Perspective - Not all calories created equal

terra819 wrote: »

bionicrooster wrote: »

I also enjoy comparing caloric count in foods. I think if everyone understood the tremendous differences in calorie counts many people would be in better shape. People are often shocked when I point out how many calories are in things like a fast food chicken sandwich!

Agreed. I try to think of the calorie limit set by mfp as a "budget" where I can spend on either this or that, but which one is going to leave me fuller? Even if it is a sweet tooth I need to satisfy, which can I have more of; a bowl of strawberries or a piece of pie. I'd choose the one I can eat more of most of the time. The important thing (to me anyway) is giving yourself a choice.

I think we must plan our days differently. I plan my diary at the beginning of the day. I eat my main meal at "lunch" and pretty much eat the same thing (with minor variations) for breakfast and dinner every day. Those three meals plus one snack provide me with all the nutrition and satiety my body needs. If I have calories left over?

Well, I look at my macros then. One day this past week, I was low on protein and fat. I added in a snack of a hard boiled egg. Another day, I was good on fat, but low on protein. I added a cheese stick. Another day? I needed fat and had carbs to spare. I added in a fun sized Snickers bar. I could have had a hard boiled egg for the same rough calories as the Snickers bar, but at that point... why bother? I already had all the nutrition I needed and was full.

That's how I do my choosing.

MrM27 wrote: »

How many calories are you harping on? 10? 40? 50?

*facepalm*

Comparing high fibre bread to low fibre bread [1]: A difference of up to 8%. That's just one foodstuff.

I doubt anyone has commissioned a study comparing spring rolls to doughnuts.

Is 8% meaningful? What if it's only 2% daily for all dietary intake? Sure that's meaningful over the course of a day, a week, a month, a year, a lifetime.

None of this is new. USDA studies in the 80's showed a 3 and 4% difference between high and low fibre diets when it came to carbohydrate and fat digestibility. Based on the subject's [2] intake calories (~3100/day - same basic mix of C/F/P) * 365 * 3% = 33,945 calories excreted rather than metabolised. For the unwary, that's a number of pounds a month in potential weight gain simply due to differing food sources.

Meaningful?

Given the title of this thread, Perspective: Not all calories created are equal the examples provided and reference material presented and readily available indeed back up the OP's contention. Off the plate and down your gullet, not all calories are created equal. That is meaningful.

[1] High-fiber rye diet increases ileal excretion of energy and macronutrients compared with low-fiber wheat diet independent of meal frequency in ileostomy subjects, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Isaksson et al
[2] Effect of Dietary Fiber on the Metabolizable Energy of Human Diets, USDA, Miles et al 1988

Doughnut for me. Even if its evil or bad.

mamapeach910 wrote: »

MrM27 wrote: »

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnd the donut comparison.

She could have at least used a good looking donuts like these, that one was just sad:

Actually thats true it was a little sad.

mwyvr wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

I'd like to dispute the fact, after I looked up other such claims over other certain foods/drinks "boosting metabolism" or "taking more calories to digest than others" and so on

Please read the above. Neither I nor the studies referenced (and there are dozens more out there) make the claims you think I'm making.

We are talking about poop here.

More specifically, the amount of not fully digested and absorbed carbs and fats in the poop of those enjoying high fibre diets is higher than those who live on low fibre diets even though both consume the same base mix of carbs/fats/proteins and the same base caloric intake.

Put more simply, if it makes it out the other end undigested/unabsorbed, it's as if it wasn't there in the first place.

Bonus round: 30 - 40,000 kcal/year is a bunch of "free" beers (about 180 bottles).

Why are you going on so much about this? It's not an either/or proposition.

You presume that people who would eat a donut cannot also enjoy a fiber rich diet.

That's a false presumption.

mamapeach910 wrote: »

You presume that people who would eat a donut cannot also enjoy a fiber rich diet.

That's a false presumption.

Please show me where I've stated this let alone presumed it.

mamapeach910 wrote: »

mwyvr wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

I'd like to dispute the fact, after I looked up other such claims over other certain foods/drinks "boosting metabolism" or "taking more calories to digest than others" and so on

Please read the above. Neither I nor the studies referenced (and there are dozens more out there) make the claims you think I'm making.

We are talking about poop here.

More specifically, the amount of not fully digested and absorbed carbs and fats in the poop of those enjoying high fibre diets is higher than those who live on low fibre diets even though both consume the same base mix of carbs/fats/proteins and the same base caloric intake.

Put more simply, if it makes it out the other end undigested/unabsorbed, it's as if it wasn't there in the first place.

Bonus round: 30 - 40,000 kcal/year is a bunch of "free" beers (about 180 bottles).

Why are you going on so much about this? It's not an either/or proposition.

You presume that people who would eat a donut cannot also enjoy a fiber rich diet.

That's a false presumption.

I haven't been following this enough to know how the 30-40,000 kcal was calculated, but how about the person uses those calories on "free" donuts instead of "free" beer. I don't drink beer.

Well, I also wouldn't want the pictured donut, so let's say ice cream.

Is the ice cream okay if it goes along with a high fiber diet (as is typically recommended by the moderates on MFP) or does it somehow negate it in a special way even though beer would be okay?

Or, more simply, what mamapeach said.

Love donuts. But 99.9999% of the time, they're just not worth the calories.

I want those spring rolls.