Does it really matter where the calories come from?

mcbobbyb

As long as you eat the correct amount of calories for gaining/losing/ or maintaining weight does it matter where you get them from. If your eating enough protein/fat and carbs does it make any difference in the goals your after. There is so much conflicting articles on this topic.
For instance if you were looking to build muscle on a calorie surplus and your calories were 3000 at 300 carb 200 protein and the rest fat would it matter if all the carbs came from chocolate/juice/rice.

Chancer3001

Lots of people will say it doesn't matter.

Lots will also say it does.

Personally, I think it does. It has to do with blood sugar levels. If they spike at any stage, body will be told to store excess as fat. Whereas if the carbs were slow release , the concentration in your blood never goes high enough for your body to store it as fat

listermint

Well i suppose if you eat 3000 calories of crap. its hardly good for you is it?


Common sense really.

mcbobbyb

I understand that but if you are not gaining weight for instance because your in a deficit will it be stored as fat.

A Greedy Algorithm

Experiment for a few weeks with each and note the results.

mcbobbyb

Of coarse 3000 kcals of crap is bad for your health but if you drink orange juice for breakfast instead of porridge will it make any difference if you were, for instance still under your daily calorie total .

A Greedy Algorithm

mcbobbyb wrote: »

Of coarse 3000 kcals of crap is bad for your health but if you drink orange juice for breakfast instead of porridge will it make any difference if you were, for instance still under your daily calorie total .

No. A calorie deficit is all that is needed.

TimeToShine

A Greedy Algorithm wrote: »

No. A calorie deficit is all that is needed.

But if your protein intake is higher then the amount of muscle:fat lost can be reduced.

OP, if I were you and trying to put on weight I certainly wouldn't balk at eating a bit of junk every now and again - provided you're getting your meat, veg and fats in.

jebuz

In terms of weight, no it doesn't really matter where the calories come from. If you eat less calories than you burn, you lose weight and will hold true if the calories come from a cheese burger or a bowl of porridge.

In terms of overall wellbeing, blood pressure, energy & stress levels, skin, proneness to diabetes, atherosclerosis & heart disease, stress, etc etc, then yes I think it really does matter where the calories come from.

As listermint said above, if you eat 3000kc of junk and think it's ok because you don't gain weight then you are kidding yourself.

mcbobbyb

I eat healthy foods 90% of the time. All home cooked food, plenty of fish, meat veg etc. Eat porridge and eggs.
Its just from reading other threads people seem to get a hard time for eating certain foods with a high sugar content for example. Even if they are not overweight. I get it that some people are eating too much crap and getting fat.

conzy

yes a calorie is a calorie but it does absolutely matter where they come from

Person A
2500 calories of skittles

Person B
2500 calories with good macro ratios
lets say 190g protein, 280g carbs and 70g fat.

But this person just eats whey protein and gets their carbs and fat from garlic bread

Person C
2500 calories with the same macros as above and a lot of whole food

This person eats lots of various meats / fish / eggs, a couple of hundred grams of veg a day, some whey and still uses their discretionary calories on bread / snacks whatever.


They all get the same amount of energy.

Who is healthier / stronger / fitter

It's important to remember as well that calorie information on food products is (as far as I'm aware) calculated by total combustion of the product. Your stomach doesn't work the same way as a calorimeter, because it can't always totally break down everything it tries to digest.

So if you look at the calorie information printed on two products, say one containing corn syrup and another containing corn, you could take 100kcals worth of each, but you'll get more calories from the corn syrup, because your body can break that down a lot easier than it can break down corn. The corn has much more fibre, and is less processed/more complex, which means that it wont be broken down to the same extent as the corn.

jhon boy

join a site called >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>my fitness pal

uberalex

true-or-false wrote: »

It's important to remember as well that calorie information on food products is (as far as I'm aware) calculated by total combustion of the product. Your stomach doesn't work the same way as a calorimeter, because it can't always totally break down everything it tries to digest.

Except that the formula used to calculate this takes that into account. If you read the wiki information for Food_energy it explains the process.

So if you look at the calorie information printed on two products, say one containing corn syrup and another containing corn, you could take 100kcals worth of each, but you'll get more calories from the corn syrup, because your body can break that down a lot easier than it can break down corn. The corn has much more fibre, and is less processed/more complex, which means that it wont be broken down to the same extent as the corn.

There might be some truth to this effect, but it's not known to what extent.

rubadub

uberalex wrote: »

Except that the formula used to calculate this takes that into account.

It still is quite basic and only should be used as an estimate. Some people think it is a 100% exact science, and talk non-sense about thermodynamics.

Common sense should tell you if you eat a tin of sweetcorn and do not chew it your body will likely not get the fullest amount of energy it could have. Same goes for overcooked rice vs undercooked rice, or peanuts vs peanut butter. The difference may not be large but it totally discredits the exact science nutcases.

Some do matter a lot, a heavy drinker will have little effect from calories from alcohol (but the drinks might be high in sugar).

There was a guy in another thread who was certain that drinking 500kcal of sugary drinks per day over the course of a year would have hte same effect on your weight as if you drank 500kcal of petrol extra per day.

Van.Bosch

conzy wrote: »

yes a calorie is a calorie but it does absolutely matter where they come from

Person A
2500 calories of skittles

Person B
2500 calories with good macro ratios
lets say 190g protein, 280g carbs and 70g fat.

But this person just eats whey protein and gets their carbs and fat from garlic bread

Person C
2500 calories with the same macros as above and a lot of whole food

This person eats lots of various meats / fish / eggs, a couple of hundred grams of veg a day, some whey and still uses their discretionary calories on bread / snacks whatever.


They all get the same amount of energy.

Who is healthier / stronger / fitter

I would say person C but if they were all the same starting weight they would all gain/lose weight at the same pace.

C would be healthier, stronger but weight wise identical?

rocky

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Lots of people will say it doesn't matter.

Lots will also say it does.

Personally, I think it does. It has to do with blood sugar levels. If they spike at any stage, body will be told to store excess as fat. Whereas if the carbs were slow release , the concentration in your blood never goes high enough for your body to store it as fat

For the same calories and macros, where do the calories 'not stored as fat' go to, for the person that doesn't spike his BS?

Daisy M

I've found that I could lose weigh once I had a calorie deficit, it didn't matter what I ate. But eating crap makes it harder to maintain that deficit, for me it lead to more hunger and cravings and a risk of over eating. Eating better quality foods with odd treats meant I felt fuller for longer and thought about food a lot less, plus I had more energy.