Is a calorie a calorie?
Options
lauragreenbaum
Posts: 1,017 Member
I'm on a roll today, but I just read this from someone who made this comment. I just saw "Fed Up" and one of the things I found interesting was that two calories may not be the same. The example they used was, if you eat 160 calories of almonds, there is a lot of fiber and protein in that so it takes longer to digest and the whole process burns some of those calories. Whereas, if you drink a 160 calorie Coke, it's almost all sugar which goes straight to your organs that process it and the body can do nothing with all that sugar other than convert it to fat. Thoughts?
3
Replies
-
There is a whole discussion here on this very topic. There is a lot of good information from many posters that should help with your question. https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10753736/fed-up-documentary4
-
There is a whole discussion here on this very topic. There is a lot of good information from many posters that should help with your question. https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10753736/fed-up-documentary
Thanks, but it seems most of the posts have to do with the validity and motives of the documentary itself. I'm only interested in the idea of all calories being equal.1 -
In terms of losing weight. Yes. 1,000 calories of chocolate bars is the same as 1,000 calories of asparagus.
In terms of keeping you full, though than no. Some calories depending on the source they come from won't satisfy you which will lead to consuming more calories. Everyone is different though for what macros or food keeps them in their caloric budget11 -
lauragreenbaum wrote: »I'm on a roll today, but I just read this from someone who made this comment. I just saw "Fed Up" and one of the things I found interesting was that two calories may not be the same. The example they used was, if you eat 160 calories of almonds, there is a lot of fiber and protein in that so it takes longer to digest and the whole process burns some of those calories. Whereas, if you drink a 160 calorie Coke, it's almost all sugar which goes straight to your organs that process it and the body can do nothing with all that sugar other than convert it to fat. Thoughts?
That's like saying a mile isn't a mile because you can run it faster than you can walk it...it's still a mile. A calorie is just a unit of measure like an inch or a mile or a watt or whatever.
Different foods have different TEF (Thermic Effect of Food)...ie the energy it requires to digest. Yes, higher fiber foods and proteins require more energy to digest, but in the big picture that is your diet on the whole, this is majoring in the minors...in the context of your diet on the whole, this all comes out in the wash.
In terms of sugar being stored as fat, that's just not true. You can't have net fat storage in a calorie deficit or at maintenance calories...your body can only store fat when energy (calories) consumed exceed what the body requires. In absence of a calorie surplus, the sugar from the soda is going to be stored as glycogen in the liver.27 -
lauragreenbaum wrote: »I'm on a roll today, but I just read this from someone who made this comment. I just saw "Fed Up" and one of the things I found interesting was that two calories may not be the same. The example they used was, if you eat 160 calories of almonds, there is a lot of fiber and protein in that so it takes longer to digest and the whole process burns some of those calories. Whereas, if you drink a 160 calorie Coke, it's almost all sugar which goes straight to your organs that process it and the body can do nothing with all that sugar other than convert it to fat. Thoughts?
Just because the foods that deliver the calories aren't the same doesn't mean the calories aren't the same. If you walk a mile in the country and a mile in the city, the experience is different, and your opportunities to do some shopping or look at some cows are different, but the miles are the same.12 -
lauragreenbaum wrote: »I'm on a roll today, but I just read this from someone who made this comment. I just saw "Fed Up" and one of the things I found interesting was that two calories may not be the same. The example they used was, if you eat 160 calories of almonds, there is a lot of fiber and protein in that so it takes longer to digest and the whole process burns some of those calories. Whereas, if you drink a 160 calorie Coke, it's almost all sugar which goes straight to your organs that process it and the body can do nothing with all that sugar other than convert it to fat. Thoughts?
For the sake of argument let's say that 100 calories of your coke got converted to fat what would it matter? Your energy demands are nonstop so if you are in an overall calorie deficit fat will still be burned to make up the energy shortage.
ETA: This doesn't actually happen btw. From what I have learned the body is not even that efficient on converting carbs to fat.7 -
lauragreenbaum wrote: »I'm on a roll today, but I just read this from someone who made this comment. I just saw "Fed Up" and one of the things I found interesting was that two calories may not be the same. The example they used was, if you eat 160 calories of almonds, there is a lot of fiber and protein in that so it takes longer to digest and the whole process burns some of those calories. Whereas, if you drink a 160 calorie Coke, it's almost all sugar which goes straight to your organs that process it and the body can do nothing with all that sugar other than convert it to fat if in a calorie surplus. Thoughts?
Fixed that for you ^^
The one thing that your body does with that Coke is use the sugar for energy. As long as you stay in a calorie deficit that's what will happen to the almonds and the Coke.
Fiber and protein take a little more energy to process, but it's negligible in a 2000 calorie per day diet. I'm sure someone has those exact numbers and will post them, but it's not a lot.
The other thing about fiber and protein is that they help a LOT with satiety, regardless of calories.
5 -
lauragreenbaum wrote: »I'm on a roll today, but I just read this from someone who made this comment. I just saw "Fed Up" and one of the things I found interesting was that two calories may not be the same. The example they used was, if you eat 160 calories of almonds, there is a lot of fiber and protein in that so it takes longer to digest and the whole process burns some of those calories. Whereas, if you drink a 160 calorie Coke, it's almost all sugar which goes straight to your organs that process it and the body can do nothing with all that sugar other than convert it to fat. Thoughts?
That's simply false. Your cells generally run on sugar. And your body keeps a glycogen store to provide energy between meals as well. So there are obviously other things you body can do with all that sugar other than convert it to fat. If the documentary said that the only thing your body can do with sugar is convert it to fat, that should cause you to doubt the knowledge and/or the honesty of the documentary-makers or the individuals interviewed in the documentary.10 -
A calorie is a calorie for weight loss purposes. "'Digestion calories" aren't really a thing in a measurable amount, so the type of calories you get doesn't have an effect on it. Your body runs off of sugar, so it can do plenty of things with that sugar besides "convert it right to fat". It is true that some food and macro breakdowns can be significantly more filling than others. But that does vary by person. Some people my find a handful of almonds more filling than a can of coke (I don't find either very filling), so they may be able to better stick with their goals. In general, most people don't find sugary drinks to really fill them, so that is why they are often not considered beneficial as part of weight loss.
But unlike a handful of almonds or a can of coke, 300 grams of pineapple (about 160 calories) fills me up and holds me over real good, even though that is all carbs, and mostly sugar. So it's not as simple as just saying that something is that way because of a specific macro.
In general I do not find nutrition or health related documentaries to be that strong a source of science back information. They tend to have an agenda that is backed by sketchy scientific claims. After all "eat what you want at a calorie deficit" would make for a pretty boring piece of entertainment.10 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »lauragreenbaum wrote: »I'm on a roll today, but I just read this from someone who made this comment. I just saw "Fed Up" and one of the things I found interesting was that two calories may not be the same. The example they used was, if you eat 160 calories of almonds, there is a lot of fiber and protein in that so it takes longer to digest and the whole process burns some of those calories. Whereas, if you drink a 160 calorie Coke, it's almost all sugar which goes straight to your organs that process it and the body can do nothing with all that sugar other than convert it to fat. Thoughts?
That's like saying a mile isn't a mile because you can run it faster than you can walk it...it's still a mile. A calorie is just a unit of measure like an inch or a mile or a watt or whatever.
Different foods have different TEF (Thermic Effect of Food)...ie the energy it requires to digest. Yes, higher fiber foods and proteins require more energy to digest, but in the big picture that is your diet on the whole, this is majoring in the minors...in the context of your diet on the whole, this all comes out in the wash.
In terms of sugar being stored as fat, that's just not true. You can't have net fat storage in a calorie deficit or at maintenance calories...your body can only store fat when energy (calories) consumed exceed what the body requires. In absence of a calorie surplus, the sugar from the soda is going to be stored as glycogen in the liver.
Yes a mile is a mile, but are you uphill looking down, or downhill looking up?
Kind of like if a tree falls in the forest when no one’s around, isn’t it.
Probably almost as many answers to original question as there are people who answer it.15 -
corinasue1143 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »lauragreenbaum wrote: »I'm on a roll today, but I just read this from someone who made this comment. I just saw "Fed Up" and one of the things I found interesting was that two calories may not be the same. The example they used was, if you eat 160 calories of almonds, there is a lot of fiber and protein in that so it takes longer to digest and the whole process burns some of those calories. Whereas, if you drink a 160 calorie Coke, it's almost all sugar which goes straight to your organs that process it and the body can do nothing with all that sugar other than convert it to fat. Thoughts?
That's like saying a mile isn't a mile because you can run it faster than you can walk it...it's still a mile. A calorie is just a unit of measure like an inch or a mile or a watt or whatever.
Different foods have different TEF (Thermic Effect of Food)...ie the energy it requires to digest. Yes, higher fiber foods and proteins require more energy to digest, but in the big picture that is your diet on the whole, this is majoring in the minors...in the context of your diet on the whole, this all comes out in the wash.
In terms of sugar being stored as fat, that's just not true. You can't have net fat storage in a calorie deficit or at maintenance calories...your body can only store fat when energy (calories) consumed exceed what the body requires. In absence of a calorie surplus, the sugar from the soda is going to be stored as glycogen in the liver.
Yes a mile is a mile, but are you uphill looking down, or downhill looking up?
Kind of like if a tree falls in the forest when no one’s around, isn’t it.
Probably almost as many answers to original question as there are people who answer it.
There aren't really. A calorie is a unit of energy measurement. The confusion is that it gets conflated with nutrition. Different foods have different nutritional values. But that doesnt make a calorie different.
And to use your analogy, the mile is still a mile, uphill or down. The energy (calories) used to go that mile may differ but the mile is still a mile.20 -
Just learned some interesting info about calories. The calorie measure at current date, isn’t hard and fast. It’s an estimation of the food’s stored energy and there are factors that affect how many calories an individual body takes in as opposed to excretes as waste based on the gut health/bacterial population. Also, some foods react differently to different bacteria in the gut. Certain foods can also affect the makeup of your gut bacteria, so that whole a calorie is a calorie argument doesn’t really take into account new research about gut health, digestion, and how food affects your gut health. There’s some interesting info out there about gut bacteria being regional based on food intake and when a person changes their region, what they eat changes, which changes their gut bacteria.26
-
corinasue1143 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »lauragreenbaum wrote: »I'm on a roll today, but I just read this from someone who made this comment. I just saw "Fed Up" and one of the things I found interesting was that two calories may not be the same. The example they used was, if you eat 160 calories of almonds, there is a lot of fiber and protein in that so it takes longer to digest and the whole process burns some of those calories. Whereas, if you drink a 160 calorie Coke, it's almost all sugar which goes straight to your organs that process it and the body can do nothing with all that sugar other than convert it to fat. Thoughts?
That's like saying a mile isn't a mile because you can run it faster than you can walk it...it's still a mile. A calorie is just a unit of measure like an inch or a mile or a watt or whatever.
Different foods have different TEF (Thermic Effect of Food)...ie the energy it requires to digest. Yes, higher fiber foods and proteins require more energy to digest, but in the big picture that is your diet on the whole, this is majoring in the minors...in the context of your diet on the whole, this all comes out in the wash.
In terms of sugar being stored as fat, that's just not true. You can't have net fat storage in a calorie deficit or at maintenance calories...your body can only store fat when energy (calories) consumed exceed what the body requires. In absence of a calorie surplus, the sugar from the soda is going to be stored as glycogen in the liver.
Yes a mile is a mile, but are you uphill looking down, or downhill looking up?
Kind of like if a tree falls in the forest when no one’s around, isn’t it.
Probably almost as many answers to original question as there are people who answer it.
Not really...3 -
Yes, a calorie is a calorie nothing more, nothing less.1
-
Just learned some interesting info about calories. The calorie measure at current date, isn’t hard and fast. It’s an estimation of the food’s stored energy and there are factors that affect how many calories an individual body takes in as opposed to excretes as waste based on the gut health/bacterial population. Also, some foods react differently to different bacteria in the gut. Certain foods can also affect the makeup of your gut bacteria, so that whole a calorie is a calorie argument doesn’t really take into account new research about gut health, digestion, and how food affects your gut health. There’s some interesting info out there about gut bacteria being regional based on food intake and when a person changes their region, what they eat changes, which changes their gut bacteria.
Gut bacteria is certainly an interesting field of study, but it is in a stage of extreme infancy. We don't even know what defines gut bacteria or how much of it people have, let alone how changes and differences in it may affect health.
What you eat affecting what bacteria live in your gut makes a certain logical sense. However we don't have any real idea yet how that affects anything regarding weight loss and how that could be turned into actionable advice or strategies.10 -
Just learned some interesting info about calories. The calorie measure at current date, isn’t hard and fast. It’s an estimation of the food’s stored energy and there are factors that affect how many calories an individual body takes in as opposed to excretes as waste based on the gut health/bacterial population.
This is true, but it's not really relevant to weight loss. It is possible that if your digestion is messed up that you will not be able to get as much energy (or nutrients) out of what you eat, but it does not affect most healthy people and -- more significantly -- you aren't going to get significantly MORE energy out of a food than the calories estimated. Your gut biome cannot magically make specific foods way more caloric than the estimated calories.Also, some foods react differently to different bacteria in the gut. Certain foods can also affect the makeup of your gut bacteria, so that whole a calorie is a calorie argument doesn’t really take into account new research about gut health, digestion, and how food affects your gut health.
Gut health and the gut biome has exactly 0 to do with "a calorie is a calorie." Perhaps you misunderstand what "a calorie is a calorie" means, but it does not mean that what you eat is irrelevant for nutritional purposes or that all foods are the same. What foods you eat are relevant for nutrition and gut health (although exactly what diet is good for gut health is not clear -- I have views on that but the research is far from advanced enough to really say). However, the gut biome, even if messed up for some reason (more likely the result of antibiotics than diet) cannot prevent weight loss or change the calories in foods to be higher.There’s some interesting info out there about gut bacteria being regional based on food intake and when a person changes their region, what they eat changes, which changes their gut bacteria.
Yeah, clearly what you eat affects your gut biome. I'm again not sure why you think this is contrary to "a calorie is a calorie."13 -
lauragreenbaum wrote: »I'm on a roll today, but I just read this from someone who made this comment. I just saw "Fed Up" and one of the things I found interesting was that two calories may not be the same. The example they used was, if you eat 160 calories of almonds, there is a lot of fiber and protein in that so it takes longer to digest and the whole process burns some of those calories. Whereas, if you drink a 160 calorie Coke, it's almost all sugar which goes straight to your organs that process it and the body can do nothing with all that sugar other than convert it to fat. Thoughts?
Others have already responded, but I will too.
(1) If you are thinking that you can gain weight in a calorie deficit if you eat the "wrong" foods, that is incorrect.
(2) Different foods burn different amounts of calories in digestion (primarily protein and fiber burn more, fat burns least), but in a healthy balanced diet the difference is essentially irrelevant. A much bigger factor is going to be if you are eating foods that tend to be satiating for you (which will make it easier to stick to a calorie goal).
The calories themselves are the same, the TEF is a small part of overall calories out.11 -
Maybe I'm completely wrong but I always thought that a calorie is a calorie and the nutritional value of those calories can affect your hunger level, mood, etc.
For instance, if I decide to eat 3 glazed doughnuts to meet my allotted calories for the day, I assume I can but I'd be starving an hour afterward. However, if I decide to spread out my caloric intake to include fruits, veggies, complex carbohydrates, to meet that daily goal, it'll be more beneficial with respect to filling full longer, etc.
That's my 2 cents anyway.
14 -
These threads are always a good way to come back to the basics of CICO for me. I am easily influenced by "experts" touting "evil carbs" and other such nonsense. If I hear it enough times, I will believe it. As someone who goes off plan regularly because of binging after restricting carbs, I NEED these to pop up regularly as a good reminder.
But I wanted to give my personal experience. The first time I lost weight, I lost 60 lbs in 4 months. Not a speed I recommend, but it was before MFP was super popular. I counted calories with pen and paper, and literally ate nothing but Lean Cuisines, Lean Pockets, toast, Pop-Tarts, cereal, and anything else processed I could find that I liked. Yeah, I was hungry all the time and my nutritional needs weren't met, but the pounds still came off.
11 -
justanotherjenn wrote: »These threads are always a good way to come back to the basics of CICO for me. I am easily influenced by "experts" touting "evil carbs" and other such nonsense. If I hear it enough times, I will believe it. As someone who goes off plan regularly because of binging after restricting carbs, I NEED these to pop up regularly as a good reminder.
But I wanted to give my personal experience. The first time I lost weight, I lost 60 lbs in 4 months. Not a speed I recommend, but it was before MFP was super popular. I counted calories with pen and paper, and literally ate nothing but Lean Cuisines, Lean Pockets, toast, Pop-Tarts, cereal, and anything else processed I could find that I liked. Yeah, I was hungry all the time and my nutritional needs weren't met, but the pounds still came off.
Some great info in this thread you might find helpful.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/43940597#Comment_439405972
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions