5 ms·

> It's all calories. Except that it is not. X calories of refined food would contribute more to weight-gain than would X calories of almonds. Taking directly

by Pooge 2y ago

> It's all calories. Except that it is not. X calories of refined food would contribute more to weight-gain than would X calories of almonds. Taking directly from Dr Giles Yeo's book: I’m not asking anyone to count calories at all, because the number of calories, simply taken in isolation, and out of context from whence they came, is not a particularly useful piece of information. Don’t get me wrong, calorie information does of course have its place. For one thing, calories are useful in quantifying portion sizes, so a 200-calorie portion of French fries will have twice the energy as a 100-calorie portion of fries. [...] [We] now know that the Atwater factors, both general and specific, are inaccurate, because they don’t take into account diet-induced thermogenesis (DIT), which is the energy, given off as heat, that is required for the metabolism of food. Fat has a DIT value between 0 and 3 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of fat, it will cost between 0 and 3 calories to process. The DIT value for carbohydrates is between 5 and 10 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of carbs, it will cost between 5 and 10 calories to process. While protein has the highest DIT value at 15 and 30 per cent, meaning that for every 100 metabolisable calories of protein, it will cost between 15 and 30 calories to process.

CharlieDigital 2y ago
You're completely reading this wrong. Yeo and most nutritionist would agree that certain foods provide "higher quality" calories and certain foods provide "lower quality" calories that affect things like your perceived satiation and energy levels. But at a chemical level, the fat, protein, and carbohydrates function exactly the same way because at the cellular level, there are only so many chemical pathways to produce energy. So yeah, eating the equivalent caloric amount of almonds vs fries leaves you feeling different levels of energy and satiation. Your body may even absorb the calories at different rates. It'll receive more proteins and fats from the almonds and more carbohydrates from the fries. But if your body expended more calories than you absorbed, the net effect is a loss of mass.
- Pooge 2y ago
  > But if your body expended more calories than you absorbed, the net effect is a loss of mass. Yes, I agree with this. This is called Net Metabolisable Energy[1] and is something mentioned in the book. I think I said it badly, because I still think calories matter. Just that it matters more what kind of food you're eating rather than just reading the food label. [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11299073/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11299073/
  - ltbarcly3 2y ago
    You are incorrect and there is an almost endless amount of evidence that you are incorrect. In one study they fed rats 90% of their calories from HFCS and they had no health consequences so long as the total calories were controlled to be the same as thr non HFCS group. The "type of calorie" theory is generally proposed by popular psuedo science articles that appeal primarily to overweight people who are looking for easy answers that don't require them to do something challenging. Meanwhile people on ozempic lose weight while eating junk. Your body doesn't care where the calories come from, all that matters is that you don't eat too much.
    - Pooge 2y ago
      > The "type of calorie" theory is generally proposed by popular psuedo science articles that appeal primarily to overweight people who are looking for easy answers that don't require them to do something challenging. "Pseudo science" like a guy who got an OBE for his research? That's a first one. By "something challenging", are you referring to physical activity? Physical activity is good and must be done whether or not you need to lose weight. The point is that physical activity alone is not enough.
      - dgfitz 2y ago
        > By "something challenging", are you referring to physical activity? I believe they are referring to self-control about the foods consumed. Were you being willfully obtuse about this, given this entire sub-thread is about calories and you're deflecting to exercise?
- r00fus 2y ago
  If you re-read what you wrote, then the point of calorie counting is simply usesless - because satiation and energy levels contribute to the other side of your calorie equation (you likely expend more energy). Calorie counting is like counting MIPS or Mhz in a CISC architecture - when the IPC varies based instruction types processed - it's an incomplete (and IMHO useless) view.
  - CharlieDigital 2y ago
    > If you re-read what you wrote, then the point of calorie counting is simply usesless - because satiation and energy levels contribute to the other side of your calorie equation (you likely expend more energy). Biologically, the cells in your body require a specific amount of calories each day just to exist. Whether that's higher than your "base load" because you're very active or lower because you're fasting, the bottom line is that if your intake of calories is lower than your caloric expenditure, you will lose body mass as the body converts energy stores in fat and muscle via metabolic pathways. In other words, you can lose weight even without exercise (increase in expenditure) as long as you decrease your consumption below your baseline caloric needs.
- polishdude20 2y ago
  To add on to this, what about absorption? Like, calories in is important but are there foods that have a certain number of calories when measured in the lab but we actually don't extract all those calories in real life? Does gut microbiome have an effect? What about gut permeability ?

by Pooge 2y ago

CharlieDigital 2y ago

You're completely reading this wrong. Yeo and most nutritionist would agree that certain foods provide "higher quality" calories and certain foods provide "lower quality" calories that affect things like your perceived satiation and energy levels. But at a chemical level, the fat, protein, and carbohydrates function exactly the same way because at the cellular level, there are only so many chemical pathways to produce energy. So yeah, eating the equivalent caloric amount of almonds vs fries leaves you feeling different levels of energy and satiation. Your body may even absorb the calories at different rates. It'll receive more proteins and fats from the almonds and more carbohydrates from the fries. But if your body expended more calories than you absorbed, the net effect is a loss of mass.

Pooge 2y ago
> But if your body expended more calories than you absorbed, the net effect is a loss of mass. Yes, I agree with this. This is called Net Metabolisable Energy[1] and is something mentioned in the book. I think I said it badly, because I still think calories matter. Just that it matters more what kind of food you're eating rather than just reading the food label. [1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11299073/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11299073/
- ltbarcly3 2y ago
  You are incorrect and there is an almost endless amount of evidence that you are incorrect. In one study they fed rats 90% of their calories from HFCS and they had no health consequences so long as the total calories were controlled to be the same as thr non HFCS group. The "type of calorie" theory is generally proposed by popular psuedo science articles that appeal primarily to overweight people who are looking for easy answers that don't require them to do something challenging. Meanwhile people on ozempic lose weight while eating junk. Your body doesn't care where the calories come from, all that matters is that you don't eat too much.
  - Pooge 2y ago
    > The "type of calorie" theory is generally proposed by popular psuedo science articles that appeal primarily to overweight people who are looking for easy answers that don't require them to do something challenging. "Pseudo science" like a guy who got an OBE for his research? That's a first one. By "something challenging", are you referring to physical activity? Physical activity is good and must be done whether or not you need to lose weight. The point is that physical activity alone is not enough.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      > By "something challenging", are you referring to physical activity? I believe they are referring to self-control about the foods consumed. Were you being willfully obtuse about this, given this entire sub-thread is about calories and you're deflecting to exercise?
r00fus 2y ago
If you re-read what you wrote, then the point of calorie counting is simply usesless - because satiation and energy levels contribute to the other side of your calorie equation (you likely expend more energy). Calorie counting is like counting MIPS or Mhz in a CISC architecture - when the IPC varies based instruction types processed - it's an incomplete (and IMHO useless) view.
- CharlieDigital 2y ago
  > If you re-read what you wrote, then the point of calorie counting is simply usesless - because satiation and energy levels contribute to the other side of your calorie equation (you likely expend more energy). Biologically, the cells in your body require a specific amount of calories each day just to exist. Whether that's higher than your "base load" because you're very active or lower because you're fasting, the bottom line is that if your intake of calories is lower than your caloric expenditure, you will lose body mass as the body converts energy stores in fat and muscle via metabolic pathways. In other words, you can lose weight even without exercise (increase in expenditure) as long as you decrease your consumption below your baseline caloric needs.
polishdude20 2y ago
To add on to this, what about absorption? Like, calories in is important but are there foods that have a certain number of calories when measured in the lab but we actually don't extract all those calories in real life? Does gut microbiome have an effect? What about gut permeability ?