Clean eating- does it matter?
Options
Replies
-
TEF accounts for 7 calories per 10% of protein of total calories eaten instead of carbs or fat per 1000 calories ingested. Or as an example, if you're eating at maintenance 2500 calories and eat 30% protein (188 grams, more than enough even for a bodybuilder) instead of 10% (63 grams, bare minimum recommendation for a normal weight adult) you burn an extra 7 * 2 * 2.5 = 35 calories. That's the extent to which the food you eat influences your energy expenditure. It's background noise, completely irrelevant.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full12 -
stevencloser wrote: »TEF accounts for 7 calories per 10% of protein of total calories eaten instead of carbs or fat per 1000 calories ingested. Or as an example, if you're eating at maintenance 2500 calories and eat 30% protein (188 grams, more than enough even for a bodybuilder) instead of 10% (63 grams, bare minimum recommendation for a normal weight adult) you burn an extra 7 * 2 * 2.5 = 35 calories. That's the extent to which the food you eat influences your energy expenditure. It's background noise, completely irrelevant.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Not at all irrelevant, and thats all dependant on how fast the food you eat is digested and metabolized, how quickly that energy is readily available for the body to use. Quality of food determines this. You know as well as I that the body will use the most effecient and readily available source of energy, the energy that is not being used is being stored. Quality of food again, determines this. Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant0 -
It definitely matters, it matters in sooooo many ways. Not every calorie is equal number one, eating "junk" is not going to be burned as fast as healthy whole foods that are easily digested and metabolized for the body to use.
Also macros are great but micro nutrients are also very important not to mention timing your macros to get the most effecient use of both micro and macro nutrients.
"Clean" eating and "junk" eating aren't arbitrary terms.. eating clean is eating food that is grown in the ground or had a life at some point, junk eating is processed foods, foods filled with garbage and preservatives... these things have a substantial role in weight loss, weight gain, muscle building etc. Regardless what your goals are its always better to eat clean whole foods,but with that said its also ok to indulge from time to time in moderation this doesn't mean every day or even every week. Results are primarily from nutrition and rest, exercise is the smallest part of the equation
Darn it, I lost 50lbs and improved all my health markers the wrong way!
8 -
paperpudding wrote: »Sigh.
Nobody has said nutrients are not important.
But for weight loss, if you eat in a calorie deficit you lose weight, regardless of source of calories.
True in the APPROPRIATE deficit you will lose weight, but if you don't manage the minute details you cannot be in control of what type of weight you're losing, are you losing only fat? Is it mostly water? Are you losing muscle? .... losing weight is great and I'm not going to knock anyone for their goals but until people fully grasp how weight loss works they'll always struggle with their weight, calories in vs calories out is a great starting point but it goes so much deeper than that, what happens when someone gets to their goal weight and isn't happy because they are just skinny fat now? Now what? Whats the next step? So to see someone telling another person its ok to eat garbage food as long as it fits your macros and calorie goals is kind of unsettling because its not good advice, yeah you'll lose some weight but its not healthy and is only going to set you up for issues down the road, depending on your goals
I don't care what I lost 50lbs of, having whatever it was gone improved all my blood tests/health markers-including normalizing a high glucose number. As for grasping how weight loss actually works-I'm 4 years into successful maintenance, which means I'm a statistical outlier and special freak snowflake. Pretty sure I've got this figured out, and no I don't eat 'clean'
8 -
stevencloser wrote: »TEF accounts for 7 calories per 10% of protein of total calories eaten instead of carbs or fat per 1000 calories ingested. Or as an example, if you're eating at maintenance 2500 calories and eat 30% protein (188 grams, more than enough even for a bodybuilder) instead of 10% (63 grams, bare minimum recommendation for a normal weight adult) you burn an extra 7 * 2 * 2.5 = 35 calories. That's the extent to which the food you eat influences your energy expenditure. It's background noise, completely irrelevant.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Not at all irrelevant, and thats all dependant on how fast the food you eat is digested and metabolized, how quickly that energy is readily available for the body to use. Quality of food determines this. You know as well as I that the body will use the most effecient and readily available source of energy, the energy that is not being used is being stored. Quality of food again, determines this. Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
TEF is "how many calories are needed to digest this". This is an irrelevantly small number as evidenced above. How fast you digest it is completely irrelevant to your energy usage. It is entirely irrelevant to your overall gain or loss just as much as me depositiing 1000 dollars into my bank account all at once or in single 1 dollar transactions.5 -
crazyycatlady1 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Sigh.
Nobody has said nutrients are not important.
But for weight loss, if you eat in a calorie deficit you lose weight, regardless of source of calories.
True in the APPROPRIATE deficit you will lose weight, but if you don't manage the minute details you cannot be in control of what type of weight you're losing, are you losing only fat? Is it mostly water? Are you losing muscle? .... losing weight is great and I'm not going to knock anyone for their goals but until people fully grasp how weight loss works they'll always struggle with their weight, calories in vs calories out is a great starting point but it goes so much deeper than that, what happens when someone gets to their goal weight and isn't happy because they are just skinny fat now? Now what? Whats the next step? So to see someone telling another person its ok to eat garbage food as long as it fits your macros and calorie goals is kind of unsettling because its not good advice, yeah you'll lose some weight but its not healthy and is only going to set you up for issues down the road, depending on your goals
I don't care what I lost 50lbs of, having whatever it was gone improved all my blood tests/health markers-including normalizing a high glucose number. As for grasping how weight loss actually works-I'm 4 years into successful maintenance, which means I'm a statistical outlier and special freak snowflake. Pretty sure I've got this figured out, and no I don't eat 'clean'
Almost like as long as you create a calorie deficit you're bound to lose mostly fat because your body isn't stupid but a highly evolved machine that enabled us to be the successful species we are. Imagine if our ancestors had to take care of those "minute details", we'd have died out 5 mass famines ago.5 -
[/quote]
If you can go the rest of your life without eating a cupcake, um... good for you, but I sure can't - and won't.[/quote]
^This.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TEF accounts for 7 calories per 10% of protein of total calories eaten instead of carbs or fat per 1000 calories ingested. Or as an example, if you're eating at maintenance 2500 calories and eat 30% protein (188 grams, more than enough even for a bodybuilder) instead of 10% (63 grams, bare minimum recommendation for a normal weight adult) you burn an extra 7 * 2 * 2.5 = 35 calories. That's the extent to which the food you eat influences your energy expenditure. It's background noise, completely irrelevant.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Not at all irrelevant, and thats all dependant on how fast the food you eat is digested and metabolized, how quickly that energy is readily available for the body to use. Quality of food determines this. You know as well as I that the body will use the most effecient and readily available source of energy, the energy that is not being used is being stored. Quality of food again, determines this. Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
TEF is "how many calories are needed to digest this". This is an irrelevantly small number as evidenced above. How fast you digest it is completely irrelevant to your energy usage. It is entirely irrelevant to your overall gain or loss just as much as me depositiing 1000 dollars into my bank account all at once or in single 1 dollar transactions.
I understand that, what I'm talking about is the bioavailability of the nutrients we eat, if it takes more energy to make one source bioavailable than it does another than the body will choose the easier source, this can mean not everything you're eating is being utilized the way some might think it is and may be getting stored. Of course there will always be an "easier" source but that's when the quality of food comes into play, if you're primarily eating "dirty" regardless of caloric deficit or macros there's a higher chance that food being stored.. I'm not talking about in a day but over time . I read the article you posted but there have been studies since then that show that all calories are not created equally, I'll need to find one again and I'll share with you ... I'm more concerned with losing weight im the most effecient way possible, weight loss that is sustained and not temporary.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Sigh.
Nobody has said nutrients are not important.
But for weight loss, if you eat in a calorie deficit you lose weight, regardless of source of calories.
True in the APPROPRIATE deficit you will lose weight, but if you don't manage the minute details you cannot be in control of what type of weight you're losing, are you losing only fat? Is it mostly water? Are you losing muscle? .... losing weight is great and I'm not going to knock anyone for their goals but until people fully grasp how weight loss works they'll always struggle with their weight, calories in vs calories out is a great starting point but it goes so much deeper than that, what happens when someone gets to their goal weight and isn't happy because they are just skinny fat now? Now what? Whats the next step? So to see someone telling another person its ok to eat garbage food as long as it fits your macros and calorie goals is kind of unsettling because its not good advice, yeah you'll lose some weight but its not healthy and is only going to set you up for issues down the road, depending on your goals
I don't care what I lost 50lbs of, having whatever it was gone improved all my blood tests/health markers-including normalizing a high glucose number. As for grasping how weight loss actually works-I'm 4 years into successful maintenance, which means I'm a statistical outlier and special freak snowflake. Pretty sure I've got this figured out, and no I don't eat 'clean'
Almost like as long as you create a calorie deficit you're bound to lose mostly fat because your body isn't stupid but a highly evolved machine that enabled us to be the successful species we are. Imagine if our ancestors had to take care of those "minute details", we'd have died out 5 mass famines ago.
Cmon man thats survival and not health and fitness, thats such an unfair example.... the minute details are what gets someone to a fairly small body fat percentage and aesthetic that most strive for ... everyone's goals are different but losing weight doesn't always mean getting healthy or looking good.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »
About half of Americans are now craft brew snobs. Which, to many, just means they'll get all excited about some grapefruit-flavored IPA. Me, I just like good beer.Tacklewasher wrote: »prattiger65 wrote: »So, are you gonna have a beer or are you gonna have a Guinness?? You can't have both.
Sorry. Forgot this was mostly an American site.
Guess I gonna have me a Bud Light!
Tried my first fruity beer a good 10 years ago. Nope.
I'm more of a pale ale sort of gal.
And what is it with the proliferation of Bud Light!? I even saw it in a supermarket here (UK) and wondered who the fudge is buying it!?
Maybe it's the weird hipsters drinking bad beer ironically thing.
I thought the ironic bad beer or choice for hipsters was PBR, but maybe they've moved on.
Mostly, but I've seen it be Old Style around here. Could be Bud Lite in the UK. ;-)0 -
Overall just for losing weight it does not matter as long as your body can properly digest what you eat (meaning you have no Intolerance against something)
Basically you could eat Pizza and Burger and still lose weight as long as you are in a caloric deficit.
And quite honestly i did some times.. I ate whatever i wanted within my Calorie Goal. And i lost weight.
I learned from this that for me tracking my Calories is so vital for me. I can keep loosing weight even if i have a bad day.. and/or have no time to cook a proper Meal.
But most of the time i try to reach my Macros. Right now i am trying to cut the carbs a bit(not Low Carb or anything) and add more Protein.
0 -
paperpudding wrote: »Excess calories will be stored as fat.
Doesn't matter if they are from simple carbs or any other food group or whether they are consumed before or after a work out.
Simple carbs consumed after a workout restore glycogen to the muscles as well as release insulin and igf1 the bodies most anabolic hormone this prevents your body from going into a catabolic state from cortisol release, its not about excess calories and more about timing your macro nutrients to be effective. I only mentioned this as an example of how some foods are more effecient than others and also how timing is important to the types of foods we eatAlatariel75 wrote: »This thread is Groundhog Day incarnate.
Indeed. Here's something from earlier in the thread: calorie is a unit of measure, not a synonym for food, and it is confusing to use it in the latter way. Everyone knows and agrees that foods are different. That does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. No one is arguing that certain foods might not be better choices in a specific context. I ran 16 miles yesterday. Beforehand, since I needed to eat something but did not have time to digest, a steak would have been a terrible choice. This does not make a steak bad or unclean -- just not a great choice for that purpose.6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Excess calories will be stored as fat.
Doesn't matter if they are from simple carbs or any other food group or whether they are consumed before or after a work out.
Simple carbs consumed after a workout restore glycogen to the muscles as well as release insulin and igf1 the bodies most anabolic hormone this prevents your body from going into a catabolic state from cortisol release, its not about excess calories and more about timing your macro nutrients to be effective. I only mentioned this as an example of how some foods are more effecient than others and also how timing is important to the types of foods we eatAlatariel75 wrote: »This thread is Groundhog Day incarnate.
Indeed. Here's something from earlier in the thread: calorie is a unit of measure, not a synonym for food, and it is confusing to use it in the latter way. Everyone knows and agrees that foods are different. That does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. No one is arguing that certain foods might not be better choices in a specific context. I ran 16 miles yesterday. Beforehand, since I needed to eat something but did not have time to digest, a steak would have been a terrible choice. This does not make a steak bad or unclean -- just not a great choice for that purpose.
"Different foods go through different metabolic pathways.
Some of these pathways are more “efficient” than others.
The more “efficient” a metabolic pathway is, the more of the food energy is used for work and less is dissipated as heat.
The metabolic pathways for protein are less efficient than the metabolic pathways for carbs and fat.
Protein contains 4 calories per gram, but a large part of the protein calories are lost as heat when it is metabolized by the body.
The thermic effect of food is a measure of how much different foods increase energy expenditure, due to the energy required to digest, absorb and metabolize the nutrients.
This is the thermic effect of different macronutrients (7):
Fat: 2-3%.
Carbs: 6-8%.
Protein: 25-30%.
Sources vary on the exact numbers, but it is clear that protein requires much more energy to metabolize than fat and carbs (8).
If we go with a thermic effect of 25% for protein and 2% for fat, this would mean that a 100 calories of protein would end up as 75 calories, while a 100 calories of fat would end up as 98 calories.
Studies show that high protein diets boost metabolism by 80 to 100 calories per day, compared to lower protein diets (9, 10)
Put simply, high protein diets have a “metabolic advantage.”
There is also one study that compared two sandwich meals that had the same number of calories and macronutrients.
However, one sandwich was made with whole grains and cheddar cheese, while the other was made with refined grains and processed cheese (11).
Those who ate the whole grain sandwich burned twice as many calories digesting the meal."1 -
Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
You are the one saying this difference is important (and to the average person losing weight and not wanting to be "skinny fat"). Care to explain how?
As a starting point, let's establish what is not being disagreed about:
(1) Foods are different (of course they are).
(2) It's good for health and energy to eat a good diet (IMO a good diet doesn't mean one can't sometimes eat ice cream or even post deadlifts and donuts photos -- in other words, if you think "a good diet" means "not eating bad food" I'd argue that you are not properly understanding nutrition).
(3) Eating enough protein is important (I like .8 g/lb of goal weight if on a deficit).
(4) Mild deficit + exercise including strength exercise if losing weight helps avoid fat loss (along with adequate protein). What a mild deficit is and how important it is depends on current body fat.
I'd also say that for ideal athletic performance if one is aiming for certain goals OR similarly certain bodybuilding goals timing and specific food choices might be more significant, but this has nothing to do with fat loss in the average person.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Excess calories will be stored as fat.
Doesn't matter if they are from simple carbs or any other food group or whether they are consumed before or after a work out.
Simple carbs consumed after a workout restore glycogen to the muscles as well as release insulin and igf1 the bodies most anabolic hormone this prevents your body from going into a catabolic state from cortisol release, its not about excess calories and more about timing your macro nutrients to be effective. I only mentioned this as an example of how some foods are more effecient than others and also how timing is important to the types of foods we eatAlatariel75 wrote: »This thread is Groundhog Day incarnate.
Indeed. Here's something from earlier in the thread: calorie is a unit of measure, not a synonym for food, and it is confusing to use it in the latter way. Everyone knows and agrees that foods are different. That does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. No one is arguing that certain foods might not be better choices in a specific context. I ran 16 miles yesterday. Beforehand, since I needed to eat something but did not have time to digest, a steak would have been a terrible choice. This does not make a steak bad or unclean -- just not a great choice for that purpose.
"Different foods go through different metabolic pathways.
Some of these pathways are more “efficient” than others.
The more “efficient” a metabolic pathway is, the more of the food energy is used for work and less is dissipated as heat.
The question is, so what? For example, for most people it doesn't matter. For others (like someone about to go on a long run or to run a race), it may actually be important that the energy be used for work. That same thing might not be what someone in another circumstance wants -- less efficient means it takes longer to digest and you might not get as many calories from it, after all. Like broccoli.The metabolic pathways for protein are less efficient than the metabolic pathways for carbs and fat.
Didn't this get covered with stevencloser? Most people here KNOW about the TEF of protein being higher. Who cares? I get no prizes for eating the most (on paper) calories, and eating a super high protein diet just so I can claim to eat, I dunno, 2000 calories instead of 1800 is useless to me and a silly thing to think about. The question is what amount of protein is protective and helps create the most satisfying and satiating diet given OTHER concrns too (like healthy fats, the importance of vegetables, that I need to fuel activity, that I have certain preferences). For me around 100-110 g usually works well and makes sense. To double that because of TEF would be ridiculous and NOT give me a healthier diet.There is also one study that compared two sandwich meals that had the same number of calories and macronutrients.
However, one sandwich was made with whole grains and cheddar cheese, while the other was made with refined grains and processed cheese (11).
Those who ate the whole grain sandwich burned twice as many calories digesting the meal."
As I recall the variables were not adequately controlled. I do believe that higher fiber is in reality lower cal since we don't digest most fiber, and anyway for me it's more filling. But to exaggerate the importance of that or claim that makes a meal with white rice, shrimp, and lots of veg unhealthy (because white rice is too easily digested and you can use most of the calories) seems silly to me. And absolutely unhelpful for the vast majority of people.7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
You are the one saying this difference is important (and to the average person losing weight and not wanting to be "skinny fat"). Care to explain how?
As a starting point, let's establish what is not being disagreed about:
(1) Foods are different (of course they are).
(2) It's good for health and energy to eat a good diet (IMO a good diet doesn't mean one can't sometimes eat ice cream or even post deadlifts and donuts photos -- in other words, if you think "a good diet" means "not eating bad food" I'd argue that you are not properly understanding nutrition).
(3) Eating enough protein is important (I like .8 g/lb of goal weight if on a deficit).
(4) Mild deficit + exercise including strength exercise if losing weight helps avoid fat loss (along with adequate protein). What a mild deficit is and how important it is depends on current body fat.
I'd also say that for ideal athletic performance if one is aiming for certain goals OR similarly certain bodybuilding goals timing and specific food choices might be more significant, but this has nothing to do with fat loss in the average person.
It has everything to do with fat loss and the average person, bodybuilders don't cut this way because they aren't average people they do it because it is the most effecient and effevtive way to cut fat while being able to maintain or build muscle, i said having a cheat is ok in moderation but for people who have bad eating habits i don't think its wise to say yeah eat whatever as long as you count calories and hit your macros, if it works then cool but its not the most effecient or effective method nor is it the most healthy choice.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »crazyycatlady1 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Sigh.
Nobody has said nutrients are not important.
But for weight loss, if you eat in a calorie deficit you lose weight, regardless of source of calories.
True in the APPROPRIATE deficit you will lose weight, but if you don't manage the minute details you cannot be in control of what type of weight you're losing, are you losing only fat? Is it mostly water? Are you losing muscle? .... losing weight is great and I'm not going to knock anyone for their goals but until people fully grasp how weight loss works they'll always struggle with their weight, calories in vs calories out is a great starting point but it goes so much deeper than that, what happens when someone gets to their goal weight and isn't happy because they are just skinny fat now? Now what? Whats the next step? So to see someone telling another person its ok to eat garbage food as long as it fits your macros and calorie goals is kind of unsettling because its not good advice, yeah you'll lose some weight but its not healthy and is only going to set you up for issues down the road, depending on your goals
I don't care what I lost 50lbs of, having whatever it was gone improved all my blood tests/health markers-including normalizing a high glucose number. As for grasping how weight loss actually works-I'm 4 years into successful maintenance, which means I'm a statistical outlier and special freak snowflake. Pretty sure I've got this figured out, and no I don't eat 'clean'
Almost like as long as you create a calorie deficit you're bound to lose mostly fat because your body isn't stupid but a highly evolved machine that enabled us to be the successful species we are. Imagine if our ancestors had to take care of those "minute details", we'd have died out 5 mass famines ago.
