When is a calorie not a calorie?

Hi guys,


A chap made a thread here a while ago asking about, pretty much, calories vs calories. I can't seem to find it, but it took my interest. The long and short is that he asked the question but never really got an answer.


So as it's still sitting in the back of my head, I figured I'd try with it and go again.


Effectively, what I'm wondering is, does it matter where your calories come from?


For example, if you're trying to lose weight, and you decide that you're going to take in exactly 1,000 calories per day (just to keep the numbers simple), does it matter if you take in 1,000 calories of Chocolate, or 1,000 calories of lettuce?

I know the breakdown of foods is different (ie; 1,000 calories of eggs will have more protein than chocolate, and 1,000 calories of chocolate will have more sugar than eggs, for example).


What I'm really wondering is, is there an enormous difference in how your body will react (or not) to the differing diets?

I presume that if two people are exactly 20 stone, and each commits to taking in 2,000 calories per day, but one chooses healthy foods, and the other chooses unhealthy foods, if both do the exact same exercise etc. will both people lose the same exact amount of weight?


(Or to go a tad more in-depth, will one person's body 'slim' differently to the others? Will the healthier eater look more 'herculean' quicker, from a weights programme, whereas the unhealthy eater will fall behind?).


I would imagine the energy levels of both people would differ dramatically? (healthy eater having more lengthy sustainable energy levels and unhealthy eater getting short impulsive bursts of energy?).



I've no real knowledge of this, so I'd be quite curious, but apologies if it's been asked before and done to death.

Just find it an interesting concept.

Cheers

sheesh

technically it shouldn't
But I can think of a couple of instances where that falls down

Assuming healthy food means some sort of fiber that is going to help pushing poo through the gut. A balanced diet can aid the uptake of minerals and vitamins.

alot of refined sugar in chocolate is going to play havoc with your bodys sugar balance.


I think the answer is short term yes, long term no.

TeamJesus

Junk food doesn't count if you count it.

Alf Veedersane

What you eat matters in relation to body composition.

generic2012

A calorie is always a calorie. If anyone doesn't agree with this they are wrong, it is like saying a kilometre isn't a kilometre or a kilogram isn't a kilogram. You can throw around subjective terms like 'good', 'bad', 'natural', 'junk', 'healthy', 'processed', etc. when you want to write/say something without actually saying anything but when it comes to bodyweight objective terms like 'calories', and the macronutrients that supply those calories are all that matters. Calories and macronutrients are all that matter because words like 'natural' and 'processed' mean absolutely nothing in practical terms and 'good', 'bad' and 'healthy' are totally subjective. Just getting it out of the way but anyone who forgoes the discussion of calories and macronutrients is obviously a spoofer.

Look how long you've had this thread up. You haven't got one straight answer, because no one on this forum will give an objective answer. People here love waffle but hate waffles.

In relation to lettuce vs chocolate, this man lost 27 pounds on basically just twinkies, his 'bad' cholesterol (LDL) dropped 20% and his 'good' cholesterol (HDL) increased by 20% and his triglycerides dropped by 39%.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/
Twinkies are 'unhealthy', 'bad', 'processed', not 'natural' and whatever other non descriptive words you can think of, but his weight dropped and his major health markers increased, by eating twinkies, which are pretty much all sugar, so how, without totally contradicting yourself can you say twinkies aren't healthy? You either have to say twinkies are healthy or healthy is a largely useless when talking about foods. There is an anti-carb mentality on this forum, there was a thread the other day where carbs were blamed for high triglycerides in the blood. Triglyceride is basically fat. It's calories that will dictate weight and weight and exercise that dictate health markers. That means overall diet, not individual foods.

Exercise will give you that figure you talk of but only if your diet supports it. Enough calories to carry out the exercises and protein synthesis, enough protein to be used in that protein synthesis, enough fat to keep hormones in good order and carbs for a quick source of glycogen to allow for long durations of intense exercise (of course not neccesary if you are a 5 foot tall, 8 stone jogger, but to build decent muscle in decent time you need carbs). Again calories dictate body weight, activities will dictate body composition as permitted by caloric and macronutrient intake.

As I was writing I just remembered this post: (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=90521425&postcount=26 , perhaps the one you were talking about?)

generic2012 wrote: »

A calorie is a calorie. An inch is an inch etc.

A calorie is unit of energy that doesn't change. However, a 2,500 kcal diet of exclusively fat will not yield the same results a 2,500 kcal diet comprised of only protein. What seems to confuse people about calories is how the body deals with them in terms of the macronutrients they are derived from. Protein is harder to digest than fats or carbs ie. the body uses the most energy too break down (to its constituent amino acids) and store protein. You will only recieve about 80-70% of the energy in protein, so a gram of protein may be 4kcal but your body will only recieve a net increase of c. 3.2kcal from that gram. Fats are stored directly as fat and then energy has to be used to make it available as an energy source ie. it is the easiest macronutrient to digest and store as body fat. You will receive almost 100% (varies from 85-97%) of energy from fat. Carbs around 85%.

So although a calorie is universally a calorie, regardless of where it comes from, what your body does with them and the energy it utilises from them, isn't.

There are different types of proteins (eg. different combinations and ratios of amino acids), different fats (eg. MCT, LCT), and different carbohydrates (eg. complex and simple), which will all be broken down differently and at different metabolic costs. Combine with this the different physical properties of food from different levels of cooking or moisture content (eg. protein from powdered whey vs from raw steak) it can get rather complicated, this is without mentioning fibre or alcohol. It kinda shows how ridiculous measuring your brown rice out to the nearest gram is?

But rather than meaning calorie counting is pointless it means that the energy you gain from food is unique to you and the types of food you eat. So use a calorie counter as a guideline, and if you gain weight when it says you should be losing reduce your calories.

PS high fat diets, calorie per calorie, are the easiest way too put on weight and wouldn't bring the same performance benefits as high carb or protein. If someone tells you calories don't matter, agree with them and walk away slowly. If you can't get away from them just talk to them about the (any) government trying to slowly kill their people by giving out questionable dietary information, you can walk away when they pass out from successive multiple orgasms.

Like the original thread that post came from, factual information will make no difference to the constant 'debate' on this forum (Did you know scholars used to 'debate' over how many angels could dance on a pinhead and whether people have to use the toilet in paradise?). It's fact that a calorie is a calorie but very few seem to accept it. It's like not accepting heliocentrism, you can believe it's not true, but the truth doesn't have much time for beliefs or opinions.

Do yourself a favour, look up flexible dieting, read evidence based information and transcend the geocentrists. Call back every so often for the lulz.

TeamJesus

^^^ wow calm down. What you say could be broken down to:

Carrot cake = avocado

Athletes like body builders, mma fighters and even ballerinas utilise calories counting to lower their percentage body fat and help alter their body composition.

Fat people use it to make chocolate fudge cake OK.

generic2012

TeamJesus wrote: »

^^^ wow calm down. What you say could be broken down to:

Carrot cake = avocado

Fat people, rejoice!

Between that post and your username, I'm gonna guess critical thinking isn't a strong point of yours. It'd be of great benefit to you and the people that ultimately have to read your posts to implement a bit of logic.

TeamJesus

generic2012 wrote: »

Between that post and your username, I'm gonna guess critical thinking isn't a strong point of yours. It'd be of great benefit to you and the people that ultimately have to read your posts to implement a bit of logic.

I even gave you an equation above! Is that not enough logic for you?

Bruno26

http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

http://time.com/2988142/you-asked-are-all-calories-created-equal/

generic2012

TeamJesus wrote: »

I even gave you an equation above! Is that not enough logic for you?

It's actually a formula not an equation. And it is not logical as a stand alone statement and it is wholly illogical if you read my post but how and ever. Logic is only useful when dealing with facts, if you choose belief or opinion over fact then logic is of no use.

For example, if we say hell is unhealthy, and according to the bible you can't eat fat (leviticus 3:17) anything that mixes meat and dairy (exodus 23:19), aquatic creatures lacking fins or scales (Deuteronomy 14:9), the blood in meat (Genesis 9:4) amongst other things, then we can say fat, pork, burgers, shellfish, lobster are all unhealthy.

Now I'm obviously taking this to an extreme to make it easier for some people to see but there is no proof for any of the previous paragraph being true and the fact that it was written by incestuous bronze age goat herders would compound this.

But if you allow for opinion and belief to advise your dietary protocol then you have no argument against anyone who says those foods are unhealthy. While your formula might be enough logic for you, in actuality there is no logic there so it is not enough.

mayordenis

I can only go by the the outrageous body of evidence and by my own personal experience but I would say that calories are not a particularly useful indicator of a healthy diet.

Is a calorie a calorie? Yes, absolutely.

Is calorie counting a vaguely acceptable guide on what does or does not constitute being helthy? No.

If you are really going to advocate that an all twinkie diet is somewhat healthy then you haven't a notion, and any derived benefit is unlikely to be anything but short lived.

