The office debate

Muddy_Yogi

You would probably lose more with the peanut butter as your body requires more energy (will burn more calories) digesting that then it would a liquid that is already in a very simple format (sugar).

So in this case if 2000 cals put you in a deficit of say 250 cals/day with the pop (meaning your maintenance would be 2250), then the peanut butter would put you in a deficit of closer to 300 cals/day as the increase energy from digestion may increase maintenance to 2300.

So if you ate about 2050 of peanut butter you would lose the same as 2000 of pop, as both would give you a deficit of 250 cals below maintenance. It is the deficit that matters, not necessarily a fixed input, and macros and format of food, will affect the total cals burned for the day.

I would go further and say because it is liquid it takes less energy to break it down and be absorbed much easier and faster than a solid or semi solid.

IF this is the case (and from what I've read on here, it's not), wouldn't the difference be negligible? So minute in fact to not even make a difference? 50 cals seems like a lot for your body to expend on digesting the difference between soda and PB. Genuinely curious.

I agree...I'm curious as well!

If the mountain dew is cold it will cause the persons body to burn more calories warming it self...

If it's cold, doesn't that make it a negative calorie food? :laugh:

Clearly we need a celery diet to round this out.

Celery is not food!

Muddy_Yogi

You and your co-worker need to find some work to do... :drinker:

I'd vote for the peanut butter diet. Your body will try to survive on the sugar, but it will find that it cannot.

Your body needs certain essential amino acids (proteins) and certain essential fatty acids (fats) -- only some of which your body can create out of carbs. Without proteins and fats, your body will lack linolenic and linoleic acid (Omega-3 and Omega-6). Amino acids humans cannot synthesize are phenylalanine, valine, threonine, tryptophan, methionine, leucine, isoleucine, lysine, and histidine. You must get these from your food and drink. At a glance: Peanuts have them, Mtn. Dew does not.

Go see mean people thread! NOW!!!!! This is NOT a question of our work ethic!

k8blujay2

I'm going to try it... for science sake.

funchords

I'd vote for the peanut butter diet. ... [relevant sciencey stuff] ... At a glance: Peanuts have them, Mtn. Dew does not.

Go see mean people thread! NOW!!!!! This is NOT a question of our work ethic!

You called me mean? I'm voting for your answer, don't I get any points for that? :flowerforyou:

jmt08c

I prefer the bacon diet.

Muddy_Yogi

I'd vote for the peanut butter diet. ... [relevant sciencey stuff] ... At a glance: Peanuts have them, Mtn. Dew does not.

Go see mean people thread! NOW!!!!! This is NOT a question of our work ethic!

You called me mean? I'm voting for your answer, don't I get any points for that? :flowerforyou:

I will work at the pace I choose...this thread had nothing to do with my work ethic!

anomar6

Pretty much off-topic but, as far as I'm concerned, Mountain Dew is some nasty stuff - don't think I've had one in 30 years,

redheaddee

I prefer 500 calories PB, 500 calories chocolate, 500 calories bacon, 500 calories bourbon, diet soda.

Yup. That'll work.

sarahrosheen

you'll lose weight, mostly muscle and it wouldn't be at all healthy

Guns_N_Buns

I prefer 500 calories PB, 500 calories chocolate, 500 calories bacon, 500 calories bourbon, diet soda.

Yup. That'll work.

BinaryPulsar

There was a woman on a show about strange medical mysteries. The doctors could not figure out what was wrong until they asked what she eats. She only ever ate peanut butter sandwiches and black coffee. Turns out that she had scurvy. I may be getting some minor details wrong because I didn't watch the show, my husband told me about it. I know this is beside the point. I just thought of it.

Joannah700

You would probably lose more with the peanut butter as your body requires more energy (will burn more calories) digesting that then it would a liquid that is already in a very simple format (sugar).

So in this case if 2000 cals put you in a deficit of say 250 cals/day with the pop (meaning your maintenance would be 2250), then the peanut butter would put you in a deficit of closer to 300 cals/day as the increase energy from digestion may increase maintenance to 2300.

So if you ate about 2050 of peanut butter you would lose the same as 2000 of pop, as both would give you a deficit of 250 cals below maintenance. It is the deficit that matters, not necessarily a fixed input, and macros and format of food, will affect the total cals burned for the day.

I would go further and say because it is liquid it takes less energy to break it down and be absorbed much easier and faster than a solid or semi solid.

IF this is the case (and from what I've read on here, it's not), wouldn't the difference be negligible? So minute in fact to not even make a difference? 50 cals seems like a lot for your body to expend on digesting the difference between soda and PB. Genuinely curious.

I agree...I'm curious as well!

I would assume the digestion of 2000 cals of peanut butter would be much more than 50 cals, whereas the soda would burn very little. since the soda is liquid and has 0 protein I would venture to guess a greater than 50 cal difference. the below is an escert showing about a 41cal/day if protein is increased :

"...although substituting carbohydrate for fat in the diet does not appear to alter total energy expenditure, increasing protein intake to 30–35% of energy does increase energy expenditure. The increase, however, is only ≈70 kcal/d"
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full

that said the peanut butter would not be that high in protein, but the soda diet would be lower than the base amount so I would say 50 cals in dif would probably be pretty close.

Found this too:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897733/

It's about processed foods vs. whole foods though. So if this is actually true - you might be able to improve the calories burned in the peanut butter if you went for the natural stuff you grind yourself at Whole Foods vs. Skippy.

But you will probably be happier on the Skippy diet.


Is there a study on calories burned when you're happy about your food choices vs. sad?

VeryKatie

2000 is 2000. You'd probably lose more weight on just peanut butter since you'd feel more full and less likely to "fall off the wagon". But assuming you stick to exactly 2000 on either diet, your actual weight loss would be the same. I'm not including water retention as actual weight.