3 ms·

We would be foolish to think that all calories are equal. The body systems are complex... chemistry is complex. What the body does with one input versus a dif

by blunte 9y ago

We would be foolish to think that all calories are equal. The body systems are complex... chemistry is complex. What the body does with one input versus a different input is much more important than the quantity (caloric) of each input. If you could manage to consume 2,000 kcal of lettuce in a day, you will almost certainly gain less weight (or lose more weight) than if you consumed only 1,500 kcal of modern processed American bread. The problem we face in trying to eat better is that virtually everything you can buy is processed. When you go into a typical American grocery store, about 25% of the outer aisles are unprocessed foods - raw meat, raw vegetables and fruits, nuts, etc. _Everything_ in the inner aisles is processed. Even most of the outer aisle is processed - cheeses, sandwich meats, "fruit juices", etc. Fiber is a key component to health (and weight loss for those who do not get enough). Raw fruits and vegetables are typically very high in fiber. Processed foods are usually not. Fruits and vegetables are also high in water content. Water and fiber help us feel fuller. It's a bit of an illusion, or rather it's quite temporary because it goes out of our systems more quickly than carbs. Fiber also aids in our gut and colon bacteria balance, and research is beginning to recognize the many roles that bacteria play in our health (including mental!) The list of reasons for choosing unprocessed foods over processed foods is very long. About the only things really negative about unprocessed foods are their relative higher price and their lower convenience. But if you value quality, then the price argument goes away. Likewise, there are social and emotional benefits to food preparation and meal sharing. So "less convenient" really is just another way of saying "better priorities".

ravitation 9y ago
> What the body does with one input versus a different input is much more important than the quantity (caloric) of each input. This is not what the study says, nor is it correct. The caloric quantity is still the most important thing in terms of weight loss/gain...
- bvinc 9y ago
  I won't tell you that you're wrong. I can't prove what I'm about to suggest. But I want to suggest it as a possibility as to why you shouldn't say what you just said so confidently. Imagine if certain foods caused the body or brain, through a very complicated process, in the long term, to hold on to calories and store fat. This would end up making people feel very low energy and have strong cravings to eat more. And the counter to this would be that if you ate the correct foods, your body or brain's long term energy balance will function properly and not hold on to calories, feel energetic, burn excess fat, and not feel very hungry. From the outside point of view, you could just look at the calories in and out and say that it's obviously the most important factor of weight loss. You could just blame the person for eating too much and moving too little. But if what I described is actually happening, then that wouldn't be good advice because that's not the root cause of the problem. What I suggested is very possible and has not been ruled out by science.
  - ravitation 9y ago
    There are many hypotheticals that have not been ruled out by science... The existence of a flying spaghetti monster that created the universe after drinking heavily, for example... There are many things that complicate simple calorie counting, and things one can take advantage of. Liquid calories don't make you feel full in the same way solid calories do, high fiber foods make you feel more full, drinking lots of water can keep you feeling full without eating many calories... But, if you want to lose weight, running a caloric deficit is required...
    - bvinc 9y ago
      I really don't feel like you understood what I was saying. I'm wasn't coming up with anything crazy. I presented a broad category of how long term weight management might be affected by food types. There are many different acceptable theories that are accepted any many mainstream scientists:. Insulin causing fat storage, or sugar blocking the brain's ability to see leptin. But the specifics don't matter. If you're willing to accept that such a model is possible, then that means that recommending a calorie deficit, even though it's required for weight loss, might be really bad advice. If you tell someone to eat less food, and they keep eating the types of food that cause their bodies to store fat, you might be setting them up for failure.
      - ravitation 9y ago
        But if they eat less calories than they burn... They will lose weight...
parliament32 9y ago
>If you could manage to consume 2,000 kcal of lettuce in a day, you will almost certainly gain less weight (or lose more weight) than if you consumed only 1,500 kcal of modern processed American bread. No you wouldn't. That's not how energy works. If you take two people with identical amounts of energy expenditure, then feed one 2000 kcal of lettuce and the other 2000 kcal of wonderbread, they would gain/lose weight at an identical pace. Energy is energy and all the hand waving in the world can't change that. Of course both would eventually die of malnutrition and they could certainly have different levels of satiation... but if we're just talking about "weight loss", like the article says, a calorie is a calorie, period.
- blunte 9y ago
  Nope. Your body will do a lot of different things with different inputs. You're only looking at half of the equation - the input. Look also at the output. If you're eating a lot of fiber and water, such as with lettuce, your "output" will be higher (bathroom). With white bread, more of what goes in will stay in. That's an oversimplification, but it's just one example that calories are not all the same. And for a more interesting example, the studies of fasting have demonstrated that caloric reduction (not complete fasting) will result in more muscle loss as your body is eating its own muscle to operate. But with a few days of total fasting, no calories, you will burn fat to survive. People on a restricted calorie test will lose more weight than people consuming zero calories - at least for a few days.
skeleton 9y ago
>We would be foolish to think that all calories are equal. Given that the calorie is just a unit of energy, I believe they are considered equal. What you imply is analogous to measuring a length of 5 metres and then questioning if each of the metre segments are 'equal'. They must be equal, or else the segments could no longer be considered metres. It may be more correct to say that the body does not utilise all molecules that it can derive energy from in the same way.

