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
-
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Again, since you did not answer, where I'm not following is WHY you think what you've posted is contradictory to what others have posted, why it matters, why it means a calorie is not a calorie.
We all agree that there are factors that affect how many calories your body actually absorbs from the food eaten. I'm still not seeing why this matters. Again, I refer to my post about TEF, and would be interested in a response to it from you.
From an energy availability standpoint, that calorie must be available for use before it can provide energy. This contradicts that all calories are equal for energy, as those never properly digested are never available for use within a persons body. They simply pass through, and release no potential energy into the human involved.
If you post the specific question regarding TEF, I'll be glad to respond. But I've never disagreed that TEF and many other factors are small. The sum of all those factors, along with the various averages used in the Atwater and food labeling methods used, can become much larger.lemurcat12 wrote: »No, and I agree that what we eat matters. I don't believe "a calorie is a calorie" is ever intended to mean that food choice does not matter.
From a weight loss (or gain) perspective, the fact that fructose is metabolized differently from glucose doesn't seem particularly relevant. I agree that we get fewer calories actually absorbed from fiber (whether fiber is or is not a carb depends on where one lives, since the US counts it as such but I understand other countries do not). I'm always confused as to whether labels adjust for fiber -- I think they do but perhaps not adequately -- but once again I don't see this as hugely significant for weight loss because it only reduces the number of calories actually absorbed (for weight gain it could be a problem).
For the sake of discussion, assume all energy is absorbed, and that the labels and methods are exact.
This statement...
....
All calories are the same in that they provide the same amount of energy; HOWEVER, all calories do not have the same nutritional profile.
would imply that for your running, the energy available from fat would be exactly the same as the energy available from carbs. After all a calorie is a calorie right? So even though they both have the same potential energy release available, certain forms of that energy within the human system can be useful for many purposes, others useful only for certain purposes. They still remain equal in potential, yet not the same forms of energy.
As for fiber, here's another study that some claim must be a strawman diet and an ancient study, and thus unreliable....
2016-63077ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/6/1649.full
I don't think low fat high fiber diets are at all unusual. Quite a few people here on MFP track fiber rather than carbs and shoot for higher levels. Being that the fiber intake also impacts foods eaten with the fiber, it's a common variable that can impact quite a few normal diets that people use on a regular basis.
As for the carbs, it's known that the various carbs ((monosaccharides, disaccharides and starch) have been factored several ways, and it's still disputed as to which one to use. But when comparing Atwater vs NME, those carbs that were all considered the same in energy now have a broader variance in energy that is actually available for human use, to the tune of 15-20% IIRC.
As for why I corrected the statements made by NDJ... well starch isn't a sugar, and it's been proven that in energy availability, not even sugars are really equal. Much closer than the comparison of starch vs sugar, but still several percentage points apart.
If energy available to the human body in all forms were the same then a calorie would be a calorie. But until then, and since we are talking about the human body, they remain different forms of energy, not always suited to the task at hand. As such, in humans, it matters. The only way it doesn't matter is if we remove the human element and burn the food.So your proof of diets being off by 10% or more is a compilation of studies all except one done before the 2000s? Some going back to 1913? Yeah, I'll agree, the Atwater coefficients from 1913 are probably due for an update, but not because of some then study of what people thought Inuit ate.
If you discount any science that remains undisputed, you are still discounting science. Quite a few of those studies, if not all remain undisputed. While I agree that the diet of the Inuit doesn't matter to us here on the forum, diets having to do with diabetics, weight loss, and others listed in the chart are still quite common and valid.
I could provide walls of links to common dietary changes having impact on the Atwater calculations. You can find dozens at a time in the recomp thread, where often energy balance is seemingly defied. Since we know that is not true, if we embrace science we have no choice but to accept that even in lab settings, variations take place that are as of now not completely explained.It also doesn't respond at all to TDEE back propagation. For it to be a problem with back propagation the diet has to continuously change foods wildly, from large quantities of one off food to another.
And when your response is just to repeat your chart about specific diets instead of addressing my point directly, I am left assuming you're not following. That would be why you actually have the strawman so far. You're addressing your idea of what diets are off, not mine.
In fact, that you're saying to remove the scale means you don't understand how TDEE back propagation works.
You gave the example of the almonds, and how you would adjust TDEE to compensate. If you knew the almonds were never available due to not being absorbed, then the energy was never made available. So properly weighed almonds did not in fact increase your TDEE, they proved error in intake vs available energy for a human.
If you have a specific point you would like me to address, I'd prefer to state it rather than assume I can't follow. To this point there is nothing stated in this thread that I can't follow.
As far as if all the studies are undisputed by virtue of their age - fine. You have a great gish gallup. Before just citing a chart, how about you actually explain each diet and tell how each one will consistently cause a person to fail to predict their deficit over time. Otherwise, it isn't about you actually believing them any more valid, it is about you hoping to bury someone else with the burden of disproving them.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »What do y'all think of this guys experiment? He will be doing an experiment following the opposite principles soon.
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/
Well simple explanation... he has almonds in the diet. That throws EVERYTHING off!
I'll wade through it when I have more time. But I'd guess if a person intentionally ate a diet that would allow lower levels of energy to be absorbed by the body, they could come up with a decent difference. But at his size, I'm guessing somewhere hidden in all that text is a whole lot of workout energy or something not being accounted for. I might believe that a person could manipulate an "extra" 500 calories into a day for an averaged sized guy even with a borderline high TDEE, but without wading through the whole thing it's hard to see his angle.
If you already have a TL/DR version that includes his TDEE, diet, and such.... I'd take that.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »What do y'all think of this guys experiment? He will be doing an experiment following the opposite principles soon.
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/
Well simple explanation... he has almonds in the diet. That throws EVERYTHING off!
I'll wade through it when I have more time. But I'd guess if a person intentionally ate a diet that would allow lower levels of energy to be absorbed by the body, they could come up with a decent difference. But at his size, I'm guessing somewhere hidden in all that text is a whole lot of workout energy or something not being accounted for. I might believe that a person could manipulate an "extra" 500 calories into a day for an averaged sized guy even with a borderline high TDEE, but without wading through the whole thing it's hard to see his angle.
If you already have a TL/DR version that includes his TDEE, diet, and such.... I'd take that.
Nah sorry, no TL/DR version. I was hoping a few of the cynical analytical MFPers could explain if I'm missing an underlying reason why he didn't pack on the pounds.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »What do y'all think of this guys experiment? He will be doing an experiment following the opposite principles soon.
http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/
http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2013/06/that-5000-calorie-jokesperiment.html
^breaks down some explanations.
Indeed he did get about 53% of his calories from nuts, and as such, might have been purposely gaming a food commonly bandied about in the legitimate nutritional science community as having fewer calories than expected.
There's also the problem that we have just his word that his calories out remained the exact same. There are a few experiments out there that suggest that not just decreases but also increases in calories tend to generate changes in activity to minimize the difference between calories in and calories out.
If he started in a normal dietary state with full glycogen stores, his use of a generally low carb diet might also allowed him to dump water weight to offset the lipid gains he did make.
Carb sanity summarizes it with these points:1. Calories In is overestimated due to the high reliance on nuts for fat and total caloric intake.
2. Initial Calories Out may be overstated.
3. Conversion to mass is 90-95% with fat overfeeding and 75-85% with carb overfeeding. While there is no way to predict what fat + protein overfeeding might accomplish in a carbohydrate deficit, it is likely to be a lower percent than for fat. Using 75-95% we're talking 0.4 to 1.8 kg right there IF all of the nut calories are absorbed.
4. Water weight: Even on a lean guy like Sam, it's impossible to judge the role of non-"solid" mass that we're talking about here. But whatever the caloric surplus that hasn't been accounted for by 1,2,3 or any combination of the above, can easily be accounted for by water weight. First, although glycogen stores would be difficult to assess, we're talking a possible 1.5 kg water weight in addition to the 0.5g glycogen depleted from the liver and muscles. Then there's the possibility for a few kilograms more weight in water due to the dehydrating nature of the diet (likely exacerbated by the high protein intake).
This stunt was a scientific "wash" at best.0 -
Thanks @senecarr .
Yes it is a self reported N 1 study, and I really hope he was 100% honest about the calories he consumed... As I hope he is when he does the high carb diet.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »So @robertw486 , I'm not going to quote because there's just too much text. But if you feel that saying "a calorie is a calorie" is an oversimplification based on the data you've shown, what advice would you give to a noob asking "does it matter what I eat for weight loss as long as I'm in a deficit?" A person who asks an oversimplified question like that is not interested in complicated charts and graphs. What advice would you give, in two sentences or less, that would be helpful to someone like that?
