All calories are not necessarily equal

NikoM5

Leonardo, I agree that for most people's purposes this article doesn't change a thing. I however, enjoy as much information on a subject as possible. That's why I posted this, not to confuse or give anyone an excuse. It is about absolutes vs relatives, similar to the bathroom scale that's off by 5lbs. It will still show your progress as good as any other scale but I'd rather the info be accurate as well as consistent.

Alehmer

Thermic effect and nutrient timing have been pretty well established as totally insignificant.

Thermic effect - Not in aggregates of thousands of calories, and especially not for certain diets. Is it a major factor, no, but is one of many minor contributory factors that add up to make a real difference.

Nutrient Timing - The idea that this is insignificant is absolutely untrue, though greatly dependent on the target population. The more athletic and strenuous a lifestyle a person leads, the more important this is. Should the average overweight person looking to lose some weight through conscious eating and light exercise worry about nutrient timing? No, it's a waste of time for them. How about the competitive athlete? Definitely.

"Metabolic processes" sounds incredibly vague so I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

This is meant to be vague, I am at work and have already spent too much time on this at this point.

NikoM5

I appreciate your effort Niko, but most people around here insist on plugging their ears and repeating "a calorie is a calorie" while rocking back and forth in the corner. Anything that threatens that sneering simplicity is evil and foolish and should be put down.

Thermic effect? pointless!
Nutrient Timing? witchcraft...
Metabolic Processes? stop splitting hairs MORON :P

Thermic effect and nutrient timing have been pretty well established as totally insignificant. "Metabolic processes" sounds incredibly vague so I'm not sure what you're referring to there.

Nutrient timing has not been shown to be "totally insignificant" as you put it. There is plenty of evidence to support the importance of post exercise nutrition specifically. Sport and nutrition science is in it's infancy and is ever evolving. Today's "wrong" was yesterday's "right". Who know what tomorrow will bring.

"Metabolic processes" isn't really vague, it's actually what the entire article was about.

FredDoyle

Can't read the link but again, another misleading title. Calories are a unit of energy, nothing more but the calories from different foods (macro's) are metabolized differently and effect body composition differently.........And of course TEF and digestibility generally messes with peoples heads.

Can't read the link but I'm going call the title misleading anyways! lol

It is misleading.
It also doesn't matter. Consider one food is 1x calories and this one is 2x calories. They're just estimates until I start consuming them and adjusting until I start losing/gaining. Everyone knows some corn goes through you. Just like condoms full of drugs or those that swallowed them would all die.

Alehmer

Metabolic Process

- For instance, the rate of metabolic breakdown of fat calories vs. carbohydrate calories. They use a different process and the breakdown of Fat is much slower. So in the continuous energy burning process that the body goes through, 100 Kcal of simple carbohydrates and 100kcal of saturated fat will show different effects on actual blood sugar levels. As an excess of blood sugar triggers Insulin and conversion of blood sugar to fat, the fact that 100 kcal of Gatorade will be in the blood within minutes vs over several hours for 100kcal of Olive Oil means those same exact calories with have different real life effects.

snikkins

First off, this was really interesting! Thanks for that. Secondly, I really don't see how it argues that a calorie is not a calorie. As has been stated, both in this thread and in others, a calorie is a unit of energy. From what I gathered from the article, the author is arguing in favor of better nutrition labeling because how the body works is infinitely more complex than a number on the label due to processing, evolution of both what we eat and of ourselves, and digestion. This results in not necessarily being able to use all of the calories listed, but it doesn't say anything about a calorie not being a calorie; it does show that many plants have evolved effective methods for avoiding the digestion process, which I think is neat. I think people get hung up on the idea that if I eat exactly 2000 calories and burn exactly 500 calories every single day that the results should be the same every single day. Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but it's unlikely that all calories the body uses will exit as weight loss or gain because of things like heat dissipation, which could potentially result in minor scale discrepancies.

I'm all for doing things in the name of science but as for actually changing food labels, I think it would result in more confusion than is necessary because, by and large, calorie counting works for managing weight.

NikoM5

Can't read the link but again, another misleading title. Calories are a unit of energy, nothing more but the calories from different foods (macro's) are metabolized differently and effect body composition differently.........And of course TEF and digestibility generally messes with peoples heads.

Can't read the link but I'm going call the title misleading anyways! lol

It is misleading.
It also doesn't matter. Consider one food is 1x calories and this one is 2x calories. They're just estimates until I start consuming them and adjusting until I start losing/gaining. Everyone knows some corn goes through you. Just like condoms full of drugs or those that swallowed them would all die.

Consider 500 calories from 2 different sources as we currently calculate them. One source of 500 cals is from a highly processed, cooked food source. The other 500 cals is from a meal consisting of largely unprocessed, uncooked, whole foods. The article makes the point that the 500 cals will differ in their effect on the body due to the differences in energies required to breakdown the processed, cooked vs unprocessed, uncooked foods. That matters to me because I don't eat the same thing every day.

neanderthin

Can't read the link but again, another misleading title. Calories are a unit of energy, nothing more but the calories from different foods (macro's) are metabolized differently and effect body composition differently.........And of course TEF and digestibility generally messes with peoples heads.

Can't read the link but I'm going call the title misleading anyways! lol

It is misleading.
It also doesn't matter. Consider one food is 1x calories and this one is 2x calories. They're just estimates until I start consuming them and adjusting until I start losing/gaining. Everyone knows some corn goes through you. Just like condoms full of drugs or those that swallowed them would all die.

Consider 500 calories from 2 different sources as we currently calculate them. One source of 500 cals is from a highly processed, cooked food source. The other 500 cals is from a meal consisting of largely unprocessed, uncooked, whole foods. The article makes the point that the 500 cals will differ in their effect on the body due to the differences in energies required to breakdown the processed, cooked vs unprocessed, uncooked foods. That matters to me because I don't eat the same thing every day.

Of course they do, and a lot of paragraph's dissecting the minutia, but try and find a different macro ratio where you have a metabolic advantage while keeping protein constant....... it's basically irrelevant to weight loss. The basic miscalculation of calories from people tracking their intake is enough to make these difference look like tiny wee fleas.

NikoM5

Actually, one of the points the article makes is that we don't know what the differences are. More information and study = good.

prattiger65

Yes, they are exactly equal. Just like all volts are equal, all gallons are equal, all inches are equal. All are units of measure. This really isn't hard.

They not NOT equal in terms of how the body processes them. This really isn't hard.

Then the title of your thread should read " The body doesnt necessarily process calories equally" First grade level, maybe even K5. But hey, it sparked a discussion and most of the time that is good.

NikoM5

That's why I added "Necessarily".

But I do apologize and will endeavor to get my next title just perfect. Perhaps I could email you a draft beforehand?

uconnwinsnc

A calorie is. "The amount of heat required at a pressure of one atmosphere to raise the temperature of one gram of water one degree Celsius that is equal to about 4.19 joules." So yes, 1 calorie is 1 calorie. Of course, the nutritional value of all calories is not equal and all food is not processed equally in the body. A diamond is a diamond, some go on rings and some go on the edges of saws.

parkscs

Yes, they are exactly equal. Just like all volts are equal, all gallons are equal, all inches are equal. All are units of measure. This really isn't hard.

They not NOT equal in terms of how the body processes them. This really isn't hard.

Then the title of your thread should read " The body doesnt necessarily process calories equally" First grade level, maybe even K5. But hey, it sparked a discussion and most of the time that is good.

It seems clear the OP was directing the title at the people who so commonly regurgitate "calories in, calories out" without paying any attention to how the macronutritional composition of your food can affect your body and how that plays a role in "calories in, calories out." I don't believe he's suggesting 1 unit != 1 unit, but rather saying that the source of your calories plays a role too.

NikoM5

It seems clear the OP was directing the title at the people who so commonly regurgitate "calories in, calories out" without paying any attention to how the macronutritional composition of your food can affect your body and how that plays a role in "calories in, calories out." I don't believe he's suggesting 1 unit != 1 unit, but rather saying that the source of your calories plays a role too.

Yes, thank you. I too thought that was rather clear but oh well. I suspect the title nit-pickers did not actually read the article.

KaylaBushman

First off, waay interesting!

Secondly, what I gathered (correct me if I am wrong) along with many points others have mentioned, is that

A serving of nuts LABELED 150 calories, and a brownie that is also LABELED 150 calories may be incorrectly labeled on a personal level because the nuts are not fully absorbed/used where as the brownie is more fully absorbed/used because it is already broke down considerable more than the nuts.

What this translate to is that while the serving of nuts sitting on the table are INDEED 150 calories what your body absorbs is only 130 calories and it gets rid of the rest through waste whereas the 150 calorie brownie sitting on the counter is more fully absorbed translating to 145 calories that your body actually absorbs/uses.

So the nuts are really both units of energy, 150 sitting on the counter but only 130 in one persons body or 135 in another persons body.

I agree that this is still not significant enough to do anything about since what we have now works just fine, but it is still terribly interesting.

marko320

I just read an article http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140307-calories-nutrition-processed-labels-wrangham-diet-paleo-raw-food/ and it prompted me to search for this thread so I wouldn't repost. Enjoy.

tennisdude2004

The title should be 'a calorie is equal until you pop it in your mouth - then all bets are off!' ????

As long as you burn more than you store - everything else is just gravy.