Calories vs. Carbs

Well what about sugar? I mean what's the difference between eating 100 calories worth of spinach and 100 calories worth of chocolate? The type of food must matter, so it can't be strictly the calories that control your weight right?

Additionally, protein and fat are of much greater physiological importance than carbohydrates. Typically when calories need to be reduced, it usually makes sense to reduce carbs in order to create the necessary energy deficit -- but obviously this is still dependent on context.

That's true, but only to an extent. After all, vegetables have great nutritional value and are also carbs. So it's not entirely accurate to say your body needs carbs less than protein or fat. If that were true, why would eating vegetables to achieve optimal health and fitness be pushed on dieters so much?

I said that protein and fat are of greater physiological importance. There exist essential fatty acids and essential amino acids that your body cannot supply on it's own. Your body can produce glucose through gluconeogenesis which makes carbs a non-essential nutrient.

EDIT: But obviously I would never suggest that anyone stop eating vegetables or eliminate carbs.

Additionally, protein and fat are of much greater physiological importance than carbohydrates. Typically when calories need to be reduced, it usually makes sense to reduce carbs in order to create the necessary energy deficit -- but obviously this is still dependent on context.

That's true, but only to an extent. After all, vegetables have great nutritional value and are also carbs. So it's not entirely accurate to say your body needs carbs less than protein or fat. If that were true, why would eating vegetables to achieve optimal health and fitness be pushed on dieters so much?

I said that protein and fat are of greater physiological importance. There exist essential fatty acids and essential amino acids that your body cannot supply on it's own. Your body can produce glucose through gluconeogenesis which makes carbs a non-essential nutrient.

EDIT: But obviously I would never suggest that anyone stop eating vegetables or eliminate carbs.

That still doesn't explain why most doctors you speak to and many studies you read will say you need the nutrition that vegetables, a carbohydrate, provide. I'm not saying fats and proteins aren't important, because they are -- I'm saying all three matter and we need to stop making one out of the three this enemy food that needs to be avoided.

Here is where you are confusing my statement with typical ignorant low-carb dogma (read: I agree with your bold part above, but you are assuming that I'm saying things that I am not saying):

I am not advocating low carb diets (although, there ARE some people that would benefit from them and it is not a dangerous approach when done intelligently). I am not suggesting that carbs are evil. Obesity is caused by overconsumption of energy over time. Carbs are your friend and because of the micronutrients they provide, you should probably eat them. I eat 250-300g/day in carbs.

If what you were saying made sense, there would be no point in eating healthy carbs, and medical evidence points to the fact that eating those things does improve your health.

I don't see where you are drawing this conclusion. My original statement was that usually when someone decides to restrict calorie intake (they are overweight, they are learning about nutrition, and they need to create an energy deficit), it makes sense to draw most of the deficit from carbohydrate. I would further conclude that most people, when they start to learn about proper nutrition, learn that they also should increase protein intake due to LBM retention. This further drives CHO intake downwards because you have to make up for that caloric increase in protein.

This is a risk I take for saying "usually" because we're arguing without context. I'm going to make the assumption, that I believe is fair, that the majority of obese people are consuming a diet that is hypercaloric (this is an obvious one) and they are also consuming plenty of carbs, and I'd further speculate they are not consuming enough protein. I'm not going to make the statement that this is the case with all obese people. I think this is the case with "most" obese people.

This does not make carbs the enemy. Carbs are not causing people to be fat. Hypercaloric intake is causing people to be fat. It just so happens that, the math works out such that if you tell Bob to reduce his caloric intake by 1200 to get him to a reasonable deficit, and you tell him that he should also bump his protein up to 150g, he's going to need to put down the donuts (reduce CHO).

I still have the same question about sugar though... I just can't believe that 100 calories worth of chocolate or something is equal to 100 calories of something like spinach in terms of weight loss. I just don't see how this is possible; the ingredients must pose a different affect on the body and cause the sugary one to lead to greater fat stores despite the amounts being equal in calories. Am I right?

What can I say? i've made the most in-depth post on here!

See wellbert, that's the part I'm figuring out. The differences in foods... and how some foods are equally caloric while others seem to be off balance even in the same amount of calories.

100 calories of spinach has the same caloric-value as 100 calories of chocolate.

But 100 calories of meat doesn't provide the same caloric value as 100 calories of bread.

Yes It Does A Calorie Is A Calorie Is A Calorie. The Nutrition that calorie provides is different.
The caloric value is a non word. It's nutrient value, We're talking about.

Additionally, protein and fat are of much greater physiological importance than carbohydrates. Typically when calories need to be reduced, it usually makes sense to reduce carbs in order to create the necessary energy deficit -- but obviously this is still dependent on context.

That's true, but only to an extent. After all, vegetables have great nutritional value and are also carbs. So it's not entirely accurate to say your body needs carbs less than protein or fat. If that were true, why would eating vegetables to achieve optimal health and fitness be pushed on dieters so much?

I said that protein and fat are of greater physiological importance. There exist essential fatty acids and essential amino acids that your body cannot supply on it's own. Your body can produce glucose through gluconeogenesis which makes carbs a non-essential nutrient.

EDIT: But obviously I would never suggest that anyone stop eating vegetables or eliminate carbs.

That still doesn't explain why most doctors you speak to and many studies you read will say you need the nutrition that vegetables, a carbohydrate, provide. I'm not saying fats and proteins aren't important, because they are -- I'm saying all three matter and we need to stop making one out of the three this enemy food that needs to be avoided. If what you were saying made sense, there would be no point in eating healthy carbs, and medical evidence points to the fact that eating those things does improve your health.

Edit: Read your edit just now after posting my response. Ignore the above, lol.

Excellent exchange of posts, thank you friends.

Following the posts through there is something I don't understand which I thought I had sussed.

Why would 100 calories of steak and 100 calories of bread not total 200 calories? Are the calories from proteins and carbs and fats different? Do they burn slower? I understand that fats and carbs are used for energy and protein (largely) for repair and building and so it makes sense to have a correct balance of the three, but I thought the calorific value would be the same for all three components.

What am I not understanding here please?