Question about all calories being equal

245

Replies

  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    Not currently fat, perhaps. But if that have never been fat, they lack first hand experience of weight loss, which is probably worse from an advice point of view.

    Though I would still take advice from a never-fat dietitian.

    I would never take advice from a "nutritionist". It's not a real thing.

    A fat Personal Trainer or Nutritionist would get immediately ignored.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 49,024 Member
    Chadxx wrote: »
    dydn11402 wrote: »
    So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?

    Regardless of what many on here preach, she isn't wrong. The type of calories you take in does effect the calories out. Proteins, in particular, require more calories to digest. Sugar, on the other hand, doesn't take much at all.
    TEF is given in digestion. And explain how calories out is affected?

    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

    9285851.png

  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,294 Member
    edited October 2016
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Chadxx wrote: »
    dydn11402 wrote: »
    So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?

    Regardless of what many on here preach, she isn't wrong. The type of calories you take in does effect the calories out. Proteins, in particular, require more calories to digest. Sugar, on the other hand, doesn't take much at all.
    TEF is given in digestion. And explain how calories out is affected?

    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

    9285851.png


    TEF is part of calories out. Calories out = BMR + TEF + non-exercise activity + exercise.

    to answer your question simply, digestion burns calories
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    Yes different macronutrients effect energy expenditure through TEF/DIT, but unless you're making substantial changes to the macronutrient composition of the diet it's not going to amount to a significant change in energy output.

    Now you might see an appreciable difference in the long term when you make large changes and add up the additional energy expenditure over months.

  • colors_fade
    colors_fade Posts: 464 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    For all intents and purposes, speaking purely in terms of weight loss, a calorie is a calorie. There is a difference in the metabolic "cost" of processing between micronutrients (Google "TEF" or "thermic effect of feeding" if you want to geek out on the nuts and bolts of it), but for most people on diets of mixed macronutrients, it's all but completely irrelevant.

    When you factor in satiety/adherence, nutrition, workout performance and overall health, micro- and macronutrients matter. We're not talking purely about calories and weight loss anymore at this point, so it's a whole different discussion.

    We should just sticky this answer right here.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    edited October 2016
    dydn11402 wrote: »
    So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?

    The apple will have a higher TEF (Thermic Effect of Food)...it'll burn a few more calories in digestion than the candy will...it'll also provide more nutrition obviously.

    I wouldn't say the difference in TEF is significant enough to really say that a calorie (as a unit of energy) isn't a calorie...don't drown in this kind of munitia. Nutrition is a whole other ball game...on that front, eat a balanced and varied diet rich in whole food nutrition...and have a piece of candy once in awhile.
  • JeromeBarry1
    JeromeBarry1 Posts: 10,179 Member
    The subject you're alluding to is the thermic effect of digestion. To be clear, the sugars in apples and candy are slightly different, but the thermic effect of digesting all of them is very low. The calorie from an apple is the same in your body as the calorie from a candy. The apple has some fiber and phytonutrients which are probably not present in the candy, so your 100 calories of apple is better for you then your 100 calories of candy, but it's still 100 calories. There is a place for the thermic effect of digestion to matter, and that is in the digestion of protein. Protein is hard to digest and the thermic effect of digesting protein is high. Therefore 100 calories of egg whites (the most pure protein) will deliver about 70 calories to your blood after the thermic tax is paid. The 70 calories, though, are the same calories as the 70 you might find in a lesser volume of your candy.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,431 MFP Moderator
    The subject you're alluding to is the thermic effect of digestion. To be clear, the sugars in apples and candy are slightly different, but the thermic effect of digesting all of them is very low. The calorie from an apple is the same in your body as the calorie from a candy. The apple has some fiber and phytonutrients which are probably not present in the candy, so your 100 calories of apple is better for you then your 100 calories of candy, but it's still 100 calories. There is a place for the thermic effect of digestion to matter, and that is in the digestion of protein. Protein is hard to digest and the thermic effect of digesting protein is high. Therefore 100 calories of egg whites (the most pure protein) will deliver about 70 calories to your blood after the thermic tax is paid. The 70 calories, though, are the same calories as the 70 you might find in a lesser volume of your candy.

    It depends on the context. There is definitely a time and place for fast acting carbohydrates, especially if you are training for extended periods of time. So comparing foods in isolation is fairly worthless. The diet in context and the exercise requirements are what is important.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited October 2016
    The only significant difference between calories for the purpose of weightloss in my opinion is degrees of saiety. It varies person to person but most people find some foods more satiating than others and if you choose the foods that leave you satisfied more per calorie then you'll have an easier time losing weight.

    If instead you try to eat only the foods that have the "least" number of calories due to some sort of difference in metabolism or breakdown that isn't going to help nearly as much if those foods aren't satisfying for you.
  • Chadxx
    Chadxx Posts: 1,199 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Chadxx wrote: »
    dydn11402 wrote: »
    So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?

    Regardless of what many on here preach, she isn't wrong. The type of calories you take in does effect the calories out. Proteins, in particular, require more calories to digest. Sugar, on the other hand, doesn't take much at all.
    TEF is given in digestion. And explain how calories out is affected?

    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

    9285851.png


    Eric has already answered this nicely. Are you under the impression that the digestive process doesn't require energy? Everything our bodies do requires energy. Those calories count just the same as if you burned them running.
  • nowine4me
    nowine4me Posts: 3,985 Member
    Eat the apple, it will fill you up more. Unless the candy is a delicious Reese's peanut butter cup, in that case, why not both?
  • 12rossja
    12rossja Posts: 3 Member
    A calorie is just a calorie when it comes to weightloss or weightgain, this is thermodynamics. Those of us who follow iifym, dont really care where our carbs come from, as long as at the end we have our micronutrients. I diet eating pizza 4-5 times per week. Thermodynamics.
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    Jakep2323 wrote: »
    Is your friend overweight? (Or her "nutritionist?") If so, I wouldn't listen to a word she says.

    If you're obese or overweight, count your calories and assume a calorie is a calorie.

    Don't listen to fat people? lol - that's your advice. Note we can't see a picture of you so how do we know to trust what you say? ;) (Your post made me chuckle mate)

    If people know what they're doing they wouldn't be fat. That would be my take on it.

    I've lost 90+lbs. I am still fat. I guess I don't know what am doing or talking about when it comes to weight loss....

    If you knew what you were doing, you wouldn't have gained 90lbs+
  • Rebecca0224
    Rebecca0224 Posts: 810 Member
    Jakep2323 wrote: »
    Is your friend overweight? (Or her "nutritionist?") If so, I wouldn't listen to a word she says.

    If you're obese or overweight, count your calories and assume a calorie is a calorie.

    Don't listen to fat people? lol - that's your advice. Note we can't see a picture of you so how do we know to trust what you say? ;) (Your post made me chuckle mate)

    If people know what they're doing they wouldn't be fat. That would be my take on it.

    I've lost 90+lbs. I am still fat. I guess I don't know what am doing or talking about when it comes to weight loss....

    I think he is saying if this person has been using this advice and hasn't lost weight then it probably doesn't hold water. Great job on losing 90+ pounds
  • colors_fade
    colors_fade Posts: 464 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    The only significant difference between calories for the purpose of weightloss in my opinion is degrees of satiety.

    And in my experience, this should NOT be underestimated. This is an incredibly important part of anyone's dieting plan, and I think it is given way too little consideration.

    Figuring out what to eat so you aren't hungry, while maintaining a deficit, is so important... it prevents all those bad things from happening (overeating, binge eating, snacking on bad food choices... )
  • trigden1991
    trigden1991 Posts: 4,658 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    Jakep2323 wrote: »
    Is your friend overweight? (Or her "nutritionist?") If so, I wouldn't listen to a word she says.

    If you're obese or overweight, count your calories and assume a calorie is a calorie.

    Don't listen to fat people? lol - that's your advice. Note we can't see a picture of you so how do we know to trust what you say? ;) (Your post made me chuckle mate)

    If people know what they're doing they wouldn't be fat. That would be my take on it.

    I've lost 90+lbs. I am still fat. I guess I don't know what am doing or talking about when it comes to weight loss....

    If you knew what you were doing, you wouldn't have gained 90lbs+

    I think that's ridiculous.

    I never said that people couldn't learn. You mean that people gain fat on purpose? What I said was that at the point (many years?) when people gain 100+ lbs they obviously have no idea about CICO.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Aaron_K123 wrote: »
    The only significant difference between calories for the purpose of weightloss in my opinion is degrees of satiety.

    And in my experience, this should NOT be underestimated. This is an incredibly important part of anyone's dieting plan, and I think it is given way too little consideration.

    Figuring out what to eat so you aren't hungry, while maintaining a deficit, is so important... it prevents all those bad things from happening (overeating, binge eating, snacking on bad food choices... )

    It is important. And everyone has to find out themselves what makes them satiated, despite some people asserting a certain way will always make you satiated or hungry.
  • SideSteel
    SideSteel Posts: 11,068 Member
    SideSteel wrote: »
    Jakep2323 wrote: »
    Is your friend overweight? (Or her "nutritionist?") If so, I wouldn't listen to a word she says.

    If you're obese or overweight, count your calories and assume a calorie is a calorie.

    Don't listen to fat people? lol - that's your advice. Note we can't see a picture of you so how do we know to trust what you say? ;) (Your post made me chuckle mate)

    If people know what they're doing they wouldn't be fat. That would be my take on it.

    I've lost 90+lbs. I am still fat. I guess I don't know what am doing or talking about when it comes to weight loss....

    If you knew what you were doing, you wouldn't have gained 90lbs+

    I think that's ridiculous.

    I never said that people couldn't learn. You mean that people gain fat on purpose? What I said was that at the point (many years?) when people gain 100+ lbs they obviously have no idea about CICO.

    I mean that someone's individual progress or physique is not a reflection on their knowledge.
This discussion has been closed.