6 ms·

This is not entirely correct. Foods are not processed in the same way by the body. Imagine eating a diet of 2000 calories of chocolate bars and chips vs 2000 ca

This is not entirely correct. Foods are not processed in the same way by the body. Imagine eating a diet of 2000 calories of chocolate bars and chips vs 2000 calories of steak. Do you really think these would have the same effect in terms of health or even weight loss?

yupper32 5y ago
Overall health, of course not. You'd probably feel like shit just eating chocolate bars (and also feel hungry all the time). Weight loss? Pretty much the same. You can look up stories of people losing weight by counting calories and eating nothing but candy bars.
- BoxOfRain 5y ago
  >and also feel hungry all the time That's basically how low-carb works for me, if I eat fewer carbs I'm less hungry and miserable all the time so I eat less calories too.
- watwut 5y ago
  Weight loss wont be the same. In one csse you will feel tired and passive most of day and wont be able to be active.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    It honestly feels like most of the people here are being purposely obtuse. Why in the world would you think you need to reply with this? I CLEARLY meant, all activities the same, 2000 calories is 2000 calories. I even mentioned that you'll feel like shit just eating chocolate. What more do you people want from me?
- passivate 5y ago
  Hmm, I think what OP might be getting at is that there is a difference in digestive efficiency when breaking down different foods and converting them to energy. A calorie is a calorie, except when it isn't.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    And what I'm saying is that is a micro optimization that doesn't matter too much. It over complicates weight loss.
    - passivate 5y ago
      I don't know if its micro or not, I still remain open to the idea. For e.g. I have work friends (with similar activity levels to mine) who can eat tons of rice and remain skinny and if I do that I know for a fact that I'm gonna put on 10lbs. Our ethnicities are different, but I don't know if that explains it.
      - yupper32 5y ago
        You don't understand that different people will burn different amounts of calories as a base? I'm not and have never said that if two people eat the same amount, it'll impact them the same. I said that you need to burn more calories than you consume.
        passivate 5y ago
        You're claiming variance in basal metabolic rate (for people with similar activity levels/lifestyles) is potentially significant, but also variance in digestive efficiency is negligible? I don't know if either is false/true, but its interesting to consider. Maybe someone from that domain can shed some light. Happy to look at anything you or others link to.
        yupper32 5y ago
        BMR variance is significant. It's like the core to any weight loss story. What I'm trying to say is that trying to change your BMR through some diet is a fool's errand. Just figure out your BMR and consume fewer calories than that. It's very very simple (though I won't say it's easy).
delecti 5y ago
You're not going to feel the same, but I don't think anyone's ever shown that there's a meaningful difference in energy content in calories of different types. So I think they'd have the same effect for weight loss, but maybe not health, and probably not quality of life (I think the person eating candy bars would feel pretty lousy).
bl5THJUSFXWy4ii 5y ago
In terms of weight loss that is literally all that it is. Some ways of acheiving a calorie deficit are easier to maintain or better for your health but it is always the calorie deficit that causes the loss of weight. Take the example of this man who lost 27 pounds while only eating junk food. > For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too. His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food. The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months. https://archive.ph/vNeqW https://archive.ph/vNeqW
MathYouF 5y ago
The steak allows for MPS (muscle protein synthesis) which means your body will have protein available to repair muscle mass which regularly breaks down throughout the day. If your diet has no protein a much higher part of the weight you lose will be muscle mass instead of fat mass, which is why two people on the above diets will look very different.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
A nutrition professor lost 27lbs eating Twinkies: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/... Calories are calories. There are other mechanisms involved as far as general health and satiety, but at the end of the day CICO is king.
slinkyblack 5y ago
the point of measuring that in calories is that it should be roughly equivalent amount of energy intake for both things. the biggest difference is going to be you need less chocolate to reach 2000 calories

yupper32 5y ago

Overall health, of course not. You'd probably feel like shit just eating chocolate bars (and also feel hungry all the time). Weight loss? Pretty much the same. You can look up stories of people losing weight by counting calories and eating nothing but candy bars.

BoxOfRain 5y ago
>and also feel hungry all the time That's basically how low-carb works for me, if I eat fewer carbs I'm less hungry and miserable all the time so I eat less calories too.
watwut 5y ago
Weight loss wont be the same. In one csse you will feel tired and passive most of day and wont be able to be active.
- yupper32 5y ago
  It honestly feels like most of the people here are being purposely obtuse. Why in the world would you think you need to reply with this? I CLEARLY meant, all activities the same, 2000 calories is 2000 calories. I even mentioned that you'll feel like shit just eating chocolate. What more do you people want from me?
passivate 5y ago
Hmm, I think what OP might be getting at is that there is a difference in digestive efficiency when breaking down different foods and converting them to energy. A calorie is a calorie, except when it isn't.
- yupper32 5y ago
  And what I'm saying is that is a micro optimization that doesn't matter too much. It over complicates weight loss.
  - passivate 5y ago
    I don't know if its micro or not, I still remain open to the idea. For e.g. I have work friends (with similar activity levels to mine) who can eat tons of rice and remain skinny and if I do that I know for a fact that I'm gonna put on 10lbs. Our ethnicities are different, but I don't know if that explains it.
    - yupper32 5y ago
      You don't understand that different people will burn different amounts of calories as a base? I'm not and have never said that if two people eat the same amount, it'll impact them the same. I said that you need to burn more calories than you consume.
      - passivate 5y ago
        You're claiming variance in basal metabolic rate (for people with similar activity levels/lifestyles) is potentially significant, but also variance in digestive efficiency is negligible? I don't know if either is false/true, but its interesting to consider. Maybe someone from that domain can shed some light. Happy to look at anything you or others link to.
        yupper32 5y ago
        BMR variance is significant. It's like the core to any weight loss story. What I'm trying to say is that trying to change your BMR through some diet is a fool's errand. Just figure out your BMR and consume fewer calories than that. It's very very simple (though I won't say it's easy).

delecti 5y ago

You're not going to feel the same, but I don't think anyone's ever shown that there's a meaningful difference in energy content in calories of different types. So I think they'd have the same effect for weight loss, but maybe not health, and probably not quality of life (I think the person eating candy bars would feel pretty lousy).

bl5THJUSFXWy4ii 5y ago

In terms of weight loss that is literally all that it is. Some ways of acheiving a calorie deficit are easier to maintain or better for your health but it is always the calorie deficit that causes the loss of weight. Take the example of this man who lost 27 pounds while only eating junk food. > For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too. His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food. The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months. https://archive.ph/vNeqW https://archive.ph/vNeqW

MathYouF 5y ago

The steak allows for MPS (muscle protein synthesis) which means your body will have protein available to repair muscle mass which regularly breaks down throughout the day. If your diet has no protein a much higher part of the weight you lose will be muscle mass instead of fat mass, which is why two people on the above diets will look very different.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

A nutrition professor lost 27lbs eating Twinkies: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/... Calories are calories. There are other mechanisms involved as far as general health and satiety, but at the end of the day CICO is king.

slinkyblack 5y ago

the point of measuring that in calories is that it should be roughly equivalent amount of energy intake for both things. the biggest difference is going to be you need less chocolate to reach 2000 calories