Probably of interest to most....

2»

Replies

  • NovemberJune
    NovemberJune Posts: 2,525 Member
    Thanks for posting :)
  • Mr_Bad_Example
    Mr_Bad_Example Posts: 2,403 Member
    Tagging because this is fascinating and want to re read later.
    Lol, this ought to be good because one of the contentions is:

    It's much easier for the body to extract nutrients from cooked and processed foods than from whole or raw foods. People get more energy per ounce out of cooked hamburger than they would from a raw steak.


    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

    I thought that was interesting too. Maybe whole and raw foods are less well-digested and "pass through" before all the potential energy is extracted. This also means you can eat more of them for the same cal as processed/cooked. Processing and cooking them does some of the cellular breakdown for us.

    Just in the article, the argument is mentioned that almonds may deliver fewer calories because people don't "chew them enough and fracture all of the cell walls to release fats." I imagine that's why processed/cooked meals deliver higher calorie contents (aside from cooking and preparation), as per the reasoning here.

    All in all, the more you prepare yourself, the better off you'll be if you're trying to lose or maintain weight loss. But you know, a nice slice of stuffed crust pizza from Pizza Hut once in a while is still a pretty fun treat - calories be damned.
  • Mr_Bad_Example
    Mr_Bad_Example Posts: 2,403 Member
    ETA: I'm 92 pounds down based almost completely on calorie counting... if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

    Same here - I've lost and maintained pretty well by following the traditional calorie counting method. I'm all for greater accuracy and truth, though, and sometimes I wonder if calorie counts aren't fudged just so a company can sell even more of it's stuff - though I'm sure that no company looking to make a buck would EVER do that.
  • Olive_Green
    Olive_Green Posts: 12 Member
    Interesting. Thank you for sharing.
  • mikkimomof3
    mikkimomof3 Posts: 224 Member
    Interesting...like some others have said, I cannot spend too much time worrying about exact accuracy of the calories per food item I eat. If it's off a little (over or under) than so be it. If I am still paying attention and aiming for lower calorie options, I will be doing better than if I were just eating anything and everything that sounds good. I've never viewed this as an exact science--just aiming for a little less food consumption (or at least healthier, whole ingredients).
  • haley255
    haley255 Posts: 117 Member
    Yes, I definitely agree with sticking to counting calories for my own sanity. :)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories