Is a calorie just a calorie?
Options
milesvictors
Posts: 83 Member
Interesting article challenging the "a calorie is a calorie is a calorie" argument:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/02/calorie-counting/
I personally agree with this article, that the quality of calories is just as important as the quantity. Discussion?
Ready.....GO!
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/02/calorie-counting/
I personally agree with this article, that the quality of calories is just as important as the quantity. Discussion?
Ready.....GO!
0
Replies
-
There isn't enough science in the article to take a stand in my opinion, but anything that even smells of paradigm shift is interesting. Thanks for posting the link! The reader comments are worth taking a glance at, as well.0
-
a calorie IS just a calorie, its not even a debate.
how you are effected by the quality of the FOOD is simply down to the person. Some people can get jacked on poptarts because it doesnt affect their energy in the gym and they can still give their full pump, some will be so un energized and feel like chit and wont cope at all.
the ONLY difference beyond your personal responses to certain foods in your system is how the body processes some food, some are processed easier than others and some consume more energy to digest than others. However the calorie difference between "hard" to process and "easy" to process foods is so insignificant that it is really bein padantic to then justify telling an overweight person that a calorie is not just a calorie0 -
Did you read the article? Because to me it sounds like you didn't.a calorie IS just a calorie, its not even a debate.
how you are effected by the quality of the FOOD is simply down to the person. Some people can get jacked on poptarts because it doesnt affect their energy in the gym and they can still give their full pump, some will be so un energized and feel like chit and wont cope at all.
the ONLY difference beyond your personal responses to certain foods in your system is how the body processes some food, some are processed easier than others and some consume more energy to digest than others. However the calorie difference between "hard" to process and "easy" to process foods is so insignificant that it is really bein padantic to then justify telling an overweight person that a calorie is not just a calorie0 -
pedantic. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
that word always cracks me up.
don't judge me. :huh:0 -
Oh I'm so judging you right now.pedantic. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
that word always cracks me up.
don't judge me. :huh:0 -
Did you read the article? Because to me it sounds like you didn't.
yes i did.. your point?0 -
Calorie is still a calorie...
Yes, some foods take more energy to digest. But that does not means that there is less calories or that calories are not the same... they just are used to digest food. Therefore, calorie is still a calorie.
Calorie is just a unit to measure energy in food. Just because some of it is used doesnt mean it's less of it in food or that it is any different.0 -
a calorie IS just a calorie, its not even a debate.
how you are effected by the quality of the FOOD is simply down to the person. Some people can get jacked on poptarts because it doesnt affect their energy in the gym and they can still give their full pump, some will be so un energized and feel like chit and wont cope at all.
the ONLY difference beyond your personal responses to certain foods in your system is how the body processes some food, some are processed easier than others and some consume more energy to digest than others. However the calorie difference between "hard" to process and "easy" to process foods is so insignificant that it is really bein padantic to then justify telling an overweight person that a calorie is not just a calorie
NO ONE is getting jacked on JUST pop tarts.
Come on dude. Macros matter.0 -
We have always known that the calories of energy that actually become available for your activities don't match the label exactly; lots of things affect how efficiently the energy gets converted and they just use a reasonable average to arrive at the number. It's one of those things I have always figured is likely to cancel out by random chance; some foods will give you more than the label says, some less. I think people get hung up on tweaking the details too much. there might be something to it, but it isn't what is keeping obese people from losing weight.0
-
Calorie is still a calorie...
Yes, some foods take more energy to digest. But that does not means that there is less calories or that calories are not the same... they just are used to digest food. Therefore, calorie is still a calorie.
Calorie is just a unit to measure energy in food. Just because some of it is used doesnt mean it's less of it in food or that it is any different.
This is one of those things that's technically true, but misses the point.
Yes, we all know a calorie is a unit of energy that's always equal to 4.18 joules regardless of anything else. However, in the context in which we are speaking -- nutrition, calorie counting, and weight loss -- asking if a "calorie is just a calorie" has an obviously different meaning. The question is, "does 2000 calories of food X have the same effect on me as 2000 calories of food Y?"
If one takes the article's hypothesis, they are saying that food X might have a lower overall net calorie count than food Y, based on digestion and other processes. So if food X takes 200 calories to digest, feed the bacteria in your intestine, etc., and food Y takes 100 calories to do the same, the net result would be 1800 bioavailable calories for food X, and 1900 bioavailable calories for food Y.
This seems to make reasonable sense, as a view of calorie intake at the point of the mouth is overly simplistic for a mechanism as complicated as our digestion and metabolism, in my opinion.0 -
EDIT0
-
Calorie is still a calorie...
Yes, some foods take more energy to digest. But that does not means that there is less calories or that calories are not the same... they just are used to digest food. Therefore, calorie is still a calorie.
Calorie is just a unit to measure energy in food. Just because some of it is used doesnt mean it's less of it in food or that it is any different.
This is one of those things that's technically true, but misses the point.
Yes, we all know a calorie is a unit of energy that's always equal to 4.18 joules regardless of anything else. However, in the context in which we are speaking -- nutrition, calorie counting, and weight loss -- asking if a "calorie is just a calorie" has an obviously different meaning. The question is, "does 2000 calories of food X have the same effect on me as 2000 calories of food Y?"