by blunte 9y ago

ravitation 9y ago

> What the body does with one input versus a different input is much more important than the quantity (caloric) of each input. This is not what the study says, nor is it correct. The caloric quantity is still the most important thing in terms of weight loss/gain...

bvinc 9y ago
I won't tell you that you're wrong. I can't prove what I'm about to suggest. But I want to suggest it as a possibility as to why you shouldn't say what you just said so confidently. Imagine if certain foods caused the body or brain, through a very complicated process, in the long term, to hold on to calories and store fat. This would end up making people feel very low energy and have strong cravings to eat more. And the counter to this would be that if you ate the correct foods, your body or brain's long term energy balance will function properly and not hold on to calories, feel energetic, burn excess fat, and not feel very hungry. From the outside point of view, you could just look at the calories in and out and say that it's obviously the most important factor of weight loss. You could just blame the person for eating too much and moving too little. But if what I described is actually happening, then that wouldn't be good advice because that's not the root cause of the problem. What I suggested is very possible and has not been ruled out by science.
- ravitation 9y ago
  There are many hypotheticals that have not been ruled out by science... The existence of a flying spaghetti monster that created the universe after drinking heavily, for example... There are many things that complicate simple calorie counting, and things one can take advantage of. Liquid calories don't make you feel full in the same way solid calories do, high fiber foods make you feel more full, drinking lots of water can keep you feeling full without eating many calories... But, if you want to lose weight, running a caloric deficit is required...
  - bvinc 9y ago
    I really don't feel like you understood what I was saying. I'm wasn't coming up with anything crazy. I presented a broad category of how long term weight management might be affected by food types. There are many different acceptable theories that are accepted any many mainstream scientists:. Insulin causing fat storage, or sugar blocking the brain's ability to see leptin. But the specifics don't matter. If you're willing to accept that such a model is possible, then that means that recommending a calorie deficit, even though it's required for weight loss, might be really bad advice. If you tell someone to eat less food, and they keep eating the types of food that cause their bodies to store fat, you might be setting them up for failure.
    - ravitation 9y ago
      But if they eat less calories than they burn... They will lose weight...

parliament32 9y ago

>If you could manage to consume 2,000 kcal of lettuce in a day, you will almost certainly gain less weight (or lose more weight) than if you consumed only 1,500 kcal of modern processed American bread. No you wouldn't. That's not how energy works. If you take two people with identical amounts of energy expenditure, then feed one 2000 kcal of lettuce and the other 2000 kcal of wonderbread, they would gain/lose weight at an identical pace. Energy is energy and all the hand waving in the world can't change that. Of course both would eventually die of malnutrition and they could certainly have different levels of satiation... but if we're just talking about "weight loss", like the article says, a calorie is a calorie, period.

blunte 9y ago
Nope. Your body will do a lot of different things with different inputs. You're only looking at half of the equation - the input. Look also at the output. If you're eating a lot of fiber and water, such as with lettuce, your "output" will be higher (bathroom). With white bread, more of what goes in will stay in. That's an oversimplification, but it's just one example that calories are not all the same. And for a more interesting example, the studies of fasting have demonstrated that caloric reduction (not complete fasting) will result in more muscle loss as your body is eating its own muscle to operate. But with a few days of total fasting, no calories, you will burn fat to survive. People on a restricted calorie test will lose more weight than people consuming zero calories - at least for a few days.

skeleton 9y ago

>We would be foolish to think that all calories are equal. Given that the calorie is just a unit of energy, I believe they are considered equal. What you imply is analogous to measuring a length of 5 metres and then questioning if each of the metre segments are 'equal'. They must be equal, or else the segments could no longer be considered metres. It may be more correct to say that the body does not utilise all molecules that it can derive energy from in the same way.