Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
A quick refresher on a calorie is a calorie ....
Replies
-
How so? It repeated those words many times in the study itself.
The PR (and perhaps parts of the text) was potentially misleading because there was actually no difference in the measured (DEXA) fat loss between the two diets in men. The calorie deficit was different between the two diets too - it was greater in the reduced fat diet (p=0.014)
Supplementary table S3 shows that there was no significant measured fat loss in the female subjects on either diet - in fact their % body fat went up (NS).
This wasn't made clear in the headlines, which are all about the calculated extrapolated fat loss.
You're telling me the media misrepresents science?
Nope, never happens.0 -
Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.0
-
TEF was covered upthread.0
-
sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
And the differences...as cited above...are insignificant0 -
Aren't these studies over only the short term? Over the long term, it is my understanding that they all sort of result in the same overall weight/fat loss.
the study I am referring to is indeed over the short term. There was no qualification in the OP about duration, the assertion was that all calories are the same.
Hall's study argues contrary to what one might assume to be my "position" but it is explicitly clear that the effect was not the same - "Whereas carbohydrate restriction led to sustained increases in fat oxidation and loss of 53 ± 6 g/day of body fat, fat oxidation was unchanged by fat restriction, leading to 89 ± 6 g/day of fat loss, and was significantly greater than carbohydrate restriction (p = 0.002). " Same calories, different outcome. QED.
Wouldn't low carb increase fat oxidation simply because when one reduces carbs they increase fats? So that fat oxidation would be coming from ingested fats not necessarily stored body fat?0 -
And the differences are marginal at best...sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.0 -
Aren't these studies over only the short term? Over the long term, it is my understanding that they all sort of result in the same overall weight/fat loss.
the study I am referring to is indeed over the short term. There was no qualification in the OP about duration, the assertion was that all calories are the same.
Hall's study argues contrary to what one might assume to be my "position" but it is explicitly clear that the effect was not the same - "Whereas carbohydrate restriction led to sustained increases in fat oxidation and loss of 53 ± 6 g/day of body fat, fat oxidation was unchanged by fat restriction, leading to 89 ± 6 g/day of fat loss, and was significantly greater than carbohydrate restriction (p = 0.002). " Same calories, different outcome. QED.
Wouldn't low carb increase fat oxidation simply because when one reduces carbs they increase fats? So that fat oxidation would be coming from ingested fats not necessarily stored body fat?
Ingested fat + bodyfat lost to make up the deficit.
In other words, "duh".0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.0 -
Yes, eat more dietary fat burn more dietary fat..............not body fat. But, people who eat less calories than a bed-ridden person don't seem to understand thatAren't these studies over only the short term? Over the long term, it is my understanding that they all sort of result in the same overall weight/fat loss.
the study I am referring to is indeed over the short term. There was no qualification in the OP about duration, the assertion was that all calories are the same.
Hall's study argues contrary to what one might assume to be my "position" but it is explicitly clear that the effect was not the same - "Whereas carbohydrate restriction led to sustained increases in fat oxidation and loss of 53 ± 6 g/day of body fat, fat oxidation was unchanged by fat restriction, leading to 89 ± 6 g/day of fat loss, and was significantly greater than carbohydrate restriction (p = 0.002). " Same calories, different outcome. QED.
Wouldn't low carb increase fat oxidation simply because when one reduces carbs they increase fats? So that fat oxidation would be coming from ingested fats not necessarily stored body fat?0 -
DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.0 -
sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
tef was covered up thread and shown to be marginal...
again, that does not change the fact that you get the same amount of energy from 100 calories of oreos as you do from 100 calories of carrots....0 -
sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.0 -
sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.
1) TEF is not negligible according to some studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
2) Processing a food means altering it from it's natural state in some way. For example, blending bananas and strawberries into a smoothie is processing them, the body uses less energy to digest the blended fruit than the whole fruit.0 -
sourpower434 wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.
1) TEF is not negligible according to some studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
2) Processing a food means altering it from it's natural state in some way. For example, blending bananas and strawberries into a smoothie is processing them, the body uses less energy to digest the blended fruit than the whole fruit.
When was the last time you swallowed a whole banana instead of chewing it into a smoothie in your mouth?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.
1) TEF is not negligible according to some studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
2) Processing a food means altering it from it's natural state in some way. For example, blending bananas and strawberries into a smoothie is processing them, the body uses less energy to digest the blended fruit than the whole fruit.
When was the last time you swallowed a whole banana instead of chewing it into a smoothie in your mouth?
LOL, got me there!
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.
1) TEF is not negligible according to some studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
2) Processing a food means altering it from it's natural state in some way. For example, blending bananas and strawberries into a smoothie is processing them, the body uses less energy to digest the blended fruit than the whole fruit.
When was the last time you swallowed a whole banana instead of chewing it into a smoothie in your mouth?
so chewing is processing?0 -
sourpower434 wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.
1) TEF is not negligible according to some studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
2) Processing a food means altering it from it's natural state in some way. For example, blending bananas and strawberries into a smoothie is processing them, the body uses less energy to digest the blended fruit than the whole fruit.
Altering the solid state of food doesn't alter the molecular composition. There are still simple/complex carbs, fats and proteins which need to be broken down into sugars, fatty acids and amino acids, respectively. A banana which has been put through a blender still contains everything it did immediately after you peeled it and before you put it in the blender. If I grind a steak into hamburger, it will take no less energy to process the proteins and fats in that burger than it would have in the steak. The only (very negligible difference) would possibly be the microscopically fewer calories I'd expend chewing it.
And as mentioned above, all food is "processed" in your mouth before ingesting it by the chewing process. I don't know of anybody who swallows bananas and strawberries whole in an effort to avoid them being "processed".0 -
sourpower434 wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.
1) TEF is not negligible according to some studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
2) Processing a food means altering it from it's natural state in some way. For example, blending bananas and strawberries into a smoothie is processing them, the body uses less energy to digest the blended fruit than the whole fruit.
I got the full text of the first link you posted.
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/pdfs/discussionEssay/thermogenesisSatiety/JohnstonThermogenesis2002.pdf
8 kcal/hour higher was the difference after 2.5 hours for breakfast and lunch, 14 for dinner. If it would stay that high (which it won't) it would be 200+ in 24 hours. More reasonable, though they didn't check at later points again to see the differences, would be that it ebbs out pretty quickly to end up at 100 at best.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
This one showed a total of 21 kcal difference for a whole day with a diet of 15% protein vs. 35% protein.0 -
sourpower434 wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.
1) TEF is not negligible according to some studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
2) Processing a food means altering it from it's natural state in some way. For example, blending bananas and strawberries into a smoothie is processing them, the body uses less energy to digest the blended fruit than the whole fruit.
the first studies sample size is ten females between age 19-22......
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.
1) TEF is not negligible according to some studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
2) Processing a food means altering it from it's natural state in some way. For example, blending bananas and strawberries into a smoothie is processing them, the body uses less energy to digest the blended fruit than the whole fruit.
I got the full text of the first link you posted.
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/pdfs/discussionEssay/thermogenesisSatiety/JohnstonThermogenesis2002.pdf
8 kcal/hour higher was the difference after 2.5 hours for breakfast and lunch, 14 for dinner. If it would stay that high (which it won't) it would be 200+ in 24 hours. More reasonable, though they didn't check at later points again to see the differences, would be that it ebbs out pretty quickly to end up at 100 at best.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
This one showed a total of 21 kcal difference for a whole day with a diet of 15% protein vs. 35% protein.
so on the firs study females between age 19 and 22 can expect a 5% increase in calorie burn, assuming a 2000 calorie diet....0 -
You must never speak in absolutes, it will guarantee you're wrong! Joke aside, the point is, while many processed foods are easier to digest, I can assure it isn't always true. Some processing like cooking carbohydrate foods in a way the produces resistant starch reduces the available calories compared to the ingredients.sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
At the extreme, I'm going to say a Fiber One food with the added fiber content is harder to digest than all natural grapes.0 -
sourpower434 wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.
1) TEF is not negligible according to some studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
2) Processing a food means altering it from it's natural state in some way. For example, blending bananas and strawberries into a smoothie is processing them, the body uses less energy to digest the blended fruit than the whole fruit.
Altering the solid state of food doesn't alter the molecular composition. There are still simple/complex carbs, fats and proteins which need to be broken down into sugars, fatty acids and amino acids, respectively. A banana which has been put through a blender still contains everything it did immediately after you peeled it and before you put it in the blender. If I grind a steak into hamburger, it will take no less energy to process the proteins and fats in that burger than it would have in the steak. The only (very negligible difference) would possibly be the microscopically fewer calories I'd expend chewing it.
And as mentioned above, all food is "processed" in your mouth before ingesting it by the chewing process. I don't know of anybody who swallows bananas and strawberries whole in an effort to avoid them being "processed".
Good point, AnvilHead, yes of course molecular composition is the same blended or unblended, and the food still contains the same amount of energy before it goes into your body whether it's whole or chopped up. As for chewing, it's part of the whole digestion process (enzymes in the saliva start to break down food in your mouth), this requires energy. I haven't looked for studies specifically concerning the amount of energy consumed breaking down food in the mouth (through chewing or digestive enzyme activity), it might be negligible.
Anyway, thanks all for letting me be part of the debate
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »sourpower434 wrote: »Actually, even if 2 foods contain the same amount of energy (calories), the body uses different amount of energy to digest different kinds of food. And the more processed a food is, the less processing needs to be done by the body (so fewer calories are expended to digest). And different macronutrients require different amounts of energy to digest. It takes more energy to digest protein than it does to digest fat or carbs. This is called the thermic effect of food.
1) Overall (as mentioned by several posters), the effect of TEF is negligible.
2) "Processed" is a broad, vague term and has nothing to do with it. TEF pertains to macronutrients, not whether they're "processed" or not. That's just more "clean eating" propaganda.
1) TEF is not negligible according to some studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11838888
http://www.foodandnutritionresearch.net/index.php/fnr/article/view/5144
2) Processing a food means altering it from it's natural state in some way. For example, blending bananas and strawberries into a smoothie is processing them, the body uses less energy to digest the blended fruit than the whole fruit.
I got the full text of the first link you posted.
http://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/pdfs/discussionEssay/thermogenesisSatiety/JohnstonThermogenesis2002.pdf
8 kcal/hour higher was the difference after 2.5 hours for breakfast and lunch, 14 for dinner. If it would stay that high (which it won't) it would be 200+ in 24 hours. More reasonable, though they didn't check at later points again to see the differences, would be that it ebbs out pretty quickly to end up at 100 at best.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
This one showed a total of 21 kcal difference for a whole day with a diet of 15% protein vs. 35% protein.
The other thing that strikes me about studies like this is the only significant difference is with protein percentage. There are good reasons to keep protein a bit higher than the RDA, IMO, but the sensible range for protein is somewhat narrow and dictated by considerations other than maximizing calorie burn. Yeah, having a diet 70% or even 50% protein might allow for slightly more calories (or even more than that), but it's probably not a great diet for most and there are more significant considerations than how many calories can I eat without gaining weight.0 -
DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).0 -
DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
I know there was a reason why I like you!0 -
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
so you have never ever eaten 16 oreos in one sitting....ever?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
so you have never ever eaten 16 oreos in one sitting....ever?
A few years ago in my local paper they ran a story of a 93-year-old woman who ate a box of Oreos every day......for the last 40 years0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
So then don't eat them? Good for you? Not sure what kind of response you're looking for.
It shouldn't be a blanket statement that eating 1000 calories of cookies will give someone a stomach ache.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think there are many of us for which that would not work.DoNotSpamMe73 wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »But what if I WANT to eat 1000 calories of Oreos?
Well you'll get a stomach ache.
I challenge your assertion.
That's what, 16 cookies? Um yeah, been there, done that. Didn't get the stomach ache (or a t-shirt; it was a complete rip off apparently).
so you have never ever eaten 16 oreos in one sitting....ever?
A few years ago in my local paper they ran a story of a 93-year-old woman who ate a box of Oreos every day......for the last 40 years
thats my kind of lady!!!!!!!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions