Does it really matter where the calories come from?

36jessica

I just need some clarification... I know all about the eating healthy business: Less meat, more fresh fruits and veggies, a sprinkle of nuts here and there, lots of water etc. I am NOT here to dispute any of this and I'm not looking for any kind of fight. What I want to know -- in simple terms -- is if 200 cal. of broccoli (for example) is the same as 200 cal. of chocolate chip cookies (for example). Again, I am not looking for a fight and I know all the nutritional ups and downs -- broccoli is better that chocolate chip cookies etc. -- I'm looking at burning power. Can I burn 200 cal of broccoli the same way I burn 200 cal of chocolate chip cookies? If a person gets his/her vitamins/minerals from a pill, but eats a whole bunch of crap food, will he/she lose weight if he/she burns more than he/she consumes, regardless of the calorie source? Thanks!

LJSmith1989

Carbs are easier to burn than fats.. (I think) so on that basis, easier to burn the veggies than it is the cookies.

But bugger it who cares? its all about bit of this bit of that everything in balance.

ndj1979

calories are energy so you have answered your own question...so yes, you burn 200 cals of cookies the same as 200 of broccoli ...

CoachReddy

I just need some clarification... I know all about the eating healthy business: Less meat, more fresh fruits and veggies, a sprinkle of nuts here and there, lots of water etc. I am NOT here to dispute any of this and I'm not looking for any kind of fight. What I want to know -- in simple terms -- is if 200 cal. of broccoli (for example) is the same as 200 cal. of chocolate chip cookies (for example). Again, I am not looking for a fight and I know all the nutritional ups and downs -- broccoli is better that chocolate chip cookies etc. -- I'm looking at burning power. Can I burn 200 cal of broccoli the same way I burn 200 cal of chocolate chip cookies? If a person gets his/her vitamins/minerals from a pill, but eats a whole bunch of crap food, will he/she lose weight if he/she burns more than he/she consumes, regardless of the calorie source? Thanks!

if you're purely talking about weight loss, the answer is yes - to a point. It does not matter where the calories come from.

however, if you fail to take in enough nutrients in the form of vitamins and minerals, over time your body will become malnourished even if you're eating enough "food" calorically speaking. That malnourishment can have a negative effect on all areas of your health including weight loss. And getting these micronutrients in pill form is not adequate. Multi-vitamins are nowhere near as bio-available as the real thing. There's a reason they're called supplements. They're meant to supplement an already healthful diet.

Cr01502

In terms of health and body compostion: Yes.

In terms of weight loss? No.

Edit to say: And since when was eating less meat considered good for you?

3dogsrunning

This topic always gets confused along the lines of weight loss vs health.

Strictly weight loss speaking - it doesn't matter (check out the Twinkie diet, he did just that)
Health wise - obviously yes it matters.

ETA - yes I forgot body composition but its already been mentioned while I was typing.

thelittlew0lf

Yes, a calorie is a calorie, regardless of where it comes from. There was a nutrition instructor who lost 27 lbs in two months, eating mostly sugary junk food (you can read the full article from CNN here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html).

deathbypretzel

if you're purely talking about weight loss, the answer is yes - to a point. It does not matter where the calories come from.

however, if you fail to take in enough nutrients in the form of vitamins and minerals, over time your body will become malnourished even if you're eating enough "food" calorically speaking. That malnourishment can have a negative effect on all areas of your health including weight loss. And getting these micronutrients in pill form is not adequate. Multi-vitamins are nowhere near as bio-available as the real thing. There's a reason they're called supplements. They're meant to supplement an already healthful diet.

CoachReddy

In terms of health and body compostion: Yes.

In terms of weight loss? No.

Edit to say: And since when was eating less meat considered good for you?

it is.

tberrycastle

Excellent question, thank you for asking. I have been wondering the same thing lately.....all the while knowing which calorie is the "best" calorie, so to speak :-)

kts3639

My personal experience is that, in terms of weight loss, a calorie is a calorie (also, that what science says). I eat a mix of junk and healthy food, and have lost 27 lbs., with about 17 lbs. to go. This is my feeling purely from a weight loss standpoint.

tberrycastle

@ 3doggsrunning suggestion (above) I checked this out. Interesting! http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

CoachReddy

@ 3doggsrunning suggestion (above) I checked this out. Interesting! http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

however he, himself said he felt terrible and would never recommend anyone do it. losing weight is not more important than your health

3dogsrunning

@ 3doggsrunning suggestion (above) I checked this out. Interesting! http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

however he, himself said he felt terrible and would never recommend anyone do it. losing weight is not more important than your health

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.

DavPul

it does matter a little bit. 200 cals will burn like 200 cals no matter the source. But vitamin uptake from pills is severely limited compared to uptake from actual foods. And 200 cals from a steak (a pitifully small steak) will do more to increase your strength and muscle mass than 200 cals of cookies.

so it terms of weight loss, body composition and health, eat what you want, but be reasonable about it.

DavPul

@ 3doggsrunning suggestion (above) I checked this out. Interesting! http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

however he, himself said he felt terrible and would never recommend anyone do it. losing weight is not more important than your health

i have never read where he felt terrible. i remember him saying he felt better as the weight came off. you know, just like everyone does. me thinks you're making that part up.



edited to add: all of his health markers also improved. every single one. note: no where in his experiment was a conclusion drawn that eating so called "healthy foods" improved his actual health. it was ALL about calories in vs calories out

from the actual article:

Before his Twinkie diet, he tried to eat a healthy diet that included whole grains, dietary fiber, berries and bananas, vegetables and occasional treats like pizza.
"There seems to be a disconnect between eating healthy and being healthy," Haub said. "It may not be the same. I was eating healthier, but I wasn't healthy. I was eating too much."

ninerbuff

It doesn't matter, if the are broccoli cookies................................:laugh:

In weight loss it doesn't matter.

A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

CoachReddy

@ 3doggsrunning suggestion (above) I checked this out. Interesting! http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

however he, himself said he felt terrible and would never recommend anyone do it. losing weight is not more important than your health

i have never read where he felt terrible. i remember him saying he felt better as the weight came off. you know, just like everyone does. me thinks you're making that part up

i might be actually. lol it's been a while since i read those articles.

interesting to note, however, that he also ate 800 fewer calories while on the diet and he would "augmented by a protein shake, multivitamin pills, a can of green beans or four stalks of celery each day. "

so not JUST twinkies.

Barbellerella

In terms of health and body compostion: Yes.

In terms of weight loss? No.

Edit to say: And since when was eating less meat considered good for you?

it is.

pants on fire

cwolfman13

I just need some clarification... I know all about the eating healthy business: Less meat, more fresh fruits and veggies, a sprinkle of nuts here and there, lots of water etc. I am NOT here to dispute any of this and I'm not looking for any kind of fight. What I want to know -- in simple terms -- is if 200 cal. of broccoli (for example) is the same as 200 cal. of chocolate chip cookies (for example). Again, I am not looking for a fight and I know all the nutritional ups and downs -- broccoli is better that chocolate chip cookies etc. -- I'm looking at burning power. Can I burn 200 cal of broccoli the same way I burn 200 cal of chocolate chip cookies? If a person gets his/her vitamins/minerals from a pill, but eats a whole bunch of crap food, will he/she lose weight if he/she burns more than he/she consumes, regardless of the calorie source? Thanks!

There is nothing inherently evil about meat...it is a natural, whole food that has been consumed by humans since pretty much the beginning of our time.

No that we have that out of the way, It really doesn't matter where your calories come from in RE to weight loss (unless you're insulin resistant or something), but it does matter for nutrition and body composition. Basically, if you eat like **** you're going to look and feel like **** even if you're at a "healthy" weight.

For proper nutrition, you should definitely be getting plenty of veg and fruit as well as meat, poultry, and fish. People should eat less processed **** and more whole foods and basically move more and everything would be all right.

CoachReddy

I just need some clarification... I know all about the eating healthy business: Less meat, more fresh fruits and veggies, a sprinkle of nuts here and there, lots of water etc. I am NOT here to dispute any of this and I'm not looking for any kind of fight. What I want to know -- in simple terms -- is if 200 cal. of broccoli (for example) is the same as 200 cal. of chocolate chip cookies (for example). Again, I am not looking for a fight and I know all the nutritional ups and downs -- broccoli is better that chocolate chip cookies etc. -- I'm looking at burning power. Can I burn 200 cal of broccoli the same way I burn 200 cal of chocolate chip cookies? If a person gets his/her vitamins/minerals from a pill, but eats a whole bunch of crap food, will he/she lose weight if he/she burns more than he/she consumes, regardless of the calorie source? Thanks!

