calorie isn't a calorie ?

Options
12346

Replies

  • Original_Beauty
    Original_Beauty Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    EricMurano wrote: »
    One of these days someone will do the experiment of two groups at the same calorie amount, one group with junk food and the other group with 'healthy' food.

    That would be pointless unless the people in both groups had exactly the same metabolism, everything would have to be identical.

  • Original_Beauty
    Original_Beauty Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    I would rather fuel my body with healthy, fresh food. Maybe a 80/20 diet? If you put poor food into your body you can not expect much. I'd rather 200 calories in nuts then chips etc.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    DrWhoIsYerDad wrote: »
    A calorie is a calorie just as a gallon of gas is a gallon of gas

    Bingo.

    This is why all cars and trucks get the same MPG's in the USA. :)

    A calorie is a calorie when outside of the body but when it goes into the body the brain and related hormones, etc will decide what that calorie will do, where it will go and how efficient it may do that.

    because we all know car engines and the human body are the same….
  • Aemely
    Aemely Posts: 694 Member
    Options
    Original_Beauty wrote: »
    EricMurano wrote: »
    One of these days someone will do the experiment of two groups at the same calorie amount, one group with junk food and the other group with 'healthy' food.

    That would be pointless unless the people in both groups had exactly the same metabolism, everything would have to be identical.

    Cool! A totally unethical twin study! :wink:
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    muffinsandcakes wrote: »
    extremelygrumpycat wrote: »
    Eat what you want. Eat at a deficit. Enjoy food and enjoy life.

    Honestly. I eat healthy most meals, but sometimes I want a snack or treat and I eat it without guilt. It fits into my daily calorie goal and that's that.

    If you want cake, eat cake. If you want a carrot, eat a carrot. End of story. You will see results if you eat at a deficit.

    thanks

    muffinsandcakes this site raised the same questions in my mind. After reading The Calorie Myth by JB this week I got a better understanding. Not sure I agree with him on all points but I do appreciate his 12 years of researching scientific studies on dieting. I did not know about the role of hormones to lose weight and keep it off for the next forty years. There are enough reviews to get peoples pros and cons and some info.

    barnesandnoble.com/w/the-calorie-myth-jonathan-bailor/1116537829?ean=9780062267337

    there you go again …posting pseudo science….

    ndj if you read the end notes in the book you would quickly realize the level of your pseudo post. A man working at Microsoft who spent 12 years researching The Calorie Myth on his own time could be wrong but when you take the time to stop typing and start reading you will see the work he quotes is in no way pseudo science.

    Do not get your self in legal trouble making public statements about a book you have not read in case you are put on a witness stand to support you demeaning public remark about the author's work and those whom he quotes.

    last time I checked it is a free country and I can say whatever I want about any book out there….

    and we all know that Microsoft engineers are geniuses when it comes to nutritional science….
  • FunkyTobias
    FunkyTobias Posts: 1,776 Member
    Options
    Original_Beauty wrote: »
    EricMurano wrote: »
    One of these days someone will do the experiment of two groups at the same calorie amount, one group with junk food and the other group with 'healthy' food.

    That would be pointless unless the people in both groups had exactly the same metabolism, everything would have to be identical.

    Google "crossover design".

  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    Original_Beauty wrote: »
    I would rather fuel my body with healthy, fresh food. Maybe a 80/20 diet? If you put poor food into your body you can not expect much. I'd rather 200 calories in nuts then chips etc.

    define "healthy"….
  • SnuggleSmacks
    SnuggleSmacks Posts: 3,732 Member
    Options
    EricMurano wrote: »
    One of these days someone will do the experiment of two groups at the same calorie amount, one group with junk food and the other group with 'healthy' food.


    Or take the same group of people and first put them on a diet including junk food, and then a "clean" diet, with each individual eating the same number of calories through both diets, and see the effects. That way individual metabolism is taken into account.
  • Original_Beauty
    Original_Beauty Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    SnuggleSmacks wrote: »
    EricMurano wrote: »
    One of these days someone will do the experiment of two groups at the same calorie amount, one group with junk food and the other group with 'healthy' food.


    Or take the same group of people and first put them on a diet including junk food, and then a "clean" diet, with each individual eating the same number of calories through both diets, and see the effects. That way individual metabolism is taken into account.


    That would be interesting to see :)
  • Original_Beauty
    Original_Beauty Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    ndj1979 wrote: »
    Original_Beauty wrote: »
    I would rather fuel my body with healthy, fresh food. Maybe a 80/20 diet? If you put poor food into your body you can not expect much. I'd rather 200 calories in nuts then chips etc.

    define "healthy"….

    I think we have complicated eating,it should be simple, not a science/maths session.

    I try to eat as close to nature as possible, but I need to eat a gf diet. So that alone proves how we all need a different "diet" I refuse to uear any diet foods, I try to eat "whole" foods, full cream dairy etc
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    EatsNotTreats wrote: »
    Original_Beauty wrote: »
    I would rather fuel my body with healthy, fresh food. Maybe a 80/20 diet? If you put poor food into your body you can not expect much. I'd rather 200 calories in nuts then chips etc.

    Yeah, I'm not sold on calories in calories out as the only major weight loss driving force, but it does certainly have variable effects on weight loss depending on who you are - some people get great weight loss results with it, as we see on this forum.

    But Junk In Junk Out will likely manifest itself in some shape or form over a person's life, irrespective of weight.

    then how do you gain or lose weight if you do not believe in CICO…

    the nice thing about science is that you do not have to believe it, it just happens..

    people used to believe that the earth was at the center of the universe, did not make it correct….
  • Original_Beauty
    Original_Beauty Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    EatsNotTreats wrote: »
    Original_Beauty wrote: »
    I would rather fuel my body with healthy, fresh food. Maybe a 80/20 diet? If you put poor food into your body you can not expect much. I'd rather 200 calories in nuts then chips etc.

    Yeah, I'm not sold on calories in calories out as the only major weight loss driving force, but it does certainly have variable effects on weight loss depending on who you are - some people get great weight loss results with it, as we see on this forum.

    But Junk In Junk Out will likely manifest itself in some shape or form over a person's life, irrespective of weight.


    I agree, also there is more to being healthy than what you weigh.
  • maidentl
    maidentl Posts: 3,203 Member
    Options
    This argument goes full circle every single time. No one is saying that what you eat is not important for health, just that it's irrelevant for weight loss purposes. So the hysterics about getting sick from an all-donut diet are pointless. No one is suggesting that anyone do that. No, your body does not magically lose weight faster because you eat what you think is superior food. And yes, everyone is different, that accounts for the calories out half of the equation.
  • Original_Beauty
    Original_Beauty Posts: 180 Member
    Options
    maidentl wrote: »
    . And yes, everyone is different, that accounts for the calories out half of the equation.
    I agree because there is so much more to it :smiley:
  • daybehavior
    daybehavior Posts: 1,319 Member
    Options
    Original_Beauty wrote: »
    maidentl wrote: »
    . And yes, everyone is different, that accounts for the calories out half of the equation.
    I agree because there is so much more to it :smiley:

    And this is what we call "selective listening"
  • Original_Beauty
    Original_Beauty Posts: 180 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    daybehavior wrote: »
    Original_Beauty wrote: »
    maidentl wrote: »
    . And yes, everyone is different, that accounts for the calories out half of the equation.
    I agree because there is so much more to it :smiley:

    And this is what we call "selective listening"

    No this is so someone who has studied in science and chemistry of food at university.

  • daybehavior
    daybehavior Posts: 1,319 Member
    Options
    Original_Beauty wrote: »
    daybehavior wrote: »
    Original_Beauty wrote: »
    maidentl wrote: »
    . And yes, everyone is different, that accounts for the calories out half of the equation.
    I agree because there is so much more to it :smiley:

    And this is what we call "selective listening"

    No this is so someone who has studied in science and chemistry of food at university.

    Yet you don't understand basic high school thermodynamics or experiment design.

    oh+yeah%252C+okay.gif
  • gmallan
    gmallan Posts: 2,099 Member
    Options
    SnuggleSmacks wrote: »
    Original_Beauty wrote: »
    In the most basic terms, all calories are created equal. A calorie is simply a unit for measuring energy. But the way in which the body uses those calories is what accounts for different weight loss results. The origin of a calorie determines how the body digests and stores that energy. For example, the body uses calories from protein to help maintain and repair muscles, organs and tissues. Carbohydrates are a major energy source for the body, while fats both help protect organs and help with the absorption of important vitamins. All three nutrients are essential, but the body metabolizes them very differently.

    So, are you saying that, while eating exactly the same number of calories, if I change my macro percentages, I'll lose different amounts of weight?

    That is actually correct and very possible because the second law of thermodynamics is that no machine is completely efficient. Basically when the human body processes food it varies in the efficiency in which it processes the different macronutrients. The byproduct or inefficiency is the heat generated by processing food (known as thermogenesis or the thermic effect of feeding). The thermic effects of nutrients is approximately 2–3 % for lipids, 6–8 % for carbohydrates, and 25–30% for proteins. So basically when you eat a diet higher in protein you waste more energy processing the food throgh the production of heat and therefore have less to expend through other means. This is very well established and not at all ground breaking.

    Here's a paper if you'd like to read more

    http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

  • daybehavior
    daybehavior Posts: 1,319 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    gmallan wrote: »
    SnuggleSmacks wrote: »
    Original_Beauty wrote: »
    In the most basic terms, all calories are created equal. A calorie is simply a unit for measuring energy. But the way in which the body uses those calories is what accounts for different weight loss results. The origin of a calorie determines how the body digests and stores that energy. For example, the body uses calories from protein to help maintain and repair muscles, organs and tissues. Carbohydrates are a major energy source for the body, while fats both help protect organs and help with the absorption of important vitamins. All three nutrients are essential, but the body metabolizes them very differently.

    So, are you saying that, while eating exactly the same number of calories, if I change my macro percentages, I'll lose different amounts of weight?

    That is actually correct and very possible because the second law of thermodynamics is that no machine is completely efficient. Basically when the human body processes food it varies in the efficiency in which it processes the different macronutrients. The byproduct or inefficiency is the heat generated by processing food (known as thermogenesis or the thermic effect of feeding). The thermic effects of nutrients is approximately 2–3 % for lipids, 6–8 % for carbohydrates, and 25–30% for proteins. So basically when you eat a diet higher in protein you waste more energy processing the food throgh the production of heat and therefore have less to expend through other means. This is very well established and not at all ground breaking.

    Here's a paper if you'd like to read more

    http://www.nutritionj.com/content/3/1/9

    It's also been established that except under extreme circumstances, TEF is negligible.

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/metabolic-rate-overview/
    However, for the most part, such extreme [protein] intakes aren’t practical or used outside of the bodybuilding subculture. In all but the most extreme diets, protein stays fairly static and carbs and fats are shuffled around; the effect is typically minimal in terms of TEF.

    Example:
    Comparing the "standard American diet" (65/15/20) to a low carb diet (10/30/60.) Using a 2000 calorie diet, the SAD would yield a TEF of about 198 calories. The low carb diet (which has double the protein) actually has a lower TEF, 164 calories approximately So a person drastically cutting carbs and doubling their protein intake would actually burn less calories overall, not more. But again, that's a difference of about 30 calories, which is completely insignificant considering the lack of precision in calculating caloric intake and burn.

Categories