This threads isnt about the advice one woulf provide a noobs but rather a semantic debate that all calories are equal when it comes to energy. So i am not sure why its a part of this argument.
That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
If we are just arguing definitions this would be quite a dull discussion indeed. Isn't the way that we explain a concept to various audiences critical to the debate? There seems to be a school of thought that semantics means "something that doesn't really matter" but to me, semantics is important, not only the definitions and the meanings of the words but how those meanings can be exained in a way to optimize the understanding by a broader audience.
It depends on the type of debate and the intended audience. And with that, my recommendations and information will be based on their level of knowledge and goals. A person who is just starting out will receive significantly different information, than a power lifter who is getting ready to compete. It's one reason why I love Eric Helms nutrition pyramid. The latter would benefit from a highly different plan (to include supplementation, nutrition timing, etc..) while a noob would benefit the most from calories and macros.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.
I have addressed that point.
(1) Since a calorie is a calorie is not a claim that all foods are the same, the fact that different foods may serve different goals is not an argument against it. It's an intentional (and rude) misunderstanding of what a calorie is a calorie means.
(2) Macro mix depends on goals, and it would make no sense to change macros to get the largest possible calorie total (as that would not result in a sensible diet). Yes, high protein and low fat has a higher TEF than more normal macro distribution, but why is it sensible for me to eat based on that. If I follow a normal diet based on nutrition and goals, there will be no meaningful difference (as Kevin Hall demonstrates).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.
I have addressed that point.
(1) Since a calorie is a calorie is not a claim that all foods are the same, the fact that different foods may serve different goals is not an argument against it. It's an intentional (and rude) misunderstanding of what a calorie is a calorie means.
(2) Macro mix depends on goals, and it would make no sense to change macros to get the largest possible calorie total (as that would not result in a sensible diet). Yes, high protein and low fat has a higher TEF than more normal macro distribution, but why is it sensible for me to eat based on that. If I follow a normal diet based on nutrition and goals, there will be no meaningful difference (as Kevin Hall demonstrates).
KH study demonstrates there are slight difference.. but difference non the less. I fully understand the what a calorie means. But I would disagree that ALL contain the same amount of energy. Because a gross calories is NOT the same as a NET calorie.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.
I have addressed that point.
(1) Since a calorie is a calorie is not a claim that all foods are the same, the fact that different foods may serve different goals is not an argument against it. It's an intentional (and rude) misunderstanding of what a calorie is a calorie means.
(2) Macro mix depends on goals, and it would make no sense to change macros to get the largest possible calorie total (as that would not result in a sensible diet). Yes, high protein and low fat has a higher TEF than more normal macro distribution, but why is it sensible for me to eat based on that. If I follow a normal diet based on nutrition and goals, there will be no meaningful difference (as Kevin Hall demonstrates).
KH study demonstrates there are slight difference.. but difference non the less. I fully understand the what a calorie means. But I would disagree that ALL contain the same amount of energy. Because a gross calories is NOT the same as a NET calorie.
The question is if that has any impact on a practical application.
Talking about what these differences are and what causes them is all well and nice but ultimately useless if it doesn't impact anyone's goals.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.
I have addressed that point.
(1) Since a calorie is a calorie is not a claim that all foods are the same, the fact that different foods may serve different goals is not an argument against it. It's an intentional (and rude) misunderstanding of what a calorie is a calorie means.
(2) Macro mix depends on goals, and it would make no sense to change macros to get the largest possible calorie total (as that would not result in a sensible diet). Yes, high protein and low fat has a higher TEF than more normal macro distribution, but why is it sensible for me to eat based on that. If I follow a normal diet based on nutrition and goals, there will be no meaningful difference (as Kevin Hall demonstrates).
KH study demonstrates there are slight difference.. but difference non the less. I fully understand the what a calorie means. But I would disagree that ALL contain the same amount of energy. Because a gross calories is NOT the same as a NET calorie.
Right -- that means that foods are different.
It doesn't mean that calories are different.
In a perfect world inaccuracies in estimating calories will be removed.
Again, do you really think it makes sense to choose foods to maximize stated calories? If not, what practical application does any of this have?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »So @robertw486 , I'm not going to quote because there's just too much text. But if you feel that saying "a calorie is a calorie" is an oversimplification based on the data you've shown, what advice would you give to a noob asking "does it matter what I eat for weight loss as long as I'm in a deficit?" A person who asks an oversimplified question like that is not interested in complicated charts and graphs. What advice would you give, in two sentences or less, that would be helpful to someone like that?
This threads isnt about the advice one woulf provide a noobs but rather a semantic debate that all calories are equal when it comes to energy. So i am not sure why its a part of this argument.
That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
If we are just arguing definitions this would be quite a dull discussion indeed. Isn't the way that we explain a concept to various audiences critical to the debate? There seems to be a school of thought that semantics means "something that doesn't really matter" but to me, semantics is important, not only the definitions and the meanings of the words but how those meanings can be exained in a way to optimize the understanding by a broader audience.
It depends on the type of debate and the intended audience. And with that, my recommendations and information will be based on their level of knowledge and goals. A person who is just starting out will receive significantly different information, than a power lifter who is getting ready to compete. It's one reason why I love Eric Helms nutrition pyramid. The latter would benefit from a highly different plan (to include supplementation, nutrition timing, etc..) while a noob would benefit the most from calories and macros.
Of course, I too would tailor the advice based on the person asking it. I likely wouldn't have much to offer a power lifter getting ready for competition though...
But that's why I asked for someone who tends to bring out massive amounts of details about how energy is processed in the body differently for different types of foods to offer a short summary of what advice they would give a noob just asking a basic question of "is a calorie really just a calorie?". Because I think the deep dive into details can be distracting and confusing for someone who really does just want to hear, "yes you can eat anything you want and still lose weight if you're in a calorie deficit but many find that building the diet around nutrient dense foods first and then leaving room for treats provides a good balance". That person doesn't want to hear about the TEF of almonds and digestion and energy absorption differentials and see a bunch of complex charts from studies.
And I know that question wasn't posed here by a noob and this is the debate section so this is the place to dive into those gory details. I also think it is relevant to suggest here that those details are "majoring in the minors" or offer negligible impact for a significant percentage of the community here, so that when the next question comes up in the main forums about if eating cake will undo all your progress (oh wait, looks like it already did), then maybe everyone will consider the best way to answer that persons question just as you said you do.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
Correct. Calorie information is an estimate and calories may be overstated (never understated).
This doesn't mean that calories that we can access are different, it means there may be some estimates that are off (which is kind of nice, really).
The argument against a calorie is a calorie is different -- it is that calories are more or less fattening depending on where they are from. You can't get fat if you eat healthy foods vs. cheese calories go to the butt or immediately are stored as fat or some such.
That's not the case. Calories are calories. Foods, of course, are different, and one difference is in how accurately their calorie counts are estimated.
The errors in calorie estimation can go both ways.
To a small degree, because one apple might be riper than another.
But again, that calories can be estimated poorly doesn't mean that a calorie from an egg effects me differently than a calorie from an apple.Based on my food eaten to this time today, my calories on labels/MFP calculations vs Atwater specific tables are underestimated by about 120 calories on my proteins alone. The offset in overestimated carbs might shave 20 or so calories off of that. If the trend continues through the other 900 calories I have to eat today, the estimates will be off by close to 200 calories as compared to the Atwater specific tables.
And again, so what? No one knows the precise number of calories they eat. It's not significant.I'm not sure where you are going with the statement of not getting fat eating healthy foods. You can get fat overeating almost anything assuming you can eat that much of calorie sparse foods.
Obviously, but typically when people claim that a calorie is not a calorie, that's what they are saying -- that for weight loss/gain a calorie from some foods affect us differently from calories from other foods. That's the point ndj is disputing and while it seems crazy it seems to also be commonly believed by folks at MFP.Calories only come from foods, so to state that calories are calories yet foods are different.... I think I need clarification on your point there.
For weight loss purposes a calorie is a calorie.
For all sorts of other purposes, of course foods aren't equivalent. Some have more (and different) nutrients, some are digested faster, some are better for quick fueling, etc.
"A calorie" is not a synonym for "food." Usually when people object to "a calorie is a calorie" they are assuming (stupidly) that it is and objecting that foods are not the same.
