Does it really matter where the calories come from?

Options
36jessica
36jessica Posts: 319 Member
in Food and Nutrition
I just need some clarification... I know all about the eating healthy business: Less meat, more fresh fruits and veggies, a sprinkle of nuts here and there, lots of water etc. I am NOT here to dispute any of this and I'm not looking for any kind of fight. What I want to know -- in simple terms -- is if 200 cal. of broccoli (for example) is the same as 200 cal. of chocolate chip cookies (for example). Again, I am not looking for a fight and I know all the nutritional ups and downs -- broccoli is better that chocolate chip cookies etc. -- I'm looking at burning power. Can I burn 200 cal of broccoli the same way I burn 200 cal of chocolate chip cookies? If a person gets his/her vitamins/minerals from a pill, but eats a whole bunch of crap food, will he/she lose weight if he/she burns more than he/she consumes, regardless of the calorie source? Thanks!
«13

Replies

  • LJSmith1989
    LJSmith1989 Posts: 650
    Options
    Carbs are easier to burn than fats.. (I think) so on that basis, easier to burn the veggies than it is the cookies.

    But bugger it who cares? its all about bit of this bit of that everything in balance.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,136 Member
    Options
    calories are energy so you have answered your own question...so yes, you burn 200 cals of cookies the same as 200 of broccoli ...
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    I just need some clarification... I know all about the eating healthy business: Less meat, more fresh fruits and veggies, a sprinkle of nuts here and there, lots of water etc. I am NOT here to dispute any of this and I'm not looking for any kind of fight. What I want to know -- in simple terms -- is if 200 cal. of broccoli (for example) is the same as 200 cal. of chocolate chip cookies (for example). Again, I am not looking for a fight and I know all the nutritional ups and downs -- broccoli is better that chocolate chip cookies etc. -- I'm looking at burning power. Can I burn 200 cal of broccoli the same way I burn 200 cal of chocolate chip cookies? If a person gets his/her vitamins/minerals from a pill, but eats a whole bunch of crap food, will he/she lose weight if he/she burns more than he/she consumes, regardless of the calorie source? Thanks!

    if you're purely talking about weight loss, the answer is yes - to a point. It does not matter where the calories come from.

    however, if you fail to take in enough nutrients in the form of vitamins and minerals, over time your body will become malnourished even if you're eating enough "food" calorically speaking. That malnourishment can have a negative effect on all areas of your health including weight loss. And getting these micronutrients in pill form is not adequate. Multi-vitamins are nowhere near as bio-available as the real thing. There's a reason they're called supplements. They're meant to supplement an already healthful diet.
  • Cr01502
    Cr01502 Posts: 3,614 Member
    Options
    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?
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    This topic always gets confused along the lines of weight loss vs health.

    Strictly weight loss speaking - it doesn't matter (check out the Twinkie diet, he did just that)
    Health wise - obviously yes it matters.

    ETA - yes I forgot body composition but its already been mentioned while I was typing.
  • thelittlew0lf
    thelittlew0lf Posts: 4
    Options
    Yes, a calorie is a calorie, regardless of where it comes from. There was a nutrition instructor who lost 27 lbs in two months, eating mostly sugary junk food (you can read the full article from CNN here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html).
  • deathbypretzel
    deathbypretzel Posts: 45
    Options
    if you're purely talking about weight loss, the answer is yes - to a point. It does not matter where the calories come from.

    however, if you fail to take in enough nutrients in the form of vitamins and minerals, over time your body will become malnourished even if you're eating enough "food" calorically speaking. That malnourishment can have a negative effect on all areas of your health including weight loss. And getting these micronutrients in pill form is not adequate. Multi-vitamins are nowhere near as bio-available as the real thing. There's a reason they're called supplements. They're meant to supplement an already healthful diet.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    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.
  • tberrycastle
    tberrycastle Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    Excellent question, thank you for asking. I have been wondering the same thing lately.....all the while knowing which calorie is the "best" calorie, so to speak :-)
  • kts3639
    kts3639 Posts: 188 Member
    Options
    My personal experience is that, in terms of weight loss, a calorie is a calorie (also, that what science says). I eat a mix of junk and healthy food, and have lost 27 lbs., with about 17 lbs. to go. This is my feeling purely from a weight loss standpoint.
  • tberrycastle
    tberrycastle Posts: 32 Member
    Options
    @ 3doggsrunning suggestion (above) I checked this out. Interesting! http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    @ 3doggsrunning suggestion (above) I checked this out. Interesting! http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    however he, himself said he felt terrible and would never recommend anyone do it. losing weight is not more important than your health
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    @ 3doggsrunning suggestion (above) I checked this out. Interesting! http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    however he, himself said he felt terrible and would never recommend anyone do it. losing weight is not more important than your health

