Does it really matter where the calories come from?

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.

neanderthin

No it doesn't matter, and no you can't eat nutritionally deficient foods then expect pills to compensate for the deficiency. And less meat, you must mean chicken because people have been eating less red meat over the last 30 yrs or so and where chicken consumption has risen over 400%. Chicken must be the cause of obesity and heart disease, and.

kirstyfairhead

Firstly I agree with what most folks are saying that 200 cals is 200 cals so it doesn't matter, however, just to mix things up a little, how does the Atkins thing work.

If someone with a TDEE of 1500 cals ate 2000cals of healthy food every day they would gain weight but if the same person ate 2000cals of food that is low carb and up to 70% fat they will lose weight. This makes no sense to me despite the inarguable fact that people do lose weight on Atkins. I know this as I have done it myself.

I wouldn't recommend it and I don't believe it is healthy but curious as to why the 'science' doesn't work in this instance!!?

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.

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...?

i'm not actually going to attempt to have a real conversation with taunto.

DawnieB1977

I don't think it makes a massive difference in terms of general weight loss, but when you get close to goal, or you're looking to cut down belly fat a bit, get more defined abs etc, then it does start to matter.

I lost weight while eating the occasional treat, then as I got closer to my goal my personal trainer suggested I don't eat any 'bad' food at all 6 days a week and just have a cheat meal on one day. My diet is pretty good, but he was saying even things like sugar free jelly (jello to Americans) were bad, or just one biscuit (cookie) with a coffee. He suggested I aim for 30-40g of fat a day and lots of protein. So, instead of 2 poached eggs, just have 1 yolk and 2 whites.

I tried the cheat meal for about 8 weeks but I don't think it made a massive difference to be honest. At the moment I've been having the odd treat, like today I had about 60 calories worth of dark choc. I haven't weighed myself for a while but would be interested to see if I've lost anything.

CoachReddy

Firstly I agree with what most folks are saying that 200 cals is 200 cals so it doesn't matter, however, just to mix things up a little, how does the Atkins thing work.

If someone with a TDEE of 1500 cals ate 2000cals of healthy food every day they would gain weight but if the same person ate 2000cals of food that is low carb and up to 70% fat they will lose weight. This makes no sense to me despite the inarguable fact that people do lose weight on Atkins. I know this as I have done it myself.

I wouldn't recommend it and I don't believe it is healthy but curious as to why the 'science' doesn't work in this instance!!?

they won't lose weight if they're eating 500 cal above their TDEE

jodigirl03

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."

[/quote]

I have so done this, (not the Twinkie thing just to be clear)!!! I eat healthy 80% of the time. I mean truly healthy, (ALMOST squeaky clean), and I gained because I was eating too much. I still eat healthy 80% of the time but I count my calories now. However, I'm eating for longevity & health, not necessarily weight loss. I have 5 lbs to lose, that's it.

But yes to answer your Ques you can get fat on health food and skinny on crap and vice versa. A calorie is a calorie. (WELL, SORT OF, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER CAN OF WORMS.)
Ps - I would NEVER go on some fast food/processed diet though. You're going to be weak, low in energy and yes the quality of your food can slow down your metabolism.

jodigirl03

Ps - I would NEVER depend on a supplement for my "nutrition." MOST vitamins are not even absorbed, it's hard enough getting all of your nutrients absorbed through whole foods. Digestion is a tricky tricky thing and many health issues that most of you don't even know you have can totally interfere with getting your nutrients where they need to go.

myofibril

No it doesn't matter.

However, whether you could accurately match calorie intake from a diet high in processed food than that from food closer to its natural state in a real world scenario is highly debatable:

So, perhaps that's a better way to look at the problem: labels wouldn't be so misleading if we thought of their Kcal listings not as total Kcals, but as max Kcals you could get from any given food. And, if one is to determine some kind of main takeaway dietary message from all this discussion, it may be simply this: that by eating more whole, raw foods (like other animals and like our pre-human ancestors did), you can count on fewer Kcals (thank your microbes for halving the amounts of Kcals you absorb once food reaches your intestine); and you can count on greater digestive and metabolic costs by eating well-balanced meals containing plenty of fiber and protein per meal (think "python diet").

http://evolvinghealthscience.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/calories-arent-right-on-labels-and.html?spref=fb

(even includes commentary from "The Twinkie" professor...)

kirstyfairhead

Firstly I agree with what most folks are saying that 200 cals is 200 cals so it doesn't matter, however, just to mix things up a little, how does the Atkins thing work.

If someone with a TDEE of 1500 cals ate 2000cals of healthy food every day they would gain weight but if the same person ate 2000cals of food that is low carb and up to 70% fat they will lose weight. This makes no sense to me despite the inarguable fact that people do lose weight on Atkins. I know this as I have done it myself.

I wouldn't recommend it and I don't believe it is healthy but curious as to why the 'science' doesn't work in this instance!!?

they won't lose weight if they're eating 500 cal above their TDEE

I would normally agree but in that case how on earth do Atkins dieters lose weight (and they clearly do) as there is a tendency towards a large amount of meat, dairy, high fat, high calorie food on this diet. Surely all these 'successes' cant be from people who chowed down on this stuff and yet still 'accidentally' ate less than their TDEE!!?

DavPul

I would normally agree but in that case how on earth do Atkins dieters lose weight (and they clearly do) as there is a tendency towards a large amount of meat, dairy, high fat, high calorie food on this diet. Surely all these 'successes' cant be from people who chowed down on this stuff and yet still 'accidentally' ate less than their TDEE!!?

by cutting out (or drastically down) their carbs, people on atkins ARE eating in a caloric deficit. Get rid of all your bread, candy, sugar, most snacks, cereals, desserts, starches and what have you, and you've probably cut 1500 calories off your normal daily intake. Atkins isn't magic, it's just cutting a specific type of calories instead of calories in general.

for most people, going with high protein, high fat meats and such will be self limiting as it's filling and leaves you feeling full for a long time after. especially compared to simple sugar products like cookies, ice cream, or soda. doesn't work for me as I can eat the whole pig in one sitting, and come back later to eat half the cow.