Jump to content

A Calorie Is Still A Calorie, No Matter Where It Comes From


Recommended Posts

Well I would think someone who studied obesity for 60 years and knew anything about it, wouldn't want to be and know HOW not to be

 

Can you think of any reasons why that would not be true?

 

Injuries? He doesn't like exercise? He really likes food? Compulsive habits? Lack of interest? He likes research so much he uses all of his time up with it? A long commute? Caring for an ill loved one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injuries? He doesn't like exercise?

 

He can't count calories?

 

He really likes food? Compulsive habits?

 

My point exactly. Animals don't have this problem. But then they eat a natural diet and as much as they please ...

 

Lack of interest?

 

 

He likes research so much he uses all of his time up with it?

 

 

A long commute?

 

WTF?

 

Caring for an ill loved one?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Since a given amount of calories is the same amount of energy, no matter the source, it makes no difference, in terms of weight control, where the same amount of calories comes from. In terms of health and nutrition it will, but not weight control."

 

But that's a drastic oversimplification. Yes, 1000 calories of oil and 1000 calories of tofu contain the same amount of energy, but the delivery methods for that energy are quite different. For example, our bodies differ in effectiveness at extracting calories from certain types of food based on stomach acidity, enzyme content, intestinal flora, etc. As an extreme example, take 1000 calories of cellulose. Exact same amount of energy, but our ability to extract that energy is minimal. Cows, on the other hand, will get almost all of it.

 

Also, the calories that we can use take different amounts of energy to extract and absorb based on their source. The more a food needs to be broken down before absorption, the fewer the net calories. Even the degree of catabolism differs based on nutrient type and the body's particular needs. Uptake and excretion are going to vary depending on serum levels, hormones, enzymes, etc.

 

That's not to say "a calorie is a calorie" isn't useful, because it is. It's a great place to start as a basis for weight control, and most people probably don't need to go beyond it, but it's still a blunt instrument. It's imprecise, and it might not be enough for everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injuries? He doesn't like exercise?

 

He can't count calories?

 

 

Some people don't care.

 

He really likes food? Compulsive habits?

 

My point exactly. Animals don't have this problem.

 

That isn't correct. Dogs will eat until they get sick. So will some monkeys. Probably more examples out there, but I am not a biologist.

 

 

Lack of interest?

 

 

Why are you laughing at that. You can't conceive that someone could be an enthusiastic physiology researcher but not care for exercise?

 

He likes research so much he uses all of his time up with it?

 

 

You've never had a job you have been so into you have consistently stayed it at until late and maybe blown other things off?

 

A long commute?

 

WTF?

 

Never had one of those or known someone who has?

 

Caring for an ill loved one?

 

 

Never had one of those or heard of it eh? Sometimes between a job, caring for an ill relative and other things people don't have time or energy to take care of themselves. I hope in your life you only have to take my word for it.

 

I started this thread with fitness related from a reputable source. From your responses I gathered you didn't read, didn't understand or didn't want to understand what was in that post. I tried to elucidate on some of those points, giving you the benefit of the doubt. You have responded with rude and/or immature replies.

 

I'll allow you to have the last word in this conversation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article made sense to me.

 

Many studies have been done that show no difference in weight loss based on composition of a diet. (including the ones mentioned in the article). If your compare a group of people on a soda and fast food diet to a group on a plant based diet who are given same number of calories per day, their weight loss would be the same (not saying anything about their health). But of course in real life, intake is not controlled like in a study - people on a fast food plan will likely end up taking in a lot more calories.

 

So from a scientific perspective.. a calorie is a calorie (that's simple physics!). From a real world perspective.. your food choices WILL have an impact on your total calorie intake - whether or not you choose to count those calories.

 

I'm thinking tho, if someone really wants to lose weight.. the olive oil diet would probably be far more effective than Atkins. Bleh.

 

 

---------------------------------

Ego is the number one enemy of compassion. ~ Buddha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many studies have been done that show no difference in weight loss based on composition of a diet. (including the ones mentioned in the article).

And many other studies show significant differences based on nutrient composition. That's the problem. You can't trust any of these studies individually, and you shouldn't trust anything you haven't at least scanned yourself.

 

So from a scientific perspective.. a calorie is a calorie (that's simple physics!).

This is true, but also mostly irrelevant. In terms of energy, a calorie is a calorie, but we don't ingest pure energy, as cool as that would be. We have to go through several steps to extract that energy, and then we use it in different ways depending on the needs of our bodies. Sometimes we don't use all of it, and sometimes it costs more to extract it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...