A calorie is NOT a calorie

EvgeniZyntx

But it's still a very good general rule to use.

1) First of all, let's cover what matters to us the most - does the type of food impact the nutritional value and the calories we get from food. The answer is YES. Nutrition calories are calculated using a system called Atwater factors which give a certain number of cals per gram of fat, protein and carbohydrates. These factors have been edited ad adjusted and recalculated in depth for a variety of food. These and other factors are used for every single calculation of cals on a food package.
Except they depend on diet. If you eat just chocolate those calories (in a low fiber, high fat diet) are pretty much all available. If you eat lots of fruit or fiber, those calories are reported to be 10% to 20% less available to your metabolism (you poop and pee the rest) as shown in this graph

See figure 1 http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649/F1.expansion.html

Want to read more?

Ref: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649.full
http://www.nutrientdataconf.org/PastConf/NDBC17/9-4_Weihrauch.pdf
Almonds, nuts? Less than thought. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22760558
You package might it might not make the correction.


I'm providing only those ref. There are other studies IMF someone want further depth. Conclusion, eat your fruit and fibers.

2) Calories depend on where you live - that hamburger has a different calorie calculation in te US vs Germany vs Japan. The values used for Atwater factors vary from country to country. Here is a peak into that process: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v61/n9/fig_tab/1602679t4.html
http://www.fao.org/docrep/MEETING/004/M2847E/M2847E00.HTM
ftp://ftp.fao.org/es/esn/infoods/presentation-final.pdf

3) and this is one of my peeves. The nutrient calories calculated are all about useful metabolizeable energy in humans. Nutrient calories =\= actual calories. A gram of wood burned will release a certain amount of energy. This can be measured in calories. However we would get zero nutrient calories from wood. Nutrient calories are not energy calories. We are not a closed system and the often cited Laws of Thermodynamics do not apply 100%.

You still need to eat at a calorie deficit to lose weight, but all calories from different foods are not the same in creating that deficit. Just consider those values as estimates.

Sick_Beard

OP though I commend you on your research and your desire to acquire in depth knowledge about nutrition, however this post of yours will only confuse the majority of members here on MFP and start questioning whether calorie counting is worth it.

Oishii

I wonder if different countries counting calories differently is part of why none of the calculators work for me (plus I eat a lot of fibre and vegetable protein, which also costs more energy to process). I'll try out those links later.

EvgeniZyntx

OP though I commend you on your research and your desire to acquire in depth knowledge about nutrition, however this post of yours will only confuse the majority of members here on MFP and start questioning whether calorie counting is worth it.

Hopefully it addresses more the idea that eating fiber is a way to eat better and fruit, etc positively impacts weight loss, all calories being kept constant.

I also believe people should get the information as honestly as possible. Dumbing things down to sound bites eventually is a disservice if people believe 100 cals junk food is the same as 100 cals mixed diet.

Some people will find it confusing but I would guess that majority will get it.

Sick_Beard

I also believe people should get the information as honestly as possible. Dumbing things down to sound bites eventually is a disservice if people believe 100 cals junk food is the same as 100 cals mixed diet.

I have to agree with you

TheVimFuego

Thanks, there is some good stuff in there that I hadn't seen before, I agree completely that it's not just a simple math problem.

I would venture that although we are not closed systems this does not mean that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply, as you state.

They do, the second law covers entropy and works in conjunction with the first law (which specifies that energy cannot be created or destroyed in a closed system in thermal equilibrium) to explain how energy can be lost in any given process (e.g. Digestion, Keeping Warm, Conversion of protein to glucose (gluconeogenesis), etc, etc).

None of this changes the fact that we need an energy deficit at some point to drop fat but we can eat in a way that maximises it's effect.

Put simply 260 calories of Snickers Bar does not have the same effect as 260 calories of steak, on any level.

EvgeniZyntx

Welcome, and of course you are right, the LoTs apply. The point is that the body isn't a closed system where the calories consumed are equal to the calories used. There is waste. That waste varies based on our diet. Calories in < calories used as a function of diet.

And often I see efforts to apply the logic behind these laws without taking into consideration that variable results in many people assuming that the calculated nutritional value of a high fat diet equals that of a high fiber diet at equivalent calories. This is just not true.

And, yes, while we need an energy deficit to lose weight. That energy deficit is effectively larger or smaller depending on how much you produce waste and gas. Dietary composition affects this immensely.

Eat fruit, folks. Eat fiber. Eat vegetables. All this not only provides micronutrients but keeps transit going which effectively reduces the amount of calories we actually get from other food.

waldo56

All the estimates for calorie BMR/TDEE are based off of these "incorrect" calorie estimates, hence the error by and large cancels out.

This is especially true if one alters their BMR/TDEE to match observed results.

The error in calorie counts of food and the error in BMR/TDEE is pretty much inconsequential, once calibrated to results a high degree of precision can be obtained.

EvgeniZyntx

All the estimates for calorie BMR/TDEE are based off of these "incorrect" calorie estimates, hence the error by and large cancels out.

This is especially true if one alters their BMR/TDEE to match observed results.

The error in calorie counts of food and the error in BMR/TDEE is pretty much inconsequential, once calibrated to results a high degree of precision can be obtained.

Not really, estimates of BMR were based sometimes on earlier Atwater factors - and while I agree that observational values are most important - diet changes show large impact of 10% to 20% so I'm going to consider that the precision you are talking about is only valid if your dietary macros, and fiber input is not changing.

mmapags

bump for later

waldo56

All the estimates for calorie BMR/TDEE are based off of these "incorrect" calorie estimates, hence the error by and large cancels out.

This is especially true if one alters their BMR/TDEE to match observed results.

The error in calorie counts of food and the error in BMR/TDEE is pretty much inconsequential, once calibrated to results a high degree of precision can be obtained.

Not really, estimates of BMR were based sometimes on earlier Atwater factors - and while I agree that observational values are most important - diet changes show large impact of 10% to 20% so I'm going to consider that the precision you are talking about is only valid if your dietary macros, and fiber input is not changing.

If you can't achieve +/- 10% results vs. expected results something is wrong with your estimating methodology. When talking massive estimates (which calorie counting over time is), 10% or less is a fairly high degree of precision.

If you want to lose 40 lbs over a realistic time frame by a specific date, achieving 36-44 lbs loss by that date is easy to do.