7 ms·

>A calorie is a calorie. Not true. There's a difference between complex carbohydrates provided by fruits, vegetables meat and other unprocessed food. Simple ca

>A calorie is a calorie. Not true. There's a difference between complex carbohydrates provided by fruits, vegetables meat and other unprocessed food. Simple carbohydrates like are shorter and break down faster providing less energy per food unit consumed. Complex carbohydrates are longer and take longer for our bodies to breakdown giving more energy over a longer period of time.

ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
Nope. That’s not how it works. It’s easy to find out with a simple internet search. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/5/899S/4690223 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/5/899S/4690223 But keep the downvotes going since it insults you so much
- kirkouimet 6y ago
  Foods types have different hormonal impact on our bodies. Lots of variables at play. So if you eat pure fat vs. protein vs. carbs you are going to get different outcomes in the body.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  The paper you linked does not say what you think it says. It merely claims that, due to a lack of proof otherwise, calories don't evade thermodynamic laws. It also says the exact opposite of what you seem to believe, which is that diets with different macronutrients compositions have different weight outcomes despite having the same number of calories.
  - bena 6y ago
    But the paper is clear to state that only about a third of the difference can be attributed to composition. And that difference is basically how hard the body works to break down the nutrients. There is no magic food that makes it impossible to gain weight. And at the end of the day, a calorie is a calorie. Want to control your weight? Control your intake.
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      I don't know what you think you're saying. A third of the total effect size is a lot. Nobody denies that the volume of food is going to be a significant driver of your weight change. The issue being debated is that the composition matters, and it does. And for what its worth, I'd imagine the effect size to be even stronger for weight gain.
      - AareyBaba 6y ago
        "The paper you linked does not say what you think it says" "I don't know what you think you're saying" Let your reasoning speak for itself. The unnecessary snark diminishes the point you are trying to make.
        klmadfejno 6y ago
        That's fine. The point of those particular statements is to say that they are not only factually incorrect, but not even self consistent, which is intrinsically snarky. We're not in a formal debate.
      - bena 6y ago
        The total effect was statistically significant, but still not great. The difference is about 1 or 2 pounds over a couple of months (when intake was controlled). The conclusion of the study was stated in the study. It says what it says. And what it says is that calories are pretty much fungible.
        klmadfejno 6y ago
        The difference between statistically significant and meaningfully different is an important distinction. It's not the one you're making. The 1 or 2 pounds is out of the average prediction of 6 pounds, which is set by the arbitrary conditions of the particular setting. The correct way to think of it is a third of the total effect size. The study is NOT saying the macronutrient composition controls, in any general condition, 1 to 2 pounds.
  - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
    It doesn’t say that, copy paste please
    - klmadfejno 6y ago
      Literally just read the abstract. > Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Note: * Thermodynamically, the amount of energy in a calorie is fixed * The differences in these energies cannot explain weight loss changes driven by macronutrients as found in other studies
      - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
        I said calorie is a calorie. Why are you saying I said otherwise? Is anyone here under ten percent body fat and a muscular physique? I really doubt it.
mason55 6y ago
For the purposes of satiety you are correct. For the purposes of bodyweight, a calorie is a calorie. How that bodyweight is stored (fat vs muscle) is dependent on exercise + whether the calorie is from a fat, carb, protein or alcohol (the four macronutrients).
- chongli 6y ago
  Satiety vs calories is everything. If you give people “all you can eat” bland boiled potatoes with no butter or salt and nothing else, they will not overeat. They will lose weight. The same goes for rats. Give them all they can eat of bland nutritional rat pellets and they’ll maintain body weight. Give them Doritos and McDonald’s, on the other hand, and they’ll gain weight like crazy. It should be a surprise to nobody that capitalism has optimized junk food to be as addictive and non-filling as possible.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    I'm not a dietitian, but I'm pretty sure that's wrong... They're very starchy and high in carbs, and very low in protein. So you can eat tons of them and still not feel full.
    - nradov 6y ago
      I'm pretty sure chongli is correct about the plain boiled potatoes. How many can you eat before you're sick of them? It's easy to test for yourself, go peel and boil some potatoes right now.
      - vajenetehais 6y ago
        You are not proving him he is wrong. You are talking about a different phenomena: satiety is different from getting sick of something. If you reach satiety your body and brain won't want to eat more. If you are sick of something, you will just switch to something else.
      - watwut 6y ago
playingchanges 6y ago
My experience as a runner has taught me that indeed a calorie is just a calorie. I’ve been everywhere from mostly plant based to mostly meat based to mostly junk food based without significantly impacting body weight through any of those shifts. The real important part is the speed that different foods enable you to consume calories and an awareness of caloric intake in general.
- ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
  Same here. I’ve been ripped eating nothing but jack In the box. But it’s classic HN dissonance, like how “PHP will sink your project” and other silly things like that It just sounds nice to say “you’re fat because you eat a lot of candy” but when I was In the track team we ate at all you cam eat pizza buffet every weekend
- walrus01 6y ago
  At one point in time I was road cycling about 12,000 km a year, and can confirm that with a sufficiently aggressive metabolism and daily calorie burn regimen, you can shovel in highly calorie dense foods with no adverse effects. Look at the calories and ingredients in the energy gels and snack bars marketed to the road cycling and endurance runner market segment. In fact I had to consciously eat many more calories per day, in calorie dense foods, just to not lose weight and become weaker.
baddox 6y ago
A calorie is a calorie, except that different kinds of calories that you eat will almost inevitably cause you to change the amount of calories you consume and the amount of calories you burn.

ulisesrmzroche 6y ago

Nope. That’s not how it works. It’s easy to find out with a simple internet search. https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/5/899S/4690223 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/79/5/899S/4690223 But keep the downvotes going since it insults you so much

kirkouimet 6y ago
Foods types have different hormonal impact on our bodies. Lots of variables at play. So if you eat pure fat vs. protein vs. carbs you are going to get different outcomes in the body.
klmadfejno 6y ago
The paper you linked does not say what you think it says. It merely claims that, due to a lack of proof otherwise, calories don't evade thermodynamic laws. It also says the exact opposite of what you seem to believe, which is that diets with different macronutrients compositions have different weight outcomes despite having the same number of calories.
- bena 6y ago
  But the paper is clear to state that only about a third of the difference can be attributed to composition. And that difference is basically how hard the body works to break down the nutrients. There is no magic food that makes it impossible to gain weight. And at the end of the day, a calorie is a calorie. Want to control your weight? Control your intake.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    I don't know what you think you're saying. A third of the total effect size is a lot. Nobody denies that the volume of food is going to be a significant driver of your weight change. The issue being debated is that the composition matters, and it does. And for what its worth, I'd imagine the effect size to be even stronger for weight gain.
    - AareyBaba 6y ago
      "The paper you linked does not say what you think it says" "I don't know what you think you're saying" Let your reasoning speak for itself. The unnecessary snark diminishes the point you are trying to make.
      - klmadfejno 6y ago
        That's fine. The point of those particular statements is to say that they are not only factually incorrect, but not even self consistent, which is intrinsically snarky. We're not in a formal debate.
    - bena 6y ago
      The total effect was statistically significant, but still not great. The difference is about 1 or 2 pounds over a couple of months (when intake was controlled). The conclusion of the study was stated in the study. It says what it says. And what it says is that calories are pretty much fungible.
      - klmadfejno 6y ago
        The difference between statistically significant and meaningfully different is an important distinction. It's not the one you're making. The 1 or 2 pounds is out of the average prediction of 6 pounds, which is set by the arbitrary conditions of the particular setting. The correct way to think of it is a third of the total effect size. The study is NOT saying the macronutrient composition controls, in any general condition, 1 to 2 pounds.
- ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
  It doesn’t say that, copy paste please
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    Literally just read the abstract. > Neither macronutrient-specific differences in the availability of dietary energy nor changes in energy expenditure could explain these differences in weight loss. Thermodynamics dictate that a calorie is a calorie regardless of the macronutrient composition of the diet. Note: * Thermodynamically, the amount of energy in a calorie is fixed * The differences in these energies cannot explain weight loss changes driven by macronutrients as found in other studies
    - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
      I said calorie is a calorie. Why are you saying I said otherwise? Is anyone here under ten percent body fat and a muscular physique? I really doubt it.

mason55 6y ago

For the purposes of satiety you are correct. For the purposes of bodyweight, a calorie is a calorie. How that bodyweight is stored (fat vs muscle) is dependent on exercise + whether the calorie is from a fat, carb, protein or alcohol (the four macronutrients).

chongli 6y ago
Satiety vs calories is everything. If you give people “all you can eat” bland boiled potatoes with no butter or salt and nothing else, they will not overeat. They will lose weight. The same goes for rats. Give them all they can eat of bland nutritional rat pellets and they’ll maintain body weight. Give them Doritos and McDonald’s, on the other hand, and they’ll gain weight like crazy. It should be a surprise to nobody that capitalism has optimized junk food to be as addictive and non-filling as possible.
- BoorishBears 6y ago
  I'm not a dietitian, but I'm pretty sure that's wrong... They're very starchy and high in carbs, and very low in protein. So you can eat tons of them and still not feel full.
  - nradov 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure chongli is correct about the plain boiled potatoes. How many can you eat before you're sick of them? It's easy to test for yourself, go peel and boil some potatoes right now.
    - vajenetehais 6y ago
      You are not proving him he is wrong. You are talking about a different phenomena: satiety is different from getting sick of something. If you reach satiety your body and brain won't want to eat more. If you are sick of something, you will just switch to something else.
    - watwut 6y ago

playingchanges 6y ago

My experience as a runner has taught me that indeed a calorie is just a calorie. I’ve been everywhere from mostly plant based to mostly meat based to mostly junk food based without significantly impacting body weight through any of those shifts. The real important part is the speed that different foods enable you to consume calories and an awareness of caloric intake in general.

ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
Same here. I’ve been ripped eating nothing but jack In the box. But it’s classic HN dissonance, like how “PHP will sink your project” and other silly things like that It just sounds nice to say “you’re fat because you eat a lot of candy” but when I was In the track team we ate at all you cam eat pizza buffet every weekend
walrus01 6y ago
At one point in time I was road cycling about 12,000 km a year, and can confirm that with a sufficiently aggressive metabolism and daily calorie burn regimen, you can shovel in highly calorie dense foods with no adverse effects. Look at the calories and ingredients in the energy gels and snack bars marketed to the road cycling and endurance runner market segment. In fact I had to consciously eat many more calories per day, in calorie dense foods, just to not lose weight and become weaker.

baddox 6y ago

A calorie is a calorie, except that different kinds of calories that you eat will almost inevitably cause you to change the amount of calories you consume and the amount of calories you burn.