Does it make a difference what you go over your caloric goal with?

RedheadedPrincess14
RedheadedPrincess14 Posts: 415 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I know that calories in vs calories out is true but thefe are several things that can impact your calories out so obviously, the stats we use here are just good estimates and not absolutes. I personally believe, from what I'm learning in school for nutrition, that different calories can have different impact on the body and that we more effectively burn certain fuels than others. Obviously, I am not suggesting that we can eat unlimited amounts of any food, just that we have a bit more leway with healthier, fiber rich, intact, whole foods than some chemical laden ones.

If I have already hit my calorie allowance for the day but I am still hungry, I will always choose veg, starch, or fruit that is high in finer and I can easily have a hundred or so extra calories without it ever affecting my weight loss but I've found that if I do fill that with a sugary beverage, 100 calorie pack, or chocolate piece, it ends up screwing up my goals long term. Do you guys think that the quality of the food has any impact whatsoever? I know a lot of people on this website think the source of the calories doesn't matter but there are various studies that show that the source of the calories can actually affect how you process them, thus affecting your calorie output.

I don't have a solid opinion. Just wondering what you guys think and if anyone's noticed this?

Replies

  • RedheadedPrincess14
    RedheadedPrincess14 Posts: 415 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    How do you determine that eating 100 calories of certain beverages or chocolate screws you up "long term"? How are you measuring that?

    I'm not sure how anyone could tie a long term problem to choosing 100 calories of certain foods on a specific day, especially if one is frequently exercising "more leeway" with other foods.

    Which studies are you referring to?

    Every time I've logged eating junkies in my life, I would stop losing if I was even a bit over my calorie goal. I had a healthy base but my snacks were always complete junk. Weight loss was hard for me. This time that I'm eating a lot healthier foods for the most part, my weight loss has been the easiest ever. I've tracked various times in my life and I was always rigorous with tracking accurately the few times during this process of the last few months that I ate some junky snacks, I either stopped losing or gained. Water maybe but I've just noticed that eating the healthy snacks seems to keep everything smoothly moving downwards
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    How do you determine that eating 100 calories of certain beverages or chocolate screws you up "long term"? How are you measuring that?

    I'm not sure how anyone could tie a long term problem to choosing 100 calories of certain foods on a specific day, especially if one is frequently exercising "more leeway" with other foods.

    Which studies are you referring to?

    Every time I've logged eating junkies in my life, I would stop losing if I was even a bit over my calorie goal. I had a healthy base but my snacks were always complete junk. Weight loss was hard for me. This time that I'm eating a lot healthier foods for the most part, my weight loss has been the easiest ever. I've tracked various times in my life and I was always rigorous with tracking accurately the few times during this process of the last few months that I ate some junky snacks, I either stopped losing or gained. Water maybe but I've just noticed that eating the healthy snacks seems to keep everything smoothly moving downwards

    What do you mean you would stop losing? Like the next day?
  • RedheadedPrincess14
    RedheadedPrincess14 Posts: 415 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    How do you determine that eating 100 calories of certain beverages or chocolate screws you up "long term"? How are you measuring that?

    I'm not sure how anyone could tie a long term problem to choosing 100 calories of certain foods on a specific day, especially if one is frequently exercising "more leeway" with other foods.

    Which studies are you referring to?
    Let me get my class notes and I'll try to find the exact studies. One of them explained how whole carbohydrates were harder to convert into body fat because of de novo lipogenesis, another was about resistant starch and how not all calories from these foods were absorbed and yet another (albeit, just a case control) showed men losing more weight on a diet rich in complex starch vs one high in fat. But I don't know... so many contradictory studies out there.

    The china study is one that fascinates me but again... a lot of conflicting information.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
    If I have already hit my calorie allowance for the day but I am still hungry, I will always choose veg, starch, or fruit that is high in finer and I can easily have a hundred or so extra calories without it ever affecting my weight loss but I've found that if I do fill that with a sugary beverage, 100 calorie pack, or chocolate piece, it ends up screwing up my goals long term.

    When I was really focusing on losing and had a significant deficit (I've been mostly in maintenance for a while, although I'm somewhat getting back to a deficit), I really didn't go over except on planned occasions. BUT, 100 calories on a 500-1000 deficit day is going to make no difference, especially if it's occasional and given all the other unknowns. (When I first started MFP predicted I'd lose 1.8 lb/week and I was losing 2.5 on average for a while, because I was underestimating my daily activity.)

    That said, if I felt compelled to eat above my calorie goal because of hunger, I'd choose something that would satisfy my hunger, whatever it was. For me that's protein or fiber, and vegetables are the lowest cal options, so I'd eat them. Or something else that is very low, like a pickle or some spicy pickled veg + a little cottage cheese. Point is it depends on you. For hunger I would not choose a sugary beverage (which I don't drink anyway) or chocolate, not because it would make a different effect on weight loss, but because for ME those wouldn't satisfy hunger for the same calories I could satisfy it with the other foods.
    Do you guys think that the quality of the food has any impact whatsoever?

    For health, nutrition? Of course.

    For weight loss? Well, protein amount matters for muscle maintenance, to a certain extent, and how you feel will affect how active you are, and some things are more likely to be undercounted and some more likely to be overcounted and some are more filling for me, etc., but no, I don't think a true 100 calories of chocolate is going to hurt my weight loss when 100 calories of banana would not.
    I know a lot of people on this website think the source of the calories doesn't matter but there are various studies that show that the source of the calories can actually affect how you process them, thus affecting your calorie output.

    Only to a small amount and not so that you'd gain weight in a deficit or any such thing. Protein and a few other things take more energy to digest than more refined carbs and fats, but eh. With a healthy balanced diet it shouldn't be noticeable if you eat a little more protein or nuts one day and some chocolate or cheese the next (as your last 100 calories, say, all else equal).
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    How do you determine that eating 100 calories of certain beverages or chocolate screws you up "long term"? How are you measuring that?

    I'm not sure how anyone could tie a long term problem to choosing 100 calories of certain foods on a specific day, especially if one is frequently exercising "more leeway" with other foods.

    Which studies are you referring to?
    Let me get my class notes and I'll try to find the exact studies. One of them explained how whole carbohydrates were harder to convert into body fat because of de novo lipogenesis, another was about resistant starch and how not all calories from these foods were absorbed and yet another (albeit, just a case control) showed men losing more weight on a diet rich in complex starch vs one high in fat. But I don't know... so many contradictory studies out there.

    The china study is one that fascinates me but again... a lot of conflicting information.

    Does the China Study even include a weight control component?
  • RedheadedPrincess14
    RedheadedPrincess14 Posts: 415 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    How do you determine that eating 100 calories of certain beverages or chocolate screws you up "long term"? How are you measuring that?

    I'm not sure how anyone could tie a long term problem to choosing 100 calories of certain foods on a specific day, especially if one is frequently exercising "more leeway" with other foods.

    Which studies are you referring to?

    Every time I've logged eating junkies in my life, I would stop losing if I was even a bit over my calorie goal. I had a healthy base but my snacks were always complete junk. Weight loss was hard for me. This time that I'm eating a lot healthier foods for the most part, my weight loss has been the easiest ever. I've tracked various times in my life and I was always rigorous with tracking accurately the few times during this process of the last few months that I ate some junky snacks, I either stopped losing or gained. Water maybe but I've just noticed that eating the healthy snacks seems to keep everything smoothly moving downwards

    What do you mean you would stop losing? Like the next day?
    I wouldn't end up hitting my weekly or monthly targets. I really blame it on some of the zero calorie chemicals and ultra-processed junk I used to eat but maybe there was other factors that I'm not accounting for. Because, let me be clear, the junky snacks I was choosing at that time were the worst of the worst. But like I said, I don't have a definitive opinion on the matter. The topic just sparked my interest because of the stuff I'm learning in uni. :)

  • RedheadedPrincess14
    RedheadedPrincess14 Posts: 415 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
    If I have already hit my calorie allowance for the day but I am still hungry, I will always choose veg, starch, or fruit that is high in finer and I can easily have a hundred or so extra calories without it ever affecting my weight loss but I've found that if I do fill that with a sugary beverage, 100 calorie pack, or chocolate piece, it ends up screwing up my goals long term.

    When I was really focusing on losing and had a significant deficit (I've been mostly in maintenance for a while, although I'm somewhat getting back to a deficit), I really didn't go over except on planned occasions. BUT, 100 calories on a 500-1000 deficit day is going to make no difference, especially if it's occasional and given all the other unknowns. (When I first started MFP predicted I'd lose 1.8 lb/week and I was losing 2.5 on average for a while, because I was underestimating my daily activity.)

    That said, if I felt compelled to eat above my calorie goal because of hunger, I'd choose something that would satisfy my hunger, whatever it was. For me that's protein or fiber, and vegetables are the lowest cal options, so I'd eat them. Or something else that is very low, like a pickle or some spicy pickled veg + a little cottage cheese. Point is it depends on you. For hunger I would not choose a sugary beverage (which I don't drink anyway) or chocolate, not because it would make a different effect on weight loss, but because for ME those wouldn't satisfy hunger for the same calories I could satisfy it with the other foods.
    Do you guys think that the quality of the food has any impact whatsoever?

    For health, nutrition? Of course.

    For weight loss? Well, protein amount matters for muscle maintenance, to a certain extent, and how you feel will affect how active you are, and some things are more likely to be undercounted and some more likely to be overcounted and some are more filling for me, etc., but no, I don't think a true 100 calories of chocolate is going to hurt my weight loss when 100 calories of banana would not.
    I know a lot of people on this website think the source of the calories doesn't matter but there are various studies that show that the source of the calories can actually affect how you process them, thus affecting your calorie output.

    Only to a small amount and not so that you'd gain weight in a deficit or any such thing. Protein and a few other things take more energy to digest than more refined carbs and fats, but eh. With a healthy balanced diet it shouldn't be noticeable if you eat a little more protein or nuts one day and some chocolate or cheese the next (as your last 100 calories, say, all else equal).

    I don't think I can really disagree with any of that haha. Very very well said! Thanks :)
  • susanp57
    susanp57 Posts: 409 Member
    This is not a matter of last in, last out. You could eat some crappy thing first thing or last thing in your day. You can start your measuring day at noon or bedtime.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Nope.
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    edited June 2017
    No.

    With the only caveat being that some foods are more satiating than others. Going over my calories with 100 cals of dark chocolate means I'm only going over by 100 because I'll be happy after that. Going over my calories with 100 cals of snack crackers would give me no satiety at all and then I'd want to eat more (and likely would since I was willing to eat the snack crackers in the first place). Which is why I don't keep snack crackers in the house.
  • kq1981
    kq1981 Posts: 1,098 Member
    Nope. Calorie in calorie out. 100 calories of chocolate is EXACTLY the same as 100 calories of broccoli. 100 calories is 100 calories. The amount and satisfaction of each does differ, as does the nutrients if that's what yr watching. To loose weight: CICO EVERY TIME.
  • Sara2652
    Sara2652 Posts: 158 Member
    I think I understand what you are saying. It is over my head honestly but I had a doctor well versed in all the research and data out there, that was able to explain it to me. It has to do with thermogenesis, insulin and ghrelin. One of her suggestions was to eat a protein and produce (fiber) at every meal. The idea is to blunt the quick effects of sugars in to the body. She was a doctor treating people with binge eating disorder so the goal might not be exactly the same. She also suggested to us not to drink your calories.

    Enjoy your classes and eat up that info ;) Knowledge is power!
  • mlsh1969
    mlsh1969 Posts: 138 Member
    Im not sure but l dont think it matters because 100 calories is 100 calories. Of course some foods will keep u fuller longer...100cals of veg vs 100cals of chips
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,426 MFP Moderator
    RedheadedPrincess14 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    How do you determine that eating 100 calories of certain beverages or chocolate screws you up "long term"? How are you measuring that?

    I'm not sure how anyone could tie a long term problem to choosing 100 calories of certain foods on a specific day, especially if one is frequently exercising "more leeway" with other foods.

    Which studies are you referring to?
    Let me get my class notes and I'll try to find the exact studies. One of them explained how whole carbohydrates were harder to convert into body fat because of de novo lipogenesis, another was about resistant starch and how not all calories from these foods were absorbed and yet another (albeit, just a case control) showed men losing more weight on a diet rich in complex starch vs one high in fat. But I don't know... so many contradictory studies out there.

    The china study is one that fascinates me but again... a lot of conflicting information.

    While it's true that carbs are more metabolically taxing to convert to body fat, it should also be noted that carbs inhibit fat oxidation.

    And if anything will improve EE, it would be protein, followed by fiber as they are thermogenic and harder to or not able to be digested. Similarly, some nuts cannot be fully absorbed since we can't digest their membrane. Even so, it wouldn't be a huge impact and giving yourself a lot more leeway can lead to allowing yourself to overeat.
  • hesn92
    hesn92 Posts: 5,966 Member
    Who's to say which 100 calories were the ones that put you over your goal? It's about how many calories you eat overall, not which ones you ate last that day.
  • bribucks
    bribucks Posts: 431 Member
    Extra calories that put you over your deficit = weight gain. Period. That being said, what you eat of course determines your nutrients for the day and how you feel. 100 calories of broccoli is equal to 100 calories of chocolate .... but foods that are high in protein & fiber are going to make you feel a lot fuller than empty calories. Lots of people also believe that foods higher in sugar & sodium will actually make you crave MORE sugar & sodium, thus you may eat more in the long run (but I am no expert).
  • LAT1963
    LAT1963 Posts: 1,375 Member
    Things that give you a sugar-spike are less likely to keep you feeling satisfied and more likely to eat even more so your total overage goes up. When I go over it has to be something either really filling or a really outstanding treat that's worth the hiccup in loss rate.
  • Sophannah2017
    Sophannah2017 Posts: 29 Member
    I get you too, would fat content not have something to do with? There is little to no fat in 100 calories of broccoli but there would be for 100 calorie digestive caramel biscuit ....mmmm !!! Lol.
  • L1zardQueen
    L1zardQueen Posts: 8,753 Member
    brianneangell08 wrote: »
    Extra calories that put you over your deficit = weight gain. Period. That being said, what you eat of course determines your nutrients for the day and how you feel. 100 calories of broccoli is equal to 100 calories of chocolate .... but foods that are high in protein & fiber are going to make you feel a lot fuller than empty calories. Lots of people also believe that foods higher in sugar & sodium will actually make you crave MORE sugar & sodium, thus you may eat more in the long run (but I am no expert).

    If I were to choose between chocolate or broccoli, chocolate is the winner.

    I've already eaten a salad for lunch and some vegetables for dinner. Ooooh, I'm craving some broccoli! Right?!?
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Sophannah2017 wrote: »
    I get you too, would fat content not have something to do with? There is little to no fat in 100 calories of broccoli but there would be for 100 calorie digestive caramel biscuit ....mmmm !!! Lol.

    Your body can store non-fat calories as well as fat calories, so I don't think that would be a factor.
  • sarahshinks2233
    sarahshinks2233 Posts: 55 Member
    Possibly because of the fiber content? I know that for me, those types of snack foods cause me bloating and constipation, but the vegetables and starches wouldn't. That could possibly effect the scale. At least for the day and maybe a few days after, it might cause someone to weigh more.
  • SusanMFindlay
    SusanMFindlay Posts: 1,804 Member
    edited June 2017
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Sophannah2017 wrote: »
    I get you too, would fat content not have something to do with? There is little to no fat in 100 calories of broccoli but there would be for 100 calorie digestive caramel biscuit ....mmmm !!! Lol.

    Your body can store non-fat calories as well as fat calories, so I don't think that would be a factor.

    I thought they were getting at the satiation-from-fat factor? Which the chocolate would provide and the broccoli wouldn't.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    SusanMFindlay wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Sophannah2017 wrote: »
    I get you too, would fat content not have something to do with? There is little to no fat in 100 calories of broccoli but there would be for 100 calorie digestive caramel biscuit ....mmmm !!! Lol.

    Your body can store non-fat calories as well as fat calories, so I don't think that would be a factor.

    I thought they were getting at the satiation-from-fat factor? Which the chocolate would provide and the broccoli wouldn't.

    Oh, I thought they were agreeing with OP that eating 100 calories of certain foods (like a biscuit) would stall weight loss. I agree, for many people, 100 calories of chocolate would be a satisfying snack due to the fat.
  • inertiastrength
    inertiastrength Posts: 2,343 Member
    I think if anything it's the fibre. I'm always over on carbs by about 40-50g which accounts for my fibre so technically at 4 cals per gram that represents about 150 calories that I am not "digesting" but that's really splitting hairs.

    What you're probably noticing is when you eat vegetables and (I can't believe I'm about to use this term) "cleaner" foods like you describe you're probably not affecting your glycogen stores as much. If I'm hungry and I eat 100 calories of dip and celery vs 100 calories of chocolate the affect on FAT gain or loss is identical (save the 10 calories of fibre or whatever it might be if we really want to split hairs further) BUT going over in extra carbs will replenish a small amount of glycogen and you may see your body hold a bit of water for a day. I've noticed it going over 200 calories in carb heavy food and it's gone as quickly as it comes.

Categories