are all calories equal?

emilyhultin

something i’ve kind of been wondering about for awhile now, and i’d love feedback!

are all calories equal? what i mean is, if you eat 200 calories of something filling, like chicken breast, versus 200 calories of something with no nutritional value and not filling, like a snickers bar, will the chicken breast cause you to gain more weight since you get more full? i’m not sure if i phrased that right, but i hope someone will understand the point i’m trying to make and help me out!

also, feel free to add me!

malibu927

A calorie is a unit of energy. 200 calories is equal to 200 calories and the Snickers and the chicken breast will have the same effect on weight loss/gain.

Nutrition-wise, though? Yeah they're different.

kgirlhart

It won't affect your weight loss, but you might be hungry if you use all of your calories on candy. Just balance it out. Most people can fit both the chicken and the snickers bar into their day. At the end of the day 200 calories is 200 calories and feeling full or not doesn't make a difference in weight gain/loss.

estherdragonbat

What others are saying. For weight loss, all that matters are the calories. Eat below your break-even point, whether it's lean protein and whole grains or chips and chocolate and you will lose. Eat above it and you'll gain.

For nutrition, energy, satiety, certain fitness goals, and probably some other stuff, what you eat matters. That being said, as long as you're eating mostly healthy, you can fit some treats in, too.

WinoGelato

Why do you ask OP? Every time you eat chicken do you intend to replace it with a Snickers Bar?

emilyhultin

WinoGelato wrote: »

Why do you ask OP? Every time you eat chicken do you intend to replace it with a Snickers Bar?

i was just using those examples, my point was really asking if one food makes you more full than another does it also contribute more to your weight. i know chicken is a much better choice than candy

PAV8888

If one food makes me feel MORE FULL for the SAME CALORIES then it gets BONUS POINTS in my world.

Because I am mostly going around wanting to be as full as possible for as few calories as possible, especially when trying to lose weight!

Your energy balance (amount of Caloric surplus or deficit) over a long enough period of time is what determines whether and how much weight you will lose or gain.

Making optimum choices is what determines whether you're going to manage to achieve the caloric balance you're aiming for.

To answer your question, 200 Calories are 200 Calories in terms of the energy they provide you with.

But if you want to feel more full for a longer period of time, some foods will do that better than others. And if you want to get a quick burst of immediate energy other foods will achieve that better--even though both foods may provide you with the same number of Calories.

WinoGelato

emilyhultin wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Why do you ask OP? Every time you eat chicken do you intend to replace it with a Snickers Bar?

i was just using those examples, my point was really asking if one food makes you more full than another does it also contribute more to your weight. i know chicken is a much better choice than candy

No, but satiety is a part of the total equation for how to build a healthy diet - one that is calorie appropriate for your goals, provides adequate nutrition, and that you find satiating and enjoyable.

Also - don’t compare foods in isolation. A lean chicken breast provides protein - sure. But a snickers bar provides carbs, fat, and some protein. Should you build a diet of exclusively snickers bar? No of course not. Should you build a diet exclusively of chicken? No of course not. But neither should you always compare individual foods and try to assess which one is “better”. It’s all about how it fits in the context of your overall diet.

L1zardQueen

The poor Snickers bar. I love them in a pinch.

kimny72

L1zardQueen wrote: »

The poor Snickers bar. I love them in a pinch.

Lol I was going to say I'd find a Snickers more filling than a chicken breast!

OP, 200 calories of a filling food won't make you gain more weight than 200 cals of a non-filling food. But obviously if you eat a lot of non-filling foods you are more likely to overeat.

The trick is, different people find different foods filling. So you have to find your own personal combo to stay reasonably satiated at the right amount of calories.

amusedmonkey

Energy-wise, calories are the same, so the same calories of anything will produce roughly the same weight control result. Nutrient-wise, foods with similar calories have different nutrient. Satiety-wise, foods that have similar calories will produce different satiety for different people. How full you are doesn't have an effect on weight loss in any way other than your ability to stick to a diet. Being more full eating something doesn't mean you will gain more weight from it.

kommodevaran

I have never heard that version before - the myth of "a calorie is not a calorie" is usually the other way around, 200 calories of chicken being less "fattening" because it makes you more full. To add to the great insight you've already received, feeling full is not a guarantee you're not going to overeat. Healthy weightloss is not about starving yourself, so satiety shouldn't be an issue in the first place - we eat for a number of reasons, not just hunger. Even the most perfectly composed diet can make you crave something else, because hunger and appetite is not the same. If you feel miserable and deprived, you want to eat, and eat and eat. That's not compatible with a weight loss goal. So in order to stay mentally healthy, you need to feel free to eat food you like, and some of that food can be, for instance, in the form of a Snickers bar.

sijomial

Your long term calorie balance determines your weight loss/gain/maintenance.
Feeling more full may cause to consume less calories, some people got fat because they ate too much despite feeling full, some people got fat because they felt the need to keep eating until they felt full, for some people feeling full helps make calorie adherence easier...

The word calories cannot be used interchangeably with the word foods. Two different things and you will just completely confuse yourself if you do.
How can a Snickers bar have "no nutritional value" when it has all three macro-nutrients protein, fat and carbohydrates? Different nutritional values compared to other foods but not none. Read the packaging and check out the box that says nutritional information - it's a good habit to understand what you are eating.

There's times a chicken breast is more appropriate and there's times a Snickers is more appropriate - you can fit both into your overall healthy diet, it's really not a binary choice and it's also not a moral choice of good foods versus bad foods.

I stopped to resupply on a long cycle ride recently and bought a couple of bottles of sports drinks and a couple of Snickers to get me the 40+ miles back home. Chomping on a chicken breast wouldn't have been a great choice of fuel in that situation!
Just like replacing the chicken breast in my evening meal with a Snickers would have been weird.

tennisdude2004

emilyhultin wrote: »

something i’ve kind of been wondering about for awhile now, and i’d love feedback!

are all calories equal? what i mean is, if you eat 200 calories of something filling, like chicken breast, versus 200 calories of something with no nutritional value and not filling, like a snickers bar, will the chicken breast cause you to gain more weight since you get more full? i’m not sure if i phrased that right, but i hope someone will understand the point i’m trying to make and help me out!

also, feel free to add me!

Yes - in that they are a unit of energy.

No - some sources of where the calories come from are more beneficial to the body than others.

vollkornbloedchen

I hold this truth to be self-evident that all calories are created equal ...

What differs is the nutritional value of food, and its caloric density.

You wouldn't dare to ask if all miles are equal, just because it takes so much longer to make the distance walking than it takes by car, would you?

AnvilHead

A calorie (actually a kilocalorie when we're talking about food) is a measurement with a very specific, scientifically established definition.

Whether you eat 300 kilocalories of chicken or 300 kilocalories of a Snickers bar, you have consumed 300 kilocalories.

A calorie, simply being a unit of measure, does not inherently contain any particular macro or micronutrients - those are a completely different discussion. Nor is any calorie inherently 'good' or 'bad', or 'healthy' or 'unhealthy'.

Weight loss is determined purely by the law of energy balance - if you consume less calories than you expend over time, you will lose weight. Period. That is a scientifically proven fact. Other factors such as nutrition, general health, satiety, adherence, energy/workout performance, body composition, socioeconomic factors, etc. are not part of the "calorie" discussion, although they are certainly germane in a broader view of health and weight management.

In terms of energy balance, all calories are equal. When it comes to comparing the nutritional factors of different foods containing equivalent numbers of calories, that's quite a different story, and an entirely different topic.

fuzacoza

300 calories from chocolate will affect your hormones differently from say eating 300 calories worth from fruit and veggies surely? Glycemic Index, insulin spikes etc. are factors. Then there is also taking in purely from fat sources, i.e. Keto? Carbs raise insulin that requires more water for distribution ala water retention.

amusedmonkey

fuzacoza wrote: »

300 calories from chocolate will affect your hormones differently from say eating 300 calories worth from fruit and veggies surely? Glycemic Index, insulin spikes etc. are factors. Then there is also taking in purely from fat sources, i.e. Keto? Carbs raise insulin that requires more water for distribution ala water retention.

I advise you to read the previous replies.

neugebauer52

BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)

CarvedTones

neugebauer52 wrote: »

BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)

Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.

snickerscharlie

CarvedTones wrote: »

neugebauer52 wrote: »

BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)

Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.

Source, please.