If one takes the article's hypothesis, they are saying that food X might have a lower overall net calorie count than food Y, based on digestion and other processes. So if food X takes 200 calories to digest, feed the bacteria in your intestine, etc., and food Y takes 100 calories to do the same, the net result would be 1800 bioavailable calories for food X, and 1900 bioavailable calories for food Y.
This seems to make reasonable sense, as a view of calorie intake at the point of the mouth is overly simplistic for a mechanism as complicated as our digestion and metabolism, in my opinion.
Thermogenesis again whats new?
Proteins will require more energy to digest . Now they going on to say that protein from beef vs protein from chicken breast may have a different digestion because the TYPE of protein?
or saturated fat from coconut oil vs saturated fat from butter will have a different effect ?0 -
This. It's a bit like systems (isolated, closed, open) in thermodynamics; takes counting calories to another level. But this obviously is hard to digest if one is very anal about counting them.Calorie is still a calorie...
Yes, some foods take more energy to digest. But that does not means that there is less calories or that calories are not the same... they just are used to digest food. Therefore, calorie is still a calorie.
Calorie is just a unit to measure energy in food. Just because some of it is used doesnt mean it's less of it in food or that it is any different.
This is one of those things that's technically true, but misses the point.
Yes, we all know a calorie is a unit of energy that's always equal to 4.18 joules regardless of anything else. However, in the context in which we are speaking -- nutrition, calorie counting, and weight loss -- asking if a "calorie is just a calorie" has an obviously different meaning. The question is, "does 2000 calories of food X have the same effect on me as 2000 calories of food Y?"
If one takes the article's hypothesis, they are saying that food X might have a lower overall net calorie count than food Y, based on digestion and other processes. So if food X takes 200 calories to digest, feed the bacteria in your intestine, etc., and food Y takes 100 calories to do the same, the net result would be 1800 bioavailable calories for food X, and 1900 bioavailable calories for food Y.
This seems to make reasonable sense, as a view of calorie intake at the point of the mouth is overly simplistic for a mechanism as complicated as our digestion and metabolism, in my opinion.0 -
Some of us haven't read very much on this topic yet. Good for you for being so informed.:huh: Read the article . They still saying that a calorie is a calorie but only difference is a human being is not the same as every other human being and we all digest calories at different rates etc... Yes obviously metabolism , genetics , age , gender , height etc... will have an influence on the final amount of calories you consume
Whats new?0 -
The argument and confusion between a calorie is a calorie and not all calories are created equal, again.0
-
It's interesting, but I think they got it all wrong. I agree, unprocessed foods are (or may be) better than processed, cause (apparently) it takes more energy to break it down (I guess for processing our food in the ovens we use the energy our guts would use otherwise, but hey, I'm not up for eating raw meat, thank you very very much). And yes, there are other factors involved, gut bacterias and many more.
Still... a calorie is a calorie. Because of all the factors involved, counting calories in/out will always be a guesstimation. But the rule of thumb is: if you eat ie. 1500 calories (from whatever sources) and you gain, you're in surplus, if you lose, you're in deficit. Even if you eat superclean and superhealthy and your body uses more energy to process unprocessed foods, if you eat too many calories total, you'll gain weight. So I'm unsure what is it they're trying to prove in the article...0 -
Agreed.
According to the article
Example:
500cal from a big mac vs 500cal from chicken and rice
The 500cal from chicken and rice may require more energy to digest hence putting you in a further deficit . ACCORDING to the article .0 -
It's interesting, but I think they got it all wrong. I agree, unprocessed foods are (or may be) better than processed, cause (apparently) it takes more energy to break it down (I guess for processing our food in the ovens we use the energy our guts would use otherwise, but hey, I'm not up for eating raw meat, thank you very very much). And yes, there are other factors involved, gut bacterias and many more.
Still... a calorie is a calorie. Because of all the factors involved, counting calories in/out will always be a guesstimation. But the rule of thumb is: if you eat ie. 1500 calories (from whatever sources) and you gain, you're in surplus, if you lose, you're in deficit. Even if you eat superclean and superhealthy and your body uses more energy to process unprocessed foods, if you eat too many calories total, you'll gain weight. So I'm unsure what is it they're trying to prove in the article...
I think the point of the article is actually to push back against that 1500 calories notion, depending on how you're measuring.
I'm going to take it as an assumption that you're referring to traditional calorie counting -- looking at the package for calories, or weighing, or whatnot -- measuring your calorie intake at the mouth, which is how we normally do it.
For sake of discussion, let's define a "bioavailability percentage" as "the amount of calories of energy you intake, minus the amount of calories used for the biological processes necessary to digest it" -- i.e., a net calorie count.
If food X is 80% bioavailable, and food Y is 90% bioavailable -- if you're eating 1500 calories a day of food Y (as measured at the mouth) and not losing weight, the article leads to the hypothesis that you could switch to eating 1500 calories a day of food X (with lower bioavailability) and lose weight, simply due to the different food. That's a pretty big change from the way most people (at least, here) view calories and caloric intake.0 -
A calorie is a unit of measure, so yeah, a calorie is a calorie, a gram is a gram and a cup is something weird Americans use.0
-
a calorie is just a calorie...quality does not matter, quantity does...
Is the article saying that you can eat a caloric surplus of "quality" calories and you won't gain?
You can eat + 3500 a week of "quality" calories, and you will gain one pound a week....
If you don't believe me try it and see what happens..
so a calorie is a calorie...which is a measure of energy ..eat too many, you gain; eat too few, you lose..0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions