Question about all calories being equal

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!

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!

dydn11402 wrote: »

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.

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.

Jakep2323 wrote: »

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.

CattOfTheGarage wrote: »

Not currently fat, perhaps. But if that have never been fat, they lack first hand experience of weight loss, which is probably worse from an advice point of view.

Though I would still take advice from a never-fat dietitian.

I would never take advice from a "nutritionist". It's not a real thing.

A fat Personal Trainer or Nutritionist would get immediately ignored.

Yes different macronutrients effect energy expenditure through TEF/DIT, but unless you're making substantial changes to the macronutrient composition of the diet it's not going to amount to a significant change in energy output.

Now you might see an appreciable difference in the long term when you make large changes and add up the additional energy expenditure over months.

dydn11402 wrote: »

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?

The apple will have a higher TEF (Thermic Effect of Food)...it'll burn a few more calories in digestion than the candy will...it'll also provide more nutrition obviously.

I wouldn't say the difference in TEF is significant enough to really say that a calorie (as a unit of energy) isn't a calorie...don't drown in this kind of munitia. Nutrition is a whole other ball game...on that front, eat a balanced and varied diet rich in whole food nutrition...and have a piece of candy once in awhile.

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

The subject you're alluding to is the thermic effect of digestion. To be clear, the sugars in apples and candy are slightly different, but the thermic effect of digesting all of them is very low. The calorie from an apple is the same in your body as the calorie from a candy. The apple has some fiber and phytonutrients which are probably not present in the candy, so your 100 calories of apple is better for you then your 100 calories of candy, but it's still 100 calories. There is a place for the thermic effect of digestion to matter, and that is in the digestion of protein. Protein is hard to digest and the thermic effect of digesting protein is high. Therefore 100 calories of egg whites (the most pure protein) will deliver about 70 calories to your blood after the thermic tax is paid. The 70 calories, though, are the same calories as the 70 you might find in a lesser volume of your candy.

It depends on the context. There is definitely a time and place for fast acting carbohydrates, especially if you are training for extended periods of time. So comparing foods in isolation is fairly worthless. The diet in context and the exercise requirements are what is important.