You seem to be arguing that calorie counts are estimates, which similarly does not seem to be to be (a) controversial (I think everyone already knows that) or (b) contrary to the idea that a calorie is a calorie. So I don't even get what this argument is about except that you love telling others they are wrong.lemurcat12 wrote: »But focusing on choosing foods where the calorie count is most likely to be off or protein (because higher TEF) with the idea that you can trick the system makes no sense to me (read my TEF post, which I reposted, for why).
No, I disagree with your reading of ndj's post. He's talking about weight gain/loss, not other goals (like fueling workouts or nutrition).
I think increasing fiber because of satiety makes sense. Increasing fiber because you think nutrition labels are off and there's some victory to eating more stated calories doesn't make sense to me.
You seem to be arguing mostly that labels/the USDA information is imperfect and I agree. But again I don't see that as meaning that a calorie (an actual calorie accessed by the body) from cheese is different from one from steak. (Both are poor sources immediately pre race, but that's not about calories either, but about glycogen).
Having now seen your TEF comment you wanted me to comment on, as well as the additional above comment, I can agree that the though of eating more protein simply to hope to "cash in" on the TEF factor makes little sense. As far as what people want to eat, how they eat it, anything they consider a "trick", etc... as far as I'm concerned that is their choice.
Excellent! We agree. I call it a trick because it is typically presented as such, as if there's some benefit to being able to eat more stated calories, which strikes me as pointless.
(I think I likely eat more foods with a higher TEF -- fiber and protein -- than the average, but not because I want to be able to eat more "calories" but because I find those foods filling and tasty.)If the question or comment is directed as me due to assumption I'm looking for some special trick, then the assumption would be incorrect. I eat what I eat, have no issues with moderating all the foods I eat, and only alter my diet on any specific day if there are specific macro or micro needs not addressed for either recovery or prep for a hard upcoming day. I don't even tend to worry about deficit within a day, but view the weight control goals more on a weekly or long term basis.
No, I'm making no assumptions about you personally. (Other than you getting off on lecturing others about being wrong even if they aren't actually disagreeing.)As for you not being in agreement with how I read NDJ's original post, that's your right to do so. But being that I've quoted the part I'm in disagreement with, and the full original post is still here, I'll just mention that there is no mention at all in the original post about weight control at all.
Well, he's here, so he can tell me if I'm wrong.
Given past posts and context I'm pretty sure I'm not.As for your last comment, if the energy was the same from all foods, that cheese or steak calorie should be just as efficient as fueling your race or training as a simple carb calorie. The OP stated that both provide the same amount of energy. I still disagree with that. The potential energy is the same, but charging the batteries on a hybrid car doesn't also fill the gas tank, nor would filling the gas tank charge the batteries. As humans use differing energy sources in differing ways, it's a very good comparison.
Nope -- again, you seem to be using calorie as a synonym for food.
Absolutely foods differ and some are digested more quickly or more accessible for glycogen than others. That doesn't mean a calorie is not a calorie (I will gain weight if I overeat Gu, as well as cheese). It means foods are different and food choice depends on overall goals.
It also means that claiming sugar is always bad since empty calories is foolish.0 -
Saying that a calorie is NOT a calorie is pretty much like saying that 1 square meter is not 1 square meter. Sure, maybe a square meter of garden has a different function than a square meter of cement or is more expensive in London than in Mexico, but that doesn't change the fact that the measure is the same. I've heard people say things like: "500 calories of cucumber are not the same as 500 calories of hamburger". Yes they are. Cucumber and hamburger may have different nutritional values and even different commercial prices. That does not change that a Kilocalorie is the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water through 1 °C.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.
I have addressed that point.
(1) Since a calorie is a calorie is not a claim that all foods are the same, the fact that different foods may serve different goals is not an argument against it. It's an intentional (and rude) misunderstanding of what a calorie is a calorie means.
(2) Macro mix depends on goals, and it would make no sense to change macros to get the largest possible calorie total (as that would not result in a sensible diet). Yes, high protein and low fat has a higher TEF than more normal macro distribution, but why is it sensible for me to eat based on that. If I follow a normal diet based on nutrition and goals, there will be no meaningful difference (as Kevin Hall demonstrates).
KH study demonstrates there are slight difference.. but difference non the less. I fully understand the what a calorie means. But I would disagree that ALL contain the same amount of energy. Because a gross calories is NOT the same as a NET calorie.
