Fiber and calories

Options
candistyx
candistyx Posts: 547 Member
in Food and Nutrition
Do the calories on packets of food count the calories from soluble fiber that is fermented in the gut into short chain fatty acids?
How much soluble fiber is generally fermented anyway?

I wouldn't want to reduce my fiber at all! I need more to be sure, but I am very interested in whether I should account for the calories in it.

Replies

  • Sublog
    Sublog Posts: 1,296 Member
    Options
    Check out this article.

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nutrition/fiber-its-natures-broom.html

    HTH
  • johncowart
    johncowart Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    Since there hasn't been 100% of fiber counting as a calorie, and that most things have small amounts of fiber I wouldnt think if you counted it or not to matter. As long as you come close to your daily calories is what you should strive for not get it perfect every time. You'll go crazy trying to hit that daily and it fluctuates based on your daily calorie burn also so it's still a moving target. It's just a better one than guessing and gives you something to make better decisions by.
    John
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options
    The calories on a packet have nothing to do with the amount you absorb from the food. They are simply calculated by burning it and measuring the heat given off. Metabolism is far more complicated.
  • candistyx
    candistyx Posts: 547 Member
    Options
    The calories on a packet have nothing to do with the amount you absorb from the food. They are simply calculated by burning it and measuring the heat given off. Metabolism is far more complicated.
    Well doesn't that make the whole concept of counting calories a bit... useless?
    Ok, I guess its a buffer on the maximum consumed, but 1000 calories as glucose vs 1000 calories as LCFA vs 1000 calories as Broccoli will be completely different actual absorbed...
  • fteale
    fteale Posts: 5,310 Member
    Options
    The calories on a packet have nothing to do with the amount you absorb from the food. They are simply calculated by burning it and measuring the heat given off. Metabolism is far more complicated.
    Well doesn't that make the whole concept of counting calories a bit... useless?
    Ok, I guess its a buffer on the maximum consumed, but 1000 calories as glucose vs 1000 calories as LCFA vs 1000 calories as Broccoli will be completely different actual absorbed...

    Yup.
  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,239 Member
    Options
    The calories on a packet have nothing to do with the amount you absorb from the food. They are simply calculated by burning it and measuring the heat given off. Metabolism is far more complicated.
    Well doesn't that make the whole concept of counting calories a bit... useless?
    Ok, I guess its a buffer on the maximum consumed, but 1000 calories as glucose vs 1000 calories as LCFA vs 1000 calories as Broccoli will be completely different actual absorbed...

    Only if you are a perfectionist. Frankly from a scientific standpoint the acceptable margin of error in calorie counting is way too big, sometimes up to 30%. Yet if you look at it as being close, which it usually is, then calorie counting is fine. It is how I have lost the weight I have and I firmly believe no diet will work if it does not take into account the difference between calories consumed and calories burned.

    Using your illustration even 1000 calories or broccoli will not always be absorbed by the same person exactly the same.
  • candistyx
    candistyx Posts: 547 Member
    Options
    The calories on a packet have nothing to do with the amount you absorb from the food. They are simply calculated by burning it and measuring the heat given off. Metabolism is far more complicated.
    Well doesn't that make the whole concept of counting calories a bit... useless?
    Ok, I guess its a buffer on the maximum consumed, but 1000 calories as glucose vs 1000 calories as LCFA vs 1000 calories as Broccoli will be completely different actual absorbed...

    Only if you are a perfectionist. Frankly from a scientific standpoint the acceptable margin of error in calorie counting is way too big, sometimes up to 30%. Yet if you look at it as being close, which it usually is, then calorie counting is fine. It is how I have lost the weight I have and I firmly believe no diet will work if it does not take into account the difference between calories consumed and calories burned.

    Using your illustration even 1000 calories or broccoli will not always be absorbed by the same person exactly the same.
    True but I am willing to bet the bioavalibility of calories in various nutrients, even as an average over the population would make things more accurate and interesting...

    But yeah I am not going to stop the calorie counting... I just wonder how important those things are..
  • johncowart
    johncowart Posts: 40 Member
    Options
    Its all about getting a baseline to start from. Since we tend to eat the same foods once we get our nutrition right it does work by sheer accident if anything. ;)

Categories