There is nothing inherently evil about meat...it is a natural, whole food that has been consumed by humans since pretty much the beginning of our time.

nobody said meat was evil. In fact it's very important unless you've got moral opposition to it. however, for the majority of first-world peoples, eating less of it would be a good thing for reasons from health to the environment.

a 150 pound man only requires about 56g of protein a day but we typically eat at least 100g more than that, which means that - by default - we're eating fewer other foods that have additional vitamins and minerals that we need, like fruits and veggies. (keep in mind this is talking about the population as a whole, not specific people on MFP, so I'm not really interested in your "YEAH BUT I eat a bunch of meat AND a bunch of fruits + veggies!" Good for you. )

pspetralia

it does matter a little bit. 200 cals will burn like 200 cals no matter the source. But vitamin uptake from pills is severely limited compared to uptake from actual foods. And 200 cals from a steak (a pitifully small steak) will do more to increase your strength and muscle mass than 200 cals of cookies.

so it terms of weight loss, body composition and health, eat what you want, but be reasonable about it.

Listen to Dave!!!

brower47

Yes and no.

Yes, if you haven't gotten an adequate number of vitamins/minerals, fiber and a good macro ratio.

No, if you have met all of those nutritional requirements.

lalaland82

Thanks for asking this - i was just feeling bad cos i caved and ate the chocolate bar my fiancee bought for me - then realised it meant i went waaaay over calorie allowance eating my planned meals - so have gone without lunch and made a massive salad to accompany dinner.
Least I'm not the only who worries that chocolate cals wont shift lol

SrJoben

My impression is that while there may be differences in the way the body handles different materials, as is often claimed by various studies looking at specifics of blood chemistry in the minutes or hours directly after ingestion, these are pretty small effects. In terms of large scale effects like weight loss or gain a calorie is a calorie regardless of what it comes from.

People spend way too much time arguing about minutia like complex vs simple carbohydrates. Or whether their sugar come from cane or corn. I'm basically a If It Fits Your Macros type guy. I figure as long as your getting enough veggies and such for proper vitamin and mineral intake a little 'junk food' isn't going to hurt you.

aakaakaak

Here, have a list of links pertaining to protein intake and weight loss:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/823505-research-on-protien-intake

Generalization - increasing your protein intake to greater than the recommended daily allowance performs better for fat loss. It also prevents you from losing more muscle than fat in a calorie deficit.

taunto

In terms of health and body compostion: Yes.

In terms of weight loss? No.

Edit to say: And since when was eating less meat considered good for you?

it is.

I hope the vague comment of "it is." is referring to the first two sentences and not the lack of meat being considered good for you. Because I just KNOW that no coach can be giving out THAT bad of a statement

CoachReddy

In terms of health and body compostion: Yes.

In terms of weight loss? No.

Edit to say: And since when was eating less meat considered good for you?

it is.

I hope the vague comment of "it is." is referring to the first two sentences and not the lack of meat being considered good for you. Because I just KNOW that no coach can be giving out THAT bad of a statement

haha the poster didn't say a "lack of meat" is good for you. he said eating "less" meat.

the average american eats far more meat than he or she needs to, and cutting back (not cutting it out) can help on all sorts of fronts from lowering overall caloric intake to making sure you're getting enough v+m by increasing fruit and veggie intake, etc. there are also environmental factors if you care about that kind of thing.

taunto

In terms of health and body compostion: Yes.

In terms of weight loss? No.

Edit to say: And since when was eating less meat considered good for you?

it is.

I hope the vague comment of "it is." is referring to the first two sentences and not the lack of meat being considered good for you. Because I just KNOW that no coach can be giving out THAT bad of a statement

haha the poster didn't say a "lack of meat" is good for you. he said eating "less" meat.

the average american eats far more meat than he or she needs to, and cutting back (not cutting it out) can help on all sorts of fronts from lowering overall caloric intake to making sure you're getting enough v+m by increasing fruit and veggie intake, etc. there are also environmental factors if you care about that kind of thing.

a) Average American isn't tracking their calories and macros. Which I assume most on this site are so unless they want to starve themselve, they automatically are likely to eat up some nutrition. AKA veggies, fruits etc along with high cal meats (like fatty steak).

b) I like how you just assumed people are American.

c) What environmental factors? Like a cow from Nebraska says moo but the cow from California starts laughing hysterically like in the California cheese ads? You know those aren't real right...?

jbonow1231

The calories might be the same, but the broccoli has a lot more fiber and will keep you feeling fuller longer than the cookie. It also no doubt has a lot less refined sugar which will just encourage cravings.

Unknown

This content has been removed.