Greenmachine

Calories that people speak of terms of food are in fact "Kilo Calories" in the strictest sense, i.e 1,000 calories each, but it makes sense to think of them in the terms people tend to. Would get pretty confused for most if they were counting their calorie intake in millions. Apart from this mute point, a calorie, is still a calorie.
An individuals, existing body composition, metabolism, and actively level will all have an impact on how the person source of calories are utilised.
The persons overall health will be effected by macro etc. especially in the long term

generic2012

mayordenis wrote: »

I can only go by the the outrageous body of evidence and by my own personal experience but I would say that calories are not a particularly useful indicator of a healthy diet.

Is a calorie a calorie? Yes, absolutely.

Is calorie counting a vaguely acceptable guide on what does or does not constitute being helthy? No.

You're looking at the evidence wrong so. Man overweight and unhealthy - Twinkies 'unhealthy' - twinkies only consumed but calories restricted - man loses weight and becomes healthy. Perhaps you could tell me or link some of the 'outrageous body of evidence' you are talking about.

By your logic, (calories don't affect health) obesity (caused by excessive caloric intake) mustn't be unhealthy. There's two big problems with your argument;

1. There is no accepted definition of a healthy food, you might be able to say what it isn't, but there is no objective definition, so how can you say what a healthy diet is without using calories?

2. I'd guess you have a zeal for HFLC, carb which considers olive oil, butter, bacon and eggs as healthy food. By your argument eating a pack of bacon fried in a stick of butter washed down with half a bottle of olive for breakfast followed by a dinner of 8 eggs washed down with the other half bottle of olive, which would probably total over 5000 calories is OK everyday because they're from healthy foods.

I'm not advocating this or saying people do it I'm just continuing on your argument to it's logical conclusion, which is false.

mayordenis wrote: »

If you are really going to advocate that an all twinkie diet is somewhat healthy then you haven't a notion, and any derived benefit is unlikely to be anything but short lived.

I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. I never once advocated an all twinkie diet. If you have to lie to prove point you should really reconsider your point.

CaptainAhab

Whilst calories are all equal in terms of their potential energy, that does not mean that our body treats them all equally. Different food types are metabolised in different ways by our bodies, having varying effects on hormones. For example, a handful of almonds may have equal calories to a doughnut but it will still have a different affect on our body in the form of insulin response.

This is a good article that will elaborate more: http:// www .huffingtonpost. com/robert-lustig-md/sugar-toxic_b_2759564.html

generic2012

CaptainAhab wrote: »

Whilst calories are all equal in terms of their potential energy, that does not mean that our body treats them all equally. Different food types are metabolised in different ways by our bodies, having varying effects on hormones. For example, a handful of almonds may have equal calories to a doughnut but it will still have a different affect on our body in the form of insulin response.

This is a good article that will elaborate more: http:// www .huffingtonpost. com/robert-lustig-md/sugar-toxic_b_2759564.html

Just by looking at the url I see sugar is toxic and it involves Robert Lustig, the man who lied in court claiming that HFCS is identical to sugar and that sugar is a poison. I try and not give pages like that traffic.

Hi folks, OP here.

Have to say, although I can't really weigh in on the argument (as I've no real knowledge of it, hence asking the question in the first place), this thread is turning out really well and quite the educator (to me, anyway).

Learning a lot from the responses. Especially liking your input Generic (whether you're right or wrong, I don't know, as I'm not clued in enough, but you certainly do seem to be making sense, in my opinion).


It is an elaborate subject, I know, but I'm loving people's different takes on it. Very insightful.

generic2012

Deleted User wrote: »

Hi folks, OP here.

Have to say, although I can't really weigh in on the argument (as I've no real knowledge of it, hence asking the question in the first place), this thread is turning out really well and quite the educator (to me, anyway).

Learning a lot from the responses. Especially liking your input Generic (whether you're right or wrong, I don't know, as I'm not clued in enough, but you certainly do seem to be making sense, in my opinion).


It is an elaborate subject, I know, but I'm loving people's different takes on it. Very insightful.

Thanks very much. Unfortunately people are often welded to their ideas and although people may call me a hypocrite for saying that the reality is my opinions came from evidence and will change if other evidence ever show the contrary. People who don't think calories matter will unlikely ever change their opinion because all the evidence points in the other direction but they can still rationalise it away.

There is one simple thought experiment that shows that calories are the main determinant of weight and health;

Go on to google or youtube and look up all the raw food fruitarian hippes. They eat as little fat as possible and minimal protein and vast vast amounts of simple carbohydrates (sugars) from fruit. They are skinny with good health markers. They wax maniacally about high carb being the only way and fat being an evil killer.

Then, look up all the pseudoscientific HFLC hipsters on google and youtube. They eat as little carbs as possible, moderate carbs and vast amounts of fat. They can be skin with good health markers. They wax maniacally about high fat being the only way and carbs being an evil killer. (I don't know how they can hold a straight face when they complain about fat being demonised in the 80s as they demonise carbs now!!)

When two people disagree there are two possible realities to the disagreement.

1. One group is wrong and the other is right.

2. Both groups are wrong. (Everyone here should be old enough to realise that if people disagree everyone can't be right, sorry if I was the first to break it to you.)

So if high carb hippies and high fat hipsters can both lose weight and have good health markers, that means they are both wrong as they are saying the other group cant lose weight and be healthy. So what is the only possible reason?

Calories are the main determinant of bodyweight and health. If someone asks for advice on a diet and you don't discuss calories as a compulsory first step, you are putting the cart before the horse and proceeding to flog it to death.

mayordenis

generic2012 wrote: »

I'd appreciate if you didn't put words in my mouth. I never once advocated an all twinkie diet. If you have to lie to prove point you should really reconsider your point.

I'm going to start here, because you should realise that if someone says something you deem to be incorrect it is not them 'lying', factually you said:

generic2012 wrote: »

You're looking at the evidence wrong so. Man overweight and unhealthy - Twinkies 'unhealthy' - twinkies only consumed but calories restricted - man loses weight and becomes healthy. Perhaps you could tell me or link some of the 'outrageous body of evidence' you are talking about.

generic2012 wrote: »

In relation to lettuce vs chocolate, this man lost 27 pounds on basically just twinkies, his 'bad' cholesterol (LDL) dropped 20% and his 'good' cholesterol (HDL) increased by 20% and his triglycerides dropped by 39%.

Both of these at very least paint this all twinkie diet in a highly positive light, so we can argue semantics all you want but it is more or less you saying an all twinkie diet is somehow beneficial.

generic2012 wrote: »

By your logic, (calories don't affect health) obesity (caused by excessive caloric intake) mustn't be unhealthy. There's two big problems with your argument;

1. There is no accepted definition of a healthy food, you might be able to say what it isn't, but there is no objective definition, so how can you say what a healthy diet is without using calories?

2. I'd guess you have a zeal for HFLC, carb which considers olive oil, butter, bacon and eggs as healthy food. By your argument eating a pack of bacon fried in a stick of butter washed down with half a bottle of olive for breakfast followed by a dinner of 8 eggs washed down with the other half bottle of olive, which would probably total over 5000 calories is OK everyday because they're from healthy foods.

I'm not advocating this or saying people do it I'm just continuing on your argument to it's logical conclusion, which is false.

Ok you can only talk in black and white terms so I probably can't really help here.

I'm not saying force feeding yourself litres of oil per day would not have adverse side effects, of course they would, to use your own term, 'don't put words in my mouth'.

I want to ask one question then I'm done, because I can't win this argument as don't stockpile every article and as such can't apply the old harvard referencing to my boards posts: Do you think there is no difference to your body's production of fat in 2000 Kcal worth of sugar or 2000 Kcal worth of either protein or fat? (you can choose which I don't want to dare put only one option out for you as you'll get stroppy and single minded on that one single piece of the conversation.)

You're extremely militant about this topic by the way.

generic2012

mayordenis wrote: »

I'm going to start here, because you should realise that if someone says something you deem to be incorrect it is not them 'lying', factually you said:

You're looking at the evidence wrong so. Man overweight and unhealthy - Twinkies 'unhealthy' - twinkies only consumed but calories restricted - man loses weight and becomes healthy. Perhaps you could tell me or link some of the 'outrageous body of evidence' you are talking about.

In relation to lettuce vs chocolate, this man lost 27 pounds on basically just twinkies, his 'bad' cholesterol (LDL) dropped 20% and his 'good' cholesterol (HDL) increased by 20% and his triglycerides dropped by 39%.

Both of these at very least paint this all twinkie diet in a highly positive light, so we can argue semantics all you want but it is more or less you saying an all twinkie diet is somehow beneficial.

I don't know why you lines from a post subsequent to the post we were talking about but OK. I didn't advocate it and OF COURSE it was beneficial, how can you say it wasn't? It's there in black and white, he lost weight and sorted out his cholesterol and triglycerides, that's exactly my point. If eating twinkies improve his health, then by what logical argument can you say twinkies aren't healthy? I don't wanna have to repost what I've said already but my point is that the idea of 'healthy' foods being important is simplistic, naive and wrong. I'm not saying twinkies are healthy/unhealthy or all twinkie diets are healthy/unhealthy, I'm saying that it shows that calories are the primary determinant of health. So to rehash I'm not advocating a twinkie diet, I'm advocating a reduction in calories if you are overweight not any diet or particular 'healthy' foods.

mayordenis wrote: »

Ok you can only talk in black and white terms so I probably can't really help here.

I'm not saying force feeding yourself litres of oil per day would not have adverse side effects, of course they would, to use your own term, 'don't put words in my mouth'.

That is exactly why I said, in the last line, which you quoted (!!) 'I'm not advocating this or saying people do it I'm just continuing on your argument to it's logical conclusion, which is false' I was just bringing it to its logical conclusion.

If calories don't matter then there shouldn't be adverse effects to drinking a bottle of olive oil.

You say that there would be adverse side effects if that much olive oil was drank, if calories don't matter, and olive is 'healthy', then by what physiological mechanism do these adverse side effects come from?

mayordenis wrote: »

I want to ask one question then I'm done, because I can't win this argument as don't stockpile every article and as such can't apply the old harvard referencing to my boards posts: Do you think there is no difference to your body's production of fat in 2000 Kcal worth of sugar or 2000 Kcal worth of either protein or fat? (you can choose which I don't want to dare put only one option out for you as you'll get stroppy and single minded on that one single piece of the conversation.)

You're extremely militant about this topic by the way.

I think it's a bit cowardly to ask a question and then say your not going to respond to the answer but I suppose it's similar to admitting you're wrong.

There is a hyperlink function on the website so your strawman harvard referencing point is ridiculous. Any way logic would do if you're not willing to provide evidence, maybe try some of that? It's quit bad form to say there is 'outrageous evidence' to support your claims and then not supply any when asked.

You obviously weren't able to read my very first post in this thread if you have to ask me that? It leads me think maybe you are the militant. Haven't even read the argument and you on the defensive to defend the woo.

the groutch

Bruno26 wrote: »

http://live.smashthefat.com/why-i-didnt-get-fat/

http://time.com/2988142/you-asked-are-all-calories-created-equal/

knew you wouldn't be able to resist.

CaptainAhab

generic2012 wrote: »

Just by looking at the url I see sugar is toxic and it involves Robert Lustig, the man who lied in court claiming that HFCS is identical to sugar and that sugar is a poison. I try and not give pages like that traffic.

Generic, whatever prejudices you may harbour against the man - scientific thought constantly evolves via experimentation and evidence. You say you make your opinions from scientific evidence " my opinions came from evidence and will change if other evidence ever show the contrary", so if you actually read the articles myself and Bruno26 have posted, it should atleast make you question your current opinions.

Bear in mind here I am not completely refuting your claims - I believe calories matter. But I also believe that the type of calories matter too.

To the original poster, I suggest you read the articles me and Bruno referred too. You don't have to agree with them but they should provide good food for thought.

generic2012

CaptainAhab wrote: »

Generic, whatever prejudices you may harbour against the man - scientific thought constantly evolves via experimentation and evidence. You say you make your opinions from scientific evidence " my opinions came from evidence and will change if other evidence ever show the contrary", so if you actually read the articles myself and Bruno26 have posted, it should atleast make you question your current opinions.

Bear in mind here I am not completely refuting your claims - I believe calories matter. But I also believe that the type of calories matter too.

To the original poster, I suggest you read the articles me and Bruno referred too. You don't have to agree with them but they should provide good food for thought.

I'll read your article, I don't want Bruno to land on this thread as it is sensible at the minute, if you read his posts and links you will see they are far away from anything that could be remotely considered science. The thread is different from the usual -

A. I want to lose weight, i don't eat very much but I can't lose weight.

B. How much and of what do you eat?

A. I don't know.

b. Exercise and eat less carbs.

which is a pleasant change.

I'm going for grub (there may be wheat involved) I'll get back after that.

PS if we end up exchanging links and stuff after it could be better linking to things as close as possible to the raw data, as newspaper articles are read through the prism of an author who may not know what's going on, not that I'm saying the huffington post authors aren't trailblazers in their respective scientific fields, despite the click-bait titles they give their articles.

CaptainAhab

If you want scientific articles I'm sure I can provide plenty of them. Two excellent books that have influenced my opinions are Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, and The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. They are not based on soft science, but rather contain extensive references to scientific literature. You probably have opinions on them already but I recommend you check them out if you have not yet done so.

Oh and Bruno - try and remain sensible eh?

Bruno26

CaptainAhab wrote: »

If you want scientific articles I'm sure I can provide plenty of them. Two excellent books that have influenced my opinions are Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, and The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. They are not based on soft science, but rather contain extensive references to scientific literature. You probably have opinions on them already but I recommend you check them out if you have not yet done so.

Oh and Bruno - try and remain sensible eh?

Great books- generic wouldn't read them as might be forced to change views.

CaptainAhab

Bruno26 wrote: »

Great books- generic wouldn't read them as might be forced to change views.

Well a hostile remark like that won't help anyway. He said his opinions on the subject are based on scientific evidence which is why I referenced the books to him.

Bruno26

CaptainAhab wrote: »

Well a hostile remark like that won't help anyway. He said his opinions on the subject are based on scientific evidence which is why I referenced the books to him.

Generic has been informed about those books before and has dismissed them. That's not being hostile.

YellowFeather

This is an interesting thread, as I'm still surprised that there isn't a definitive view as this topic - surely - is fairly black and white. (I don't mean that I know the answer - but just that I would have thought there WAS an answer.)

I was brought up with the food pyramid with five portions of bread or so at the bottom, followed by a rake of dairy products.

Then I heard that fat was bad. Then carbs became evil. Then milk was all bad too. I suppose there's no 'one size fits all', but the amount of differing views is a bit confusing.

For me, while a calorie is a calorie, if you can get the likes of protein and good fats at the same time, it's a two for one situation. I find I tone a lot better if I'm eating protein-rich foods. And, for fats too, eating steak twice a week is no hardship.

Although, I'm not terribly disciplined, I'm happy out with a plate of veg and meat and beans or something. I'd say take the calorific value of a food (if ya could be bothered), together with the other benefits it could have for you.

El_Dangeroso

Protein calories are not the same as fat and carb calories for a number of reasons:

1. Protein calories cannot easily be used for energy or fat storage (metabolically expensive.

2. Protein calories are much more filling, reducing the ability to over eat them.

Then you can get into things like calorie density and fibre content which can affect how rewarding a food is and how likely you are to overeat that food. And also other things like how well a food is cooked or how easy it is to digest, for example a significant portion of nut calories are not digested and used, so the calorie availability to your body is lower. Same goes for mashed vs boiled potatoes.

Basically we are not bomb calorimeters, and there's a very good case to be made that it's much easier to overeat junk than healthy food.

generic2012

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Protein calories are not the same as fat and carb calories for a number of reasons:

1. Protein calories cannot easily be used for energy or fat storage (metabolically expensive.

2. Protein calories are much more filling, reducing the ability to over eat them.

Then you can get into things like calorie density and fibre content which can affect how rewarding a food is and how likely you are to overeat that food. And also other things like how well a food is cooked or how easy it is to digest, for example a significant portion of nut calories are not digested and used, so the calorie availability to your body is lower. Same goes for mashed vs boiled potatoes.

Basically we are not bomb calorimeters, and there's a very good case to be made that it's much easier to overeat junk than healthy food.

A calorie is a unit of energy, 'protein calories' and 'fat calories' are calories from protein and fat, they are still calories. Fat is different from carbs and both are different from protein, and they all have different metabolic effects. The calories from them don't.

Consider this -
Coal, turf and timber are all used as fuel. All three can be burned in the same fireplace as a source of heat (energy). All three can be burned simultaneously and produce energy. They are all different and will have different lengths of time to be fully burned, they will produce different amounts of heat per unit weight, some will be more suitable for a slow burning cooler fire and some will be more suitable for a quick burning hotter fire.

The difference in characteristics of the fuels, and their effects on heat production does not mean that heat is not heat. Anyone who thinks that a calorie is not a calorie has to agree that heat is not heat and energy is not energy.

TL;DR
You (plural) are mixing up calories (from macronutrients) and the macronutrients themselves, silly.

Sh. No tears. Only dreams

CaptainAhab

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here, but I think we are all in agreement that a calorie as a unit of measurement doesn't change. However do we agree that 1000 calories of macadamia nuts will have a different effect from 1000 calories of jelly beans on a human body in the same way that 1000 calories of petrol will have a different effect from 1000 calories of coal on a fire?

In otherwords, 1000 calories of carbohydrates do not have the same effect as 1000 calories of fat or protein?

El_Dangeroso

generic2012 wrote: »

A calorie is a unit of energy, 'protein calories' and 'fat calories' are calories from protein and fat, they are still calories. Fat is different from carbs and both are different from protein, and they all have different metabolic effects. The calories from them don't.

Consider this -
Coal, turf and timber are all used as fuel. All three can be burned in the same fireplace as a source of heat (energy). All three can be burned simultaneously and produce energy. They are all different and will have different lengths of time to be fully burned, they will produce different amounts of heat per unit weight, some will be more suitable for a slow burning cooler fire and some will be more suitable for a quick burning hotter fire.

The difference in characteristics of the fuels, and their effects on heat production does not mean that heat is not heat. Anyone who thinks that a calorie is not a calorie has to agree that heat is not heat and energy is not energy.

TL;DR
You (plural) are mixing up calories (from macronutrients) and the macronutrients themselves, silly.

Sh. No tears. Only dreams

Your confusing physics with biology. If we operated like a mixed fuel stove that would be so much simpler. For the sake of sheer pedantry let me clarify the statement a calorie is not a calorie with the statement 'In a free-eating environment, different foods contribute towards overall fat mass in different ways that their kilocalorie count alone would indicate.'

kthxbye.

ford2600

@generic2012 you posted this the other day
"there was a thread the other day where carbs were blamed for high triglycerides in the blood. Triglyceride is basically fat. It's calories that will dictate weight and weight and exercise that dictate health markers"
Are you saying varying macro nutrient content has no effect on lipid profile and calories alone dictate it?

Haven't been reading rest of thread was sure it would go done the usual route. Genuine question

generic2012

ford2600 wrote: »

@generic2012 you posted this the other day
"there was a thread the other day where carbs were blamed for high triglycerides in the blood. Triglyceride is basically fat. It's calories that will dictate weight and weight and exercise that dictate health markers"
Are you saying varying macro nutrient content has no effect on lipid profile and calories alone dictate it?

Haven't been reading rest of thread was sure it would go done the usual route. Genuine question

I'm not saying you took that out of context but it if anyone else sees this, the whole comment and the context is one of the first few posts on this thread.

generic2012

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Your confusing physics with biology. If we operated like a mixed fuel stove that would be so much simpler. For the sake of sheer pedantry let me clarify the statement a calorie is not a calorie with the statement 'In a free-eating environment, different foods contribute towards overall fat mass in different ways that their kilocalorie count alone would indicate.'

kthxbye.

ford2600

generic2012 wrote: »

I'm not saying you took that out of context but it if anyone else sees this, the whole comment and the context is one of the first few posts on this thread.

I wasn't trying to misrepresent what you said but it was what I took from it. Lost in translation from the Lakelands to the south perhaps!

generic2012

ford2600 wrote: »

I wasn't trying to misrepresent what you said but it was what I took from it. Lost in translation from the Lakelands to the south perhaps!

Unfortunately I have to preface this post because of some sensitive people on the thread!

*I am not advocating repeating the following, it is description of an event, and an extrapolation from it*

Read the story about the man on the twinkie diet. He was overweight with unhealthy cholesterol and triglycerides.

He ate a diet of purely twinkies, which are basically pure sugar. Everyone, including me, would accept that twinkies should not be called a healthy food or make up a significant part of anyone's diet.

When this man ate only twinkies, he lost weight and improved blood levels of HDL, LDL and triglycerides.

How did this happen?

El_Dangeroso

bllleeeegghhhhhhhhh, that old chestnut. If you eat less than you burn you lose weight, I don't recall anyone on this thread saying any different.

So we can live in hypothetical land where if you are a robot who controls calorie intake to an OCD level that's fine and dandy (well it probably won't be, what with twinkies being bad for you)

or

You can live in the real world where people are governed by their hypothalamus which tells them '**** your waistline I'm starving!' when you restrict it to 1200 cals of junk vs 1200 calories of high protein, high fibre unprocessed food.

generic2012

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

bllleeeegghhhhhhhhh, that old chestnut. If you eat less than you burn you lose weight, I don't recall anyone on this thread saying any different.

So we can live in hypothetical land where if you are a robot who controls calorie intake to an OCD level that's fine and dandy (well it probably won't be, what with twinkies being bad for you)

or

You can live in the real world where people are governed by their hypothalamus which tells them '**** your waistline I'm starving!' when you restrict it to 1200 cals of junk vs 1200 calories of high protein, high fibre unprocessed food.

I was asked specifically about 'that old chestnut'. Keep up, scan.

What happens when you eat foods that are 'bad for you', like twinkies?

HDL levels?
LDL levels?
Body Weight?
Trigylcerides?

What were the blood test results and his weight after eating only twinkies?

What happened to

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

kthxbye.

????

Obviously his intake of calories changed his blood characteristics, not the twinkies.

El_Dangeroso

Ah now you're getting riled up, I'm only having a bit of fun

A long term diet of only junkfood will be bad for your health, even if you don't gain any weight, I didn't think this was controversial.

Unfortunately losing weight forever has a pretty bad prognosis for health in the long term, even if it has a good one in the short term

We agree with each other really, it's just getting lost in semantics.

generic2012

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Ah now you're getting riled up, I'm only having a bit of fun

A long term diet of only junkfood will be bad for your health, even if you don't gain any weight, I didn't think this was controversial.

Unfortunately losing weight forever has a pretty bad prognosis for health in the long term, even if it has a good one in the short term

We agree with each other really, it's just getting lost in semantics.

Me riled up!?

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

bllleeeegghhhhhhhhh

to that ( )

metamorphosis

Twinkie man didn't keep his diet up long term.

If he did, metrics would start to change

When you lose qiote a bit of weight at the start (regardless of type of food), you will see an improvement in metrics. Great, not disputable. This is well known and documented.

Things will change if you keep eating a lot of twinkies and not much else 5 years down the line

NoQuarter

A calorie is a calorie. Fine. Fine in terms of a unit used to measure energy.

The best way to describe it is equate a calorie to a kilogram and equate a protein, carb and a fat to turf, coal and wood respectively. A kilogram of each is still a kilogram. But they would burn on a fire (releasing their energy) so differently. And likely have a different effect on the fire.

So when people ask "is a calorie a calorie?", Generic's answer is technically right as above. BUT, it's the least helpful answer in terms of what anyone asking on this specific forum would mean.

Has anyone done an experiment whereby one person ate just bread/carbs and the other ate just chicken/protein assuming the same calorie intake and exercise regime? I would be surprised if body composition remained equal throughout the experiment. I don't know if it would, but it would surprise me if so.

So, if someone can say that body composition would not be the same in such an experiment, then a calorie is not a calorie...in terms of what people are REALLY asking when they ask that question. Semantics aside.

El_Dangeroso

NoQuarter wrote: »

Has anyone done an experiment whereby one person ate just bread/carbs and the other ate just chicken/protein assuming the same calorie intake and exercise regime? I would be surprised if body composition remained equal throughout the experiment. I don't know if it would, but it would surprise me if so.

There's been some weight loss trials that have kept the same calories but one was high protein. They both lost the same amount of weight, but the high protein lost more fat mass and less lean mass and vice versa.

CaptainAhab

There has been plenty of randomised controlled trials whereby low carbohydrate and high fat diets resulted in superior weight loss results than alternative diets: Here is a link to some - www. dietdoctor .com /science

What was interesting about some of these studies is that weight loss was greater even when calorie content was greater than other diets indicating that calorie numbers may not be as important as calorie type when it comes to weight loss/gain. (E.g. paper number 1, Shai et al).

El_Dangeroso

CaptainAhab wrote: »

There has been plenty of randomised controlled trials whereby low carbohydrate and high fat diets resulted in superior weight loss results than alternative diets: Here is a link to some - www. dietdoctor .com /science

What was interesting about some of these studies is that weight loss was greater even when calorie content was greater than other diets indicating that calorie numbers may not be as important as calorie type when it comes to weight loss/gain. (E.g. paper number 1, Shai et al).

To be fair people on low carb diets are notorious for overestimating calorie intake, sometimes they will swear they are taking in 1800 but they are only eating 1200. Low carb diets work by suppressing appetite, so you find it easier to eat less calories.

Tarzana2

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

2. Protein calories are much more filling, reducing the ability to over eat them.

People say this, but personally, I have never found this to be the case. Of the triumvirate, I find protein the least filling.

El_Dangeroso

Tarzana2 wrote: »

People say this, but personally, I have never found this to be the case. Of the triumvirate, I find protein the least filling.

Really? That's interesting. You know those 'eat a 25oz steak and get it for free' challenges, you should take advantage of that.

I know certain proteins for me are more filling than others, whey protein just seems to make me hungry sooner for example.

Tarzana2

I love eggs and once thought "Yeah, I'll eat loads of eggs and no carbs for breakfast"...didn't work, sadly. That's just one example.

El_Dangeroso

Tarzana2 wrote: »

I love eggs and once thought "Yeah, I'll eat loads of eggs and no carbs for breakfast"...didn't work, sadly. That's just one example.

Don't forget that eggs are only 80 cals an egg, so even if you have 3 that's only 240 cals which is a small breakfast.

Tarzana2

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Don't forget that eggs are only 80 cals an egg, so even if you have 3 that's only 240 cals which is a small breakfast.

Aye, but that's just one example, and I'd struggle to eat more than that. Actually in general, I'd struggle to eat enough for any food type alone (protein, carb, fat). I really need the variety and differing mouth feels of each. So maybe if I ate loads of protein, yeah, it'd be filling but I'd hate it!

Alf Veedersane

Had 3 eggs scrambled this morning. Didn't feel hungry til after the gym at 5.

Luckily I've a fridge full of meat to eat before it goes off.

#martyr