Well now you do need a terminology argument because they do contain the same amount of energy, they just don't contain the same human digestible / usable amount of calories. Which gets into gasoline arguments. Gasoline has a fair amount of calories but none of them digestible. More survivably, grass has a lot of calories, but we tend to lack the number of stomachs to make that work. Heck, food we eat contains unimaginably large number of calories - unfortunately we don't have anti-matter stomachs to convert sub atomic particles in to pure radiation to release them, we're stuck working at the chemical level of physics.
We already have a system that corrects to the extent it can for the digestibility of calories over the amount of oxdiziable calories in a directly burning. That's exactly what the Atwater factors are there for. That some Atwater factors are wrong means they need correction.
Or heck, let's just say as far as each individual is concerned, no one else's food has calories. After all, none of the food any of you are logging is giving me any energy. So clearly, it is all zero calorie food. Eat as much as you want, you won't cause me any weight gain. Which is why the stealing food off a loved one's plate works for weight loss.0 -
silvilunazul wrote: »Saying that a calorie is NOT a calorie is pretty much like saying that 1 square meter is not 1 square meter. Sure, maybe a square meter of garden has a different function than a square meter of cement or is more expensive in London than in Mexico, but that doesn't change the fact that the measure is the same. I've heard people say things like: "500 calories of cucumber are not the same as 500 calories of hamburger". Yes they are. Cucumber and hamburger may have different nutritional values and even different commercial prices. That does not change that a Kilocalorie is the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water through 1 °C.
Right. Or to compare, when I measure myself I get different numbers, because I'm not great at it and can pull the tape measure tighter or less tight.
That doesn't mean an inch is not an inch.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »The issue I see is that some of us use the terminology differently, regardless of what the technical meaning is. People I know IRL do speak of low nutrient dense food such as sugary foods as being "empty calories". I don't think it's that they believe the body can't utilize energy from it, but it's considered "empty" because apart from simply providing pure calories/macros, there's not much other nutritional benefit (in general). So from that standpoint, in common language it could be said that a "calorie is not a calorie", even though of course from a scientific perspective a calorie is a calorie.
^this
0 -
silvilunazul wrote: »Saying that a calorie is NOT a calorie is pretty much like saying that 1 square meter is not 1 square meter. Sure, maybe a square meter of garden has a different function than a square meter of cement or is more expensive in London than in Mexico, but that doesn't change the fact that the measure is the same. I've heard people say things like: "500 calories of cucumber are not the same as 500 calories of hamburger". Yes they are. Cucumber and hamburger may have different nutritional values and even different commercial prices. That does not change that a Kilocalorie is the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water through 1 °C.
cosign0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »silvilunazul wrote: »Saying that a calorie is NOT a calorie is pretty much like saying that 1 square meter is not 1 square meter. Sure, maybe a square meter of garden has a different function than a square meter of cement or is more expensive in London than in Mexico, but that doesn't change the fact that the measure is the same. I've heard people say things like: "500 calories of cucumber are not the same as 500 calories of hamburger". Yes they are. Cucumber and hamburger may have different nutritional values and even different commercial prices. That does not change that a Kilocalorie is the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water through 1 °C.
Right. Or to compare, when I measure myself I get different numbers, because I'm not great at it and can pull the tape measure tighter or less tight.
That doesn't mean an inch is not an inch.
Hey now, debating calories is for nutrition debate, and debating inches is for chit chat.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.
I have addressed that point.
(1) Since a calorie is a calorie is not a claim that all foods are the same, the fact that different foods may serve different goals is not an argument against it. It's an intentional (and rude) misunderstanding of what a calorie is a calorie means.
(2) Macro mix depends on goals, and it would make no sense to change macros to get the largest possible calorie total (as that would not result in a sensible diet). Yes, high protein and low fat has a higher TEF than more normal macro distribution, but why is it sensible for me to eat based on that. If I follow a normal diet based on nutrition and goals, there will be no meaningful difference (as Kevin Hall demonstrates).
KH study demonstrates there are slight difference.. but difference non the less. I fully understand the what a calorie means. But I would disagree that ALL contain the same amount of energy. Because a gross calories is NOT the same as a NET calorie.
The question is if that has any impact on a practical application.
Talking about what these differences are and what causes them is all well and nice but ultimately useless if it doesn't impact anyone's goals.
