Is a calorie just a calorie?
Options
Replies
-
Geniuses are like thunderstorms. They go against the wind, terrify people, cleanse the air.Losing, gaining, or maintaining weight is entirely about energy balance. A calorie IS just a calorie. If you want to get into a more nuanced discussion of how different kinds of foods affect different people or the margin of error on nutrition labels or the nutritional difference between a raw chicken breast and a cooked one, then put a different label on it, because those discussions have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you can lose as much weight eating 2000 calories of processed food vs. 2000 calories of raw, whole food.
I think you're missing the point of the article (and the resulting discussion). I'm not putting it in terms of processed food versus whole foods, just one food versus another food.
See my points above -- the article's hypothesis (and I agree -- it's not very well written or well sourced, but it's not a medical journal, so I take what I can) is that the measurement of a calorie at the mouth provides an incorrect measurement of the amount of net calories the food puts into our system.
It's saying that 2000 calories at the mouth of food X might correspond to 1800 usable calories to our bodies (as there is a digestive cost in calories for everything we take in), whereas 2000 calories at the mouth of food Y might correspond to 1700 usable calories (as the digestive cost is different).
They're not arguing energy balance at all. If anything, they're arguing for a paradigm shift in how we measure calorie intake and TDEE - the hypothesis is "[o]ur current system for assessing calories is surely wrong".
Kierkegaard
Paradigm shifts can be scary when the minds are stagnant.0 -
From my research, which again means little, TEF is pretty much inconsequential in a fairly balanced diet. Of course if one was consuming a high refined carb and fat diet compared to a high protein and vegetable diet there could be a measurable difference. Even is we calculated TEF at say 10%, it's still falls well short of the basic counting calorie error of 20 to 50% by most of the population.........Losing, gaining, or maintaining weight is entirely about energy balance. A calorie IS just a calorie. If you want to get into a more nuanced discussion of how different kinds of foods affect different people or the margin of error on nutrition labels or the nutritional difference between a raw chicken breast and a cooked one, then put a different label on it, because those discussions have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you can lose as much weight eating 2000 calories of processed food vs. 2000 calories of raw, whole food.
I think you're missing the point of the article (and the resulting discussion). I'm not putting it in terms of processed food versus whole foods, just one food versus another food.
See my points above -- the article's hypothesis (and I agree -- it's not very well written or well sourced, but it's not a medical journal, so I take what I can) is that the measurement of a calorie at the mouth provides an incorrect measurement of the amount of net calories the food puts into our system.
It's saying that 2000 calories at the mouth of food X might correspond to 1800 usable calories to our bodies (as there is a digestive cost in calories for everything we take in), whereas 2000 calories at the mouth of food Y might correspond to 1700 usable calories (as the digestive cost is different).
They're not arguing energy balance at all. If anything, they're arguing for a paradigm shift in how we measure calorie intake and TDEE - the hypothesis is "[o]ur current system for assessing calories is surely wrong".0 -
For what it's worth, Alan Aragon is currently tackling this argument in the current AARR.
My cliffs notes opinions on this topic:
1) The argument itself usually consists of both sides taking their position to extremes resulting in both sides making fundamentally incorrect statements. Typical exclusion of the middle.
2) Calories are just units of energy but the amount of usable energy is not the same as the amount of energy the food contains before being consumed. Fortunately this isn't new information (TEF/DIT being one example)
But unless you're making quite significant shifts in macronutrient composition of the diet, I don't think it's likely that this difference in energy availability is going to be large. Will it make a difference if someone goes from consuming a very low protein diet to a moderate/high protein diet? Probably. Will it make a difference if someone shifts 20g from one macronutrient to another? Not so much.
Once you get going, get your calories and macronutrients set up intelligently, and start tracking with some degree of accuracy, a "simple" energy balance model can be quite accurate and reliable. If you just put your calories at X and eat w/e you want with no regard towards micro or macronutrition I'd argue you're doing it wrong to begin with.0 -
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!
It's full of contradiction with a quote from Ludwig at the end. No beuno.0 -
Losing, gaining, or maintaining weight is entirely about energy balance. A calorie IS just a calorie. If you want to get into a more nuanced discussion of how different kinds of foods affect different people or the margin of error on nutrition labels or the nutritional difference between a raw chicken breast and a cooked one, then put a different label on it, because those discussions have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you can lose as much weight eating 2000 calories of processed food vs. 2000 calories of raw, whole food.
I think you're missing the point of the article (and the resulting discussion). I'm not putting it in terms of processed food versus whole foods, just one food versus another food.
See my points above -- the article's hypothesis (and I agree -- it's not very well written or well sourced, but it's not a medical journal, so I take what I can) is that the measurement of a calorie at the mouth provides an incorrect measurement of the amount of net calories the food puts into our system.
It's saying that 2000 calories at the mouth of food X might correspond to 1800 usable calories to our bodies (as there is a digestive cost in calories for everything we take in), whereas 2000 calories at the mouth of food Y might correspond to 1700 usable calories (as the digestive cost is different).
They're not arguing energy balance at all. If anything, they're arguing for a paradigm shift in how we measure calorie intake and TDEE - the hypothesis is "[o]ur current system for assessing calories is surely wrong".
No, I'm one of the only people who even bothered to READ the article, so I'm not missing the point. The author of the article is missing the point. She IS arguing energy balance in the very first paragraph, and then she goes on to talk about something totally different.0 -
From my research, which again means little, TEF is pretty much inconsequential in a fairly balanced diet. Of course if one was consuming a high refined carb and fat diet compared to a high protein and vegetable diet there could be a measurable difference. Even is we calculated TEF at say 10%, it's still falls well short of the basic counting calorie error of 20 to 50% by most of the population.........
I'm inclined to agree with you, at least as my prediction of what a back-of-the-napkin type experiment would result in.
I just think, if someone is going to take a counter position to the article, they should at least grok what the article is saying. Most of our conversation (meaning, you and I) has taken into account the distinction between scientific knowledge and practical application, something that the article also mentions in the conclusion:Why does all of this matter? Because we’re in the midst of an obesity epidemic and counting calories has been misleading, said David Ludwig, a pediatric endocrinologist at Children’s Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School. How the body processes different foods in different ways matters. “The quality of calories is as important as the quantity of calories.” While others not on the panel welcome applying “the best science” to the problem of weight loss, they also provide a word of caution about getting too worried about precise calorie counts. “You can put a ton of effort into getting more accurate calorie counts,” says nutrition scientist Christopher Gardner of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. “But why are you doing this? Will it make a real difference? If you want to lose weight, you still have to cut back on calories.” A few calories here and there may not matter to most people. But to the panel members, every little bit counts.
The problem here is that the oft-repeated "all calories are the same" statement is either:
a. Pedantic, in that they're referring to a packet of energy, or
b. Simplistic, in that they're not taking into account all biological processes.
However, anything that challenges this notion must be intrinsically faulty and therefore, be attacked.
Upon the topic of whether or not the differences between foods that we've discussed actually matters at this point to an average Joe-Schmoe calorie counter, reasonable people can disagree, I think. We are absent much of the data that would allow us to form a consensus as to how much any of it actually has an impact on obesity and public health.
On the belief that any calorie is treated the same as any other calorie, though, I don't think that there can be a reasonable disagreement on that. We've known for years that that isn't the case.0 -
This is why I read articles like this one, but don't take them to heart. This discussion proves that points they make are so vague, that everybody seems to be interpreting them in their own way.
After years of trial and error I personally decided to KISS (keep it simple, stupid):
- calorie quantity for weight control
- calorie quality for general healthy
- exercise for general fitness and aesthetics
Works for me!0 -
No, I'm one of the only people who even bothered to READ the article, so I'm not missing the point. The author of the article is missing the point. She IS arguing energy balance in the very first paragraph, and then she goes on to talk about something totally different.
I quoted from the first paragraph of the article: "[o]ur current system for assessing calories is surely wrong" (emphasis mine).
That's not an argument against energy balance. That's an argument against our current methodologies of assessment -- i.e., how we count. An argument against energy balance would be an argument that attacks the fact that we count, at all.0 -
Losing, gaining, or maintaining weight is entirely about energy balance. A calorie IS just a calorie. If you want to get into a more nuanced discussion of how different kinds of foods affect different people or the margin of error on nutrition labels or the nutritional difference between a raw chicken breast and a cooked one, then put a different label on it, because those discussions have little, if anything, to do with whether or not you can lose as much weight eating 2000 calories of processed food vs. 2000 calories of raw, whole food.
I think you're missing the point of the article (and the resulting discussion). I'm not putting it in terms of processed food versus whole foods, just one food versus another food.
See my points above -- the article's hypothesis (and I agree -- it's not very well written or well sourced, but it's not a medical journal, so I take what I can) is that the measurement of a calorie at the mouth provides an incorrect measurement of the amount of net calories the food puts into our system.
It's saying that 2000 calories at the mouth of food X might correspond to 1800 usable calories to our bodies (as there is a digestive cost in calories for everything we take in), whereas 2000 calories at the mouth of food Y might correspond to 1700 usable calories (as the digestive cost is different).
They're not arguing energy balance at all. If anything, they're arguing for a paradigm shift in how we measure calorie intake and TDEE - the hypothesis is "[o]ur current system for assessing calories is surely wrong".
No, I'm one of the only people who even bothered to READ the article, so I'm not missing the point. The author of the article is missing the point. She IS arguing energy balance in the very first paragraph, and then she goes on to talk about something totally different.
Exactly. This is what I was referring to as contradictory. Also, in the beginning, it's stated how calorie counts are all wrong, then at the end, it says not to attempt precision in calorie-counting. And the point is that yes, you *can't* be exactly precise, but if you are careful, you can be damn close, and with a 500ish daily calorie deficit, that's close enough.0 -
For what it's worth, Alan Aragon is currently tackling this argument in the current AARR.
My cliffs notes opinions on this topic:
1) The argument itself usually consists of both sides taking their position to extremes resulting in both sides making fundamentally incorrect statements. Typical exclusion of the middle.
2) Calories are just units of energy but the amount of usable energy is not the same as the amount of energy the food contains before being consumed. Fortunately this isn't new information (TEF/DIT being one example)
But unless you're making quite significant shifts in macronutrient composition of the diet, I don't think it's likely that this difference in energy availability is going to be large. Will it make a difference if someone goes from consuming a very low protein diet to a moderate/high protein diet? Probably. Will it make a difference if someone shifts 20g from one macronutrient to another? Not so much.
Once you get going, get your calories and macronutrients set up intelligently, and start tracking with some degree of accuracy, a "simple" energy balance model can be quite accurate and reliable. If you just put your calories at X and eat w/e you want with no regard towards micro or macronutrition I'd argue you're doing it wrong to begin with.
Sidesteel summing up Aragon FTW!0 -
For what it's worth, Alan Aragon is currently tackling this argument in the current AARR.
My cliffs notes opinions on this topic:
1) The argument itself usually consists of both sides taking their position to extremes resulting in both sides making fundamentally incorrect statements. Typical exclusion of the middle.
2) Calories are just units of energy but the amount of usable energy is not the same as the amount of energy the food contains before being consumed. Fortunately this isn't new information (TEF/DIT being one example)
But unless you're making quite significant shifts in macronutrient composition of the diet, I don't think it's likely that this difference in energy availability is going to be large. Will it make a difference if someone goes from consuming a very low protein diet to a moderate/high protein diet? Probably. Will it make a difference if someone shifts 20g from one macronutrient to another? Not so much.
Once you get going, get your calories and macronutrients set up intelligently, and start tracking with some degree of accuracy, a "simple" energy balance model can be quite accurate and reliable. If you just put your calories at X and eat w/e you want with no regard towards micro or macronutrition I'd argue you're doing it wrong to begin with.
It's rare that I find myself in alignment with what you say, but I don't really disagree with anything in this post.
I guess, with a possible exception to point 1 being the two fronts that this topic can be discussed on. From a logical perspective, the excluded middle is an error. From a scientific perspective, we normally test at the boundaries to see if something is true, deliberately excluding the middle. Mainly because the science shouldn't be immediately concerned with the ramifications of a finding, but primarily concern itself with whether a given hypothesis is either true, or not.0 -
Exactly. This is what I was referring to as contradictory. Also, in the beginning, it's stated how calorie counts are all wrong, then at the end, it says not to attempt precision in calorie-counting. And the point is that yes, you *can't* be exactly precise, but if you are careful, you can be damn close, and with a 500ish daily calorie deficit, that's close enough.
I think where you and the other poster fail is that you read an article like this an immediately assume that it's taking a position that you are doing something wrong and need to do something about it.
What the article actually does, is this:
1. Points out that a school of thought is emerging that challenges the way we have conceptualized calorie counting.
2. Gives some history of how our current thinking came about
3. Gives some examples as to why some people are questioning whether our assessment model is correct
4. Concludes by saying that the differences might not make a difference for most people, and that doing things the way we currently do is still an acceptable method.
In short, you're ascribing a motive to the article where one may not exist.
Interestingly, you also high-fived SideSteel on his response, which actually goes a step further than the article and states that these effects may matter when dealing with large macronutrient shifts - something the article never argues.0 -
This thread is a typical example of why science isn't advancing quicker. Some individuals are driven by the need to prove others wrong and they enjoy dissecting the writings of others. They also refuse to take what is good in something, then build on top of that through brainstorming and acceptance of differing personalities. Instead they seek out the bad, harp on it endlessly and quit only once they feel like they "won". With the collective intelligence of this forum, mountains could be moved, but it never will, at least as long as people keep viewing each other as various sorts of rivals. Foldit consists of layman gamers yet they did something big together. Some scientists are too bookish and could use the experience from "the streets", whereas those who read popular science only could benefit from a laid-back dialogue with writers of research articles. Minds are small.0
-
I think many of us could benefit from not over complicating things.0
-
Exactly. This is what I was referring to as contradictory. Also, in the beginning, it's stated how calorie counts are all wrong, then at the end, it says not to attempt precision in calorie-counting. And the point is that yes, you *can't* be exactly precise, but if you are careful, you can be damn close, and with a 500ish daily calorie deficit, that's close enough.
I think where you and the other poster fail is that you read an article like this an immediately assume that it's taking a position that you are doing something wrong and need to do something about it.
What the article actually does, is this:
1. Points out that a school of thought is emerging that challenges the way we have conceptualized calorie counting.
2. Gives some history of how our current thinking came about
3. Gives some examples as to why some people are questioning whether our assessment model is correct
4. Concludes by saying that the differences might not make a difference for most people, and that doing things the way we currently do is still an acceptable method.
In short, you're ascribing a motive to the article where one may not exist.
Interestingly, you also high-fived SideSteel on his response, which actually goes a step further than the article and states that these effects may matter when dealing with large macronutrient shifts - something the article never argues.
Well you thought wrong. I agree that calorie counting can not be precise. I agree that Americans have a wrong conception about calories. (before MFP, I did too) I am not ascribing a motive, simply pointing out the contradictions.0 -
I think many of us could benefit from not over complicating things.
:drinker:0 -
Well you thought wrong. I agree that calorie counting can not be precise. I agree that Americans have a wrong conception about calories. (before MFP, I did too) I am not ascribing a motive, simply pointing out the contradictions.
I guess it's possible, but unlikely. You're pointing out contradictions in the article where none exist.0 -
This thread is a typical example of why science isn't advancing quicker. Some individuals are driven by the need to prove others wrong and they enjoy dissecting the writings of others. They also refuse to take what is good in something, then build on top of that through brainstorming and acceptance of differing personalities. Instead they seek out the bad, harp on it endlessly and quit only once they feel like they "won". With the collective intelligence of this forum, mountains could be moved, but it never will, at least as long as people keep viewing each other as various sorts of rivals. Foldit consists of layman gamers yet they did something big together. Some scientists are too bookish and could use the experience from "the streets", whereas those who read popular science only could benefit from a laid-back dialogue with writers of research articles. Minds are small.
Oh I disagree completely, and not just to be contrary. Dissent and competition are whats drives science and humans forward. The desire to excel, find answers etc...that is what makes us high on the food chain. Only when we question what we know do we surpass our current knowledge. Hell even in non-scientific fields we are taught to question, my very wise priest told me when you question your faith, that is when you have your first religious experience. So, yes, I strongly disagree with your statement. We are all rivals for knowledge, competitors for health...and that is what makes us great! Can we also be kind and supportive, hell to the YES!0 -
I think many of us could benefit from not over complicating things.
Yes, and when someone makes a post that says, "hey, I'm completely new to this and I want to lose some weight," my response will be based on practical application of the science behind weight loss and will likely be very simple.
This post is about the science itself. Simplification doesn't benefit anyone -- if you'd like to have a simple conversation about applying the science, you can. It's just not the conversation this article sparked, nor should it.0 -
This thread is a typical example of why science isn't advancing quicker. Some individuals are driven by the need to prove others wrong and they enjoy dissecting the writings of others. They also refuse to take what is good in something, then build on top of that through brainstorming and acceptance of differing personalities. Instead they seek out the bad, harp on it endlessly and quit only once they feel like they "won". With the collective intelligence of this forum, mountains could be moved, but it never will, at least as long as people keep viewing each other as various sorts of rivals. Foldit consists of layman gamers yet they did something big together. Some scientists are too bookish and could use the experience from "the streets", whereas those who read popular science only could benefit from a laid-back dialogue with writers of research articles. Minds are small.
Oh I disagree completely, and not just to be contrary. Dissent and competition are whats drives science and humans forward. The desire to excel, find answers etc...that is what makes us high on the food chain. Only when we question what we know do we surpass our current knowledge. Hell even in non-scientific fields we are taught to question, my very wise priest told me when you question your faith, that is when you have your first religious experience. So, yes, I strongly disagree with your statement. We are all rivals for knowledge, competitors for health...and that is what makes us great! Can we also be kind and supportive, hell to the YES!
I'm not sure you two disagree, though I think the first post was rather inelegantly phrased at that point. Putting a bunch of people in a room to have a discussion is a much better exercise if significant disagreement exists, especially in the realm of novel science. You test hypothesis, and rule out ones that don't work. I don't think the first post would disagree with that at all.
It is important, though, that everyone in the room is actually having the same conversation, which is something that is lost frequently. It doesn't just occur here, though the internet likely magnifies the experience. It's like saying, "OK, we're going to have a conversation about the best type of socks to wear for hiking. A handful of people are proponents of wool socks, a handful are proponents of cotton socks, a handful are a proponent of synthetic fibers, and are arguing the merits of each. A fourth group is sitting in the corner yelling "SOCKS ARE AWESOME, YOU SHOULD WEAR THEM!" Technically not something anyone in the room would disagree with, but completely besides the point, because that's not the conversation that everyone else is having.
Among the first three groups, if they're science minded, they'd eventually design a few experiments, run them, and see what the data says -- then make a conclusion. The fourth group would be, and should be, left out. They're not interested in the discussion the other group is having.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