are all calories equal?
Options
Replies
-
neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
It doesn't matter in this context. The calories still went in. It's calorie intake. If you use more calories digesting any given food, that's calories going out . . . just like eating a snickers bar while jogging gives you fewer net calories than eating a snickers bar while lounging on the couch, eating 250 calories of high fiber food may give you fewer net calories than 250 calories of pure sugar. It doesn't stop the snickers bar, the high fiber food, or the pure sugar being 250 calories.
The calories are the same calories. The foods may differ in other characteristics, and those other characteristics may matter for weight loss. It doesn't make the calories different.
A mile on the superhighway and a mile on the narrow dirt footpath down to the river are the same kind of mile, even though I can take my car on the highway but not the footpath, even though I can take my mountain bike on the footpath but not the highway, even though I move faster on one than the other, even though one gets me to the river and the other gets me to a city, even though one is made of pavement and the other is made of dirt . . . . etc.
Things have different types of characteristics. Calories are only one characteristic of food. If a brazil nut and an oreo wafer are both dark brown, does that make some brown better for you than others? No, that's a nonsense statement . . . and so is the statement that some calories are better for you than others, in the same way.
9 -
neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Google "Thermic Effect of Food".
Still doesn't change the fact that a calorie is simply a unit of measurement, and a calorie is a calorie.4 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »The poor Snickers bar. I love them in a pinch.
Lol I was going to say I'd find a Snickers more filling than a chicken breast!
OP, 200 calories of a filling food won't make you gain more weight than 200 cals of a non-filling food. But obviously if you eat a lot of non-filling foods you are more likely to overeat.
The trick is, different people find different foods filling. So you have to find your own personal combo to stay reasonably satiated at the right amount of calories.
I also find a Snickers more filling than chicken breast. It makes a satisfying breakfast in a pinch.3 -
nicolehorn0114 wrote: »L1zardQueen wrote: »The poor Snickers bar. I love them in a pinch.
Lol I was going to say I'd find a Snickers more filling than a chicken breast!
OP, 200 calories of a filling food won't make you gain more weight than 200 cals of a non-filling food. But obviously if you eat a lot of non-filling foods you are more likely to overeat.
The trick is, different people find different foods filling. So you have to find your own personal combo to stay reasonably satiated at the right amount of calories.
I also find a Snickers more filling than chicken breast. It makes a satisfying breakfast in a pinch.
I was also thinking that a Snickers is a more complete food than lean chicken breast.4 -
neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
That was not the question and getting into calorie burning to that degree is something that no dieter really needs to know other than to not worry about it.4 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Digging for it. I found something close that has a lot of info relevant to this discussion:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/
In that one they found that processed cheese and white bread yielded more net calories than whole grain bread with seeds and regular cheese with the asme calorie count. It also has a section entitled "A calorie is not a calorie" which is a little misleading. But lots of interesting info. Still looking for the other one.
0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Last paragraph of this mentions it and i think from the study discussed above it, but this is not the one I read. it was more thorough. But here is this one:
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2018/03/23/going-nuts-calories
1 -
CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Digging for it. I found something close that has a lot of info relevant to this discussion:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/
In that one they found that processed cheese and white bread yielded more net calories than whole grain bread with seeds and regular cheese with the asme calorie count. It also has a section entitled "A calorie is not a calorie" which is a little misleading. But lots of interesting info. Still looking for the other one.
The followup question then is. Is this like the sugar in baked goods discussion where we're looking at 2-5% of the total calories and at the end of the day over time it's a rounding error, or is it meaningful?
0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
This one is on meats and starches, but same principle. This one is peer reviewed deep science:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3228431/
0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Ok, here is deep science on almonds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713968
Measured ME (kcal g-1) of whole natural almonds (4.42), whole roasted almonds (4.86), and chopped almonds (5.04) was significantly lower than predicted with Atwater factors (P < 0.001); ME of almond butter (6.53 kcal g-1) was similar to predicted (P = 0.08).
I think the ratio of 4.45:6.53 is significant. 4.45 is only 68% of 6.53. Score one for the whole foods crowd (unless you want to get more energy from less food).
Still not the one I read that had other nuts listed also, but is evidence for the point I made. I am done searching since this one is probably a better source than the article I was looking for anyway.1 -
stanmann571 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Digging for it. I found something close that has a lot of info relevant to this discussion:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-hidden-truths-about-calories/
In that one they found that processed cheese and white bread yielded more net calories than whole grain bread with seeds and regular cheese with the asme calorie count. It also has a section entitled "A calorie is not a calorie" which is a little misleading. But lots of interesting info. Still looking for the other one.
The followup question then is. Is this like the sugar in baked goods discussion where we're looking at 2-5% of the total calories and at the end of the day over time it's a rounding error, or is it meaningful?
FWIW, big percent, very very small study:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3402/fnr.v54i0.5144
I haven't pursued it because I like eating what I like eating, and what I like eating is mostly whole foods, so I have no idea whether anyone's investigated further. Reading between the lines, this one appears to have been a bit of a rough spitball exercise to see whether there might be a there there.
0 -
CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Ok, here is deep science on almonds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713968
Measured ME (kcal g-1) of whole natural almonds (4.42), whole roasted almonds (4.86), and chopped almonds (5.04) was significantly lower than predicted with Atwater factors (P < 0.001); ME of almond butter (6.53 kcal g-1) was similar to predicted (P = 0.08).
I think the ratio of 4.45:6.53 is significant. 4.45 is only 68% of 6.53.
Still not the one I read that had other nuts listed also, but is evidence for the point I made. I am done searching since this one is probably a better source than the article I was looking for anyway.
ratios are interesting but not necessarily significant.
Eating bacon increases your risk of Colo-rectal cancer by 20-25%. From about 4.8% to about 6.5%. depending on the study you look at. 25% is scary and statistically significant. 4.8 to 6.5 is statistical noise for the average person. I increase my fatality risk more by turning on my radio or answering my phone using a hands free device.10 -
stanmann571 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Ok, here is deep science on almonds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713968
Measured ME (kcal g-1) of whole natural almonds (4.42), whole roasted almonds (4.86), and chopped almonds (5.04) was significantly lower than predicted with Atwater factors (P < 0.001); ME of almond butter (6.53 kcal g-1) was similar to predicted (P = 0.08).
I think the ratio of 4.45:6.53 is significant. 4.45 is only 68% of 6.53.
Still not the one I read that had other nuts listed also, but is evidence for the point I made. I am done searching since this one is probably a better source than the article I was looking for anyway.
ratios are interesting but not necessarily significant.
Eating bacon increases your risk of Colo-rectal cancer by 20-25%. From about 4.8% to about 6.5%. depending on the study you look at. 25% is scary and statistically significant. 4.8 to 6.5 is statistical noise for the average person. I increase my fatality risk more by turning on my radio or answering my phone using a hands free device.
But in the case of the almonds, it means if you look up 17g of almonds and almond butter, they both say 101 calories. But if that is 17g of raw almonds, you well get about 68 calories. If you really like almonds and eat lot of them, you might eat 5 times that much in a day, with a difference of about 160 calories. That's enough to make maintenance trickier (if that's possible
).
BTW - a calorie is still a calorie; it just seems that some foods can be made to deliver more to you and have less pass through if processed.
EDIT - I see you are getting some Woos. Probably for the hands free phone thing; that's been debunked.0 -
1. Snickers is nutritious.
2. Snickers is more filling to me. Chicken breast is yuck. To each their own as far as satiety and taste is concerned.
3. 200 calories are 200 calories as far as weight loss is concerned.11 -
Yes, all calories equal one calorie (in the same way all inches measure one inch, or all kilowatts equal one kilowatt). They all have the same effect on weight loss. If you take in more than you burn, you will gain weight; if you take in fewer than you burn, you will lose weight.
No, not all foods contain the same macro- and micronutrients per calorie. You need a variety of foods with a variety of nutrients for health and satiety, and you need a variety of foods with a variety of tastes and textures for pleasure.5 -
CarvedTones wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Ok, here is deep science on almonds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713968
Measured ME (kcal g-1) of whole natural almonds (4.42), whole roasted almonds (4.86), and chopped almonds (5.04) was significantly lower than predicted with Atwater factors (P < 0.001); ME of almond butter (6.53 kcal g-1) was similar to predicted (P = 0.08).
I think the ratio of 4.45:6.53 is significant. 4.45 is only 68% of 6.53.
Still not the one I read that had other nuts listed also, but is evidence for the point I made. I am done searching since this one is probably a better source than the article I was looking for anyway.
ratios are interesting but not necessarily significant.
Eating bacon increases your risk of Colo-rectal cancer by 20-25%. From about 4.8% to about 6.5%. depending on the study you look at. 25% is scary and statistically significant. 4.8 to 6.5 is statistical noise for the average person. I increase my fatality risk more by turning on my radio or answering my phone using a hands free device.
But in the case of the almonds, it means if you look up 17g of almonds and almond butter, they both say 101 calories. But if that is 17g of raw almonds, you well get about 68 calories. If you really like almonds and eat lot of them, you might eat 5 times that much in a day, with a difference of about 160 calories. That's enough to make maintenance trickier (if that's possible ).
BTW - a calorie is still a calorie; it just seems that some foods can be made to deliver more to you and have less pass through if processed.
EDIT - I see you are getting some Woos. Probably for the hands free phone thing; that's been debunked.
I think you're confusing radiation/cancer risk (which even under the risk theory is not positively correlated with use of a hands-free device with distracted driving risk, which is positively correlated with mobile device use even if you're not handling the phone.5 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Ok, here is deep science on almonds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713968
Measured ME (kcal g-1) of whole natural almonds (4.42), whole roasted almonds (4.86), and chopped almonds (5.04) was significantly lower than predicted with Atwater factors (P < 0.001); ME of almond butter (6.53 kcal g-1) was similar to predicted (P = 0.08).
I think the ratio of 4.45:6.53 is significant. 4.45 is only 68% of 6.53.
Still not the one I read that had other nuts listed also, but is evidence for the point I made. I am done searching since this one is probably a better source than the article I was looking for anyway.
ratios are interesting but not necessarily significant.
Eating bacon increases your risk of Colo-rectal cancer by 20-25%. From about 4.8% to about 6.5%. depending on the study you look at. 25% is scary and statistically significant. 4.8 to 6.5 is statistical noise for the average person. I increase my fatality risk more by turning on my radio or answering my phone using a hands free device.
But in the case of the almonds, it means if you look up 17g of almonds and almond butter, they both say 101 calories. But if that is 17g of raw almonds, you well get about 68 calories. If you really like almonds and eat lot of them, you might eat 5 times that much in a day, with a difference of about 160 calories. That's enough to make maintenance trickier (if that's possible ).
BTW - a calorie is still a calorie; it just seems that some foods can be made to deliver more to you and have less pass through if processed.
EDIT - I see you are getting some Woos. Probably for the hands free phone thing; that's been debunked.
I think you're confusing radiation/cancer risk (which even under the risk theory is not positively correlated with use of a hands-free device with distracted driving risk, which is positively correlated with mobile device use even if you're not handling the phone.
Yes. Using a hands free device increases your accident risk. As does having a passenger or even having the radio playing.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »CarvedTones wrote: »neugebauer52 wrote: »BUT.... doesn't high fibre food need more energy for digestion? Theoretically - if one could eat say... celery sticks all day long, 2ooo calories worth would actually need more calories to digest. Obviously not a solution to weight loss, but some high fibre foods fill you up and burn more energy....(?)
Every study I have seen about increasing calories of chewing and/or digestion has come to the same conclusion - true, but negligible, with one exception, There was one on nut butters and it turned out that with chunky, up to 20% of the calories passed through (I feel for the scientists testing poop for calories) while with smooth it is near zero.
Source, please.
Ok, here is deep science on almonds:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27713968
Measured ME (kcal g-1) of whole natural almonds (4.42), whole roasted almonds (4.86), and chopped almonds (5.04) was significantly lower than predicted with Atwater factors (P < 0.001); ME of almond butter (6.53 kcal g-1) was similar to predicted (P = 0.08).
I think the ratio of 4.45:6.53 is significant. 4.45 is only 68% of 6.53.
Still not the one I read that had other nuts listed also, but is evidence for the point I made. I am done searching since this one is probably a better source than the article I was looking for anyway.
ratios are interesting but not necessarily significant.
Eating bacon increases your risk of Colo-rectal cancer by 20-25%. From about 4.8% to about 6.5%. depending on the study you look at. 25% is scary and statistically significant. 4.8 to 6.5 is statistical noise for the average person. I increase my fatality risk more by turning on my radio or answering my phone using a hands free device.
But in the case of the almonds, it means if you look up 17g of almonds and almond butter, they both say 101 calories. But if that is 17g of raw almonds, you well get about 68 calories. If you really like almonds and eat lot of them, you might eat 5 times that much in a day, with a difference of about 160 calories. That's enough to make maintenance trickier (if that's possible ).
BTW - a calorie is still a calorie; it just seems that some foods can be made to deliver more to you and have less pass through if processed.
EDIT - I see you are getting some Woos. Probably for the hands free phone thing; that's been debunked.
I think you're confusing radiation/cancer risk (which even under the risk theory is not positively correlated with use of a hands-free device with distracted driving risk, which is positively correlated with mobile device use even if you're not handling the phone.
Yes. Using a hands free device increases your accident risk. As does having a passenger or even having the radio playing.
Yeah, I misunderstood. Last I heard statistics on it, the number one distraction that caused people to crash was reaching for a moving object. That may have been before cell phone use became rampant. Or before SiriusXM, where you scroll through a long list of stations instead of just pressing a button.0 -
Macro and micronutrients plus insulin spikes aside... sure8
-
in terms of weight loss, yet. in terms of nutrition, no.
3
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