And this wasn't part of the original argument. This was brought in later. Because what the OP stated, has NO application to a user.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »The issue I see is that some of us use the terminology differently, regardless of what the technical meaning is. People I know IRL do speak of low nutrient dense food such as sugary foods as being "empty calories". I don't think it's that they believe the body can't utilize energy from it, but it's considered "empty" because apart from simply providing pure calories/macros, there's not much other nutritional benefit (in general). So from that standpoint, in common language it could be said that a "calorie is not a calorie", even though of course from a scientific perspective a calorie is a calorie.
^this
So you are using "calorie" incorrectly as a synonym for food. That's fine, but why would you disagree with others based on a known difference in what you mean by terms?
I am honestly curious about this and would love an answer.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.
I have addressed that point.
(1) Since a calorie is a calorie is not a claim that all foods are the same, the fact that different foods may serve different goals is not an argument against it. It's an intentional (and rude) misunderstanding of what a calorie is a calorie means.
(2) Macro mix depends on goals, and it would make no sense to change macros to get the largest possible calorie total (as that would not result in a sensible diet). Yes, high protein and low fat has a higher TEF than more normal macro distribution, but why is it sensible for me to eat based on that. If I follow a normal diet based on nutrition and goals, there will be no meaningful difference (as Kevin Hall demonstrates).
KH study demonstrates there are slight difference.. but difference non the less. I fully understand the what a calorie means. But I would disagree that ALL contain the same amount of energy. Because a gross calories is NOT the same as a NET calorie.
The question is if that has any impact on a practical application.
Talking about what these differences are and what causes them is all well and nice but ultimately useless if it doesn't impact anyone's goals.
And this wasn't part of the original argument. This was brought in later. Because what the OP stated, has NO application to a user.
"so what matters at the end of the day is that one gets adequate nutrition, hits calorie targets, and meets macro needs."
Sounds to me like NDJ did in fact make this post for practical purposes.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.
I have addressed that point.
(1) Since a calorie is a calorie is not a claim that all foods are the same, the fact that different foods may serve different goals is not an argument against it. It's an intentional (and rude) misunderstanding of what a calorie is a calorie means.
(2) Macro mix depends on goals, and it would make no sense to change macros to get the largest possible calorie total (as that would not result in a sensible diet). Yes, high protein and low fat has a higher TEF than more normal macro distribution, but why is it sensible for me to eat based on that. If I follow a normal diet based on nutrition and goals, there will be no meaningful difference (as Kevin Hall demonstrates).
KH study demonstrates there are slight difference.. but difference non the less. I fully understand the what a calorie means. But I would disagree that ALL contain the same amount of energy. Because a gross calories is NOT the same as a NET calorie.
Right -- that means that foods are different.
It doesn't mean that calories are different.
In a perfect world inaccuracies in estimating calories will be removed.
Again, do you really think it makes sense to choose foods to maximize stated calories? If not, what practical application does any of this have?
Like I said before, this is going to be situation. For a noob, NO, I am not going to talk about TEF, timing of nutrients or supplements to address their goals. For someone who is bulking, with a knowledge base, our conversations tend to run much more deep, which can include the type of calories (i.e - carbs are king) and the timing of nutrient (protein/carbs 2 hours pre- or post- workout). Hell, if people are more elite, we would even discuss the type of sugar (dextrose vs fructose) post workout. Why, because foods contain calories, and calories have different impacts on a body, even outside of nutrition. Merely, this is a more broad view verse narrow view of a calorie.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »silvilunazul wrote: »Saying that a calorie is NOT a calorie is pretty much like saying that 1 square meter is not 1 square meter. Sure, maybe a square meter of garden has a different function than a square meter of cement or is more expensive in London than in Mexico, but that doesn't change the fact that the measure is the same. I've heard people say things like: "500 calories of cucumber are not the same as 500 calories of hamburger". Yes they are. Cucumber and hamburger may have different nutritional values and even different commercial prices. That does not change that a Kilocalorie is the energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water through 1 °C.
Right. Or to compare, when I measure myself I get different numbers, because I'm not great at it and can pull the tape measure tighter or less tight.
That doesn't mean an inch is not an inch.
Hey now, debating calories is for nutrition debate, and debating inches is for chit chat.
Heh.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=lpPeQyT36Tg0 -
If that was the entire post, I would agree. But lets not cherry pick a sentence or two, when the context of the whole OP has multiple components.stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.
I have addressed that point.
(1) Since a calorie is a calorie is not a claim that all foods are the same, the fact that different foods may serve different goals is not an argument against it. It's an intentional (and rude) misunderstanding of what a calorie is a calorie means.
(2) Macro mix depends on goals, and it would make no sense to change macros to get the largest possible calorie total (as that would not result in a sensible diet). Yes, high protein and low fat has a higher TEF than more normal macro distribution, but why is it sensible for me to eat based on that. If I follow a normal diet based on nutrition and goals, there will be no meaningful difference (as Kevin Hall demonstrates).
KH study demonstrates there are slight difference.. but difference non the less. I fully understand the what a calorie means. But I would disagree that ALL contain the same amount of energy. Because a gross calories is NOT the same as a NET calorie.
The question is if that has any impact on a practical application.
Talking about what these differences are and what causes them is all well and nice but ultimately useless if it doesn't impact anyone's goals.
And this wasn't part of the original argument. This was brought in later. Because what the OP stated, has NO application to a user.
"so what matters at the end of the day is that one gets adequate nutrition, hits calorie targets, and meets macro needs."
Sounds to me like NDJ did in fact make this post for practical purposes.
0 -
How come I drink alot of beer and it doesn't make gain weight?0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »That said, if all calories are equal, then isocaloric studies would suggest that regardless of dietary composition, a person would lose the same amount.
The Kevin Hall study suggests that over time it is going to be very close.
Also, the primary way identified so far for it not to be is to have an extremely high or low percentage of protein, and neither of those is a sensible diet for other reasons, so I would not really consider them relevant, but outliers.
Do you disagree?
I would agree that most things will even out. But many of the typical low carb studies that maintain calories, but not macros, are within a reasonable level for many dieters (15% p vs 30% pro).
My contention is similar to roberts. I am not necessarily disputing that a calorie isn't a calorie, but rather the follow on statement that all provide the same unit of energy. The thing is, we don't metabolize all calories the same and they surely don't have the same outcome on the body. Robert made a very good point that no one addressed. If all calories are equal in energy, why would a cycling utilize a carb gel made up of dextrose and maltodextrin as opposed to protein/fats? Why do overfeeding studies suggest that fats are more likely able to be converted over protein or even carbs? So yes, while a calorie is a calorie, the byproducts and application can significantly vary.
I have addressed that point.
(1) Since a calorie is a calorie is not a claim that all foods are the same, the fact that different foods may serve different goals is not an argument against it. It's an intentional (and rude) misunderstanding of what a calorie is a calorie means.
(2) Macro mix depends on goals, and it would make no sense to change macros to get the largest possible calorie total (as that would not result in a sensible diet). Yes, high protein and low fat has a higher TEF than more normal macro distribution, but why is it sensible for me to eat based on that. If I follow a normal diet based on nutrition and goals, there will be no meaningful difference (as Kevin Hall demonstrates).
KH study demonstrates there are slight difference.. but difference non the less. I fully understand the what a calorie means. But I would disagree that ALL contain the same amount of energy. Because a gross calories is NOT the same as a NET calorie.
Right -- that means that foods are different.
It doesn't mean that calories are different.
In a perfect world inaccuracies in estimating calories will be removed.
Again, do you really think it makes sense to choose foods to maximize stated calories? If not, what practical application does any of this have?
Like I said before, this is going to be situation. For a noob, NO, I am not going to talk about TEF, timing of nutrients or supplements to address their goals. For someone who is bulking, with a knowledge base, our conversations tend to run much more deep, which can include the type of calories (i.e - carbs are king) and the timing of nutrient (protein/carbs 2 hours pre- or post- workout). Hell, if people are more elite, we would even discuss the type of sugar (dextrose vs fructose) post workout. Why, because foods contain calories, and calories have different impacts on a body, even outside of nutrition. Merely, this is a more broad view verse narrow view of a calorie.
Yes, I am concerned about those things too. I bought a course on ironman nutrition even -- I'm a geek for this stuff.
They have nothing to do with a calorie is a calorie.
I am interested in seeing if higher carbs help my training, but I know higher carbs won't affect my weight. If I were trying to gain muscle I'd likely increase protein, but not because of weight -- because of muscle.
I think Robert is pretending that others don't know things we all know and claiming they mean a calorie is not a calorie when that is false and for some reason you are enabling him.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 422 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions