A Calorie is NOT a calorie

IronSmasher

Reader's Digest

3 Reasons Why All Calories Are Not the Same
Robert Lustig, MD, explains why all calories are not created equal.

Cutting-edge experts say the “calories in, calories out” philosophy is oversimplified and inadequate.
Quality of calories determines the quantity your body burns or stores, says Robert Lustig, MD, author of the recently published book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Foods, Obesity, and Disease. He shares these fascinating examples of how calorie quality affects your weight and health.

Fiber
Fiber delays the absorption of calories. For example, when you eat a 160-calorie portion of almonds, you absorb only 130 because some calories are delivered to your intestine, where your gut bacteria burn them for their own energy source.

Protein
You use twice as much energy to metabolize protein as carbohydrate—due to the thermic effect of food. Protein also reduces hunger hormones more than carbs do.

Carbs
Starches (like potatoes) contain mainly glucose, which every cell in your body uses for energy. Fructose—found in soda and candy and added to most processed foods—is metabolized in your liver as fat, which drives chronic diseases such as diabetes.

Read more: http://www.rd.com/slideshows/reasons-why-all-calories-are-not-the-same/#ixzz2hOKw5Y00

When people quote lustig puppies cry.

Lustig is a moron and an embarrassment to the profession.
Sorry, I forgot he's not in the profession.
Embarrassment to science, that's what I meant.

IronSmasher

If you think all of this is unfair, and Lustig should be able to represent himself... well this is what happens when he isn't advising people that know nothing about nutrition.
This is what happens when a Dr. tries to interact with a group of people, amateurs, that know a bit about nutrition and basic high school science.

http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/

Also, a note on the 'cutting edge', check the date.

redladywitch

gigglesinthesun

nobody suggests that the Twinkie Diet is the one you should chose to adopt and yes when you have little to lose and are small having 1300 cals worth of junk isn't going to fill you up, but that doesn't mean that if I eat 2000 cals worth of veggies I am not going to gain weight. In fact it's almost easier to follow the Twinkie diet, because the packet will tell me exactly what's in it whilst my green beans don't really come with that.

Please do post again when you have proof that eating large amounts of veggies won't make you gain weight, cause as a vegetarian I super interested in that ...

WTH? vegetables? Nobody said anything about veggies, you make no sense.

well, I was following your claims through. Vegetables are full of fiber and in your original post you said that

Fiber: delays the absorbtion of calories. For example, when you eat a 160 calorie portion of almonds, you absorb 130 calories because some calories are delivered to your intestine, where your gut bacteria burn them for their own energy source.

or does it have to be fiber from almonds/nuts ?!? Clearly I am new to this whole science stuff, I'll just go back counting a calorie as a calorie, since that seems to work for me and wait with bated breath for any new discoveries you feel like sharing :-)

RoyBeck

Agreed

Quality of calories determnes the quantity your body burns or stores.

Nope. Sorry.

Achrya

Reader's Digest

3 Reasons Why All Calories Are Not the Same
Robert Lustig, MD, explains why all calories are not created equal.

Cutting-edge experts say the “calories in, calories out” philosophy is oversimplified and inadequate.
Quality of calories determines the quantity your body burns or stores, says Robert Lustig, MD, author of the recently published book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Foods, Obesity, and Disease. He shares these fascinating examples of how calorie quality affects your weight and health.

Fiber
Fiber delays the absorption of calories. For example, when you eat a 160-calorie portion of almonds, you absorb only 130 because some calories are delivered to your intestine, where your gut bacteria burn them for their own energy source.

Protein
You use twice as much energy to metabolize protein as carbohydrate—due to the thermic effect of food. Protein also reduces hunger hormones more than carbs do.

Carbs
Starches (like potatoes) contain mainly glucose, which every cell in your body uses for energy. Fructose—found in soda and candy and added to most processed foods—is metabolized in your liver as fat, which drives chronic diseases such as diabetes.

Read more: http://www.rd.com/slideshows/reasons-why-all-calories-are-not-the-same/#ixzz2hOKw5Y00

When people quote lustig puppies cry.

Lustig is a moron and an embarrassment to the profession.
Sorry, I forgot he's not in the profession.
Embarrassment to science, that's what I meant.

I was trying to keep it polite but since you said it first...yes. All of that.

littleknownblogger

Please do post again when you have proof that eating large amounts of veggies won't make you gain weight, cause as a vegetarian I super interested in that ...

It's actually very difficult to over-eat vegetables. However, fruits, seeds/nuts, grains and legumes do not count as "vegetables", and it is quite easy to over-eat on those (grains being the worst). Have some watercress and celery.

itsjustdawn

Obvious troll

...is obvious

_Zardoz_

A calorie is a unit of energy simple as. I'm confused why people have problem with that fact. Next thing people will be telling me that an inch is not an inch as all inches are not created equal.

As far as I can see those people who have problems accepting that a calorie is well a calorie are just looking for excuses for there own inability to lose weight. If they put as much energy into there weight loss as they do fighting this they might be far more successful.

itsjustdawn

Please define what a calorie is, then list the different 'types' and and their structure.

Calories (noun) - Tiny creatures that live in your closet and sew your clothes a little bit tighter every night

gigglesinthesun

Please do post again when you have proof that eating large amounts of veggies won't make you gain weight, cause as a vegetarian I super interested in that ...

It's actually very difficult to over-eat vegetables. However, fruits, seeds/nuts, grains and legumes do not count as "vegetables", and it is quite easy to over-eat on those (grains being the worst). Have some watercress and celery.

I prefer broccoli and red peppers. It's actually not as hard as people keep making it out, because they don't fill you up for that long, thus if you have the time to eat them, you can put away enough. Will you reach 3000 calories with them? I suppose that requires some dedication, but I am a small woman so it doesn't take as much. Also avocado is a vegetable is it not?

littleknownblogger

Also avocado is a vegetable is it not?

Nope. Avacado and peppers are both fruit. If it's going to grow into another plant (the avacado pit, the pepper seeds), it's not "vegetable". If it's the growing part of the plant itself (lettuce leaves, celery stalks), then it's vegetable.

Vegetable matter tends to be very high in nutrients and fiber, and very low in energy storage. Reproductive matter (fruits, et al.) tends to be relatively high in energy storage and VERY low--sometimes negative--in nutrients. This is because of binding agents, such as phytic acid, which serve to prevent the seed from sprouting during the winter. Just as they keep the seed from accessing the vitamins and minerals in the surrounding material, they will also prevent your body from using them--and probably nutrients derived from other sources, as well.

SezxyStef

That is all...

too early not enough coffee be back later for the fun

RaineyLaney

Agreed

Quality of calories determnes the quantity your body burns or stores.

^^^^ True, but a "Calorie" is still a calorie. It just burns differently in your body is all.

294Rich

A calorie is the amount of energy required to raise one gram of water by one degree Celsius. So, each of the different types of calorie mentioned by the OP has the potential to raise one gram of water by one degree Celsius.

The question that follows is, does the body process one calorie of each type of food in the same way, such that consuming 500 calories of one foot type will result in digestion and potentialy fat storage, of a different amount to another? I don't know the answer to that. I would guess that the fact that they both increase the temp of water by the same amount, does not necessarily mean that they are treated the same way when digested by acids in the stomach/intestines etc.

So in that sense, the OP is right. Or am I wrong? Thoughts?

RaineyLaney

If all calories are the same as you say, then how can diabetes type 2 be reversed with diet? i was not posting this as a study. I read it in an obesity journal in my Dr's office. The research was done at Harvard and University of Penn. I just found it interesting. The fact that you so vehemently disagree , and are saying that top researchers are wrong, and you (on MFP) know better...ummm ok.:noway: l

Hate to tell you this. Type2 diabetes can not be reversed. Once you have it, you have it. There is no cure, but you can control it with eating "LOWER CARBS". Also the OP stated diabetes starts from fat in the liver.. WRONG. it is the pancreas that does not release the insulin your cells to expel the energy from the carbs (sugar) you just ate. Which in turn means the cells dump the sugar (from the carbs) into your blood stream giving you a high Blood sugar. Oh how I wish there was a cure for diabetes and that you could reverse it till it is gone, but at this day and age, scientists still have not found a cure for diabetes.

RaineyLaney

If all calories are the same as you say, then how can diabetes type 2 be reversed with diet? i was not posting this as a study. I read it in an obesity journal in my Dr's office. The research was done at Harvard and University of Penn. I just found it interesting. The fact that you so vehemently disagree , and are saying that top researchers are wrong, and you (on MFP) know better...ummm ok.:noway: l

It's not just reduced with diet, but significant weight loss. Being significantly overweight/obese is directly related to type 2 diabetes for those that acquire it.
Question to you: is sugar the cause of diabetes?

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

New studies are starting to show scientists that it isn't an obese person who aquires diabetes from getting too heavy/fat, they are discovering (not all people, but in most cases) that it is the diabetes that is making people fat. Side effects of diabetes is wanting to sleep all the time, no energy, (means they don't burn the calories, thus putting more weight on). I know people will knock this saying they are just lazy. I am diabetic and I never realized how much it effected me, untill I was able to get my blood sugars down. It was amazing how much better I felt. I use to be so tired that I would of rather died (Honestly) than to do anything. I just didn't have the umph in me to do it)

littleknownblogger

A calorie is the amount of energy required to raise one gram of water by one degree Celsius. So, each of the different types of calorie mentioned by the OP has the potential to raise one gram of water by one degree Celsius.

The question that follows is, does the body process one calorie of each type of food in the same way, such that consuming 500 calories of one foot type will result in digestion and potentialy fat storage, of a different amount to another? I don't know the answer to that. I would guess that the fact that they both increase the temp of water by the same amount, does not necessarily mean that they are treated the same way when digested by acids in the stomach/intestines etc.

So in that sense, the OP is right. Or am I wrong? Thoughts?

You are essentially correct--the chemical energy derived from food is chemical energy, but the different chemical properties of the macronutrients will cause differences in how the body processes that energy. However, the "calorie" measurement of food is, again, derived by a different mechanism than the body uses to get energy from the food, and thus is inaccurate, at best. The fact that "x" amount of energy is released when a slice of bread is oxidized, does not mean that the same amount of energy will be released when it is reduced to glucose by the amylase in your saliva.

Also, the human body is designed to be fueled almost entirely on meat and fat (the high concentration of omega-3 fats in pastured animal fats being the primary reason that we have prefrontal lobes, and vegetarian apes do not). Grains, legumes and other starchy foods are mostly toxic to us (unless cooked), and would be considered "starvation food"--thus, when such high-carbohydrate foods are eaten, our bodies release insulin to store the energy in fat for later use. Contrarily, when we eat meat and fat, the body properly fuels itself on ketones and stores minimal bodyfat--keeping energy at the ready for use in more hunting/fighting.

neanderthin

A calorie is the amount of energy required to raise one gram of water by one degree Celsius. So, each of the different types of calorie mentioned by the OP has the potential to raise one gram of water by one degree Celsius.

The question that follows is, does the body process one calorie of each type of food in the same way, such that consuming 500 calories of one foot type will result in digestion and potentialy fat storage, of a different amount to another? I don't know the answer to that. I would guess that the fact that they both increase the temp of water by the same amount, does not necessarily mean that they are treated the same way when digested by acids in the stomach/intestines etc.

So in that sense, the OP is right. Or am I wrong? Thoughts?

People have confused a "calorie is not a calorie" with "all calories are not created equal" from the get go, and don't expect this to change with this thread.

neanderthin

A calorie is the amount of energy required to raise one gram of water by one degree Celsius. So, each of the different types of calorie mentioned by the OP has the potential to raise one gram of water by one degree Celsius.

The question that follows is, does the body process one calorie of each type of food in the same way, such that consuming 500 calories of one foot type will result in digestion and potentialy fat storage, of a different amount to another? I don't know the answer to that. I would guess that the fact that they both increase the temp of water by the same amount, does not necessarily mean that they are treated the same way when digested by acids in the stomach/intestines etc.

So in that sense, the OP is right. Or am I wrong? Thoughts?

You are essentially correct--the chemical energy derived from food is chemical energy, but the different chemical properties of the macronutrients will cause differences in how the body processes that energy. However, the "calorie" measurement of food is, again, derived by a different mechanism than the body uses to get energy from the food, and thus is inaccurate, at best. The fact that "x" amount of energy is released when a slice of bread is oxidized, does not mean that the same amount of energy will be released when it is reduced to glucose by the amylase in your saliva.

Also, the human body is designed to be fueled almost entirely on meat and fat (the high concentration of omega-3 fats in pastured animal fats being the primary reason that we have prefrontal lobes, and vegetarian apes do not). Grains, legumes and other starchy foods are mostly toxic to us (unless cooked), and would be considered "starvation food"--thus, when such high-carbohydrate foods are eaten, our bodies release insulin to store the energy in fat for later use. Contrarily, when we eat meat and fat, the body properly fuels itself on ketones and stores minimal bodyfat--keeping energy at the ready for use in more hunting/fighting.

Sounds legit.