Is a calorie alway just a calorie?

Options
2

Replies

  • alishacupcake
    alishacupcake Posts: 419 Member
    Options
    Don't listen to their lies! A calorie is not a calorie!

    Sometimes it's a hat, or a brooch, maybe a pterodactyl....



    Just kidding. Of course a calorie is a calorie.

    Totes want a calorie brooch....

    So is that pronounced "brewch" or "broach"??

    Personally I say "broach"
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    calorie (symbol: cal) : the approximate amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of one gram of water by one degree Celsius.

    So wait, you're saying that the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1g of water by one degree Celsius isn't equal to the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature of 1g of water by one degree Celsius?

    That's like saying 1 horsepower isn't equal to 1 horsepower.

    Energy is energy. Whether in calories, joules, whatever. Now, does body composition depend on where that energy comes from? Of course. But at the end of the day, a calorie is a calorie.

    Yes. A calorie is a calorie. Other things are not calories and are a separate consideration.
  • drchimpanzee
    drchimpanzee Posts: 892 Member
    Options
    calories are always the same, but what they provide & how they fill you up is different

    calorie_density_bulk.jpg

    This seems off to me. 12 oz of chicken breast is in the area of 400 calories and seems like it would be way more filling than shown. I could be wrong though. Also, in the last drawing how much of each? If you're eating mostly eggplant and spinach with only some beans maybe. However, if you're using a whole can of beans that's 350+ on their own.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    Wow the 2nd thread using Lustig as a source this morning! Or Lolstig as Acg67 calls him. Quackery!!
  • Trechechus
    Trechechus Posts: 2,819 Member
    Options
    Damn. I thought this was going to be a nerd fest about the difference between calories and Calories.

    :grumble:

    Or magical unicorn calories
  • alishacupcake
    alishacupcake Posts: 419 Member
    Options
    calories are always the same, but what they provide & how they fill you up is different

    calorie_density_bulk.jpg

    This seems off to me. 12 oz of chicken breast is in the area of 400 calories and seems like it would be way more filling than shown. I could be wrong though. Also, in the last drawing how much of each? If you're eating mostly eggplant and spinach with only some beans maybe. However, if you're using a whole can of beans that's 350+ on their own.

    I agree that the chicken seems a little off and the measurements would be nice on the beans and stuff but this picture is good in theory.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    calories are always the same, but what they provide & how they fill you up is different

    calorie_density_bulk.jpg

    This seems off to me. 12 oz of chicken breast is in the area of 400 calories and seems like it would be way more filling than shown. I could be wrong though. Also, in the last drawing how much of each? If you're eating mostly eggplant and spinach with only some beans maybe. However, if you're using a whole can of beans that's 350+ on their own.

    I agree that the chicken seems a little off and the measurements would be nice on the beans and stuff but this picture is good in theory.

    What does the sense of fullness have to do with calories or even health and weight loss for that matter?
  • MightyDomo
    MightyDomo Posts: 1,265 Member
    Options
    A calorie is a calorie, not doubt about it but the nutritional content of each calorie isn't always the same as it depends on where the calories come from. So there are bad calories and good calories.
  • hpsnickers1
    hpsnickers1 Posts: 2,783 Member
    Options
    http://thatpaleoguy.com/2012/12/19/calorie-rants-and-ketosis-part-1/

    http://thatpaleoguy.com/2012/12/24/calorie-rants-and-ketosis-part-2/

    There might be some info in here for you.

    "Saying a calorie is a calorie is no more useful in describing what is happening at a physiological level than saying a metre is a metre. Both are units of measurement, useful in our physical worlds – for measuring stuff – but completely bloody hopeless for understanding our biology.

    If I say I have a metre of wood, a metre of glass, or a metre of string, does this tell me anything much about these things other than how long they are? Assuming a metre is a metre, they must all be the same… they must all have the same properties, because I can quantify some aspect of them all similarly. What if we took two substances, in an identical amount, such as say, testosterone and oestrogen (I assume you could probably even quantify a caloric measure of these hormones – they “burn” after all). Do we automatically assume, once you feed them into the body, they each have identical effects because they can be quantified identically? Of course not. Yet we make the same mistake with fructose, glucose, palmitic acid, lauric acid, tryptophan, tyrosine, and so on.

    I have only a nutritionist’s understanding of biochemistry (read as: relatively basic), but I understand, when we move away from their gross macronutrient labels, that each of those compounds will elicit a different downstream response… will send a different signal or message to our biology. I can’t for the life of me fathom why anyone would think these different compounds, even if corrected to be calorically equal to each other, would be identical in their effect on the body."


    " ...Each molecule of glucose (carbohydrate) metabolised will yield between 36-38 ATP’s (aerobic)

    Each molecule of palmitate (fat) metabolised will yield 106 ATP

    So, everything else being equal, palmitate will provide your system with more energy than glucose…"


    "...There are many different ways in which glucose differs from fructose when we start to look at metabolism (and the hormonal responses each elicit in the body). Likewise, there are different ways in which, say, lauric acid (a medium-chain [12C] saturated fat found in the likes of coconut oil) differs from palmitic acid (a long-chain saturated fat [16C] saturated found in the likes of steak). Technically, we would say lauric acid and palmitic acid are both saturated fats, and being fats, they yield 9kcal per gram. But in the biological system of energy production, the 12-carbon lauric acid yields roughly 57-58 ATP, whilst the 16 carbon palmitic acid yields 106 ATP, with both being handled quite differently from digestion, to absorption, to metabolism...."
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    A calorie is a calorie, not doubt about it but the nutritional content of each calorie isn't always the same as it depends on where the calories come from. So there are bad calories and good calories.

    Are the good calories the ones that do all their homework, obey thier parents and don't get in trouble at school?
  • tsh0ck
    tsh0ck Posts: 1,970 Member
    Options
    A calorie is a calorie, not doubt about it but the nutritional content of each calorie isn't always the same as it depends on where the calories come from. So there are bad calories and good calories.

    Are the good calories the ones that do all their homework, obey thier parents and don't get in trouble at school?

    yes. but you forgot "don't eat after 7:34 p.m."
  • sullus
    sullus Posts: 2,839 Member
    Options
    A calorie is a calorie, not doubt about it but the nutritional content of each calorie isn't always the same as it depends on where the calories come from. So there are bad SOURCES OF calories and good SOURCES OF calories.

    *fixed.
  • Change_is_Good_
    Change_is_Good_ Posts: 272 Member
    Options
    Don't listen to their lies! A calorie is not a calorie!

    Sometimes it's a hat, or a brooch, maybe a pterodactyl....



    Just kidding. Of course a calorie is a calorie.

    Totes want a calorie brooch....

    Only if there are matching earrings!
  • alishacupcake
    alishacupcake Posts: 419 Member
    Options
    calories are always the same, but what they provide & how they fill you up is different

    calorie_density_bulk.jpg

    This seems off to me. 12 oz of chicken breast is in the area of 400 calories and seems like it would be way more filling than shown. I could be wrong though. Also, in the last drawing how much of each? If you're eating mostly eggplant and spinach with only some beans maybe. However, if you're using a whole can of beans that's 350+ on their own.

    I agree that the chicken seems a little off and the measurements would be nice on the beans and stuff but this picture is good in theory.

    What does the sense of fullness have to do with calories or even health and weight loss for that matter?

    I didn't say that it had anything to do with calories. I'm simply saying its a good illustration. It might not have anything to do with this subject but the illustration is good. You will be full if you eat more food that is less calories. Me personally I don't like being hungry. So I will eat the chicken instead of the oil (or whatever).
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    calories are always the same, but what they provide & how they fill you up is different

    calorie_density_bulk.jpg

    This seems off to me. 12 oz of chicken breast is in the area of 400 calories and seems like it would be way more filling than shown. I could be wrong though. Also, in the last drawing how much of each? If you're eating mostly eggplant and spinach with only some beans maybe. However, if you're using a whole can of beans that's 350+ on their own.

    I agree that the chicken seems a little off and the measurements would be nice on the beans and stuff but this picture is good in theory.

    What does the sense of fullness have to do with calories or even health and weight loss for that matter?

    Thank you
  • alishacupcake
    alishacupcake Posts: 419 Member
    Options
    calories are always the same, but what they provide & how they fill you up is different

    calorie_density_bulk.jpg

    This seems off to me. 12 oz of chicken breast is in the area of 400 calories and seems like it would be way more filling than shown. I could be wrong though. Also, in the last drawing how much of each? If you're eating mostly eggplant and spinach with only some beans maybe. However, if you're using a whole can of beans that's 350+ on their own.

    I agree that the chicken seems a little off and the measurements would be nice on the beans and stuff but this picture is good in theory.

    What does the sense of fullness have to do with calories or even health and weight loss for that matter?

    Thank you

    Again, I didn't say that it had anything to do with calories. I'm simply saying its a good illustration. It might not have anything to do with this subject but the illustration is good. You will be full if you eat more food that is less calories. Me personally I don't like being hungry. So I will eat the chicken instead of the oil (or whatever).
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    calories are always the same, but what they provide & how they fill you up is different

    calorie_density_bulk.jpg

    This seems off to me. 12 oz of chicken breast is in the area of 400 calories and seems like it would be way more filling than shown. I could be wrong though. Also, in the last drawing how much of each? If you're eating mostly eggplant and spinach with only some beans maybe. However, if you're using a whole can of beans that's 350+ on their own.

    I agree that the chicken seems a little off and the measurements would be nice on the beans and stuff but this picture is good in theory.

    What does the sense of fullness have to do with calories or even health and weight loss for that matter?

    Thank you

    Again, I didn't say that it had anything to do with calories. I'm simply saying its a good illustration. It might not have anything to do with this subject but the illustration is good. You will be full if you eat more food that is less calories. Me personally I don't like being hungry. So I will eat the chicken instead of the oil (or whatever).

    You keep stating that you think the illustration is good. Good for what? A full stomach does not nessesarily = satiety.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    Options
    You will be full if you eat more food that is less calories.

    This is absolutely true. But it's irrelevant to the discussion. In terms of weight, a calorie is a calorie. In terms of health and body composition, protein is protein (assuming it's complete). In terms of health, micronutrients are micronutrients.

    These things are all related in certain ways, but the relations themselves are of no importance.

    If you get the right amount of calories, the right amount of each macro, and the right amount of micronutrients, it doesn't matter how you get them.

    It's foodism. It's almost like sexism. Where sexism is applying characteristics to an individual because of his or her gender, foodism is applying characteristics to individual foods because of certain categories like "processed" or "fast food" or whatnot.

    The things we should be concerned with, in general, are calories, macronutrients, and micronutrients. Where they come from makes no difference whatsoever.
  • EmmaKarney
    EmmaKarney Posts: 690 Member
    Options
    A calorie is a calorie is a calorie.

    But some are going to fill you up more than others.
  • alishacupcake
    alishacupcake Posts: 419 Member
    Options
    I apologize if I am not making myself clear. I am saying yes, a calorie is always a calorie.

    What I am trying to say (apparently badly) is that I feel more full if I eat the 400 calories of chicken as opposed to the 400 calories of oil. The calories are the same but I will feel more full and I don't like being hungry. So my main "plan" is to eat foods that are less calories so I can eat more food and feel more full. Which is what I interpreted from the illustration.

Categories