Theoretic question
Replies
-
ok - I think that your theoretical scenario is fairly straight forward. ignoring any ACTUAL real life repercussions would the calories burned during the process of digestion be the same, resulting in the same maintenance?
I had a google and found the following
The thermic effect of food due to a meal will vary depending on the relative proportions of the macronutrients (i.e. fat, carbohydrates, and protein) that make up the meal. Without a doubt, protein is the macronutrient that induces the largest thermic effect of food response. Roughly 25% of the calories in pure protein will be burned after consumption due to the thermic effect of food. Fat and carbohydrates, on the other hand, each induce a burn of roughly 5% of the calories consumed due to the thermic effect of food. So, for example, if you consume 400 calories of pure protein you will burn 100 (or 25%) of those calories through the thermic effect of food. If you consume 400 calories of pure fat or pure carbohydrates, only 20 calories (or 5%) will be burned through the thermic effect of food.
Unfortunately this didn't mention just veggies...veggies vary though and so the theory is loose at best as some vegetables have more fibre and would therefore use more energy to burn.
I thought it an interesting question in the first place. Possibly you would lose with veggies as after digestion the calory yield would I suppose be less.
you beat me to it.0 -
You could eat 2000 cals of lard, but your portion of "food" for the day would be so small that you would be starving.
See chart below for breakdown:
Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories
Alcohol: 1 gram = 7 calories
So the more calorically dense a food, the less of it you get.
Jan0 -
wow is there anyone on this board that's not *kitten* holes? seriously i am new here and have only read a few threads but so far the feel on here is far from the supportive community i would think would exist despite there always being bad apples in the bunch wherever you go.....
that being said i have wondered the same thing. is dieting and weight loss purely about calorie count or is it critical where the calories come from? Of course if you are also eating for health concerns then yes it would make a difference but to your question - in pure weight loss terms - is a calorie a calorie a calorie with the same results no matter where the calorie comes from. i would guess it is...
so i could eat a 350 calorie piece of pie for every meal or i could eat 350 calories of healthy food for every meal and get the same results.1 -
You could eat 2000 cals of lard, but your portion of "food" for the day would be so small that you would be starving.
See chart below for breakdown:
Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories
Alcohol: 1 gram = 7 calories
So the more calorically dense a food, the less of it you get.
Jan
that's what i was thinking too!1 -
Maintain.
By the way lard isn't the most evil food out there. I've been known to slap some onto a slice of bread with salt. Try it it's yummy. No joke.0 -
some interesting and more relevant posts towards the end here (thank god). anyway it got me thinking - i bet you would end up looking like the people on the Wall E movie that never moved and drank all of their calories in a cup. fat blobs with no muscle tone and barely any skeletons! hahhahahah!!!1
-
Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
which vegetables have fat?
avacados, brocolli, sweetcorn - of the top of my head.
avocados and corn are not veggies. broccoli? really?
The example was fruit and veg, not just veg. Avocado is a fruit. It counts. Corn is a grain, though, so it doesn't count.0 -
Let's assume your body requires 2000 calories to MAINTAIN it's weight.
Now, if I ate purely fruit & veg to the value of 2000 calories, theoretically I would maintain my weight.
What would happen if I ate LARD to the value of 2000 calories?
HOWEVER, you would need to consider that it's quite likely your body would work differently just eating lard.
It may change your BMR because of the different dietary change to a figure not 2000. To maintain weight then, you'd have to adjust your lard intake to match.0 -
Wellllll.... having done this experiment myself I can tell you that in the short term, eating pure fat will actually drop a whole lot of weight. Yep. And not from the "going to the bathroom" theory. I didn't eat lard- but butter, coconut oil, bacon fat, egg yolks (egg yolks cooked in bacon fat...). If you read my profile info, you'll see I lost the majority of my 140 pounds on Atkins. Well, when you stall on Atkins, the recommendation is to go hog-wild on fat and cut out all carbs. I lost 8 pounds in less than two weeks and broke my plateau. I suppose it's not a satisfactory answer to your question in regards to long-term eating pure fat, but it's at least an answer based on actual experience.
*eta- my hair and skin never looked healthier.1 -
there was a study done by a professor at some university that ate only twinkies at his calorie deficit, and lost weight. but honestly, you don't want diabetes or heart issues, etc. it just isn't worth it.
i used to work downtown at a drop-in centre with homeless individuals. many of those that i worked with had diabetes. one had a hole in his leg. the word hole can not do it justice just how awful it was. do not let this happen to you!1 -
Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
which vegetables have fat?
avacados, brocolli, sweetcorn - of the top of my head.
avocados and corn are not veggies. broccoli? really?
god, you're a stickler eh?
googled brocolli for you - 0.5g fat per 5.3oz stalk0 -
Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
which vegetables have fat?
do they?0 -
If you sucribe to the idea of "calories in calories out" then you would maintain.
If you believe your bodies are more complex then that then I would think your body would attenpt to adjust. You would loose for a short amount of time till your body began to crave every nutrient it came across. Your bodies ability to adapt is impressive to say the least. It would burn all your muscle, it would stop hair growth, and sex functions, and anythig else it didnt deem nessacary for survival.
That is unless the scurvy killed you first.1 -
Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
which vegetables have fat?
do they?
Yes. They all contain trace fats.
edit: though so little there is no need to track them.
i meant "do they count"0 -
wow is there anyone on this board that's not *kitten* holes? seriously i am new here and have only read a few threads but so far the feel on here is far from the supportive community i would think would exist despite there always being bad apples in the bunch wherever you go.....
that being said i have wondered the same thing. is dieting and weight loss purely about calorie count or is it critical where the calories come from? Of course if you are also eating for health concerns then yes it would make a difference but to your question - in pure weight loss terms - is a calorie a calorie a calorie with the same results no matter where the calorie comes from. i would guess it is...
so i could eat a 350 calorie piece of pie for every meal or i could eat 350 calories of healthy food for every meal and get the same results.
yeah supportive this forum is not. if you post a question, or make a comment about something you find interesting, you will be squished by the mob. 'tis a shame.0 -
Wellllll.... having done this experiment myself I can tell you that in the short term, eating pure fat will actually drop a whole lot of weight. Yep. And not from the "going to the bathroom" theory. I didn't eat lard- but butter, coconut oil, bacon fat, egg yolks (egg yolks cooked in bacon fat...). If you read my profile info, you'll see I lost the majority of my 140 pounds on Atkins. Well, when you stall on Atkins, the recommendation is to go hog-wild on fat and cut out all carbs. I lost 8 pounds in less than two weeks and broke my plateau. I suppose it's not a satisfactory answer to your question in regards to long-term eating pure fat, but it's at least an answer based on actual experience.
*eta- my hair and skin never looked healthier.
do you think this is going to be sustainable for you long-term?0 -
Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
which vegetables have fat?
do they?
Yes. They all contain trace fats.
edit: though so little there is no need to track them.
i meant "do they count"
They're virtually all omega's, so yes they count, why wouldn't they. Again, I never suggested that vegetables would give us enough fat in out diet, only that they had fat, which was my retort to the original statement.0 -
yeah supportive this forum is not. if you post a question, or make a comment about something you find interesting, you will be squished by the mob. 'tis a shame.
THAT'S NOT TRUE! [SQUISH SQUISH SQUISH!]0 -
Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.
which vegetables have fat?
do they?
Yes. They all contain trace fats.
edit: though so little there is no need to track them.
i meant "do they count"
They're virtually all omega's, so yes they count, why wouldn't they. Again, I never suggested that vegetables would give us enough fat in out diet, only that they had fat, which was my retort to the original statement.
you said that eating only fruits and veg for a long period of time would not land you in the hospital because they have all three macros. that's what I was curious about. I don't think there's near enough protein OR fat to get adequate micronutrients or macronutrients, and doing that for a long time could create health risks.0 -
Let's assume your body requires 2000 calories to MAINTAIN it's weight.
Now, if I ate purely fruit & veg to the value of 2000 calories, theoretically I would maintain my weight.
What would happen if I ate LARD to the value of 2000 calories?
please spare any answers such as: "you'd throw up" - "you'd become sick" - "it would be awful for you"
I'm not an idiot, I know these things.
I'm asking purely out of biological interest, whether fatty calories would affect weight loss. (assuming your 2000kcal limit was met).
You're asking somewhat of a loaded question. Calories themselves don't account for specific body composition or macro/micro composition of a diet. You COULD eat (for example) 2000 calories a day of just white bread, you'd die eventually though.
Macros matter, protein moreso then anything else. You couldn't for example maintain your current muscle mass without protein, regardless of how many calories you eat (unless you're getting adequate protein).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions