Who thinks all calories do the same things for use?

geebusuk

fruit sugar = not evil
added sugar = evil

Tut... apparently fructose is the evilist!

msf74

You could say are all calories created equal?

Not all calories are partitioned the same. As such while they may have an equal energy value they do not have an equal affect on body composition.

Next question.

tennisdude2004

Some calories taste better than others.

OP, I hate it when people start threads like this just for drama. You had this whole conversation before in a different thread, and by this point you are starting to sound like a religious fanatic yelling at people that his way is the only right way. SCIENCE BE DAMNED!

Then why do you join the threads?

If you really hated them you wouldn't take part. But like others you just can't resist.

Welcome to the experiment????????????

I join them to watch whack jobs like you melt down….

Hey that's why I start them.

In reference to earlier post - I don't like to do this but I have to disagree with SS on his post but 100 calories of cake compared to 100 calories of chicken doesn't do the same thing for the diet based on the fact a larger percentage of the cake will be lost post digestion and with it will be the energy those calories were carrying.

Sorry science dude.

So what part of the cake will be indigestible? Also, please explain why it's indigestible.

Research it dude it's much more rewarding when you put a bit of effort in yourself.

Look up - does all food get digested with the same efficiency.

Let me know what you find out! ????

Sarauk2sf

Do we really need another post like this?


Food has many properties and "calorie" is one of those properties describing the energy value of that particular food. That variable is the same across different food groups but the other properties that a food has, are NOT the same across different food groups.

So for example, 100 calories of cake compared to 100 calories of chicken, will provide the same energy to the diet. But it will provide a whole bunch of things in addition to energy value that will differ between the two, such as micronutrition, differences in amino acids, fatty acids, differing effects on satiety, palatability/preference. Those additional properties can have an effect on weight loss in that they can effect energy output (one side of the energy balance equation) and quite clearly food selection can effect satiety/adherence which can effect calorie intake.

None of this means a calorie is not a calorie. Calorie deficits are still a fundamental requirement of weight loss and the opposite is true for weight gain. It is still fundamentally the energy balance equation.

QFT

No it won't and that's the point. This it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you're in a deficit is wrong. Not all energy from calories are absorbed by the body at the same quantity.

"no it won't" what? Please provide more specificity and examples.

msf74

Do we really need another post like this?


Food has many properties and "calorie" is one of those properties describing the energy value of that particular food. That variable is the same across different food groups but the other properties that a food has, are NOT the same across different food groups.

So for example, 100 calories of cake compared to 100 calories of chicken, will provide the same energy to the diet. But it will provide a whole bunch of things in addition to energy value that will differ between the two, such as micronutrition, differences in amino acids, fatty acids, differing effects on satiety, palatability/preference. Those additional properties can have an effect on weight loss in that they can effect energy output (one side of the energy balance equation) and quite clearly food selection can effect satiety/adherence which can effect calorie intake.

None of this means a calorie is not a calorie. Calorie deficits are still a fundamental requirement of weight loss and the opposite is true for weight gain. It is still fundamentally the energy balance equation.

^^^ And this as well. What is really of more relevance in this discussion is nutrient partitioning rather than calorie partitioning.

Sarauk2sf

Some calories taste better than others.

OP, I hate it when people start threads like this just for drama. You had this whole conversation before in a different thread, and by this point you are starting to sound like a religious fanatic yelling at people that his way is the only right way. SCIENCE BE DAMNED!

Then why do you join the threads?

If you really hated them you wouldn't take part. But like others you just can't resist.

Welcome to the experiment????????????

I join them to watch whack jobs like you melt down….

Hey that's why I start them.

In reference to earlier post - I don't like to do this but I have to disagree with SS on his post but 100 calories of cake compared to 100 calories of chicken doesn't do the same thing for the diet based on the fact a larger percentage of the cake will be lost post digestion and with it will be the energy those calories were carrying.

Sorry science dude.

So what part of the cake will be indigestible? Also, please explain why it's indigestible.

Research it dude it's much more rewarding when you put a bit of effort in yourself.

Look up - does all food get digested with the same efficiency.

Let me know what you find out! ????

You make claims - you support them...that's the way it works.

ironanimal

Do we really need another post like this?


Food has many properties and "calorie" is one of those properties describing the energy value of that particular food. That variable is the same across different food groups but the other properties that a food has, are NOT the same across different food groups.

So for example, 100 calories of cake compared to 100 calories of chicken, will provide the same energy to the diet. But it will provide a whole bunch of things in addition to energy value that will differ between the two, such as micronutrition, differences in amino acids, fatty acids, differing effects on satiety, palatability/preference. Those additional properties can have an effect on weight loss in that they can effect energy output (one side of the energy balance equation) and quite clearly food selection can effect satiety/adherence which can effect calorie intake.

None of this means a calorie is not a calorie. Calorie deficits are still a fundamental requirement of weight loss and the opposite is true for weight gain. It is still fundamentally the energy balance equation.

QFT

No it won't and that's the point. This it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you're in a deficit is wrong. Not all energy from calories are absorbed by the body at the same quantity.

But if you're still in a deficit, you'll lose weight. Because negative energy balance. TEF is a minor consideration overall.

All calories do the same thing for us. They provide a calorie of energy.

Iron_Feline

Some calories taste better than others.

OP, I hate it when people start threads like this just for drama. You had this whole conversation before in a different thread, and by this point you are starting to sound like a religious fanatic yelling at people that his way is the only right way. SCIENCE BE DAMNED!

Then why do you join the threads?

If you really hated them you wouldn't take part. But like others you just can't resist.

Welcome to the experiment????????????

I join them to watch whack jobs like you melt down….

Hey that's why I start them.

In reference to earlier post - I don't like to do this but I have to disagree with SS on his post but 100 calories of cake compared to 100 calories of chicken doesn't do the same thing for the diet based on the fact a larger percentage of the cake will be lost post digestion and with it will be the energy those calories were carrying.

Sorry science dude.

Wait, does this mean I can eat more cake as I don't absorb all the calories.

AWESOME :laugh:

Sarauk2sf

Some calories taste better than others.

OP, I hate it when people start threads like this just for drama. You had this whole conversation before in a different thread, and by this point you are starting to sound like a religious fanatic yelling at people that his way is the only right way. SCIENCE BE DAMNED!

Then why do you join the threads?

If you really hated them you wouldn't take part. But like others you just can't resist.

Welcome to the experiment????????????

What experiment?

FredDoyle

TennisDude, you see I took the TEF out of the equation so it doesn't matter.
If you are maintaining, you can eat less, keep your macros constant (therefore the type of food doesn't matter) and create a deficit.

Sarauk2sf

Some calories taste better than others.

OP, I hate it when people start threads like this just for drama. You had this whole conversation before in a different thread, and by this point you are starting to sound like a religious fanatic yelling at people that his way is the only right way. SCIENCE BE DAMNED!

Then why do you join the threads?

If you really hated them you wouldn't take part. But like others you just can't resist.

Welcome to the experiment????????????

I join them to watch whack jobs like you melt down….

Hey that's why I start them.

In reference to earlier post - I don't like to do this but I have to disagree with SS on his post but 100 calories of cake compared to 100 calories of chicken doesn't do the same thing for the diet based on the fact a larger percentage of the cake will be lost post digestion and with it will be the energy those calories were carrying.

Sorry science dude.

I suggest you reread SS's post.

Sarauk2sf

Do we really need another post like this?


Food has many properties and "calorie" is one of those properties describing the energy value of that particular food. That variable is the same across different food groups but the other properties that a food has, are NOT the same across different food groups.

So for example, 100 calories of cake compared to 100 calories of chicken, will provide the same energy to the diet. But it will provide a whole bunch of things in addition to energy value that will differ between the two, such as micronutrition, differences in amino acids, fatty acids, differing effects on satiety, palatability/preference. Those additional properties can have an effect on weight loss in that they can effect energy output (one side of the energy balance equation) and quite clearly food selection can effect satiety/adherence which can effect calorie intake.

None of this means a calorie is not a calorie. Calorie deficits are still a fundamental requirement of weight loss and the opposite is true for weight gain. It is still fundamentally the energy balance equation.

QFT

No it won't and that's the point. This it doesn't matter what you eat as long as you're in a deficit is wrong. Not all energy from calories are absorbed by the body at the same quantity.

No what won't?

Did I miss the response to this?

Cortelli

In so it's on my "My Topics"

tennisdude2004

Some calories taste better than others.

OP, I hate it when people start threads like this just for drama. You had this whole conversation before in a different thread, and by this point you are starting to sound like a religious fanatic yelling at people that his way is the only right way. SCIENCE BE DAMNED!

Then why do you join the threads?

If you really hated them you wouldn't take part. But like others you just can't resist.

Welcome to the experiment????????????

I join them to watch whack jobs like you melt down….

Hey that's why I start them.

In reference to earlier post - I don't like to do this but I have to disagree with SS on his post but 100 calories of cake compared to 100 calories of chicken doesn't do the same thing for the diet based on the fact a larger percentage of the cake will be lost post digestion and with it will be the energy those calories were carrying.

Sorry science dude.

So what part of the cake will be indigestible? Also, please explain why it's indigestible.

Research it dude it's much more rewarding when you put a bit of effort in yourself.

Look up - does all food get digested with the same efficiency.

Let me know what you find out! ????

You make claims - you support them...that's the way it works.

Oh sorry I must have missed that I don't think I've seen anyone else support evidence that all energy through calories get absorbed.

Hey I'm open minded and never afraid to do a U-turn when faced with facts I can't dispute.

I've always found it best to do the research myself to either prove or disprove a claim. Then once I've done that I will either take it board or drop it over the side.

msf74

I'm just going to leave this here as I need to go:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/energy-partitioning

Sarauk2sf

Some calories taste better than others.

OP, I hate it when people start threads like this just for drama. You had this whole conversation before in a different thread, and by this point you are starting to sound like a religious fanatic yelling at people that his way is the only right way. SCIENCE BE DAMNED!

Then why do you join the threads?

If you really hated them you wouldn't take part. But like others you just can't resist.

Welcome to the experiment????????????

I join them to watch whack jobs like you melt down….

Hey that's why I start them.

In reference to earlier post - I don't like to do this but I have to disagree with SS on his post but 100 calories of cake compared to 100 calories of chicken doesn't do the same thing for the diet based on the fact a larger percentage of the cake will be lost post digestion and with it will be the energy those calories were carrying.

Sorry science dude.

So what part of the cake will be indigestible? Also, please explain why it's indigestible.

Research it dude it's much more rewarding when you put a bit of effort in yourself.

Look up - does all food get digested with the same efficiency.

Let me know what you find out! ????

You make claims - you support them...that's the way it works.

Oh sorry I must have missed that I don't think I've seen anyone else support evidence that all energy through calories get absorbed.

Hey I'm open minded and never afraid to do a U-turn when faced with facts I can't dispute.

I've always found it best to do the research myself to either prove or disprove a claim. Then once I've done that I will either take it board or drop it over the side.

If you have done the research, then please share, especially as you appear to be unique in your desire to research things.

HappyStack

Om nom nom nom nom!

ironanimal

For arguments sake let's say cake has a TEF of 10%, and chicken has 35%.

If you maintain your weight on 2500 calories, and you eat 2000 calories of chicken, you will lose weight, because you're in an energy deficit.

If you maintain weight on 2500 calories, and you eat 2000 calories of cake, you will lose weight, because you're in an energy deficit.

Can't you see that? Cake doesn't magically ''gain'' calories because it is easier to process than chicken. At the end of the day, energy balance determines increase and decrease in mass. Sweating on minutae such as the TEF of your food is redundant really, given that to really influence your ''calories absorbed'' you would have to consume a diet incredibly high in protein and deficient of fat.

If you consumed 200g of protein a day, which is already pretty high, it's 800 cals - you ''absorb'' about 550. If you consumed 150g, 600 cals, you absorb 400 cals. Drastically altering your diet to include foods higher in TEF.. not really worth it - in this example we're talking about a difference 150 cals.

*** I am in no way advocating the basis of a diet around cake. Unless you are Willy Wonka.

knra_grl

I'm just going to leave this here as I need to go:

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/blog/article/energy-partitioning

I love it when people leave links so we can educate ourselves :flowerforyou:

zyxst

Some calories taste better than others.

OP, I hate it when people start threads like this just for drama. You had this whole conversation before in a different thread, and by this point you are starting to sound like a religious fanatic yelling at people that his way is the only right way. SCIENCE BE DAMNED!

Then why do you join the threads?

If you really hated them you wouldn't take part. But like others you just can't resist.

Welcome to the experiment????????????

I join them to watch whack jobs like you melt down….

Hey that's why I start them.

In reference to earlier post - I don't like to do this but I have to disagree with SS on his post but 100 calories of cake compared to 100 calories of chicken doesn't do the same thing for the diet based on the fact a larger percentage of the cake will be lost post digestion and with it will be the energy those calories were carrying.

Sorry science dude.

So what part of the cake will be indigestible? Also, please explain why it's indigestible.

Research it dude it's much more rewarding when you put a bit of effort in yourself.

Look up - does all food get digested with the same efficiency.

Let me know what you find out! ????

Why should I do the work for you when you won't reciprocate? The first link for "does all food get digested with the same efficiency" is this thread.