    I don't think anyone here disagrees with that.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    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.
  • DavPul
    DavPul Posts: 61,406 Member
    Options
    @ 3doggsrunning suggestion (above) I checked this out. Interesting! http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    however he, himself said he felt terrible and would never recommend anyone do it. losing weight is not more important than your health

    i have never read where he felt terrible. i remember him saying he felt better as the weight came off. you know, just like everyone does. me thinks you're making that part up.



    edited to add: all of his health markers also improved. every single one. note: no where in his experiment was a conclusion drawn that eating so called "healthy foods" improved his actual health. it was ALL about calories in vs calories out

    from the actual article:
    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."
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,669 Member
    Options
    It doesn't matter, if the are broccoli cookies................................:laugh:

    In weight loss it doesn't matter.

    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
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    @ 3doggsrunning suggestion (above) I checked this out. Interesting! http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

    however he, himself said he felt terrible and would never recommend anyone do it. losing weight is not more important than your health

    i have never read where he felt terrible. i remember him saying he felt better as the weight came off. you know, just like everyone does. me thinks you're making that part up

    i might be actually. lol it's been a while since i read those articles.

    interesting to note, however, that he also ate 800 fewer calories while on the diet and he would "augmented by a protein shake, multivitamin pills, a can of green beans or four stalks of celery each day. "

    so not JUST twinkies. :)
  • Barbellerella
    Barbellerella Posts: 1,838 Member
    Options
    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.
    pants on fire
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,868 Member
    Options
    I just need some clarification... I know all about the eating healthy business: Less meat, more fresh fruits and veggies, a sprinkle of nuts here and there, lots of water etc. I am NOT here to dispute any of this and I'm not looking for any kind of fight. What I want to know -- in simple terms -- is if 200 cal. of broccoli (for example) is the same as 200 cal. of chocolate chip cookies (for example). Again, I am not looking for a fight and I know all the nutritional ups and downs -- broccoli is better that chocolate chip cookies etc. -- I'm looking at burning power. Can I burn 200 cal of broccoli the same way I burn 200 cal of chocolate chip cookies? If a person gets his/her vitamins/minerals from a pill, but eats a whole bunch of crap food, will he/she lose weight if he/she burns more than he/she consumes, regardless of the calorie source? Thanks!

    There is nothing inherently evil about meat...it is a natural, whole food that has been consumed by humans since pretty much the beginning of our time.

    No that we have that out of the way, It really doesn't matter where your calories come from in RE to weight loss (unless you're insulin resistant or something), but it does matter for nutrition and body composition. Basically, if you eat like **** you're going to look and feel like **** even if you're at a "healthy" weight.

    For proper nutrition, you should definitely be getting plenty of veg and fruit as well as meat, poultry, and fish. People should eat less processed **** and more whole foods and basically move more and everything would be all right.
  • CoachReddy
    CoachReddy Posts: 3,949 Member
    Options
    I just need some clarification... I know all about the eating healthy business: Less meat, more fresh fruits and veggies, a sprinkle of nuts here and there, lots of water etc. I am NOT here to dispute any of this and I'm not looking for any kind of fight. What I want to know -- in simple terms -- is if 200 cal. of broccoli (for example) is the same as 200 cal. of chocolate chip cookies (for example). Again, I am not looking for a fight and I know all the nutritional ups and downs -- broccoli is better that chocolate chip cookies etc. -- I'm looking at burning power. Can I burn 200 cal of broccoli the same way I burn 200 cal of chocolate chip cookies? If a person gets his/her vitamins/minerals from a pill, but eats a whole bunch of crap food, will he/she lose weight if he/she burns more than he/she consumes, regardless of the calorie source? Thanks!

    There is nothing inherently evil about meat...it is a natural, whole food that has been consumed by humans since pretty much the beginning of our time.


    nobody said meat was evil. In fact it's very important unless you've got moral opposition to it. however, for the majority of first-world peoples, eating less of it would be a good thing for reasons from health to the environment.

    a 150 pound man only requires about 56g of protein a day but we typically eat at least 100g more than that, which means that - by default - we're eating fewer other foods that have additional vitamins and minerals that we need, like fruits and veggies. (keep in mind this is talking about the population as a whole, not specific people on MFP, so I'm not really interested in your "YEAH BUT I eat a bunch of meat AND a bunch of fruits + veggies!" Good for you. :smile: )

Categories