is no magic bullet for weight lose.0
-
I've read about that too. Here's the thing, I count all calories as the same and make a daily deficit goal. I am losing weight. I eat lots of fiber but it doesn't matter. No matter how I eat, I lose weight if I burn more calories then I eat. I would stick to that. There is no magic bullet for weight lose.
I agree completely, but I've definitely been debated on this. The analogy I use a bottle of coke vs a whole mango.
16 oz bottle coca cola- 190 calories; 0g fat; 60 mg sodium; 52g carbs; 0g fiber; 52g sugar
1 whole mango- 200 calories; 1.5g fat; 0 sodium ; 50g carbs; 5g fiber; 45g sugar; 3g protein (and a lot of Vitamin C)
Would you say that a bottle of coke is more or less equivalent to a mango? Does the additional fat, protein, fiber and vitamins in the mango make a difference to you?
Personally, I don't eat mangoes because I can't understand why you would consume 45g of sugar to get 5g fiber, 3g protein, and 1.5g fat. You may as well drink a bottle of coke. No one agrees with me.0 -
My nutritionist posted this article on her facebook wall today: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/
I'm curious as to everyone's thoughts on it. You hear a lot on these message boards that "a calorie is a calorie, doesn't matter where you get it." From this article, while it seems that's true in the purely scientific sense (ie a calorie is the amount of energy required to heat 1 Kg of water by 1 degree Celsius), not only does the style of food preparation really matter, but different people extract different amounts of calories from the same foods. Furthermore, it seems that the bioavailablity of these calories does play a part- ie highly processed foods are much easier to digest than, say, cassava root, so even if you eat the same amount of calories, what you net (food cal - digestion expenditure) is actually going to be lower with the cassava root.
The gist of that seems like common sense to me, though based on many posts I've seen on MFP I think it may well be news to some.
However I do not believe it's a true statement to say highly processed foods are much easier to digest. Some natural foods are very easy to digest and I'm sure some highly processed foods are not so easy to digest. I think it's better to evaluate a food based on the food itself, rather than a broad and variable criterion like "highly processed".0 -
I've read about that too. Here's the thing, I count all calories as the same and make a daily deficit goal. I am losing weight. I eat lots of fiber but it doesn't matter. No matter how I eat, I lose weight if I burn more calories then I eat. I would stick to that. There is no magic bullet for weight lose.
I agree completely, but I've definitely been debated on this. The analogy I use a bottle of coke vs a whole mango.
16 oz bottle coca cola- 190 calories; 0g fat; 60 mg sodium; 52g carbs; 0g fiber; 52g sugar
1 whole mango- 200 calories; 1.5g fat; 0 sodium ; 50g carbs; 5g fiber; 45g sugar; 3g protein (and a lot of Vitamin C)
Would you say that a bottle of coke is more or less equivalent to a mango? Does the additional fat, protein, fiber and vitamins in the mango make a difference to you?
Personally, I don't eat mangoes because I can't understand why you would consume 45g of sugar to get 5g fiber, 3g protein, and 1.5g fat. You may as well drink a bottle of coke. No one agrees with me.
Because mangos are awesome, well, to me...2 -
Just like a liter is a liter and a mile is a mile.
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
Until you are running and one mile is level ground and one is a steep hill.
1 -
My nutritionist posted this article on her facebook wall today: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-reveals-why-calorie-counts-are-all-wrong/
I'm curious as to everyone's thoughts on it. You hear a lot on these message boards that "a calorie is a calorie, doesn't matter where you get it." From this article, while it seems that's true in the purely scientific sense (ie a calorie is the amount of energy required to heat 1 Kg of water by 1 degree Celsius), not only does the style of food preparation really matter, but different people extract different amounts of calories from the same foods. Furthermore, it seems that the bioavailablity of these calories does play a part- ie highly processed foods are much easier to digest than, say, cassava root, so even if you eat the same amount of calories, what you net (food cal - digestion expenditure) is actually going to be lower with the cassava root.
Yes, the bio-availability of calories from certain foods does play a roll...certain foods are going to have a higher TEF than others and you have to also consider things like high fiber foods, etc...but in the context of a well balanced and overall nutritious diet, we're talking about very minute differences...i.e. there's not going to be a ton of difference if I eat a diet that is largely comprised of whole foods with some "junk" thrown in here and there vs being 100% "clean" or whatever.
There would be a more substantial difference if you're talking about someone who is just eating "junk", but nobody really advocates for that...most people who talk about a calorie being a calorie and eating X, Y, or Z in moderation eat by and large pretty healthy, nutritious diets.1 -
My takeaway from the, "is a calorie a calories debate" is this...
Regardless of what you eat, if you want to lose weight, you must pay attention to how much you eat. If you eat more then your body needs, you will gain fat, because, a calorie is still a calorie...1 -
sugar from fruit is not the same as refined sugar.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K 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
- 392 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions