Believe 'A Calorie Is a Calorie'?

_funrungirl

I do not believe all calories are created equal.

1200 calories of organic veggies and lean proteins will have vastly different results than 1200 calores of processed foods and TV dinners.

mmapags

I think "a calorie is a calorie" is up for debate. I noticed while on Weight Watchers that two foods could have an identical calorie count, but one would cost me more points than the other.

Well if that method worked so well for you, why would you be here?

Sqeekyjojo

I think "a calorie is a calorie" is up for debate. I noticed while on Weight Watchers that two foods could have an identical calorie count, but one would cost me more points than the other.

I'm willing to have a bet on the lower points being the WW branded low fat (and high sugar) version.

cwolfman13

I think "a calorie is a calorie" is up for debate. I noticed while on Weight Watchers that two foods could have an identical calorie count, but one would cost me more points than the other.

That's because WW dings you for eating less nutritious calories...it also allows you free points with veggies and the like...which indeed have calories and if you were to eat at a caloric surplus of veggies, you'd most definitely gain weight.

A calorie is a scientific unit of energy...so a calorie is indeed a calorie. The nutritional value of a particular calorie is a completely different discussion.

mmapags

I do not believe all calories are created equal.

1200 calories of organic veggies and lean proteins will have vastly different results than 1200 calores of processed foods and TV dinners.

From an overall health and body compostion point of view? Yes.

From a weight loss point if view? Not at all.

Google the Twinkie Diet.

SnicciFit

I do not believe all calories are created equal.

1200 calories of organic veggies and lean proteins will have vastly different results than 1200 calores of processed foods and TV dinners.

^^this.

spersephone

Yes and No - I read that article too (it came to me on Zite). What he's saying is absolutely valid. There are better ways to get our nutrients. If you purely count calories, that can work for you. It works for me. But if I want to maximise the benefits I'm getting from my food, I do have to think more about what I'm eating. It depends whether you want 1200 calories of really healthy, nutritious food, or 1200 calories of anything easy you can just grab.

Or 1500 calories, or 2000 calories, or whatever works for you.

It has a lot of merit, this article, but the fact is that some can't be bothered thinking that much into what they eat.

Sabine_Stroehm

I do not believe all calories are created equal.

1200 calories of organic veggies and lean proteins will have vastly different results than 1200 calores of processed foods and TV dinners.

From an overall health and body compostion point of view? Yes.

From a weight loss point if view? Not at all.

Google the Twinkie Diet.

Let's start there. From a BODY COMPOSITION point of view, yes.
Which means from a post weight loss weight maintenance point of view as well.....

joleenl

Thanks for posting.

whitecapwendy

Yup....

I think this article confuses the energy aspect of a calorie vs the nutritional value of a particular calorie. As a unit of energy, a calorie is indeed a calorie...however, from a nutritional standpoint, not all calories are created equal.

this

whitecapwendy

I do not believe all calories are created equal.

1200 calories of organic veggies and lean proteins will have vastly different results than 1200 calores of processed foods and TV dinners.

and this

Ryanmariem

Great Article thanks for the info... this is the same stuff I have been learning about while doing research... the two books that I have that has a good compilation and ways to verify that information are: "The Calcium Lie" by Dr, Robert Thompson and "The Blood Sugar Solution" by Mark Hyman (who also has a website w/the same name). I am sure as I read into this more I will find other books to add to the list... but so far in regards to this particular topic these two have a good insight and explain it pretty well.

Not all calories are equal.... This is in regard to overall health, not just about loosing weight.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lustig-md/sugar-toxic_b_2759564.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=2928504,b=facebook

A long article, but worth reading...

Here are some excerpts. Do check out the article for a clearer context....

Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but you absorb only 130. The fiber in the almonds delays absorption of calories into the bloodstream, delivering those calories to the bacteria in your intestine, which chew them up. Because a calorie is not a calorie.

Protein. When it comes to food, you have to put energy in to get energy out. You have to put twice as much energy in to metabolize protein as you do carbohydrate; this is called the thermic effect of food. So protein wastes more energy in its processing. Plus protein reduces hunger better than carbohydrate. Because a calorie is not a calorie.

Fat. All fats release nine calories per gram when burned. But omega-3 fats are heart-healthy and will save your life, while trans fats clog your arteries, leading to a heart attack. Because a calorie is not a calorie.

