Theoretic question

ok - I think that your theoretical scenario is fairly straight forward. ignoring any ACTUAL real life repercussions would the calories burned during the process of digestion be the same, resulting in the same maintenance?

I had a google and found the following
The thermic effect of food due to a meal will vary depending on the relative proportions of the macronutrients (i.e. fat, carbohydrates, and protein) that make up the meal. Without a doubt, protein is the macronutrient that induces the largest thermic effect of food response. Roughly 25% of the calories in pure protein will be burned after consumption due to the thermic effect of food. Fat and carbohydrates, on the other hand, each induce a burn of roughly 5% of the calories consumed due to the thermic effect of food. So, for example, if you consume 400 calories of pure protein you will burn 100 (or 25%) of those calories through the thermic effect of food. If you consume 400 calories of pure fat or pure carbohydrates, only 20 calories (or 5%) will be burned through the thermic effect of food.

Unfortunately this didn't mention just veggies...veggies vary though and so the theory is loose at best as some vegetables have more fibre and would therefore use more energy to burn.

I thought it an interesting question in the first place. Possibly you would lose with veggies as after digestion the calory yield would I suppose be less.

Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.

I disagree. Fruit and veg have all three macros within their matrix, lard has only 1, fat.

which vegetables have fat?

avacados, brocolli, sweetcorn - of the top of my head.

avocados and corn are not veggies. broccoli? really?

Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.

I disagree. Fruit and veg have all three macros within their matrix, lard has only 1, fat.

which vegetables have fat?

avacados, brocolli, sweetcorn - of the top of my head.

avocados and corn are not veggies. broccoli? really?

wow is there anyone on this board that's not *kitten* holes? seriously i am new here and have only read a few threads but so far the feel on here is far from the supportive community i would think would exist despite there always being bad apples in the bunch wherever you go.....

that being said i have wondered the same thing. is dieting and weight loss purely about calorie count or is it critical where the calories come from? Of course if you are also eating for health concerns then yes it would make a difference but to your question - in pure weight loss terms - is a calorie a calorie a calorie with the same results no matter where the calorie comes from. i would guess it is...

so i could eat a 350 calorie piece of pie for every meal or i could eat 350 calories of healthy food for every meal and get the same results.

Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.

I disagree. Fruit and veg have all three macros within their matrix, lard has only 1, fat.

which vegetables have fat?

Show me one that doesn't contain fat. Small amounts count.

do they?

Yes. They all contain trace fats.

edit: though so little there is no need to track them.

i meant "do they count"

Both eating purely fruit and veg or purely lard would land you in hospital if you did it for prolonged preiods of time.

I disagree. Fruit and veg have all three macros within their matrix, lard has only 1, fat.

which vegetables have fat?

Show me one that doesn't contain fat. Small amounts count.

do they?

Yes. They all contain trace fats.

edit: though so little there is no need to track them.

i meant "do they count"

They're virtually all omega's, so yes they count, why wouldn't they. Again, I never suggested that vegetables would give us enough fat in out diet, only that they had fat, which was my retort to the original statement.