Cmon man thats survival and not health and fitness, thats such an unfair example.... the minute details are what gets someone to a fairly small body fat percentage and aesthetic that most strive for ... everyone's goals are different but losing weight doesn't always mean getting healthy or looking good.
But nobody said losing weight always means getting healthy or looking good
What they said is for purely for losing weight it doesnt matter what you eat - it is the calorie deficit in that matters FOR WEIGHT LOSS.
Not for nutrition or health or aesthetics.
Purely FOR WEIGHT LOSS.
4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
You are the one saying this difference is important (and to the average person losing weight and not wanting to be "skinny fat"). Care to explain how?
As a starting point, let's establish what is not being disagreed about:
(1) Foods are different (of course they are).
(2) It's good for health and energy to eat a good diet (IMO a good diet doesn't mean one can't sometimes eat ice cream or even post deadlifts and donuts photos -- in other words, if you think "a good diet" means "not eating bad food" I'd argue that you are not properly understanding nutrition).
(3) Eating enough protein is important (I like .8 g/lb of goal weight if on a deficit).
(4) Mild deficit + exercise including strength exercise if losing weight helps avoid fat loss (along with adequate protein). What a mild deficit is and how important it is depends on current body fat.
I'd also say that for ideal athletic performance if one is aiming for certain goals OR similarly certain bodybuilding goals timing and specific food choices might be more significant, but this has nothing to do with fat loss in the average person.
It has everything to do with fat loss and the average person, bodybuilders don't cut this way because they aren't average people they do it because it is the most effecient and effevtive way to cut fat while being able to maintain or build muscle, i said having a cheat is ok in moderation but for people who have bad eating habits i don't think its wise to say yeah eat whatever as long as you count calories and hit your macros, if it works then cool but its not the most effecient or effective method nor is it the most healthy choice.
But nobody recomended eating whatever you want with no regard to health or nutrition.
Nobody said that would be a healthy choice.
What they said is that purely for WEIGHT LOSS one would lose weight the same regardless of the source of the calories.
This simple statement somehow seems to be going over your head.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Excess calories will be stored as fat.
Doesn't matter if they are from simple carbs or any other food group or whether they are consumed before or after a work out.
Simple carbs consumed after a workout restore glycogen to the muscles as well as release insulin and igf1 the bodies most anabolic hormone this prevents your body from going into a catabolic state from cortisol release, its not about excess calories and more about timing your macro nutrients to be effective. I only mentioned this as an example of how some foods are more effecient than others and also how timing is important to the types of foods we eatAlatariel75 wrote: »This thread is Groundhog Day incarnate.
Indeed. Here's something from earlier in the thread: calorie is a unit of measure, not a synonym for food, and it is confusing to use it in the latter way. Everyone knows and agrees that foods are different. That does not mean that a calorie is not a calorie. No one is arguing that certain foods might not be better choices in a specific context. I ran 16 miles yesterday. Beforehand, since I needed to eat something but did not have time to digest, a steak would have been a terrible choice. This does not make a steak bad or unclean -- just not a great choice for that purpose.
"Different foods go through different metabolic pathways.
Some of these pathways are more “efficient” than others.
The more “efficient” a metabolic pathway is, the more of the food energy is used for work and less is dissipated as heat.
The question is, so what? For example, for most people it doesn't matter. For others (like someone about to go on a long run or to run a race), it may actually be important that the energy be used for work. That same thing might not be what someone in another circumstance wants -- less efficient means it takes longer to digest and you might not get as many calories from it, after all. Like broccoli.The metabolic pathways for protein are less efficient than the metabolic pathways for carbs and fat.
