A Calorie is a Caloire is a...... let's compare...

micro-nutrients or lack their of...

because you know things like sugar, fiber, minerals etc. don't affect the body at all.

Here is a bit more detailed answer for those who would like to learn a bit of biology and dietary labeling. The answer is 'No' and 'Yes'. Every calorie is not actually the same when it comes to the actual science, but this has been largely corrected for on food labels and so for the purpose of dieting you usually don't need to worry. Ironically, the example using almonds is one case where this is NOT true and where a 'calorie is not a calorie'.

Calories, as noted above, are a unit of measure describing heat energy released during a chemical reaction. For organic compounds the reaction that matters is oxidation, which can be measured by combustion, even though oxidation in our bodies does not occur by combustion (lucky for us) but via more controlled chemical reactions, referred to in total as our 'metabolism'. Still, combustion is a handy estimator because both combustion and our metabolism use oxygen (O2) to break the carbon bonds in organic compounds and release energy and carbon dioxide (CO2) as a byproduct.

As it turns out, its not hard to prove that not all calories are created equal, especially with respect to our metabolism. The easiest example of this is the cellulose and lignin that occurs in plant material. Cellulose is actually just a long chain of sugars, but we don't have the chemical machinery in our bodies to break those long chains of sugars into ones we can use so for the most part it passes through our bodies undigested. You know and love this cellulose as part of your dietary 'fiber'. Now here's thing, there is a ton of carbon-bond energy in that cellulose and if you combust it, as you do when you burn wood or paper, it gives off a lot of calories for its mass (it is energy dense). Nonetheless, we can't eat wood or grass and access those cellulose calories (Animals like cows use microbes in their digestive tracts to do the conversions for them).

Also, it is very easy to show that our digestion is not anywhere near as efficient as combustion (as occurs in a bomb calorimeter, the simplest tool to measure calories). We come close with some simple sugars, like glucose, that are absorbed easily and used/stored efficiently by our cells but don't do anywhere near as good with absorbing or metabolizing most proteins. Things get even more complicated when you start working with the reality that foods are complex mixtures of different compounds and those mixtures can interact in funny ways. For example, adding fiber to most diets decreases the efficiency of absorbing other dietary components.

So, no, not every calorie is the same, but this was recognized long ago by people like Wilbur Atwater, who then attempted to work out some conversions between caloric values obtained from combustion and what we humans can actually absorb, convert and assimilate. Atwater gave us the rule of thumb conversions that go into most dietary labels, like 4 calories per gram for proteins and carbs and 9 per gram for fats. For most foods, these conversions come close enough for our needs and so for the most part its not worth losing much sleep over whether to eat one food or another.

Ironically, the example of almonds is one case where, at the moment, a 'calorie is not a calorie'. In 2012, a study by Novotny found that the energy we get from almonds is about 1/3 less than what is reported based on the Atwater values that go into nutrition labels. This is just an example of the challenge of estimating human-specific caloric values. Maybe food labels will be corrected...we'll see.

You can rack up alot of calories fast eating clean with nuts, seeds, flax seed, coconut & olive oil.
Does "clean" mean no meat or just organics?
Because then you can add steak, beef, pork, chicken and even fish.
I'm not sure exactly how to get to 10,000 but I can easily get to 2,500 and still have room for lots more.

That's 3 times more than you're eating now.........................and then have to train for 4-6 hours a day. Tell me you wouldn't throw up if you had to eat 3 more times than you're doing now and train your own training session for just 2 hours?
Don't you think that an Olympic athlete who needs that much would rather get it from clean foods if they actually could without it interrupting their training?

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'm not sure what we're debating here. I agree 100%.
Btw, I don't eat 2500 calls. I'm small. But I DO understand his need for that.

. Any kind of mineral deficiency is rather rare in western diets.. and minerals are typically something you really don't want to get too much of. There's a reason men's multivitamins don't have iron while women's do, for instance.

Care to state your source for this statement? LOL It's completely ridiculous!

Which statement? That mineral deficiency is rare, or that there's a reason men's multivitamins don't have iron?

. Any kind of mineral deficiency is rather rare in western diets.. and minerals are typically something you really don't want to get too much of. There's a reason men's multivitamins don't have iron while women's do, for instance.

Care to state your source for this statement? LOL It's completely ridiculous!

Which statement? That mineral deficiency is rare, or that there's a reason men's multivitamins don't have iron?

That mineral deficiency is rare in western diets. There are MANY people who are deficient in magnesium which is pretty important, I'm sure there are many others too. I'll try and source that while you source how rare deficiency is.

I've literally never heard of anyone actually having a magnesium deficiency. I'm sure a lot of people are, but I can't imagine it's that common. I think you'd need a kind of strange diet for that to happen. Doesn't sound like anything a multivitamin wouldn't solve anyway.

Okay, if it's dry reading you want, it's dry reading you shall have lol

http://web.mit.edu/london/www/magnesium.html

Okay, if it's dry reading you want, it's dry reading you shall have lol

http://web.mit.edu/london/www/magnesium.html

That's a lot of studies, some of which look interesting and I'll review. But not a single one of them actually gives data on the prevalence of magnesium deficiency, which is kind of astonishing. I can't find any actual data on it either.

If I could maintain on 4000 calories I never would have gotten fat.

Difference now is that I exercise daily and make sure I hit my goals. Consciously change my intake if I don't. Versus...not tracking anything in the past.

If I could maintain on 4000 calories I never would have gotten fat.

Difference now is that I exercise daily and make sure I hit my goals. Consciously change my intake if I don't. Versus...not tracking anything in the past.

Maintain at 4k? Are you andre the giant?

If I could maintain on 4000 calories I never would have gotten fat.

Difference now is that I exercise daily and make sure I hit my goals. Consciously change my intake if I don't. Versus...not tracking anything in the past.

Maintain at 4k? Are you andre the giant?

5'10" 190. Heavy cardio 3 days / week, lift heavy 3 days / week. Scale doesn't move at 4k. *shrug*

Edited to add: " Anybody want a peanut?!" & "I'm on the brute squad."

If I could maintain on 4000 calories I never would have gotten fat.

Difference now is that I exercise daily and make sure I hit my goals. Consciously change my intake if I don't. Versus...not tracking anything in the past.

Maintain at 4k? Are you andre the giant?

5'10" 190. Heavy cardio 3 days / week, lift heavy 3 days / week. Scale doesn't move at 4k. *shrug*

Edited to add: " Anybody want a peanut?!" & "I'm on the brute squad."

I AM the brute squad!

Actually:

Miracle Max: Go away or I'll call the Brute Squad.
Fezzik: I'm on the Brute Squad.
Miracle Max: [sees Fezzik] You *are* the Brute Squad!

Best. Movie. Ever.