Food Processing: A Calorie ISN'T A Calorie

idwoof

Brb, gonna eat 5,000 calories of mayo today because all calories are the same!

^---no one is saying that crap

Actually people are saying that, and to a point I agree. Calories are calories, and that was the point of the "twinkie diet" to show that weight loss is about calories in calories out. If you burned 6000 calories in a day and went and ate 5000 calories of mayo you WOULD lose weight, it's fact.

But I don't think the original poster is trying to argue that. He is (if you actually read the article you would know) saying that the net calories of foods is different depending on what they are. So 100 calories of a unprocessed food is actually different than 100 calories of a processed food when all is said and done.

idwoof

But I should mention I do agree with Rangersteve on some of it. There are so many factors on your metabolism that it is too complicated to worry about 15 calories. Like he was saying, what if you happen to eat a fiberone candy bar, yes it is processed but it has fiber so it will take longer to digest. What if you ate it with a piece of meat and the protein affected your metabolism.

I see it too often with my friends that are girls. They eat "healthy" but they don't understand why they aren't losing weight. Most people don't comprehend the calories in calories out concept. You can't just eat healthy and lose weight, you have to have a calorie deficit.

Jesung

Yes, thermic effect of food exists. But it's something that most people don't need to obsess over.
If you are trying to lose weight, eat only REAL foods and focus on more meat which has multiple benefits for you.
But for someone like me who needs to stuff his face, I don't see any harm in fitting in some junk food to meet my caloric requirements.

I'd say: Eat mostly real food and you'll never need to worry about this.

missc1990

Such an interesting article. Thank you for posting this!

jazzy020106

I totally agree with this!! People always tell me you can eat what you want as long as its in moderation.. I say WRONG.. They don't get it!! Oh well for them I guess.. This was a great post!! My favorite post ever!

RangerSteve

I totally agree with this!! People always tell me you can eat what you want as long as its in moderation.. I say WRONG.. They don't get it!! Oh well for them I guess.. This was a great post!! My favorite post ever!

Uh, except what people say are RIGHT in this case. You can eat what you want in moderation. It's called a sane approach to diet and health. Excluding foods you really enjoy because they aren't as healthy as red bell peppers isn't going to lead to a lifetime of better eating habits, it's going to lead to binge eating.

There is nothing wrong with eating ice cream, pizza, burgers or any other food that might be processed.

RangerSteve

Actually people are saying that, and to a point I agree. Calories are calories, and that was the point of the "twinkie diet" to show that weight loss is about calories in calories out. If you burned 6000 calories in a day and went and ate 5000 calories of mayo you WOULD lose weight, it's fact.

But I don't think the original poster is trying to argue that. He is (if you actually read the article you would know) saying that the net calories of foods is different depending on what they are. So 100 calories of a unprocessed food is actually different than 100 calories of a processed food when all is said and done.

I agree because of the law of conservation of energy BUT regardless of whether or not you initially lose weight eating 5,000 calories of mayo doesn't matter in this case. Not getting enough fiber, protein and vitamins/minerals will halt your weight loss and eventually hospitalize you.

Egger29

Eh, I skimmed the article but there are definitely some wrong things in there:

If you only "skimmed" the article then you can't be expected to understand the fundamentals or note any of the details of the published research explaining the facts which carries far more weight than Yahoo News. Sorry.

Are you actually going to refute what I posted or just dismiss it because I only skimmed the article? Please point out what people think that 100 calories of a candy bar try to argue that it's the same as 100 calories of kale. When people usually argue that a calorie is a calorie, it's in reference to things that are similar. For instance, in a mixed meal of 1,000 calories, if you eat a piece of white bread vs a piece of brown bread, it's not going to matter. When fiber, protein, fat, vitamins, minerals, etc are all present, the 100 calories from one source isn't going to matter compared to another. This extremist argument that is being made here is just silly and doesn't help anyone.

Brb, gonna eat 5,000 calories of mayo today because all calories are the same!

^---no one is saying that crap


Also, please point out how the TEF means that more calories are burned than taken in. That doesn't even make sense.

To be honest, no refute is necesary since you didn't read the original post and completely missed the point of what you Did read.

As someone else pointed out earlier, your own Yahoo Article reference distinctly notes that "All Calories are NOT created equal".

The fundamental purpose of the article is that whole foods take more effort to digest than processed foods, thus will take more energy. While it might seems like a negilgible difference when taken in account of a single meal, when you take it in account of weeks or months, you have a Significant difference between the two.

The other main purpose which I'm guessed you missed in your skimming was the following:

On average, a person uses about 10% of their daily energy expenditure digesting and absorbing food, but this percentage changes depending on the type of food you eat. Protein takes the most energy to digest (20-30% of total calories in protein eaten go to digesting it). Next is carbohydrates (5-10%) and then fats (0-3%).

Thus as outlined in the article, it takes different amounts of energy to break down and absorb Carbs, Proteins or Fats in the body. This explains why it is recommended for weightloss to increase protein intake, as you'll be netting less calories from the digestive process. As well, the more complex carbs, whole grains and fibres, take more energy to break down and absorb, or if not absorbed, excreted from the body which results in a lower Net Calories than injested.

In that respect, there is no obsessing over calories as you noted....it's a lifestyle change to make better choices which make an overall difference in the end.

Sure, there are some people like the Twinkie guy who can lose weight regardless of what their food choices are, but is this nutritionally sound, is it a long-term way of eating and is it something that is applicable as recommended to the majority of the general population? The answer to all three is "NO".

The fundamentals of good nutrition are not about "simple quick weight loss", it's about a long-term change of individual habits that create a life-long lasting effect.

Those people who pay attention to the fundamentals in the original article (and referenced study), and who make the concious choice to include more whole foods than processed in their diet, WILL find more OPTIMAL results than those people who choose to eat junk, regardless of the calorie deficit.

