Calorie question

[AEKDBet]

[ QUOTE ]
Yawn. An article with no references that I don't see anyone claiming authorship for. Clearly more convincing than the word of the people I quoted above.

[/ QUOTE ]

while the article linked is bad, TEF is science
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...mp;oi=scholart

[onthebutton]

[ QUOTE ]
Heater is wrong because of something called TEF.
Edit - heater is correct, I read post as 1500 vs 1500 cals/day not 1550

I'm still not clear on OP's question, but fat, protein, and carbohydrates are processed by the body at something like
~97% for fat
~90% for carbs
~75-85 for protein

for every 100 calories of lard you eat, you will earn ~97.

Thermic effect of food

[/ QUOTE ]

You beat me to it, I made the margin to small. Make it about a 125 calorie differential though, and the bad diet is back to winning. One less soda, I guess.

The point I'm trying to make with the example is still entirely valid. I was, however, surprised that carbohydrates are processed so relatively inefficiently.

Edit to add: I have to think about it some more, but I'm pretty sure that when I say "calories burned are identical", the effects of TEF are negated. I should go back and read, but I'm too lazy.

[heater]

This is my last post on the subject. Here are more articles:

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/issa16.htm

Since OTB likes to keep bringing up thermodynamics, here's another:
http://www.naturalchampion.net/artic.../2410291/51175

An excerpt:

"Finally, we like to reference the work of Richard Feinman, PhD, Professor of Biochemistry at the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center. In an article published in Nutrition Journal 2004, 3:9 with his colleague, Eugene Fine, MD, Dr. Feinman puts the all calories are equal issue to rest by addressing the first and second laws of thermodynamics. “The first law of thermodynamics is the one that's easy to understand, it's the conservation of energy," says Dr. Feinman. "There's a fixed amount of energy in the world, and in the context of nutrition it means that any energy that you take in in the form of food must either show up as work that you do, or heat that you generate, or the chemical transformation that you carry on in your body, making new protein, and so on; and the rest will be leftover as fat. So that's always true. The second law of thermodynamics, however, is a much more difficult law to understand, and it's a dissipation law. It's a law of efficiency. It says that not all processes are equally efficient."

Dr. Feinman, says getting the body's fuel – glucose - from protein is less efficient than getting it from carbs, which means low carb diets make the body use more energy. "Your brain and some cells in your body have to have glucose, and there are several ways they can get that glucose," he explains. "You take in sugar or starches, that's a direct supply of glucose. You can make that glucose from protein. If you do that, that's a very inefficient process, you're going to use energy to turn protein into glucose, and in the end you're going to have to get that energy from burning something, usually fat." Essentially, then, the more inefficient the diet is at turning calories into glucose, the more effective it should be for weight loss.

Now to the topic at hand. Dr. Feinman also states that not all calories are created equal. "For many years nutritionists have been saying, 'a calorie is a calorie,' " Feinman said. "That is, weight gained or lost only depends on the calories in the diet, regardless of the macronutrient composition, that is, protein, carbohydrate, fat. We knew this was not true, so we set out to show that this was not true. I think the bottom line is once you have the idea that all calories are the same, you're not going to try to find the best diet. And I think it's very important to try to find out what's going to be most effective. We don't know that yet, but unless we work at it, we won't find it."

According to Dr. Feinman, A calorie is a calorie" violates the second law of thermodynamics. And we don’t want to do that, do we?"

http://beauty.about.com/library/blpressrelease6.htm

http://www.losingitmyway.com/All_Cal...ted_Equal.html

http://www.enotalone.com/article/7918.html

[onthebutton]

I'd never argue all foods are processed at equal efficiencies, and don't think I ever said that at any point in this discussion. That's why I repeatedly said "all calories burned are equal". I guess my definition of a calorie being "food energy that your body has processed and has available for cellular function" may be too narrow for this discussion.

[fluffpop62]

So if, in order to maintain/lose weight:
- I prefer to order a salad and get my dressing on the side and eat half of it, and then split an order of dessert with NL Soldier, as opposed to splitting an appetizer and ordering a fatty entree,
- and the calories in my half salad and half dessert are less then the calories in my half appetizer and half entree,
then,
- i am going to gain more weight/reduce weight loss because of eating the dessert and salad since they have less nutritional value then "real food"?

I understand the nutritional value argument of 300c vegetables v. 300c donuts, so please don't reiterate that. And keep in mind that when I say a fatty entree I mean something like a pasta or steak dish, and an appetizer is going to be either spinach and artichoke dip or crab cakes.

[onthebutton]

[ QUOTE ]
So if, in order to maintain/lose weight:
- I prefer to order a salad and get my dressing on the side and eat half of it, and then split an order of dessert with NL Soldier, as opposed to splitting an appetizer and ordering a fatty entree,
- and the calories in my half salad and half dessert are less then the calories in my half appetizer and half entree,
then,
- i am going to gain more weight/reduce weight loss because of eating the dessert and salad since they have less nutritional value then "real food"?

I understand the nutritional value argument of 300c vegetables v. 300c donuts, so please don't reiterate that. And keep in mind that when I say a fatty entree I mean something like a pasta or steak dish, and an appetizer is going to be either spinach and artichoke dip or crab cakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really, I have no clue. I'm not a nutritionist, I just play one on 2p2. I'm a cell biologist.

Apparently, if you take the amount of calories from each source AEKD listed above and multiply them by the appropriate factor, you can figure out which is putting fewer calories into your system. Some of the things I posted earlier really aren't true if you're considering calories that go in your mouth vs. calories harvested that your body can actually use. If the number of calories in the food (before going into your system) is close to the same, the healthier food will provide less calories.

Generally (just an estimate from the numbers above), if the calorie difference between the good food (higher relative calories) and the bad food (lower relative calories) is more than 15%, you're better off from a calorie standpoint to go with the bad food. It varies, according to the above. If it's fat vs. protein, it might be up to 20%. If it's fat vs. carbs, it can be as low as 7%. Right?

edit: fluffpop, I just re-read your post and mine, and realize I'm not telling you anything you don't know. Rhetorical question FTW. nh

[fluffpop62]

[img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] that means nl soldier is right ... I still can't comprehend it though.

[onthebutton]

I still don't think I really completely understand all of it, but it's not going to stop me from acting like I do. I think about my diet quite a bit though, and eat pretty healthy, especially awhile back when I was trying to lose weight. Sure, I'd try to pick healthy foods when I could. But when you're trying to lose weight, calories are important, and the perceived "healthiness" of the food isn't the only factor. If it's just about weight loss, drinking a 12 oz. of OJ is damn close to drinking a can of Coca Cola. Being me, I'll take that Coke. The difference is calories between the two is much less important (because it's so small) than satisfying my preferences.

[Thremp]

Haha, this thread is funny. I'm late to the party. Looks like daryn and co got pwned.

Thermic effect of food is very important. I think I posted a link in another thread explained how calories ingested does not directly equal net caloric gain by the body.

The thermic effect of food and a greater extent the "X factor" which is kinda like the metabolic effects of various foods makes a big difference in the calories you end up having realized.

Note: The ratios above are rough and not hard and fast when trying to design diets. There is a little give with cals. Like a sweet potato and a pixie stik don't both become ~90% magically.