Didn't this get covered with stevencloser? Most people here KNOW about the TEF of protein being higher. Who cares? I get no prizes for eating the most (on paper) calories, and eating a super high protein diet just so I can claim to eat, I dunno, 2000 calories instead of 1800 is useless to me and a silly thing to think about. The question is what amount of protein is protective and helps create the most satisfying and satiating diet given OTHER concrns too (like healthy fats, the importance of vegetables, that I need to fuel activity, that I have certain preferences). For me around 100-110 g usually works well and makes sense. To double that because of TEF would be ridiculous and NOT give me a healthier diet.There is also one study that compared two sandwich meals that had the same number of calories and macronutrients.
However, one sandwich was made with whole grains and cheddar cheese, while the other was made with refined grains and processed cheese (11).
Those who ate the whole grain sandwich burned twice as many calories digesting the meal."
As I recall the variables were not adequately controlled. I do believe that higher fiber is in reality lower cal since we don't digest most fiber, and anyway for me it's more filling. But to exaggerate the importance of that or claim that makes a meal with white rice, shrimp, and lots of veg unhealthy (because white rice is too easily digested and you can use most of the calories) seems silly to me. And absolutely unhelpful for the vast majority of people.
More like 2000 instead of 1980...3 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »TEF accounts for 7 calories per 10% of protein of total calories eaten instead of carbs or fat per 1000 calories ingested. Or as an example, if you're eating at maintenance 2500 calories and eat 30% protein (188 grams, more than enough even for a bodybuilder) instead of 10% (63 grams, bare minimum recommendation for a normal weight adult) you burn an extra 7 * 2 * 2.5 = 35 calories. That's the extent to which the food you eat influences your energy expenditure. It's background noise, completely irrelevant.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/79/5/899S.full
Not at all irrelevant, and thats all dependant on how fast the food you eat is digested and metabolized, how quickly that energy is readily available for the body to use. Quality of food determines this. You know as well as I that the body will use the most effecient and readily available source of energy, the energy that is not being used is being stored. Quality of food again, determines this. Eating 188 grams of protein from beef isnt the same as 188 grams from an easier digested source such as white fish, the proteins from the fish will be available quicker than the beef because it takes the body longer to process the beef. This may not seem important to some people but if the debate is "clean" eating vs "dirty" there is a difference and over time the difference is significant
TEF is "how many calories are needed to digest this". This is an irrelevantly small number as evidenced above. How fast you digest it is completely irrelevant to your energy usage. It is entirely irrelevant to your overall gain or loss just as much as me depositiing 1000 dollars into my bank account all at once or in single 1 dollar transactions.
I understand that, what I'm talking about is the bioavailability of the nutrients we eat, if it takes more energy to make one source bioavailable than it does another than the body will choose the easier source, this can mean not everything you're eating is being utilized the way some might think it is and may be getting stored. Of course there will always be an "easier" source but that's when the quality of food comes into play, if you're primarily eating "dirty" regardless of caloric deficit or macros there's a higher chance that food being stored.. I'm not talking about in a day but over time . I read the article you posted but there have been studies since then that show that all calories are not created equally, I'll need to find one again and I'll share with you ... I'm more concerned with losing weight im the most effecient way possible, weight loss that is sustained and not temporary.
Think about it this way: If you're new to MFP, you have a lot of weight to lose, you still think you have to be overly restrictive and essentially miserable. You will likely give up for the millionth time, because it seems like it's impossible. But before you make that decision to quit, again... you decide to dive into the MFP forums. You muster up enough courage to make a post and a poster says, "listen, it's CICO - burn more than you eat, eat whatever you want, fitting it in your calorie goals". It's like a little light goes off in their head. Overtime, they start to realize that calorie dense foods aren't worth it as much as the nutrient dense foods, because of volume.
Now, say you had responded to that person about: TEF, bioavailability, etc (that has little affect on weightloss, save for your opinion of it). Do you think that person would stick with it if they have to worry about, timing and everything else your saying. Why over complicate it for them, when it's not complicated. That's a reason why people get so frustrated when someone comes riding in on their white horse to save all of us CICOers from our failing nutrition.
Keep it simple, unless you are starting your own thread and would like to discuss this - it's simple science. Leave it at that. Let people see how easy the equation is.
15
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 971 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions