Question about all calories being equal
dydn11402
Posts: 103 Member
So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?
7
Replies
-
As far as I know the difference in the amount of energy spent in digestion is too small to matter in cases like this. The only thing I've read in studies is that protein digestion does take measurably more energy than carb or fat. But appart from that the difference is negligible.
Another matter is that the apple has other nutrients in it which the candy might not have (or it might). But that is not important for weight loss. Just for overall health.
ETA Ask the nutritionist how much more exactly. Without a figure it could be 2cal more, right?5 -
While there are slight differences in the amount of energy it takes to metabolize different macros, it's a pretty minor effect. Plus, you probably think in your example that the apple would take more energy, but an apple has pretty much zero protein, which is the macro that requires the most energy to metabolize, whereas candy, if you mean something with milk chocolate, nuts, or even real dairy caramel, will likely have a greater percentage of its calories from protein.
And anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. It's not a title that requires any specific education, training, or certification.10 -
I think the key difference is calorie vs. nutrition.8
-
So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?
She's wrong.
When it comes to weight loss, a calorie is a calorie no matter where it comes from. If what that nutritionist said were true, there would be no fat people who ate healthy diets. Setting aside any medical conditions that need medical attention, a calorie deficit is the only requirement for weight loss.
Nutritionally, 100 calories of apple and 100 calories of candy are different.
By the way, anyone call call themselves a nutritionist, so I don't put a whole lot of stock into what they say. In fact, I've seen where many are into broscience and weight loss myths.17 -
also the difference between an apple and candy is the apple has fiber and it takes longer to break it down than the candy which most likely has little to no fiber.but 100 calories of anything is still 100 calories.4
-
For all intents and purposes, speaking purely in terms of weight loss, a calorie is a calorie. There is a difference in the metabolic "cost" of processing between micronutrients (Google "TEF" or "thermic effect of feeding" if you want to geek out on the nuts and bolts of it), but for most people on diets of mixed macronutrients, it's all but completely irrelevant.
When you factor in satiety/adherence, nutrition, workout performance and overall health, micro- and macronutrients matter. We're not talking purely about calories and weight loss anymore at this point, so it's a whole different discussion.12 -
This is not a peer reviewed article (yes it is a blog) but there are interesting points nonetheless. It includes details some have mentioned:
https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2014/10/27/is-a-calorie-really-just-a-calorie/0 -
So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?
Regardless of what many on here preach, she isn't wrong. The type of calories you take in does effect the calories out. Proteins, in particular, require more calories to digest. Sugar, on the other hand, doesn't take much at all.9 -
So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?
She's wrong.
When it comes to weight loss, a calorie is a calorie no matter where it comes from. If what that nutritionist said were true, there would be no fat people who ate healthy diets. Setting aside any medical conditions that need medical attention, a calorie deficit is the only requirement for weight loss.
Nutritionally, 100 calories of apple and 100 calories of candy are different.
By the way, anyone call call themselves a nutritionist, so I don't put a whole lot of stock into what they say. In fact, I've seen where many are into broscience and weight loss myths.
This makes no sense. Nothing about what she said even remotely suggests that you cannot consume an excess of healthy foods.4 -
So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?
Regardless of what many on here preach, she isn't wrong. The type of calories you take in does effect the calories out. Proteins, in particular, require more calories to digest. Sugar, on the other hand, doesn't take much at all.
Read the above posts again.. for weight loss a calorie is a calorie... its about the number of calories.. These should be less than you burn (calories out).. No one can accurately calculate their own TEF (thermo effect from food) to lose weight and you don't have to.
For nutritional aspect (macro and micro nutrients) calories are different in their nutritional value..7 -
So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?
Regardless of what many on here preach, she isn't wrong. The type of calories you take in does effect the calories out. Proteins, in particular, require more calories to digest. Sugar, on the other hand, doesn't take much at all.
This is true.
For most people though, it really doesnt matter much when it comes to weightloss, as long as they have a varied diet. Its not something I pay any attention to. Losing weight is - at least for me - not a big science project.
Eat, Move, Sleep. All I need to know.
3 -
It's easy to get bogged down in details like this when it's really very simple - set a sensible calorie goal, log what you eat, log your exercise, try and keep the numbers green. If they go red, draw a line under it, tomorrow is another day.
Now, just because it's simple doesn't mean it's easy, and you might find this approach leaves you hungry, that's where nutrition comes in. Fruit and veg (especially veg) will fill you up for not many calories. Protein, whole grains, pulses are also filling, and fats for some people, but too much fat can increase your calories too much. So you adjust your diet to make it satisfying while meeting your calorie goal.
That's the main difference between different foods for weight loss, imo - how satisfying they are. Yes, there are differences in how much energy they take to digest, but your body is efficient, so the differences are small and, in my opinion, really not worth bothering about.7 -
So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?
Regardless of what many on here preach, she isn't wrong. The type of calories you take in does effect the calories out. Proteins, in particular, require more calories to digest. Sugar, on the other hand, doesn't take much at all.
Yes you totally do. 7 calories per 10% of protein per 1000 calories ingested. Or in numbers 21 for a diet at 1500 calories with 35% protein (pretty much bodybuilder levels) instead of 15% (absolute minimum recommendation for sedentary people).
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Wow, such a difference.8 -
That's majoring in minors. You would need years to see any meaningful effect from candy vs apple substitutions, and even then other factors come to mind that could muddle the effect and you wouldn't know what's what. You could similarly lose more if you cut a sliver out of every apple you eat and throw it away, in theory, but you wouldn't do that because it's so minor of an effect that it isn't worth the hassle.
Eat food within your preferences, within your calories, within what helps your satiety, and if you also want to do better for your health, make sure lean more heavily to the nutrient rich side. Do this and your weight loss will be fine without having to overcomplicate things.11 -
So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?
Regardless of what many on here preach, she isn't wrong. The type of calories you take in does effect the calories out. Proteins, in particular, require more calories to digest. Sugar, on the other hand, doesn't take much at all.
Read the above posts again.. for weight loss a calorie is a calorie... its about the number of calories.. These should be less than you burn (calories out).. No one can accurately calculate their own TEF (thermo effect from food) to lose weight and you don't have to.
For nutritional aspect (macro and micro nutrients) calories are different in their nutritional value..
I read it just fine. The point is that the type of calories in do affect the calories out. We can debate the merits of worrying about it but it is still true.0 -
Calories > Macroutrients > Micornutrients
For 99% of the population a calorie deficit or surplus is all that is required to lose or gain weight. How you get those macronutrients does not matter.2 -
If you say so, it must be true0
-
This is not a peer reviewed article (yes it is a blog) but there are interesting points nonetheless. It includes details some have mentioned:
https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2014/10/27/is-a-calorie-really-just-a-calorie/
A blog by a fitness trainer with no qualifications in nutrition? lol. As people have said it is a question of nutrition. Losing weight a calorie defecit is the way but to be "healthy" then nutrition is the way
Even this is kind of questionable. You can improve all metabolic markers with a poor diet if you lose weight. Obesity, inactivity and genetics play much greater rolls in health compared to the types of foods you eat. Having said that, one can potentially have more optimal health by eating whole foods (nutrient dense), adequate fiber and consuming MUFA. Even so, there are still stories of elite athletes dying at young ages and a plethora of stories of overweight, terrible eaters dying in their upper 90's or 100.11 -
For all intents and purposes, speaking purely in terms of weight loss, a calorie is a calorie. There is a difference in the metabolic "cost" of processing between micronutrients (Google "TEF" or "thermic effect of feeding" if you want to geek out on the nuts and bolts of it), but for most people on diets of mixed macronutrients, it's all but completely irrelevant.
When you factor in satiety/adherence, nutrition, workout performance and overall health, micro- and macronutrients matter. We're not talking purely about calories and weight loss anymore at this point, so it's a whole different discussion.
And this.0 -
This is not a peer reviewed article (yes it is a blog) but there are interesting points nonetheless. It includes details some have mentioned:
https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2014/10/27/is-a-calorie-really-just-a-calorie/
A blog by a fitness trainer with no qualifications in nutrition? lol. As people have said it is a question of nutrition. Losing weight a calorie defecit is the way but to be "healthy" then nutrition is the way
Even this is kind of questionable. You can improve all metabolic markers with a poor diet if you lose weight. Obesity, inactivity and genetics play much greater rolls in health compared to the types of foods you eat. Having said that, one can potentially have more optimal health by eating whole foods (nutrient dense), adequate fiber and consuming MUFA. Even so, there are still stories of elite athletes dying at young ages and a plethora of stories of overweight, terrible eaters dying in their upper 90's or 100.
This was my own experience-I went into this process overweight and with high glucose numbers (pre-diabetes range according to my doctor). I only focused on reducing the amount of calories I ate and still ate a very typical SAD diet (fast food several times a week, lots of 'diet' foods which are super processed etc etc). The results-over 50lbs lost and every single health marker improved, including getting that glucose number down into the 80s. Now several years into maintenance and all my health markers are still good, glucose number is still under 100, blood pressure is excellent etc, and I still eat pretty similar as how I did before. People keep telling me I'm going to drop dead at any moment because of all the horrible things I eat, but so far so good
3 -
So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?
That is true, butthat gets caught up in the calories out portion of the cals in cals out calculation. the cals in would be the same with the apple or the candy1 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »It's easy to get bogged down in details like this when it's really very simple - set a sensible calorie goal, log what you eat, log your exercise, try and keep the numbers green. If they go red, draw a line under it, tomorrow is another day.
Now, just because it's simple doesn't mean it's easy, and you might find this approach leaves you hungry, that's where nutrition comes in. Fruit and veg (especially veg) will fill you up for not many calories. Protein, whole grains, pulses are also filling, and fats for some people, but too much fat can increase your calories too much. So you adjust your diet to make it satisfying while meeting your calorie goal.
That's the main difference between different foods for weight loss, imo - how satisfying they are. Yes, there are differences in how much energy they take to digest, but your body is efficient, so the differences are small and, in my opinion, really not worth bothering about.
Nice!0 -
There is probably a bit of truth to the argument but the end result is not necessarily big enough to worry about. Kind of like how you burn more calories at a higher weight, but its not like you need to reevaluate your calorie goal every time you lose a single pound because the incremental change is not that great.So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?
1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »That's majoring in minors. You would need years to see any meaningful effect from candy vs apple substitutions, and even then other factors come to mind that could muddle the effect and you wouldn't know what's what. You could similarly lose more if you cut a sliver out of every apple you eat and throw it away, in theory, but you wouldn't do that because it's so minor of an effect that it isn't worth the hassle.
Eat food within your preferences, within your calories, within what helps your satiety, and if you also want to do better for your health, make sure lean more heavily to the nutrient rich side. Do this and your weight loss will be fine without having to overcomplicate things.
Majoring in minors!!!
Nice!0 -
So I've read on here how when it comes to weightloss, all calories are equal. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie. However, a friend of mine just told me that her nutritionist explained to her that this isn't so. She said that when you consume let's say, an apple, for 100 calories vs candy for 100 calories, the way your body is able to digest and break down each of these foods is different (using diff amounts of energy) there making the calories of these 2 foods not equal. Is there any merit to this idea?
If the person suggested that makes a big difference, then no, no merit.
It is true that some foods take a few more calories to burn that others. The best example of this is protein, which tends to burn more calories in digesting than carbs or fat. Higher fiber carbs (an apple has some fiber, although I don't really think of it as high fiber) take more calories to digest (although the difference is less) than low fiber carbs or fat.
You can't really compare candy to an apple in terms of this (normally called TEF), since candy is really diverse. For example, compare 200 g of apple (about 104 calories) -- 5 g of fiber, 21 g of sugar, only 1 g protein -- to about the same calories of a Snickers (2 and a quarter mini Snickers is about 101 calories). The Snickers has 2 g of protein, no fiber, about 11 g of sugar, and 5 g of fat. Since fat and refined carbs have low TEFs and the protein difference isn't much, you'd think that the Snickers would take fewer calories to digest, but it possibly does not, as the Snickers has peanuts and those actually have a higher TEF. Really impossible to say.
And in any case the difference would be a few calories at most -- pretty much the margin of error anyway.
A much more relevant difference when choosing foods is what fits better in your diet? Usually I wouldn't have two apples (I might have another fruit, though), as that to me is kind of a lot for one day, but that's personal preference. On average, I'd choose an apple (one, not two) over a Snickers, as for me it would be as satisfying, is more to my taste, and has fewer calories. But if you really want a Snickers, that might be more satisfying, and I can totally see it being more filling for many. Lots of other considerations.
Really, like the last thing I'd ever think about is TEF, since basically it means you can eat more calories ON PAPER than you otherwise would, and what's the benefit from that? I choose foods that make sense to me from a nutrition standpoint, for taste, and based on how I like to eat and what satisfies me. In making those choices I also consider calories and don't give extra bonus points based on something maybe having fewer calories than it is listed as (which is essentially the argument people are making with TEF). It's a distorted way of thinking you can "cheat" the system in a meaningless, non beneficial way.3 -
Is your friend overweight? (Or her "nutritionist?") If so, I wouldn't listen to a word she says. (You also heard this "nutritionist's" opinion second hand! It's wishful thinking from your obese or overweight friend, who's hearing what she wants to hear.
If you're obese or overweight, count your calories and assume a calorie is a calorie.
I went from 206# to 153# at age 53 by strictly counting calories. The math worked out exactly. I looked at a chart to see what a 5'10" man needed every day as a "Basal Metabolism Rate", calculated what I needed to eat to get a 3500 calorie deficit every week. And I lost exactly 1 pound a week! It didn't matter what I ate! I even had Hostess Cupcakes (360 Calories for two) several times a week for breakfast. Just count your calories. Period. There are no secrets, there are no shortcuts. Anyone who's not losing weight is lying to himself about calories.
6 -
Most people in this forum are either fat or formerly fat.
But the second hand point is a good one. What your friend heard is one thing - what the nutritionist actually said may be quite different.1 -
moishepipik wrote: »Is your friend overweight? (Or her "nutritionist?") If so, I wouldn't listen to a word she says.
If you're obese or overweight, count your calories and assume a calorie is a calorie.
Don't listen to fat people? lol - that's your advice. Note we can't see a picture of you so how do we know to trust what you say?
(Your post made me chuckle mate)
I might be wrong, but I don't think he meant it that way. I think he meant that if a person is overweight it doesn't get any more complicated than simply eating fewer calories. If someone is already lean and is attempting to move the last 1% of body fat, more work needs to be done and what used to be trivial can now become viable because every little bit counts. Again, I might be wrong.6 -
moishepipik wrote: »Is your friend overweight? (Or her "nutritionist?") If so, I wouldn't listen to a word she says.
If you're obese or overweight, count your calories and assume a calorie is a calorie.
Don't listen to fat people? lol - that's your advice. Note we can't see a picture of you so how do we know to trust what you say? (Your post made me chuckle mate)
If people know what they're doing they wouldn't be fat. That would be my take on it.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions