When is a calorie not a calorie?

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

NoQuarter

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

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

Madness! I'd eat 4 wheetabix for breakfast at 8am, 3 microwaved eggs and a slice of bread at 11 and would need to eat a full lunch at 2pm! I'm only 80kg!!

Alf Veedersane

NoQuarter wrote: »

Madness! I'd eat 4 wheetabix for breakfast at 8am, 3 microwaved eggs and a slice of bread at 11 and would need to eat a full lunch at 2pm! I'm only 80kg!!

I don't normally eat that early but I was out on site so I wasn't sure when I'd be eating next. Worked out nicely.

CaptainAhab

I was in the same situation a year ago - porridge or brown bread with fried eggs for breakfast at 7, starving by 9 so would have to have a snack with me or get a deli item, then lunch at 12, and a massive dinner at 6 (huge amounts of potatoes or pasta).

Now I will have 4 eggs and 2 pieces of bacon for breakfast at 7, won't be hungry until about 2 where I might have a handful of nuts if anything, and will have a dinner at 6 only half its previous size such as a steak with some spinach and onions.

Bruno26

I used to eat porridge every morning - hungry by 11. Now I eat Greek yogurt and 2 hard boiled eggs. Never hungry until 1/2.

rubadub

NoQuarter wrote: »

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

Actually if you asked a physicist and a food scientist for calorie values of a given amount of a food you might get different answers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_energy#Nutrition_labels

The amount of food energy associated with a particular food could be measured by completely burning the dried food in a bomb calorimeter, a method known as direct calorimetry.[7] However, the values given on food labels are not determined in this way. The reason for this is that direct calorimetry also burns the dietary fiber, and so does not allow for fecal losses; thus direct calorimetry would give systematic overestimates of the amount of fuel that actually enters the blood through digestion. What are used instead are standardized chemical tests or an analysis of the recipe using reference tables for common ingredients[8] to estimate the product's digestible constituents (protein, carbohydrate, fat, etc.). These results are then converted into an equivalent energy value based on the following standardized table of energy densities

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?

There was a study giving 1 group 500kcal per day as a sugary drink and the others got 500kcal of alcohol. The sugar group put on more fat. The rest of their diets were similar.

You do not even have to use different foods to show that 500kcal worth of one food may not have the same impact as 500kcal worth of another food. Just down a can of sweetcorn unchewed and look at what comes out the other end, if you think your body extracted the same amount of energy from this as if it was blended into a fine soup then calorie counting is the least of your worries.

Studies showed peanut butter gave more energy than eating the same kcal worth in whole nuts.

As a heavy drinker I am well aware that the calories in alcohol do not have nearly as much of an effect as say chocolate.
Why the Body May Waste the Calories From Alcohol

If someone asked me "is a calorie a calorie" I would not just give this stupid blunt "yes" answer, acting like Sheldon Cooper off the big bang theory. Weird that people feign ignorance about what people are actually asking, maybe in some attempt to appear smart, but its sadly backfiring. You can ask them to explain further what they really mean, which is most often "is 500kcal worth of one food going to have the same impact on my body as 500kcal of another food".

Eating a kilo of one food will typically not have the same effect as eating a kilo of another. The kilo is just another unit people could have decided to use to estimate the energy you will get from food. Most people would accept that fact, or that similar volumes of food would not have similar effects. Calories are just another unit to measure a quantity of food by, some people seem to think calories are an exact science in relation to humans. Calories are certainly a better estimate than portioning your food out in kilos or litres but still only an estimate. There was a poster here before who was convinced drinking 500kcal of petrol per day would have the same effect on fat levels as 500kcal of coke.

El_Dangeroso

rubadub wrote: »

As a heavy drinker I am well aware that the calories in alcohol do not have nearly as much of an effect as say chocolate.
Why the Body May Waste the Calories From Alcohol

I was wondering when the calorie master would show up

On the subject of alcohol, no you don't tend to use alcohol calories very efficiently in the body, but alcohol plays havoc with your blood sugar, and I tend to crave crappy food and be extra hungry the day after alcohol consumption. I think observational studies bear this out, where heavy drinkers tending to have a lot more abdominal fat than more moderate drinkers.

Bruno26

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/health/low-carb-vs-low-fat-diet.html?referrer=