Stirring the Pot: are all calories equal

Options
lacewitch
lacewitch Posts: 766 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I am not normally one to stir, or to wave the red cape a trolls

But I saw this on IFLS - who normally have very good sources.
- http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/why-most-food-labels-are-wrong-about-calories

I've seen and done experiments with artificial stomachs that back this up. (phd in chemistry before all the trolls jump up and down on me.)

I am not trying to change people who have schemes that work for them - if it aint broke don't fix it and all that ... but i thought there may be some who will find it interesting.
«134567…12

Replies

  • Elise4270
    Elise4270 Posts: 8,375 Member
    Options
    I'll agree. Calories are not equal. 100 cals from an apple isn't the same as 100 from a Twinkie. That's why eating cleaner is so important.
  • HeySwoleSister
    HeySwoleSister Posts: 1,938 Member
    Options
    A (k)cal is a (k)cal.

    different foods have different macro and micro nutrients which are processed and used by the body in different ways. It's not the calorie itself that's different, it's the other stuff in the food. If all you want is weight loss, than the calorie number is all you need to consider. If you want to tinker with stuff like muscle building, available energy, digestive regularity, saiety, flavor, and micronutrient value, then all foods aren't interchangeable. But, in terms of weight loss, CICO, end of story.
  • yoovie
    yoovie Posts: 17,121 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Are all inches equal?
    How about yard sticks?

    does 1 centimeter = 1 centimeter?

    100 calories from an apple are equal to 100 calories from a twinkie.

    the NUTRITION is not identical.

    But the calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement, the measurement of the amount of heat you need to raise the temp of a kg of water by one celsius degree

  • lacewitch
    lacewitch Posts: 766 Member
    Options
    did you read the article?
    Yes - Calorie is a unit with a defined value but what is on the food label does not = what the body gets in terms of energy!
  • yoovie
    yoovie Posts: 17,121 Member
    Options
    what is on the food label is the nutrition, not the 'kind of calorie' - all calories are the same. nutrition differs :)
  • jacksonpt
    jacksonpt Posts: 10,413 Member
    Options
    Now you're talking context... we don't do context on MFP - only blanket statements. Bonus points if said statements are only loosely related to the actual question.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    When it comes to calories you use, no they aren't equal. When it comes to the calories that are above what you need, they are all equal because they all get stored as fat.
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    Options
    Sigh...this again?
  • snowflake930
    snowflake930 Posts: 2,188 Member
    Options
    yoovie wrote: »
    Are all inches equal?
    How about yard sticks?

    does 1 centimeter = 1 centimeter?

    100 calories from an apple are equal to 100 calories from a twinkie.

    the NUTRITION is not identical.

    But the calories are the same because a calorie is simply a unit of measurement, the measurement of the amount of heat you need to raise the temp of a kg of water by one celsius degree


    ^^^She is right. Nutrition is the big difference.

  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    A calorie is a calorie; the nutritive value of the food being measured varies.
    An inch is an inch; the object being measured varies.

    Same idea.
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    Elise4270 wrote: »
    I'll agree. Calories are not equal. 100 cals from an apple isn't the same as 100 from a Twinkie. That's why eating cleaner is so important.

    100 calories in apples=/= 100 calories in a twinkie. What does it equal then?

  • sherbear702
    sherbear702 Posts: 649 Member
    Options
    I literally posted this same article yesterday and I also found it interesting. However, what I think the article was trying to say is that a calorie is a calorie but it's how our bodies process the calories that makes the difference.

    Less processed foods require our bodies to do more work to break it down, therefore using more energy in the process.

    More processed foods/soft food require less work from our bodies so we burn less energy digesting those foods.

    The calorie amount is still the same, the way our bodies process it is different.
  • jenluvsushi
    jenluvsushi Posts: 933 Member
    Options
    excellent article!
  • yopeeps025
    yopeeps025 Posts: 8,680 Member
    Options
    sherbear702 wrote: »
    I literally posted this same article yesterday and I also found it interesting. However, what I think the article was trying to say is that a calorie is a calorie but it's how our bodies process the calories that makes the difference.

    Less processed foods require our bodies to do more work to break it down, therefore using more energy in the process.

    More processed foods/soft food require less work from our bodies so we burn less energy digesting those foods.

    The calorie amount is still the same, the way our bodies process it is different.

    Is that not common sense?
  • eric_sg61
    eric_sg61 Posts: 2,925 Member
    Options
    sherbear702 wrote: »
    I literally posted this same article yesterday and I also found it interesting. However, what I think the article was trying to say is that a calorie is a calorie but it's how our bodies process the calories that makes the difference.

    Less processed foods require our bodies to do more work to break it down, therefore using more energy in the process.

    More processed foods/soft food require less work from our bodies so we burn less energy digesting those foods.

    The calorie amount is still the same, the way our bodies process it is different.

    That is kind of my line of thinking. I wonder what the thermic effect between raw foods, processed foods are and if those "resistant" starches are "free" calories since they pass through our systems (fiber?)
  • RGv2
    RGv2 Posts: 5,789 Member
    Options
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    Elise4270 wrote: »
    I'll agree. Calories are not equal. 100 cals from an apple isn't the same as 100 from a Twinkie. That's why eating cleaner is so important.

    100 calories in apples=/= 100 calories in a twinkie. What does it equal then?

    It means you need to rinse the twinkie so it's clean.
  • yoovie
    yoovie Posts: 17,121 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    When it comes to calories you use, no they aren't equal. When it comes to the calories that are above what you need, they are all equal because they all get stored as fat.

    this is incorrect.
  • gothchiq
    gothchiq Posts: 4,598 Member
    Options
    I understand and agree with what is stated in the article. Calories in something, that can be measured with a bomb calorimeter, doesn't necessarily equal calories that your body (not a bomb calorimeter lol) extracts from that food.

    Now let's just wait for the deluge of semantic games, naysayers, etc....
  • jenluvsushi
    jenluvsushi Posts: 933 Member
    Options
    yopeeps025 wrote: »
    Elise4270 wrote: »
    I'll agree. Calories are not equal. 100 cals from an apple isn't the same as 100 from a Twinkie. That's why eating cleaner is so important.

    100 calories in apples=/= 100 calories in a twinkie. What does it equal then?

    What THE ARTICLE is implying is that the processed food calories are more readily absorbed by the body so even though you consumed 100 calories of apple OR 100 calories of a twinkie, your body actually digested/used more of the twinkie than the harder to digest apple. You also burn more calories digesting whole/raw food than cooked food.

Categories