All calories are not the same

mmipanda

I'm going to sleep now but i'm bumping this in hopes i get an answer in the morning.

wild_wild_life

Then talk about nutritional density of food not calories. Get the language right and your arguement holds more sway.

Because some of us continued on with science beyond 7th grade

Too bad you dropped English though, hey?:ohwell:

People talk in calories all the time because it is an easily measurable unit. Perhaps it would be easier to accept that by 'calories' people on a weight-loss forum generally mean 'food' rather than 'heat energy'. Then we can get past the definition issue.

250 calories of white sugar will be processed by the body in a different way to 250 calories of chicken breast. Yes? Agreed?

Its more complicated than 'nutritional density' - take the GI factor for an example. I'm sure you can find food with similar nutritional density but at opposite ends of the GI scale. So I find your adoption of that phrase as inadequate as you find the use of the word 'calories'

I don't think "calories" can be taken as the equivalent of "food" in any context. No one denies nutritional variability.

To answer your other question, the body digests and metabolizes different foods differently, and different foods contain different nutrients. Again, no one would argue that. However, the basic unit of energy that food provides is by definition a calorie and this, by definition, does not vary between different sources of food.

I think it is a non-argument over semantics.

StacyReneO

Calories are calories are calories. How you choose to use those calories is the ONLY difference.

BrainyBurro

Of course 250 calories of white sugar will be processed differently That is straight carbs and will be stored as glycogen for the body to use as a preferred source of energy.

chicken breast is mainly composed of different amino acids which functions are long and extensive.

What does the outdated Glycemic index have anything to do with this?

good, we agree. The two SOURCES of calories are vastly different, therefore the calories themselves are used in different ways in the body. Is it so much of a stretch for someone to then say that these two lots of calories are different?

yes it is too much of a stretch.

a calorie is a unit of energy. that's all. it has no other meaning than that.

tigersword

Of course 250 calories of white sugar will be processed differently That is straight carbs and will be stored as glycogen for the body to use as a preferred source of energy.

chicken breast is mainly composed of different amino acids which functions are long and extensive.

What does the outdated Glycemic index have anything to do with this?

good, we agree. The two SOURCES of calories are vastly different, therefore the calories themselves are used in different ways in the body. Is it so much of a stretch for someone to then say that these two lots of calories are different?

Yes. Is it much of a stretch to say that 6 inches of chain and 6 inches of rope are different lengths? Of course it is, because they are the same. Calories are units of measure, a unit of measure will always be equivalent to an identical unit of measure.

mmipanda

There are dozens of threads made every day about calories. They are talking about the SOURCE of calories. But everyone just parrots the same 'a calorie is a unit of measurement, a calorie is a calorie' phrases and doesn't volunteer any useful information. Even in response to me TRYING to get you guys to understand what the OPs mean, you literally use the exact same stock sentences. Its like talking to brainwashed people.

6 inches of lace and 6 inches of chain are the same length, but structurally different. You can't therefore call them the same thing. You can't use lace in place of chain. If someone is asking which they need to use for a task, telling them 'an inch of lace is the same as an inch of chain' isn't particularly helpful, is it?

To help everyone out maybe I should go round clarifying everyones posts. "Hey guys, I know they just said calories but they're talking about their source of caloric intake! "

wild_wild_life

There are dozens of threads made every day about calories. They are talking about the SOURCE of calories. But everyone just parrots the same 'a calorie is a unit of measurement, a calorie is a calorie' phrases and doesn't volunteer any useful information. Even in response to me TRYING to get you guys to understand what the OPs mean, you literally use the exact same stock sentences. Its like talking to brainwashed people.

6 inches of lace and 6 inches of chain are the same length, but structurally different. You can't therefore call them the same thing. You can't use lace in place of chain. If someone is asking which they need to use for a task, telling them 'an inch of lace is the same as an inch of chain' isn't particularly helpful, is it?

To help everyone out maybe I should go round clarifying everyones posts. "Hey guys, I know they just said calories but they're talking about their source of caloric intake! "

Everyone knew what the OP meant and many did clarify his statement for him. The fact that foods vary in their nutritional benefit is hardly worth starting a thread over. The OP wasn't asking for help or advice on how to allot his calories, he was trying to start an argument. There is plenty of advice on the boards regarding macro and micronutrients and food choices, I don't think people are ignoring this aspect at all.

But I do respect your tenacious, if possibly misplaced, defense of the OP!

BrainyBurro

There are dozens of threads made every day about calories. They are talking about the SOURCE of calories. But everyone just parrots the same 'a calorie is a unit of measurement, a calorie is a calorie' phrases and doesn't volunteer any useful information. Even in response to me TRYING to get you guys to understand what the OPs mean, you literally use the exact same stock sentences. Its like talking to brainwashed people.

6 inches of lace and 6 inches of chain are the same length, but structurally different. You can't therefore call them the same thing. You can't use lace in place of chain. If someone is asking which they need to use for a task, telling them 'an inch of lace is the same as an inch of chain' isn't particularly helpful, is it?

To help everyone out maybe I should go round clarifying everyones posts. "Hey guys, I know they just said calories but they're talking about their source of caloric intake! "

then use words that mean the concept you are trying to express.

for example, you could say this: "For a given caloric intake, not all combinations of food & drink are nutritionally equivalent."

nobody would argue with that statement.

mmipanda

There are dozens of threads made every day about calories. They are talking about the SOURCE of calories. But everyone just parrots the same 'a calorie is a unit of measurement, a calorie is a calorie' phrases and doesn't volunteer any useful information. Even in response to me TRYING to get you guys to understand what the OPs mean, you literally use the exact same stock sentences. Its like talking to brainwashed people.

6 inches of lace and 6 inches of chain are the same length, but structurally different. You can't therefore call them the same thing. You can't use lace in place of chain. If someone is asking which they need to use for a task, telling them 'an inch of lace is the same as an inch of chain' isn't particularly helpful, is it?

To help everyone out maybe I should go round clarifying everyones posts. "Hey guys, I know they just said calories but they're talking about their source of caloric intake! "

then use words that mean the concept you are trying to express.

for example, you could say this: "For a given caloric intake, not all combinations of food & drink are nutritionally equivalent."

nobody would argue with that statement.

I think I have been very clear in expressing exactly what I mean. Your problem lies with the users on this site who say 'calories' when they mean 'the source of calories'. Doesn't change the fact that the 'calories are calories' responses are boring, unhelpful and repetitive.

MelissaPhippsFeagins

You're right. Quinoa is nasty, pizza is not. Therefore, they are not the same.

LOL!!!! Quinoa is the one gluten free grain that I cannot make myself eat and I have celiac disease. Of course, most GF pizza crust is nasty too and what isn't is prohibitively expensive. Maybe I'll treat myself once every three months.

I get what the OP is saying - we had a going away party for two coworkers today who are moving to new towns and new jobs, the amount of "junk" calories I ate today is astounding. It's also within my calorie budget. Not a big deal, next snack day will be Thanksgiving or Christmas.

If you look at my diary my macro nutrients will look all out of whack on most days because I have celiac disease. My struggles...I can get out of bed in the morning, exercise most days, haven't dropped a full coffee cup in a year and my anemia is t-h-i-s close to resolved - two years none of those things were true. I take a multivitamin and move on with my life. It works for me - whole grains mostly don't.

Physically speaking, a calorie is a calorie. Nutritionally speaking, some choices are better than others, but even those rules aren't universal. Whole grain muesli or shrimp are real killers for me...much more dangerous than too much sodium, fat or sugar eaten in the same span of time would be.

tuckeraim

Agreed! The quality of the calories is completely different. Items containing high carbs leave most people feeling very tired. Higher protein sustains us longer. So if I eat 250 calories worth of chicken breast versus 250 calories of cookies, the chicken breast meal is gonna get me a lot more bang for my buck

janetteluparia

With respect to nutrient value only. Calories are a measurement of energy. Your body is designed to use carbohydrates as fuel first. The more substance to the carbohydrate the slower it is to digest and convert to fuel. Protein is used by every cell in your body but will not likely be used as energy until the carb stores (Muscle glycogen and liver stores) are used up. Fat of course is last and must have an appropriate environment for use as fuel. So.....250 calories is 250 calories but you are correct, all calories are NOT the same. I am a nutritionist and am qualified to dispense nutrition information.

cminhp

Satiety is one reason a calorie is not a calorie
Also your body processes food differently if you eat 300 calories if protein you might store 100 calories.
If you ate 300 calories of junk you would store more calories and in addition to that you would get hungry sooner.

Minnie2361

Interesting read, take out of it what you will. Personally for me all calories are the same based on what i eat.

One dogma that has contributed to the ever-worsening health of the Western world is the belief that “a calorie is a calorie.” This simply isn’t true. The idea that obesity is the end result of eating too much and exercising too little; i.e. consuming more calories than you’re expending, is also false.
Fructose is 'isocaloric but not isometabolic." This means you can have the same amount of calories from fructose or glucose, fructose and protein, or fructose and fat, but the metabolic effect will be entirely different despite the identical calorie count.
Eight primary diseases related to metabolic dysfunction include type 2 diabetes, hypertension, lipid problems, heart disease, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, polysystic ovarian syndrome, cancer, and dementia. Obesity is a marker for all of them, and these eight diseases account for a staggering 75 percent of the healthcare costs in the US.
20 percent of obese people have perfectly normal metabolic functioning, and the excess weight will not affect their overall lifespan. However, the MAJORITY of obese people—about 80 percent of them—do not have normal metabolic function, and 40 percent of normal-weight people also suffer from metabolic dysfunction, and are therefore prone to these obesity-related diseases. All in all, metabolic dysfunction affects a clear majority of Americans, and the faulty dogmatic belief that all calories are the same has contributed to the rise in metabolic dysfunction

Super post, you get it.

ironanimal

Satiety is one reason a calorie is not a calorie
Also your body processes food differently if you eat 300 calories if protein you might store 100 calories.
If you ate 300 calories of junk you would store more calories and in addition to that you would get hungry sooner.

You're telling me protein has a TEF of 66%?

stumblinthrulife

Interesting read, take out of it what you will. Personally for me all calories are the same based on what i eat.

One dogma that has contributed to the ever-worsening health of the Western world is the belief that “a calorie is a calorie.” This simply isn’t true. The idea that obesity is the end result of eating too much and exercising too little; i.e. consuming more calories than you’re expending, is also false.
Fructose is 'isocaloric but not isometabolic." This means you can have the same amount of calories from fructose or glucose, fructose and protein, or fructose and fat, but the metabolic effect will be entirely different despite the identical calorie count.
Eight primary diseases related to metabolic dysfunction include type 2 diabetes, hypertension, lipid problems, heart disease, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, polysystic ovarian syndrome, cancer, and dementia. Obesity is a marker for all of them, and these eight diseases account for a staggering 75 percent of the healthcare costs in the US.
20 percent of obese people have perfectly normal metabolic functioning, and the excess weight will not affect their overall lifespan. However, the MAJORITY of obese people—about 80 percent of them—do not have normal metabolic function, and 40 percent of normal-weight people also suffer from metabolic dysfunction, and are therefore prone to these obesity-related diseases. All in all, metabolic dysfunction affects a clear majority of Americans, and the faulty dogmatic belief that all calories are the same has contributed to the rise in metabolic dysfunction

Super post, you get it.

Yeah! There's no way in heck that just by eating less and working out that I could possibly lose 62 pounds of fat; lower my cholesterol, blood pressure and resting heart rate; and get stronger, faster, and increase my endurance. All while eating the foods I enjoy and just I hit my macros and calorie goal. You totally got it!

<looks at diary, ticker and latest blood test and fitness test results> Wait, fuuuuuu...

Minnie2361

Satiety is one reason a calorie is not a calorie
Also your body processes food differently if you eat 300 calories if protein you might store 100 calories.
If you ate 300 calories of junk you would store more calories and in addition to that you would get hungry sooner.

right on

ninerbuff

Satiety is one reason a calorie is not a calorie

Satiety has NOTHING to do with how the body burns calories.

Also your body processes food differently if you eat 300 calories if protein you might store 100 calories.
If you ate 300 calories of junk you would store more calories and in addition to that you would get hungry sooner.

You don't store more calories (regardless of macro) unless you're eating a surplus. People at maintenance or calorie deficit aren't storing ENERGY, they are burning it.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

DatMurse

Satiety is one reason a calorie is not a calorie
Also your body processes food differently if you eat 300 calories if protein you might store 100 calories.
If you ate 300 calories of junk you would store more calories and in addition to that you would get hungry sooner.

You're telling me protein has a TEF of 66%?

protein has a TEF of 25% on avg
gluconeogenesis is about 33% on average.

thats 2 calories.
Thats before it goes into denovolipogenesis.

DatMurse

.