4 ms·

You're completely reading this wrong. Yeo and most nutritionist would agree that certain foods provide "higher quality" calories and certain foods provide "low

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?
      - Pooge 2y ago
        > I believe they are referring to self-control about the foods consumed. Then I don't understand how "overweight people avoiding something challenging" would use the excuse of the "type of calorie". It's a much harder concept to understand that fat, proteins and carbohydrates are absorbed differently. And you would also need to calculate it manually as packages don't take into account the difference of the composition of the food. > Were you being willfully obtuse about this, given this entire sub-thread is about calories and you're deflecting to exercise? Excuse me, but I am not the one who originally mentioned physical activity. In fact, I cited 2 paragraphs of a book I read talking only about calories absorption, and only 1 sentence of my comments was related to physical activity. Is that insufficient for you?
        ltbarcly3 2y ago
        By "something challenging" I was, very obviously, referring to restricting calories to create a deficit.
        dgfitz 2y ago
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 ?

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?
    - Pooge 2y ago
      > I believe they are referring to self-control about the foods consumed. Then I don't understand how "overweight people avoiding something challenging" would use the excuse of the "type of calorie". It's a much harder concept to understand that fat, proteins and carbohydrates are absorbed differently. And you would also need to calculate it manually as packages don't take into account the difference of the composition of the food. > Were you being willfully obtuse about this, given this entire sub-thread is about calories and you're deflecting to exercise? Excuse me, but I am not the one who originally mentioned physical activity. In fact, I cited 2 paragraphs of a book I read talking only about calories absorption, and only 1 sentence of my comments was related to physical activity. Is that insufficient for you?
      - ltbarcly3 2y ago
        By "something challenging" I was, very obviously, referring to restricting calories to create a deficit.
      - dgfitz 2y ago

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 ?