Sugar. This is the "big kahuna" of the "big lie." Sugar is not one chemical. It's two. Glucose is the energy of life. Every cell in every organism on the planet can burn glucose for energy. Glucose is mildly sweet, but not very interesting (think molasses). Fructose is an entirely different animal. Fructose is very sweet, the molecule we seek. Both burn at four calories per gram. If fructose were just like glucose, then sugar or high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) would be just like starch. But fructose is not glucose. Because a calorie is not a calorie.

....For instance, the increase in sugar consumption over the past 30 years paralleled the increase in obesity, diabetes and heart disease.... But correlation is not causation. Which direction do the data go? Does sugar cause obesity and metabolic disease? Or do obese people with metabolic disease drink soda?

"What in the world's food supply explains diabetes rates, country-by-country, over the last decade?" ...
...We assessed total calories; meat (protein); oils (fat); cereals (glucose); pulses, nuts, vegetables, roots, and tubers (fiber); fruit excluding wine (natural sugar); and sugar, sugarcrops, and sweeteners (added sugar). We controlled for poverty, urbanization, aging, and most important, obesity and physical activity.

Bottom line -- only changes in sugar availability explained changes in diabetes prevalence worldwide; nothing else mattered.

Total caloric availability was unrelated to diabetes prevalence; for every extra 150 calories per day, diabetes prevalence rose by only 0.1 percent. But if those 150 calories per day happened to be a can of soda, diabetes prevalence rose 11-fold, by 1.1 percent (and Americans on average consume the added sugar equivalent of 2.5 cans of soda per day, so that's 2.75 percent!). And this effect of sugar was exclusive of obesity; controlling for body mass index did not negate the effect. Even more important, we showed that the change in sugar availability preceded the change in diabetes (that's cause, not effect); and we showed directionality -- those countries where sugar availability rose showed increases in diabetes, while those where sugar availability fell showed decreases in diabetes. This is a very robust signal, with little noise. While epidemiology can't prove scientific causation, the data allow for objective inference. Sugar drives diabetes worldwide, and unrelated to its calories.

The food industry has contaminated the American food supply with added sugar to "sell more product" and thereby uphold their Wall Street mandate to increase profits. Of the 600,000 food items in the American grocery store, 80 percent have been spiked with added sugar; and the industry uses 56 other names for sugar on the label. They know when they add sugar, you buy more. And because you do not know you're buying it, you buy even more.....

mmapags

I do not believe all calories are created equal.

1200 calories of organic veggies and lean proteins will have vastly different results than 1200 calores of processed foods and TV dinners.

From an overall health and body compostion point of view? Yes.

From a weight loss point if view? Not at all.

Google the Twinkie Diet.

Let's start there. From a BODY COMPOSITION point of view, yes.
Which means from a post weight loss weight maintenance point of view as well.....

I'm in agreement. I am not an advocate of prepackaged highly processed foods and TV dinners. Eating a mostly nutrient dense whole food diet with balanced macronutrients is the only thing that makes common sense. Being at a healthy weight and being healthy at a healthy weight are both important.

That being said, how many threads do we see posted here that are decrying lack of progress even though they are "eating really clean"? Well if they are not minding the energy balance equation, they can get fat eating "really clean". Or other threads claiming a weight loss advantage through clean eating? That is a fools dream.

DavidC1857

A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. Certainly is true, since a calorie is simply a unit of measure of heat energy. If you eat 1000 calories (actually kilo-calories buy why split hairs), you've eaten 1000 calories.

However, how the body processes calories from different sources is certainly up for some debate. It would appear that the body utilizes calories from most carbohydrates very efficiently. Simply carbs like sugar very very efficiently. More complex carbs take longer to digest, but still get fully utilized. Carbs complex enough to get called fiber generally go out the other end undigested, therefore are not utilized at all.

Fat and protein calories are also utilized differently. Frankly more so complicated than I understand, or need to.

What I do know is that if I tend towards complex carbs, fats and proteins, I tend to maintain my weight better, feel better, and feel less hunger and cravings. So this is what I will do.

EricCowperthwaite

A calorie is a calorie is absolutely true as a statement of physics. Whether it is a vegetable or a fruit or a piece of meat or whatever, the cals in a given piece of food are exactly the same in terms of energy. As has been stated many times.

For all the "a calorie is a calorie" folks ... AND for all the "a calorie is not a calorie" ..... a reminder of the definition of a calorie:

a unit of heat, equal to 4.1868 joules. It was formerly defined as the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1°C under standard conditions.

In other words, a calorie merely measures, in 9th grade science terms, whether 1000 of them, when burned, will produce enough heat to raise 1 gram of waters temp by 1 degree celsius. That's all a calorie measures.

That said, how your body uses the various nutrients put in your body, how much insulin is produced, how testosterone and estrogen intersect with insulin to store fat appropriate to your gender, and so forth are very different things. Your body is not so simple as burning the food in a lab environment to determine it's calories.

Even the idea that your body will lose or gain the same amount of weight based purely on calories and having nothing to do with the nutrient balance of your food intake is a bad one. It certainly does not take into account the biological reality of how the body's metabolic and digestive systems work.

In other words, both sets of arguments are correct. Yes, a calorie is a measurement of energy units that is the same across all food types. And, actually across all materials, period. A rock, for example, contains X calories using the above discussed formulas. Although the human body can't really process a rock as energy.

This fact, indeed, gives the lie to the idea that just eat X number of calories, expend Y number of calories, subtract one from the other and you will determine if you are going to lose or gain weight. If you expend 2500 calories a day in total energy expenditure, and you consume 3000 calories a day of gravel and wood, I promise you will not gain one pound a week of weight.

HOW your body metabolizes the materials we put in to it is a huge factor in whether we gain or lose weight, what sorts (i.e. muscle, fat, water) of weight we gain or lose, and how healthy we are.

Calories should only be used as a very rough yardstick to govern the quantity of food your body needs per day. With the understanding that 100 calories of chicken breast and 100 calories of granulated sugar will have very different effects on our body. Using calories to measure food intake is akin to using BMI to measure obesity. It gives you a very rough idea of whether your food intake is right at a very macro level. That is all it does.

mmapags

A calorie is a calorie is absolutely true as a statement of physics. Whether it is a vegetable or a fruit or a piece of meat or whatever, the cals in a given piece of food are exactly the same in terms of energy. As has been stated many times.

For all the "a calorie is a calorie" folks ... AND for all the "a calorie is not a calorie" ..... a reminder of the definition of a calorie:

a unit of heat, equal to 4.1868 joules. It was formerly defined as the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1°C under standard conditions.

In other words, a calorie merely measures, in 9th grade science terms, whether 1000 of them, when burned, will produce enough heat to raise 1 gram of waters temp by 1 degree celsius. That's all a calorie measures.

That said, how your body uses the various nutrients put in your body, how much insulin is produced, how testosterone and estrogen intersect with insulin to store fat appropriate to your gender, and so forth are very different things. Your body is not so simple as burning the food in a lab environment to determine it's calories.

Even the idea that your body will lose or gain the same amount of weight based purely on calories and having nothing to do with the nutrient balance of your food intake is a bad one. It certainly does not take into account the biological reality of how the body's metabolic and digestive systems work.

In other words, both sets of arguments are correct. Yes, a calorie is a measurement of energy units that is the same across all food types. And, actually across all materials, period. A rock, for example, contains X calories using the above discussed formulas. Although the human body can't really process a rock as energy.

This fact, indeed, gives the lie to the idea that just eat X number of calories, expend Y number of calories, subtract one from the other and you will determine if you are going to lose or gain weight. If you expend 2500 calories a day in total energy expenditure, and you consume 3000 calories a day of gravel and wood, I promise you will not gain one pound a week of weight.

HOW your body metabolizes the materials we put in to it is a huge factor in whether we gain or lose weight, what sorts (i.e. muscle, fat, water) of weight we gain or lose, and how healthy we are. Calories should be used as a very rough yardstick to govern the quantity of food your body needs per day. Nothing more and nothing less.

James Kreiger does not agree with you. A quote from a paper he did comparing ketogenic diets and non-ketogenic diets"

4. The MA hypothesis does not trump the concept of energy balance. It postulates inefficiencies in energy metabolism, which would translate to an increase in measured energy expenditure (due to heat loss) in a living organism. Thus, if the MA was true, "calories out" would increase for a given "calories in".

Also to use non food items such as gravel or wood to claim a MA for weight loss is ludicrous. No offense but if it's a choice between finding you credible or finding Kreiger credible, he wins. Link to Kreiger's credentials page.
http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=3

blu_meanie_ca

Food is only "spiked" with sugars if you don't read the label. With the exception of the functionally illiterate, there is no reason for people to not know what is in their food. We all have smart phones.. if you don't know what an ingredient is.. google it. I am all for clean eating.. but, not interested in foodspiracies. We all make (and eat) our own choices.

sunsnstatheart

You could continue getting your nutrition and fitness information from pop culture sources or you could listen to actual experts who believe in that science stuff. I know, crazy, right?

Of course, this thread is doomed to derail . . .