I could share numerous additional studies which outline how exercise is completely irrelevant to weight loss, but that it not in the stream of the intent from my original post.

Lastly, if you want to debate whether something is correct or not, please provide more evidence than simply asking people to "take your word for it". Show us the actual research that shows that there is no difference in the digestive process and absorption of whole foods vs processed foods.

As for the "Celery having negative calories". That is stated as an example of the digestive process for breaking down complex fibres in comparison to a processed on (in terms of caloric value). It's not meant Literally such that someone can eat 5,000 lbs of celery to offset the double-bacon cheeseburger they ate earlier in the day. It's a reference to the energy required in the digestive process...nothing more.

Cheers!

RangerSteve

To be honest, no refute is necesary since you didn't read the original post and completely missed the point of what you Did read.

As someone else pointed out earlier, your own Yahoo Article reference distinctly notes that "All Calories are NOT created equal".

The fundamental purpose of the article is that whole foods take more effort to digest than processed foods, thus will take more energy. While it might seems like a negilgible difference when taken in account of a single meal, when you take it in account of weeks or months, you have a Significant difference between the two.

The other main purpose which I'm guessed you missed in your skimming was the following:

On average, a person uses about 10% of their daily energy expenditure digesting and absorbing food, but this percentage changes depending on the type of food you eat. Protein takes the most energy to digest (20-30% of total calories in protein eaten go to digesting it). Next is carbohydrates (5-10%) and then fats (0-3%).

Thus as outlined in the article, it takes different amounts of energy to break down and absorb Carbs, Proteins or Fats in the body. This explains why it is recommended for weightloss to increase protein intake, as you'll be netting less calories from the digestive process. As well, the more complex carbs, whole grains and fibres, take more energy to break down and absorb, or if not absorbed, excreted from the body which results in a lower Net Calories than injested.

In that respect, there is no obsessing over calories as you noted....it's a lifestyle change to make better choices which make an overall difference in the end.

Sure, there are some people like the Twinkie guy who can lose weight regardless of what their food choices are, but is this nutritionally sound, is it a long-term way of eating and is it something that is applicable as recommended to the majority of the general population? The answer to all three is "NO".

The fundamentals of good nutrition are not about "simple quick weight loss", it's about a long-term change of individual habits that create a life-long lasting effect.

Those people who pay attention to the fundamentals in the original article (and referenced study), and who make the concious choice to include more whole foods than processed in their diet, WILL find more OPTIMAL results than those people who choose to eat junk, regardless of the calorie deficit.

I could share numerous additional studies which outline how exercise is completely irrelevant to weight loss, but that it not in the stream of the intent from my original post.

Lastly, if you want to debate whether something is correct or not, please provide more evidence than simply asking people to "take your word for it". Show us the actual research that shows that there is no difference in the digestive process and absorption of whole foods vs processed foods.

As for the "Celery having negative calories". That is stated as an example of the digestive process for breaking down complex fibres in comparison to a processed on (in terms of caloric value). It's not meant Literally such that someone can eat 5,000 lbs of celery to offset the double-bacon cheeseburger they ate earlier in the day. It's a reference to the energy required in the digestive process...nothing more.

Cheers!

You're good. You almost had me confused that I said something I didn't say with your paragraph. I had to go back to the first post to make sure I actually read it correctly, which I did, and then I had to come back to your last post to wonder what in the hell you're actually talking about.

Ever wonder how Celery can have Negative Calories? It takes more energy to break down and absorb the celery than the celery itself contains.

^

---

THAT is what I was referring to when I skimmed the first post to see this stuff about negative calorie foods. Now you're pulling the Russel's teapot argument and saying I need to show evidence? No. YOU have to show evidence (or whoever wrote the article) when you make a claim that X food (celery in this case) is negative calorie. If you have evidence, I'd like to see it. Don't ask me to provide evidence that it's not when YOU make the claim. That's how logical applications to arguments take place.

Also, where the hell did I say there is no difference between digesting regular and processed foods? Your argumentation style is really amazing to be honest. Make a claim, if someone questions it, make up crap that they didn't say and then try to pin it on them. Pure genius. Have you thought about being a televangelist preacher?

Eating a candy bar and eating kale ARE NOT GOING TO PROCESS THE SAME. THE ARGUMENT I MADE IS THAT NO ONE IS COMPARING 100 CALORIE CANDY BAR TO 100 CALORIES OF KALE BECAUSE THAT'S STUPID. WHEN COMPARISONS ARE MADE, IT IS WITH FOODS THAT ARE SIMILAR LIKE THE BREAD ARGUMENT I MADE IN AN EARLIER POST.

Yes, I had to use caps-lock because, apparently, that's the only way that you might actually see what I'm writing instead of injecting your own thoughts into what you think I'm writing.

I could share numerous additional studies which outline how exercise is completely irrelevant to weight loss, but that it not in the stream of the intent from my original post.

^---Who gives a damn about this? Weight loss is meaningless in regards to body composition. Yeah great, you can lose weight without exercise. It's the exercise and weight loss together that make changes to body composition through added hypertrophy, hyperplasia and reduced body fat.


I'm honestly still blown away here. I'm still trying to figure out how the hell you wrote all this **** when I wasn't even arguing against the benefits of eating whole foods vs processed foods.

butters1

bump for later. thanks

Schwiggity

bump for good information. Do you happen to have a link to the article itself?

bllowry

Interesting information; it makes a lot of sense, really. I have bad food allergies, and not to the 'usual suspects' so I'm an avid label reader if I do buy something in a tin or jar. Mostly I make everything from scratch or from foods that have ingredients that I can pronounce :laugh: It's alarming how much chemical crud is put in to the simplest of foods.